Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 3 DECEMBER 1957

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1484 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Fees paid to Barristers, &c.

TUESDAY, 3 DECEMBER, 1957.

Mr. ACTING SPEAKER (The Chairman ·of Committees, Mr. Taylor, Clayfield) took the chair at 11 a.m.

QUESTIONS.

CouRT-CONTROLLED BALLOTS.

Jfr. WOOD (North Toowoomba-Leader -of the Opposition) asked the Minister for Labour and Industry-

' 'In view of a report in the Courier-Mail of November 29 that the President, Mr. F. A. Horner, had told the annual con­vention of the Queensland Employers' Federation on November 28 that employers must take steps to ensure they are as highly organised as their employees in the trades unions, and in view of the correlative fact that employer organisations are numerically und financially powerful forces for good or ill in the industrial life of the com­munity, will he give the House an under­taking that when the Government brings llown its legislation providing for Court­controlled ballots in trade unions, he will also make this legislation applicable to cemployer organisations~''

Hon. K. J. lUORRIS (Mount Coot-tha) replied-

'' The hon. member is, I am quite cer­tain, well aware that it is not the prac­tice to indicate Government policy in reply to questions. ' '

SUBMARINES IN NOR'l'HERN WATERS.

JUr. WOOD (North Toowoomba-Leader of the Opposition), without notice, asked the Premier-

" In view of public reaction to disturb­ing reports of the presence of unidentified submarines in Queensland's northern waters, has the Premier received any reliable information on this matted And, if so, will he make a statement to the House~''

Hon. G. F. R. NICKLIN (Landsborough) replied-

' 'It has been reported that unidentified submarines were sighted in the W eipa area. The sightings were reported to the Commonwealth authorities who, I understand, took appropriate action. The Government have taken steps to bring about a tightening up of security measures to prevent unauthorised persons having access to the vVeipa area and to keeping a closer watch on all vessels appearing in the vicinity, as well as the areas around the Northern parts of Queensland.''

PAPERS.

The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:-

Report of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the year 1956-1957.

The following papers were laid on the table:-

Order in Council under the Racing and Betting Act of 1954.

Orders in Council under the Supreme Court Act of 1921.

Orders in Council under the State Elec­tricity Commission Acts, 1937 to 1954.

Ordinance under the City of Brisbane Acts, 1924 to 1954.

Order in Council under the Abattoirs Acts, 1930 to 1949.

Regulations under the Slaughtering Act of 1951.

FEES PAID BY CROWN TO BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS.

RETURN TO ORDER.

'The following paper was laid on the table-

Return to an Order made by the House on 29 August last, on the motion of Mr. Gunn, showing the payments made by the Government to barristers and solici­tors for the year 1956-1957, stating the names of the recipients and the amounts received, respectively.

Death of Mr. William Cooper. [3 DECEMBER.] Death of Mr. William Cooper. 1485

SCREENING OF FILMS.

Jir. ACTING SPEAKER: By courtesy of the United Kingdom Trade Commissioner, a programme of films in colour will be shown in the Legislative Council Chamber at 6.30 p.m. The films will be-

'' Atomic Energy in Industry.'' ''Snowdonia: Description of Life in

Wales.'' ''Road to Canterbury.'' ''Trooping the Colour.''

DEATH OF MR. WILLIAJ\f COOPER.

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE.

Hon. G. F. R. NICI\LIN (L.andsborough­Premier) (11.9 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move-

" 1. That this !:Louse desires to place. on record its appreciation of the serviCes rendered to this State by the late William Cooper, Esquire, a former member of the Parliament of Queensland.

'' 2. That Mr. Speaker be requested to convey to the family of the deceased gentleman the above resolution, together with an expression of the sympathy and sorrow of the members of the Parlia­ment of Queensland in the loss they have sustained. ' '

I am sure that all hon. members will learn with regret of the passing last Friday of the former hon. member for Rosewood in this Parliament, Mr. William Cooper. Veq few present hon. members sat in Parliament ·when the late Bill Cooper was here, but a number of them knew him personally and appreciated his worth. He was elected to the 21st Parliament on 16 March, 1918, and served with honour and distinction until his defeat at the election of 8 May, 1926.

During the time that the late Mr. Cooper was an hon. member of the Chamber, he gave great service to the constituency that he represented. He never claimed to be a lJril!iant orator but the method by which he expresed his views in the Chamber could be termed forceful. He brought before the Parliament many of the problems of his constituency and he took a very keen and intelligent interest in the development of the State. He was a great battler for his area; he gave it excellent representation, and he gave good SPrvice to the State. We very sincerely regret his passing and I am sure all hon. members will join in conveying heartfelt sympathy to his relatives and friends.

lUr. W001D (North Toowoomba-L-eader of the Opposition) (11.11 a.m.): In second­ing the motion I associate the Opposition with the sentiments expressed by the Premier. It was not my privilege to know the late hon. gentleman but I knew much of him. He was held in very high esteem in his area. That is indicated by his winning the Rosewood seat as a Labour man. It was

not a traditionally Labour ·seat as then con­stituted and no Labour man could have hoped to win it unless he enjoyed the highest respect and confidence of those who knew him.

I served in the Army "·ith his son and thus got to know something of the back­ground of his father. I learned of the very high esteem in which the name Bill Cooper was held in his electorate. As the Premier said, he did not enjoy the reputation of being a forceful or vigorous speaker but he had the reputation of being something that is worth ever so much more-that of being sincere, and he well deserved it.

He lived to the ripe old age of 85 years. His passing will be mourned not only by the hon. members of this Assembly but by aH who had the privilege of knowing him as one who worked hard for the advancement of the district in which he lived. It is with a feeling of deep regret that we learn of his passing. We associate ourselves with the motion.

1\Ir. GAIR. (South Brisbane) (11.14 a.m.): I desire to associate the Queensland Labom· Party with the motion. Although I did not know the late gentleman intimately, it was my privilege to have met him several times. Being closely associated with the Labour movement I knew that he was regarded as a vigorous, conscientious and assiduous rep­resentative of his electorate in the Queensland Parliament. The name of Bill Cooper was well, favourably and affectionately known to many people, especially in the Rosewood area,. ·where he lived and conducted a business for some years both before he entered Parlia­ment ~nd after his defeat in 1926.

vVe place on record the service that he rendered to the people of Queensland as a member of Parliament and express our con­dolences to the sorrowing relatives of the late gentleman. He certainly live-d a long life and I am sure that in that time he saw great development and progress throughout Queens­land. He saw the many problems that occu­pied his attention as a member of Parli:-wwnt sink into insignificance because of the greater problems that arose subsequently. With the growth and development of Queensland and the nation the problems that will face Parlia­ment will differ considerably in the future as compared with the present and the past. I fear they will become greater in magnitude ancl more complex as the years go by.

Hon. A. G. JIL'LLER (Fassifern­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (11.16 a.m.): I wish to be associated with the motion of condolence, particularly because the last seven years of Mr. Cooper's life were spent in my electorate. He was a resident of Marhurg for many years. He originally came to Marburg as a blacksmith's striker. He worked his way up, eventually to represent the district in Parliament. It is :\

1436 Traffic Acts, &c., Bill (No. 2). [ASSEMBLY.] Wheat Industry Act, &c., Bill.

great achievement for any person to climb so high in that period. R.esidents of the district ll{Jpreciate that during the years of his representation the Marbm:g Rural School was established. While I did not always see eJ'e to eye with the late Bill Cooper politically he was nevertheless a good friend of mine. Re always took a keen and active interest in the welfare of the district. He lived to a great age and I am sure that the people of the district \Vill always remember his kindly "pirit and the contribution he made to the v·elfare of the district.

Yh. WINDSOR (Fortitude Valle,y) (11.17 n.m.): I join \vith other hon. members in expressing my dt'ep regret at the death of :Mr. Cooper. I first met him many years ago iYhcn I was a member of a deputation that asked him to change the name of Leichhardt Street to St. Paul's Terrace. \V e were successful in our representations. I have remembered his courtesy and graciousness for 20 years.

Motion (Mr. Nicklin) agreed to, hou. members standing in silence.

l'NIVERSITY OF QUEEXSLAND ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2).

THIRD READING.

Bill, on motion of Mr. Nicklin, read a third ti:ne.

SCGAR EXPERIMEKT ST"\.TIONS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

THIRD READING.

Bill, on motion of Jl.lr. Madsen, read a third tirne.

DAIRY PRODUCTS STABILISATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

THIRD READING.

Bill, on motion of }\fr. Madsen, read a third time.

STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION ACTS AND ANOTHER ACT AMEND­MENT BILL.

THIRD READING.

Bill, on motion of Mr. Evans, read a third time.

TRAFJ<'IC ACTS AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2).

THIRD READING.

Bill, on motion of Mr. Morris, read a third time. ·

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILISATION ACT AND ANOTHER ACT AMEND­MENT BILL.

SECOND READING.

Hon. 0. 0. MADSEN (Warwick-Min~ster for Agriculture and Stock) (11.25 a.m.) : I move-

'' That the Bill be now read a second time.''

At the introductory stage I endeavoured to give a broad outline of the Bill. Hon. mem· bers \Yill realise the intention of the Gov­ernment, and the present serious grain posi­tion in Queensland. The Bill is an attempt t0 ensure that as much Queensland wheat as possible is retained for use in this State. Hon. members will realise that if wheat ex· portf'd from the State has to be replaced by \\'heat imported from other States, consider­able costs will be incurred.

I believe the ·wheat Board has done every­thing in its povver to get delivery of the 'IYhole of the Queensland crop, but it is possible that some growers have taken advan­tage of Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Some wheat, but not a lot, I lwlieYe, has left the State.

In reg!lrd to illegal intrastate trading, I am certain the Board has c1one everything within its power to see that wheat is retained for the purpose for which it is urgently required, that is, for milling purposes.

The demand for grain is such that there is no difficulty in selling wheat for feed purposes. \Ve should endeavour to use other grains, if possible, for feed. I am pleased that the Barley Board is withholding the whole of the barley crop so that it can be utilised as far as possible to meet the feed needs of the State.

The position at the moment is somewhat p1·ecarious in that for every clay rain does not fall the harvesting of the summer crop is delayed commensurately. The position is causing great concern to those interested in meeting the grain requirements of the State.

Clause 1 of the Bill gives the title of the Act, the WheAt Industry Stabilisation ~et and Another Act Amendment Act of 1951.

Fnder Clnuse 2 the "\et is diYided into parts-

Part I-Preliminary; Part II-Amendments of The Wheat

Industry Stabilisation Act of 1954; Part HI-Amendments of 'J'he Wheat

Pool Acts, 1920 to 1930. Clause 3 deals with Part II. It reads-

" 3. (1) This Part II of this Act shall be read as one with The Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act of 1954.

