Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 1962

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

2042 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Questions

THURSDAY, 29 NOVEMBER, 1962

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. D. E. Nicholson, Murrumba) took the chair at 11 a.m.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL ACCOUNTS

Mr. SPEAKER announced the receipt from the Auditor-General of his report on the books and accounts of the Brisbane City Council for the year 1961-1962.

Ordered to be printed.

QUESTIONS

STAFFING ARRANGEMENTS IN RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVE DEPOTS ON DECEMBER 31, 1962

Mr. MANN (Brisbane) asked the Minister for Transport-

"(1) Is he aware that a memorandum dated November 19, 1962, has been circulated to all locomotive depots of the Railway Department regarding staff arrangements on December 31, 1962?"

"(2) Is he aware that the criterion deciding whetlter a man should be booked on for that particular day is whether the Department will have to pay the officer regardless of whether he works or not?"

"(3) Is not the correct principle to be followed simply whether a man's services are required for the safe and efficient working of the railway system?"

"(4) Is he prepared to re-examine this matter with a view to making the con­ditions for railwaymen the same as for Public Service employees?"

Hon. G. W. W. CHALK (Lockyer) replied-

" Cl to 4) The Railway Department is not part of the Public Service and, consequently, cannot be regarded as such. The memorandum issued by the Railway Department concerning Railway staff arrangements for December 31, 1962, is identical to that issued by the Department in 1956 when that Department was under the jurisdiction of the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then Minister for Transport. It has been necessary for me to decline representations made to me by the Combined Railway Unions for an extension of this holiday to other employees for exactly the same reasons as the files record-that Mr. Duggan refused the same Unions' approaches in 1956. However, it is worthy of mention that on this occasion I have been more generous to Railway employees than my precedessor in that those employees who are allowed half staff days will be granted two such days, compared with only one day as granted by Mr. Duggan in 1956."

SEALING OF KAMERUNGA ROAD

Mr. ADAIR (Cook) asked the Minister for Development, Mines, Main Roads and Electricity-

" As residents have expressed concern about the excessive dust -menace caused by heavy motor vehicle traffic on a half­mile of an unsealed section of the Kamer­unga main road from the end of the bitu­men at Redlynch to Martin's Bird Sanctuary, will he have this short section of main road sealed at an early date?"

Hon. E. EV ANS (Mirani) replied-"The matter will be dealt with when

future works programmes are under consideration."

TRANSFER OF SENIOR CONSTABLE WHITFIELD FROM WATER POLICE STATION

Mr. SHERRINGTON (Salisbury) asked the Minister for Education and Migration-

"(1) Was Senior Constable J. Whitfield transferred from the Water Police to other duties on August 8, 1962?"

"(2) Was this the first time that such a transfer was made witltout an application by the policeman concerned?"

"(3) Had Senior Constable Whitfield had eleven years' service with this section of the Police Department and did not request such a transfer?"

"(4) As this policeman had given satis­factory service for eleven years, was the transfer brought about by a clash of opinions between himself and a senior officer? If not, for what Departmental reasons was this officer transferred?"

Hon. J. C. A. PIZZEY (Isis) replied­"(1) Yes."

"(2) No." "(3) Yes."

"(4) During the latter part of his term at the Water Police Station his service was not satisfactory, and he was trans­ferred for Departmental reasons and not because of the reason imputed in the Question."

MT. IsA-MARY KATHLEEN ROAD

Mr. DA VIES (Maryborough), for Mr. INCH (Burke), asked the Minister for Development, Mines, Main Roads and Electricity-

"(1) When does the department intend calling tenders for the further construction and bitumen sealing of the Mount Isa­Mary Kathleen road and for what length of roadway will tenders be invited?"

"(2) Has a survey been completed of the proposed bridge across the East Branch of the Leichhardt River and, if so, when is it intended to invite tenders for its construction?"

Questions [29 NOVEMBER] Questions 2043

"(3) What consideration has been given to the need for the construction of a high-level bridge across the Leichhardt River at Mt. Isa?"

Hon. E. EV AN§ (tviirani) replied-"( I) It is hoped in this financial year

to call tenders for about ten miles of the Mount Isa-Mary Kathleen Road and the balance as soon as possible afterwards. The whole road should be completed in the financial year 1963-1964."

"(2) Yes. Plans are in hand. Tenders should be called in this financial year."

"(3) The traffic problem has been inves­tigated. No funds are available in this financial year but some preliminary plan­ning is in hand."

HOUSING COMMISSION RENTAL HOUSES IN IPSWICH RESERVED FOR R.A.A.F. PERSONNEL

Mr. DAVIES (Maryborough), for Mr. DONALD (Ipswich East), asked the Treasurer and Minister for Housing-

."(~) What percentage of Housing Com­mrssron rental homes erected in the city of Ipswich are reserved for R.A.A.F. personnel?"

"(2) Is preference also given to members of the R.A.A.F. to occupy rented homes which have been vacated by tenants?"

Hon. T. A. HILEY (Chatsworth) replied-

"(1) 75.4 per cent."

"(2) Ipswich was selected by the Commonwealth as a locality for housing R.A.A.F. personnel, the Commonwealth­State _Housing Ag~eement providing for such nght of selectiOn. Houses becoming vacant are made available for occupation by R.A.A.F. personnel in order to supple­ment the large volume of new house con­struction and meet the required quota for eac.h of th~ years. in tha~ t~wn. The appli­catiOns wrth pomts pnonties for rental houses at Ipswich on hand at October 31 1962, were OJ?IY one at sixty points-famil; separated owmg to lack of accommodation and thirteen at forty points-families shar­ing accommodation or living in over­crowded conditions."

TRAVEL ON AIR-CONDITIONED TRAINS BY STUDENTS WITH FARE CONCESSIONS

Mr. DA VIES (Maryborough), for Mr. O'DONNELL (Barcoo), asked the Minister for Transport-

"(1) Are pupils or students, receiving travelling concessions or rail passes when proceeding to or from schools, not allowed to travel on an air-conditioned train when there are two divisions, one not being air· conditioned? If so, does the rule still hold when there are unoccupied seats in the air-conditioned train?"

"(2) As both winter and summer condi­tions are often extremely uncomfortable in the western parts of the State, is it fair to penalise these people because they are receiving concessionsT'

"(3) Is he aware that wealthier parents are paying full fares so that their children may enjoy the comfort of air-conditioned travel?"

"(4) Why is a policy of 'first come, first served' not introduced?"

Hon. G. W. W. CHALK (Lockyer) replied-

"( I) School children travelling by rail to or from school during vacation periods and desiring to obtain the benefit of con­cessional scholars' vacation fares, and, similarly, railway employees' children on privilege fares, are not permitted to book accommodation on an air-conditioned train when a Second Division non-air­conditioned train is running the same day. When Second Division trains are run in conjunction with air-conditioned trains during school vacation periods there is very rarely unbooked accommodation in the air-conditioned trains."

"(2) Second Division trains are only run when the patronage offering is in excess of the capacity of the air-conditioned train. School children on concession fares are excluded from travel to or from school on the air-conditioned trains in order that passengers paying full fares may obtain the benefit of air-conditioned travel. There is nothing to prevent school children pay­ing ordinary fares and arranging accom­modation on the air-conditioned trains when such accommodation is available."

"(3) Yes."

"(4) See answer to Question (2). The system operating is not something new. Such system was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister for Transport."

RESERVES FOR PRESERVATION OF KANGAROOS

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) asked the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry-

"(!) Has he seen the article by David Fleay in 'The Courier-Mail' of Tuesday, November 27, 1962, under the heading 'Roos should be let live on Reserves' and has any thought been given by his Depart­ment to the preservation of our fauna in such a manner?"

"(2) Has any survey been made lately to ascertain the approximate numbers of grey kangaroos which inhabit the coastal fringe of this State, and appear to become scarcer each year?"

2044 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Questions

Hon. E. EV ANS (Mirani-Minister for Development, Mines, Main Roads and Elec­tricity), for Hon. 0. 0. MADSEN (Warwick), replied-

"(1) Preservation of natural living areas for Queensland's native animals and birds has been for many years one of the most important aspects of the State's fauna conservation programme. This is clearly illustrated by the recent Government publi­cation on Queensland Fauna Sanctuaries which lists 412 sanctuaries comprising over 12,432,300 acres for various birds and mammals including kangaroos, wallaroos and wallabies. In coastal Queensland there are 224 sanctuaries, many of which provide habitat for such animals as red-necked, black-striped, whiptail, rock, blacktailed, and sandy wallabies and grey kangaroos. West of the Great Dividing Range there are 188 inland sanctuaries, including some large areas suited to kangaroos, wallaroos and wallabies. In some reserves several different species are found. Currently, land in the brigalow belt is being surveyed for reservation as fauna management areas. This is being done to provide suitable refuge areas for the indigenous native fauna and flora including the larger marsupials."

"(2) In Queensland since 1954, research has been carried out on kangaroos in order to understand them better and to be in a position to take any steps including reservation of suitable areas if and when necessary. This work has shown that some species have been affected in and adjacent to well-developed farming communities. There is, however, no quantitative evidence that past and current practices have had a detrimental effect on State-wide populations of the larger marsupials such as the grey kangaroo."

SENIOR PHYSICS ExAMINATION PAPERS

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) asked the Minister for Education-

"(!) Has one major suburban high school already withdrawn physics from its com­pulsory subjects lists for boys and made senior zoology an elective alternative and are others now considering similar action?"

"(2) What substance is there in the state­ment in 'The Courier-Mail' of November 28, 1962, that influential faculty members at the University desire an extension of Queensland high school courses to six years and that there is a strongly backed belief in education circles that the Univer­sity physics department by its type of senior physics examination set last year and this year is leading a campaign to obtain this?"

Hon. J. C. A. PIZZEY (Isis) replied­"(1) Senior physics is offered as a sub­

ject in all major high schools administered by my department. It is a compulsory

subject only for those students who desire to satisfy the university's matriculation requirements in the faculties of engineer­ing, surveying, medicine and architecture. To satisfy the matriculation requirements in certain other faculties students may elect to take an alternative senior subject, such as chemistry, zoology, geology, etc. I can confidently say that senior physics would always be available to those students desiring to matriculate in the faculties specifically mentioned above."

"(2) My departmental officers have received no information on the matters mentioned in the press statement quoted. While it might be true that certain mem­bers of the university staff desire an extension of the high school course to six years, no official recommendation to that effect has been received from the university senate and my department has no intention of recommending such an extension in the foreseeable future."

WEED!C!DE USED BY MAIN ROADS DEPARTMENT

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) asked the Minister for Development, Mines, Main Roads and Electricity-

"(!) Is a particular weedicide used exclusively by the Main Roads Depart­ment?"

"(2) What is the name of the product, by whom is it manufactured and what is the location of the supplier?"

"(3) Are public tenders called for the supply of weedicide to the Department and how often are these tenders called?"

Hon. E. EV ANS (Mirani) replied-"(1) Yes, for 'weedicides' purchased by

the Department. Most maintenance is carried out by Shires and small lots of various chemicals are purchased by them for weed control."

"(2) Agserv Railway Total with Wettone. a wetting agent. Also some Weedazol T.L. Plus. Manufactured by Agserv Industries Pty. Ltd., Pendle Hill, Sydney. and obtained here from United Chemicals Pty. Ltd., 91-97 Montague Road, South Brisbane."

"(3) Supplies are usually obtained in small lots and no tenders are called although quotes were recently called in one district and a trial is being made with another type of 'weedicide'. Since October. 1961, when the department decided to use one particular brand, the following quan­tities have been purchased:-1,050 lbs. of Agserv Railway Total, costing £1,023 15s.; 33 gallons Wettone, costing £23 12s. 6d.: 31 gallons Weedazol, costing £170 10s."

Workers' Compensation, Acts [28 NOVEMBER] Amendment Bill 2045

REPORT OF STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Hon. G. F. R. NICKLIN (Landsborough­Premier): On behalf of Mr. Speaker, Chair­man of the Standing Orders Committee, I lay on the table of the House report of the Standing Orders Committee.

Ordered to be printed.

PAPER The following paper was laid on the

table:-Rules of Court under the Industrial

Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1961.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE-RESUMPTION OF DEBATE

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Taylor, Clayfield, in the chair.)

Debate resumed from 28 November (see p. 2041) on Mr. Hiley's motion-

"That it is desirable that a Bill be intro­duced to amend the Workers' Compensa­tion Acts, 1916 to 1961, in certain particulars."

Mr. DAVIES (Maryborough) (11.19 a.m.): I do not intend to cover ground already traversed by other speakers on this side of the Chamber. However, I should like to make a complaint concerning a person who has an accident, is given a certificate by his local doctor, but finds that a visiting doctor from the Workers' Compensation Depart­ment, after examining him for a few minutes, declares that he is fit for work. He does that despite the fact that the person has in his possession a medical certificate from a reputable doctor of the centre in which he lives. I feel sure some arrangement could be made to overcome this problem and I intend to cite two cases as examples that I should like the Treasurer to note.

The first concerns an accident that hap­pened on 2 July, 1962, to a man named James Clarence Puddle. On 6 August, 1962, he was told that he would no longer receive compensation. I know the man well. He would not act in any way other than honestly. He remained at work for four days on very light duties, working for the Maryborough City Council. He went to the general hospital on 6 July, four days after his accident. He found it too difficult to carry on. The doctor persuaded him to try to keep on with light duties. He tried but found it impossible and he then sought exam­ination by a private doctor in Maryborough whose integrity is beyond question. He is a doctor of long standing in the centre. I will give the Treasurer his name later. On 2 August this doctor told Puddle that he could not work as he was and he sent him for further X-rays. Puddle was given a certifi­cate for two weeks off work, from 2 August

to 16 August. Later he was given a further certificate for three weeks off, from 16 August to 6 September. He commenced work on 6 September as a trial and has been at work ever since. When he obtained a certificate on 2 August he felt so iii that he could not take the certificate to the Workers' Compensation Department till Monday, 6 August, and while he was handing in the certificate at the office he was advised that there was a doctor there from the Workers' Compensation Department in Bris­bane. Without any prior notice, the com­pensation doctor examined him and advised him, after, I am told by the man concerned -and I have no reason to doubt it-a very brief overhaul lasting no longer than five or six minutes, that he would be off compensa­tion. He reported back to his own doctor, who told him that he was definitely not to return to work. Naturally, as that doctor had been his doctor over the years, Puddle took notice of him and stayed away from work, but his compensation stopped on 6 August, although his local doctor had given him a certificate to be off work till 6 September.

Then there is another case. I will cite only two. The second is of a man called Ernest John Barclay Ward, who was working at the regional board. He had sustained a spinal injury during the war, which the work aggravated. In a particular accident on 2 July, 1962, he slipped on a pipe and fell on his lower vertebrae. His claim for compensa­tion was granted and he was paid from 13 July to 6 August. He was given a certificate by another doctor in the city, who is by no means a fly-by-night gentleman. He has been there over a number of decades, and is one of the most skilled and highly respected doctors in the district. As a matter of fact, I think one of the doctors I have mentioned was, and still is, the Com­monwealth doctor for the purpose of decid­ing on invalid pensions. The local doctor whom Ward consulted is highly respected throughout the city and district and the certificate he issued covered Ward up to 27 August. The doctor from Brisbane made a brief examination lasting less than 10 minutes, I am advised, on 6 August, and told him, "You are off compo from this day." As I have said, the local doctor had told Mr. Ward that he was not to return to work till the 27th. That was for some weeks after the doctor from Brisbane, following an examination lasting only a few minutes, told him that he must return to work.

I know that the Treasurer will give con­sideration to this matter to see if there is some way in which the problem can be solved. The man of whom I am speaking wears a large belt at work as the result of a war injury, and he carries out whatever light duties are available. I must say that the organisation for which he works has given him every consideration and helped him in every way possible to continue working.

2046 Workers' Compensation Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

I feel that what happened in those two cases is wrong. We know that there are specialists in backs, eyes, ears, and so on, but the making of such a decision by a doctor, even though he be a specialist in back injuries) after an examination lasting only a few minutes, is bad, and not only because it causes a lack of confidence in local doctors. There are in Maryborough men highly respected and highly skilled in medicine and surgery. All doctors there, including the two concerned in these cases, are respected for their medical skill.

No matter what degree of skill a particular doctor has, I think that what was done in these cases was quite wrong. I do not want to enlarge on what I have said, but I do lodge this very earnest protest and hope that the Treasurer will take particular note of it. I have not been asked to do so by the doctors, but there is considerable con­cern among the workers of Maryborough over instructions to return to work when local doctors say that they are not fit for it. If there were differences of opinion in those cases, !!O advice should have been given to the patients to return to work immediately. Instead, there should have been consultations with the local doctors and compromises reach~d, if that was the only way out of the difficulty. In both instances the periods involved were only two or three weeks, and the men concerned were not malingerers and had not been on compensation for years.

I do want to express my appreciation of the work 9f the people dealing with workers' compensatiOn, and of the co-operation that I have received from the manager and staff of the State Government Insurance Office at Maryborough, and the officers in the Minister's department in Brisbane. They have at all times attended very courteously to every request of mine, and I have great confidence that they make decisions in a sympathetic and humane way. In no way am I reflecting on them.

I do not know the particular doctor from Brisbane concerned in those cases to which I have referred. He may be a very skilled man, but many specialists make mistakes when dealing with back injuries. I know many men who have had their backs treated by specialists and then have had to go to people who are not doctors, such as chiro­p:actors and natural health people, who have given treatment that has produced good results. I know that many doctors send pa~ients to these people but say, "Keep it qmet. Please don't make it public that I sought the help of these men." There is every possibility that a back specialist could make a mistake. An examination lasting five or 10 minutes does not give a feeling of com­plete confidence in those handling the matter for an injured worker.

Another important matter to which I wish to refer is the need to speed up the making of decisions. I am aware that specialists handling these matters very often delay in submitting their reports. Possibly it is not

always their fault. I am giving my own opinion when I ask the Treasurer this question: could not there be a system under which a local doctor is asked to make- a quick decision-he could do it in most cases - --and payment made on condition that if the final decision is against the claimant, the money paid should be deducted from his wages, or something of that sort? Whe-n an accident occurs, in most instances the injured worker's finances are not adequate to meet the strain. I have seen people placed in a very awkward situation when they have had to wait some months for compensation. They are often in very serious financial straits. I hope the Treasurer will give some consideration to that aspect.

Mr. Mann: It would be a risky practice.

Mr. DA VIES: I realise the possibilities, but my main point is that the procedure should be speeded up and undue delays avoided. Even if it is a heart case, I cannot see why the medical profession, with its knowledge and experience, cannot make a decision quickly. An injured worker and his family very often undergo much worry and strain because they cannot meet their financial obligations.

A number of hon. members opposite who took part in the debate, and who interjected, failed to appreciate the strenuous opposition that was offered to the amendments made by the Australian Labour Party to Workers' compensation legislation in years gone by. There was strenuous opposition to the monopoly control of workers' compensation by the State Government Insurance Office. It was regarded by hon. members opposite, who were then in Opposition, as very wrong. But the Treasurer has emphasised the mag­nificent results that have been achieved in the operation of the fund and the advan­tages that have been conferred on the people of this State because the control of com­pensation is in the hands of one organisation. That, combined with the wonderful success of the State Government Insurance Office generally, is a clear answer to those who claim that Government ownership must result in losses, failure, and inefficiency. The workers' compensation section of the State Government Insurance Office has given ample evidence that it can do the job much more efficiently than it could be done by private enterprise.

Mr. ADAIR (Cook) (11.33 a.m.): I wish to bring to the Minister's attention a problem that I have raised with him previously and which I believe should be dealt with in the Bill.

When a miner's phthisis pensioner dies, in most instances his widow is granted £300, which is paid out to her at the rate of £2 10s. a week until it is exhausted. I have been informed that £50 is taken out for the funeral expenses of her deceased husband, which leaves only £250. When the remaining £250 has been paid to her, she

Workers' Compensation Acts [28 NOVEMBER) Amendment Bill 2047

receives nothing more. A man suffering from miner's phthisis dies gradually, and for many years his wife has to try to ease his suffering and assist him during his illness. I believe that these widows should be paid the pension for the duration of their lives.

Mr. Mann: They might re-marry.

Mr. ADAffi: That event could be taken care of in the legislation, but generally these widows of miners' phthisis pensioners are fairly elderly. Many of them are in the seventies, or even older, and it is very doubtful that many of them would re-marry. Anyhow, if that did occur, as I say, some provision to deal with it could be made in legislation. I ask the Treasurer to see if provision can be made for the continued payment of the £2 10s. a week to these widows for the duration of their lives.

Another matter that I wish to bring to the Treasurer's notice relates to disability pay­ment in the Cairns area for bone fractures. The doctor who does the assessments in the Cairns area is Dr. Lea. He is a surgeon, but on many occasions on which patients have been fortunate enough to be brought to Brisbane, his assessment has been shown to be too low. I have had experience of cases where he has assessed the disability at 40 per cent., but on examination by a specialist in Brisbane that percentage has been nearly doubled.

I suggest to the Treasurer that, instead of these assessments of disability being done by only one specialist, patients be given the opportunity to obtain opinions from other doctors in the area. Two other doctors in Cairns are Dr. Spooner, who is one of the best surgeons in the State, and Dr. Lester. Although Dr. Lester is not an orthopaedic surgeon, he is an experienced doctor. Cairns patients, if given that opportunity, would be getting no more than is available to patients in Brisbane. If Brisbane patients are granted a disability payment by the State Govern­ment Insurance Office doctor, Dr. Knight, they can go to another specialist, or several specialists, and get other versions of what the disability percentage should be.

I have had occasion to help a patient get to Brisbane. I was fortunate enough to get him a rail pass, although they are very hard to get. I advised him to go to a specialist, which he did, and his disability payment was doubled on the amount assessed by Dr. Lea. I have had several similar instances, and I think people suffering bone fractures in the Cairns area should have the same opportuni­ties as people in the larger cities. I again ask the Treasurer to provide that where a sufferer is not satisfied with Dr. Lea's disability assessment he may consult another specialist, and that the State Government Insurance Office accept as its basis at least the average of the percentages assessed by Dr. Lea and the other specialist.

Hon. T. A. HILEY (Chatsworth-Treasurer and Minister for Housing) (11.40 a.m.), in reply: I thank hon. members for the detailed interest they have taken in this interesting subject. But I am bound to say that many of the matters raised are unrelated to the legislation or the changing principles of the legislation. Most of them have been matters of administrative practice which should be raised, I think, by the hon. members by letter to me rather than be treasured up for an occasion such as this. However, I will endeavour to reply to the various matters raised.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the case of a man who had been working at Wunderlich's or Hardie's. Apparently his lungs became coated with abrasive fibres from asbestos. I think he said that six years later that man developed an incapacity but that in the circumstances he was debarred under the law from claiming workers' compensation. That is not so. If that man is suffering from emphysema or some other disease of the lungs, on the story presented it would be an industrial disease. For that industrial disease a man is entitled to make his claim at any time up to six months from the start of the incapacity. A person may have been subject to the real cause of the industrial disease 10 or 20 years previously. From the time he becomes incapacitated he has six months in which to apply. So there should be plenty of time. If time was the difficulty in the case the hon. member presented, and the person concerned had misunderstood the position, I say now that I will see that the time clause is not used as a bar to his claim.

Mr. Sherrington: What about if he has left his former employment?

Mr. HILEY: That does not matter. If that man is suffering from a bad dusting-up, which is restricted to the surface of the lung, to the point where he can no longer breathe properly, and it has reached the stage where he is incapacitated, it does not matter where he is working subsequently. As long as that history can be traced and established, our view is that he is suffering from an industrial disease and therefore for any period up to six months from the start of the incapacity he is entitled to lodge his claim.

Mr. Manu: His claim would have to be supported by medical evidence?

Mr. HILEY: Yes, industrial evidence and medical evidence.

The hon. member for Bowen raised the subject of industrial blindness. I make it clear to the Committee that blindness arising as the result of an industrial accident is quite clearly covered, and always has been. The only point where difficulty might arise is in the case of gradual blind­ness, which develops in exactly the same way

2048 Workers' Compensation Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

as gradual deafness. When the hon. member for Bowen raised this matter I was inclined to agree that gradual blindness should be regarded in the same way as gradual deaf­ness and that the same principle should apply. But when I looked for cases to see what the measure of it would be, I found that there was not one case of gradual blindness on record in the State Government Insurance Office.

Mr. Houston: There wouldn't be. You would hardly expect it.

Mr. HILEY: No. The nearest case we could get to it was a case in which I myself had intervened three or four years ago. It concerned a man who was employed as a furnace bricklayer at Mt. Isa. When the wall of a furnace collapsed it was his job to go into the furnace. The fire would be drawn and they would put wet bags over the plates. He would go in, all wrapped up in protective clothing, including thick goggles. and cement up and brick up the collapsed part of the furnace wall. He would go in there amongst a great deal of heat, steam, and glare. That man developed cataracts, following which he applied for workers' compensation. His claims were repeatedly turned down. arranged for him to come to Brisbane and had him referred to an independent specialist. He saw Dr. Waiter Lockhart Gibson, who in his student days, had done training work in the Old Country. He had been around the Black Country of England in the potteries area where he had met with exactly the same thing. It was something that had never previously happened in Australian precedent. As a result of Dr. Waiter Lockhart Gibson's findings, that man received compensation. His cataracts were operated on and he subsequently recovered a measure of sight.

Mr. Wallace: That could well apply in many industries, such as the sugar industry.

Mr. HILEY: That might be. If it can be shown that his work caused the condition, quite clearly he must be compensated. It depends on the facts of the case. Electrical welders could probably provide a parallel. We all know that these men can damage their eyes, and make them exceedingly sore, if they are careless in their practices. They are expected to use proper goggles and simi­lar equipment. We searched diligently in that field to try to find a case of a man who had gone gradually blind. I repeat that we could not find a single case, and until we do I do not think we should make provision for it, although I know an argument can be advanced that even if there is no case we would do no harm by putting it in. I think the right thing to do is to make provision when you are sure of the facts.

Mr. Hou.ston: What about the man who does a lot of close reading, say, at the correspondence school, and thereby injures his eyes?

Mr. HILEY: We find quite often that such a man needs a visual aid, but it is hard to say whether that is the result of his work or the result of his increasing years. I cannot read without the aid of glasses, yet I can go out in the bush and shoot all day long without having to use them. If I am 6 feet away from an object my eyesight is all right, but at shorter distances it is not so good. My doctor told me that there is only one reason for that, and that is Anno Domini. It has nothing to do with the nature >Jf my work. It is simply a change in the struc­ture of the eye, and the average man with perfect eyesight should continue to have it up to 45 years of age. He said that from about the middle forties on we go through a distinct and accelerating change. I know that the first pair of glasses I had lasted me, without adjustment, for eight years. Since then I have found that the pace of change has accelerated. To tell the truth I should be getting a new pair now, and I thank the hon. member for reminding me. However, that does not say my eyesight is failing because of the nature of my work.

Mr. Houston: There are cases where it does.

Mr. HILEY: If it can be shown that work precipitates the injury, compensation is pay­able. That is the whole basis of compen­sation.

Two or three hon. members referred to delays in settlement. I think that, in fairness, we should remember that members of Parlia­ment do not hear about the successful cases. They ge·t only the odd cases in which diffi­culty is experienced. The total number of claims lodged last year, including the reopening of claims from the previous year, was 59,189. The rejections totalled only 944. The percentage of claims admitted was in the high nineties, and less than 2 per cent. of claims were rejected. However, that does not mean they were all paid immediately. There is often some delay, firstly to establish whether a condition is the result of injury attributable to employment, or proceeding to or from employment.

Mr. Hodges: In view of that high figure, couldn't compensation be paid while investi­gations are being carried out?

Mr. HILEY: But suppose the man has no claim for compensation?

Mr. Hodges: Couldn't you get it back out of his wages?

Mr. HILEY: It is one-way traffic. The plain fact is that the vast majority of claims are met without much delay_

Mr. Manu: I should hate to think how they would go if it was run by private companies.

Mr. HILEY: Yes. There is an amazing decentralisation of authority. If the claims flow to where the State Government Insurance Office has an office, the managers have authority to deal with them, adjudicate on

Workers' Compensation Acts [29 NOVEMBER] Amendment Bill 2049

them, and so on. But where the State Government Insurance Office has no office the clerk of petty sessions, although author­ised to deal with claims, in the main prefers to act only as a receiving agent for them. In other words, he is a pipeline to and from the nearest branch of the State Government Insurance Office. We find that clerks of petty sessions, who are busy people, do not in the main adjudicate on claims. They prefer to pass them on to the claims branch of the office and let them deal with them. It is true that we find some clerks of petty sessions who are quite good, but some of them are reluctant to adjudicate on claims and the reaction of the office to that is, I think, clear. We are seeking to spread our­selves in the main centres of population, and we have done so to quite a remarkable degree. Already the State Government Insurance Office has fully-equipped, decentralised offices in more parts of the State than any other insurance office carrying on business in Queensland.

Mr. Davies: Sometimes, as I said, the specialist is at fault; he may not send in his report.

Mr. HILEY: I will come to that in a moment. Not many are referred to special­ists, but I will deal with the matter raised by the hon. member.

Mr. Davies: Do you get a report on the time Jag in the various centres?

Mr. HILEY: I have not been getting them.

Mr. Davies: So that you can average it up?

Mr. HILEY: I watch the tables. I watch, for example, the number of claims outstand­ing. The number of claims outstanding at the end of 1962 was almost the same as at the end of the previous year, so there is no developing Jag. There were 12,500 outstanding at 30 June, 1961, and 12,830 at 30 June, 1962. I can assure the hon. mem­ber that, if I find any general trend indicat­ing an increase in the number of outstanding claims, I will take up the matter with the General Manager; but it will not be neces­sary because he watches these things, too, and if he sees there is a growing trend, he will be on to it.

Mr. Davies: I am speaking of a set of circumstances. I am not blaming anyone.

Mr. Coburn: It is very rarely that a clerk of petty sessions makes a decision on a claim. I do not know of any.

Mr. HILEY: Very rarely. The odd one who is venturesome will do so. They are all authorised to, but, in the main, the clerk of petty sessions looks upon himself as purely a message-boy for the office. He receives the documents, makes sure they are in order, and sends them on. When he gets the verdict from the insurance office he trans­mits it in turn to the injured worker.

The hon. member for Bulimba referred to the loss of smell and to facial disfigure­ment and asked whether these will be subject to common law. He said he thought they should be subject to compensation under the ordinarv law. Thev will certainly be subject to common law ari'd, as far as the ordinary laws are concerned, I would refer him to Section 14A of the Act, which was enacted back in 1944 and which makes special provi­sion for a claim for facial disfigurement. Section 14A (4) says-

"Compensation under this section shall be payable additionally to compensation payable under the (other) provisions of this Act, but so that the aggregated amount payable . . . resulting in a severe facial disfigurement to which this section applies".

There is a special board set up, a medical board, comprising as chairman a duly-quali­fied medical practitioner specialising in plastic surgery nominated by the Director-General of Health and Medical Services-Dr. Swiss Davies-a duly-qualified medical practitioner nominated by the office, and a duly-qualified medical practitioner nominated by the claim­ant. So that board deals with this vexed question of severe facial disfigurement and, to my understanding, those injuries have been compensable for at least 1 8 years, possibly longer.

Mr. Houston: But there is no amount fixed?

Mr. HILEY: It is a matter for the board to assess it. Within the overall limit, if the only injury suffered by a person is severe facial disfigurement, and it is a bad enough case, he could go up to £3,300, or up to £3,600 now.

Mr Houston: What I am worried about is that the compensation jurisdiction could say it was so much and then the other juris­diction, the court, could fix a different amount. It is on the pay-back when you get two different judgments. Do you see what I mean? The board will determine the com­pensation at one figure and then, if the person sues for general damages through the court, a different amount may be awarded by the judge.

Mr. HILEY: The hon. member is talking now about common law damages. If a worker elects to proceed under common law, he cannot draw workers' compensation and also receive common law damages.

Mr. Houston: But he has to pay back what he has received under workers' compen­sation. He should not have to repay workers' compensation that he has received if it is in excess of common law damages.

Mr. HILEY: That is so. There has to be a refund of workers' compensation payments that have been drawn, provided the judg­ment at common law is for a greater sum. If such a person received £1,500 under workers' compensation and only £1,000 at common law, he would not have to pay back the £1,500. We seek to recover only when it is the lesser of the two amounts.

2050 Workers' Compensation Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

Another point raised was the very real difficulty of obtaining light work. This is the most difficult and thorny subject that comes before me. We find that in practice it is very desirable to get men back to work if at all possible. Men with some type-s of injury do not get better by sitting around brooding and receiving compensation. We find that when men are on compensation for lengthy periods they seem to develop an anxiety or compensation neurosis and a fear complex that destroys the will to work. That is a bad thing. We feel that if a man is capable of light work, the sooner he can return to it, the better it is for him.

I agree that this is a nightmare of a prob­lem. There are odd cases in which employers are sympathetic and are able to provide light work, but there are other industries that pro­vide only heavy work and, when an employer is asked, "Can you find some light work for so-and-so?" his reply is, "I haven't any." There is the difficulty.

I have been he·artened to see the results of the work of the Commonwealth Rehabili­tation Service training centre at Kingsholme. Training received there has returned to work­condition many men who had reached the stage of being half-cured, and they have been helped to find work when completely cured.

I have not developed it sufficiently as yet to find a way in which to apply it, but I have always had the notion that a wise com­munity should reserve certain tasks for incapacitated people. It has always seemed to me to be socially undesirable, when light tasks are so scarce, to have well-developed and able-bodied men carrying them out. Of course, this is a difficult matter and virtually means acceptance of a modified form of direction of labour in this field. It would have to be decreed that an able-bodied man could not be employed on such work unless no partly-disabled man was available. This idea might have some attractions and social bene­fits.

Mr. Houston: It works the other way. There are plenty of jobs for which only able­bodied men are required.

Mr. HILEY: Exactly. If it is difficult work an employer looks at a man and says, "Yo~ couldn't stand up to this work. You go away." It seems to me that the time might come when consideration will have to be given to this problem, and, in the light of what has been said, I propose to see if something can be done to some degree on a voluntary basis. If I make some suitable observations to large employing bodies, it might be possible to effect some degree of improvement in the provi.sion of work opportunities for partly­handicapped people. If light work can be found for people unable to stand up to their former heavy duties, thus enabling them still to do a useful job in the community, I think that that should be done in the interests of these men and the nation.

Mr. Sberrington: The Victorian Act pro­vides that if they can supply evidence that they have tried but have been unable to get work, their claim is re-admitted.

Mr. HILEY: I should prefer to try to get a widening of opportunities for light work. I propose to follow that up, and I think there is a good deal of merit in what was said about it.

The hon. member for Salisbury reviewed the various benefits and said that he thought that, in addition to the correction of tlre arithmetic, there should be an increase all round in the rates of benefit. This involves a very nice question. In practice, it is always considered dangerous to have a compensa­tion scale that means that a man is as well off, or better off, on compensation than he would be at work. Our reaction has been that it is better to follow the principles that the Australian Labour Party followed when it was in office, that is, to keep the compen­sation close to, but still below, the working wage, and we have preferred to bring in ancillary benefits.

Hon. members will see that we are extend­ing the benefits to children. We are allow­ing children to qualify not up to 16 years of age, but to 21 years if they are dependent and still being educated. We have preferred to take the benefits for old injuries not from the old scale but from the new scale. We have preferred to bring in the benefit of an all-round protection from injury, and we think that these provisions will be of wide benefit to employees gener­ally without creating a situation in which a man may be better off on compensation than he is when he is working. On our measure of the arithmetic of it, that is as far as we can go safely. Had we elected to improve the basis of compensation still further in relation to the weekly wage, we should not have been able to do as many other things. In all fairness, if one reviews the position I think it must be admitted that at least workers are being assisted in other ways and will still receive the same proportion of the working wage as they have in the past.

I think the hon. member also raised the question of procedure in litigation and men­tioned delays. No-one agrees more than I do that it is desirable to avoid delays. In fact, delays that occurred in the Industrial Magistrates Court were one of the things that led me to recommend the establishment of the Cardiac Board, which is now over­coming the former delays in hearing car­diac cases. Some of them were 18 months behind, but the board is right on top of its task now. By the time the magistrates decide the few cardiac cases that they still have to deal with, they should be able to hear without delay the smaller number of workers' compensation cases on which they will have to adjudicate. I am watching the position closely, and if the magistrates do not keep the work up to date, I will dis­cuss the matter with the Minister for Justice and try to find a way of improving the position.

Workers' Compensation Acts [29 NOVEMBER] Amendment Bill 2051

Mr. Sherringtou: What are your views on the establishment of an appeal board instead of the present system?

Mr. HILEY: I like the idea of an appeal board of soecialists for cases in wl-rirh <nP­cial problerns occur. We ha~e--~tte~p-te<tto do that with facial disfigurements, chest complaints, and heart complaints. Other hon. members have mentioned back cases and orthopaedic cases. Following the suc­cess of the Cardiac Board and the Chest Board, the hon. member for Bowen approached me and suggested that we should have a back board and a bone board. Tl:rrough the General Manager, I consulted officers of the department, who told me that they do not believe that the establishment of such boards would be helpful at this stage. I realise that orthopaedic cases are one of the most difficult and challenging fields of medicine, and two well-qualified orthopaedic specialists will reach differing conclusions on the same cases.

Mr. Sherringtoo: That applies to l:reart disease, too.

Mr. HILEY: There is not much difference now between the opinions of really com­petent heart men. When it comes to the really knowledgeable orthopaedists, I have had instances put to me of two very well­known consultants, one of whom says that there is no evidence of muscle wastage and no other signs of injury, stating, "I con­sider this to be a case of neurosis. This man has got himself to the stage where he thinks his back hurts and because of that he finds he cannot work." The other man, just as well qualified and with just as good a record, will testify with the greatest clarity that the man's condition is due to the injury and the continuing effects of it. The conclusion I have been presented with in this field by my officers, because I am not a medical man, is that once you get away from some of the clear-cut specialist cases it is hard to visualise a board that would be all-wise and all­knowing enough to deal with the infinite range of problems that would come before it. Consequently my practice has been, where I strike a really difficult case in wl:rich there is an acute difference between practitioners for the claimant on the one hand and the office representative on the other, to pick my own specialist in that particular field and say, "I want you to see this man. He is away in the country. We will bring him down at our expense." We have him examined and I want to tell hon. members opposite who know of these instances that some men have succeeded in getting compensation as a result. There was one case from Mt. Isa. I had another case in whiclr the man had a severe infec­tion in the urinary tract of a type that is commonly regarded as being due to some germ infection and in no way the result of work. This man was quite persistent. The condition had arisen under certain working conditions that were quite unusual

and finally I referred him to Dr. Willis, who is a specialist in that particular field, and who reported back to us that he felt the condition l:rad been extended. It is true that the man had had an infection but it had been localisetl anU had been extended and made much worse by his work.

Mr. Ramsden: That was the case I referred to you.

Mr. HILEY: Yes. If I remember rightly, it was a man from the wool scour at Belmont.

Mr. Ramsden: That is right.

Mr. HILEY: That was an extraordinary case. They had a vat with a valve coming up through the floor of it. Tlre vat con­tained corrosive liquid and the valve could not be reached in the ordinary way so they had a plank six inches wide across the top of the vat. This man would walk out on that plank and bend down and turn the vertical valve, which was one foot below the plank on which he was standing. Hon. members can imagine how he had to exert himself in order to turn it off. Dr. Willis concluded that the extraordinary strain and stress of the position and posture into which he had to get to execute that turning resulted in squeezing the poisons from the localised part of the infection back througl:r the kidney tract, and that it brought about his severe condition. That man received compensation.

In every case where the office feels that a claim should be contested, before it comes to me it goes to the Crown Law Office. When it is reviewed by the Crown Law Office they very often conclude that it should not be fought and that, on tl:re pure essence of the evidence, or the balance of evidence, the claim should be conceded. When the Crown Law Office reach that conclusion, unhesitatingly the claim is conceded. In every other case, even when the Crown Law Office say, it should be fought, the file comes to me. I read every one of them. Tlrey contain submissions covering a wide precis of each case. I have no doubt that some of my officers look at me as though I were preposterous, but on occasions I exer­cise my discretion and have a case reviewed despite their conclusion that it should be fought. There are not many; perhaps three or four a year would be the maximum where I conclude that a case should not be fought. I want to make it clear that if any­one is of tl:re opinion that the State Govern­ment Insurance Office fights a number of cases and fights them blindly and obstruc­tively because of any change in attitude or policy, he is quite wrong. On behalf of the Government I make it clear that on the only occasions upon which there has been any interference by the Government, they have always resulted in favour of the applicant. There has not been one case, in ttre years I have been there, where there has been any interference by the Government against the applicant.

2052 Workers' Compensation Acts [ASSEMBLY] Amendment Bill

Mr. Houston: That did not happen previously, either.

Mr. HILEY: No. In fairness to my predecessor let me say that, as far as I can determine. Mr. Walsh never interfered either way. He looked upon it as a semi­judicial proceeding. He followed the advice tendered by the insurance office and Crown law representatives. He may have interfered once or twice in favour of the applicant. On the first occasion I did it Mr. Grimley was Commissioner and he told me subse­quently, "You have done something your predecessor never did." Never under any circumstances, in this or any other matter, did Mr. Walsh allow administrative matters under his control to become political play­things. He had the highest regard for the responsibilities that devolved upon him. I say it now to him directly, "Never once have I known you, Mr. Walsh, to put one foot wrong in that direction. That was the reputation you left behind you in the office." The only cases in which the Govern­ment has interfered have been in those cases where we felt we should interfere in favour of the applicant-never against him.

The question was raised about the payment of compensation in respect of injuries received in extension of the working time, particularly during recess periods. It would be quite wrong for hon. members to think that injuries received during recess periods are not compensable. That is not so. Where an employer provides a canteen on his premises or minor sporting facilities, such as ping-pong, that can be played on the premises, if an injury occurred during the recess, under the logical conditions that are applied during such a recess, there would be no question raised that it was not an injury in the course of employment. We carry it still further. If there is no canteen on the premises and a worker commonly has to go from his place of employment to the corner shop, or something like that, to get things for his lunch-if an accident occurs we say that it is part of the job.

Mr. Bromley: Does that apply to a shearer going from shed to shed on different properties?

Mr. HILEY: No, he is then between engagements.

Mr. Dufficy: Not always.

Mr. HILEY: There could be cases in which he would be covered.

Mr. Dufficy: If there was no break in the continuity of his employment he would be covered under the Act.

Mr. HILEY: A test match will be starting tomorrow. Let us suppose that an employee during his lunch-hour hops in the tram and goes out to see it. Suppose further that he is knocked over by a taxi-cab outside the Woolloongabba Cricket Ground. I doubt whether we would regard that as an extension

of cover as part of the working opportunity. I have tried to give the Committee my idea of how we interpret it. There is no hard-and-fast line on it. It is true that under our law we have not the same complete coverage as is laid down in the Victorian law, but I think I have demonstrated that we go 90 per cent. of the way, and as far as we fairly should.

Mr. Sherrington: I brought that point up because our Act does not specifically mention any cover during normal recess periods.

Mr. HILEY: That is right.

Mr. Wallace: What is the provisiOn in relation to pneumonia as a compensable disease?

Mr. HILEY: It is an industrial disease if it can be shown to have been caused by employment. We have had quite a number of freezer cases. We pay those on the basis of giving the men the benefit of the doubt. There is the gravest of medical doubt whether pneumonia, which is a germ disease, is occasioned or aggravated by working conditions.

Mr. WaUace: I know that, but I have seen--

Mr. IDLEY: We will not argue against freezer cases. If a man is going in and out of a freezer, experiencing violent changes of temperature, we give him th~ benefit of the doubt. We think that he probably had the germ anyhow, but it could be aggravated because he goes in and out of the freezer. The vast majority of freezer cases are met.

Mr. Wallace: Very often we find cases where men are wet all day and have no protection at all when the door of the freezer is opened.

Mr. IDLEY: Those are administrative matters and do not concern the law. If the hon. member cares to state a case about them I will be glad to investigate it.

The hon. member for Maryborough referred to me·dical practitioners giving certificates in certain centres, and a medical officer from the State Government Insurance Office reversing them. It is true that our doctors move around quite a bit. I will not name the town concerned in this incident, so no hon. member need blush. In one town, the day before our doctor arrived, a local prac­titioner issued 12 final certificates. The conclusion is obvious. He kept them going, and kept them going, and said, "Yes, Jack, I will fix you for another week," and then fixed them for a further week. When he learned that our doctor was to arrive he knew the men would be examined; without waiting for our man to see them, he issued 12 final certificates.

I will not mention names in the next incident either, but I can see an anticipatory grin on the face of an hon. member opposite who, no doubt, knows of the incident. Some

Workers' Compensation Acts [29 NOVEMBER] Amendment Bill 2053

doctors unquestionably keep patients on com­pensation too long just to oblige them, and undoubtedly engage in quite a degree of over-treatment, telling them to come along every day to have their bandages changed, and run up a bill quite unnecessarily. Our medical officer went to this country town and called on the local practitioner and had a talk with him. He checked a number of cases and said, "Here is a man whom you got to call for 17 consecutive days to have his bandages changed." The nature of the injury was such that it was obviously a clear case of over-treatment. The local doctor said, "All right, I can see your point. Yes, there is over-treatment. I will fix that up and it will not happen again." When the doctor sent in his bill it amounted to £450, which is quite a fair amount of treat­ment from one doctor for workers' compen­sation cases in a month. He presented his bill for £450, with all the details, but then he said, "Allowance, 50 per cent."

Dr. Delamothe: There would not be many doctors who would do that sort of thing.

Mr. HILEY: No. When doctors occasion­ally engage in over-treatment, it very soon becomes obvious, and we have found that, by calling on them and talking to them, the practice ceases.

Mr. Burrows: What they do to you is mild compared with what they do to the Department of Social Services.

Mr. HILEY: That may be so. The hon. member for Maryborough also

referred to the case of a war injury which was aggravated by work. Might I suggest to him that he would be wise to examine the entitlements under the repatriation clauses, which are pretty generous. Clearly, under repatriation law, a war injury aggravated by subsequent work is compensable by the Repatriation Department. It should not be a workers' compensation claim at all. That is clearly laid down, and the practice has been followed. Any hon. member who has had experience with the Repatriation Depart­ment would know that.

Mr. Davies: He had a war injury and his work aggravated it; then he had an acci­dent and fell.

Mr. HILEY: The hon. member said that this man had a war injury.

Mr. Davies: Yes.

Mr. HILEY: And that the injury was aggravated by work.

Mr. Davies: Yes.

Mr. HILEY: We will have a look at it together, but I think the hon. member will find that that again is a very good case for repatriation payments, and their scale is very generous.

Mr. Davies: But this particular time he fell on a pipe at work.

Mr. HILEY: Inevitably there will be some degree of conflict between a patient's doctor and the State Government Insurance Office, but again I remind the Committee that Table I shows that of 59,189 claims during the year only 944 \Vere rejected. Of that number rejected, three of the InJUries happened outside Queensland and in 109 cases the applicant was not a worker. The medical facts do not matter when the appli­cant is not a worker. So it goes on. If the hon. member studies the table, he will see that it is just not right to say that the office is embarking on a general campaign of rejection. The· figures give the lie to that claim.

Mr. Walsh: They have a right to go to the magistrate, too, for a final decision.

Mr. HILEY: Exactly, Where there is con­flict between the two that cannot be resolved, the appeal provisions lie. Both people can go before the magistrate and, if the magis­trate accepts the evidence of the claimant's own doctor, the claim is allowed in his favour.

Finally, the hon. member for Cook raised the matter of widows of men who were draw­ing miners' pensions. If the hon. member studies the table he will find that the £300 limit to a widow is now being increased to £660. Of that, the £50 advanced for medical expenses out of the £300 is now increased to £100 advanced out of the £660. The balance of that amount is drawn by weekly payments, which used to be £2 10s. but which are now being increased to £3 3s. a week. I think I would be right in saying that miners' widows, in comparison with the general run of widows, are extremely well treated. The figure may not be as high as the hon. mem­ber would like to see it, or as high as I should like to see it, but at least miners' widows are the best-treated widows of all and there is a substantial improvement in both the maxi­mum allowance they can draw and the advance they can get for medical expenses under that totaL

The hon. member spoke of disability pay­ments for fractures and suggested that his local orthopaedic doctor gives too low a rate. I must confess that that is one I have not met before. My experience of ortho­paedic men is that in the main they can open their mouths rather wide.

Mr. Adair: Not this one.

Mr. HILEY: I gathered that from what the hon. member said. I cannot give an answer off the cuff, but I will have a look at the problem and see how it can best be met. Quite obviously we look for the best-qualified man in the locality. If this man is recognised as the best orthopaedic man in Cairns, naturally we look to him. After all, you do not ordinarily go to a general practitioner if a specialist in the field is available. I can see the problem if there is only one in the area. If his measure is commonly low, per­haps it is a matter that we might be able to

2054 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

cure in reverse. Just as we have had to say to some doctors, "You are being too gener­ous", we might have to say to this one, "It would not matter if you eased your con­sideration and if you were a bit more helpful to the claimants."

Mr. Wallace: The main difficulty arises when the injured person shows no apparent improvement after four or five or six weeks. We be·lieve that such a person should have access to a top specialist as people in the metropolitan area have. The hon. member for Cook will know of one case which dragged on for 18 months. I tried to get the man to Brisbane. Eventually his leg had to be amputated. The matter could have been decided in the first fortnight, or he could have been brought to Brisbane within four or five weeks and the decision made. As it was. it went on and on.

Mr. HILEY: Did you write to me on it?

Mr. Wallace: My word, I brought it up. I have spoken about it here several times.

Mr. HILEY: This is hardly the best way to deal with these matters-to save up these cases till the· odd occasion when Parliament is dealing with compensation. Heavens above, there is a staff on hand. This is a matter of administration.

Mr. Wallace: We do not save them up. There have bee-n many similar cases.

Mr. Adair: I have had several cases.

Mr. HILEY: Send me a letter on them and I will be glad to have them investigated.

I repeat that I am very pleased with the interest shown by so many members, and I commend the measure to the Committee.

Motion (Mr. Hiley) agreed to. Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Hiley, read a first time.

LAND BILL

RESUMPTION OF COMMITTEE

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Taylor, Clayfield, in the chair.)

Debate resumed from 22 November (see p. 1885).

Clause 126-Extension of Application of s. 125-

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (12.28 p.m.): I think I indicated earlier that I must object to every clause in the Bill that concedes the right to convert any Crown tenure to free­hold, and I expect the Committee generally to register its view in a division.

This clause specifically provides that the provisions of the previous section shall apply to prickly-pear selections and prickly-pear development selections held under the

repealed Acts and subsisting at the com­mencement of this Act. In other words, the freeholding principle contained in Section 125 applies to this section also, and consequently I must oppose it and intend to call "Divide".

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (12.29 p.m.): Briefly, I agree with the hon. member for Bundaberg on his interpretation of land mat­ters, but before I commit the Opposition on this clause I should like an explanation from the Minister. It is true that the provisions of Section 125 which, of course, include free­hold provisions, are to apply to prickly-pear selections and prickly-pear development selec­tions held under the repealed Acts and sub­sisting at the commencement of this Act.

It occurred to me that those provisions may apply to particular leases that are now in the process of freeholding under an Act passed by the Moore Government. If that is so and if it is merely reviving contracts already in existence, I feel that the Opposition cannot take any action to repudiate contracts entered into with Crown lessees by a previous Government. If it introduces a new principle of freeholding, I agree with the hon. member that it should be opposed. But if it merely ratifies an existing contract made between Crown tenants and a former Government, f do not think that either the hon. member for Bundaberg or the Opposition would wish to do anything deterimental to that contract. l shall be interested to hear the Minister's explanation.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (12.31 p.m.): I am delighted to hear the hon. member for Warrego speak in this vein, because his remarks show a common-sense approach to this matter.

The clause relates to contracts for free­holding that were entered into 30 or 40 years ago under the Prickly Pear Land Acts, and it is included merely for the purpose of collecting rents and preserving conditions attaching to that tenure. The Prickly Pear Land Acts are deemed to remain alive in that particular only until the end of the period specified. They will then lapse and there will be no need for them. Some future Minister for Public Lands will delete the provision because it will then have no further application. As a matter of fact, that is very clearly explained in Clause 4 (2) (d).

I think I have appealed successfully to the hon. member for Warrego. I have said before that I respect his principles absolutely, and in his position I should do exactly as he is doing. However, he has nailed the Opposition's freeholding colours to the mast and I appeal to him not to divide the Com­mittee needlessly and keep us here for hours and hours on the administrative details that must be written into the Bill. For example. earlier we dealt with a clause that related merely to the fact that an instrument of freehold title could not issue until the development or improvement conditions had

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER) Land Bill 2055

been complied with. It did not initiate any new freeholding principle; it was simply the method by which it was being done. It laid down one of the conditions and provided that one could not get a title deed without complying \'Vith it. The Committee \vas divided on that clause, but it did not initiate any freeholding action. This clause does not initiate any freeholding action. It preserves something that is in existence-both the rights and obligations of people who began a freeholding process 30 or 40 years ago.

Mr. Dufficy: Will you give the Committee an undertaking that Clause 126 does not introduce any new freeholding conditions, but merely preserves existing contracts?

Mr. FLETCHER: I give that assurance unreservedly.

Mr. W ALSH (Bundaberg) (12.34 p.m.): I appreciate the need to get an explanation of these matters, particularly when a clause provides for specific tenures being converted to perpetual lease or freehold tenure. Clause 126 does not identify specifically leases of particular types that may have been varied or brought under different tenures. It refers to prickly-pear selections and prickly-pear development selections. I am quite satisfied if the Minister puts it on record in this Chamber that there is in fact a contract entered into by a Government prior to 1932 to freehold these tenures--

Mr. Ewan: There is.

Mr. W ALSH: The hon. member for Roma is not the Minister. As a former Labour Government respected existing contracts relating to agricultural farms when it amended the Act in 1932-1933, there can be no objection to the Government's now carrying on that protection, as I said earlier.

If I might make an observation on the Minister's second point, it is that when he seeks to tender advice to this side of the Chamber-if that applies to me, too--l do not intend to take that advice from him because my experience of proceedings in this Chamber has been that when the Minister sat in Opposition and when he felt he should identify himself with any challenge to the Government of the day, he and those with him did not hesitate to call "Divide". I do not propose to put myself in the position of having it said by somebody at some time that I did not record a vote against the freeholding principle. As far as I am concerned, the only way of showing that you are against it is to get your name in the records as being against it. How many times have I seen the Premier, when Leader of the Opposition, place the heat on Labour Governments in the past by referring to past division lists when it suited the point of view of the then Opposition.

I am very sorry to say it, Mr. Taylor, but .I shall remain here, if necessary, till daylight to speak on Clause 385, because it contains an extremely vital principle which will necessitate my remaining here.

Clause 126, as read, agreed to. Clause 127-Perpetual lease selections-

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (12.37 p.m.): I like drawing attention to these points. The marginal note to this clause relates to Section 104 of the 1910 Act. As I have said on previous occasions when debating the Bill, the marginal note does not neces­sarily convey that some new principle has not been written into the clause. That goes for many other clauses, too. This clause deals with perpetual-lease selections generally. True, provision was made in Section 104 of the 1910 Act, and in an earlier Act. It goes right back to the 1880's, but I should like to draw the Minister's attention to Paragraph (b) of Subclause (3). This allows of the unimproved value being determined in the first instance by the Minister or the court, as the case may be.

I think the Minister will agree that that is a new departure. It is, as I see it. There is no reference that I can see in the marginal note other than to Section 104 of the 1916 Act and I do not think the Minister will find that part in Section 104. If this is justifiable, since it is a new principle that has been written in, all I want is some explanation as to the necessity for the new method.

Mr. Dufficy: What is the clause you are referring to?

Mr. WALSH: It is paragraph (b) of Subclause (3 ), on page 120 of the Bill. It reads-

"in the case of a perpetual lease selection the lease whereof was issued otherwise than pursuant to this Part, the unimproved capital value as determined by the Minister or the Court, as the case may be."

I do not know which legal authority we have to take notice of in this Assembly. The hon. member for Roma sets himself up here as an authority and says, "This is a provision that is in the 1959 Act." If I have a document before me which shows in the marginal note that it is related to Section 104 of the 1910 Act, I am more inclined to take notice of what I have here and what is in the 1910 Act than of the hon. member.

Mr. Ewarn interjected.

Mr. W ALSH: The hon. member is giv­ing these references as he sees them. The various notes in the margin refer to tlte different Acts. As far as I am concerned the Minister has to explain these things.

The other point that might interest the hon. member for Roma and the Minister is that Subclause (4) provides-

"The annual rent for the second and each succeeding rental period thereafter shall be determined by the Court at a sum equal to two pounds ten slrillings per centum of the unimproved capital value

2056 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

of the land as if it were held in fee­simple at the date of the commencement of the rental period in question."

Here we have an admission from the Government that it expects perpetual leases to be valued for rental purposes at the same value as ordinary freehold tenures. Is that not in conformity with what has been said over and over again in the Chamber, that is, that tl:re value of the perpetual lease is equal to that of freehold?

Let me draw to the attention of the hon. member for Roma, who is so interested in this point, that whatever other provisions there may be in any other part of the Bill relating to the conversion of the various types of leasehold tenure to freehold-! think tl:re hon. member will have noticed that it is necessary to convert certain of these leaseholds to agricultural farms before converting them to freehold-there is speci­fic provision in this clause that the lease shall not include a covenant entitling the lessee to a deed of grant in fee simple. I draw attention to that point, because it shows the machinery that is required before a lessee can get to the point of converting his particular type of leasel:rold tenure into freehold. That is why in every one of these clauses it is particularly necessary that atten­tion should be given to the wording. It varies so much in the various clauses. I should like to hear from the Minister just what is the justification for this particular principle.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (12.43 p.m.): I take the opportunity now, rather than wl:ren we are dealing with later clauses, to make some comments on perpetual lease. I make it clear that I am in no way binding the Opposition to my views on this matter. I am speaking personally, giving my per­sonal views on perpetual lease. The time has arrived to disabuse the minds of certain hon. members opposite who think that the only principle that we, on this side, object to is the principle of freeholding. As far as I personally am concerned, I object also to perpetual leases in excessively large areas for the obvious reason that for security of tenure there is no difference at all between perpetual lease and freehold tenure. Surely nothing could be more secure than a lease in perpetuity. Strangely enough, there are people in the community, although pos­sibly not in this Chamber, who still believe that a perpetual lease is a lease for 99 years. Of course, that is ridiculous. Per­petual lease means exactly what it says-a lease in perpetuity. If a perpetual lease for 10,000 acres is granted in an area where possibly 5,000 acres would be a living area, up to a point 5,000 acres is alienated-not from the Crown, because the Crown can exercise a right or jurisdiction by way of rent-from subdivision. As with freehold the lease prevents the land becoming avail­able for closer settlement unless tl:re Crown decides to resume it.

Let there be no mistake about my attitude as an individual, not as the spokesman for my party. I object to excessive areas being granted under perpetual lease just as I object to excessive areas being granted under free­hold tenure. \X/hen I express those viev;s I am in fairly good company, because the late Sir William Payne said in his report-

"When Queensland obtained self-government in 1859 . . "

and that is going back a long way, prior to the advent of Labour, anyway-

" ... Parliament early decided against the wholesale alienation of the Public Estate, although the purchase of freehold& by some early pastoralists was permitted. Had extensive free-holding or interminable leases been allowed, the land would have had to be re-purchased later at a high cost when a demand for closer settlement arose."

Mr. Ewan: Unless they subdivide it them­selves.

Mr. DUFFICY: The hon. member and I are on exactly opposite grounds. I ask him to state his case and not to make stupid interjections. Of course anybody c::m sub­divide freehold land, and if he obtains the permission of the Minister he can subdivide perpetual le·ase. Freehold can be subdivided as the owner feels inclined. However, I am not talking about giving selfish people, who may have far in excess of a living area. or far in excess of their needs. the right to subdivide. I am trying-as Sir William Payne pointed out in his report-to reserve to the Crown the right to subdivide land when the interests of the State and the community generally justify some subdivision.

Sir William Payne went a little further when he said-

"As Queensland progressed, the expendi­ture of public funds in the building of harbours, roads, public works and rail­ways, and the enterprise of its citizens in the general development of the State. created much higher land values."

We on this side of the Chamber have argued that point on many occasions, as the hon. member knows.

Sir William Payne continued-"If the lands had to be repurchased

for new settlement, the State, in effect, would have had to pay private persons land values which it had mostly created itself.'"

Therein rests the· kernel of our objection to freehold tenure. As I have said, we on this side of the Chamber are in good com­pany because Sir William Payne is an accep­ted authority on land matters, although I do not agree with all his ideas.

He continued-"All this was prevented by a policy of

terminable leaseholds over grazing lands.'"

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2057

Of course that would prevent it. Then he said-

" Agricultural Farms only were allowed to be freeholded."

The area was not to exceed 2,650 acres. So · here we have a Government whose former Minister made the public statement, "We are prepared, and we intend, to carry out the Payne Report in its entirety." That is what the former Minister for Public Lands said, but, as the result of pressure groups and pressure from interested people outside, the Payne Report in its most salient features has been completely forgotten by this Govern­ment. And now we find provision for the grant in fee simple of 10,000 acres and also of a perpetual lease over the same area. As I will demonstrate when we come to the rele­vant clause, as far as I can see there is noth­ing in the Bill, either, to prevent a company obtaining a freehold tenure of 10,000 acres. If that is in conformity with the Payne Report, or with common sense, I have yet to be convinced of it.

So I have taken the opportunity under this clause, which deals with perpetual-lease selections, to register my personal objection to the granting of a perpetual lease over an excessively large area.

For the benefit of hon. members opposite who have argued this point on numerous occasions, let me point out that the only difference between perpetual lease and free­hold is that, with perpetual lease, at least the Crown can obtain some return in increased rents for the increased value of the land resulting from public expenditure, as poirlted out in the Payne Report, whereas with freehold the question of rents does not arise. I sincerely hope that hon. members opposite will not talk to me about land tax reimbursing the State, because as a party they are opposed to land tax and they have often said it in their policy speeches.

So, with freehold, the Crown receives noth­ing in return for the expenditure of public money and, if and when resumption is necessary, it must pay an exorbitant figure to resume that land, made so exorbitant by the expenditure of public money that has been provided by the people of Queensland. At least under perpetual-lease tenure there is a reassessment each I 0 years and, if the value of the land has appreciated through the expenditure of public money, the Crown naturally will receive, in its 2 t per cent. or 3 per cent. as the case may be on the capital value of that }aJ?d, an additional figure owing to the appreciatiOn of value. With freehold that is not the case. '

Foolish hon. members opposite who know nothing about it have argued previously that the only secure tenure is a tenure in fee simple. That is ridiculous. There is no difference between the security of tenure of perpetual lease and freehold. In the final analysis there is not any land tenure that is completely and absolutely secure, because the Crown can at any time exercise its right to resume. As Sir William Payne pointed

out, if a policy of perpetual lease or freehold had been engaged in over the years, as has been the case in other States--and it is true that, over a limited period, the New South Wales Government spent £34,000,000 on the resumpiion of freehold land-

Mr. Ewan: You know nothing about it.

Mr. DUFFICY: I know nothing about it?

Mr. Ewan: Yes, you know nothing about it. I can give you the history of it.

Mr. DUFFICY: It is a fact that if this freeholding continues, finally no land will be available for closer settlement. The hon. member for Roma says that I know nothing about it. It is suggested at present under this Bill that areas of 10,000 acres can be freeholded. The hon. member for Roma will not deny that in certain areas of the State 10,000 acres could represent two or three living areas. No-one on the other side of the Chamber would deny that.

Mr. Ewan: You do not know what you are talking about.

Mr. DUFFICY: Very well. Sixty thousand acres in my country represents only one living area. If the Government is consistent and wants to get away from sectional legislation for which it is so famous. Jet it grant tenures in fee simple over living areas, or two to three times in excess of them, throughout the whole of the State, and then tell me how much land will revert to the Crown for the purpose of closer settlement. There will not be any. I have instanced previously areas that were free­holded by previous Governments and that one day some Government will have to resume in the interests of development and of the land-hungry people of Queensland. I know properties in Queensland today the cost of resumption of which would be between £500,000 and £1,000,000.

The hon. member for Roma said that I know nothing about it. If that is so, then Sir William Payne, too, knew nothing about it when he pointed out the dangers of granting perpetual-lease tenure and freehold tenure over areas in this State. He pointed out that eventually the Crown would be purchasing the land from these people at values made possible only by the expenditure of public money. If I, in the arguments that I have advanced, know nothing about it, Sir William Payne also knew nothing about it, and all knowledge on land matters reposes in the hon. member for Roma. I do not think that even his friends on that side of the Chamber would suggest that that was so.

In conclusion, I wish to state that I am not going to speak again on the question of perpetual leases.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Mr. DUFFICY: I think I am entitled to take up my time--

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hen. member said at the beginning of his speech on this clause that he would speak in general

2058 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

terms on the question of perpetual lease and freehold so that it would not be necessary to repeat his arguments on other clauses.

Mr. DUFFICY: In view of your remarks, Mr. Taylor, I think I might be allowed to exercise my right on any Clause, even if the question of perpetual lease--

The CHAIRMAN: So long as it is related to the clause.

Mr. DUFFICY: Yes. I think that I have a perfect right to do that. I thought that on this occasion I was helping the Committee. I said in my opening remarks that there were certain things that I wanted to say about perpetual leases, and I took this opportunity of saying them. With due respect to you, Mr. Taylor, I do not think that I was due for any thanks; but I thank you for thanking me.

Mr. EWAN (Roma) (2.15 p.m.): I was somewhat amazed to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Bundaberg, who undoubtedly is assuming the role of an obstructionist to any legislation emanating from this ·side of the Chamber. It is not a display of ignorance on his part; it is not that he does not know; it is a deliberate attempt to obstruct the business of the Com­mittee. In referring to the marginal note to Clause 127 he deliberately and flagrantly attempted to mislead the Committee. He implied that it is a reference. It is no such thing. It is merely a statement of where the clause came from, and it says, "Perpetual lease selections (1910, s. 104)." It was amen­ded in the 1958 Amendment Act and both must be read in conjunction. He went further and spoke of fee simple in relation to the fixing of rents. He knows very well, as I and every other man who has studied the Land Act knows, that that is in Section 104. Let us look at that section. It says-

"During the first 15 years the annual rent reserved shall be a sum equal to one pound ten shillings per centum ... "

That was amended to £2 10s. in 1958 for new selections, on the advice of Sir William Payne. Subsection (3) says-

"The annual rent for each period of seven years thereafter shall be determined by the Court at a sum equal to one pound ten shillings per centum of the unimproved capital value of the land as if it were held in fee-simple at the date of the commencement of each such period."

The hon. member for Bundaberg endeavoured to mislead the Committee by saying that he wanted to know where we got the authority to include the particular clause in the consoli­dation of the Act. As I said, it was a deliberate attempt to obstruct the business of the Committee.

Mr. Walsh interjected.

Mr. EWAN: You are not going to side­step with me. You have tried over the years and have never succeeded.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. EW AN: Let me deal now with the hon. member for Warrego and say how acutely sympathetic I am with the Opposi­tion because it has in its ranks no hon. members with a knowledge of land matters. The hon. member for Warrego, who is the shadow Minister for Public Lands in case an A.L.P. Government is ever returned again in Queensland, poses as an expert on land matters. I hate poseurs. He has never had any experience either as a worker on a pastoral property in Queensland or as an owner. His only experience has been gained sitting in lounges and talking to people. He was an A.W.U. organiser, and a very good organiser and advocate for the A.W.U., too. But it is just too silly for words that the Australian Labour Party should put him up as an expert to lead the debate on this very important measure.

The hon. member talks about perpetual lease. What he did not tell you, Mr. Taylor, when he endeavoured to discuss the comparative merits of perpetual lease and freehold, was that the action of the Aus­tralian Labour Party brought perpetual lease into disrepute. Let us consider this aspect for a moment. For many years-long before Labour assumed office and during a considerable period that it was in office-the conditions of perpetual lease envisaged a reassessment of rental every fifteen years in accordance with Section 104 of the principal Act. Labour, however, saw fit to practise repudiation. In 1952 they amended the Act to reduce the reassessment period from 15 years to seven years. In Section 104 the period of reassessment was 15 years, but they repudiated it and reduced it to seven years. This Government, in accordance with the provisions of its legislation, has increased the reassessment period to 10 years.

So, in considering the merits of perpetual lease and freehold, let it be remembered that perpetual lease is subject to parliamentary enactment from time to time.

Mr. Dufficy: So is freehold.

Mr. EW AN: It is no such thing, once title is granted, except by resumption or re-purchase. The hon. member should not display further his ignorance. Of course, I sympathise with the hon. member because he and his party do not believe in private ownership. They are socialists; they believe that the State must own everything and the individual nothing.

Let us consider developments in other States of the Commonwealth, particularly in Victoria and New South Wales, where land development far exceeds any develop­ment ever envisaged, let alone carried out, in Queensland, and let us see how sincere the Labour Party were in granting perpetual lease, which the hon. member for Warrego lauds. They would grant the magnificent area of 2,560 acres. That was the maximum area they would give for perpetual lease.

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER) Land Bill 2059

Mr. Dufficy: Who said that? I did not.

Mr. EW AN: I am telling the hon. mem­ber that that was all his party would do.

Mr. Dufficy: I am saying I did not say that.

Mr. EWAN: I did not say the hon. mem­ber did.

Mr. Dufficy: Then what are you talking about?

Mr. EWAN: Has the hon. member a guilty conscience? This Government is pre­pared to grant perpetual lease or freehold, not, as the hon. member for Warrego said, of 10,000 acres, but up to a living area under either of those titles, not exceeding a total area of 10,000 acres. That is where the hon. member for Warrego endeavours to mislead the people of this State.

Mr. Dufficy: I did not mislead anybody. That is exactly what I said.

Mr. EWAN: The hon. member never said any such thing, and he knows it. He says that if we continue to alienate our land by granting freehold, in a number of years we will have no revenue from rent. Of course, that is indicative of his lack of understand­ing of the economy of Queensland.

Mr. Dufficy interjected.

Mr. EWAN: The hon. member had plenty of latitude, and I claim the same latitude as was extended to him.

The CHAffiMAN: Order! The hon. member has made reference to an action of the Chair. I want to make it perfectly clear to the hon. member that, as the hon. member for Warrego indicated at the begin­ning of his remarks that he wished to deal with these matters relating to leasehold versus freehold, I allowed him to proceed for a quarter of an hour and I am allowing the hon. member to reply to his remarks. I trust that advantage will not be taken of my action by attempting to continue a general debate that does not apply strictly to the clause under discussion.