'' (2) The W·heat Industry Stabilisation Act of 1954, and this Part II of this Act may be collectively cited as The Wheat Industry Stabilisation Acts, 1954 to 1957. ''

Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act [3 DECEMBER.j and Another Act, &:c., Bill. 1487

Clause 4 amends Section 12 of The Wheat ~ndustry Stabilisation Act of 1954 by insert­lng a new subsection (2A), which requires the Australian Wheat Board to increase payment for Queensland wheat of the season commenc­ing on 1 October, 1957, delivered to the State \Yhcat Board by an amount not exceeding 1s. a bushel as the Minister for Agriculture and Stock ~ay determine, and by inserting a new subsechon 6 (A), which provides that in ascertaining the net proceeds of the disposal of any wheat no account &hall be taken of moneys_ received by the Australian Wheat Board by reason of the operation of subsec­tion (5A) of section 18 of the Act. The moneys referred to consists of the loading on the price of wheat to meet the drought premium of ls. a bushel, mid the costs assc~ci­!J.ted with the importation of the wheat. These moneys will not be taken into account in the Australian Pool, but will be set off against the costs incurred by the Australian Wheat Board for these particular purposes.

(c) By inserting a new subsection 9 by which the Australian 'Wheat Board will not be required to provide the funds necessary to make payment to Queensland growers of the drought premium of ls. a bushel, but will be empowered to arrange with the State Wheat Board for the making by the State Board to the Australian Board of advances to provide those funds.

Clause 5 amends Section 18 as follows:-

(a) By repealing the words ' 'subsection four of" in subsection (3). The present su?section (3) fixes the home-consumption pnce for wheat, when the International Wheat Agreement Price or export parity is less than 14s. a bushel, at an amount equal to cost of production, subject to sub­section (4). Subsection (4) provides for a loading of 11td. a bushel on the home­consumption price of wheat to reimburse the Australian ·wheat Board for the costs of shipping wheat to Tasmania.

~his a;nendment should be read in conjunc­twn mth paragraph (d) of Section 15 ( 5A) which provides in effect that increases in price as determined by the Minister to cover drought premium and costs of importing wheat are to be in addition to and not in substitution for the existing pro­visions in Section 18 relating to the Tasmanian freight loading. I might mention that in the stabilisation plan provision is made for the transporting costs of wheat to Tasmania to be covered from the Aus.tralian costs, that is to say, a charge ngamst the Board. Further-

(b) By inserting a new subsection (5A) which authorises the Minister to determine an increase in the Queensland price of wheat during the importing year to cover the costs of the additional payment (drought premium) of ls. per bushel and freight and other charges associated with the importing of wheat into Queensland.

1957-3A

Detailed procedure is set out in the various paragraphs of subsection (5A) as follows:-

Incidentally I should mention that it is not only a matter of freight costs but unloading costs on the wharf and these costs have been carefully checked and kept to an absolute minimum. The clause further provides-

Paragraph (a) : The Minister may by notification published in the Government Gazette determine that the price applicable to sales of wheat made in the importing year (i.e. 1st December, 1957, to 30th November, 1958) and after a date to be specified in the notification shall be increased by an amount per bushel specified in the notification.

Paragraph (b): The amount specified in such notification shall be an amount which, when multiplied by the number of bushels which the Australian Wheat Board esti­mates will be sold in Queensland during the wheat importing year and after the elate of the Minister's notification will pro­duce an amount equal to the sum of certain amounts as determined or estimated by the Australian Wheat Board and notified to the Board by the Minister.

In other words, the increase in price to be notified by the Minister will be an am-ount per bushel calculated by dividing the total cost of the payment of the drought premium of ls. and freight and other charges on imported wheat by the total number of bushels of wheat which the Australian Board estimates will be sold in Queensland during the wheat importing year.

That is to say our own wheat plus the imported wheat will be divided into the total cost, covering the price to be paid, plus freight costs, and that will give the price for the whole of the wheat to be sold. Every bushel of wheat will carry its clue proportion of the increase. Continuing with Clause 15-

The amounts to be determined or esti­mated by the Australian Board and notified to the Minister are-

(i.) The cost of the drought premium, and of interest on any advance arranged for the State Wheat Board to enable advance payment of premium to be made to Queensland gro·wers.

(ii.) The costs incidental to the trans­port of wheat from another State to the port of import in Queensland, including cost of loading from port of export and unloading at port of import in Queensland.

(iii.) Where wheat has to be imported from outside Australia the difference between the normal home consumption price and the cost of purchasing and transporting the wheat from the place from which it is imported to a port of import in Queensland, including loading and unloading costs. This is to cover the highly improbable contingency of the importation of wheat from overseas.

1488 Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act [ASSEMBLY.] and Another Act, &:c., Bill.

Mr. Hilton: Did you say it was highly probable~

I\Ir. lUADSEN: Australian production will meet Australia's requirements for this year. However, if we worry only about filling Australia's requirements the wheat industry will possibly lose overseas markets that have taken years to build up. The industry leaders think it may be advis­able to import a certain quantity of wheat, which <lan be supplied to overseas markets for the purpose of retaining them. So far the Commonwealth Government have not agreed to the proposal, but during the last couple of days I have read in the Press that further representations have been made to them. Hon. members will agree, I am sure, that it is important not only to the wheat industry but to the general economy of the Commonwealth to retain overseas markets. I cannot forecast the Common­wealth Government's attitude, but I realise fully the seriousness of the loss of overseas markets to the economic welfare of the Commonwealth generally as well as of the industry.

Further-(iv.) Where wheat is not sold on the

basis of f.o.r. Queensland port of export, an amount equal to the cost of tmnsporting the wheat from the port of import into Queensland to the place of delivery. This basis would apply to imported wheat that might be delivered to country mills.

(v.) An amount equal to the sum of the deductions to be made during the wheat importing year, and after the date of the Minister's notification of the increase in price, for the purpose of making proper allowances for the place of delivery.

In explanation of that, Queensland wheat is sold to millers by the Australian Wheat Board at a delivered-to-mill price. In the case of Brisbane mills, the price is f.o.r. Brisbane. In the case of Dovnts mills, it is f.o.r. Brisbane less the difference between the average freight incurred by the Board in transporting local wheat to Brisbane mills and the actual freight from country depot to country mill.

The amount referred to in (v.) is less--(vi.) Any payments otherwise received

or to he received by the Australian Board in respect of any of the above amounts.

There are not likely to he any payments so received, hut this provision covers the unlikely contingency of a Commonwealth freight subsidy.

It was hoped that the Federal Government would contribute towards the substantial cost of bringing wheat here and distributing it to the States. New South Wales is affected to a much greater ext"ent than Queensland. From Press reports it would

appear that it will be necessary for New South Wales to import about 18,500,000 bushels, while Queensland's imports will total between 3,250,000 and 3,500,000 bushels.

Mr. Gair: Does much of New South Wales wheat go out of the country~

I\Ir, lUADSEN: In normal years they have quantities for export. I understand their requirements have been about 20,000,000 bushels and their production has reached 45,000,000 bushels in certain years. This year it is down as low as 3,500,000 bushels, which is almost unbelievable.

Paragraph (c) provides that if at an:v time during the wheat importing year the Minister is satisfied that the amounts then actually received by the Australian Wheat Board, together with the amounts which the Board estimates are still to be received, are more or less than required to meet the costs involved in the payment of tl1e drought pre­mium and freight, and other charges on imported wheat, he may from time to time by further notification published in the Gov­ernment Gazette vary the rate of increase accordingly or reduce the price determined in accordance with the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Acts of the Commonwealth and of Queensland.

It is possible, of course, that if the drought continues the present arrangements will not be sufficient to meet the needs. On the other hand, by some time next year we may find that we do not need the amount expected, so it would he possible to vary the rate of increase.

Paragraph (d) provides that the price loading to meet the costs of drought pre­mium, freight and other charges on imported wheat shall be in addition to and not in sub­stitution for the loading of l,td. a bushel on all sales of Australian wheat to meet freight to Tasmania.

The next provision adds a paragraph to sub-section (6) of Section 18 to provide that where wheat is sold by the Australian Wheat Board during the wheat importing year and the sale is not on the basis of f.o.r. port of export, the wheat shall, for the purpose of making proper allowances for the place of deliverv under the contract for the sale, be deemed to he wheat received by the Board at that place of delivery. That means that if imported wheat is sold to a Downs mill it may he sold on the ~ame basis as Queensland wheat from a local depot. The wheat import­ing year is defined as the period of 12 months commencing on 1 December, 1956.

lUr. Power: This Bill will apply only to this year W

:lir. ltiADSEN: That is right. At the present time a new stabilisation scheme is under consideration. Therefore it would be impossible for the provisions of the Bill to apply beyond the present year, which takes in only the present harvest.

Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act [3 DECEMBER.] and Another Act, &c., Bill. 1489

JU:r. Power: Has any announcement of the price of wheat for this year been made by the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Board~

lir. li'IADSEN: I understand the costs have been established at 14s. 2d. a bushel, based on a very recent survey. Beyond that I cannot say. As the hon. member knows, the home consumption price is establi~hed on that cost taken out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics each year I understand that is the acknowledged cost of production for the present harvest.

Paragraph (e) adds a new sub-section (9) requiring the Australian Wheat Board to furnish from time to time all such infornla­tion as the Minister may require for the purpose of exercising his powers in respect of the determination of price increases to meet the extra costs involved in the payment of drought premium, freight, and other charges on imported wheat.

Part III deals iYith amendments of the Wheat Pool Acts, 1920 to 1930. Clause 6 provides that Part III of this Act shall be read as one with the Wheat Pool Acts, 1920 to 1930, as modified by proclamation from time to time. The Wheat Pool Acts as amended by Part III may be collectively eitC'd as the Wheat Pool Acts, 1920 to 1957.

Clause 7 amends sub-section 1 of Section 5B of the Wheat Pool Acts to empower the State Wheat Board to borrow money to finance the purchase of wheat and to make advances to the Australian Wheat Board for the payment of drought premiums.

Clause 8 inserts a new Section lOA in the Wheat Pool Acts to empower the State Wheat Board to purchase from the Australian Wheat Board wheat produced in Queensland or in any other State or in any territory of the Commonwealth ant! to sell any wheat so purchased.

C1:mse 8 also in~erts a new section lOB in the Wh0at Pool Acts to empower the State Wheat Board to arrange with the Australian ~Wheat Board for the making by the State Board of advances to the Australian Board to provide the funds necessary to make pay­ment of the drought premium of ls. a bushel.

Broadly speaking, it is simply a mach­iuery Bill. It is a rather confusing amend­ment to the legislation but its purpose is to provide the machinery so that certain factors can operate under the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act and the Wheat Pool Acts. It is very difficult to say at this stage whether the arrangements made will cover the ·state's requirement~. But people who have had considerable experience have been able to make the assessment that 3,250,000 to 3,500,000 bushels ~wiJl meet the State's cl eficiency and costs have accordingly been tnken into account.

Mr. Hilton: For what period?

JUr. lUADSEN: For this wheat year, or this season to 30 September next. It will apply for the present wheat year from 1 December to 30 September next year.