Mr. EWAN: That is my intention. The hon. member for Warrego, in his lack

of understanding of economic problems and simple business methods, does not realise that if a man is granted title in fee simple as has been done in the other States of the Commonwealth, greater development takes place and production increases, with a con­sequent greater economic return to the State. That defeats the hon. member's argument related to the lack of revenue resulting from loss of rent.

Then we come to a classic. He said that if we continue to alienate land, at some future time, perhaps with an increase in population, it will be necessary for us to provide land for people who want it. That

again indicates his complete lack of under­standing of economic problems associated with land settlement. We have had examples in the other States of the Commonwealth where land was required where the Minister administering the Land Act indjcated to people holding large areas that it would be advisable for them to subdivide within a certain time and that, if they did not. the Government would take action. In most instances the action was taken voluntarily. The hon. member went on to say that the land would have to be acquired by the Government at an exorbitant value. Such nonsense surpasses my understanding. The Government would acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of the Land Act at a just value pertaining at the rele­vant time. In accordance with business prac­tice it would subdivide the land and sell it on the fee-simple basis to the incoming tenant for the amount it paid per acre plus survey fees and the cost of the requisites to open it up. The Government would not be out of pocket one penny. All it would have to do would be to float a loan to meet the initial expenditure so that the incoming purchaser could pay the land off over a period of 20, 25, or 30 years in accordance with the conditions laid down at the time. In case the hon. member for Warrego does not know it, Jet me point out that one of the best-ever land settlement schemes in Queensland was carried out on the Jon­daryan estates with my help in its original planning. That shows what can be done by private enterprise. There was not one failure out of a total of 85. The Brisbane Valley area, the area round Marburg, and most of the Darling Downs were settled on the same basis.

Let me appeal to the more responsible members of the Opposition-there may be a few who know a wee bit about this sub­ject-particularly the hon. member for Bundaberg, not to be obstructionists in pre­venting the free passage of this very important legislation.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (2.28 p.m.): My qualifications to speak on this matter are not included in Clause 127. I hope, Mr. Taylor, you will allow me a few seconds to reply to the hon. member for Roma. For lris information let me tell him, through you, that I was born on the land. My father was one of the first settlers in the Upper Burnett. In my early days I was the victim of a particularly bad land­settlen1ent scheme.

Mr. Ewan: When was that? About 1920?

Mr. DUFFICY: Seeing that the hon. member wants to know something about it, I point out to him that my father became a settler in the Upper Burnett in 1895, which is going back a long way. I was born on tlrat land settlement. I spent the whole of my early life associated with land and stock. I challenge the hon. member to exceed my knowledge of either land or stock.

2060 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Australian Labour Party Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. DUFFICY: I do not want to go any further than that because it is not a matter included in the clause.

The hon. member for Roma attacked me because I said that sooner or later some Government in this State would have to resume either freehold or perpetual-lease land at an exorbitant value. I have some information to support my remarks. I have l:rere a publication from the Australian Institute of Management, Brisbane Division, in which this is said-

"In Victoria and New South Wales where freehold tenures are in the majority, both States have found it necessary, in achieving the intensity of land use and settle~ent which is serving them so well,

and that is exactly my point-". . . to resume for subdivision large

areas of freehold lands." Mr. Ewan: There aren't any large areas in

Victoria.

Mr. DUFFICY: The hon. member can argue with these people, who are expert in these matters, although he says I am not.

The article contiues-"From 1905 to 1959 New South Wales

has acquired 7,112,623 acres at a cost of £34,718,000 0 0 ."

Mr. Ewan: That is all right.

Mr. DUFFICY: Of course it is all right. The point I made was that that £34,000,000 has been made up of money spent publicly on the provision of roads and water facilities.

Mr. Ewan: For which those people paid their taxes.

Mr. DUFFICY: And for which every other section of the community paid its taxes. That is my point. Every other section of the community paid its taxes, but the only people who benefited as a result of the pay­ment of taxes by all sections of the com­munity were the people who had that land on freehold or perpetual-lease tenure. They benefited at the public expense-everybody contributed. That must be obvious to every intelligent person even if it is not obvious to the hon. member for Roma, because land values are directly related to the amount of public money spent and the community effort. If the hon. member needs any veri­fication of that, it is only necessary for him to go to the Gold Coast. The amount of public money that has been spent there, and the community effort that has taken place, has tremendously appreciated the value of land. That applies in the western parts of the State, through the provision of improved water facilities on stock routes made available at the expense of the public. The hon. mem­ber must not forget that. Improved roads have the same effect.

(Time expired.)

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Before calling on the next speaker, I point out that Clause 127 deals strictly with perpetual-lease selec­tions and rentals associated with them. I want to hear only about perpetual-lease selections.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (2.33 p.m.): I am glad you made that remark, Mr. Taylor, because you anticipated me. I have no inten­tion of repeating the colossal ignorance of the hon. member for Roma on this important subject.

It is quite obvious that the present Govern­ment ever since its election some five years ago, 'has been definitely oppos~d and h<;Jstile to this form of tenure, and IS determmed, wherever possible, to attack anybody who is unfortunate enough to have a perpetual lease. This is the poor man's way of selecting land, but anyone who has a perpetual lease is off­side with the Government and is treated as a hostile resident in the community. That is unfortunate. The Government was barely 12 months in office, if I remember correctly, when it increased the rental on perpetual leases by 40 per cent. That was not done as a result of new valuations or fluctuations in the market price; it was one sweeping move. All land thrown open to perpetual lease bore a charge of 2! per cent. on the capital value, instead of the 1 t per cent. charged by the previous Government.

Despite all the Government's crocodile tears and their cries, "We will be friends with the man on the land; we will help him", they brought in legislation that taxed him and prevented him from selling out. They introduced a sectional tax that stopped him transferring perpetual leases; but they provided no hindrance and imposed no charge on him if he sold freehold. The big man, the man with plenty of capital who can afford it, is allowed to freehold and in that way he is released from all conditions attached to the land. The poor man, the battler who cannot raise the money to buy his land, is compelled in perpetuity to observe occupational conditions and all the other conditions he originally agreed to. If, through some fortuitous circumstance, he becomes wealthy overnight, he can buy him­self out of those conditions. The poor unfortunate man, like the hon. member for Roma, who perhaps sometimes sincerely believes in what he preaches when he rises and says, "We are friends of the man on the land"--

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. BURROWS: Before I was provoked by the silly remark of the hon. member for Roma, I intended to raise once again my objection to the imposition of the 2t per cent. instead of 1 t per cent. on the unfor­tunate landholder. I have a perpetual lease but it does not apply to me because my property was selected prior to the enactment; but I find 1 t per cent. enough to pay without having it increased by 40 per cent., as this Government has done. I am glad I do

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2061

not have to suffer that through the antagon­ism of the present Government to the holders of perpetual leases. I sincerely hope the Minister, even at this stage, will recon· sider the clause, and will examine his conscience and ask mmsen whether he conscientiously believes that the 2t per cent. is justified.

I know it is too much to ask him to relieve the holder of a perpetual lease of the residential or occupational condition, but even that must be reviewed. The provision has been in the Act for many years. I suppose it is one of the oldest in the legislation. We have passed the horse­and-buggy days.

Mr. Ewan: The 15 years, too, for reassessment.

Mr. BURROWS: The hon. member for Roma is again talking of something he knows nothing about. The man must live on the land. Although he can submit a case, he has to go into town to do it, and he must either be a Philadelphia lawyer or employ someone to do it for him. If he wants to go away and earn a few pounds so that he can come back and develop his land, he has to make application and go through a lot of red tape. I cannot see that there is much to be gained by com­pelling a man to stay on the land. Possibly he is married and has children who have to attend school and there is no school in the locailty. Under the policy of this Government as it applies to large areas, there will be fewer schools in the country than there are today.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the hon. member to confine himself to the clause under discussion.

Mr. BURROWS: This is most applicable and very vital. Closer settlement in Queens­land must be retained. If the land is thrown open in large areas each will have only one family living on it, and consequently there will not be enough people to warrant the provision of local amenities such as schools, recreation facilitie'S, electrification, and so on. They are things to be considered by a sympathetic Government, but they are not being given any attention by this Govern­ment in its rash and extravagant policy of handing out land in very large parcels to the favoured few.

The Minister knows that under the con­ditions of occupation a man is denied the right to move to a centre where there is a school, and he has to provide some means of getting his children 15 or 20 miles to school each morning. In these days of motor transport, that is not very far to live from a farm and still be able to work it.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. mem­ber must keep to the clause.

Mr. BURROWS: Occupational terms are definitely covered by this clause, Mr. Taylor. I should like to ask the Minister to con­sider modifying that requirement, as well as the question concerning the 2t per cent.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (2.42 p.m.): I am a little discouraged and, at the same time, a little encouraged, too. I made a few general remarks at the beginning in the hope that we could arrive at some workman-like basis of approach to this Bill. I think that the hon. member for Warrego very appropriately approached it on the basis of, "Let us get this argument about freehold and leasehold of large areas, which is some­thing on which we are bound to disagree, off our chests."

At the same time, the hon. member for Bundaberg told us, with all the disagreeable force of which he is capable, that he is going to insist on his rights as a member of the Opposition and interpose and divide the Committee and do everything that he can to hold up this matter. He described it as a matter of principle; he used the word "principle" about four times in his short speech. This is not a matter of principle. Surely we can arrive at some basis and decide that we do not like freeholding or we do not like leasehold tenure in large areas, so that we say once only why we take those views. I am quite prepared to nail my colours to the mast, and I hope that hon. members opposite will do the same so that there is no need to argue on every single administrative clause of the Bill that has nothing to do with the principle on which we differ.

I am discouraged by the fact that the hon. member for Bundaberg, a former Minister for Public Lands, wanted to know why there is this method of arriving at the unimproved value for the purpose of striking a rate. That provision has been there for years. It was there when he was the Minister, and he should know all about it. I hardly think it is fair to ask me to explain to him why it is there when it was there when he was the Minister, and has been administered that way through the years. In 1958 the Government introduced legislation that renewed leases and gave a right of appe-al to the Land Court. That was there in his time.

Mr. Walsh: I have not raised that question.

Mr. FLETCHER: The hon. member has.

Mr. Walsh: I have done nothing of the sort.

Mr. FLETCHER: He read out the clause relating to it.

Mr. Walsh: You stick to what I said.

Mr. FLETCHER: It is fairly difficult.

Mr. Walsh: I made a short speech. Surely you can understand what I said.

Mr. FLETCHER: What was it?

2062 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Mr. Walsh: You compare the amendment of Section 104 of the 1910 Act with this clause.

Mr. FLETCHER: It is not a matter of amending the 1910 Act. This is a simple matter of referring what formerly was in the Act with regard to valuations and what was in the 1958 Act to perpetual lease.

Mr. Walsh: That was in your time, not mine.

Mr. FLETCHER: Well, it is there, and I am not going to waste the time of the Committee going through it all again.

I understand the point of view of the hon. member for Warrego. Indeed, I con­cede that at the back of my mind I have some of the same worries as he has. But the Government has evaluated the danger of freeholding in large areas, if one regards 10,000 acres as a large area-I do-as against perpetual lease, and we have weighed the advantages and disadvantages to the community in an attempt to give security. Because of the intangible something in the minds of men on the land, we hold the opinion that it is a good thing to do. It gives them a sense of security and a willing­ness to borrow money and spend it, knowing that it is secure for themselves, their families, and those who come after them. I admit that I, too, have worries about aggregations, and I said at the introductory stage or the second-reading stage of the Bill that some day, when the scheme gains momentum and a good deal of land has been freeholded, or is in the process of being freeholded, somebody will have to take his courage in his hands and impose a limit on aggregations. I also said that that time has not yet come. The scheme has only just started. It may be suggested that I should take my courage in my hands and do something about it now. However, in all truth, this has only reached the stage where we are wondering what we should do. Because a dangerous situation has not developed yet, we have not done anything about it. Expressing a personal point of view, I say that somebody-it could be me-will have to do something about it. Again speaking personally, not on behalf of the Government, I am quite willing to be quoted as having said that I am not against land tax. If one puts one's hand to the freeholding plough, one has also to take into account, if one believes that aggregations may be a bad thing, that land tax should be retained at least as a weapon against it.

I thank you for your latitude, Mr. Taylor. I think you realise, as I do, that it is better to get these differences of political principle off our minds and say what we think about them, and then proceed to deal with the many things that have been in the Act for years and years. The Bill contains a few new principles, and I expect that hon. mem­bers opposite will state their views on them. I do not expect them to share my views,

and I do not blame them for not doing so. That is their job. If I were in Opposition, it would be my job. It seems to me that we should not concern ourselves unduly with principles that have been accepted for years; we should deal w·ith the new priilciples that are included in the Bill and which are alien to the policies of hon. members opposite. Those are the matters that I think are pro­perly open for consideration in a debate of this kind.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (2.49 p.m.): There was a debate on this subject, and I referred to two particular principles in Clause 127. The Minister has not attempted to reply to either of the points that I raised. I may have made many other comments about those two principles, but at no stage did I say that the right of appeal was con­tained in either Clause 127 or Section 104. The hon. member for Roma quoted part of Section 104 of the 1910 Act.

Mr. Ewan: You read the lot. I did not want to waste time.

Mr. WALSH: I do not want to read it all. I am making my speech.

Paragraph (b) of Subclause 3 of Clause 127 reads-

"in the case of a perpetual lease selec­tion the lease whereof was issued otherwise than pursuant to this Part, the unimproved capital value as determined by the Minister or the Court, as the case may be."

I want the Minister and the hon. member for Roma to tell me where the new principle of the Minister determining the unimproved capital value appears in Section 104 of the 1910 Act, or in any amending Act. If the Minister does that I will be quite happy about it. I have here a copy of the 1910 Act, which has annexed to it all the amendments during my time as Minister for Public Lands in the various years 1929, 1932, 1936, 1937, 1941, 1943, and so on.

Mr. Ewan: Read Subsection 3 of Section 104.

Mr. W ALSH: That shows how the hon. member for Roma thinks. I will read it for his benefit.

Mr. Ewan: It is your answer.

Mr. WALSH: The hon. member says, "It is your answer." It reads-

"The annual rent for each period of (15 years) thereafter shall be determined by the Court (at a sum equal to £1 10s. per centum of the unimproved capital value of the land as if it were held in fee­simple at the date of commencement of each such period.)."

Can he find any reference to the Minister in that? Of course he cannot. I object to the Minister getting up here and trying to by­pass points I have made and, in effect, saying that I have brought in other matters which I have never at any stage in my brief remarks referred to. I put it to the Minister

Land Bill [29 NovEMBER] Land Bill 2063

now to show me where that comes in. If it comes in in some subsequent amending Act, that is all right-! will be quite happy with that-but the marginal note to this clause says that it relates to the 1910 Act. I realise, of course, that an amending Act becomes part of the principal Act.

On this clause I do not want to enter into a discussion on the relative merits of per­petual lease and freehold. I can probably do that eight clauses hence. I do not want to waste <;~ny of my time in discussing that particular matter, but I should like to draw to the attention of the Committee that all land in the Australian Capital Territory at Canberra under the Menzies-McEwen Government is held on perpetual lease. Can hon. members opposite tell me why?

The hon. member for Roma proceeded to judge the capacity of any member of this Committee to debate these principles on the basis of whether he was at some time or another settled on the land.

Mr. Ewan: You owned a cane farm.

Mr. W ALSH: That is perfectly true and I hope I know more about these matters than does the hon. member for Roma, who made all his wealth as a result of Labour Government policies.

Mr. Ewan: You held a Crown lease, too.

Mr. W ALSH: I hope, in saying that, the hon. member is not reflecting on the President or any other member of the Land Court because, after all, if any of those gentlemen at any time held any kind of Crown lease, I do not know that that would enable him to--

Mr. Ewan: Now you are reflecting on them.

Mr. WALSH: I am taking the right to reflect on them if I have a basis to do so, but the hon. member's point is that because somebody has not owned a pig farm or some­thing else that he himself may have owned, he is not competent to argue this matter.

Another thing the hon. member for Roma said in connection with perpetual lease-and it was perfectly true-was that perpetual lease, as compared with freehold, was subject to Parliament from time to time. How true! Then he referred to repudiation. Where does the repudiation come in? The hon. member for Port Curtis has pointed out that this Government-the so-called country man's Government-is repudiating all the leases in increasing the rental from £1 10s. to £2 10s.

Mr. Ewan: Only on new tenures. Mr. W ALSH: I challenge the hon. member

for Roma to show that at any stage a Labour Government repudiated this principle relating to perpetual lease. It is in the 1910 Act, away back prior to a Labour Government, and it remained in the Land Act as such until this Government altered it from £1 10s. to £2 10s.

Mr. Ewan: What about the 15-year re­appraisal?

Mr. WALSH: I am not denying that one. The hon. member talks about repudiation. If he argues that the reduction of the period of rental determination from 15 to 10 years was a form of repudiation, he must accept that the other one is, too. I am far from being an obstructionist. As a matter of fact, hon. members were prepared to take the hat round last night and collect enough money for my fare to Bundaberg on condition that I did not come back until Friday night. But I refused to be bribed.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (2.57 p.m.): I think the hon. member should take the trouble to find these things out for himself. What he has been arguing is not material at all. Legislation introduced by the Hon. T. A. Foley, when Minister for Public Lands, provided-

"If the Minister grants the application, he shall determine-

The terms and conditions of the lease of the new selection including the rent to be charged for the first period of the term of the lease ... "

With regard to the hon. member's second point, that has been done ever since the tenure was introduced.

Mr. Walsh: 30s. to £2 10s.?

Mr. FLETCHER: The hon. member did not mention that. I am afraid he is getting very hard to understand. There have been so many words in such a confusion of con­text. Is his point the difference between 1! and 2!?

Mr. Walsh: I said that in reply to the hon. member for Roma.

Mr. FLETCHER: I cannot be expected to listen to the argument between the hon. member for Bundaberg and the hon. member for Roma. May I ask through you, Mr. Taylor, what is the point with regard to the H and 2!?

Mr. Ewan: He does not know.

Mr. FLETCHER: No, he does not know. I think the case can rest at that.

Clause 127, as read, agreed to. Clause 128, as read, agreed to. Clause 129-Conversion of

tenures-existing

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (2.58 p.m.): We opened the debate today on Clause 126, which, in effect, says that the orovisions of Clause 125 shall apply to the tenure-s enumerated in Clause 126. I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that Clause 129 provides-

"The conversion pursuant to this section of a perpetual lease prickly-pear selection or perpetual lease prickly-pear develop­ment selection shall not affect or prejudice

2064 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

howsoever any mortgage, charge, sub­lease, easement, agreement, order or other encumbrance, estate or interest subsisting over, upon or in the selection."

That is fair enough. It is possible to pro­tect those things, but in converting them the following applies-

" ... every perpetual lease prickly-pear selection and every perpetual lease prickly­pear development selection held pursuant to the repealed Acts and subsisting at the commencement of this Act is hereby con­verted to and declared to be a perpetual lease selection under and subject to the provisions of this Act and the instrument of lease of every such selection shall be construed accordingly."

I want the Minister to tell members of the Committee whether some of these tenures would be for a specific period of 30, or 40 years, or as the case may be. If there are such tenures that provide for a period of 30 or 40 years, is it any good having--

Mr. Fletcher: It is perpetual lease.

Mr. WALSH: The Minister does not say that in the section. He says that every one of them shall have the right to be converted to perpetual lease.

Mr. Fletcher: Ordinary perpetual lease.

Mr. W ALSH: Yes, they shall be converted. I am only seeking information.

Mr. Fletcher: You have it now.

Mr. W ALSH: There again we have the Minister's word for it; we can accept his assurance.

Mr. Fletcher: Couldn't you read through the clause?

Mr. WALSH: Yes. I wanted the Minister's version, not mine. I am not here as the interpreter of the clause; I want the Minister to give the interpretation. I am not sitting on the Government benches and I am not empowered to give the final interpretation of the clause. Consequently, I look to the Minister for an interpretation. It is all right if the Minister agrees that they have the same security, and the same tenure, and it is only a question of transferring it and giving it another name.

Mr. Fletcher: I give that assurance. Clauses 129 as read, agreed to. Clauses 130 and 131, as read, agreed to. Clause 132-Conversion of certain

tenures--

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (3.2 p.m.): The hon. member for Warrego may wish to speak on this clause, and I think I will be more interested in his explanation than that of the hon. member for Roma since it again provides for the conversion of certain tenures. In this case it provides that-

"Every development grazing homestead and every prickly-pear development graz­ing homestead held pursuant to the

repealed Acts and subsisting at the com­mencement of this Act is hereby converted to and declared to be a grazing home­stead under and subject to the provisions of this Act and the instrument of lease of every such selection shall be construed accordingly."

I will not have it said that I did not raise this point. I want to know whether, in the conversion of this one to the other, and because of the new title, any one of these altered types of tenure will be in any way disadvantaged. It is all very well for the

·Minister to say, "Go along and be peaceful and we will get this over," but the other night, when some hon. member raised a point, the Minister said, that it was rather late, and he should have raised the matter on a previous clause. When we get to Clause 300-and-something I do not want the Minister to say, "Why didn't you raise this question on Clause 132?"

Mr. Fletcher: It is only a matter of a couple of tenures being abolished because they are unnecessary, and all rights are preserved.

Clause 132 as read, agreed to. Clauses 133 and 134, as read, agreed to. Clause 135-Perpetual lease selections-

Mr. DUFFICY (Wan·ego) (3.3 p.m.): I think I can get this matter over very quickly. The clause provides for the conversion of certain selections to freehold or perpetual­lease tenure. I am opposed to the clause and I intend to divide the Committee on it. I have nothing more to say.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (3.4 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 126, lines 19 and 20, omit the words-

The Irrigation Areas (Land Settle­ment) Acts, 1933 to 1961,'

and insert in lieu thereof the words-The Irrigation Areas (Land Settle­ment) Act of 1962,'."

It is purely a change in designation.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is: "That the words to be omitted stand part of the clause."

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (3.5 p.m.): Mr. Taylor--

Tbe CHAIRMAN: I am not putting tlre clause. I am putting the amendment. I will next put the clause as amended.

Mr. WALSH: But I want to raise the point whether, by voting for the amendment, we are voting in any way for the principles contained in the clause.

Tbe CHAIRMAN: No.

Mr. WALSH: I know it is only altering the year from 1961 to 1962.

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2065

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. mem­ber knows as well as I do what the question before the Committee is.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: Now the hon. mem­ber may speak on the clause if he wishes to.

Mr. WALSH: No, I am content now that nobody has risen to speak.

Question-That Clause 135, as amended, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 31 Mr. Armstrong , Bjelke-Peter~en ,, Camm , Campbell , Carey , Chalk

Dr. Delamothe Mr. Dewar

Ewan Fletcher Gaven Harrison Hart

, Hi!ey , Hodges .. Hooper ., Hughe:>

Mr. Baxter Bennett

.. Burrows

NOES, 21

Mr. Knox ., Lonergan , Low ., Munro , Pilbeam , Pizzey

Richter , Smith

Sullivan Tooth Wharton Windsor

Tellers: Mr. Gilmore , Houghton

Mr. Lloyd , Marsden , Melloy , Thackeray , Tucker , Wallace , Walsh

Tellers: Mr. Brornley

Davies Dean Donald Dufficy Graharn Gunn Hanlon Houston Inch , Sherrington

Mr. Nick!in Hewitt

, Row , Rae " Herbert

PAIRS

Mr. Duggan , Byrne , Mann , Newton , O'Donnell

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 136-Determination of

proved value-unim-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER Minister for Public Lands (3.12 p.m.): I move

(Cunningham­and Irrigation) the following

amendment-"On page 126, lines 40 and 41, omit

the words------The Irrigation Areas (Land Settle­ment) Acts, 1933 to 1961,'

and insert in lieu thereof the words­The Irrigation Areas (Land Settle­ment) Act of 1962,'."

This is similar to the previous amendment, and it is moved for the same reason.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to. Clause 136, as amended, agreed to. Clause 137-Settlement farm leases-

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (3.13 p.m.): I do not propose to speak on this clause, but I intend to divide the Committee on it.

I shall reserve any general remarks that I have to make till the debate on Clause 139, but I wish to indicate that I am opposing this clause.

Mr. WAISH (Bundaberg) (3.14 p.m.): As this clause contains the principle of free­holding of Crown leases, I register my objection and agree with the hon. member for Warrego that the Committee should be divided.

Question-That Clause 137, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

Mr. Armstrong , Camm , Carey , Chalk

Dr. Delarnothe Mr. Dewar

Ewan Fletcher Gaven Gilmore Harrison Hart Hiley Hodges Hooper Houghton

Mr. Baxter , Bromley

Burrows Davies Dean Donald Dufficy Graharn Gunn Hanlon Houston Inch

AYES, 30

NOES, 21

PAIRS

Mr. Hughes , Knox

Low Munro Pi! beam Pizzey Richter S:nith Sullivan Tooth Wharton Windsor

Tellers: Mr. Bielke-Petersen

, Campbell

Mr. Lloyd , Marsden ., Melloy ., Sherrington , Thackeray ., Tucker , Walsh

Tellers: Mr. Bennett , \Vallace

Mr. N icklin Mr. Duggan , Hewitt , Byrne , Row , Mann ,. Rae .. Newton , Herbert , O'Donnell

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 138, as read, agreed to. Clause 139-Grazing selections-

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (3.20 p.m.): I do not think I need delay the Committee very long on this clause, but I think it is an important one as it deals with grazing selections and includes the two principles that I have mentioned previously, namely, freehold tenure and perpetual-lease tenure. It also sets out that the lessee of any graz­ing selection which does not exceed 10,000 acres in area can apply for either of those tenures.

I want to repeat that I am opposed to both perpetual lease and freehold under those conditions, and despite what the hon. mem­ber for Roma might attempt to claim­that he is the only one in the Committee who is competent to speak on land matters­and despite the fact that he cast reflections on the ability--

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Has not the hon. member already dealt sufficiently with that matter?

2066 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Mr. DUFFICY: In fairness to myself, I should like to quote something that is rele­vant to this clause. The hon. member sug­gested that we on this side of the Com­mittee knew nothing about these matters. and that any comparison between perpetuai lease and freehold was too stupid for words. However, in my remarks I find myself in very good company, that of the late Sir William Payne, from whose report I shall quote. He says-

"In converting tenures to Perpetual Lease or Freehold an area limitation may not always operate in an equitable manner, but it is considered to be the only practical means of administration."

He goes on further to say-"A Perpetual Lease over an area greater

than 5,000 acres in the good rainfall belt would be an undue concession for one individual and is not recommended."

So, despite what the hon. member for Roma might say about my previous statements relative to freehold and leasehold, I find myself in very good company, in fact, in the company of the very man whose recom­mendations the Government said at one stage it would carry out to the letter.

Mr. EW AN: I rise to a point of order. We did not say that at all. That statement of the hon. member for Warrego is untrue and is offensive to me.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! What is the statement?

Mr. EWAN: He said that the Government would carry out Sir William Payne's report to the letter.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no reflection on the hon. member.

Mr. DUFFICY: To clear that point up, I refer to the hon. member for Fassifern, who was then the spokesman for the Govern­ment. He said publicly, in opening the Charleville Show, at which I was present, that it was the policy of his Government to carry out the Payne Report in its entirety. That is all I want to say.

Mr. HART (Mt. Gravatt) (3.24 p.m.): I wish to answer the hon. member for Warrego on one point. It does not seem to me that Clause 139 is in conflict with the statement of Sir William Payne that he read out. It was, in effect, that perpetual leases over 5,000 acres in the good rainfall belt were more than one individual should have. This clause does not permit that in any way. It makes it quite clear that a living area must not be exceeded, so that no-one would get 5,000 acres in the good rainfall belt.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (3.26 p.m.): I respect the point of view of the hon. member opposite, but I point out to him that this is no material departure from

the Payne Report inasmuch as the concept of the living area ran through the Payne Report. This simply gives an upper limit. I remind hon members opposite that they were pretty vociferous in their opposition to a 5,000-acre limitation even though at the moment it may be conceded that they are more or less in agreement with it. At that time they were even completely opposed to that. As the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt says, this has that concept of the living area running through it.

Question-That Clause 139, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 30 Mr. Armstrong

, Bielke-Petersen , Camm , Campbell , Carey , Chalk

Dr. Delamothe Mr. Dewar

, Ewan , Fletcher , Gaven , Gilmore , Harrison , Hart , Hiley , Hodges

Mr. Hooper , Houghton , Hughes

Low , Munro , Pizzey , Richter , Smith ., Sullivan , Tooth , Wharton , Windsor

Tellers: Mr. Knox

, Pilbeam

NOES, 22 Mr. Baxter

Bennett , Bromley

Burrows Davies Dean Donald Dufficy Graham Gunn Hanlon Houston Inch

PAIRS

Mr. Llovd ,, Mafsden ., Melloy , Sherrington , Thackeray , Vl'allace , Walsh

Tellers: Mr. Newton , Tucker

Mr. Nicklin Mr. Duggan , Hewitt , Byrne ,. Row ,. Mann , Rae , O'Donnell

Resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 140--Matter to be certified by the Commission-

Mr. EWAN (Roma) (3.32 p.m.): In view of the interest expressed in Clause 140, Mr. Taylor, I want to ask the Minister a question through you. I have received a number of requests concerning a statement on the posi­tion of the conversion of the living area portion. Clause 139, which we have just dealt with, states clearly that the lessee of any grazing selection the area of which does not exceed 10,000 acres may lodge an applica­tion for conversion, and Clause 140 sets out how it shall be done. When an application is received, we find that the clause provides-

"If the Commission certifies that the grazing selection is, in its opinion, sub­stantially in excess of a living area the Minister shall either reject the application or, subject to subsection (3) of Section one hundred and forty-two of this Act, refer it to the Court.

Land Bill [29 NovEMBER] Land Bill 2067

"If the Commission certifies that the grazing selection is, in its opinion, not substantially in excess of a living area the Minister shall, subject to subsection (3) of section one hundred and forty-t\VO of this Act, refer the application to the Court."

If a person applies in accordance with Clause 139 and has not an area in excess of 10,000 acres, but the Commission finds that 5,000 acres is a living area, will the applicant be able to convert 5,000 acres to perpetual lease, or freehold, and then hold a terminable lease of some sort over the remainder of the unexpired portion of his lease? Many people have asked me that question and I should appreciate an explanation from the Minister.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Works and Local Govern­ment) (3.33 p.m.): In the event of an applica­tion relating to an area in excess of a living area-and let us take 5,000 acres as a living area-the owner would be allowed to free­hold that portion and the remainder would be on a special lease term for the unexpired portion of the lease.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (3.34 p.m.): See­ing they are throwing out "Dorothy Dixers" !O make good answers, let me say this: it Is true, as the Minister said, that a grazing selection of 8,000 acres, only a living area, could be freeholded. Anybody would know that, including the hon. member for Roma. One may ask this question: where a grazing selection is something less than a living area -where it is 20,000 acres but still less than a living area---can it be freeholded? And how does the Government justify refusing to freehold a grazing selection that is some­thing less than a living area while freeholding a grazing selection that is a full living area.

Mr. Ewan: Step by step.

Mr. DUFFICY: Step by step nothing!

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham-Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (3.36 p.m.): There is merit in the interjection "Step by step". If the hon. member knows of 20,000 acres which is not a living area or only just one, it is quite true that being in excess of 10,000 acres, it is not eligible for freeholding. It does look a little odd, but, on the principle laid down by Sir William Payne that it would be dangerous to adventure into the freeholding of large areas, we have thought-and I myself think-it is dangerous generally, even though you know specific are~s where it would not be so, to start freeholdmg large areas when you do not know what the next 10, 20, 30, or 40 years will bring up in the way of development. I am a freeholder but I am also a closer-settlement man. It would really break my heart if the rule was that you could freehold a living area and in a particular case it was 20,000 acres and I had to say, "Yes, it is a living area and you may do it," knowing in my heart that in 10, 20, or 30 years, because of the development of roads and techniques and

general development, it would be very much more than a living area. That is the answer. The answer is in the Payne Report­that you should not adventure unduly into the business of freeholding very large areas, and the hon. member will say, I am sure, that we have ventured too far already; but that is a matter of opinion in respect of land that can be or may be in the category of land that will come into far more intense production in the next few years.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (3.39 p.m.): It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Roma got the Minister into the difficulty he is in now by throwing up this "Dorothy Dixer", because I did not intend to speak on this clause; but I am not going to sit over here and be made a complete fool of either by the Minister or by the hon. member for Roma.

Mr. Fletcher: I hope you do not think I am trying to make a fool of you.

Mr. DUFFICY: I thought the Minister was in his reply, and I am sorry that he did. I think he was misled on it. He referred to the Payne Report, and I read that section of the Payne Report which said it was unwise to grant either freehold or perpetual lease in excess of 5,000 acres. He said that where somebody held 15,000 or 20,000 acres which was not a living area at present, it may be dangerous because of the largeness of the area to grant a freehold tenure; but is it not true that the person who now has 10,000 acres, which is a living area-a completely living area at present­can apply to have that converted to freehold? But the person who has 12,000 acres which is not a living area at all cannot apply to have it converted. Is that not true?

Mr. Fletcher: That is right.

Mr. DUFFICY: That is the position that the Minister has got himself into. Is it not obvious that as time goes on an area of 10,000 acres, from which a person is able to make a living, will be subject to greater development than an area of, say, 12,000 acres that is only half a living area? Would not the 10,000 acres be subject to greater development? It is said that the reason is that the Government does not want to free­hold areas greatly in excess of living areas. The Minister cannot justify that, and the hon. member for Roma got him into that difficulty.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (3.41 p.m.): If the hon. member for Roma wants to open his campaign for the next election now, that is all right so far as we on this side of the Chamber are concerned. If he wishes to indulge in electioneering speeches and a Jot of political propaganda, we can take up the gauntlet.

In respect of his "Dorothy Dix" question, one of the things fortifying our opposition and making us more determined than ever to oppose the freeholding of land is tlre

2068 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Government's not being satisfied to recog­nise a living area but opening wide the door and making it possible for wealthy people to acquire large aggregations of land. As an example. consider the case of a man with 8,060 ·acres, 5,000 of which are con­sidered a living area. According to the answer given to the "Dorothy Dix" ques­tion, he is to be given permission to free­hold the 5,000 acres and, if he wants the additional 3,000 all he has to do in the case of brigalow land is form a company and get tlre 3,000 acres and freehold it, or get another member of his family to free­hold it. He could form a company and buy the lot.

This argument has already been thrashed out here and .I know that continuing it is merely tedious repetition, but if the hon. member for Roma wants to bring up here matters better suited for the soap box or the stump before the next election, he can make this his stamping ground so far as I am concerned.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (3.44 p.m.): It is true what hon. members on this side have said in the discussion on this clause. I did not intend to speak on it, and if the Minister is looking for anything to complain about later on tomorrow morning he had better direct much of his complaint against his own members.

The real danger that I see is that there is a section providing for the freeholding of up to 10,000 acres provided tlre Commission certifies that it is not in excess of a living area. That is a perfectly sound principle when looked at without considering the other pitfalls involved. It might be that, because of remoteness from transport, lack of water supply, and a number of other difficulties, an area of 10,000 acres could not be regarded as a living area. With the expenditure of large sums of public money, it is possible that that 10,000 acres could be subdivided into

five, or even 10, very profitable living areas. So what the Minister is doing is handing the land over to speculators, and I imagine that L. J. Hooker Ltd. and the general body of speculators are just waiting to grab land up to the 10,000 acres that a company is entitled to hold. The policy of the Crown over the years has been to divide into living areas lands that otherwise could have been extensive pastoral leases, as indeed many of ~hem were along the coast. For example, m the Plane Creek area, which now has a sugar mill worth about £2,000,000, the lands were held under pastoral lease. The area has been subdivided over the years and now sup­ports hundreds of small farmers. Under this policy, the Government is handing over to speculators the right to subdivide land into living areas for agricultural development, and they will be entitled to take anything up to 10,000 acres.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (3.46 p.m.): This argument could go on all

day. I assure the Committee that I did not arrange with the hon. member for Roma to ask me a "Dorothy Dix" question. I did not mean to be hurtful-! am not sure that ! could have been-L'l making the remar:Y~ that I did. An area of 10,000 acres is a reasonable area at the moment, in our oprmon. Somebody said "step by step", and that applies in areas that have been fairly well developed up to the present. To go farther out and do as the hon. mem­ber for Warrego suggests, that is, give what is a living area at present with a right to freehold--

Mr. Dufficy: I did not suggest it; I simply drew a comparison.

Mr. FLETCHER: I know. The hon. member simply said that we ought to do that if we wished to be consistent. I am not trying to be smart about this. He said that to be consistent we would have to go into an area that has not yet been proved, and I think that is the difference between our 10,000-acre principle and our lack of enthusiasm for a bigger area. We are scared that if we go into anything very much bigger at the moment we will get into trouble in the next 20 years.

As I said, we could talk about this all day. We will just have to agree to disagree about the clause.

Mr. WAI.SH (Bundaberg) (3.48 p.m.): The Minister has tried to brush this matter aside with a few friendly words. I will say that I do not think he had any arrangement with the hon. member for Roma to ask a "Dorothy Dix" question, but he will probably find that if he gives the hon. member for Roma a free leg he will be indulging in that sort of thing between now and daylight tomorrow morning.

The strange thing is that less than five years ago the Government thought that 5,000 acres was a living area.

Mr. Dufficy: Prior to that it was 2,560.

Mr. W AI.SH: As the hon. member for Warrego says, it was 2,560 acres prior to that.

Mr. Burrows: And in 1910 it was 1,280 acres.

Mr. W ALSH: Although the Minister is quite correct in drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Bill pro­vides for only 10,000 acres in 1962, if the Government is consistent in its policy that will rise to 20,000 acres or 25,000 acres in the next few years. Having gone from 2,500 acres to 5,000 acres and now to 10,000 acres, the Government can be expected to continue that policy, and I think it will. We should draw attention to the dangers inherent in the principle of handing over to private landholders the right to subdivide land and develop a State of peasant farmers. I remember the discussions that took place during my time as Minister for Public Lands,

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2069

when more than one Government department dealt with land settlement. If the Minister likes to look at the files he will see that the notices in connection with it--

Mr. Fletcher: How do you get peasant farmers out of it?

Mr. W Al.SH: If the Minister does not know, I shall tell him. The large areas of land that are proclaimed as mineral areas and are not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Lands--

Mr. Fletcher: That has nothing to do with me.

Mr. W AI.SH: The Minister says it has nothing to do with him. This matter per­turbed the minds of the Government when I was Minister for Public Lands.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I trust that the hon. member will show how this relates to grazing selections.

Mr. W AISH: It relates to the holding of 10,000 acres of freehold. I am trying to point out what can happen when the indivi­dual becomes possessed of a freehold title and the rights that are extended to him to deal with the land. Obviously, that is involved in the actual principle of freehold tenure. If the Minister likes to look at the various maps he will see subdivisions of land in areas determined by the Depart­ment of Mines, under areas that would never be a living area--

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think that is relevant.

Mr. W Al.SH: The Minister says it is not relevant, but it is 10,000 acres. Is it relevant to relate 10,000 acres to a living area?

Mr. Ewan: For grazing.

Mr. W AISH: What is the hon. member talking about? All I am pointing out are the dangers once a freeholder gets title to this land. Is that not involved in the 10,000-acre principle?

Mr. Hart: Not the mineral rights.

Mr. W AISH: I am not talking about mineral rights. I am talking about subdivi­sion into 10,000-acre areas. Since the Minis­ter does not know, applications have come into the Agricultural Bank for advances on some of these tenures, and they were turned down on the grounds that they did not contain a living area, and, just as had been done with the Department of Mines areas, I say the freeholder will be doing that with the 10,000 acres.

Mr. EW AN (Roma) (3.50 p.m.): I feel that I must reply. The hon. member for Bunda­berg has drawn across the trail a red herring that creates a wrong impression. First of all, this provision deals with grazing land, and secondly, before it is offered it must be declared a living area by officers of the department. We will admit that this land is being used for grazing purposes at

the present time and it may have large and extensive agricultural potential, but indica­tive of the hon. member for Bundaberg's approach is his lack of confidence in the officers of this department. They would never say that an area of land was convert­ible, nor would they arrive at what consti­tutes a living area, without taking into con­sideration the future potential of that area.

Ten thousand acres, as someone said, could conceivably be ten living areas in 20 or 30 years' time, but I have enough confidence in the ability of the officers in the Depart­ment of Public Lands and the Department of Agriculture and Stock to trust their deter­mination of what constitutes a living area, particularly in the farming districts. The hon. member for Bundaberg has no confidence whatever in their ability. He himself settled many farmers on the land and had to give them additional areas.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (3.54 p.m.): I regret that the hon. member for Roma raised this matter, but I am not going to allow him to get away with what he said. I have as much respect for the officers of the Depart­ment of Public Lands as has the hon. mem­ber for Roma or any other member of this Committee. I have complete respect for them and I am quite aware of their ability; but I am also quite aware of the fact that the officers of the Department of Public Lands are not clairvoyant. They cannot see 50, or 60, or 100 years ahead.

Mr. Ewan: Can you?

Mr. DUFFICY: Of course not, nor can the hon. member for Roma. That is exactly what I am saying, that is, despite the fact that the officers of the Department of Public Lands might act in the very best way in this matter, they cannot say what progress science might make in 50 or 100 years' time, nor can they say today what will constitute a living area in any part of this State, and more particularly the western part of it, in 50 or 100 years' time. Neither can the hon. member for Roma, or anybody else, say that. That is why we see a danger in alienating the land today.

Clause 140, as read, agreed to. Clause 141-General provisions-

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (3.55 p.m.): This is one of the clauses under the heading of "General provisions". It provides-

"For the purposes of this division the unimproved value of any land shall be the amount which, in the opinion of the court, experienced persons would be willing to pay for the fee-simple of the land, exclusive of the market value of com­mercial timber, including trees with com­mercial potentiality thereon, assuming the land were unimproved, and were offered for sale on such reasonable terms and con­ditions as a bona fide seller would require."

I am not taking any exception to that principle. My only desire would be that the

2070 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

court will stick to that principle. From read­ing judgments ove·r the years, including some very recent ones, I get the impression that on occasions certain members of the court desire to set themselves up as super-valuers. Many of the features of the Southport case are involved in this clause. Part of the duty of the court would be to determine the unimproved value that would have to be taken into consideration where a lessee has determined to convert to free·hold. The valuers have to be guided by the distinct principles laid down in the Act for the valuation of land. I am not saying that all valuers do that. They can make mistakes, just as we can make them in the Chamber. In the same way, members of the court can make mistakes. But if the court is going to determine the value of land, as required by this clause, I hope that it will stick to the evidence placed before it by competent persons. I think there is some danger in a member of the court seeking advice indepen­dently from any valuer in order to enable him to arrive at his determination. If a valuer has to go into the witness box to be questioned about the basis on which he arrived at the unimproved value of land, every other person who seeks to advise a member of the court should be subject to the same sort of cross-examination. Many years ago, with some justification, I referred to the fact that a member of the court had seen fit to approach a lessee about a deter­mination that was being made-I think it was on compensation. I use that to strengthen my argument that as far as possible, individual members of the court should refrain from giving any ground for sus­picion that a determination is made on any basis other than the evidence submitted by the parties to the appeal or, perhaps, a personal inspection by the member of the court. I should be happy if a member of the court does not exercise the right of calling in an outside valuer. There could be some objection if he used a valuer from the Department of Public Lands against valuers in the Valuer-General's Department.

A great deal of noise has been made about recent values. I cannot elaborate on that here other than discuss the general principles used in arriving at those determinations. Having a quick look over the South Coast affair I found, for example, that in some cases there was a value fixed by the Valuer­General's Department and the appellants' valuer made a valuation of the land, and the court might rule that the owner of the land was not an experienced person after having bought the land. In some cases the value of the land was brought below both the Valuer-General's valuation and the appel­lants' valuation. There could be justification for that and I am not saying there is not. It is a peculiar state of affairs that so much publicity has been given to the general benefit that has accrued from this decision. But, it is only the big people down there who have benefited from it and many of them claim that only half the deduction can be

considered because of the recent Local Government (Rateable Value Adjustment) Act and that applies to land tax, too. They forget that they are still up by half the deduction.

There are some very vital principles involved. The principle of determining unim­proved value has been decided in this country and other countries. As the hon. member for Mt Gravatt well knows, the case of Spencer. v. The Commonwealth of Australia has been handed down from Sir Samuel Griffith's time and has been accepted by the various courts. Any attempt to get away from that decision by any court member, or any attempt by any tribunal ~o _determi~e unimproved value on other pnncrples, will lead someone into a great deal of trouble.

Mr. Hart: The principles in Clause 141 are practically the same as in Spencer's case.

Mr. WALSH: I hope that the hon. member will take notice of the words. I emphasised that the court should stick to the principle that is laid down here. Judgments and pre­cedents established on the other side of the world, and in this country and New Zealand, cannot just be thrown aside after they have been accepted by courts. I think there is a danger when any member of the court fixes new principles of his own applying to a lit~le tourist holiday resort like Surfers Paradise and they are subsequently quoted from his judgment. It is very dangerous if any ~tt~mpt is made to pick and choose the pnnc1ples because the land may be situated at Surfers Paradise or Brisbane, as the case may be.

I know that some valuers in the Valuer­General's Department have had wide experience outside the city of Brisbane. But I have known others to come into the Valuer­General's Department from the other side of the world who probably would not under­stand valuing principles and conditions her~. They may be vastly different from those m the older countries. Within the structure of the Valuer-General's Department there are very competent valuers whose experience has not been confined to the Brisbane area. I should like to feel that Chevron. or some other big companies are not . gomg to be given separate judgments. Believe. m~, that is the main effect of the determmatlon of appeals against valuations on the South Coast.

I ao-ree with the principle laid down. My only ~bservation is that I hope it will be complied with.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunnin~haJ?­Minister for Public Lands and Irngat1on) (4.6 p.m.): I think we are entitled to protest at what was almost an irrelevancy, Mr. Taylor, but I realise . that deciding what is relevant is your provmce. The hon. mem­ber agrees with the principle. W,e ar~ lay­ing down a principle. We are. msertm_g a definition, one that is usual and rs contamed in most statutes. We can only lay down principles. We cannot ensure that courts are not sometimes subject to human error.

Land Bill (29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2071

Mr. Hart: And you are giving a right of appeal.

Mr. FLETCHER: Yes, there is a right of appeal.

Clause 141, as read, agreed to. Clause 142, as read, agreed to. Clause 143-Terms and conditions of new

agricultural farms-

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (4.7 p.m.): I wish only to draw the attention of the Minister and of the Committee to sub­paragraph (c) on page 131, which reads-

"the annual rent reserved shall, during the term, be an amount equal to one­thirtieth of the purchasing price;".

I want the Minister to remember that pro­vision when we come to a later clause, which I would not be in order in discussing now. I want to draw a distinction between this clause, more particularly sub-paragraph (c), and that later clause. I have no intention of dividing the Committee on it, but I wanted to point that out.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (4.8 p.m.): I am not going to talk at length on it, either, except to let the Minister know, in case he thinks we are not paying attention to these things, that the previous clause and this one more or less involve procedure for approach to freehold tenures. As I agree that it is more or less a machinery pro­vision, I am not offering any criticism of it.

Clause 143, as read, agreed to.

Clause 144, as read, agreed to.

Clause 145-Area limitation under this Act not to prejudice application for con­version of tenure-

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (4.9 p.m.): My observation on this clause will be more in the nature of a query. The clause says-

"To the extent necessary to give opera­tion and effect to the provisions of this Division every provision of this Act or of any Order in Council under section eighty-five of this Act limiting the maxi­mum area or maximum aggregated area which may be held by any one person as an agricultural selection or agricultural selections shall apply so as not to prejudice or affect howsoever the entitlement of any lessee to a new lease of his selection as an agricultural farm or perpetual lease selection as prescribed by this Division".

Again I realise that this is probably part of the machinery, but it has the agricultural farm tenure tied up with it, which is at all stages the reference to the freehold tenure. Is there anything in that that the Minister could tell me that conveys a right, implied or otherwise, to a freehold tenure?

Mr. Fletcher: There is provision to allow freeholding, or perpetual lease conversion, of a selection to 10,000 acres.

Clause 145, as read, agreed to. Clauses 146 to 148, both inclusive, as

read, agreed to. Clause 149-Conversion of selection

tenures-

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (4.11 p.m.): This clause reads-

"Any lessee of a selection may at any time after the commencement of his lease apply to the Minister in writing to have the tenure of his selection converted to another tenure under this Part other than agricultural farm."

Does that mean that he can convert to any type of tenure except agricultural farm?

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER ( Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (4.12 p.m.): Yes. It is a sort of machinery provision.

Clause 149, as read, agreed to. Clause 150-Tenure of brigalow lease-

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (4.13 p.m.): In its anxiety to cater in this clause for the big man, the Government cannot get away from the fact that it is giving to companies concessions not given to private individuals. For instance, Clause 150 (4) (e) reads-

"the condition of personal residence and of occupation to the same extent as a grazing homestead:

"Provided that if the Commission certifies to the Minister that it would be in the public interests and conducive to the more speedy development of the land and the maintenance of more persons thereon to waive the condition of personal residence, the Minister may, in his discretion, relieve the lessee from the performance of such condition:"

When a selector selects land, he has to reside on it personally. When land is selected by a company, all the shareholders would not be expected to go on to the land, so that the company is given occu­pational conditions different from those of personal residence imposed on ordinary persons. This illustrates the impossibility of being fair whilst allowing companies to hold these leases. Once the door is opened and companies are allowed to hold land, there is no limit to the number of companies that can be formed by one person or group. It is theoretically possible for a company to acquire every selection in the brigalow lands now being opened. Companies could go to the Wandoan area, or other areas where there is development of brigalow lands, and acquire unlimited aggregations of land.

Mr. Hart: What about "in the public interests"?

Mr. BURROWS: If the Government showed any respect for the public interest, it would never have considered bringing

2072 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

this clause in. It is against the public interest that a clause such as this should be included in the Bill, and I wish to register the disapproval of hon. members on' this side of the Chamber to the provisos to it.

Mr. W ALSH (Bundaberg) ( 4.16 p.m.): At the outset, I register a protest against the Government's policy in relation to the development of the brigalow areas. Press statements have led us to believe that there will be an expenditure of £12,000,000, which has been advanced by the Commonwealth by way of loan, on the development of brigalow areas. We are now in the second­last week of the session. Despite promises that have been given by the Government and the Minister that special legislation would be brought down to deal with this matter, we have not yet seen or heard any evidence that it will be. Are we to take it, then, that Part V of the Bill, which contains only four clauses, will lay down the general principles on which the brigalow areas will be made available?

I should say that Part V and the clauses thereunder, under the heading "Brigalow Leases", could rightly be referred to as a part of the Land Bill to assist companies to take over areas of land up to 10,000. I do not see anything in the clauses that relates particularly to individual lessees. As a matter of fact, as one reads through them, one sees that each of the clauses opens the door for companies to come in and take the land. I do not wish to get on to irrelevancies and there is ample scope for that question to be discussed later.

When I raise queries or say that I am sus­picious of legislation that the Minister brings down, he always says that I am looking for a nigger in the woodpile. I can see one here, and it is a fairly big one, too. Paragraph (e) of Clause 150 (4) provides for conditions of personal residence and of occupation to the same extent as a grazing homestead. That is all right. It merely provides that the individual lessee who takes up land shall reside on the particular property for the period determined in the Bill. However, there is this proviso-

"Provided that if the Commission certifies to the Minister that it would be in the public interests and conducive to the more speedy development of the land and the maintenance of more persons thereon to waive the condition of personal resi­dence, the Minister may, in his discretion, relieve the lessee from the performance of such condition".

That seems an odd sort of approach to what follows in the two succeeding clauses. I think it will be agreed that it opens the door to the selection and development of land in Queensland other than under the personal control and residence of lessees. It opens the door to putting bailiffs in to care for the

property while people live at Surfers Para­dise or at one of the the other more con­genial areas on the coast on a strictly legal basis in accordance with this provision. I do not know whether the Minister will accept that a per~on who takes up one of the lease!'> under this clause can do so as an absentee. This could provide for absenteeism. We have enough of them now holding various other Crown tenures. Gradually, of course, they have been eliminated but we still have many absentees owning substantial property in this State. I should like to hear from the Minister whether this more or less envisages the position under which persons can take up this land and develop it without ever going near it to give it their personal super­vision.

Mr. HART (Mt. Gravatt) (4.21 p.m.): The hon. member for Port Curtis voiced fears that large aggregations of land will fall into the hands of companies. Clauses 151 and 152 make it quite clear that that cannot happen. After listening to what has been said on this Bill it appears to me that the great fear of the Labour Party in this matter is that somebody might make a profit.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (4.22 p.m.): I do not think the Minister is much impressed by the contribution of the hon. member who just resumed his seat. There are far greater principles involved in this than a suggestion that somebody might make a profit. I make a suggestion to the Minister but I am afraid that he probably will not agree to it. I suggest that Clauses 150, 151, 152, and 153 be deferred until such time as the proposed legislation in connection with brigalow leases is presented in this Chamber.

It is true that these particular clauses in the Bill have been inserted having regard to the assistance that the Commonwealth Government is likely to give this Govern­ment by way of loans for the development of this particular area of land in Queensland. I think even the Minister might agree with that. It is a little unfair to ask the Opposition to arrive at a decision on this clause without any knowledge of subsequent legislation that might be introduced. I am aware that the Minister visited Canberra on the matter and, as far as I know-he can correct me if I am wrong-before this session ends legislation will be introduced to deal with that matter.

In fairness to the Committee and particu­larly in fairness to the Opposition, I feel that we should be made aware of the full ramifications of the proposed legislation and consider them in conjunction with this clause.

Before I continue, through you, Mr. Taylor, might I ask the Minister to consider that suggestion?

Land Bill [29 NovEMBER] Land Bill 2073

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (4.24 p.m.): It is not as appropriate as the hon. member thinks, because whatever general provisions of this Biii wiil apply to the Fitzroy Basin Act as it relates to the development of that area, this one certainly will not. These are the old brigalow leases. This matter was debated in the Chamber very vociferously in 1959 and it has not been changed; it has been taken over for the purpose of developing brigalow land that might come into the hands of the Crown for closer settlement and that turns out to be very difficult and awkward to treat. That is the reason for the brigalow lease. It has not been used. Just at the moment I cannot tell the Committee of any place where, in my opinion, the particular set of conditions laid down would apply. How­ever, it was thought wise to keep the provision because one never knows. By retaining the brigalow lease provision in its entirety-we have not changed it-we have it there if we find a set of conditions that make it applicable. I apologise for the delay with the legislation dealing with the Fitzroy Basin land. It is not may fault that it has been so long coming. Hon. members will under­stand that negotiations are proceeding between the Commonwealth and the State.

Possibly there are differences of opinion on matters of detail, administration, methods of making money available, terms, and all the rest of it. The negotiations have been rather protracted. But the legislation is in hand now and it will be before Parliament as soon as I can humanly get it here so that hon. members opposite can have a chance to study it. By its very nature we will just have to adapt our general Land Act to meet the particular circumstances of that scheme, taking into account the manner in which the finance is made available and various other aspects of what is, to us, a rather new approach to land settlement, basically on the basis of some pre-develop­ment in a situation that has developed over the years where it has been found very difficult for the settler to carry on and get into an earning condition in time to save his financial life. We are trying to restrict it to settlers and not let it get into the hands of big companies. The Fitz­roy Basin lands do not come under this provision. The other Bill will not be ready for at least a week. As to the fears of the hon. member that this was a matter that would allow companies, generally speaking, to come in, possibly under certain circumstances they will be able to do so, but if the hon. member reads through all the clauses-they have been before the Committee previously-he will realise that this was brought in to suit a special set of difficult circumstances. The Commission has to make itself acquainted with all the circumstances and make recommendations in accordance with the various clauses that it shall be

67

in the public interest. I assure the hon. member that this is not the method by which the Fitzroy Basin will be developed. If he can take my word that it is simply the oid brigaiow iease--

Mr. Dufficy: Not so very old-only 1959.

Mr. FLETCHER: Old in the sense that it was there before this consolidating Bill. It is not changed. The hon. member has his opinion on that matter, and I have mine. There is no need for him to worry that this will be applied, either in part or in whole, to the development of the Fitzroy Basin.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (4.29 p.m.): I thank the Minister for his explanation. I intend to speak on Clauses 151, 152, and 153, which I think have a direct bearing on Clause 150. Perhaps this is not the time to discuss fully the matter of the brigalow lease. The Committee will have an oppor­tunity later when the legislation I previously mentioned is introduced. At this stage let me say that I think that the whole of the brigalow scheme should be approached by the Government with a good deal of caution. Might I make that suggestion right now. There is some evidence to support it. It has been said that the brigalow area has a relatively high rainfall. That is true up to a point, but at times serious droughts are experienced. Goondiwindi is in the brigalow belt and it has a maximum of 40.7 inches in one year, and a minimum of about 10 inches. Serious droughts are experienced in the area, although it is said that it is a relatively high-rainfall area. The same conditions apply in the Clermont area, which is in the same tract of country. The maximum rainfall in one year at Clermont is about 51 inches, but it has a minimum of about 5 inches.

Mr. Ewan: You told us all this in 1959.

Mr. DUFFICY: If I did, I realise that the hon. member will forget it, anyhow; he would not retain it in his mind for long. I sug­gest that the Government might regard the proposed brigalow-lands scheme with caution. Although the hon. member for Roma does not agree with me, I am sure the· Minister will.

I will refer now to a publication of the Australian Institute of Political Science, "Economic Growth in Australia", wherein it is said-

"Looking at the food-supplying function it is quite apparent that there is little potential for growth in the domestic market since we are already well-fed by any st~ndard and the rate of population growth--"

Mr. EWAN: I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. member in order in giving us a dissertation on the development of the brigalow area, or is he to be confined to the principles of the Bill?

2074 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

The CHAIRMAN: I am satisfied the hon. member's remarks relate to the clause.

Mr. DUFFICY: I thank you very much, Mr. Tavlor. for over-ruling the obiection. After that unwarranted and rude inter}ection, I will continue with the quote-

" . . . we are already well-fed by any standard and the rate of population growth does not represent a significant increase in demand in relation to existing levels of production."

I have quoted that with reference to the development of the brigalow belt. In all seriousness-and I will speak on a different basis altogether in connection with the brigalow area generally-although I am open to conviction on the brigalow leases at this stage, I doubt the wisdom and desirability of spending the amount of money that has been suggested, and the manner in which it will be spent.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (4.33 p.m.): I quite appreciate that the Minister is facing some difficulty in bringing down special legis­lation concerning the development of the brigalow area in the Fitzroy Basin. I think every member of the Committee knows that the Minister is only awaiting the conclusion of the negotiations with the Commonwealth. It is perfectly true that this principle has been in the Act for some time. As part of this Government's new land policy it was intro­duced in 1959. I am wondering whether we will reach the interesting situation that the Commonwealth, in its negotiations, will lay down the condition that the Fitzroy Basin brigalow area should be developed on the basis of freehold tenure.

Mr. Fletcher: It will, without doubt. Our policy is freehold up to living areas.

Mr. W ALSH: I realise that, but the Bill does not provide for the conversion of any of these brigalow leases.

Mr. Fletcher: No.

Mr. WALSH: It is perfectly true. So apparently we are going to have one set of circumstances for the development of one part of the State under Commonwealth legis­lation with public funds under the so-called socialisation policy, which is often con­demned, instead of by private finance, and a different set of conditions for the develop­ment of brigalow leases in another area. That is very interesting.

Mr. Fletcher: We allow freeholding up to 10,000 acres.

Mr. W ALSH: In this part there will be four sections.

Mr. Fletcher: This refers to brigalow leases.

Mr. WALSH: I am referring to the brigalow leases. If I am to anticipate the Minister, that he will have a new term for the brigalow leases in the Fitzroy Basin which will not identify them as brigalow

leases, that might give him some basis for departing from what is laid down for these leases. However, there is ample scope to discuss some of the other matters involved, wnn companies, and so on. I raise the point that, in the dying stages of this Parliament when we have to consider very important matters relating to the development of briga­low leases, apparently we are going to run into a set of conditions which will be an entirely different basis from that of brigalow leases in any other part of the State.

Clause 150, as read, agreed to.

Clause !51-Company eligible to acquire in certain circumstances-

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (4.36 p.m.): The clause provides that a company under and within the meaning of the Companies Act of 1961 shall not be debarred from applying for, acquiring, and holding a brigalow lease, and so on. I think it introduces a very bad principle of absentee landlordism, to which I am completely opposed.

The latter part of the clause sets out that personal residence and occupation may be performed by the personal residence on the land of an accredited representative of the company. At this stage I am not going to speak about the possibilities of companies acquiring freehold, or about the area that a company can hold under leasehold tenure, because those matters can be discussed under subsequent clauses which refer more com­pletely to the matters I want to raise. So I want to indicate my objection to a company's being allowed into this area, if it is a favoured area, as the Government says it is. My appreciation of land settlement has always been that companies should be admitted to a tenure only in the very remote areas of the State where the developmental conditions were particularly difficult, where the rainfall was small and the living conditions harsh. As a matter of fact, previously under the Act developmental leases to companies, if I remember correctly, applied only to the remote areas of the State. They did not apply to the more favoured areas of which, after all, the brigalow belt is one. In the Minister's explanatory notes to the Bill­No. 9 on page 2-he said that land was a valuable commodity and in such high demand that the widest possible distribution of it should be made. I agree with that com­pletely; but if the Government is going to hand over the land to companies, surely it is not satisfying the desires of the land-hungry people, or going along with the principle of what I think is closer settlement in its best form. For that reason, we are completely opposed to this clause and I intend to divide the Committee on it.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (4.40 p.m.): I understand the point of view

Land Bill (29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2075

of the hon. member. A company can per­form residence only by an accredited repre­sentative. The clause ensures that there must be residing on the land some respon­sible person. There has not been one of these leases granted and, to be quite honest, I have not within my purview any part of the brigalow land that could at this moment be said to be suitable for this sort of thing. I might even venture to say that I find it difficult to imagine to which part of the brigalow belt this could be applied. It has been put up to us that there is a possibility that we will be glad to get somebody to take on the brigalow country under any conditions. On that basis, it has been included.

I do not like absentee landlords. Hon. members can take it from me that very sound reasons would be needed to persuade me that this was a good thing to do. In a sense, the hon. member for Warrego, by saying that he agrees with leases to com­panies in very remote areas, is agreeing with the principle. Remote areas where it is difficult for individuals to make a living could be in some way analagous with difficult areas that I cannot think of but that may be in the brigalow area. We are making provision to have the same sort of tenure in that sense in the brigalow area if it proves more difficult to develop.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) The Minister makes it appear fact not really interested in to this clause.

(4.42 p.m.): that he is in giving effect

An Opposition Member: I don't think he agrees with it himself.

Mr. W ALSH: He probably does not, but it is in the Bill. It is a new principle that has been introduced only within the last three years. Hon. members on this side of the Chamber cannot be blamed for suspec­ting that there are interested parties some­where who have convinced the Government of the necessity to approve of this principle so that in the near future they will be able to come in and pounce on some of the land and take advantage of these areas in the brigalow districts.

Mr. Fletcher: You are right back in form now.

Mr. WALSH: As I have understood these things, they are done not so much in antici­pation of what might happen in the way of a departure from a vital principle but as the result of something that has happened that has justified Governments in the past bringing down amendments to meet condi­tions of affairs that have come about, or are likely to come about in the immediate future. I think that I am on perfectly sound ground when I say that the Govern­ment must have in mind inviting company capital to develop these lands.

It is not sufficient to say that some hon. member on this side of the Committee has agreed with the principle because he agreed with its application in remote areas. The Minister has maps in his office at the depart­ment that indicate that from the border of New South Wales extending north to Charters Towers there is a belt of brigalow land varying in width and covering a very sub­stantial area. Its quality differs, but it is contained in what is known as the 25-inch to 30-inch rainfall belt, and it has the great­est potential for closer settlement away from the coastal areas. Consequently, Labour Governments in the past gave every encour­agement to the development of this area. If one goes to Wandoan and Taroom one will find many areas in the brigalow territory that have been developed by individual lessees. Fertile brigalow areas can be seen at Theodore and Moura.

We are curious to know why, after so much development has taken place in briga­low areas under a system of indi­vidual leases and finance from pri­vate sources, tire Government suddenly finds it necessary to adopt a policy of inviting the big land monopolists to come in. I slrall have more to say about that on the next clause. I believe that the Minister himself does not really favour this provision, and it is a pity that he did not accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Warrego and hold it over till the other legislation is brought down.

Mr. Fletcher: It does not relate to the other legislation.

Mr. W ALSH: Perhaps tire four clauses could be held over till the other Bill is brought down. I shall deal at a later stage with the remarks of the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt about the possibility of the aggregation of areas by companies, because my remarks might be more appropriate then.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (4.46 p.m.): I disagree with the hon. member for Bun­daberg when he says that tlre clause is obnoxious or superfluous. The Minister admitted openly that, although it has been there for three years, there has been no occasion to use it and he does not know any prospective area to which it would apply. After hearing the Minister, I find it difficult to understand how the lron. member for Bundaberg can say that the Minister is con­vinced. If he had said that the Minister admitted that he had been persuaded or forced to do this, I could not agree with him more. There was no conviction in the words of the Minister when he explained tlris provision, and it is quite obvious that in introducing this clause, and many other iniquitous clauses in the Bill, the Govern­ment is acting as a result of pressure, not as a result of the direction of its conscience.

2076 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Mr. EWAN (Roma) (4.48 p.m.): I take exception to the remarks of hon. members opposite.

Mr. Bennett: I don't see why.

Mr. EWAN: I should like to quote from Sir William Payne's report.

Mr. Burrows: He knew nothing about this.

Mr. EW AN: He convinced everyone of the need to provide legislation in 1959, and the provision has simply been transferred from that legislation into this Bill for the reasons given by the Minister. For t11e last 50 years, 40 of which were under Labour ,administration, we have had to plough .through a mass of amendments because .former Governments were too lazy to con­.solidate the Land Acts. The Bill has been .designed to simplify and make compact the various provisions.

Mr. Walsh: The Minister said that. There is no need for you to repeat it.

Mr. EWAN: I am going to repeat it because it is well worth repeating. Strenuous .efforts have been made to present legisla­tion to t11is Assembly that will last without the need for a multitude of amendments to cover every circumstance that may arise.

Mr. Walsh: What did Sir William Payne say?

Mr. EWAN: I will give it to the hon. member to read.

Clause 151, as read, agreed to.

Clause 152-Maximum area for brigalow leases-

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (4.49 p.m.): I shall be very brief. The main principle in this clause is that a company is allowed to acquire brigalow leases of an aggregate area not exceeding 20,000 acres. I indicated my opposition earlier to companies being allowed to acquire any land in the brigalow area. I am doubly opposed to this clause, under which they can acquire double the area that can be freeholded, namely10,000 acres. I am suggesting tlrat a company that acquires a 40-year lease of 20,000 acres, which a company is undoubtedly entitled to do under Clause 152, could freehold 10,000 acres under Clause 153 provided it is not in excess of a living area. I should like the Minister to state whether that is or is not so.

Mr. Fletcber: No.

Mr. DUFFICY: I am suggesting they could, and when we reach Clause 153 we will debate that point. The principle in Clause 152 of a company being allowed a 40-year lease of 20,000 acres is so contrary to what the Opposition considers fair and reasonable that we must divide the Com­mittee on it.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (4.51 p.m.): This is the same spirit and

principle as the other one. It relates to two brigalow leases not exceeding 20,000 acres if, in the opinion of the Commissioner con­ditions are so difficult as to warrant, in the public interest, allowing them in for those spe-cial reasons.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (4.52 p.m.): I wish to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that this applies to brigalow country, which is the best land in this State not presently alienated from the Crown in any substantial area. All our soft-wood scrubs and other scrubs have been taken over by the Department of Forestry and our first-class arable forest land, such as alluvial flats, has already been alienated, with very little exception. If the Government was sincere in its expressed desire to see that these lands were developed, and was pre­pared to reward people who are enterprising and take over land that is presently unpro­ductive and subsequently make it productive, we would commend the proposal; but there is no mention of the millions of acres of wallum country throughout the State. We do not see generous companies like L. J. Hooker Ltd. offering to develop the wallum country or some of the sandalwood country in the North. They want the pick of the land and, in addition, they want it in whole­sale quantities in order that they can get a title in fee-simple, and later on subdivide it and retail it out, or, worse still, put large numbers of peasant farmers in on it.

That is why we are opposed to these big aggregations being offered and hawked round by companies that serve no good purpose. I have yet to see a company that has been able to develop land and make as good use of it as do individuals. I quoted a couple of cases the other day in personal conversation with the Minister. If it came to a point of deciding which was the right type of person to develop land, I cannot see how a group of city slickers can develop the land in a way that would compete with men of practical experience.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (4.55 p.m.): Although I realise that the Minister would have some knowledge of the wide ramifica­tions of the provision contained in the clause, apparently the hon. member for Roma was not too conversant with this phase of the Bill in the early part of the discussions some weeks ago, nor would it appear that the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt, having regard to his remarks this afternoon, is too clear about what is involved in the clause.

Mr. Hart: In what respect do you say I have misunderstood the clause?

Mr. WALSH: I will read it for the hon. member. It says-

"Except as in this section provided a person or company shall not be competent to apply for or hold two or more brigalow leases the aggregate area whereof exceeds ten thousand acres:

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2077

"Provided that a person or company which undertakes-

(a) abnormally high expenditure in developing the land; and

(b) the permanent employment of a number of persons thereon,

may be permitted by the Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to acquire brigalow leases of an aggregate area not exceeding twenty thousand acres."

I can understand the hon. member for Roma being ignorant of a number of these things, but there can be no excuse for the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt. As a legal man he would have a knowledge of the formation of companies and the application of company law generally. He would know that it would be possible to form 20 companies with almost identical personnel. That has happened with many of the present land-speculation com­panies. You can have one company that has one subsidiary, then another subsidiary, and then a further subsidiary. Anybody who has studied the history of many of the big monopoly organisations-! mention gas com­panies, Broken Hill Pty. Ltd., and the Com­mercial Banking Company of Sydney Ltd. as an indication of the type of company I mean-will know how they are interwoven one with the other. The director of one company is also the director of another com­pany. You can form one company with Smith, Jones, Robinson, and Brown and then four other companies with Brown, Smith, and Robinson on each of them. The hon. member for Mt. Gravatt will not deny that.