.ilir. WOOD (North Toowoomba-Leader of the Opposition) (11.47 a.m.): The Min­ister has briefly recapitulated what he said on the inHiation of the Bill. He has given u~ nothing new. I intend merely to recapitu­late and re-emphasise the Opposition's atti­tude towards the Bill as already stated. First of all let me say again that hon. members on this side are just as sympathetic as hon. members opposite to the plight of the wheat­grower. They are just as keen to see some relief given to the unfortunate wheat-growers who have suffered from the ravages of the severe drought. \Vhen rain fell a short time ago we all hoped that the drought had been broken. Unfortunately the reverse has been the case. I think the Minister will agree that the intense searing heat and the renewed dry spell has made the position equally as desperate with the possibility that the drought could be a prolonged one. If the drought is prolonged, I think the Minister 1vill agree that it makes the position of the wheat­grower very hazardous if he attempts to recoup some of his losses by summer grain crops. There is no guarantee that he could Tecoup his losses through the growing of summer grain crops.

The Bill has two principal effects. First of all it gives a certain amount of relief to growers who h:we harvested some grain. \Vhen the Bill was introduced I drew the attention of the Mi11ister to something he already knew: no relief under this measure was afforded to the grower who did not harvest a bag of grain. The relief and the extra price per bushel, is given only to the grower who has harvested some grain. I have not been entirely convinced by the Minister's reply. The man who feels the blow most severely of all is the man who has harvested no grain. The Minister pointed out that some of them reaped a measure of financial advantage by baling hay.

Others did the same by letting out their areas on agistment. From my inquiries I am satis:fied there are growers who were so severely hit that their crops were completely ruined. I still think in spite of the Minister's explanation that the greatest hardship is still placed on the men for whom no provision is made-the men who harvested no wheat at all, or only a very small percentage of what they anticipated. That is the :first effect of the Bill. There is undoubtedly some benefit to the grower who has wheat to market. The other effect of the Bill to which I and the hon. member for Baroona drew attention is that the whole burden will fall on the consumer. Let us make no mistake about it. Since this Government took over burden after burden has been placed on the back of the consumers by separate actions of the Government.

1490 Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act [ASSEMBLY.] and Another Act, &c., Bill.

Dr. Noble: What did the Labour Gov­ernment do in New South \V ales~

lllr. WOOD: These burdens can become intolerable.

Dr. Noble: Bread went up 2d. a loaf in New South ·wales.

Mr. WOO'D: I should prefer to hear comment from the Minister for Agriculture and Stock, who has the capacity and the courage to handle his own department unaided by any Minister without the same experience. Comments by the Minister for Health and Home Affairs will certainly be no help to the Minister for Agriculture and Stock who has the capacity and also the courage to do what he thinks is right. Accord­ing to the newspaper reports wheat was seized on beh'alf of the Wheat Board in the Minister's own area of Warwick. That is an indication that the Minister does not need any help; it indicates he has the necessary courage. I wish to pay him the tribute of being capable and courageous as well. I am certain that the Minister does not want any as~istance from any other Minister on the front bench. I repeat that sooner or later this burden that is being placed on the back of the consumer will become an intoler­able cne. There is not the slightest doubt that very shortly the price of bread will rise by 2d. a loaf. I repeat the attitude of the Opposition: we recognise the plight of the wheat-grower and we believe that assistance shoulrl he given to him-we make no apology for that statement, but we resist strongly the move to place the whole responsibility for the provision of that assistance on the consumer. That assistance should be pro­vided by governmental action, preferably by the Commonwealth from their vast and untold resources. I certainly would join with the Minister and the Government if they made an approach to the Commonwealth Govern­ment-and they have a good case to submit to thom-to bear the cost of the necessary assistance to the wheat-grower in the grave plight in which he finds himself. I believe that the Government would get the support of all sections of the community if they made application to the Commonwealth Government who no doubt know the plight of the wheat­grower, and ask for an equitable system ~hereby assistance could be given to the wheat-grower without the consumers being asked to bear the whole burden. The Opposi­tion do not object to assistance to wheat­growers as we realise the justice of the case, but we do object to consumers' footing the whole burden. Heaven only knows that consumers have enough burden to bear, and, as unemployment will be aggravated by the prevailing drought, their burdens could become intolerable.

I ask the Minister to present a case to the Commonwealth Government for assistance from its resources which are infinitely greater than those of the State. They should be asked to recognise the obligation they have in these extraordinary times. The effect of

the drought is intensified each day as the searing heat continues. The Commonwealth Government should be asked to consider assist­ance not only on the worth-while basis of helping growers, but also on the basis of giving some measure of relief to consumers.

There is no doubt that an increase in the price of bread will automatically follow an increase in the price of wheat. That should not happen. The price of bread would not increase if the Commonwealth Government recognised their responsibility to growers who have lost their crop because of the drought. Their losses can be heartrending.

I reiterate the views of the Opposition, first, that in some way assistance should be given to growers who have harvested no wheat and, second, that steps should be taken even at this late stage to see that the full burden does not fall on the over loaded shoulders of the consumers.

::ur. POWER (Baroona) (11.58 a.m.): To make the view of the Q.L.P. quite clear, I sa~ that we have no objection to drought rehef for wheat-growers, but many people who have grown no wheat at all as a result of the drought will receive no benefit from the passage of this Bill.

As the Minister said during the intro­ductory stage, some of those growers have planted some other crop, but from inquiries I made during the week-end I learned that those other crops were also failures. Those growers will not receive any benefit from the drought relief of ls. a bushel.

For quite a long time I have been accused in this Chamber of fixing prices, but I never put myself in the position in which the pres­ent Minister finds himself. He has increased the price of wheat and has fixed the price of wheat in this State.

I asked certain questions on this subject, and I pointed out at that time that the Government had no power to do it, that they were going outside the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act under which the price of wheat is fixed.

The Minister has given some reas<Jns for his action. He pointed out that some wheat is being sent over the border, that the Wheat Board has been by-passed. At least he has the courage to take some action. The Wheat Board has at last realised its responsibilities in that it seized some wheat that was not being sent to the Wheat Board. On Friday last I produced evidence that between 350 ancl 400 bags of wheat had been seized by Wheat Board inspectors. I suggest that the Wheat Board should con­sider investigating the position at other granaries in the State. I suppose it may be acting in that direction.

At the present time buyers are coming into Queensland, buying from the Queensland "·heat-grower and the wheat is going over the border. There is no breach of the law because of Section 92 of the Commonwealth

Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act [3 DECEMBER.] and Another Act, &c., Bill. 1491

Constitution. By this by-passing of the Queensland Wheat Board it has been neces­sary to bring back into Queensland wheat grown in this State, and on top of the price of. the wheat there is the freight charge wh1ch would average about 3s. a bushel. It would be a good thing to prevent that sort of action. I have no time for the black marketeer. I am in favour of commod1ty marketing boards and I think that a con­sumers' repTesentative should be on such a board. I do not propose to develop my argument along those lines. The State Wheat Board is for the benefit of wheat-grow;crs. They have by-passed the Board and brought about the present unsatisfactory position. The Board by exporting 4,500,000 bushels of wheat from the I955 crop has worsened the position. The Minister rightly pointed out that the wheat board hacl made no provision for a carry-over. I know that he is doing something in this regard with another Board. This is where the Commonwealth Government should come in. There should be a certain amount of wheat set aside in case of future crop failures. It is unfair to ask the wheat­growers to be responsible for having thous­ands of bushels stored in various silos ancl granaries. The Commonwealth Government should make advances to the Australian Wheat Board which in turn could make advances to the State Wheat Boards and the growers could be compensated for the wheat stored. I hope the Minister will put up that argument to the Commonwealth Gov­ernment and stress it at conferences of Min­isters of Agriculture that may be held. It is not fair to ask the wheat-grower to keep wheat in case of a shortage. The Common­wealth Government should make the money available to the Australian Wheat Board and the growers should receive some payment for the wheat so stored. Then provision could b~ made for the State Wheat Boards to make payments to the growers. They want cash and that is what they get by sending their wheat over the border.

I want to be clear on another point. 'rhe Wheat Board accepts the responsibility for the freight on wheat to Brisbane ancl this runs into Is. 7d. a bushel. What is to be the position with wheat imported from other States to meet Queensland's requirements~ Will tl1e Wheat Board pay the freight of Is. 7c1. a bushel? I have discussed this with the Minister but I should like him to explain it further. The Wheat Board should pay the freight of Is. 7 d. a bushel on wheat imported into this State from other parts of Australia. Otherwise, the Wheat Board will gain to the extent of Is. 7 cl. a bushel. I should like that matter explained.

The proposed increase in the price of wheat must mean a steeP' rise in the cost of hving. Already vested interests are clamour­iug for an increase of 2c1. a loaf in the price of bread, even though the price of wheat has not yet gone up. Although costs are increasing each year, the Commonwealth Government haYe not made additional moneys

available to the States to meet the increases. The method of fixing the price of wheat should be reviewed. I understand that the present basis was arrived at in the horse­and-buggy days when wheat-farmers used hand-ploughs and hancl-scarifiers. The cost of production was fixed on a basis of 9 bushels an acre, whereas today very fe" growers get leSii' than 20 bushels an acre. As a matter of fact I have been told that some get 40 bushels an acre, although that may happen only in isolated cases. I admit, too, that a high rate of production would entail relatively high production costs. I repeat, if the cost structure was arrived at or. the basis of a production of 9 bushels an acre and the present average is 20 bushels an acre, it is time it was reviewecl.

I understand also that in fixing the price of wheat an allowance of 3d. a bushel is mac1e to cover the cost of freight to Tasmania. That is hardlv fair. Why should Tasmania bG treated differently from any other State~ Why should the Queensland consumer have tc pay his proportion of the cost of sending wheat to Tasmania~ That is something that should be examined by the Wheat Stabilisa­tion Boardr and I hope the Minister will raise the subject at the next conference with his fellow Ministers for Agriculture.

The Commonwealth Government have shown a callous disregard not only of the people of Queensland but of the people of Australia. Representations for some relief have been made to them by many Govern­ments, I take it one of whom has been the Queensland Government. They have been asked to bear portion of the cost of tram,­porting wheat to the States where production has been reduced because of the drought. However, they have turned a deaf ear to the requests and have said that it is a matter for the States.

The cost of living must increase follow­ing a rise in the price of wheat. I do not kr,ow how workers are living on their present incomes. Pensioners will be called upon to pay about 2d. a loaf more for bread when the price of wheat is increase<l. The Federal Government have large surpluses available, ancl they should use them to bring down the cost of living. I am discussing this not politically but from a national point of view.

The Commonwealth Government should have accepted responsibility for freight costs for those States without wheat, or at least made some contribution. With callous indif­ference they have dismissed all requests by State Governments for assistance so they deserve the severest conclemnation. It is all very well for those who have 11~ worry about where the next meal is to come from. The workers of the State will suffer untold hardship. They are already suffering from steep increases in prices following the State GoveTnment 's decontrol of commodities an cl now bread, a staple item on the diet, will rise by about 2d. a loaf because of the Com­monwealth Government's failure to meet an:• of the freight charges on wheat.

1492 Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act [ASSEMBLY.] and Another Act, db c., Bill.

The Queensland Labour Party is not opposed to drought relief for the wheat­growers but we think provision should be made for the grower who has lost all his crop too. But this is the first time to my knowledge that the consumer has been called on to pay the cost. The Government are :saying to the 1vheat-growers, "\'! e will give you drought relief." The Minister is being given the power under the Bill. But the consumers are being asked to pay. The -2xtra ls. should be a charge on the Govern­ment and not on the consumer. The Govern­ment should accept their responsibility. Why depart so radically from established prac­tice~ They have giYen other drought relief and concessions, such as rebates on the carriage of fodder for starving stock. I do not oppose the relief but I oppose the principle of asking the consumer to pay for it.

I urge the Minister and his Government to consider the matter further. If the Government are not prepared to pay for the full drought relief, let them see if they can bear at least half of it and so reduce the increase that will follow in the price of bread.

ltir. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (12.15 p.m.) : The Government's attitude is to take the line of least resistance. We all know that most of our economic troubles today stem from the ever-rising spiral of living costs. A rise in the price of wheat will give the spiral even greater impetus. We are all too prone to pass costs on to the people who are least able to bear them or the people who will put up the least resistance. We would all concede that without the assistance of the Commonwealth Government we would be 'helpless. At the same time we should take every opportunity to let the public know that we are conscious of the reper­cussions and the hardships that are to be inflicted upon people least able to bear them. We must retaliate and remind the Common­wealth Government that it is their indif­ference that has brought this problem about.

We realise the hardships and difficulties­in fact, the impossibilities-of producing wheat under such adverse conditions as we have recently experienced. But it does not get away from the fact that we are com­peting with countries whose primary pro­ducers are heavily subsidised by their Gov­ernments. Whether we like subsidies or not, we cannot compete with other countries if the Commonwealth Government are indif­ferent to what happens in Australia. If we think that we can solve the problem by raising the cost of living we are living in a fool's paradise. The regrettable feature of the Bill is that the people least able to bear it will be called upon to carry the additional heavy burden.

Hon. 0. 0. lUADSEN (Warwick-Minister for Agriculture and Stock) (12.18 p.m.), in reply: I have taken note of the

various points raised by hon. members. I thought I had already dealt fairly fully with the point about the producer who has delivered no grain to the Board. Although it may be conceded that there are some deserving cases amongst them, I did not make the statement lightly when I said that quite a number of producers had received the equal of what they would have received had they delivered the crop in grain. From the practical point of view hon. members of the Opposition would be the last to say that we should subsidise double crop farm­ing. There is ample evidence to suggest that most of those who ·worked to grow a crop of wheat have harvested some grain. Some isolated districts have suffered more from drought than others, but generally speaking throughout the wheat-growing areas of the State there is no district that has not grown some grain, which seems to suggest that the return per acre was in some way related to the working of the land, the fallowing of the land, and so on. Therefore, it is very hard to say that they Rhould share equally with the others that have produced some grain.

The baling of hay has been mentioned. The farmer naturally took into account what would give him the greater net return, and he harvested accordingly. There are others who fatten lambs, and others who get prac­tically no benefit at all from crops sown.

::!Ir. "\Vood: You me,ntioned those who were inefficient; is it your view that those who receive nothing were inefficienU

llfr. lliADSEN: No, I would not say that. This is an agricultural risk. Many farmers endeavour to grow a double crop each year. They grow sorghum with wheat to follow and in many cases it come~ off. I have done it and others have done it. On the other hand, the greatest wheat-growing areas grow the one crop. There are many wheat-farmers, despite the fact that the harvest is not over, who already have their land fallowing. Arc not those people entitled to the best they can get from the land~ They set themselves out to grow wheat and they grow it. Many will grow sorghum or maize. Many of them will endeavour, after harvesting sorghum or maize, to get a wheat crop. You cannot call it inefficiency. It applieB vcq generally in agriculture in Queensland and in other States. I cannot see how the responsibility can be thrown onto somebody else.

Mr. Power: Do you not think that there are wheat-growers who have lost all their crop~

lUr. lUADSEN: Yes. I mentioned my personal experience the other day. By fallowing the land many crops were grown this year despite the drought. If they harvest 10 bags or 30 bushels to the acre, it is largely the result of fallowing. In South Australia and Western Australia the land is left to fallow for two years to grow a crop of wheat. The land there is much cheaper.

Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act [3 DECEMBER.] and Another Act, &:c., Bill. 1493

Owing to the extra fallowing the return per acre could be much greater. These are factors which have to be taken into account. The Premier has annoulllCed that if any wheat­grower is in real distress he may apply for relief. As a practical farmer, I cannot say that many of these people who haYe not harvested wheat are entitled to assistance as a result of the drought. Many of them would be double cropping farmers. That is an agricultural risk thau they take. I know that there are wheat-growers in this State who, while the harvester is still going over the land, are already turning the harvested lancl over for sowing in May or June next year. If we had not people like that, we could be in a serious position as far as wheat is concerned. It is those people whom we rely on year after year to provide us with wheat, even though it may not meet all our requirements. Generally speaking, some growers decided to harvest hay, and others may have decided to fatten lambs rather than wait and harvest 12 bushels an acre. He gets his return in that way. When he sends his wheat to the ·wheat Board the payments are spread over two or three years and may be up to four years. Somebody has to bear the cost and in my opinion the wheat-growers are asked to carry too much. Hon. members must not think that wheat can be carried over year after year. After a time the wheat deteriorates, and at a certain stage it may be better business to sell it than to keep it. I think hon. members can rely on the good sense of those responsible for that decision.

Every possible factor has been fully inves­tigated. The burden to consumers has been a subject of much speculation but I am not in a position to say what the result will be. That is a matter for the Commissioner of Prices, but I can say that the increase in the price of bread will be considerably less than 2d. a loaf. It may be Id. or Hc1. Only big families eat eight or 10 loaves of bread a week. It will certainly mean something to the basic wage earner, but it will be better than the method adopted last year, when the hon. member for Baroona, the Minister in charge of prices, saddled a certain section of the community with the whole cost of trans­port.

~Ir. Power: I did not do that. That was a matter for decision by the Commissioner of Prices. Do not forget that eggs were not subject to price control. I have told you that time and time again but you do not believe me.

Mr. lUADSEN: I am certain that the hon. member was not so meek as to leave the decision on that major issue solely to the Commissioner of Prices. As a result of that action an industry was driven into the ground. Many people werp involved. The effects have been far-reaching. They are being felt this year and perhaps will be felt next year. The industry could not possibly carry that burden.

I am concerned about the parlous state of the poultry industry. There is no way to give relief while grain prices remain at their present level. I kno1'" that the Egg Board is doing everything it can to offset the short­age which is almost inevitable because of the· colossal killing of laying birds during the past few months. The figures for killing are beyond imagination.

Mr. Power: I cannot agree with you, bPcause those with eggs are exporting them at the present time.

lUr. lUADSEN: I am not dealing only with the present time; I am looking to the future.

l'Ur. Foley: A lot of producers have no fowls to take advantage of the position.

~Ir. lUADSEN: That is so. How long can a man carry on if he pays £20 for feed and gets a return of only £15? That is the position today. Egg production is completely uneconomic and thousands of laying birds are being killed because egg-producers can­not see bright prospects in the future. The hardship has been caused not only to those in the industry but to many others. The effect of that decision will be felt for some time.

There has been very close collaboration between the Australian Wheat Board man­ager, the State Wheat Board manager, and the Commissioner of Prices. An important point is that Queensland wheat is of much higher quality than imported wheat. If Bris­bane mills were confined to imported wheat, they would be gristing a much lower-qua]ity flour than perhaps the mills on the Downs. It is necessary for the Board to take some of the best wheat from the Downs and make it available to Brisbane mills so that the Brisbane mills can grist flour equal to the Downs mills.

l\Ir. Power: No-one could object to thaL

.:iir. lUADSEN: No. I should be the last to object, because the public as a whole ai'e going to be asked to pay extra for bread and it would be unfair to ask them to pay that increased price for an inferior loaf. I can assme hon. members that it is not within my province to make these adjustments. My job was to introduce this Bill, but on the other hand I can assure hon. members that all matters with regard to freight and so on have been carefully surveyed, and the con­sumers of Queensland will not be asked to pay a farthing more than is absolutely necessary.

:i1Ir. Hilton: I do not think we should continue to pay the Hcl. subsidy for T'asmanian wheat.

:-\Ir. JUADSEN: The freight cost to Tas­mania would be about 3d. I cannot answer for that. The decision was on a Commou­wealth level. When I have the opportunity of attending somo of the meetings ailll becom­ing more fmaili 1f with matters I sh!lll raise

1494 Wheat Indu.sf1·y, &c. Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Roads Maintenance Bill.

further questions some of which will have the approval of members of this House. The discussions will take place in the making of the next stabilisa tion plan. It is beyond my authority to make any alteration whilst the present five·year term exists.

I have endeavoured to explain matters alJOut the passing on of cost to the consumer. \Ve ,1·ere disappointed that the Commonwealth Government would not assist "·ith freight. It would have helped tremendously because the greater part of the costs of the imported wheat is bound up with freight charges.

:'\Ir. Power: The biggest portion.

iUr. lUADSEN: Virtually all. The wheat industry makes a special endeavour to meet the Commonwealth's needs for flour by hold­ing wheat over from year to year and when extraordinary circumstances arise I think it would be a reasonable proposition for the Commonwealth Government to assist to some rlegree. My Government are disappointed with the Commonwealth Government's reply. '['his is something that could be taken into account when discussing the next five-year stabilisation plan. I have had some experi­ence of Commonwealth marketing of dairy produce and I know that the costs of dis· tribution between State and Sta.te are colossal. There is special need for consideration where nn industry endeavours to carry over a crop from year to year. At a later date I shall have the opportunity of discussing such matters at meetings of the Agricultural Council.

Members of the House generally seem to agree with the principles of the Bill. Whilst this measure means quite a lot to the pro­ducer I can assure hon. members that he needs what is being clone. On this occasion I do not think the cost will be the crippling burden some people imagine. Whilst I cannot give the actual figure I should say that it is considerably less than 2d. a loaf.

:iUr. Power: You must have inside infor­mation that we have not got.

Mr. lUADSEN: Naturally I can make a fair guess. I have been concerned. '!.'his is not a politically popular move, but when there is a need politics should not be tal~en into account. The proper thing is to do what you think fair and just and that is what the Government have endeavoured to do.

Motion (Mr. Madsen) agreed to.

COMMITTEE.

(Mr. Nicholson, Murrumba, in the chair.)

Clauses 1 to 8, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

THIRD READDIG.

Bill, on motioh of Mr Jlifaclsen, by leave, read a third time.

ROADS (CONTRIBUTION TO MAINTENANCE) BILL.

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE.

(Mr. Nicholson, Murrumba, in the chair.)

Hon. G. W. W. CHALK (Lockyer­Minister for Transport) (12.39 p.m.): I move-

''That it is desirable that a Bill be introduced to provide for contributions to road maintenance by nsers of roads.''

In presenting the Bill, I shall make some reference to mattrrs that have led up to its necessity. I shall also give some indication of what is proposed under the Bill and how it \Yill be implemented.