Mr. Hart: You have not read the whole lot.

Mr. WALSH: No.

Mr. Hart: You have not understood it then.

Mr. WALSH: Surely the hon. member is not going to display his ignorance to that extent when it refers to "a person or com­pany". It does not seek to lay down that because any member of a particular company has an interest in company A he cannot have an interest in another company.

Mr. Hart: You are right as far as you have gone.

Mr. W ALSH: The hon. member concedes me that much. There is no limit to the number of companies that can be formed in relation to the first company that might be formed. If it had 20 directors they could form 20 other companies, each of which could could get 20,000 acres.

Mr. Hanlon: As long as they get the approval of the Governor in Council.

Mr. W ALSH: If they have the eye and the ear of the Government they will be well protected in that respect. The Minister says that there has not been an application to deal with any one of the leases under these particular headings, even though the provision

has been there for three years. But with the consolidation of the law we can expect that the Minister may receive a number of applications. Have we not seen investiga­tions into various companies taking place in all parts of Australia? All Governments have had to take some action to have this company and that company investigated. What is to stop these companies being formed in great number to take advantage of this provision and the fertile area involved in the settle­ment and development of brigalow leases?

Mr. HART (Mt. Gravatt) (5.1 p.m.): When I made my previous remarks I was careful to say that this development that the hon. member foresees will be controlled by two clauses, namely, 151 and 152. I was very careful not to mention only Clause 152. There is no doubt that what the hon. mem­ber has said is true. Companies proliferate and spread themselves out and the only way they can be controlled is by the method outlined in the Bill, that is, by placing a general discretion in the Minister and the Governor in Council to control the practice. That is precisely what has been done. Clause 151 says that the company must first satisfy the Minister and the Governor in Council that the acquirement of such brigalow ]ease by such company is in the public interests and would be conducive to the more speedy development of the land. The hon. member has heard the Minister's argument. These provisions have been in the legislation for three years and have not been used. The hon. member has heard the Minister say that he intends to use them only when necessary, but still he is trying to build up this huge structure to knock the bottom out of it.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (5.2 p.m.): I think I am correct in saying that I have confirmation from the hon. member fo; Mt. Gravatt, with his extensive legal know­ledge, that the very vital thing I referred to could come about, namely, that there is nothing to stop the formation of numerous companies. The hon. member admits that can happen.

Mr. Hart: But the Minister can stop it.

Mr. WALSH: The Minister can stop it! If Brown is a member of company A, and another company is formed and he becomes a member of the second company, which has three or four directors, and he has the major interest, he becomes the dominating person in the company. Jones then does the same in a third company, and so it goes on; every director of the original company becomes part of a series of companies and so they control not 20,000, 40,000, or 50,000 acres but probably up to 100,000 or 200,000 acres of land under this principle. At this stage, all I have to say, is that the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt has succeeded only in establishing my objection.

2078 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Question-That Clause 152, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 31 Mr. Armstrong , Bjelke-Petersen , Camm , Campbell , Carey

Dr. Delamothe Mr. Dewar

Ewan Fletcher Gaven Gilmore Hart

, Hiley , Hodges , Hooper , Houghton

Knox

Mr. Low , Munro

Nicklin Pi I beam Pizzey Ramsden Richter Smith Sullivan Tooth Wharton Windsor

Tellers: Mr. Harrison , Hughes

NOES, 22 Mr. Baxter

Bennett , Bromley

Burrows Davies Dean Donald Dufficy Duggan Graham Hanlon Houston

PAIRS

Mr. Lloyd Marsden

, Me!loy Newton

, Sherrington , Thackeray

Wallace , Walsh

Tellers: Mr. Gunn

, Inch

Mr. Hewitt Mr. Byrne , Rae ,. Mann , Row , O'Donnell , Chalk , Tucker

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 153-General application of pro­

visions of Principal Act relating to grazing homesteads-

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (5.9 p.m.): I should like an explanation from the Minister on this clause. My interpretation of it is that it makes all conditions, including the freeholding conditions, applicable to brigalow leases. If my interpretation is wrong, I will be happy to have the assurance of the Minister. I am aware that Clause 91, with which we have already dealt, disqualifies com­panies from holding selections. The impor­tant point is that land held under Part V. of this Bill is held as brigalow leases. I can see nothing in the Bill preventing a holder, including a company, from applying for, and being granted, the right to freehold an area up to 10,000 acres, provided that it is not in excess of a living area. Clause 153 reads-

"Save as modified by the provisions of this Part, all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to grazing selec­tions, sha,~l be applicable to brigalow leases ...

One of the conditions of the Bill applying to grazing slections is that if they are not in excess of 10,000 acres and not in excess of living areas, they can be converted to either perpetual lease or freehold tenure. It seems to me that, by virtue of Clause 153, that provision applies also to brigalow leases. If that is the case, it makes my objection to companies even stronger. A company having an aggregation of leases of 20,000

acres would be permitted to apply for conversion to freehold of one or two leases that were not in excess of 10,000 acres and not in excess of living areas.

If that is the position, we on this side of the Chamber are completely opposed to it, and I should be happy to have the Minister's explanation on the matter. Before he gives it, I assure him that I am not particularly influenced by the provisions of Clause 91, because I think that they might not be relevant in this case. If he can quote any other clauses that might be relevant, I should be particularly interested to hear of them.

Mr. HART (Mt. Gravatt) (5.12 p.m.): The hon. member for Warrego told me that I was wrong.

Mr. Dufficy: I didn't say a word to you.

Mr. HART: The general tenor of the Bill is that companies are not competent to hold selections. That is in Clause 91. The hon. member for Warrego is trying to say that Clause 153 will allow companies to acquire brigalow leases.

Mr. Dufficy: You wouldn't have known about Clause 91 without my telling you.

Mr. HART: The hon. member is absolutely wrong. I have been sitting here listening to this discussion for a quarter of an hour. If he reads Clause 153 he will see that it says-

"Save as modified by the provisions of this Part, all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to grazing selections, shall be applicable to brigalow leases ... "

It then lists a number of things, but does not mention freeholding. Clause 141 deals with the general provisions applying to freeholding. Subclause (2) reads-

"In the event of the Court or, upon appeal thereto, the Land Appeal Court determining that public interests would be adversely affected by granting the lessee's application for conversion of the tenure of a grazing selection, the applica­tion shall lapse." Mr. Dufficy: That applies to individuals.

Mr. HART: It applies to anyone. If it was a company, it would apply to it.

Mr. Dufficy: And to individuals, too.

Mr. HART: Yes, to both, but if the whole of the Bill is read it will be seen that it is not intended that a company should come in. In my view, Clause 141 (2) will shut the companies out.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (5.15 p.m.): I cannot follow the argument put forward by the hon. member for Mount Gravatt, so I cannot say whether it is correct or incor­rect. I should like him to clarify one point. Clause 153 says-

"Save as modified by the provisions of this Part, all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to grazing selections, shall be applicable to brigalow leases ... "

Land Bill (29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2079

The hon. member then said, "It goes on to enumerate various things such as opening notifications, applications, deposits, deter­mination of successful applicants", but he did not refer to the words "aml without limiting the general application of the provisions of this Act".

Mr. Hart: I thought I read those.

Mr. BURROWS: No.

Mr. Hart: It does not mean that it cuts out the general provisions.

Mr. BURROWS: It specifies certain items and conditions, such as opening notifications, applications, deposits, and so on, but it quali­fies that by saying "and without limiting--"

Mr. Hart: I did not suggest that this clause cut them out, but I did suggest that there was a suggestion of it because it enumerated all the other things and did not enumerate the right of a company to freehold.

Mr. Dufficy: I want something more definite than that.

Mr. BURROWS: If the words "and with­out limiting" were eliminated, that would definitely cut it out.

Mr. Hart: If those words were e·liminated, it would cut the other part out.

Mr. BURROWS: I respectfully suggest that we move an amendment to delete the words "and without limiting."

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (5.17 p.m.): There is no spedfic provision to enable freeholding of brigalow leases. The general freeholding provisions apply, and they lay it down that in the process of free­holding one has to convert to an agricultural farm, which is a selection, and a company cannot hold a selection. It is as simple as that-a brigalow lease held by a lessee, yes; a brigalow lease held by a company, no.

Mr. Dufficy: You are basing that on Clause 91, I take it?

Mr. FLETCHER: That is correct. Clause 153, as read, agreed to. Clauses 154 to 166, both inclusive, as read,

agreed to. Clause 167-Meaning of term "late

lessee"-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (5.19 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment-

"On page 14 7, after line 31, insert the following paragraph-

'or (d) the Public Curator when author­

ised to act under the provisions of Part IliA. or Part IV. of "The Public Curator Acts, 1915 to 1957," '."

Amendment agreed to. Clause 167, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 168 and 169, as read, agreed to. Clause 170-Land may be sold by auction

or withdrawn-

.Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (5.20 p.m.): VerY briefly, I oppose this clause, in the first place because it includes the principle of freehold tenure inasmuch as it provides for auction sales in fee simple. I will not can­vass that any further, but I want to draw the Minister's attention to Subclause (2) of this clause, which reads as follows:-

"All such land shall be distinguished as town or suburban or country lots."

I do not wish to debate the matter at this stage, but I do want to make a comparison with a later clause where a similar definition occurs and where there is a limitation.

I direct the Minister's attention also to Subclause (3) of this clause, in which it is stated-

"The area of any lot of such land shall not exceed ten thousand acres ... "

I cannot debate a clause that is to come later but, as I say, I draw attention to those two subclauses and indicate that I am opposed to the sale by auction of an estate in fee simple. Without further ado, I intend to divide the Committee on it.

Question-That Clause 170, as read, s~and part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 32 Mr. Armstrong , Bje!ke-Petersen .. Camm , Campbell , Carey

Dr. Delamothe Mr. Dewar

Ewan Fletcher Gaven Gilmore Harrison Hart Herbert

, Hi!ey , Hodges , Hooper

Mr. Houghton Hughes Knox Low Munro Nicklin Pi! beam

, PizzeY Ramsden Richter Smith Tooth Wharton

Tellers: Mr. Sullivan , Windsor

NOES, 22 Mr. Baxter Mr. Houston

Bennett Inch

" Bromley "

Lloyd Burrows Newton Davies , Sherrington Dean , Thackeray Donald wanace

" Dufficy , Walsh

" Duggan Tellers: Graham

" Gunn Mr. Marsden

" Hanlon " MelloY

PAIRS

Mr. Chalk Mr. Tucker , Hewitt , Byrne , Row O'Donnell , Rae , Mann

Resolved in the affirmative.

2080 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Clause 171-Notification of land for sale­

H()n. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (5.27 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 150, lines 28 to 34, omit the words-

' a perpetual town lease, a lease deemed pursuant to Division Ill. of this Part to be in force for a term of ten years, a lease issued pursuant to section one hundred and seventy-six of this Act, or a town lot wherefor he is not then entitled to a deed of grant in fee­simple'

and insert in lieu thereof the words-'land under any tenure'."

The amendment does not alter the meaning of the clause. It is aimed at saving verbiage in the Bill and in the prescribed forms that have to be filled in.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to. Clause 171, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 172 to 175, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 176-Demise of land sold with freeholding covenant-

Mr. W ALSH (Bundaberg) (5.29 p.m.): I should like an explanation from the Minister. Is this clause to protect any lease that may have been granted to an individual who obtained a covenant to freehold land? Is it simply providing for the issue of the title, say, to the estate or the executives of the estate? Is that all the clause involves?

Mr. Fletcher: So far as I understand it, yes.

Clause 176, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 177 to 179, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 180-Perpetual town, suburban or country leases-

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (5.31 p.m.): I am not opposing this clause, but I seek an explanation. I drew attention during the debate on Clause 170 to the town, subur­ban, and country lots. Under any of these tenures, it appeared in that clause that an area of up to 10,000 acres could be sold for an estate in fee simple. In Clause 180, which we are now discussing, there is refer­ence to auctions of perpetual leases. The only difference between the two clauses that I can see is that one is an auction in fee simple, and the other is an auction of per­petual lease. I wish to direct the Minister's attention to this very important difference, and ask him the reason for it. In the auction of perpetual leases the same defini­tions apply, that is. town, suburban, and country leases, exactly as in the case of

the auction of freehold. However, in Sub­clause (2) of Clause 180, we find this provision-

"The land shall be offered in lots, the maximum areas v;hereof respectively shall not exceed-

town land, half an acre; suburban land, twenty acres; country land, two thousand five hun-

dred and sixty acres." There is a rather remarkable difference in the auctioning of the two di!ferent. tenures. The only limitation with fee simple IS 10,000 acres, but the limitation in the case of per­petual lease is half an acre, 20 acres, and 2,560 acres. There may be a very_ simple explanation for it, and I should like the Minister to enlighten me.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (5.32 p.m.): The freehol~ing clm;s:: is con­sistent with the freeholdmg provisiOns, that is to say, a living-area limitation of 10,000 acres. The auctions of perpetual leases are likewise consistent with the 2,560-acre limi­tation on perpetual leases.

Mr. Dufficy: The limitation applies to both of them more or less clearly in the case of town, suburban, and country areas, . but with auctions the position seems to be entirely different. I want to know why discrimination is shown.

Mr. FLETCHER: Probably because of the difference in circumstances. These auction perpetual leases generally relate to land awaiting development around a town. Generally speaking, the limitation is half an acre--

Mr. Dufficy: Yes; half an acre, 20 acres, and 2,560 acres.

Mr. FLETCHER: That 2,560 acres would be contiguous to a town, perhaps awaiting development, and something_ must be done with it. It is probably an m-between. area. It has to be got rid of, and that IS the way it is done. We have. changed t~e area limitations to conform w1th what IS con­sidered to be modern and up-to-date require­ments. The difference between this one and the other arises because we had to conform with our freehold principle of th~ ~0,~00-acre limitation and the living-area hmitatwn. It is just a matter of what we havt? run up against, and what seems to be apphca~le and desirable in both cases. I cannot g_Ive the hon. member any better explanatiOn other than that administratively it seems to be a bit messy, but it is the fair way of doing it.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (5.34 p.m.): I can appreciate the Minister's difficul~y, and I can understand his difficulty in gettmg out of it. The more he tried to explain it the more involved he became and the more confused I became. The plain facts are that, when the Minister talked about land

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2081

that might be difficult to develop or land adjacent to a town or something of that sort, he was talking about the land; but the form of tenure has nothing to do with that. You could convert difficult land to a perpetual-lease tenure and impose conditions of development just as with freehold, could you not?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, I suppose you could.

Mr. DUFFICY: Of course you could. There is no doubt about that. So what is the use of talking about the land or the difficulty of developing it or anything of that sort, or even about the restriction as to areas?

The Minister said that he had to conform with the maximum area allowable to freehold; but you can get a title for perpetual lease over a greater area than for freehold. Is not that so? You can get a perpetual lease for a greater area of land than you can get under freehold tenure in this way: the free­hold tenure is restricted to 10,000 acres.

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, or a living area.

Mr. DUFFICY: Or a living area, yes. At least you can get a perpetual-lease tenure of I 0,000 acres, too, can you not?

Mr. Fletcher: If it is not more than a living area.

Mr. DUFFICY: If it is not more than a living area; of course you can. Yet in the auction sale of those two different types of tenure-one in fee simple and the other perpetual lease-you have a limitation of area in the sale under a freehold tenure, or in fee simple, to 10,000 acres; you have a limitation, in respect of a certain tenure in the sale of perpetual lease, to half an acre. All I want to know is the reason. I have not yet been told what it is, and I suggest that the Minister get in touch with his experts and let us know. Frankly, I cannot see it. I can see that, if he wanted to sell to a company in the outer suburbs of Brisbane or in the outer suburbs of any provincial city, he could sell an estate in fee simple to a developmental company or to an industrial company, or to anybody else, an area of land not exceeding 10,000 acres-that is as I read it-under the auction in fee simple, but, if selling an estate with a tenure of perpetual lease, he could not sell an area of land in excess of half an acre, or of suburban land in excess of 20 acres, or even country land in excess of 2,560 acres. It seems to me completely absurd and I want to know the reason for it because I think it is important. Up to the present it has not been explained why, even in the country, at an auction under a perpetual-lease tenure you cannot exceed 2,560 acres, according to this clause. That is the limitation in the clause. But in the suburbs of Brisbane, or any provincial city, you can sell for an estate in fee simple an area not in excess of 10,000 acres. There might be quite a simple explanation for that, but I want it.

Mr. EWAN (Roma) (5.39 p.m.): Perhaps I can assist the hon. member. I submit that the lots referred to in Clause 181--

Mr. Dufficy: Not 181. We are dealing w·ith Clause 180.

Mr. EWAN: Clause 180. I refer the hon. member for Warrego to Section 21 sub­section (1) of the principal Act-and these areas of land are not rural areas. They are perpetual town, suburban, and country leases. Under the principal Act rural leases were perpetual leases and could be held up to 2,560 acres. Under this section in the principal Act, to which the Bill is comple­mentary, they could be held only up to 640 acres. The only difference in the town and suburban leases, and country leases, as they are called outside the towns, is the increase to 2,560 acres, without regard to the limita­tions of rural perpetual leases or freehold.

Mr. Dufficy: That is a big allotment.

Mr. EWAN: Yes, it is. It was previously 640 acres. The hon. member for Warrego is confusing it with the 2,560 acres that could be held under freehold or perpetual lease before freeholding was abolished.

Mr. Dufficy: I am comparing the maximum under Clause 180 with the maximum pro­vided under Clause 170. TheTe is no con­fusion about that. Definite areas are stated.

Mr. EWAN: The hon. member is com­pletely confused. If he looks at Section 121 (1) of the principal Act he will have the answer without persecuting the Minister with a ridiculous request.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (5.42 p.m.): In my opinion, although the Government asserts that a man should have the option of selecting whatever form of tenure he prefers, he is actually told under Clause 170, ''We can give you a certain area of half an acre or 20 acres or 2,500 acres if you insist on taking this perpetual-lease tenure, in which we do not believe, but if you are prepared to take it under what we believe in you can have an unlimited area." That is what it means.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (5.43 p.m.): This clause brings up to date the areas prescribed in the present Act. There was no limit previously on the area of land that could be offered for sale, and it seemed consistent to impose the limitations that have been placed on other tenures, namely, 10,000 acres or a living area. It has to be remem­bered that these are odds and ends of land, and no areas of 10,000 acres are available.

Mr. Houston: There are areas of 50 acres.

Mr. FLETCHER: Yes, but a lot of it is useless, with many hills and hollows.

Mr. Houston: If a firm wanted 50 acres, it would have to take it on freehold tenure?

Mr. FLETCHER: Not necessarily.

2082 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Mr. Houston: It could not be suburban land, because the maximum is 20 acres.

Mr. FLETCHER: That is within the judg­ment of the Commission. There has to be­compliance ·with the by~la\vs of the local authority. This is consistent with what we have done in respect of maximum areas of other freehold land.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (5.45 p.m.): I do not want to delay the• Committee, but I am not completely satisfied on this. The Minister said that it refers only to odds and ends of land. Clause 170 (2) reads-

"AIJ such land shall be distinguished as town or suburban or country lots."

Clause 180 contains a similar definition of town, suburban, and country leases, but the Ministe-r says that it is only odds and ends of land. If I wanted to acquire 20 acres of land in the outer suburbs of Brisbane under perpetual-lease tenure, I could not get it. I would have to purchase it for an e-state in fee simple. The Minister will admit that that is true.

Mr. Fletcher: If we offered it that way.

Mr. DUFFICY: The Minister would have no option. It is not a question of whether he can or cannot. Clause 180 says-

"(1) The Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may, by notifica­tion published in the Gazette, cause any Crown land to be offered for sale by public auction as auction perpetual lease under any of the following classes of tenure ... "

and it then gives the classes of tenure, which are town, suburban, and country. If one turns to page 156, one finds that Subclause (2) says-

'The land shall be offered in lots, the maximum areas whereof respectively shall not exceed-

town land, half an acre; suburban land, twenty acres; country land, two thousand five hundred and sixty acres."

As I said earlier, if I wanted to acquire an area of more than 20 acres of suburban land under perpetual-lease tenure, I suggest that under Clause 180 of the Bill I could not do so, because the maximum area that I could acquire would be 20 acres. But I could acquire up to 10,000 acres at auction for an estate in fee simple. If I am wrong in that, the Minister can tell me and correct me. I wish to know.

Mr. Fletcher: You are not wrong, but they would not be in the same place.

Mr. DUFFICY: It does not matter where they are. Irrespective of the situation of the land, I might prefer perpetual-lease tenure. The fact is that I can acquire it only in fee-simple if it exceeds the maximum area laid down in Clause 180.

Mr. Fletcher: According to the town plan, you would never be able to acquire it in Brisbane.

Mr. DUFFICY: I am talking about Rock­hampton. There may be 50 acres of subur­ban land in Rockhampton that I wish to acquire under perpetual-lease tenure. Under the restrictions imposed by Clause 180, I suggest that I could not do it, but I could purchase it for an estate _in fee simpl~ if it was 99,999 acres. Why IS there a distmc­tion?

Mr. Fletcher: It would not be the same land. The circumstances are different.

Mr. W ALSH (Bundaberg) (5.48 p.m.): I think we must go back a little bit on this matter.

Mr. Gaven: Not to 1910.

Mr. WALSH: No, but we have to go back at least to Clause 127, which dealt with the granting of perpetual-lease selections, to find the foundation for this. It is laid down specifically in that clause that the lease shall not include a covenant entitling the lessee to a deed of grant in fee simple. In other words, to convert a perpetual-lease .selection, he would first have to convert It to an agricultural farm, and he would then become entitled to a title in fee simple for the larger area. As I read the two subclauses that we are dealing with now, we could go to the South Coast, for example--

Mr. Gaven: You could not go to a better place.

Mr. WALSH: Or to the North Coast, for that matter, and submit an area of ground for auction perpetual lease, and the lease would not contain any covenant entitling the lessee to convert to freehold. However, it would be possible to go to any coastal area and deal with an area of land on a strictly freehold basis. If that is the way it is, it might clear up much of the confusion if it simply means, for example, in the case of the larger perpetual-lease selections, that it would not contain a covenant to freehold. In this case, it deals specifically with the type of land that can only be granted on a perpetual-lease basis as an auction perpetual lease or on freehold title, as the case may be.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (5.51 p.m.): This might, I think, have a marked effect on the reclamation of land. As land is being reclaimed, not only in Brisbane but in other places, it will eventually become very useful. As I see this clause, when the State decides to sell such land or to recommend its use for industrial purposes­we can take as an example Bulwer Island, which is over 20 acres-whatever firm takes that land for industrial purposes, if it is over 20 acres, it has to do it under freehold tenure; it cannot have it under leasehold tenure. Bulwer Island is within the city of Brisbane, but it could be in any country town. No-one can tell me that Bulwer Island would be considered to be other than suburban land. That is the matter the hon. member for Warrego raised, and I support him so far as the Brisbane area is concerned.

Land Bill [29 NoVEMBER] Land Bill 2083

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (5.52 p.m.): As far as I know, this will be offered not under lease but under free­hold title. If you wanted it and it was over 20 acres you would have to take perpetual country lease if it were offered under leasehold tenure, and, if you were in the Brisbane area, you would be subject to the town plan. It is all a matter of Government policy whether it is opened under perpetual lease or freehold, but so far as I know it will be opened under free­hold title.

Clause 180, as read, agreed to.

Clause 181-Matters to be stated in sale notification-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER Minister for Public Lands (5.53 p.m.): I move amendment-

(Cunningham­and Irrigation) the following

"On page 157, lines 9 to 15, omit the words-

'a perpetual town lease, a lease deemed pursuant to Division Ill. of this Part to be in force for a term of ten years, a lease issued pursuant to section one hundred and seventy-six of this Act, or a town lot wherefor he is not then entitled to a deed of grant in fee-simple'

and insert in lieu thereof the words-'land under any tenure'."

The amendment does not alter the meaning of the clause. It is aimed at saving verbiage in the Bill and in the forms to be filled in.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to.

Clause 181, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 182 to 185, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 186-Limitation as to holding-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER Minister for Public Lands (5.54 p.m.): I move amendment-

(Cunningham­and Irrigation) the following

"On page 159, line 16, after the word 'lessee', insert the further proviso-

'Provided further that if the Com­mission certifies, that in order to estab­lish, conduct, or maintain any industry or business it is necessary for any person or corporation to hold more than six allotments in any one city, town or township as perpetual town leases or more than six suburban allotments or portions as perpetual suburban leases, the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister, may permit the person or corporation in question to bid or apply for and hold the number fixed by the Governor in Council of allotments, suburban allot­ments or portions, as the case may be'."

It has been found that the restriction to six allotments in any one town has adversely affected establishments of businesses and industries. One that comes to mind is Biloela, I think. Therefore, the purpose is that, provided the Commissioner certifies that it is necessary to hold more than six allot­ments, the Governor in Council may authorise it.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to. Clause 186, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 187 to 189, both inclusive, as

read, agreed to. Clause 190-Saving-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (5.56 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment-

"On page 161, after line 23, insert the following new sub-clause:-

'(2) (a) A lessee of a perpetual town lease or a perpetual suburban lease used exclusively for his own residential use may apply to the Commission for relief, on the ground of hardship, from the liability to pay in full the annual rent determined by the court for the second or any subsequent rental period.

'The application shall be in writing, shall state the grounds of hardship relied upon, and shall contain or be accompanied by full information and particulars of the property and income of the lessee and his or her spouse res­pectively, and of the circumstances of any hardship relied upon.

'All such information and particulars shall be verified by statutory declara­tion.

'(b) The Commission shall investigate the application and may require the lessee concerne·d to furnish to it all such further information and particulars as it deems fit.

'For the purpose of investigating the application the Commission may reqmre the lessee to appear in person before it or an officer of the department named by it.

'(c) If upon investigation and con­sideration of the application the Com­mission is satisfied that the liability to pay in full the annual rent in question imposes upon the lessee a hardship which should be alleviated, then, notwithstand­ing anything in this Act, the Commision may remit, to the extent it deems neces­sary to effect such alleviation, the annual rent in question.

'(d) In the case of a lease in respect of the annual rent whereof a remission is granted by the Commission pursuant to this subsection-

'(i) the annual rent as determined by the court shall be reduced by the amount of the remission; and

2084 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

'(ii) in respect of tlre rental period in question, such reduced annual rent shall be payable, and shall be the annual rent, on and from the quarter day preceding the date of the receipt bv the Commission of the application for the remission which is ~the anni­versary next preceding that date of the quarter day on which the lease in question commenced:

'Provided that if the date of the receipt of the application by the Com­mission is not later than six months after the date of the court's deter­mination, such reduced annual rent shall be payable, and shall be the annual rent, for the rental period in question. 'This paragraph (d) applies subject to

paragraph (f) of this subsection. '(e) The Commission may at any time

and from time to time require any lessee to whom it has granted a remission in annual rent pursuant to this subsection to inform it in writing, verified by statu­tory declaration, within a time specified by it, whether or not there has been since the application was made or, during aoy period subsequent to the making of the application specified by the Commis­sion any and, if so, what alteration in the financial circumstances of the lessee or his or her spouse or in the circum­stances of any hardship on the ground whereof the remission was granted.

'(f) (i) If a lease is transferred, whether by operation of law or other­wise, any remission in the annual rent thereof granted by the Commission pursuant to this subsection shall be determined thereby.

'(ii) The Commission may determine or reduce or increase any remission in the annual rent of any lease granted by it pursuant to this subsection if in its opinion the determination, re·duction or increase is warranted by change in the circumstances of any hardship on th~ ground whereof the remission was granted (or, in the case of an increase in the remission, by further hardship) or, if at any time when the lessee is required by the Commission to inform it or any of the matters mentioned in paragraph (e) of this subsection, the lessee fails so to do within the time specified by the Commission.

'(iii) Any determination, reduction or inqrease referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii) of this paragraph of a remis­sion in the annual rent of a lease shall take effect on and from the quarter day following the date of the transfer of the lease in question or, as the case may be, the making by the Commission of such determination, reduction or increase, which is the anniversary next following that date of the quarter day on which the lease commenced'."

For some time now the Government has been seriously concerned about the plight of persons on fixed incomes and pensions permanently living in localities which have been severely affected by spiralling land values. For instance, many such persons retired to beach resorts in days when land there was compartively cheaply purchased, but now in more prosperous times, when there is much greater demand for family seaside homes as subsidiaries to town homes, and for investment purposes, the price of seaside land has soared tremendously.

When residential lots in those areas are re-assessed these people are finding it difficult to meet the newly-determined annual rents and are often faced with what quite naturally seems to them to be the calamitous situation of transplanting themselves to another area. I do not think-and I feel that all hon. members will agree with me-that the bona­fide permanent residents in such localities should be compelled to move.

The problem of what relief the Govern­ment can give to these people is a very complex one. The amendment I have moved is aimed at providing some relief to them. It introduces a somewhat novel principle into our land laws, but having regard to the circumstances that it aims to alleviate, it should commend itself to all and be above the level of party politics.

Briefly, the amendment empowers the Land Administration Commission in cases of proved hardship to make a remission of the annual rent determined by the court to the extent it deems necessary to alleviate the hardships. Persons claiming this benefit will be required to make application in writing to the Commission setting out the grounds on which they claim hardship, and to furnish particulars of their own and their spouse's assets and income. The benefit is limited to lessees of perpetual town leases and perpetual suburban leases used exclu­sively by the lessees for their own residential purposes.

The Commission is empowerd to review the remission upwards or downwards and to determine the remission if it is satisfied that the grounds of hardship have altered. A transfer of the lease terminates the remission.

This has been a very worrying matter. It has not been easy to make the right approach. I am sure there will be people who believe that we have adventured unwisely into perhaps complex legal difficulties, but all in all I tlrink-and Cabinet has been with me on this-that it was worth while doing it. Quite a number of cases were brought to our notice where the most calamitous circumstances had arisen. People who had not contributed in any way to these tremendous increases were called upon to meet the expense of high rent payments for the purpose of keeping their homes about them.

Land Bill [29 NovEMBER] Land Bill 2085

Mr. GAVEN (South Coast) (7.15 p.m.): I want to speak briefly on the amendment to Clause 190 and explain tlre intention. I was responsible for bringing this matter to the Minister's notice. It concerns perpetual­lease land in urban areas or town allotments. It means simply that many people who are aggrieved because of the high valuations, and pay as rent to the Crown £3 for every £100 worth of urban land, will be treated somewhat similarly, but not exactly simi­larly, to people who, from time to time, seek remission of rates because of their economic circumstances.

I suppose that there is not another area in the State that would be affected as greatly as mine. In my area there are about 1,700 urban leasehold blocks of land, and tire great majority of them have homes built on them and many of the owners have been in resi­dence for many years. In some instances they have been there for as long as I can remember.

Because of the re-appraisal that takes place every 15 years, many of these humble people, particularly widows, ex-service men, and people on fixed incomes, find themselves in financial difficulties because of the terri­fic inflation in values following the extremely high valuations of tlre Valuer-General's Department. In some cases, in one appraisal, values have been increased from £100, £200, £300, or £400 to £2,000, £3,000, or £4,000. Some of them are much higher than that. As a result, a person who was pay­ing £6 to the Crown on a valuation of £200, or £12 on a valuation of £400, is now pay­ing up to £150 or £200, and many are pay­ing as much as £300 or £400. This is tan­tamount to saying to these humble people, ''You must vacate your premises," or "get out of your home." They simply cannot find the wherewithal to pay this excessive rent.

By this amendment an application can be made to the Land Administration Commis­sion by the various landholders, particularly those who have had a re-appraisal. It does not apply to those who have bought land, or bid for it at high prices. People who have lived in their 11omes for many years­and they must have lived in them for 15 years to have had a re-appraisal-by apply­ing, and filling in certain forms, will dis­close their full financial position to the Com­mission, which will then decide whether, because of their low income, they are able to meet the rent or will eventually be forced out of their homes. Tl1e Commission, in its wisdom, will decide to reject an application because the person's financial position proves he can meet the rent, or if it decides that he is unable to pay the high rental demanded it will grant his application. If the Commission finds that the person can­not possibly meet a rental of £200 a year, it will reduce the amount of the rent.

Mr. Walsh: Another 'Gaven Way," is it?

Mr. GA VEN: It is a good way, and I think all tlre "Gaven Ways" in this Chamber have been pretty good. I think the hon. member will admit that. It is good legisla­tion because it helps the humble, decent, hard-working person who, through no fault of his own, finds himself unable to stay in his home because of economic circum­stances. It may be said, "Why doesn't such a person sell lris home?'' My reply is that in my area-I do not know what it is like in other parts of Queensland-it is impos­sible, because of this very situation, to sell Crown leasehold land at any price. This amendment may help a little in the future, but at present it is impossible for these people to sell their homes, and it is impos­sible for many of them to pay the high rent. For that reason I commend the legislation.

I am grateful to the Minister, and to the Government, for acceding to my request. I have led deputation after deputation lrere from chambers of commerce and the United Council of Progress Associations, and so on. At least we have found a bit of a break­through, and it will assist these humble people in every possible way.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (7.20 p.m.): On behalf of the Opposition I wish to express approval of the amendment. As the hon. member for South Coast pointed out, it is a humanitarian piece of legislation, and any­thing that is humane must receive the support of the Australian Labor Party.

No doubt the illustrations given by the hon. member for South Coast are true. We have only to read tonight's newspaper to learn of some of the tragedies that have occurred. Unfortunately we have no guaran­tee that the slump has ended. These are matters for which the Government must accept a great deal of responsibility because of its indifference and its encouraging an inflationary and unwarranted boom on the South Coast and elsewhere. These financial tragedies will mean a great deal of hardship that a careful Government, or a Government mindful of the welfare of the under-dog, would have taken action to prevent. If it had not been able to prevent it, at least it could have lessened the impact. It is obvious that land values in those areas are well on the down-grade but it will be some years before they can be re-assessed. For that reason, apart from the humane point of view, considerations of justice enter the matter, and the amendment is to be commended.

Mr. W AISH (Bundaberg) (7.23 p.m.): I do not say that I can find any complaint with the amendment. If I have any complaint at all, it is about the limitation of Govern­ment policy in the matter. It is quite a good principle to write into the Bill that some relief should be given in the manner set out but, after all, the hon. member for South Coast, or any other hon. member, must realise that there are thousands upon thousands of pensioners living on freehold tenure. While we cannot condemn the Government for introducing this proposal in

2086 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

the nature of a type of moratorium, what I should like to see the Government do is go a little further and write into some legis la­tion a principle to cover the same type of householder who might be living on a free­hold tenure.

Mr. Nicklin: What could we do? What could the Government do with a freehold tenure-pay somebody to live on it?

Mr. W ALSH: Mr. Taylor--

Mr. Nicklin: I would like to know what you mean.

Mr. W ALSH: After all, in the depression years we passed the moratorium legislation, which certainly did a lot with contracts and so on, and freehold land and any other type of tenure.

Mr. Pizzey: He has been exempted from land tax if he is only on a single allotment.

Mr. WALSH: That applies to everybody else-it applies to the Minister himself and to me-if he occupies an area up to 48 perches. That applies to the man on £10,000 a year as well as to the man on a minimum income. I do not regard that as a valid comparison. I think the Premier sees my point. There are still many people who own their own freehold tenures and many people who rent homes from landlords who are in receipt of pensions.

Mr. Nicklin: You are now going into something that has nothing to do with the Land Bill.