At present there are three principal Acts gm·erning the provision of roads and the use of road vehicles within the State. No doubt most hon. members are aware that they are: the Main Roads Acts, 1920 to 1952, the Traffic Acts, 1949 to 1953, and the State Transport Facilities Acts, 1947 to 1955. In addition, the Local Government _\.cts, 1936 to 1957, define the responsibility of local authorities in regard to certain roads coming under the control of local authorities, while some minor Acts deal with specific aspects of transport, such as the application of toll fees in particular instances.

Briefly summarising the position, it is explained that the Main Roads Acts deal with construction and maintenance of main roads. The revenue for this purpose is derived from motor vehicle registration fees, supplemented by the State's allocation of the petrol tax collected by the Commonwealth Government. The rules to be observed by road users are outlined in the Traffic Acts, while the State Transport Facilities Acts lay clown the conditions under which it is lawful for passengers and/ or goods to be carried on any road.

Those Acts were quite sufficient for the requirements of the State and they were administered quite successfully, I believe, until the Privy Council judgment of 1954 exempted interstate operators from the necessity to pay fees. So the position within the State had to be studied. The provisions of the Queensland Acts as tliey applied at that time covered all journeys on all vehicles within the State. It is largely to meet the position that has arisen following the Privy Council judgment that action is now being taken to introduce a further Bill to authorise the collection of a contribution towards road maintenance as compensation for the wear and tear caused to public highways by the movement of heavy vehicles.

As some evidence of the rapid increase in the number of vehicles in the State and also some evidence of the amount of wear and tear occasioned to roads, let me cite motor vehicle registrations. At 30 June, 1950, the figure stood at 211,275 but by the end of June this year it had increased to 343,791. Of that total 38 per cent. represented trucks and

Roads (Contribution to [3 DECEMBER.] j'J;J aintenance) Bill. 1495

utilities. I do not think there is any need for me to try to impress further on hon. members the rapid growth of motor haulage in the State. Under the weight of this extra traffic the roads have deteriorated at an increasing rate and in consequence the cost of maintenance of all classes of roads has become greater each year.

A survey by the Main Roads Department disclosed that it would be necessary to find £101,000,000 if we were to carry out in the next 10 years the building of all arteriar and rural roads that have been gazetted as either highways or main roads. That gives an indi­cation of how many roads have been gaz­etted over the years and the amount of money that it would be necessary to spend if we were to bring them up to the desired standard of any State.

It will be appreciated, however, that the immediate and most urgent problem to be tackled is the adequate maintenance of the existing road system. In attending to this requirement a very large proportion of the money available for roads must be absorbed each year.

It is recognised that the community life of the State depends on good roads, accordingly the problem is not confined to any particular road but is State-wide.

It has been the policy for many years that people who use the roads should make a reasonable contribution towards their upkeep. That was the policy adopted by all States, irrespertive of the Government in officP, until the Privy Council judgment in 1954.

It is to be expected that heavy vehicles cause proportionately more damage to roads than lighter vehicles.

Mr. Wood: Particularly when they travel at increased speeds as many of them do.

~Ir. CHALK: I quite agree. I take it that the point the hon. member wants to make is that in many instances heavy vehicles travel outside the speed limit. I believe that to be the case, and I also believe that where traffic officers are on duty they attempt to curb the practice. Unfortunately, all the roads in Queensland cannot be policed. Let me make the point that I believe that a considerable amount of the damage done to roads throughout the State is done by very heavy vehicles. These are the very vehicles that require wider roads, stronger pavements and easier gradients. Anyone who travels on the State's roads, particularly between Brisbane and Toowoomba or through Cunningham 's Gap, knows some of the problems that confront the ordinary motorist or the loyal Queensland haulier when he has to follow some of the very large interstate vehicles at present on the roads. They demand wider roads, they demand easier gradients, but at the same time they are causing great damage to the roads, consider­able congestion and in many instances creating what might be termed traffic hazards.

In the circumstances I feel confident that hon. members will subscribe to my view that interstate hauliers using the roads to a greatly increased extent following their exemption from the payment of license or permit fees have not made a just contribu­tion to the maintenance of the roads they are using. I do not think any hon. member would be prepared to debate that point. \Y ~ all believe that the interstate operator should make some contribution towards the wear and tear of roads caused by hauling heavy loads, and in many instances excessive loads, over them.

'l'hese operators are, nevertheless, constantly clamouring for the arterial roads over which they travel to be maintained to the best possible extent. There is no need for me to elaborate in detail on the difficulties encountered by the States in their endeavours to se<eure a just and reason­able recompense for the wear and tear caused to their roads by interstate operators as well as intrastate hauliers. Con­sequent upon the Privy Council decision the three eastern States attempted to meet the position by the introduction of amending legislation re-imposing some control and levying a charge specifically on interstate hauliers. I recall sitting on the Opposition benches when this legislation was introduced, and I remarked at the time that the Bill was only a stab in the dark in an attempt to meet the circumstances because we had not found any way to overcome the Privy Council judgment. I also said that we probably would have to review the legislation within a few months. As most hon. members know we did not have the opportunity of amending the legislation. Although the Government were prepared to do what they considered best to correct this practice and get some recompense for the State, the legislation was declared invalid by a decision of the High Court. New South \Vales and Victoria were in the same position. The States were left in no doubt that Section 92 granted interstate operators the freedom to follow the course of their trar1e unrestricted by State legislation, and that in the circumstances anv Bill. relating to road transport would require to be framed within the limits of the respective State Parliaments, particular regard being had to the limitations imposed upon the powers of the Commonwealth and the States by Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution. This matter was discussed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council. Every transport Minister who attended the meeting advanced the same idea -that something might be done in an ,endeavour to frame legislation that would ensure the collection of some payment. It was obvious to all Ministers that a new approach ivould have to be made to the question of securing payment for the wear and tear of roads. A very detailed investigation was undertaken by research engineers of the Country roads Board in Victoria, and in the course of this inquiry it was established that

1496 Roads (Contribution to [ASSEMBLY.] Maintenance) Bill.

damage caused to roads by heavy vehicles of a load capacity in excess of 4 tons was not compensated by the registration fees and ,petrol tax that was being paid in respect ,of these vehicles. In certain circumstances it is not necessary for vehicles engaged solely in interstate transport to pay any registra­tion fees at all. That is in accordance with a decision of the High Court. Many of them have operated in that way ever since.

A further Act embodying the principle established by the Victorian investigation was passed by the Victorian Parliament. A charge for road maintenance was imposed ou all vehicles of a load capacity which exceeds four tons. The validity of the legislation was upheld by the High Court and, as we recently learned, leave to appeal to the Privy Council was rejected.

l\Ir. Burrows interjected.

l\Ir. CHALK: If the hon. member is patient, I shall give the whole story up to the present time. The findings of the Privy Council were such that leave to appeal wa; refused.

Having thus withstood legal challenge, the Victorian Act was quite naturally used as the basis of the Bill I am introducing. The legislation to be introduced in New South Wales is also based on the Victorian Act. Notice of that Bill has been given. I spoke this morning to the 1'ransport Minister in New South \Vales, Mr. Enticknap, and he gave me the details of the Bill being intro­duced there. This Bill is identical with it.

It is not necessary to deliver a disser­tation on the various judgments in several transport cases. This Bill has been drafted on the basis that it honestly and fully meets all the requirements stipulated by the Judges of the High Court and the Lord Justices of the Privy Council from time to time, and that it seeks to impose a road charge which could validly be collected by the States, not only from those who operate within the State, but also from those coming from outside.

Whilst interstate transport will make the same contribution for road maintenance pur­poses as intrastate transp·ort, interstate operators can still avoid the payment of licensing or permit fees under the State Transport Facilities Acts.

I emphasise that the Bill does not supplant the State Transport Fa~ilities Acts, and the provisions of the latter Acts will continue to have effect so far as intrastate transport is eoncerned. -

In other words, the Bill in no way interferes with the State Transport Facilities Acts, nor does it in any way interfere with intrastate operators, that, those who operate within the boundaries of Quensland.

I ask hon. members to bear fully in mind that it is not a tax.

Mr. Wood: Not in name.

l\Ir. CHALK: It is not a tax, but a reimbursement for the wear and tear of roads, and the only way it can be obtained is by the adoption of the procedure outlined in the Bill.

Sections of the community, such as primary producers who might justifiably be relieved from contributing will, as a result of this Bill, have to be included nnder it because of the findings of the High Court. Those find­ings lay down that if you exempt any particular type of truck for any farmer you must exempt that truck so far as the interstate haulier is concerned. If we exempt any particular type of goods or commodity then according to the findings of the High Court-against which findings leave to appeal to the Privy Council was refused- · '"c have to exempt that particular commodity for its haulage interstate. ·we have to face up to the circumstances on the findings of the High Court.

l\Ir. Foley: Could you give the primary producer relief in some other way?

]Ur. CHAL,K: I will mention one or two matters that will be of benefit under the Bill. I do not wish to convey to the Committee tlmt I am opposed to the legitimate inter­state transport operator. The interstate transport operator has exercised certain rights under Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution, and because he has exercised those rights I have said quite openly that he has been trading legitimately. I have never subscribed, however, to the idea that it is right for the interstate haulier to use the roads of Queensland and of other States rwo make no contribution towards their mainten­ance. Therefore, we have introduced this Bill which, as I indicated earlier, with one or two minor exceptions, is an accord with a Bill introduced in Victoria and one of which the Labour Government of New South \Vales has given notice of. The conveyance of goods interstate has always been part of the normal trade between· the various States. I want to make it quite clear that whilst I have neYer entirely opposed the operations of the interstate haulier, because I believe that Section 92 gives him the right, I cannot speak too strongly in condemnation of those hauliers who have resorted to subteTfuge in operating intrastate at the same time claim­ing the benefits of the interstate operator.

l\Ir. Woo>d: The border hopper.

i)lr. CHAL'K: That i>s the person to whom I refer. Last night I went to Tuowoomba, and I returned to the House in the early hours this morning. I f'aw a number of loaded trucks at about 1 o'clock this morning. They had certain interstate markings painted on them, but it would be very interesting to know where thev started-and I believe I know-and wheie they crossed the border. I do not think they did. Of course, if you iLtercept a haulier he will say, "I am carry­ing these goods interstate; I am taking them

Roads (Contribution to [3 DECEMBER.] Maintenance) Hilt, 1497

to Tweed Heads.'' However, he takes them to Tweed Heads, gives them some New South Wales air, and then brings them back. In that way he avoids contributing towards the upkeep of Queensland's roads.

Jllr. Woo{l: He can take the goods as far as Cairns or Mt. Isa.

Mr. CHALK: Quite so. I can see that the Leader of the Opposition is conscious of what the Government are trying to do. Hauliers have published advertisements in the Press telling people to consign their goods to Tweed Heads. They will even take them tc• Tweed Heads free of charge. After taking the goods there, they will transport them to distant places such as Blackall, Hughem1en or Cloncurry. As I say, they do not pay a penny towards meeting the cost of wear and tear on the roads. No words of mine can express my opposition to that type of operator. In the main he has been responsible for the introduction of this legislation.

The title of the Bill suggests itself. It is termed ''The Roads (Contribution to Maintenance) Act of 1957," and it provides for the contribution to road maintenance by road users. That in a few words is what the Bill proposes. By it the State will collect a certain amount of money from the road operator, and in accordance with its terms and the findings of both the High Court of Australia and the Privy Council, that money must be used for the maint<mance of roads. It cannot be spent on building new roads; it can be used only for maintenance.

To permit of the completion of admini­strative arrangements for its smooth working, the Act will not come into force until it has been proclaimed. I can assure hon. members that no proclamation will be made until the :necessary administrative machinery has been provided. In fairness to everyone concernec1, I do not think the Bill should be proclaimed until the State Transport Commissioner has the necessary machinery set up.

Certain definitions are included in the Bill, the most important of which is the definition of a " commercial goods vehicle. " In adc1i. tion to limiting the operation of the Act to vehicles used for carrying goods for hire or reward, or for any consideration or in the course of any trade whatsoever this definition also makes the Act applicable to local auth­orities but does not include any motor vehicle the load capacity of which, together with any trailer for the time being attached thereto, does not exceed 4 tons. In other words, the lc,gislation will not apply to any vehicle, or vehicle with trailer attached, the total load capacity of which does not exceed 4 tons.

Local authorities have been brought under the Bill to avoid any discrimination between classes of road users and also to attain uniformity of road charge paymentl'! among local authoTities themselves. The necessity for that is evident. Many local authoTities employ owner-driver operators while others

use their own vehicles. There could be two adjoining shires one of which is using owner­driver operators and the other its own vehicles. In the former instance, the o per­a tors \Tould be contributing towards the upkeep of the Toads in the area, but if locai nuthorities were exempt, in the latter­iHstance no contribution \Yould be made ..

The Bill provides for the disbursement of' portion of the money to local authorities for the maintenance of roads. Although the local authority may be called on to make a small contribution to the reimbursement, ultimately it, the local rate-payers and others. who contribute will get a greater return.

Jir. :Niann: On what basis?

Mr. CHALK: A little later I will give the hon. member an indication of how we propose to collect the sum and put it into a fund. There is nothing in the Bill dealing with distribution. We are following the Vic­torian Act and all it says is that the money must go towards the maintenance of roads within the State. In arranging to set up the administrative machinery, I have taken steps to sre that there will be a clear indication Yvithin the records of the department of the amount of money that comes in from particu­lar localities. A close check will be kept of the souree of the funds. The shire should have the right to have the moneys it con­tributes applied to it. No doubt that will be the basis for distribution.

i!Ir. Hilton: But a highway running through a shire-the local authority would not be entitled to that.

Mr. CHALI{: No. The hon. member has had considerable experience in local govern­ment and he knows only too well the rule. nbout highways.

Jl[r. A. J. Smith: It must not be forgotten: that interstate and intrastate road hauliel's leave the highway and do just as much damage in the streets of the towns.

i!Ir. CHALK: The hon. member for Car­pentm·ia has indicated that he know's the damage interstate hauliers are doing not only to the road between Brisbane and Ooolan· gatta-and heaven knows, they do enough damage to that-but also to every other road in the State they choose to use. Trucks have been cal'rying huge loads of goods into western areas on an intl'a·interstate basis as they term it, and bringing back wool. If you follow them they go over the border. If you do not they come into Brisbane. They pay no tax and they push out of business the legitimate haulier who has been playing the game.

Let me deal quickly with one or two other definitions because I think hon. members should know of them before the Bill is debated further. Among the other defini­tions in the Bill are those relating to load capacity, which is to be taken from the cer· tificate of Tegistration issued to the vehicle.

1498 Roads (Contribution to [ASSEMBLY.] Maintenance) Bill.

In other words, we use the certificate of l'egistration as the basis on which to arrive at the load capacity. If it says the truck is a 4-ton truck, that is accepted as the tonnage.

JUr. Wood: How would you deal with the interstate 4-ton vehicle with no registration~

l\Ir. CHALK: When the L~eader of the Opposition gets the Bill he will see that that is covered. Where there is no certifi­cate of registration we accept the manufac­'turer 's description of the vehicle as the tonnage basis. The difficulty is overcome because of the special clause providing for the basis where there is no fixed registratiOn certificate.

In answer to the interjection of the hon. member for Carpentaria let me point out that both for the purposes of the Bill itself and for the basis of distribution "public high­way" includes any street, road, lane, bridge, thoroughfare or place open to or used by the public for the passage of any vehicle. That gives a clear indication that it includes any place where any vehicle is likely to go.

The administration of the proposed Act has been vested in the Commissioner for 'l'ransport rather than in the Commissioner of Main Roads, the reason being that the Trans­port Department has the necessary machinery already established for the collection of fees on a basis similar to that proposed in the Bill.

Clause 3 of the Bill contains the liability provision which makes the owner of every commercial goods vehicle liable for payment to the Commissioner of a contribution towards the wear and tear caused to the public high­ways by the use thereof by vehicles. It is streFsed that the charge becomes due at the time of use of the highway by the vehicle, but it is not payable in advance. I pointed out earlier that it is not a tax. It is not something for which you get a permit to operate, it is not something that you can pay beforehand. It is a reimbursement for wear and t{'ctr. It is not payable until the services have been rendered.

Under the terms of clauses 4 and 5 road operators will be required to keep a simple record of daily journeys, from it to assess the amount of the charge payable by them, and to make a monthly return accompanied by the amount of the charge payable for the month, if it has not already been paid. T'his return and payment may be made by personal delivery or by prepaid registered or certified mail letter. If such letter is posted within a fortnight of the end of the month it will be sufficient delivery for the purpose of the Bill. We do not want to create huge administrative machinery nor do we want to create unnecessary work for the operator, whether he be a road operator in the true sense or a primary producer. For that reason we have included a provision similar to that in the Victorian Act and the New South \Vales Act, an alternative provision whereby

road operators can make arrangements with the Commissioner as to alternative methods of keeping records and making payments. It is expected that advantage will be taken of this clause to simplify procedure as far as possible having regard to individual ciTCumstances. That arrangement shall not in any way affect the charge payable. We believe that there are many people operating vehicles within Queens­land who already keep records of their opera­tions and that they could satisfy the Trans­port Commissioner that their figures fairly and reasonably show the work their vehicles do. In such instances there is power for the Com­missioner to enter into an arrangement and thus eliminate a great deal of book work both by the department and by the operators in their businesses or private undertakings.

lllr. Hilton: What happens if they default~

lllr. CHALK: I am coming to that. All moneys collected under the Act are

to be paid into the Road Maintenance Account in the Treasury, and are to be used only on the maintenance of public highways. The necessary provision is made for money standing to the credit of the fund to be dis­bursed as directed by the Minister in charge of the Main Roads Department. It is laid down that the revenue collected is to be used for the maintenance of publie highways only, but authOTity is given for grants to be made to local authorities for that purpose.

It is envisaged that this will absorb a good proportion of the funds as much of the rev­enue will be collected from heavy vehicles using road'' maintained by local authorities. I think I dealt with that fairly fully a few moments ago. That is a fair indication of what we propose to do with the money. It will be returned to the areas where it was collected and where it should be spent. It will be recognised that the obligation on road hauliers to make this contribution is open to abuse by dishonest persons. The hon. member for Carnarvon interjected a few minutes ago on that point. We realise that the system is open to abuse by dishonest persons, but I do not concede that the great majority will be offenders. The Bill will provide a remedy for those who commit br·eaches of the law. In the .case of a first offence the penalty is not more than £50, but, in the case of a second offence the penalty is not le~s than £25 or more than £100, and in the case of a third or subsequent offence the penalty has been increased to not less than £50 and not more than £200.

lUr. Hilton: It should be' ten times greater.

Mr. CHALK: We shall be able to make the operators realise that they must make a contribution. Let me say now that my assoc­iation with the average road haulier has been a reasonably happy one. Unfortunately, a number of operators who have come into the business since the Privy Council finding have

Roads (Contribution to [3 DECEMBER.] Maintenance) Bill. 1499

thrown all risk to the winds; they have forced the former operators to resort to certain practices in order to remain in business After all, i~ two operators work side by sid~ and o?e d1:1Ves for 23 hours a day and does not g1ve h1s employees good conditions and breaches . the. law on overloading and makes no contnbutwn towards road maintenance the other operator who provides good con: ditions and pays award rates and does not b,reac~ the law is likely to go out of business. 'Ihat IS a difficulty that has to be faced. The average road haulier is prepared to make a reasonable contribution and to play the game.

lUr. Davies: Are those penalties the same as apply in Victoria~

lUr. CHALK: The penalties provided in this Bill apply in Victoria.

Mr. Davis: Why not take the £1 000 and cancel his license~ '

lUr~ CHALK: He has not got a licence. The mterstate operator might have a license for a driver, and if you de-license that driver another driver is put on. As quickly as you ean?el one license another driver is employed. It Is not a question of registration under Section 92. He can do as he likes and you cannot do other than we are doing, except to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Carnarvon and make the penalty ten times as much. I do not subscribe to that. I shall try to administer the Bill in a reasonable and fair manner.

lllr. Hilton: I was referring to inter­state men, not the intrastate men.

Mr. CHALK: I understood the hon. member to be referring to the interstate operator. There are some good interstate operators. Some of them have said to me, ''We are prepared to pay the fees.' ' That has been their attitude for a long time but the point is that, if they pay the fees, their costs are completely out of line with the costs of those who do not pay fees and con­sequently they cannot stay in business. If equal conditions apply to all operators, the man who gives the best service will win.

The :first schedule of the Bill contains par­ticulars of the rate to be charged, which is proposed to be one-third of a penny per ton on the sum of (a) the tare weight of the Yehicle, and (b) 40 per cent. of the load capacity of the vehicle per mile of public highway along which the vehicle travels in Queensland.

To make that clear, take the case of a 4-ton registered vehicle. The tare weight may be only 2 ton 4 cwt., and it is on that weight that the payment is calculated, along with 40 per cent. of its load capacity. A vehicle is not at all times full or empty. The Bill provides for calculation of 40 per cent. of its loaded capacity. It is recognised that an unloaded vehicle does a certain amount of damage to the road. The engineers who pre­pared :figures for the Victorian Country

Roads Board found it impossible to arrive at the reimbursement for a vehicle when full and when returning empty. The road operators agreed that this basis was fair. As the Victorian Act was upheld, that basis is accepted for this Bill.

lUr. Thackeray: The 40 per cent. will operate both ways~

Mr. CHALK: Yes, as long as the Yehicle is on the road. The basis of calcula­tion is the tare weight plus 40 per cent. of its loaded capacity.

~Ir. Wood: The rate is one-third of a penny per ton mile~

lUr. CHALK: Yes.

~Ir. Thackeray: Is that the same rate as the Victorian rate~

~Ir. CHALK: Yes, exactly the same. I even endeavoured to dot the '' i 's'' and cross the "t 's" of this Bill in an identical man­ner to the Victorian Act.

The only difference between the Victorian Act and this Bill is the point with which I shall deal now.

JUr. Gair: You would not halVe to depart very far from it to be ultra vires the Com­monwealth Constitution.