Mr. W ALSH: I hope that at some time in the future the Government will find ways and means of extending this concession that is to be applicable to tenants on Crown land to people on fixed incomes, such as pen­sioners, who are occupying land rented from owners of freehold titles.

Mr. Dufficy: That would come under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mr. WALSH: It is a matter for the Government.

Mr. Nicklin: I think you are getting into deep water now.

Mr. WALSH: The Premier would like me to give this away. The hon. member for South Coast said that he has 1,700 urban dwellers in his electorate.

Mr. Gaven: I said they were renting lease­hold suburban allotments.

Mr. W ALSH: If the hon. member can give me the statistics on the other side and say how many are renting land on freehold tenure for residential purposes, he may then be able to convince the Premier that there is a necessity to extend this concession in another way.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to.

Clause 190, as amended, agreed to. Clause 191-Application-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (7.27 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 161, lines 29 and 30, omit the words-

The Irrigation Areas (Land Settle­ment) Acts, 1933 to 1961,'

and insert in lieu thereof the words­'The Irrigation Areas (Land Settle­ment) Act of 1962,'."

I am sure that hon. members realise the need for the amendment.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (7.28 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 161, after line 38, insert the following paragraph-

'This Section does not apply to a lease granted pursuant to section 22B of "The State Housing Acts, 1945 to 1962.","

At the request of the Commissioner of Hous­ing, these leases of business sites granted by him are exempted from freeholding pro­visions. Once leases are granted, they are deemed to be held under the Land Act. Whilst held as leasehold land, the Com­missioner of Housing can control the type of business carried on thereon and the sub­division of the leases.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (7.30 p.m.): Naturally, the Opposition is opposed to this clause because it includes a provision for freeholding, to which we have indicated our opposition throughout the debate. In order to expedite the passage of the Bill, I shall merely indicate at this stage that I am more anxious to debate, and possibly divide the Committee on, Clause 194, because it is the clause to which I referred when the Com­mittee was discussing Clause 143. I indicate our opposition to Clause 191 because of the freeholding provision contained in it, and I reserve further comment till the Com­mittee is dealing with Clause 194, which contains a similar principle and additional principles about which I wish to speak.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (7.31 p.m.): I also wish to register my objection to the principle of giving freehold title, which is contained in the clause. I do not want to repeat what I have said on previous clauses, but I wish to have it noted that I am opposed to the principle contained in this clause.

Clause 191, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 192 and 193, as read, agreed to.

Land Bill [29 NovEMBER] Land Bill 2087

Clause 194-Terms and conditions of lease for term of ten years-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (7.32 p.m.): I move the following amend-ment:-

"On page 164, lines 23 and 24, omit the words-

'conditions as, pursuant to Division 11. of this Part, applied'

and insert in lieu thereof the words-' conditions including developmental and improvement conditions) as applied'."

The amendment makes clear that improve­ment and development conditions attaching to auction perpetual lease carry over to 10-year freeholding leases.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (7.34 p.m.): When the Committee was discussing Clause 143, I directed attention to subclause (c) of that clause and said that I would compare it with a similar clause that would be dis­cussed later. We have now reached that clause, and I refer the Minister to Subclause (d) of Clause 194, which reads-

"the lessee shall pay in ten equal annual instalments compounded of principal and interest, as prescribed by subsection (2) of section one hundred and ninety-five of this Act, the balance of the purchasing price, together with interest at the rate of five pounds per centum per annum, calcu­lated upon yearly rests, on the amount of that balance remaining unpaid for the time being".

When speaking on Clause 143, I directed the Minister's attention to the fact that in the conversion of a grazing selection the period of payment of the purchase price was 30 years and that it did not attract any interest. I was not then in a position to discuss this clause, but I did ask him to pay regard to that subclause. I think the Minister will agree that, at the present time, a lessee who seeks to convert a grazing selection of 10,000 acres, which is not in excess of a living area, can convert it over a period of 30 years. In other words, the purchase price that is fixed can be paid over that period and it does not attract any interest.

Under the clause that we are now discuss­ing, a person who wishes to convert to free­hold tenure a 32-perch allotment in Brisbane, or anywhere else, can convert that allotment over a period of 10 years. In other words, the purchase price as fixed by the court is paid by 10 annual instalments and the payment of interest will be at the rate of 5 per cent. with annual rests.

I should like the Minister to explain why the grazier who holds a grazing selection of 10,000 acres which is not in excess of a living area, who applies to convert to free·hold tenure, and whose application is accepted,

can convert at the value fixed by the court if he accepts it, and has 30 years in which to pay the freehold value without attracting any interest, while on the other hand the person in Brisbane or Charleville, or anywhere else, who holds a 32-perch allotment under perpetual town lease- tenure, has 10 years in which to pay-against 30 years in the case of the grazing selection-and his payments of the purchase price attract interest at 5 per cent.

There might be a reason for all this­I do not know whether there is-but I should certainly like to know, because at this stage I cannot see why the worker with a 32-perch perpetual town lease in Brisbane who wishes to convert has to do so in 10 years and pay 5 per cent. interest, whilst the person in the West with 10,000 acres has 30 years in which to pay his purchase price, without any interest. Hon. members should remember, too, that during that period of 30 years his rent is pegged, because no matter what the appreciation in value may be-and it could be considerable in 30 years-his rent is pegged to the extent that he has a lease.

The important point about it is that in the conversion from leasehold to freehold he is issued a 30-year lease. At the com­pletion of that lease he recives a title in fee simple. So for that period there is a pegging of rent. For that period also, in the case of the grazier, it does not attract any land tax because it is not freehold until the termination of the 30 years. Despite the denials of the Minister and the legal eagles on the other side, because possibly I have had just as good advice on this point as they have,--

Mr. Smith: Would you like to name the source?

Mr. DUFFICY: Yes, but not publicly. If the hon. member likes to see me privately, I will name it. I am sure it is infinitely better advice than the hon. member could give. I would suggest that it is as good as the Minister has obtained. That advice is that the payment of rent for that 30-year lease is a taxation deduction.

Mr. Ewan interjected.

Mr. DUFFICY: I am not talking about that at all. I am talking about the advan­tages to the grazier with 10,000 acres compared with the advantages granted under the Bill to the worker who has a 32-perch allotment under perpetual lease. I have enumerated the advantages. In addition to those obvious advantages under the 30-year lease, I am saying that because it is a lease, and a conditional lease at that, the payment of the rent, despite the fact that it is payment for a purchase in fee simple, is a taxation deduction.

Mr. Smith: You were wrong the last time you said that.

2088 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Mr. DUFFICY: Despite the supposed legal knowledge of our friend opposite I point out-and I think even the hon. member will argee with this-that any payment in respect of a lease at the persent time is an allowable taxation deduction. I think everybody will agree wnn that. In every clause of the Bill where the conversion from leasehold to freehold is mentioned, it is particularly stipulated that the payment annually for that conversion is a payment of rent. In the conversion there is a 30-year lease, and it is a conditional lease for the reason that certain developmental conditions can be imposed before the lease is granted. It is also a fact that a person could pay 29, or even 30, annual instalments on the lease, but if he did not carry out the develop­mental conditions that can be imposed he would not be entitled to a lease in fee simple. Consequently, it must be rent. His rent on the conditional lease over 30 years could be a taxation deduction-and I am suggesting it is because I pay some regard to the advice I have received. But that is beside the point.

Mr. Ewan: You would not depend on it.

Mr. DUFFICY: I am not depending on it and the hon. member should not depend on the other, either.

The real point I wish to make in con­clusion, and the real question I want the Minister to answer, if he will be kind enough, is why in Subclause (d) of Clause 194 there is a provision for the conversion of a perpetual lease town lot with interest at the rate of 5 per cent., whereas in the conversion of a grazing selection under Sub­clause (c) of Clause 143 there is no pro­vision for interest. There is discrimination and I should like the Minister to explain why.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (7 .46 p.m.): Of course this is the old argu­ment that was gone through when the original Act laid down that freeholding was possible in those times over 20 years, and, for urban land, over 10 years. The difference now is that we have extended the privilege of paying for it from 20 years to 30 years for agricultural and pastoral land.

Mr. Dufficy: It is the 1957 amendment I am talking about-Clause 194.

Mr. FLETCHER: The hon. member is raising the disparity between the 10 years with interest and the 30 years without interest.

Mr. Dufficy: That is so.

Mr. FLETCHER: It is simply a matter of the point of view. The reasons given to justify the 20 years without interest, as against the 10 years with interest, are pre­cisely the same today, except that we have gone a little further and recog;.)ised the

inherent risks and vicissitudes of the rural dweller, and recognised, too, in a more prac­tical way, the effect they have on him. The land provides him and his family with a living. It is his means of livelihood. We have given great weight to that consideration. On our experience in the last few years we found that 20 years, even without interest, presented difficulties for the rural producer bearing in mind present-day costs and con­ditions. We found it was very hard for him to carry out his freeholding obligations. Because we believe that freeholding is good, we have gone further. We thought it advis­able to extend the period from 20 years to 30 years.

Mr. Dufficy: I am not arguing about that. That is not my point.

Mr. FLETCHER: It is as simple as that. The holder of the 32-perch allotment is

in a different category. The amount of money involved in the first place is incon­siderable compared with the case of the rural freeholder, and the property by which he makes his livelihood is not involved. For the very same reasons that were canvassed in this Chamber when the original Bill was passed, we believe that what we are doing now is good.

With regard to the argument that has been bandied back and forth as to whether pay­ments for freehold are taxation deductions, I am working, and the Government is work­ing, on the premise that these payments are not deductible. If they are I suppose some­one will be very happy about it, and I am not going to be very miserable about it. But I do not think that is likely to be the case. The Commonwealth taxation authorities have advised that they will take the view that this is payment for a capital charge, or a capital cost, and is not likely to be treated as a deductible expenditure.

Mr. Dufficy: With regard to taxation, what is the position of a person who has com­pleted his 30 annual payments, but does not get his lease because he failed to carry out the developmental conditions?

Mr. FLETCHER: He will not be allowed to go as long as that without carrying out the conditions.

Mr. Dufficy: It may be in the later part of the period.

Mr. FLETCHER: It will be our job to see that he does not go to the end of his lease without carrying out the conditions. There are provisions enabling action to be taken if he does not carry out his obligations under his purchase lease conditions.

Mr. DUFFICY (Wan·ego) (7.50 p.m.): I am not so much concerned about the taxa­tion angle, but the Minister, to my way of thinking anyhow, did not tell the Committee just why the lessee of a grazing selection who converts does so over 30 years without payment of interest on the purcllase price.

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2089

The worker in this or any other city, who has a 32-perch allotment, perpetual lease town lot, converts over 10 years. I am not so much concerned about that. What I am concerned about is that he pays 5 per cent. interest on the value of the conversion in annual rests whereas the conversion of a grazing selection does not attract any interest at all. Does the Minister think that is fair and reasonable?

Mr. EW AN (Roma) (7 .51 p.m.): The profound observations of the hon. member for Warrego cannot be sustained. Of course, in accordance with the policy of the Australian Labour Party he seeks to drive a wedge and create sectional bitterness by his remarks.

Mr. Walsh: You are doing that by this provision.

Mr. EW AN: As a matter of fact, the hon. member knows full well why these provisions were inserted in the Bill. He knows that in the first freeholding legisla­tion the period for conversion was 20 years and tlrat, following repeated and solid repre­sentation from the rural areas of the State it was extended to 30 years. No such repre~ sentation was received from the hon. mem­ber for Warrego or the A.L.P. or any of those sections to increase the period of acquisition of town allotments.

The hon. member for Warrego conveni­ently overlooks the fact that the person on the 32-perch allotment has only to build the residence in which lre lives-put a roof over his head-while the person in the rural area, on a property described so glibly as 10,000 acres though it may be only half tlrat or even a quarter of it, has to develop his land out of his own pocket. He provides employment and engages in production and, in the course of that production through wlrich he provides employment, he pays taxes other than rates paid by the person on the 10-year acquisition period living in a town. Therefore he has to suffer the market fluctuations on whatever he produces; he has to put up with the vagaries of the sea­sons, and any amenities he chooses to have he must provide out of lris own pocket-so different from the person Jiving in the town.

So I think the Government would be fail­ing in its duty if it did not make some dif­ferentiation or provide some incentive for the people to go out from the towns and decentralise and occupy the very important rural areas and bring our production up to a point where it brings prosperity and employment to the State.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (7.54 p.m.): I do not want to spend very much time on this. It is quite apparent that the provision discriminates between two sections of the community. It is all right for the hon. member for Roma to say that tlre worker

in a city or town has only to build a house on his allotment. According to him, all he has to do is to knock together a few piano cases and perhaps a few old petrol drums, or something like that, and that is good enough. We belong to a party that does not believe in discriminating between different sections of the community.

To return to the Minister's statement about the term of 30 years, that is not new. I can speak of it not from looking at any Act but from actual experience. My father had an agricultural farm, and when he died the responsibility to pay the rent and try to keep it going rested on me. I was very young at the time. Under the old freehold title or agricultural farm system, one paid half the annual rental for 20 years and was expected to pay the balance in a Jump sum at the end of that period. When that time came, a Labour Government was in power and it extended the period for another 10 years. In other words, double the rent had to be paid. Assuming that land was worth 20s. Od., 6d. an acre had to be paid for 20 years and then ls. Od. an acre for the next 10 years, and that paid it off.

Mr. Ewan: What year was that?

Mr. BURROWS: 1918.

Mr. Ewan: I think your figures are wrong.

Mr. BURROWS: The Labour Government repealed the freeholding provisiOns, and contracts made by the previous Government had by then matured. The land to which I refer was selected before a Labour Govern­ment was in power. As a matter of fact, perpetual-leasehold tenure was something that nobody then seemed to know anything about. The first 20 years was up in 1918, if I remember rightly. I know that I was under 21 at the time.

The point that I wish to emphasise is that we on this side of the Chamber do not think that there should be any discrimination between people living in the country and those living in the city. We are against discriminating between different sections of the community.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (7.58 p.m.): I have a few words to say on this clause. I think that the Minister is trying to make out that the provision now being amended was brought in by a Labour Government. That is completely wrong, as he well knows. The legislation referring to the periods of 20 years and 10 years and the 5 per cent. was brought down by his Government, and all that was done was to increase the period by 10 years. We objected to that principle, and we do so again now.

On any conversion, whether it be a grazing or any other lease, the value of the land is determined by the court. A grazier repays an amount equal to 31 per cent. per

2090 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

annum of the Land Court's valuation of the land. In other words, he has to pay less than 1 per cent. extra to change from leasehold to freehold tenure. If he was on 1 t per cent., that would be approximately 2t per cent. extra. which is not a large increase for him to meet. The encouragement is there, particularly for those who took up the land on a basis of 2! per cent.

Let us look at the position with town leases. Such a lessee gets his land valued by the Land Court and then he is told, "That is not the value we want for the land. We want 27t per cent. in addition to that." If the 5 per cent. is calculated over a 10-year period, the figure is very close to 27t per cent.

Mr. Ewan: There are yearly rests.

Mr. HOUSTON: I am aware of that. Let us take, for example, a piece of ground worth £1,000. Five per cent. for the first year is £50, and, taking rests into considera­tion, the total is eventually £275, which is 27 t per cent. In fact, the Government is valuing the land but not accepting the value, and it is virtuaUy adding another 27! per cent. to it, irrespective of whether hon. members opposite call it interest or some­thing else. It would be understandable if a man borrowed money and was being charged interest. In this case he borrows nothing. He already has the land, and the Government is charging him 2t per cent. Now he will be charged more than 10 per cent., because even his capital repayment will amount to 10 per cent., which is four times what he would have to pay for lease­hold.

Mr. Fletcher: He is not compelled to do it.

Mr. HOUSTON: I know he is not, but the Government says that it is being gener­ous in allowing him to convert. The Minister has said that the Government believes in encouraging people to convert to freehold.

Mr. Fletcher: It is his choice.

Mr. HOUSTON: Yes, but the Government claims that it encourages people to convert.

Mr. Dufficy: Why make his choice more difficult?

Mr. Fletcher: I have explained that.

Mr. HOUSTON: The Minister has not explained it. All he said was, "We are going back to the other Act, and we have made it 30 years instead of 20 years." He took as a basis something that had been done by a former anti-Labour Government, and our argument is that the original basis was wrong. There is no valid argument for increasing the value of the land when a man has to buy it back at a valuation higher than that fixed by the Land Court. The Minister has not explained it at all.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (8.2 p.m.): The Minister says that he has explained it. He may have explained it to his own satisfaction, but he has not explained it to the satisfac­tion of hon. members on this side of the Chamber.

Mr. Fletcher: You would not be satisfied with any explanation.

Mr. WALSH: It is perfectlv obvious that there is discrimination here between two types of Crown tenants, but the Minister does not want to admit it.

Earlier we discussed an amendment that was designed to give relief to pensioners and other Crown tenants on fixed incomes. The same principle is involved in this clause.

People who take up perpetual-lease aiiot­ments for home-building are usuaily on a fixed income. If a man has a job, he is on the basic wage or a little above it, or perhaps he may be receiving a salary slightly above that. In ail the attempts of the hon. member for Roma to justify the discrimina­tion, he has failed to take into consideration that a basic-wage earner who buys a 24-perch or 31-perch allotment for residential purposes on a freehold basis has to outlay £500, or perhaps £1,000. In addition, to provide a home of reasonable comfort will cost him about £3,000. The hon. member for Roma should compare that man's posi­tion with the position of a man in the country who can go in for various types of agricul­tural or pastoral production and improve his income by £1,000 each year. The hon. member might say, "He could experience a drought." That is quite true; but I would much rather have a piece of perpetual lease or freehold land that would permit me to earn an income much higher than the basic wage.

Mr. Ewan interjected.

Mr. WALSH: I always did earn something when I was on a farm and, what is more, I did not borrow from the bank because I always tried to pay my way.

Mr. Hanlon: The residential lessee does not earn anything from his block.

Mr. WALSH: In this case, the Govern­ment is seeking to meet the requirements of the hon. member for South Coast and to give concessions to somebody because he may have faced difficulties because of the spiralling land values and so on and the consequent charge for Crown rent on these properties. If it is going to give the Crown tenant who is undertaking the purchase of a valuable equity in a farm a period of 30 years free of interest, it is not too much to ask that the man who is on a humble wage should also be given the same consideration.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (8.6 p.m.): I will not try to explain at any length a matter that was raised here three

Land Bill (29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2091

years ago and debated at great length. The principle is the same, but the period is extended from 20 to 30 years. That is the only difference.

Mr, Dufficy~ Nobody is arguing about that.

Mr. FLETCHER: If the hon. member is not arguing about that, that is one thing we do not have to argue about and the other matter was .argued three years ago.

Mr. Hanlon: It was not answered then, which is all the more reason why it should be explained tonight.

Mr. FLETCHER: It is a matter of political philosophy. We are freeholders and the Opposition are not freeholders, and in this case they are making rather a point of the difference between freeholding in the rural areas and freeholding in the urban areas.

The man who has a 32-perch allotment in an urban area does not have to do it any more than the othe!' man has; it is a free choice of his own. If he takes the 10 years plus interest, that is his free choice. If he does, it is because he likes freehold so much that he is prepared to pay the price.

As to the reason why we think it justifiable to give a concession to the man in the country, that is a matter I have already canvassed here; it is a matter of a man who has to make his living from this piece of land, and in our opinion it is more important -it is more precious in the mind of the purchaser-to feel the security that is involved because of being able to spend more money and have more comfort in the secure knowledge that he and his family and those who come after him will be secure in their tenure. Whether that is a matter you believe in or not does not matter; it is a matter of whether he believes in it, and he does. We think it is so important that we should give him every encouragement to do it. That is the difference between the two, and because we thought that 20 years did not give him enough time in which to do it, in the public interest we have agreed to extend it to 30 years, without interest. Hon. members can take that as the difference between us. The man in the town, if he was buying his allotment from a private source-for instance, from Ted Walsh who had a piece of freehold land-he would be buying for cash, or on terms with interest. That is certain. If that is his choice that is what he has to do with us, but the other is a concession to people in country areas where the implica­tions are entirely different.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (8.9 p.m.): The Minister defends a concession to the grazier in not charging him interest, but thinks it is all right for the city man to be fleeced. I take it that the Minister will ensure that when that freehold land is sold by one grazier to another prospective grazier, or when it is subdivided on the freehold tenure, the intending purchaser will not be charged any interest.

Question-That Clause 194, as amended, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Com­mittee divided-

AYES, 30 Mr. Anderson

, Armstrong Bjelke-Petersen Camm

Mr. Low Munro Nicklin Pilbeam

Chalk De war Ewan Fletcher Gilmore Harrison Herbert

, Hiley Hodges Hooper Hough ton

, Hughes Knox

Mr. Baxter Bennett

, Bromley Burrows Davies Dean Donald Dufficy

, Duggan Graham Hanlon Houston

, Pizzey Ramsden Smith Sullivan Tooth Wharton Windsor

Tellers: Mr. Carey Dr. Delamothe

NOES, 21

PAIRS

Mr. Lloyd M ann Marsden

, Melloy Newton Wall ace Walsh

Tellers: Mr. Inch , Thackeray

Mr. Hewitt Mr. Tucker , Gaven n Gunn , Row ~· Byrne , Rae , O'Donnell , Lonergan , Shernngton

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 195, as read, agreed to. Clause 196-Freeholding covenant-

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (8.16 p.m.): This clause again demonstrates the incon­sistency of the policy of the Minister and of the Government. I am sure that the Minister will interest hon. members if he can explain it. We had qu!te a long d_is­cussion on Clause 180, which deals With auction perpetual leases. It is . intere~ting to note that the Bill, when dealmg With that particular type of lease, provides in Subclause 6 of Clause 188 that-

"The lease shall not include a covenant entitling the lessee to a deed of grant in fee-simple."

It is interesting to make a comparison with Clause 196, dealing with the same type of leases, that is, perpetual town, suburban, and country leases, which provides-

"Every lease deemed, pursuant to this Division a lease for a term of ten years, shall be deemed to contain a covenant that the Governor in Council shall, in the name of Her Majesty, grant in fee-simple to the lessee the land comprised in the lease-"

The Minister has one lot of perpetual town, suburban, and country leases that may be offered for sale as auction perpetual leases which shall not contain a covenant, and in the clause under discussion the Minister says that such a covenant can be provided

2092 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

for, and in fact is provided for. I should like the Minister to explain how that comes about. They are the same types of tenure, namely, perpetual town, suburban, and coun­try leases. Why does the Bill provide that in one case there shall be a covenant enab­ling the lessee to purchase this tenure in fee simple, whereas under a previous clause that is denied the lessee?

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (8.17 p.m.): Clause 196 deals with a con­verted auction perpetual lease-an interven­ing lease before payment in full of the free­hold price. Clause 196 is merely the machin­ery to effect the conversion.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warr.ego) (8.18 p.m.): I cannot altogether agree with the Minister. I do not think it refers particularly to auctions. I think that after a person who holds a perpetual town lease makes applica­tion for conversion of that lease, when the price has been fixed by the court and is accepted by the applicant, a 10-year lease is then granted to the applicant, and inher­ent in that 10-year lease is the fact that, at the conclusion of the payments for the 10 years--

Mr. Fletcher: conditions.

Plus the development

Mr. DUFFICY: No, plus the 5-per cent. interest that I was talking about. At the termination of the 10-year period he receives a lease in fee-simple.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (8.19 p.m.): The point I am making is that in the clause applying to auction perpetual leases there is specific provision that there shall not be a covenant entitling that lessee to a deed of grant in fee-simple. Under Clause 196, where the lease is granted under the Irriga­tion Areas (Land Settlement) Act of 1933, there is specific provision that the same type of lease, whether it be a town, suburban, count~y, or perpetual lease, is given a right, and, m fact, as the clause provides, there shall be a covenant giving the right to this type of lessee under another Act to convert the leasehold into freehold.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (8.21 p.m.): There is no covenant in the original lease, as the hon. member for Warrego would have it. The Bill gives the right referred to here by conversion.

Clause 196, as read. agreed to.

Clauses 197 to 204, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 205-Special lease of land costly to develop-

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) S8.22 p.m.): I regard this clause as a very Important one, not merely because it includes the principle of freehold but more particularly because of its concluding paragraph, Subclause (3).

The clause in the first place deals with the terms and conditions of a special lease. It says-

"With respect to land which in th:e opinion of the Minister is abnormally costly to develop, the Governor in Cound! (without limiting the conditions that he in his discretion may impose) may, after or without by public advertisement invit­ing applications therefor, issue a special lease in pursuance of this Division subject to conditions providing for--"

and we go down to sub-paragraph (c), which says-

"the tenure under which the land or part thereof may be subsequently granted to the lessee after its development and com­pliance with any other conditions of lease, and the purchasing price to be paid for the freehold thereof or the capital value in respect of the perpetual lease, which­ever may be granted."

That is fairly important for a start, but it becomes more important when we go to Subclause (3), which provides-

"The provisions with respect to maxi­mum area of section one hundred and eighty of this Act shall not apply to a lease of any class of tenure issued pur­suant to this section."

As the Minister knows, the proposed Section 180 of the Act provides area restric­tions of half an acre, 20 acres, and a maxi­mum area in the case of town land of 2,560 acres, but under this clause, and Sub­clause (3) in particular, these maximum areas are abolished completely. So it seems to me that under Clause 205, the Minister, or the Governor in Council, as tire case may be, can grant a special lease of any area without any restriction whatever.

It seems to me, too, that it might be possible to grant a freehold tenure for any area without any restriction, either. If that is the case, it is a particularly important clause because it gives the Government the right to grant a special lease and, in granting it in, for example, a suburb of Brisbane, it could at the same time lay down the develop­ment conditions that might apply to it, and also the purchase price to be placed on it for an estate in fee-simple.

As all that can happen under this clause, I should like to know why the Government, in its wisdom or otherwise, was so anxious to abolish the maximum area restriction in the final paragraph. If the Minister can give me some information on that matter I shall be very grateful, and any further remarks I have to make will be reserved till I have heard his explanation.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (8.26 p.m.): This clause is used adminis­tratively to deal with small areas of land that are abnormally costly to develop. They occur in places like Brisbane and other areas,

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2093

and are not sufficiently large to warrant being brought under the provisions of the Crown Land Development Act. There is one area that comes to mind of approximately 40 acres at Tallebudgera. It was unattractive swamp land, and the provision was used to attract somebody who otherwise would not have had the slightest interest in reclaiming it.

It is felt that it is only proper to allow a lessee to purchase in fee-simple the whole area of the land developed. This provision is used only to make the proposition sufficiently attractive to interest somebody in this type of land. Without the attraction of obtaining freehold tenure, persons or companies would not, it was considered, undertake such development. If they are going to put thousands of pounds into a swamp or some other unattractive place, they have to know that it will be theirs when they have done so. That is why this has been done. The land that I have in mind was a particularly unattractive swamp.

The provision could be used in such areas round Brisbane. It is to be applied only to small unattractive areas not sufficiently large to come under Crown land develop­ment, and we want somebody with sufficient money to be prepared to put some of it down these holes. It has been one of the indispensable provisions of the Act.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (8.29 p.m.): What the Minister says may be correct, but the unfortunate thing is that we on this side of the Chamber cannot read his mind or make any definite forecasts of what the Government may do. All that we can do is take the Bill as it reads. The Minister might well agree that certain areas of the brigalow lands are particularly costly to develop. After all, we do not know how long the present Minister will occupy that office, and there could be in future another Minister with an entirely different view on this matter, one who could be influenced by the actual words of the clause. They are-

"With respect to land which in the opinion of the Minister is abnormally costly to develop

In the opinion of the present Minister, or in the opinion of a succeeding Minister, certain brigalow lands might be very costly to develop. I suggest that there is nothing in the clause to prevent the Minister from issuing a special lease to a particular person, or to a company or anyone else. Having issued the special lease, he could then decide whether part or the whole of it could be converted to freehold tenure and also decide the purchase price. In spite of what the Minister might say about his intention in regard to smaii parcels of land, I suggest that there is nothing in the clause to prevent him from doing the things that I suggest or from converting an area in excess of 10,000 acres in the brigalow belt from special lease to freehold. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (8.31 p.m.): It will not be used in the brigalow belt. If the hon. member looks at Subclause (1) (a) he will see that it says-

"thc specific development of the land in order to render it fit for manufacturing, industrial, residential or business purposes".

That is what it is for. There is no way in which we can apply it to the brigalow belt. It will enable us to deal with difficult areas round the various cities of the State, and it is a very necessary and useful provi­sion.

Mr. Dufficy: With respect, I think it is very badly phrased.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (8.32 p.m.): In my opinion, the firm of L. J. Hooker Ltd. comes into the category of land sharks and is not very far removed from the unfortunate collapse involving £33,000,000 of public money reported in this evening's newspaper. In a Press report, Mr. L. J. Hooker indi­cated that no land development would take place in Queensland pending the passage of certain legislation through this Chamber, thus indicating that the passage of the Bill will encourage people to come here. If we read the sordid history of firms such as Reid Murray and others who have been associated with land scandals--every time I read a report like the one I read tonight I J:or:e it will be the last, but unfortunately 1t 1s not-we wonder why the Government is lay­ing itself open by including in the Bill clauses such as this. I would have every confidence in the present Minister. If we could guarantee that he would have continu­ity of office and that he alone would control the administration of provisions such as this, I should have no qualms about it because I would say, "He is not likely to do it." However, I say quite openly that we have evidence of an effort to undermine the Minister in his electoral representation. No doubt that was inspired not by people who wanted the Land Act administered fairly and honestly, but by people who had ulterior motives. I am pleased to say that the Minister survived that effort.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the hon. member get back to the clause?

Mr. BURROWS: Yes. I want to point out the danger of this clause. It is not the present Minister whom I doubt, but, as I said, Ministers come and Ministers go. This gives the Minister unlimited power so far as area is concerned.

Mr. Fletcher: It does not. Read paragraph (a) of subclause (1).

Mr. BURROWS: That is, "The specific development of the land in order to render it fit for manufacturing, industrial, residential or business purposes."?

Mr. Fletcber: That is right.

2094 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Mr. BURROWS: "Business purposes" is a very wide term, and if the Minister ever had to prepare an income-tax return he would know it. As a matter of fact, he would be astonished at what is classified as "business" in an income-tax return.

Mr. Fletcher: The way you make out income-tax returns, I think you would be astonished.

Mr. BURROWS: I sincerely hope the Minister administers the Land Act as honestly and as faithfully as I make out my income­tax return. I repeat that, as far as the Minister is concerned, I am quite happy. If we can get a guarantee that when he retires from office this clause will be deleted from the Act--

A Government Member interjected.

Mr. BURROWS: Quite obviously it will be, after the next election. If this is left in the Bill there will be no need to delay the Committee any longer.

The Minister mentioned one specific case at Tallebudgera, where he said there was a large area of land that would be costly to develop. If that is the case and anybody is prepared to bring in a proposal to develop it, bring down a separate Bill and let the whole of the Parliament take the responsibility for negotiating the alienation of this land to the prospective purchaser who has put up a proposal; but do not let us adopt "hole-in-the-corner" methods like this, by which we are dealing with people whom we do not know, people who may not even have the capacity to understand the implica­tions though they may be quite honest in the matter. I am sorry a clause such as this should be in the Bill.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (8.38 p.m.): This is one of those clauses of which hon. mem­bers on this side of the Committee are entitled to be suspicious. I regard as highly suspicious every amendment of the Land Act that has been brought in by the present Government.

Mr. F1etcher: You are one of those sus­picious characters.

Mr. WALSH: The Minister says that he has not unlimited power. It is perfectly true that the principles of this clause are to be applied to the particular headings enumerated in paragraph (a) of Subclause (1) of Clause 205, but I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the clause opens with the words-

"With respect to land which in the opinion of the Minister is abnormally costly to develop, the Governor in Council (with­out limiting the conditions that he in his discretion may impose) may, after or without by public advertisement inviting applications therefor, issue a special lease in pursuance of this Division subject to conditions providing for ... "

It then goes on to enumerate the conditions; but the Minister need not even advertise the area. He can make a special lease available to some person without drawing public atten­tion to it. I am sure the Minister is not going to argue against that, and it is a principle that was introduced by this Government. He cannot refer to any section of any previous Land Act that contains this pro­vision. The Act is identified in the margin. It refers to Section 33 of the 1958 amending Land Act. Therefore, the Government can take responsibility for initiating the principle to deal with this type of tenure without publicly advertising for applications to take such a special lease. Because of the principle involved, I am very concerned about what follows in the subsequent clauses about which I will be able to say something when we come to them. This clause is not as innocent as the Minister would try to make it appear. He says that it might be swampy land or an area with certain disabilities associated with its development, but the clause does not say so. The Minister has an open go to apply it to any area. He can apply it to any area whether it be swampy or hilly, or even good arable land. I think it is a very bad principle.

Question-That Clause 205, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 31 Mr. Anderson

, Armstrong , Bjelke-Petersen , Camm , Carey , Chalk

Dr. Delamothe Mr. Dewar

Ewan Fletcher Harrison

, Herbert , Hiley , Hodges , Hooper , Houghton , Hughes

Mr. Knox , Low , Munro , Nicklin

Dr. Noble Mr. Pilbeam , Pizzey

Ramsden Sullivan Tooth Wharton Windsor

Tellers: Mr. Gilmore , Smith

NOES, 21 Mr. Baxter

, Bromley Burrows Davies Dean Donald Dufficy Duggan Graham Hanlon Houston Inch

PAIRS

Mr. Lloyd M ann

, Melloy Newton

, Thackeray \Vallace Waish

Tellers: Mr. Bennett , Marsden

Mr. Hewitt Mr. Tucker , Gaven , Gunn , Row , Byrne , Rae , O'Donnell , Lonergan , Sherrington

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 206-When corporation may take-

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (8.46 p.m.): When discussing the previous clause the Minister said that it might apply to swampy land or some very unimproved land, or something of that nature. I think I agree

Land Bill [29 NovEMBER] Land Bill 2095

with the interpretation of that clause, but I should now like him to explain why Clause 206 is included in the Bill. According to the marginal note, it is a completely new clause. I direct the Minister's attention par­ticularly to the concluding portion, but I \vill read it all-

"A company registered under 'The Com­panies Act of 1961', or body corporate constituted by, under or pursuant to any Act or Commonwealth Act, with power to take, acquire, purchase and hold land or any estate or interest in land, or a Local Authority shall be competent to apply for, bid for, acquire and hold a special lease."

That is precisely what we were speaking about on the previous clause. It appears that for some reason the Government included in the Bill a provision whereby a company can acquire and hold a special lease. I want to know why that special provision was included. I think it lends some weight to my argument that if in the opinion of the Minister a portion of the brigalow belt was extremely difficult to develop-and after all it is in his opinion only-there is nothing in Clause 206 to prevent a company from acquiring a special lease of, say, 10,000 acres of brigalow land. In accordance with Clause 205, which we have just discussed, the company could obtain a freehold tenure over that 10,000 acres. If there is any clause in the Bill to prevent that from taking place, I will be interested to hear the Minister's explana­tion. Failing a satisfactory explanation, I intend to divide the Committee on this clause.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (8.49 p.m.): I think I told the Committee during the debate on the previous clause that there was in this no reference to the brigalow land.

Mr. Duflicy: No, but there is no exclusion.

Mr. FLETCHER: Of course there is.

Mr. Dufficy: Where is it?

Mr. FLETCHER: There is the prov!Slon that it has to be for manufacturing, indus­trial, residential, or business purposes.

Mr. Dufficy: What is "business"?

Mr. FLETCHER: For the information of hon. members, I might say that when the hon. member for Bundaberg was the Minister the same provision was in the Act.

Mr. Walsh: Which provision?

Mr. FLETCHER: The provision in the previous clause.

Mr. Walsh: We are on Clause 206 now.

Mr. FLETCHER: Yes, I know we are, but it has relation to it. This simply qualifies it.

Mr. Duflicy: It is a new provision.

Mr. FLETCHER: It is new because it was not expressly stated before, but we ourselves, and Labour administrations down through the years, have time and time again issued these special leases to companies. We have merely stated it expressly to be very clear about the matter.

This was administered at one period by the hon. member for Bundaberg. While his Government was in power it gave companies these special leases, and all the powers that hon. members have been talking about were in there. They were put in by the Moore Government in 1931 and they were not taken out. There has been a great deal of waste of time and beating the air about this. It is only a matter of putting expressly something that obtained before and of making it very clear.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (8.51 p.m.): The Minister says the principles were in previous enactments. In that case he might explain why it became necessary for this principle to be inserted in an amending Bill introduced by this Government in 1958.

Mr. Fletcher: This was put into the con­solidation.

Mr. W ALSH: The Minister's reference to the previous clause relates to Section 3 3 of the amending Act of 1958, not something that was put in by the Moore Government or a previous Labour Government.

Mr. Fletcher: It would have been re-enacted in 1958.

Mr. W ALSH: Re-enactments are shown in the margin against the clauses; for example, the 1910 Act or the various other Acts. In this case the only reference in the margin against the clause the Minister is referring to is to something that happened in this Government's term.

Against the clause we are now discussing, which the hon. member for Warrego has referred to, there is no reference to this principle's being contained in any other Act.

I know what the Minister is talking about. We did make provision for certain leases in order to assist in the development of industrial concerns, down on the Hamilton Reach and elsewhere, not in my time as Minister for Public Lands but subsequent to it, though during a Labour regime.

Mr. Houghton interjected.

Mr. WALSH: We started them, and this Government has merely carried on what Labour initiated.

I do not deny that the Labour Government introduced the principle of giving these special leases to companies to enable them to develop the industrial areas along the Hamilton Reach and elsewhere; but I intend to draw attention to another principle in respect of another clause to be discussed later. Apparently it has been dropped out of the provision though it was in the Act for a very long time.

2096 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

I am not accepting what the Minister says. He still has to convince me that the principle in this clause had anything to do with previous Governments.

Question-That Clause 206, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 31 Mr. Armstrong , Bjelke-Petersen , Can1n1 , Carey , Chalk

Dr. Delamothe Mr. Dewar

Fletcher , Gilmore

Harrison , Herbert , Hiley , Hodges , Hooper , Houghton , Hughes , Knox

Mr. Baxter

" Bennett

, Bromley , Burrows , Davies

Dean Donald

, Dufficy

" Duggan , Graham , Hanlon , Houston

Mr. Hewitt , Gaven , Row , Rae

" Lonergan

NOES,

PAIRS

Mr. Low

21

., Munro , Nicklin

Dr. Noble Mr. Pilbeam , Pizzey , Ramsden , Smith , Sullivan , Tooth , Wharton , Windsor

Tellers: Mr. Anderson , Ewan

Mr. Inch

" Lloyd

, M ann , Marsden .. Newton , Thackeray , Walsh

Tellers: Mr. Melloy , Wallace

Mr. Tucker , Gunn , Byrne , O'Donnell , Sherrington

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 207-Sale or issue of perpetual

leases in certain cases-

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (8.59 p.m.): We have just had a discussion on the conversion of special leases to freehold tenure, in which I drew attention to Subclause (3) of that clause and pointed out that the maximum area provided by Clause 180 did not apply. It is rather interesting that in Clause 207 which deals with the conversion of speciai leases to perpetual-lease tenure, there is in Subclause (3) (b) a restriction. I admit that this clause also applies to grants in fee-simple. The important difference is that under Clause 207 there is a restriction on the area fhat may be converted to either perpetual lease or an estate in fee-simple, whereas there is no restriction under Clause 205.

Mr. Fletcher: Which subclause are you referring to?

Mr. DUFFICY: I referred to Clause 205 (3), which provides that the restrictions imposed by Clause 180 do not apply to the conversion of a special lease to freehold tenure, whereas a restriction does apply under Clause 207 (3) (b), which says that the Minister may-

"issue to the lessee a perpetual town lease, or a perpetual suburban lease, or a perpetual country lease of the land at

an annual rent for the first period of ten years of a sum equal to three pounds per centum of the unimproved value of the land as fixed by the Minister upon the recommendation of the Commission."

Clause 180 (2) says-"The land shall be offered in lots, the

maximum areas whereof respectively shall not exceed-

town land, half an acre; suburban land, twenty acres; country land, two thousand five hundred and sixty acres."

However, in Clause 205 the restrictions on the conversion of special lease to freehold were specifically deleted by Subclause (3).

The Minister has not explained this, and I shall be interested to hear his explanation.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (9.2 p.m.): We went into this matter.

Mr. Dufficy: No, we didn't; not to my satisfaction.

Mr. FLETCHER: I cannot help that. Clause 205 is meant to cover difficult bits of swamp land, and so on, that we hoped somebody would improve for manufacturing, industrial, residential, or business purposes, and the area restrictions did not apply because the important thing was to get something done with them. The other land is in a different category.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (9.3 p.m.): The Minister is very fond of drawing attention to principles contained in earlier Acts, saying that they were there when Labour Govern­ments were in power, and asking why we did not take them out, and so on.

Mr. Fletcher: Only because you criticise them.

Mr. WALSH: That is fair enough. All I am going to do now is ask the Minister why he has left out any provision to refer this type of tenure to the Land Court. He cannot denv that Section 175B, which is referred to in the margin, gives the Minister power to deal with all these matters.

Mr. Fletcher: Which part gives the Minis­ter power?

Mr. WALSH: Clause 207 (2), under which he may refuse an application to purchase the land or for a perpetual lease.

Mr. Fletcher: Yes.

Mr. WALSH: Subclause (1) says-"The lessee of a special lease comprising

land not reserved and set apart for any public purpose who considers he has reasonably improved such land, may apply to the Minister to be allowed to purchase the land or to be granted a perpetual lease thereof."

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2097

Subclause (2) goes on to say-"The Minister, in his discretion, may

refuse the application or refer it to the Commission."

That is my complaint; that is the very thing that goes back to the appointment of the Commission-the taking of the head of it away from the protection of Parliament; and that is where politics come into it. The Minister has taken unto himself the complete power to deal with the Commission in this type of tenure.

What did Section 175B of the 1910 Act provide? It says-

"The Minister in his discretion may refer the application to the Court, and if the Court after inquiry is satisfied-

(i) That the land has been reasonably improved, having regard to its unim­proved value;

(ii) That the land is not required for any public purpose;--"

and then it goes on to say that the court may certify accordingly and determine the unimproved value of the land at which it should be sold or at which a perpetual lease should be granted to the applicant.

That was the position during the Labour Government's time, namely, that if a bowling club, for example, or any other Crown tenant who had a special lease desired to convert it to freehold and made an applica­tion to the Minister-and, generally speak­ing, this was the practice-the Minister of the day would refer such applications to the Land Court for decision. If the Minister is so fond of saying what has been taken out by his Government and what has been put in, and what was in when Labour Govern­ments were in office, I draw his attention to the powers of the court, yet this pro­vision has been left in by this Government.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (9.7 p.m.): In response to that tirade, I should like to say that it is a pity the hon. member has not kept a bit up to date. He talks about 1910. In 1953 his colleague took this out and left it to the administrative decision of the Land Administration Board, as I think it was then, because it is an administrative decision; it is not particularly something that ought to be the subject of an appeal to the court. That is what Mr. Foley in those days thought and, I presume, that is what his colleague Mr. Walsh thought. This is just another of those matters where the hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about. It is a pity that the precious time of this Committee is wasted in trying to take points for no reason other than the satisfaction of sneaking in a point here and there. Incidentally, sometimes it comes home. One cannot be au fait with everything in the Bill-it is a tremendous thing-but surely we are entitled to treat

the matter seriously rather than adopt smart­Alec tactics of, "Why did we do this or why didn't we do that?" I assure him that this is an administrative decision and we think it is properly done this way and so would the hon. member who just sat down, if he knew anything about it.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (9.9 p.m.): I think the Minister, wanting to draw attention to what he considers to be follies on the part of the Labour Government--

Mr. Fletcher: I protest. There was no endeavour to point a finger at anybody.

Mr. W ALSH: I am only drawing atten­tion to the fact that he gets up here and I can almost hear him heaving and expanding his chest with pride when he claims he is doing so many things differently from Labour Governments.

Mr. Fletcher: Not at all.

Mr. W ALSH: One would imagine, in a case like this, where so much complaint has been made about what Labour Governments have done in the past--

Mr. Fletcher: Have you heard me say one word of complaint today?

Mr. WALSH: Yes, I will come to it pre­sently. It was just before the Minister resumed his seat. One would think that he would be only too pleased to write back into the legislation the delegating of this power to the court. One would think that the Minister would have emphasized that here was where the Labour Government had failed by taking this provision out in 1953, and that he would claim that this Govern­ment was going to put it above any political level and bring it back to the jurisdiction of the court. But the Minister does not do that.

I am not as thin-skinned as some other people may be in another Parliament. I noticed in a Press report this morning that Mr. Eddie Ward was asked to withdraw a remark when he referred to the Federal Treasurer as a smart Alec. I am not objecting particularly to the Minister's referring to smart-Alec tactics here. I suppose it is part of his vocabulary.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair will act if an hon. member draws attention--

Mr. WALSH: I am not drawing attention. It just shows that the Minister is getting a bit irritable. He may be getting sick and tired of hon. members trying to draw from him explanations of these clauses, but we are entitled to do that. This clause contains the freehold provision again, and to that extent, as far as I am concerned, the Committee divides again.

2098 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Question-That Clause 207, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 31 Mr. Anderson , Bjelke-Petersen ., Carey , Chalk

Dr. Delamothe Mr. Dewar

Ewan , Fletcher

Gilmore Harrison Herbert

, Hi!ey , Hodges , Hooper , Houghton , Hughes

Knox

Mr. Low ., Munro , Nicklin

Dr. Noble Mr. Pilbeam

, Pizzey , Ramsden

Smith ., Sullivan , Tooth , Wharton

Windsor

Tellers: Mr. Armstrong

, Camm

NOES, 20 Baxter Bennett

, Bromley Burrows Davies Donald

, Dufficy , Duggan

Graham Hanlon Houston Inch

Mr. Hewitt , Gaven , Row , Rae , Lonergan , Campbell

Resolved in the Clauses 208 to

read, agreed to.

PAIRS

Mr. Lloyd M ann Marsden

, Melloy Newton Walsh

Tellers: Mr. Thackeray , Wallace

Mr. Tucker Gunn

, Byrne , O'Donnell , Sherrington , Dean

affirmative. 212, both inclusive, as

Clause 213-Powers to grant in case of escheat-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER Minister for Public Lands (9.17 p.m.): I move amendment-

(Cunningham­and Irrigation) the following

"On page 175, line 25, omit the words­'The Escheat (Procedure and Amend­ment) Act, 1891'

and insert in lieu thereof the words­'The Escheat Acts, 1891 to 1962'.

This is a simple amendment, which I have not circulated.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to. Clause 213, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 214 to 217, both inclusive, as

read, agreed to. Clause 218-Lessee may purchase estate

in fee-simple in subdivisions-

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (9.19 p.m.): I will not speak on this clause other than to register the Opposition's objection to it because it includes the principle of freeholding. It is for that reason that I intend to divide the Committee on it. If I did not do so it might be said later that we allowed it to go through without objection.

Question-that Clause 218, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

Mr. Anderson , Armstrong

AYES, 30 rvrr. Hughes , Knox

, Bjelke-Peterscn ,, Camm

, Low , Munro , Nicklin ,. Carey

, Chalk Dr. Delamothe Mr. Dewar

Ewan Fletcher

, Gilmore ,, Harrison , Hiley , Hodges , Hooper , Houghton

Mr. Baxter , Bromley

Burrows Davies Donald

, Dufficy Duggan Graham Hanlon Houston

, Inch

Mr. Hewitt Gaven

, Row Rae

, Lonergan , Campbell

Dr. Noble Mr. Pi!beam , Pizzey , Ramsden

Smith Sullivan

, 'Windsor Tellers:

Mr. Tooth , \Vharton

NoEs, 20

PAIRS

Mr. Lloyd M ann

, Melloy Newton

, Thackeray Wallace Walsh

Tellers: Mr. Bennett , Marsden

Mr. Tucker Gunn

, Byrne O'Donnell

, Sherrington Dean

Resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 219 to 234, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 235-Cases of trusteeship--

Don. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (9.26 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment-

"On page 192, after line 16, insert the following paragraph-

'(d) the Public Curator when authorised to act under the provisions of Part IliA. or Part IV. of "The Public Curator Acts, 1915 to 1957."'"

This amendment extends the meaning of the term "trustee" to cover the Public Curator when administering the estate of a senile person or a criminal.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to.

Clause 235, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 236 and 237, as read, agreed to.

Clause 238-Crown deemed owner of improvements and payment to late lessee-

Don. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (9.27 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment-

"On page 196, line 33, omit the word-'may'

and insert in lieu thereof the words­'shall, as he deems just,'."

Land Bill (29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2099

To engender confidence in corporations, etc., advancing money for development of lease­hold land, it is made mandatory for the Minister to pay a mortgagee of a forfeited or surrendered holding such sum as he deems just towards redemption of his advancements.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to. Clause 238, as amended, agreed to. Clause 239, as read, agreed to. Clause 240-Destruction of trees, etc.,

deemed an improvement-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (9.28 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment-

"On page 197, lines 37 and 38, omit the words-

'effected during the last ten years of an expired, surrendered, forfeited or resumed lease'

and insert in lieu thereof the words­'effected not earlier than ten years prior to the expiration, surrender, forfeiture or resumption of a lease'."

This amendment is for the purpose of clarity. The clause operates in respect of timber destruction, etc., effected in the ten years prior to the expiration of a lease. The present words have led to confusion of thought in that they were considered by some to apply to work done only in the last ten years of a lease.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (9.29 p.m.): I wish to register objection to this clause. It is another example of the Government's yielding to pressure groups in favour of men who are not enterprising and have left timber treatment till late in the period of their leases. A lessee who leaves timber treatment to the last ten years is not a good tenant.

For many years pressure has been brought to bear on Governments to get them to recognise and pay for improvements effected by ring-barking, and that pressure has always been resisted. However, in this instance the Government has evidently sur­rendered, and that is to be regretted. The benefit from timber treatment, or ring­barking, as it is commonly called, is gener­ally recognised as a reducing benefit. The opinion of graziers with whom I have dis­cussed the matter is that one gets the maximum benefit in the first year and it reduces each year after that. I understand that after five years the benefit is negligible. As I said earlier, a man who has a 30-year lease may not do any ring-barking for 20 years but will wait till tlre last 10 years to do it. The Minister might say that under the terms of his lease he is supposed to do it in the first seven years. Although con­ditions of that sort are included, they are honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Irrespective of the political colour of the Government in office, over the years the attitude of the Crown has always been sympathetic towards tenants, and these

conditions have not been enforced strictly. Consequently, the tenant waits till the last few years of the lease before doing any ring-barking because he knows that he will get the maximum benefit for five years by Improving his pastures and will then receive compensation for it as an improvement. In addition to getting that benefit, he receives a very generous benefit from the Taxation Department because he is allowed to claim as a deduction the full amount of expen­diture on ring-barking in a particular year. For example, if it costs him £500 to ring­bark a paddock, he can claim the full £500 as a deduction in the year in which it is done, not spread it over a number of years as he has to with depreciation on farm machinery, and with other improvements. Of course, the benefit of timber tn.:atment accrues to the grazier or selector only if the land is resumed; no benefit accrues to trim if he is given a new lease at the expiration of the current lease; so any ulterior purpose would be defeated. Where people have a big holding in ~xcess of a living area and some of it is to be resumed, they sometimes rush in at the last minute, not so much with the idea of being enter­prising but in the hope that they may be able to put improvements on the land that will embarrass an incoming tenant.

I do not intend to ask the Committee to divide on thi-s clause, but I register disap­proval on behalf of tlre Opposition and express regret that the Government should have submitted to the pressure put on it to insert the provision.

Mr. EWAN (Roma) (9.35 p.m.): I con­gratulate the Minister and the Government for introducing this concession. In my opinion, it is one that will do a tremendous amount of good. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat did not indicate that previously timber treatment, where ploughing or the sowing of artificial pastures took place, was claimable from the incom­ing tenant on the surrender or expiration of a lease. Other forms of timber treatment such as ringbarking in the last 10 years under our land laws were virtually non-existent. Tenants would not expend many hundreds of pounds to carry out timber improvement in the last 10 years of a lease because they got nothing for it. I can vouch for that because I have personal experience of many such cases.

This clause ensures a return for improve­ments right up to the surrendering of the lease, as the incoming tenant will pay for them. Would hon. members opposite say that if a man was renting a home and agreed with the landlord to paint it, he should not get anything for it when he went out?

Mr. Burrows interjected.

Mr. EW AN: In this case it would be the Crown. Generally in the first five years of a lease conditions are put on, and they are carried out.

2100 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Mr. Burrows: How many times have you been to the Minister on behalf of your electors asking for relief from those conditions?

lV!r. E\V k~~: Quite a few times, particu­larly for people who are suffering illness or financial disability.

Mr. Hanlon: Did you do any good?

Mr. EWAN: Yes. In most cases the Minister was sympathetic, provided the cases were genuine.

I want to place on record that in my opinion-and I have had a life-time of experience on the land-this is one of the new principles that will receive the universal acclaim and appreciation of the great majority of landholders in Queensland.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (9.37 p.m.): I wish very briefly to support my colleague, the hon. member for Port Curtis. In doing so, I should like to ask the Minister if there was any investigation into this matter either by himself or by responsible officers of the Department of Public Lands. If any investigation did take place and the Minister can quote the findings, I shall be very interested to hear him. I ask that question because, as the Minister is no doubt aware, an investigation into this very matter was undertaken by officers of the Department of Public Lands as recently as 1954, the members of the committee being, if I remember correctly, the late Sir William Payne as chairman, and Mr. Creighton and Mr. Bergin, who were then members of the Land Administration Board.

That committee was charged with the responsibility of investigating the whole question we are now discussing, and its report was that, after all, the lessee did receive the benefit of the improvements. Since that was the case-and in the main it was an improvement that was merged into the land and was very difficult to assess because it is almost impossible to assess the value of timber if it is not at the time in existence-the unanimous opinion of that committee should be given full weight. It must be agreed that they were all experienced officers of the department and, with due respect to the hon. member for Roma, they had more information and they did go into the matter far more fully than he or the Minister, or any other member of the Government.

I am prepared to support the decision arrived at by that committee of experienced officers of the Department of Public Lands. This provision in the Bill is not there on the grounds that it can be justified. It could not be justified by the findings of that com­mittee, despite the fact that evidence was taken from Crown tenants throughout the State. I do not think it can be justified now; I believe that certain pressures from pressure groups outside have had sufficient

influence with the Minister and his Govern­ment to have this provision included in the Bill.

Mr. Ewan: That is not true.

Mr. DUFFICY: Of course it is true. If any inquiry has been conducted bv competent and responsible people and they have made this recommendation, I want the Minister to tell me who were on the committee and what their recommendations were.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (9.42 p.m.): Briefly in reply to the hon. member for Roma, I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that it can safely be said that this does not apply to 90 per cent. of the lessees. It applies only to those who have more than a living area and whose land has been resumed at the expiration of the lease. The average man has only a living area; that would apply to 90 per cent. of people on the land. Although it is only supposed to be a 30-year lease, the leases are for an indefinite period because at the end of 30 years, unless the Crown considers that it is more than a living area, the lessee is given a new lease as long as he has been a satisfactory tenant and has observed the conditions of the expiring lease.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (9.43 p.m.): It is a pity that hon. members opposite do not agree. One says that it is a matter that has come about through pressure from vested interests, and the other that it will not happen anyway.

Mr. BURROWS: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is suggesting that I said it did not apply. I gave an explanation for the benefit of hon. members not connected with land matters, pointing out that it applied only in the case of resumptions or where a lease of an area that was more than a living area had expired.

Mr. FLETCHER: I accept the hon. mem­ber's explanation. Apparently I mistakenly thought he implied that the man who was going to lose would not be interested in doing it anyway. What I am trying to point out is that the main beneficiaries under this, if it does happen, will be the incoming lessees. They will be the ones to benefit. If I were going onto a block of land I should be very pleased to pay for timber treatment that has been done for three, four, or five years, because I would be there in time to take the improvement. The provision is aimed at overcoming the hiatus that occurs in the development of country in the dying stages of a lease. It does not always happen, but it sometimes does. It is a pity for Queensland if it does. We think this holds the balance fairly between the outgoing and incoming lessees. The outgoing tenant gets only the actual cost less depreciation, if be has allowed it to depreciate, and be does not make any profit by virtue of perhaps an increase in the cost of doing that sort

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2101

of thing. The incoming man would not have to pay that money out, anyway, and because it would be at a later period it would take some years for him to start reaping the benefit of it. This is a good, common-sense measure that it is subject to a pern1it fro1n the department before it can be done. The danger of a man's rushing in and doing something siiiy, uneconomic, and stupid in the expectation of being paid for it at the last moment is not there because he would not get a permit to do that sort of thing. As I said, the incoming lessee gets the great­est benefit. It is a good, logical, and bene­ficial provision.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (9.46 p.m.): I did not intend to refer to this provision, but the hon. member for Roma has a habit of misrepresenting many matters connected with land settlement. It would be wrong to say that the lessee did not receive any consideration. First of all, he is allowed an income-tax deduction. Secondly, I have a recollection that pronouncements have been made from time to time by certain members of the Land Court that the amount spent by lessees in timber treatment was taken into consideration in determining rentals.

Mr. Dufficy: That is true.

Mr. Ewan: Conditional improvements.

Mr. WALSH: The hon. member says "conditional improvements". I suppose the lessee undertakes the improvements on his lands in accordance with the terms and con­ditions of his lease. Surely the hon. mem­ber for Roma is not suggesting he would do something outside the terms of his lease.

Mr. Ewan: Of course he does, in many instances.

Mr. W ALSH: The Minister is telling us now that there is to be protection, as these lessees will not be allowed to do anything silly. If in the past some consideration has been given to the amount expended by Crown lessees in the various tenures, when the court has to determine the rent I hope it will be made known that, so far as this Parliament is concerned, that principle will no longer operate, and if the lessee is to be compensated for resumption he wiii not be entitled to any concession in rent.

Clause 240, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 241 to 245, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 246-Lessee may elect to have rent for first period determined by Land Court-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (9.47 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 201, line 37, after the word 'selection', insert the words-

', brigalow lease'."

This includes the tenure of brigalow lease among those in respect of which a lessee receiving a new lease of land held under a former tenure may appeal to the Land Court against first period rent. This tenure was inadvertentiy omitted.

Clause 246, as amended, agreed to. Clause 247, as read, agreed to. Clause 248-Rent to be paid pending

reassessment-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (9.49 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 204, lines 1 3 to 22, omit the proviso-

'Provided that if, within six months prior to the expiration of any rental period, the lessee shall have given to the Minister notice in writing, in or to the effect of the prescribed form and signed by him or his agent, that he desires the rent of his holding for the next following rental period to be deter­mined, then no amount shall be recover­able under this subsection as unpaid rent in respect of any time earlier than twelve months before the date on which the Minister referred to the Court the matter of such determination.'

and insert in lieu thereof the following new subclause:-

'(3) No amount shall be recoverable under subsection (2) of this section as rent unpaid pursuant to a determination in respect of any time earlier than twelve months before the date on which the Minister referred to the Court the matter of such determination'."

This amendment omits the necessity to give written notice before obtaining the benefit of not paying excess rent for more than 12 months retrospectively to date of refer­ence to the court. On reconsideration it appeared inequitable that only those knowing the Jaw and exercising their rights could obtain this concession. This clause should provide a good stimulus to the department itself to refer rental matters to the court for determination in the first year of the rental period.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to.

Clause 248, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 249, as read, agreed to. Clause 250-Permit to destroy trees-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER Minister for Public Lands (9 .51 p.m.): I move amendment-

(Cunningham­and Irrigation) the following

"On page 206, line 12, omit the words-

'special lease'

and insert in lieu thereof the words-

'lease or license'."

2102 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

The clause as framed did not include occupational licences over timber reserves. The amendment is moved to remedy the omission.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to.

Mr. FLETCHER: I move the following further amendment-

"On page 206, line 24, after the word 'permit', insert the words and brackets-

'(save a permit in respect of a lease or license comprising the whole or part of a State Forest or Timber Reserve)'."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 250, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 251 to 255, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 256-Effect of express condition to destroy prickly-pear-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (9.53 p.m.): I move-

"That Clauses 256 and 257 be trans­ferred to follow Clause 259." Motion agreed to.

Clauses 258 and 259, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 256 and 257, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 260 to 268, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 269-Additional areas-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) 9.55 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 219, lines 31 to 41, and on page 220, lines 1 to 29, omit Subclause (4)-

'A person shall not be eligible to receive an offer of an additional area unless-

'(a) he was the successful applicant for the land comprised in the subsisting selection or pastoral lease in relation whereto the offer is made when such land was first open for selection or pastoral lease by the Crown and has since continuously held that land;

'(b) in the opinion of the Commission and the Minister the selection or pastoral lease held by him, or the aggregate thereof and of any other land held by him or in which he has an interest, whilst not being a Jiving area, is not less than fifty per centum of a living area, and such selection or pastoral lease is within a reasonable working distance of the Crown land;

'(c) for not less than ten years immediately prior to the offer as herein­after provided, he has personally resided on his pastoral lease or selection con­tinuously and in a bona fide manner;

'(d) he is substantially dependent for his livelihood on the income derived from the area of land held by him;

'(e) he has not disposed of any coun­try land whether held under this Act or in fee ·simple during the period of t\venty years immediately preceding the date of the offer whereby, in the opinion of the Commission and the Minister, he reduced the aggregate area of land held by him below a living area;

'(f) as at the date of the offer, he has fully developed his holding or any land worked in conjunction therewith;

'(g) he is financially capable of developing the offered additional area; and

'(h) he is otherwise qualified under this Act to hold the land concerned under the tenure contained in the offer.'

and insert in lieu thereof the following new subclause-

'(4) A person shall not be eligible to receive an offer of an additional area unless-

'( a) he was the successful applicant for the land comprised in the subsisting selection or pastoral lease in relation whereto the offer is made when such land was first open for selection or pastoral lease by the Crown and has since continuously personally resided on and held that land; or

'(b) all of the following apply, namely:-

'(i) in the opinion of the Commission and the Minister the selection or pastoral lease held by him, or the aggregate thereof and of any other land held by him or in which he has an interest, whilst not being a living area, is not less than fifty per centum of a living area, and such selection or pastoral lease is within a reasonable working distance of the Crown land;

'(ii) for not less than ten years immediately prior to the offer as here­inafter provided, he has personally resided on his pastoral lease or selec­tion continuously and in a bona fide manner;

'(iii) he is substantially dependent for his livelihood on the income derived from the area of land held by him;

'(iv) he has not disposed of any country land whether held under this Act or in fee-simple during the period of twenty years immediately preceding the date of the offer whereby, in the opinion of the Commission and the Minister, he reduced the aggregate area of land held by him below a living area;

'(v) as at the date of the offer, he has fully developed his holding or any land worked in conjunction therewith;

'(vi) he is financially capable of developing the offered additional area; and

Land Bill (29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2103

'(vii) he is otherwise qualified under this Act to hold the land concerned under the tenure contained in the offer'."

Inadvertently in the clause as at present drafted the original lessee from the Cro\vn has been placed in no better position than a purchaser of a holding. It is considered that a lessee who suffers as a mistake or error by the Crown regarding the size of his holding should get prior consideration in the granting of additional areas.

It is therefore proposed to divide the persons eligible into two classes-

(a) Those who were successful applicants from the Crown and who have since con­tinuously personally resided on and held the land; this is the only qualification necessary, and

(b) Those who have held their lands for at least 10 years and otherwise com­plied with the conditions (b) to (h) of the Bill.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to.

Clause 269, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 270 to 273, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 274---Subletting-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (9.57 p.m.): I move the following amend-ment:-

"On page 228, line 25, after the word 'whole', insert the words-

'or any part'." I think that this is self-explanatory.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (9.58 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 229, lines 19 to 22, omit the paragraph-

'( c) The sublease shall be in writing and in triplicate, and shall be lodged for registration in the Department not later than three months after the date of the execution thereof by the lessee.'

and insert in lieu thereof the following paragraphs-

'( c) Application for the Minister's approval to sublease shall be made by or on behalf of the lessee not later than three months after the date of the agreement to enter into a sublease and shall be accompanied by a draft of the proposed sublease.

'(d) The Minister in his discretion may approve the proposed sublease unconditionally or subject to such con­ditions and modifications as he deems fit or he may refuse to approve thereof.

'(e) As soon as practicable after the receipt of the Minister's approval a sub­lease agreement in accordance with such approval shall be lodged in triplicate in the Department for registration'."

Amendment agreed to.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (9.59 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 230, lines 6 and 7, omit the words-

'paragraphs (b) and (c) of'."

Amendment agreed to.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 230, lines 12 to 20, omit the paragraphs-

'( c) The sub-sublease shall be in writ­ing and in quadruplicate and shall be lodged for registration in the Depart­ment not later than three months after the date of the execution thereof by the sublessee.

'(d) Upon registration the original of the instrument of the sub-sublease shall be retained in the Department.

'(e) Any sub-sublease entered into contrary to the provisions of this sub­section shall be void and of no force or effect in law.'

and insert in lieu thereof the following paragraphs-

'( c) Application for the Minister's approval to sub-sublease shall be made by or on behalf of the sublessee not later than three months after the date of the agreement to enter into a sub­sublease and shall be accompanied by a draft of the proposed sub-sublease and the written approval thereto of the lessee.

'(d) The Minister in his discretion may approve the proposed sub-sublease unconditionally or subject to such con­ditions and modifications as he deems fit or he may refuse to approve thereof.

'(e) As soon as practicable after receipt of the Minister's approval a sub-sublease agreement in accordance with such approval shall be lodged in quadruplicate in the Department for registration.

'(f) Upon registration the original of the instrument of the sub-sublease shall be retained in the Department'.''

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 274, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 275 to 277, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

2104 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Clause 278-Mortgages of lroldings residence whilst condition of personal

applies-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­~v1inister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment-

"On page 231, after line 36, insert the following new subclause-

'(4) (a) The Governor in Council, by Order in Council, may in his discre­tion, declare any corporation to be a corporation to which a preferential pas­toral holding or selection may be mort­gaged during the prescribed period with­out first obtaining the Minister's per­mission as prescribed by this section.

(b) Any such Order in Council with respect to any such corporation may be revoked by the Governor in Council at any time, as he deems fit, but without prejudice to tlre validity of any memor­andum of mortgage which was regis­tered prior to such revocation'."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FLETCHER: I move the following further amendment-

"On page 232, line 1, after the word 'bank', insert the words-

'or a corporation declared by an Order in -Council under subsection (4) of this section,'."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 278, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 279 to 281, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 282-Easements-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER Minister for Public Lands (10.2 p.m.): I move amendment-

(Cunningham­and Irrigation) the following

"On page 234, after line 21, insert the following new subclause-

'(2) An easement or right of way-'(a) affecting any land comprised in

a reserve for the purpose of being annexed to or used and enjoyed together with any holding; or

'(b) affecting any land comprised in a holding for the purpose of being annexed to or used and enjoyed together with any reserve.

may be created by agreement between the Minister and the lessee of the holding concerned.

'Every such easement or right of way so created shall be registered on the instrument of lease of the holding con­cerned as well as being noted in the records of the Department relative to the reserve in question.

'Upon such registration, the holding or the reserve as the case may be, affected by the easement or right of way

shall be subject to the easement or right of way as an encumbrance run­ning with the land.' "

Amendment agreed to. Clause 282, as ar11ended, agreed to. Clauses 283 to 285, both inclusive, as

read, agreed to. Clause 286-Transfer of leases and

licenses-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER Minister for Public Lands (10.3 p.m.): I move amendment-

(Cunningham­and Irrigation) the following

"On page 239, lines 16 to 24, omit the words-

'(a) any pastoral lease other than a preferential pastoral holding which is subject to conditions requiring the lessee to effect specified developmental works or improvements, unless and until the lessee has performed all such conditions by duly effecting all developmental works, or improvements or botlr, thereby specified in terms thereof;'."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FLETCHER: I move the following further amendment-

"On page 239, lines 41 to 43, and on page 240, lines I to 4, omit the words-

'(e) any holding which is subject to a condition requiring the lessee to destroy specified noxious plants on the whole or a specified part of the holding, unless, to the extent to which it is a require­ment of the condition in question, the lessee has performed it prior to tlre date of the transfer or assignment;'.''

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FLETCHER: I move the following further amendment:-

"On page 240, lines 14 to 18, omit the subclause-

'(3) The provisions of subsection (2) of this section do not apply in the case of the death, mental sickness or bank­ruptcy of the lessee, or sale by a mort­gagee exercising power of sale under this Act, or sale pursuant to section two hundred and ninety-two of this Act.'

and insert in lieu thereof the following new subclause-

'(3) The provisions of subsection (2) of this section do not apply in the case of-

'(a) tlre death, mental sickness or bankruptcy of the lessee;

'(b) the Public Curator when authorised to act under the provisions of Part IliA. or Part IV. of "The Public Curator Acts, 1915 to 1957";

'(c) a sale by a mortgagee exercising power of sale under this Act; or

'(d) a sale pursuant to section two hundred and ninety-two of this Act.' "

Amendment agreed to.

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2105

Mr. FLETCHER: I move the following further amendment-

"On page 240, lines 37 to 43, omit subclause (5)-

'Any agreement to transfer or assign a holding or any interest therein entered into at any time when such holding or interest is prescribed by this Act to be not capable of transfer or assignment shall be void and of no effect in law.

'This subsection applies so as not to affect the operation of Division X. of Part X'."

Amendment agreed to. Clause 286, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 287, as read, agreed to.

Clause 288-Transfer of sublease-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.6 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 241, lines 37 to 42, omit subclause (2)-

'Failure to produce any transfer of or agreement to transfer any sublease of a holding, or any interest in any such sublease, to the Minister for his consideration within three months from the date of the execution thereof shall render the transfer or agreement void and of no effect in law.'

and insert in lieu thereof the following new subclause-

'(2) The Minister may refuse to per­mit any transfer of or agreement to transfer any sublease of a holding or any interest in any such sublease which is not produced to him within three months from the date of execution thereof'.''

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 288, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 289 to 293, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 294-Partnerships-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.7 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 246, line 30, after the word 'approval', insert the proviso-

'Provided that the Minister, in his discretion, may permit the registration of a partnership agreement with a commencing date not more than three months antecedent to his approval if he is satisfied that the partnership estab­lished by the agreement was effective as and from such earlier date'."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 294, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 295, as read, agreed to. 68

Clause 296-Forfeiture for fraud, &c.­

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.8 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 248, lines 25 and 26, omit the words-

'and, in the case of any such agree­ment, the same shall be void and of no effect in law'."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 296, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 297 to 302, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 303-Mortgages of forfeited hold­ings-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.9 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 252, line 14, omit the word­'may'

and insert in lieu thereof the words-'shall, as he deems just,'."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 303, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 304 and 305, agreed to.