Mr. CHALK: That is so. The moment we vary or write any additional provision into the legislation that has not been ap­proved, we leave ourselves open to appeal.

~Ir. Gair: Proposals that went slightly too far have been found to be out of order.

~Ir. CHALK: The hon. member for South Brisbane understands the position. There have been several appeals to the High Court. Other appeals were taken to the Privy Coun­cil. Sir Arthur Warner, the Victorian Transport Minister, was most helpful on my visit to Melbourne. He realised that all State legislation should be in line and should be fair in all aspects. He gave me consider­able assistance.

It was necessary for lawyers to sort the :findings of the High Court and Privy Coun­cil. While the Bill is not all that could be desired, it has been framed on the various comments and opinions of Judges of the High Court and Lord Justices of the Privy Council as to what can be done and what cannot be done. The Victorian Government embodied in their legislation all that could be done. Having done that, there was not much possibility of the Privy Council grant­ing a right of appeal against the High Court decision, because after all they would be looking at the thoughts they had previously <

expressed. I was referring to the differences between

the Victorian Act and this Bill. In Victoria, certain perishable goods are exempt, such as raspberries and blackberries, fruit and citrus fruit, and :flowers. Victoria did not

1500 Roads (Contribution to [ASSEMBLY.] Maintenance) Bill.

exempt primary produce, but exempted perish­able vegetables. The Victorian Government realised that the moment they exempted com­modities of that nature the interstate opera­tor could carry those commodities. We have realised the problem that could arise if we started to make exemptions. We cannot write in anything more than is in the Bill. Advice given to the Victorian Government was that they were going dangerously close to the mark by having any exemptions at all. This legislation is for a reimbursement for wear and tf'ar caused to roads, and if we start to exempt many classifications all we would be doing would be upsetting the money being allocated to that pm·ticular purpose, and consequently the legislation would com­pletely fall down. We have to justify the exceptions for wear and tear to the road. We believe we have strengthened our legis­lation by eliminating all exemptions. This Bill differs from the Victorian Act only in the case of exemptions. The exclusion of any exemption is designed to strengthen the Bill and at the same time secure full equality of contributions towards road maintena11ce by all road users irrespective of the commodity carried.

Mr. Wood: I take it that any vehicle of 4 tons tare weight or over running withli1 the permissible 15 miles would come under the operations of the Bill~

Mr. CHALK: That is so.

JUr. Wood: Have you any idea of how many vehicles would be brought under the Bill~

Jtir. CHALK: There are approximately 12,900 vehicles in excess of 4 tons registered in Queensland. I repeat that there are no exemp­tions to this rule so far as vehicles in excess of 4 tons are concerned. We have to bring in every vehicle. Let me make it clear to hon. members opposite that where today we have what we term licensees or permitees who have been legitimate traders within the St,1te and who have met the State Transport J<~acilities Act requirements, we propose that Lhis reim­bursement shall be the first charge on them, but by regulation we will reduce the amount they are paying at the present time. There will be no extra charge to the public in Queensland in relation to this measure.

Mr. Wood: How many of the 12,900 are already paying~

Mr. CHALK: I would not hazard a guess but I shall try to find out before we reach the second reading stage. My information is that the same principle a,s we are to a.pply in Queensland will be applied in New South Wales. This morning I spoke to Mr.

• Entickna.p, who is the Transport Minister in New South Wales, and he expressed pleasure that Queensland was acting along the same lines as his Government. He has given notice of the introduction of his Bill, and it is now being printed. While the three States con­cerned have so far given no written under­taking, doubtless they will all wish to act

in unison in implementing the legislation. In other words, there will be facilities in New South Wales for handling interstate opera­tors who go to Victoria and Queensland, and there will be similar facilitie,s in Victoria and Queensland. That means that there will be collaboration in the collection of fee,s.

llir. Burrows: If an operator pays fees in New South Wales, will he still be liable for fees in Queensland~

II'Ir. CHALJ{: The operator will pay fees in New South WalPs for that portion of the journey that covers roads in New South Wales. Then he will pay fees in Queensland for the portion of the journey over roads in this State.

I am certain that theTe will be complete reciprocity between the officers in the three State~. Mr. Kropp of Queensland, Mr. vValsh of New South \Vales, and Mr. Field of VictoTia have already had conferences on the matter, a11d, as I say, I am ceTtain that they will be able to achieve a full measure of TecipTocity.

1\Ir. Wood: Have you any estimate of the annual revenue that will be derived :from the measure~

Mr. CHALK: We believe that when the legislation is fully operative the Tevenue to the State will be about £600,000 a year. Of course, a small amount will be transferred from moneys received under the State Trans­port Facilities Act, and to that extent we shall be meTely taking money from one pocket and putting it in another. Both VictoTia and New South Wales hope to benefit by about £3,000,000 a year. Of course., Queensland is only on the edge of interstate transpoTt. New South Wales has highways mnning to the South, the West, and the North. It is the ham in the middle of the sandwich.

1\Ir. Wood: Would the amount of £600,000 that you have mentioned include part of the fee that is at present paid by the licensed operator~

II'Ir. CHALK: That is expected to be the net increase in revenue, worked out on the number of vehicles. Of course, we have no reliable records of interstate hauliers other than counts that have been made. vVe know that 12,900 vehicles are registered in Queens­land, but if you go out to Rocklea tonight you might see 30 or 40 interstate vehicles and more further on, while if you went out tomorrow night you may not see any at all. As I say, we think that the State will bene­fit to the extent of £600,000.

I do not claim that the amending legisla­tion provides a complete answer to the pr~b­lem of getting adequate funds for the mam­tenance of TOads in Queensland. We realise that heavy transport trucks do much more damage to the roads than would be met by what we can collect from them. We are working on a formula that has been prepared by Victoria, New South Wales and Queens­land. That is some indication that we shall

Roads (Contribution to (3 DECEMBER.] Maintenance) Bill. 1501

be able to face up to any challenge to the reasonable charge that we are imposing on road hauliers.

The Bill is a genuine attempt by the Gov­emment to apply within constitutional limits a remedy for what has been, to say the least, an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Should it be demonstrated in practice that further corrective measures are necessary, or that some further amendments are desirable, we will be prepared to take those steps. All the Government are trying to do is to face up to a responsibility and to implement in Queens­land a measure that has been proved valid in Victoria. When it is carried out we shall be able to get a contribution from the inter­state haulier and have some control over the intra-interstate haulier, our greatest nui~ance, and so get contrihutions from those who are abusing our roads. I say that advisedly. The money will be distributed throughout queensland for the maintenance of roads.

Mr. WOOD (North Toowoomba-Leader of the Opposition) (2.57 p.m.): The Bill is an attempt to deal with a problem of grave perplexity, which has not been brought about through any error at any stage by any Government. As the Minister has said, it will not be solved entirely by the Bill. The Bill is not the brain child of the Government but is modelled almost exactly on Victorian legis­lation, which was acceptable to the court. It is a move to correct an intolerable posi­tion whereby hauliers have treated the State with contempt, aided and abetted by a section of the Commonwealth Constitution. The hon. member for Mt. Gravat.t said, ''Thank God for Section 92 of the Constitution! '' But it was the absurdity of that section that made the intolerable position possible, coupled with the fact that a remote Privy Council 10,000 miles, away in England, with­out any knowledge of local conditions obtain­ing in Australia-in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria-in a detached atmos­phere could decide what was best for us in our State and how we should control the State transport system. I believe history will record the absurdity of Section 92 and of our still working under a system whereby in a remote and detached way the Lords 10,000 miles away can tell us how we should run the State transport system. We have been thrown into a state of chaos by the combination of those two circumstances. The Government were bound to take some steps to correct the impossible situation. Frankly, in view of the judgments that have been given, I could suggest at this stage no further steps. I say definitely I am not happy about all steps that are contemplated in the measure, and the :Minister will agree that we have everY r,eason to be far from satisfied that the i;;_terstate operators will be contributing anything like their fair share in the scale that has proved acceptable to the court.

Let us look briefly at the development of the road transport services as a direct result

of the co-ordinated effort in the State Trans­port Facilities Act, which was passed some 10 or 11 years ago. At that time a deter­mined effort was made in a comprehensive measure to introduce a system of co-ordina­tion into transport services. By the intro­duction of the State Transport Facilities Act an efficient road transport system was allowed to operate in the State, always taking into consideration that there must be some protec­tion given to rail services. That has not always, been the predominating consideration but by the State Transport Facilities Act of 1946 an opportunity was given to road trans­port to extend in Queensland. I do not think the State has suffered by the opportunity given to road transport operators to extend their services. My experience has convinced me that they have played a major part in the development of the State. Encouraged by the policy of Labour Governments since that time they have set up efficient organisations. It is important to remember that such transport systems within the State operate under awards. The awards are scrupulously obser­ved, the men enjoying conditions comparable to those obtaining in most other industries. Within the State there is every opportunity to police the operation of the awards to ensure that court determinations are not bro­ken down. Most transport companies have observed the awards. I have in mind one road transport company where two years ago the smallest weekly wage paid to a driver of a 5-ton vehicle was £24.

)fr. Windsor: They had to work for it though.

~Ir. WOOD: They worked strictly according to the award. There was no over­time ~worked in earning that £24. That is the least a driver could earn in a 40-hour week if he handled a 5-ton truck. The weekly wage was greater for driving trucks of a greater capacity. Other amenities were provided. This applies to many transport companies.

JUr. Hart: Was the company operating interstate~

~Ir. WOOD: Intrastate, certainly not travelling interstate.

The chief matter that exercises my mind when considering the loose attitude that is adopted towards interstate haulage is that there is no way of ensuring that award con­ditions are carried out. To avoid the exploitation of drivers, driver-fatigue and the risk of accidents to life and property the State Transport Facilities Act contained safe­guards as to length of time a driver could be continuously in charge of a vehicle and the period that had to elapse before he handled his next load. With interstate travelling we have no way of ascertaining whether a driver is handling his vehicle eight or 24 hours continuously. From time to time we have heard of accidents caused by driver-fatigue brought about by working too many hours at a stretch. That is one of the great <.angers

1502 Roads (Contribution to [ASSEMBLY.] .'Id aintenance) Bill.

of the present system. We have no control over the conditions under which drivers of interstate vehicles are operating.

l\lr. Hart: Are you sure of that?

~Ir. WOOD: Of course. Say a driver leaves Melbourne to bring a vehicle to Bris­bane. How can any State make an accurate check on the; time he has been in control of his vehicle~ Within one State it may be possible but I defy any State to make an accurate assessment of the continuous period a driver operates his vehicle on a run from Melbourne to Brisbane. I speak from experience. I know some of the drivers who have handled these vehicles and I know the time that these vehicles have been under their continuous control.

The meney that is to be exacted from the interstate hauliers has been euphemistically referred to as a contribution. Each of us has his own idea about. what it is, but ·whether you call it a tax or a contribution, I have one complaint--it is not nearly big enough. I know that the Minister is of the same opinion. I cannot suggest anything better that would meet with the approval of the court, buf I could make other sug­gestions that would be more suitable to us and hon. members of the Government, but if they were challm1ged in court they would be declared invalid.