Clause 306-Resumption with compen­sation-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER Minister for Public Lands (10.10 p.m.): I move amendment-

(Cunningham­and Irrigation) the following

"On page 253, line 24, omit the words-

'for any public purpose'."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 306, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 307 to 312, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 313-Assessment of compen­sation-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER Minister for Public Lands (10.11 p.m.): I move amendment-

(Cunningham­and Irrigation) the following

"On page 258, lines 29 to 34, omit the words-

'(a) the value of improvements or developmental works on the resumed land shall in no case exceed the cost of making the improvements or develop­mental works as at the date compen­sation is required to be assessed less depreciation from use or otherwise;'.''

Amendment agreed to.

2106 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Mr. FLETCHER: I move the following further amendment-

"On page 259, lines 23 to 26, omit the proviso-

'Provided that the value of improve­n1ents shall in no case exceed the cost of making the improvements as at the date compensation is required to be assessed less depreciation from use or otherwise'."

Amendment agreed to. Clause 313, as amended, agreed to. Clause 314--Compensation for improve-

ments-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER Minister for Public Lands {10.13 p.m.): I move amendment:-

(Cunningham­and Irrigation) the following

"On page 260, lines 23 to 26, omit the proviso-

'Provided that the value of improve­ments shall in no case exceed the cost of making the improvements as at the date compensation is required to be assessed less depreciation from use or otherwise'."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FLETCHER: I move the following further amendment-

"On page 260, after line 41, add the following new subclause-

'(7) The provisions of this section shall apply for the purposes of the hearing and determination by the Court of the matter of the compensation to be made in respect of a resumption made prior to the commencement of this Act pursuant to a condition of a special lease'."

This amendment is not in the printed list that was circulated. As this has not been promulgated perhaps I should inform the Committee that the object of the amendment is to give retrospective operation to the provision of the Bill giving the court power to determine compensation in respect of improvements on land resumed from a special lease pursuant to the lease condition that the whole or any part of the leased land may be resumed on six months' notice subject to payment of compensation for improvements only.

The present Act provides no machinery for determining such compensation. The resumption being pursuant to a lease condition, as distinct from a section of the Act, there is grave doubt as to whether the Land Court has jurisdiction. In the past when the power has been exercised the Crown and the lessee have been able to reach agreement on the quantum of the compensation, but recently the first case of a resumption of this type was referred to the Land Court. The court has heard all the evidence of value, and subject to it

resolving the doubt as to whether it possessed jurisdiction, no decision has yet been given. Both the lessee concerned and the Crown are desirous of the court determining the compensation and this provision provides the necessary machinery,

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (10.16 p.m.): I rise to record my opposition to this principle. The Minister has said that the amendment has not been circulated, but I think that giving retrospective power to a court to determine compensation going back for any period--

Mr. Fletcher: It was circulated this morn­ing. It was on your seat all morning.

Mr. W ALSH: I think giving power to the court to go back to make a determina­tion of compensation retrospectively is very dangerous. There are perhaps many cases where legislation providing retrospectivity has been introduced in this Chamber. There are some cases where the nature of the matter involved may justify any Govern· ment's bringing down retrospective legisla­tion, but dealing with the determination of retrospective compensation is dangerous.

Amendment (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to. Clause 314, as amended, agreed to. Clause 315-When destruction of trees,

&c., deemed improvement-Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­

Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.17 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 261, lines 13 to 31, omit the words-

'(a) in any case where such destruc­tion, clearing or developmental work would have been unlawful unless authorised by a permit under the repealed Acts or this Act, the date of such permit; or

'(b) in any other case, the date when such destruction, clearing or developmental work was effected,

but in no case shall the amount of such compensation exceed the actual cost of such destruction, clearing or developmental work less proper deduc­tion for deterioration as at the date of resumption or expiration of lease, as the case may be:

'Provided that the clearing of under­growth and useless vegetation shall be deemed to have lost its utility for the purposes of this section, to the extent to which after it has been effected, under­growth or useless vegetation of any species has established itself on the land so cleared.'

and insert in lieu thereof the words-'the date when such destruction, clear­ing or developmental work was effected:

'Provided that-'(a) any such destruction of trees or

clearing shall be deemed to be an improvement only if it was effected

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2107

in accordance with a permit issued pursuant to this Act or the repealed Acts in any case where such a permit was required;

'(b) in no case shall the amount of such' compensation exceed the actual cost of such destruction, clearing or developmental work less proper deduc­tion for deterioration as at the date of resumption or expiration of lease, as the case may be;

'(c) the destruction of undergrowth and useless vegetation shall be deemed to have lost its utility for the purposes of this section, to the extent to which after it has been effected, undergrowth or useless vegetation of any species is allowed to establish itself on the land so cleared.' "

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 315, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 316 to 318, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 319-Resumption on behalf of local authority-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.18 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 263, line 26, after the word 'Authority', insert the words-

'or any person or authority (in this section called the "constructing authority") empowered or authorised by any Act to take compulsorily land, or any estate or interest in land'.''

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FLETCHER: I move the following further amendment:-

"On page 263, line 35, after the word 'Authority', insert the words-

'or constructing authority'.''

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FLETCHER: I move the following further amendment:-

"On page 263, line 38, after the word 'Authority', where twice appearing, insert the words-

'or constructing authority'."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FLETCHER: I move the following further amendment:-

"On page 264, line 1, after the word 'Authority,' insert the words-

'or constructing authority'."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 319, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 320 to 322, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 323-Rabbit-proof and marsupial­proof fences-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.21 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 268, after line 4, insert the following new subclause:-

'(13) (a) In any case where adjoining owners have agreed in writing as ta-

'(i) the value of the netting fence separating their respective country lands and as to the proportion of benefit each derives from the fence as at the date of agreement; or-

'(ii) the value of the netting fence to be constructed in terms of the agreement on the boundaries of their respective country lands and as to the proportion of benefit each will derive from the fence upon its construction,

either owner, not later than six months from the execution of the agreement, may lodge with the Registrar an executed copy of the agreement and apply for it to be made a formal judgment of the Court.

'(b) Whereupon, unless the written con­sent of the other party to the agreement being made a formal judgment of the Court is lodged with the application, the Registrar shall notify the other party to the agreement of the application and inform him that the agreement will be made a formal judgment of the Court unless within one month from the date of the notification, he makes to the Court an application to show cause why the agreement should not be made a formal judgment.

'(c) In any case where-'(i) the other party consents to the

application to make the agreement a formal judgment;

'(ii) the other party does not, within the period notified to him by the Registrar, apply to the Court to show cause why the agreement should not be made a formal judgment; or '(iii) the Court (which is hereby there­

unto authorised) upon hearing the matter thereof finds that cause has not been shown why the agreement should not be made a formal judgment,

the Registrar shall record the agreement as a formal judgment of the Court and the provisions of this section shall apply as if the agreement were a judgment of the Court'."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 323, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 324 to 334, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

2108 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

Clause 335-Trustees of land without a grant-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.22 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 276, lines 6 and 7, omit the words-

'land either by grant in trust or reser­vation from sale or lease'

and insert in lieu thereof the words-'land granted in trust or reserved and set apart'."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FLETCHER: I move the following further amendment:-

"On page 276, line 8, after the word 'reserved', insert the words-

'and set apart'."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 335, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 336 to 351, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 352-Court to determine whether or not the trust includes surplus land-

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (10.25 p.m.): I think it will be agreed that the Committee has been very tolerant of the Minister; he has been on his own for the last hour. Nobody seems to want to speak. I do not want to make a speech now; I am merely seeking a little information.

This clause deals with resumptions of sur­plus land granted in trust. It provides for resumption by the Minister where the mat­ter has been referred to the court for hear­ing and determination of whether or not there is surplus land not required for the purpose for which it was set aside. The clause provides that in those cases in which it is so determined by the court, no com­pensation whatever shall be paid for the land, or for any item or factor associated with such resumption except improvements or developmental works effected by the trustees on such part.

We have had a lot of discussion on land held under deeds of grant in trust, such as the Rockhampton lands and recently the City of Brisbane lands. My particular interest is in lands that have been granted by way of deeds of grant for specific pur­poses, such as the Bundaberg Racecourse Reserve, which was granted under a special Bill of this Parliament. Nevertheless, a deed of grant issued to the trustees. I want to know whether these resumptions will affect any of the land held under those special deeds of grant.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.27 p.m.): As a matter of fact, this has

come about because some of the trustees of sucl1 land have too much for their purposes and are prepared to relinquish some of it. I do not know anything about the Bunda­berg Racecourse Reserve. Is that the main concern of the hon. member?

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (10.28 p.m.): I merely state that the land held by the trustees of the Bundaberg Racecourse Reserve is land similar to that held in trust by trustees in many parts of the State. A special deed of grant was given by special enactment of this Parliament over land at Warwick. Apart from land that might be set aside and held in trust by local authori­ties and other such bodies who may hold Crown land in trust, I want to know whether land conveyed by deed of grant as distinct from Order in Council or Proclama­tion under the Land Act can be resumed under this clause without the payment of any compensation.

There are the Rockhampton city lands that were dealt with by special legislation. That was land set aside for local-authority purposes. The same thing applies to the trust land that was dealt with here quite recently. I want to know if land held by way of special deed of grant under enact­ment of this Parliament can be resumed without the payment of compensation.

Mr. Fletcher: The answer is "Yes". The hon. member does not mean compensation for the land? It would be for the improvements on it.

Mr. W ALSH: This clause states specifi­cally that when the land is resumed no compensation will be paid. A Bill was passed recently enabling the Brisbane Cricket Ground Trust to sell land held in trust by it to the Brisbane City Council. The trustees sold an area of land on the corner of its ground at Woolloongabba and received a payment of £20,000.

Mr. Pizzey: That was provided for specially in the Bill.

Mr. WALSH: It does not matter. It was land that was conveyed to the Brisbane Cricket Ground Trust by deed of grant in trust originally, and it was given the power to sell that land.

Mr. Nicklin: By an Act of Parliament.

Mr. W ALSH: Exactly. I do not know whether the Premier wants to split straws on this matter.

The Bundaberg Racecourse Reserve is an area of land that has been set aside by a deed of grant in trust under an Act of this Parliament. I do not think the Brisbane Cricket Ground Trust has any such deed of grant. The land that it holds in trust may have been granted by the Minister of the day under the Land Act. However, I

Land Bill [29 NoVEMBER] Land Bill 2109

am referring to specific deeds of grant in trust that are held by various trusts through­out the State. I have mentioned the Bundaberg Racecourse Reserve, but that is only one. \·Varwick is another. The Treasurer knows the position at Bundaberg because he has inspected the land there, and at the moment I believe investigations are being made into the suitability of a substantial part of the racecourse reserve for residential allotments. As I said, it is held under a deed of trust given by a special Act of Parliament, and the suggestion is that part of it may be excised. I entirely agree with that move.

Mr. Hiley: And so do I.

Mr. W ALSH: Yes, but I think the Treasurer will agree that he suggested to the trustees that if they put up a proposal to the Government in relation to compen­sation, it will be considered. I wish to make it quite clear that lands which are set aside under a deed of grant by Act of Parliament are to be treated somewhat differently from lands held under a trust created by a former Minister under the Land Act, and that lands resumed from them are to be treated differently, also.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.33 p.m.): This will apply to any deed of grant in trust. The court has to determine whether there is land in excess of the requirements of the trustees-! think that would be a fair way of putting it-and the Crown has to pay for the improvements. The trustees do not pay for the land in the first place. It is given to them under a deed of grant without payment, and if the court says that there is land in excess of their requirements, and then decides what the area of it is and lays down the compen­sation, I think that is all there is to it.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (10.34 p.m.): This says "no compensation".

Mr. Fletcher: For the land.

Mr. WALSH: That is perfectly true. I have drawn attention to that, but I have also drawn attention to the fact that the Brisbane Cricket Ground Trust was able to sell a piece of land under an Act of Parlia­ment and it did not have a deed of grant in trust from Parliament in the first place. It was a trust created by the Minister of the day under the Land Act.

Mr. Nicklin: I think the Brisbane Cricket Ground Trust was created by Act of Parliament.

Mr. Hile:y: Perhaps we can clear the matter up in this way. I know the land to which you refer and I believe that it is surplus to the requirements of the race club. I could make very good use of

that land through the Housing Commission, and I would be prepared to recommend to the Government that the Commission should be allowed to purchase it and pay the race club a fair price for it, provided the club used the money for improvements to the residue. That would put it on all fours with the grant to the Brisbane Cricket Ground Trust. However, I doubt whether the race club would submit it as an actual proposal for us to consider.

Mr. W ALSH: That is all I wanted to know.

Mr. DUFFICY (Warrego) (10.35 p.m.): I am a bit concerned about this provision. In Charleville, for instance, the showground is held by trustees, and so is the racecourse. If the area of land included in the deed of grant to the trust is in excess of their needs and is not required, I cannot see anything wrong with the Crown's resuming the excess area and paying the value of any improve­ments on it. In the first place, it did. not cost them anything to get the land; they got a grant of lease for a special purpose. It could be for the purpose of a racecourse or a showground, or for some other purpose, and if it is found that the original grant of land is in excess of their needs I cannot see very much wrong with the Crown's resuming the excess portion. But I think the trust is entitled to be compensated for any improvements it has placed on the land.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.36 p.m.): That is entirely what is in the Bill; they have an opportunity to contest the matter before the court if they have land in excess of their requirements.

Clause 352, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 353 to 358, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 359-Sale of reservation which is not required-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.37 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 295, after line 28, insert the following new subclause-

'(5) Where, in the opinion of the Minister it is desirable, an owner may, in lieu of paying in money, the purchas­ing price of any land purchased under this section, surrender to the Crown other freehold land the value whereof is equal to such purchasing price and the situation whereof is satisfactory to the Minister.

'Such other land may be part of the land comprised in the deed of grant containing the reservation to which the purchase relates or it may be comprised in some other deed of grant.

2110 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

'The Minister shall not accept the surrender unless and until the Court, upon reference by the Minister, deter­mines that the values respectively of the land purchased and of the land to be surrendered are equal'."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FLETCHER: I move the follow~ng further amendment:-

"On page 295, line 30, after the word 'determined', insert the words-

'or upon acceptance by the Minister of a surrender pursuant to subsection (5) of this section in lieu of such payment'."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 359, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 360 to 371, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 372-Trespass, &c.-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.39 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 304, lines 21 and 22, omit the words-

'relating to the occupation or use of the Crown land in question'."

Amendment agreed to. Clause 372, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 373 and 374, as read, agreed to.

Clause 3 7 5-Rights of pasturage for travelling stock-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (1 0.40 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 310, lines 9 to 11, omit the words-

'in the case of large stock ten miles per day and in the case of sheep and of working large stock six miles per day'

and insert in lieu thereof the words­'six miles per day'."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FLETCHER: I move the following further amendment:-

"On page 311, lines 2 to 5, omit the words-

'; "large stock" means horses, cattle, camels, asses and mules and "working large stock" means large stock in use for the purpose of driving sheep'."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 375, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 376 to 381, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 382-Regulations-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.41 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

"On page 314, after line 36, add the following new subclause:-

'(6) The power conferred by this Act to make issue or publish any notification shall b~ construed as including power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like conditions, if any, to revoke, alter, amend or otherwise modify the notification.' "

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W ALSH (Bundaberg) (1 0.42 p.m.): The amendment is a simple one. Do I understand that the amendment to Clause 381 that was circulated is not being proceeded with?

The CHAffiMAN: It is not necessary. It is automatically adjusted.

Clause 382, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 383, as read, agreed to.

Clause 384-Supreme Court may make rules-

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (10.43 p.m.): I do not rise particularly to debate this clause, Mr. Taylor, but I wish to direct a question to the Minister through you. Do I under­stand that during the early discussions in the Committee stage Clause 31 was deferred?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes.

Mr. W ALSH: Does the Minister have something on it?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes. It will be the last clause for consideration.

Clause 384, as read, agreed to.

Clause 385-Publication of Proclamations, &c.-

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (10.44 p.m.): I do not want the Minister to tell me that this provision was in some Act way back in the dark ages. I have no doubt that some of the principles in the clause have been in the Act for some time, but we have heard so much from hon. members opposite particularly since they have become the Government. I can remember the former member for Kurilpa frequently speaking about the undue powers that were vested in the Executive. The final clause deals with the publication of Proclamations, Orders in Council, and regulations. It says-

"(1) Every Proclamation, Order in Council, regulation or rule made under this Act shall-

(a) be published in the Gazette; (b) upon its publication in the Gazette,

be judicially noticed and such publica­tion shall be conclusive evidence of the matters contained therein;

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2111

(c) subject to this Act, take effect from the date of such publication unless, in the case of any such Proclamation, Order in Council, regulation, or rule, a later date is specified in that or any other Proclamation, Order in Council, regulation, or, as the case may be, rule for its commencement when in such event it shall take effect from that later date; and

(d) in the case of every regulation, be laid before the Legislative Assembly within fourteen sitting days after such publication if the Legislative Assembly is in session, and if not, then within fourteen sitting days after the com­mencement of the next session."

Subclause (2) says-

"(2) If the Legislative Assembly passes a resolution of which notice has been given at any time within fourteen sitting days after any regulation has been laid before it disallowing such regulation or part thereof, that regulation or part shall thereupon cease to have effect, but with­out prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meantime or to the making of a further regulation."

Again I emphasise that I do not want the Minister to tell me that this was in the Act under the Labour Government, or some other Government, away back in the dark ages.

Mr. Nicklin: It was in every Act that you put through this Assembly.

Mr. WALSH: That does not matter. The Premier should be consistent in these mat­ters. When he was on this side of the Chamber, as Leader of the Opposition, he was the one who challenged this provision in every Bill presented by Labour Govern­ments. Well do I remember that, if the Premier himself did not do it, the late Mr. H. M. Russell, who used to stand in his position at this point, opposed this principle in every Bill that was introduced. He made a habit of trying to give power to the Governor in Council to do these things by way of Proclamation or Order in Council, or as the case may be. We have the position that under this clause the Minister has to lay on the table of the House any regulation that might be challenged in Par­liament and might be subsequently dis­allowed, but still the Government can get away with any Proclamation or Order in Council. I point out to the Committee that it does not matter what the Premier may say about everything in every Bill brought down by previous Governments. The Premier knows full well that almost all Bills brought down by Labour Governments

provided that Proclamations, Orders in Council, and regulations be laid on the table of the House, and an opportunity was given to move the disallowance of every Procla­mation. Order in Council, or regulation. As a matter of fact, I do not think I have to draw the Treasurer's attention to the fact that on the night of 12 June, 1957, when he was the hon. member for Coorparoo, he moved the disallowance of a Proclamation bringing into effect the operation of the famous Motor Spirits Distribution Bill. That was the last instance of a Proclamation of an Act brought down by the Labour Government not so long before that. I ask the Minister not to forget that objection was made by the then Opposition to the Proclamation and, on the combined votes of the A.L.P. and the Opposition, as it was at the time, the Opposition was able to carry the day. That is how it was that the Motor Spirits Distribution Bill never came into operation.

I want to know from the Premier, the Treasurer, and all the other Ministers, and his supporters on the back benches whether they stand for this dictatorship of issuing Proclamations and Orders in Council with­out giving the Parliament any say as to whether they should be allowed to operate under the Act. I think it is a serious matter that the Government sees fit to provide in this latest enactment in 1962 for the tabling of regulations only and omits to provide for the tabling of Proclamations and Orders in Council. The public outside are entitled to suggest that we are on the way to a dictatorship.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.51 p.m.): We have heard this sort of story before. The hon. member for Bun­daberg, with tears in his voice, has asked us three times not to tell him that it has been in the Act ever since 1910. He him­self has done it every time. It is just not practicable to do what we have to do in the Department of Public Lands except by notification, as it is done now. There would be sheerly too many things, for instance, in respect of notifications of resumption. What would happen if, six months after, the Opposition moved for a disallowance and in fact succeeded. It is just not prac­ticable. This is the usuai form. It has been done by previous Governments.

Mr. Nicklin: It has been done by the hon. member for Bundaberg himself.

Mr. W ALSH (Bundaberg) (1 0.53 p.m.): That is no excuse. I am keeping to my contract. If there has been any delay tonight it has been caused by the Minister himself, because he had the floor of the Committee for well over an hour talking to himself with

2112 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

everybody quietly listening to him. But on this provision I ask the Minister to read from Section 207 of the 1910 Act anywhere that provision is made for the tabling of a regulation under that Act. This has been brought in since then. n IS not in 1he original Section 207, which I have before me.

Mr. Fletcher: There is no need for me to reply.

Question-That Clause 385, stand part of the Bill-put; Committee divided-

as read, and the

AYES, 32 Mr. Anderson

, Armstrong , Bjelke-Petersen , Camm , Campbell , Carey ,. Chalk

Dr. Delamothe Mr. Dewar , Ewan ,. Fletcher , Gilmore ,, Harrison ,. Herbert ,. Hiley , Hodges

Hooper

Mr. Houghton , Hughes , Knox , Low , Munro .. Nicklin

Dr. Noble Mr. Pilbeam

, Pizzey , Smith , Tooth , Wharton , Windsor

Tellers: Mr. Ramsden

Sullivau

NOES, 20 Mr. Baxter

, Davies , Dean , Donald ,, Dufficy , Duggan , Graham , Hanlon , Houston ~ Inch ,. Lloyd

Mr. Hewitt , Gaven ,, Row , Rae , Lonergan , Richter

PAIRS

Mr. Manu Marsden Melloy

, Newton ,. Thackeray " Wallace ,. Walsh

Tellers: Mr. Bennett

, Bromley

Mr. Tucker , Gunn , Byrne , O'Donnell , Sherrington , Burrows

Resolved in the affirmative.

The Schedule, as read, agreed to.

Clause 31-Salaries of Members of the Land Court-

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (Cunningham­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (10.58 p.m.): It will be recalled that this clause was postponed for further thought. After due consideration, it is being recom­mitted without amendment.

Very careful consideration has been given to the arguments raised by hon. members opposite in connection with the subclause granting a president of the Land Court who is not a contributor to the Public Service Superannuation Scheme a pension similar to that enjoyed by judges of the Supreme Court. The Government is not prepared to extend this privilege as it feels that there is no real necessity or valid reason to do so.

As I explained when this matter was dis­cussed last Thursday, the pension is granted with a view to attracting, if circumstances warrant it, outside barristers of high stand­ing. If such a person were appointed to the Bench of the Supre111e Court or the District Court, he would be entitled to a pension, and it is felt that the absence of a pension attaching to the office of the president of the Land Court would seriously jeopardise the likelihood of a barrister of high standing accepting appointment to that office.

Public servants who are appointed members of the Land Court are permitted to continue to contribute to the Public Service Super­annuation Scheme under the same conditions as if they were public servants. Therefore, if a public servant or a member of the Land Court who was a former public servant was appointed President, he would have been a contributor to the Public Service Super­annuation Fund for many years. He would have a considerable equity in the fund and, quite naturally, it can be assumed that he would not desire to surrender that equity or his privileges under the scheme to avail himself of a pension for the benefit of which he has to wait five or 10 years, depending on the circumstances as set out in the Judges' Pension Act. During this period he would be completely without cover of any sort. That is really the kernel of the nut.

I can assure hon. members that the clause does not unjustly provide for former public servants who may in the future be appointed President of the Land Court. It is important to bear in mind that the Public Service Superannuation Scheme is subsidised by the Government to no small degree, and persons enjoying the salary of a member of the Land Court in terms of the super­annuation scheme are amply covered in the event of resignation through ill-health and in the matter of a retiring allowance.

I re-commit the clause without any amend­ment.

Mr. DUGGAN (Toowoomba West-Leader of the Opposition) (11.2 p.m.): Firstly, I wish to acknowledge the courtesy that the Minister has shown the Opposition in agreeing to defer this clause and refer it to Cabinet.

The Minister cannot say that no valid arguments were advanced, because the very fact of his agreeing to submit the matter to Cabinet showed that he thought there was some validity in our arguments. If he thought the matter could be dismissed peremptorily, he should have said so at the time.

Mr. Fletcher: I did not say that there were no valid arguments.

Land Bill [29 NoVEMBER] Land Bill 2113

Mr. DUGGAN: You did a moment ago.

Mr. Fletcher: I said that we thought there was no valid reason.

]Vir. DUGGAN: I presume that a reason is an argument.

Mr. Fletcher: I was not criticising your argument.

Mr. DUGGAN: That is the point to which I was taking some exception.

I do not think that anyone has a higher appreciation than I have of the responsibili­ties and privileges of members of the judiciary, but surely the Minister is not going to argue that one of the reasons that would militate against a prominent barrister outside the Public Service accepting appoint­ment as President of the Land Court would be that someone in the Service whom the Government of the day thought had all the qualifications to fit him for appointment to the position would have pension privileges that equalled those which he would enjoy if the position were offered to him instead of to the public servant. I think that is carrying the matter too far.

Because of the duties that they are called upon to discharge, members of the judiciary are entitled to draw a high salary and enjoy pension privileges, and they should feel that they are in a position which is to some extent sheltered from the hurly-burly of ordinary life. One does not usually find that they are connected with organisations in which controversial subjects are discussed, because judges wish to place themselves completely above suspicion and ensure that they are impartial and objective in all their dealings. However, I do not think we should place prominent barristers in the position of not offering themselves for appointment to the position of President of the Land Court because somebody else whom the Government believes to have qualifications similar to their own is drawing a special benefit or because somebody with the quali­fications will get a pension similar to that paid to members of the Supreme Court bench. I think we have probably treated the proposed appointee to the position of President of the Land Court very fairly in the conditions that the Minister has outlined. We do not want to take away from the person to be appointed any of the privileges or emoluments that the Government thinks he should enjoy because of the responsibili­ties pertaining to his position. I feel that the Government is carrying this position too far. To suggest that it is already subsidising the superannuation fund liberally is no argument because, in the case of judges, they are not contributors. If Government members are quibbling about the extent of

the contribution the Crown is making to the Public Service Superannuation Fund, why don't they quibble more about the Crown contribution to the Judges' Pension Fund, which is a much more generous provision?

The gravamen of our charge is that we did focus attention on the fact that there was a growing inclination on the part of some Ministers-notably the Minister for Labour and Industry-to appoint persons from outside the Public Service. I do not take away from the Government of the day the right, in special circumstances, to go outside the Public Service to get somebody with special qualifications for a particular job. However, all incentive to apply them­selves industriously is removed from public servants if they have reason to say, "Irres­pective of how diligently I apply myself, how I advance my learning and knowledge in a particular department to fit me for a higher position, I will be voted out because the Government thinks some distinction in favour of someone outside the Public Service should be made in this particular matter".

I am grateful for the fact that the Minister acknowledged there was sufficient merit in the proposal when it was originally advanced for him to take this matter to Cabinet, but I must confess that I think Cabinet members have been actuated not by considerations of the merit of the proposal we put forward but by this sensitivity of the judiciary. No­one can say that I have ever cast aspersions on any member of the judiciary. I have the highest regard for them-they are carrying on an important function with distinction to themselves-but I do not like this idea that they are a cloistered community and in no circumstances must anybody have comparable privileges.

After all, if there are comparable quali­fications, the Government is entitled to give this appointee, if he is a barrister outside the Public Service, equal consideration, but for all his qualifications there is no justifica­tion for bringing a man from outside and saying to him, "We think you are so good and so important to us that we are going to treat you as a judge of the Supreme Court." If he has those privileges I think somebody within the department who has the same qualifications should have them equally. After all, Parliament is the highest tribunal in the land and it supersedes the judiciary. We may not have the brains or the know­ledge of members of the judiciary-! do not want to be personal in this matter­but in my time in this Parliament we have had a number of barristers here as members, and if one looks back over the years-for that matter, if you look in the present Parlia­ment-there are many men without the

2114 Land Bill [ASSEMBLY] Land Bill

qualification of barristers but who have often acquitted themselves with greater distinction in the exercise of their parliamentary respon­sibilities than members who are barristers.

Nobody says that because a man has not a legal training he cannot become Premier of the State; but a man can be transplanted from this Assembly and because he is a barrister he can be appointed as a Supreme Court judge. Indeed, one of the reasons why some political parties are suspicious of barristers in their organisation-! cannot say it is valid, but the view is widely held­is that they feel that those legal men want to identify themselves with an important political party because they might increase their contacts and become judges of the Supreme Court.

I do not want to canvass this subject too far, but it is a real situation. As I say, I do not want to labour the point unduly, but I am against this discrimination against men with equal ability. That is the whole basis of equal pay for equal work, which is widely accepted throughout the world today. It is increasingly receiving legislative recognition. If a woman can demonstrate that she is capable of doing particular work it is currently our view, and a view that has been held for some time, that for equal work there should be equal payment. In this case if a person can demonstrate to the Government of the day that he has equal qualifications to the man outside I think he should have equal pension and other rights. For that reason I suggest that the Minister should uphold the principle, which we think is very vital. Just as every private in the Army is said to carry a field marshal's baton in his knapsack, we say that no mem­ber of the Public Service who can demon­strate that he has the qualifications to fit him for this particular appointment should be discriminated against.

The Minister used the argument about no valid reason. I do not think it is valid reason to argue against our submission on the grounds that it brings them too close to judges in this matter and that the super­annuation fund is already enjoying a fair measure of subsidy from the Government. If the Minister is adamant on this as a ~atter of principle, I commit the Opposi­tiOn to the point of dividing the Committee on the matter.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (11.11 p.m.): I do not know who prepared the carefully worded memorandum that the Minister read to_ the. <;=ommittee, but he has charged us With giVmg no valid reason from this side.

Mr. Fletcher: I did not say that. I said that we did not think there was a valid reason to depart from our previous inten­tion.

Mr. W ALSH: The Minister said that any reasons given from this side of the Chamber for an amendment to the clause were not valid reasons. Let me put it another way: the reason the Minister has given for not amending the clause in the manner suggested from this side is plain humbug.

I think there is reason for offence on the part of very competent officers within the Public Service contained in the memor­andum that the Minister read. He said that the main idea of extending the judges' pen­sion to the occupants of the office of Presi­dent of the Land Court was to attract out­side barristers of high standing. I wonder how the late Sir William Payne would have got on under this clause. Would he have been offended?

Mr. Hiley: He would not have been half as offended as he was by you.

Mr. W ALSH: If I ever offended him it was for perfectly good reasons, and I am sure the Treasurer agrees with me. I do not think anybody would confirm my atti­tude more than the Treasurer himself. The late Sir William Payne was a barrister of many years' standing. He never practised at the Bar, yet he became accepted in this State by the Government and other people as the outstanding authority on land policy and land law. I go so far as to say that I do not see why the Parliamentary Drafts­man should be precluded from appointment to this office and enjoying the judges' pen­sion in the same way as the present occu­pant of the office. I do not know whether Mr. Smith, a present member of the Land Court, is a barrister or a qualified legal man but I should say that he would run rings round a lot of people who are regarded as barristers of high standing. After all, if a barrister has practised in the civil courts and the criminal courts extensively-! do not know whether the present occupant of the office has or has not done so but his name has never been very prominant to me in court matters-that does not qualify him for appointment as President of the Land Court.

There are qualified legal men in the ser­vice who have appeared in numerous Land Court hearings over the years, and no doubt have been responsible for preparing the briefs submitted to Land Appeal Courts presided over by judges of the Supreme Court. These same legal men, with all their knowledge and qualifications for interpreting the land laws, if appointed to the position of President of the Land Court, cannot enjoy the same pension as an occupant of the office who has never been employed in the department.

I have said that previously. I am amazed at this principle. The Government has accepted it, but it is not a good idea to

Land Bill [29 NOVEMBER] Land Bill 2115

discriminate between occupants of the office simply because some may be contributors to the Public Service Superannuation Fund. The Minister gave the reason that a person who has contributed to the Public Service Super­annuation Fund has a substantial equity in that fund, but that is not a valid reason for denying him this right.

Mr. Hiley: Are you allowing for the fact that he gets his pension rights at 65 even though he is still working, whereas judges must serve a certain qualifying period before getting pensions and cannot draw them until they are 70 years of age?

Mr. W ALSH: The Treasurer is not strictly correct. There are three or four different headings under which judges can draw pen­sions. They do not have to wait until they are 70 years of age. In the provisions under which a judge can retire, there are three or four headings. I read them from a section of the 1957 Act.

Mr. Bennett: The pension is reduced pro­portionately, isn't it?

Mr. WALSH: That is so, but in each case it is provided that in no instance shall a judge receive a pension in excess of 40 per cent of his salary. Even if a judge retires with less than five years' service, there is still some provision, but, as the hon. mem­ber for South Brisbane rightly says, it is on a very reduced basis. I recall that the late Sir William Payne came down from the Land Court to the position of Chairman of the Land Administration Board, and now the same office, with a different name-a com­mission as it were-is presided over by a member of the Public Service. Any rights that Sir William Payne had, so far as his court position was concerned, would be pro­tected just the same as when any officer is transferred from the State Public Service to the Railway Department. If he is seconded to that department, or to some other govern­mental activity outside the jurisdiction of the Public Service Act, all his rights are protected.

I do not think it is good enough to suggest that in this case, where an officer has been a contributor to the Public Service Super­annuation Fund, he can receive a maximum of only a little over £1,600, even though he may be appointed to that office.

Mr. Hiley: He draws it from the age of 65; he draws it for five years while he is working.

Mr. W ALSH: The Treasurer is again try­ing to raise obstacles, but he well knows that Executive minutes can alter all these things. All provision can be made to protect an officer on a change from one position to another. As I pointed out before, that has been done frequently.

In this case a person may be appointed to the office of President of the Land Court and receive the salary of the President, but because he has been a contributor to the Public Service Superannuation Fund he could receive about £400 to £600 less than one who is in the same position as the present occupant of the office, Mr. Wright.

Does the Government think that is a fair go to men who have given their lives to the Public Service? Here is what might be regarded as a plum that could be something in the nature of a reward for meritorious service not merely within the Department of Public Lands, but in other sections of the Public Service. If the Minister feels that the appointee should have legal qualifications, an officer from some other section of the Public Service who had the qualifications could be appointed. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he proposes to divide the Committee; if he did not, I would.

Question-That Clause 31, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 32 Mr. Anderson

, Armstrong , Bjelke-Petersen , Camm , Campbell , Carey , Chalk , Dewar , Ewan , Fletcher , Gilmore , Harrison , Herbert

Hiley , Hedges , Hooper , Houghton

Mr. Hughes , Knox , Low , Munro , Nicklin

Dr. Noble Mr. Pilbeam

, Pizzey , Ramsden , Sul!ivan , Tooth , Wharton , Windsor

Tellers: Dr. Delamothe Mr. Smith

NOES, 21 Mr. Baxter

, Bromley Burrows

, Davies , Dean , Donald , Dufficy

Duggan , Graham ,, Hanlon

Houston , Inch

PAIRS

Mr. Lloyd , Mann , Mel!oy

Newton , Thackeray

Wal!ace , Walsh

Tellers: Mr. Bennett , Marsden

Mr. Hewitt Mr. Tucker , Gaven , Gunn , Row , Byrne , Rae , O'Donnell , Lonergan , Sherrington

Resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported, with amendments.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Hon. G. F. R. NICKLIN (Landsborough­Premier): I move-

"That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until Tuesday next."

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 11.27 p.m.