Mr. Chalk: This amount was the closest figure that the VictOTian finding could justify on the decision of the court.

lUr. WOOD: If you made it a penny instead of one-third of a penny it would not bounce when it hit the court. It is but little satisfaction to the legitimate intra­state road opemtor who pays 20 per cent. of his freight revenue in taxes to the State in transport taxation to know that his inter­state competitor pays one-ninth of that amount. Even when the Bill is passed it is only one little step towards the imposition on the interstate operator of the amount of tax which he is entitled to pay. There have been some very good legitimate interstate hauliers, but in view of what has happened we can feel ,no sympathy for the plight of some of them. As a result of unbridled licence in the way these services have operated and the cut-throat competition, some of these people were forced out of business. The challenge to the comt in the Hughes & Vale case, from the long-range point of view, was one of the worst things that the interstate hauliers could have clone. Until this stupid determination was given by the Privy Council the legitimate operator vvas protected against the hill-billy exploiter. That protection has been entirely removed and the livelihood of interstate operators has been threatened by men who will take any steps to evade the law. Some of them have been outlined by the Minister. There is the person who, if. followed, will go . to Tweed Heads ostensibly to unload and

reload, but if he is not followed he will say he has gone interstate and he will.enter into compet~tion with other established operators employmg men under strict award conditions. Men who clo that have no right to our sympathy. I have no doubt that £600 000 would represent only a fraction of 'the yea:ly damage to our . roads by heavy vehicles. The combination of weight and speed and consequent friction causes more damage than any other factor. These yehicles on many . occasions travel at speeds m excess of the limit for ordinary motor c:::rs. The drivers speed along the highways With ~eckless disregard for the safety or convemence of motorists and other users of the highways. Their vehicles cause road damage amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.

Anyone who has been in the electorate of the hon. member for Carnarvon after wet weather realises the position. That stretch ?f road was put in first-class condition, but IS reduced after heavy rain to a state of bad disrepair. The potholes are caused almost entirely b;v the vehicles of interstate operators. Those vehicles carrying heavy loads tear along that road at excessive speeds. They cause thousands of pounds w?rth of damage each trip. Even if the B1ll means that the Government will receive £600,000 a year, that sum will represent nothing like the cost of repair of damage to roads by interstate vehicles.

lUr. Hart: If you could prove that, you could probably increase the percentage.

lUr. WOOD: Does the hon. member dis­agree with it~

~fr. Hart: I do not say I agree or dis­agree, but if you could prove it you could probably increase the percentage.

Mr. WOOD: The hon. member for Mt. Gravatt seems to have sympathy with the interstate operators. If he went to any part of the State where these heavy vehicles operate, he would see the tremendous toll they take of the road.

lUr. Harrison: He said if you could establish that claim vou could increase the contribution of one-third of a penny.

Mr. Hart: That is so.

:iJ'Ir. WOOD: It should not be necessary to establish it; an examination of the roads proves it. I am sure the Minister would agree that £600,000 would not cover the damage done by these vehicles.

1\lr. Chalk: You are missing the important point. We estimate that the damage to roads in Queensland is approxi­mately £4,000,000 but we are getting £3,000,000 odd from registration fees and petrol tax and this sum represents the dif­ference between the two.

lUr. WOOD: The estimate of damage to roads is £4,000,000. It is not my responsi­bility to make an investigation, but I urge

Roads (Contribution to [3 DECEMBER.] Maintenance) Bill.

the Government to make an investigation, if one is necessary, and it will prove that inter­state hauliers are responsible for damage of more than £600,000 a year. If there is any doubt, I ask the Minister to appoint expert governmental officers to assess accurately the damage done by interstate hauliers. I am certain that the contribution of one-third of a penny per ton mile will not nearly cover the damage done by those vehicles.

There is one point in the legislation about which none of us could feel happy. To en­sure that the 200, 300, 400, or more inter­state hauliers make some contribution to the maintenance of roads, we have to catch in a dragnet all vehicles in the State of 4 tons or over.

JUr. Clmlk: Over 4 tons.

Mr. WOOD: The Minister has said that there are 12,900 vehicles in that category, many of which will be paying their ordinary transport tax. He has promised to find out if possible by the second reading stage the number of new vehicles that will be covered. I take it that every vehicle over 4 tons that is operating within the permissible 15 mile limit and not paying tax, for instance, the vehicles of primary producers who are carry­ing their own produce to market, will have to be brought within the provisions of the Bill so that it can be held that no step taken in the Bill savours of discrimination against interstate hauliers. I cannot see the justice of it, but I know that the Government have no alternative. If you say that they are exempt then the proposed Act will break down because you are exercising discrimina­tion. I hate to see the Government forced into the position, where in o:r:der to make the interstate operator accept some of his just responsibility we have to bring within the scope of the contribution-paying section numbers of people who are now exempt. I know that many producers, those carting sand and gravel and carriers of all kinds will feel that they have been handed a raw deal, and they will put the responsibility for it on those who decided that Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution was in the interests of the Commonwealth. I have never believed that it was. I will always join issue with the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt on that.

Mr. Hart: I agree with much of what you are saying.

Mr. WOOD: I shall say very little more at this stage. Before the second reading I should like the Minister to give an approxi­mate estimate of what percentage of the £600,000 it is estimated will be returned to the State, will be given firstly by the interstate operator and secondly by the other classes of operators now exempt but who will be brought within the scope of the Bill. I hope that the figures will show that most of it comes from the interstate operator. It 1\'0uld be an unfortunate set of circumstances if in our anxiety to force the

interstate haulier to contribute towards road maintenance we worked out a system whereby the greater share of the money came from those exempt under the State T'ransport Facilities Act. I know that no hon. member would like to see that. I trust that the Minister will have the investi-­gation made to show how much of the £600,000 will be paid by the interstate operator and how much by the local man who is now operating tax-free. I am not opposing the Bill. It is not the brain child of the Government. They are forced int0 the intolerable position. The Privy Council has given the determination that we cannot lay down our own transport system in this State. Some action must be taken. Thi> is not effective action but it is the first stage. With that qualification I give my views on the legislation. I cannot be happy about it. It is not doing the job I think legislation could do, but I cannot suggest any certain way by which the job can be done, and, in the absence of any sure way of seeing that interstate hauliers are forced. to contribute to their fair share, I cannot offer any other acceptable suggestion.

lUr. HILTON (Carnarvon) (3.19 p.m.): I am sure this Bill has the general approval of all hon. members. It is regrettable that interstate transport has reached such a stage that the three eastem States in particYlar have had to examine ways of obtaining a small measure of the dues that the inter­state operators should be paying to the States. If the matter had been approached in the first instance as it should have been, that is, by the Commonwealth Government's holding a referendum, it would. have been carried overwhelmingly and all this trouble would have been eliminated. Never have I heard such a unanimous expression of opinion by the people on the need for a referendum on interstate transport. Most of them, real­ising the great injustice that has arisen because of the Privy Council's decision, would have been willing, or even anxious, to terminate speedily the sorry mess that inter­state transport has reached. In passing, if all we hear from time to time is correct, certain oil companies must be held respon­sible for a good deal of the trouble, as it would appear that they financed the very lengthy and costly litigation that led up to the Privy Council's decision. Although nobody can vouch for it, perhaps that is why the Commonwealth Government has been loth to hold a referendum, even though they know that the Governments of all States. irrespective of their political colour, would have supported it.

From the outline of the Bill that was given by the Minister, the big difficulty that I forsee is the collection of the miserly amount that the interstate hauliers will be obliged to pay. Despite all this prattle about the good intentions of the majority of them, I know from what has occurred in recent years that they have united in an effort to defeat legislation such as this.

1504 Roads (Contribution to [ASSEMBLY.] Maintenance) Bill.

JjJ[r, Chalk: They have never paid any ,conscience money.

Mr. HILT ON: Of course not. I refuse to believe that the interstate hauliers are willing and anxious to pay their fair share of the cost of road upkeep. Just as in the past they have taken advantage of every opportunity to evade the payment of fees, we can expect that they will do everything possible to avoid paying the small contribu­tion that they will be charged under this measure. I should like to see toll stations placed on the main highways to ensure that interstate hauliers pay and that they are not _given one loophole to escape payment of thB fee.

One avenue that occurs to me-it has been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition -eould be explored with benefit to the States concerned. It is admitted by all that load and speed are very big factors in the damage to roads, and I wish to deal par­ticularly with speed. I am sure any engineer would agree that the greater the speed of a vehicle and the heavier its load, the greater is the damage to the road. I {!o not know if the proposed scale of contri­butions has been worked out on the basis of .any particular speed, but if for instance it has been worked out on a speed of 35 miles an hour, I should think it would be competent to double it for trucks travelling at 60 miles an hour. Nobody can tell me that most of them do not travel at that speed, except when they are ascending a steep hill. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the damage to the main interstate highway that goes through Warwick and Stanthorpe to Wallan­garra has been enormous in recent years. In addition to the damage to roads, damage to life and property too has been enormous. It would be interesting to tally up the number of fatal accidents that have occurred on that highway in recent years because of excessive speed, overloading, and unsafe loading.

The position has become so intolerable that recently some of my electors requested me to make overtures to the Minister in charge of police to have a special patrol put on the range to try to check the excessive opeed and dangerous driving of interstate hauliers. I travel the road each week and I can speak from bitter experience of what some of them do. I concede that many are the very essence of road courtesy but others disregard entirely the rules of the road and the traffic laws of the State and endanger the life and property of others using the highway. It is high time a special patrol wns put on for a substantial period until those hauliers have been taught their lesson. If the speed factor were worked out, all road transport vehicles could be governed down to a speed to which the suggested fees could apply and those not governed down, and sealed of course, should pay double. I do not think that would infringe the validity of the legislation. I commend the sugges­tion to the Minister. Perhaps it cannot be

adopted at the moment but it should be kept in mind. It would serve two purposes. It would ensure that those who are doing the most road damage pay the most and it may have a steadying effect on hauliers and reduce the reckless driving of some of them.

I know the many complex problems in­volved. I pay tribute to the many intrastate concerns who have conducted their business in a sound manner, but even some of those have been at fault from time to time. I have not always been entirely satisfied that there was complete co-operation between some of them and the Transport Commis­sion in the paying of dues. Many of them have more or less been on their honour to do the right thing but from my experience I think that from time to time some, perhaps a few, have not played the game. Any future consideration of the State Transport Facili­ties Act should be designed to ensure that all intrastate hauliers do the right thing at all times and that they do not carry in ex­cess of what is stipulated in their licences.

I shall not go into full details now but I have many suggestions in mind and if the Act is to be amended further in future, they might with advantage be taken into consideration. I shall reserve further com­ment on them until I see the Bill. I support its general terms. I feel gratified that the hauliers will be called upon to make some contribution. In spite of what the Minister has said, I think that, if they all pay, thll amount received by the State will be more than £600,000 a year. I have made a rough ~alculation and I feel sure that if a count were taken of the interstate vehicles using the Cunningham Gap route over a period of 24 hours, it would indicate that the esti­mate would be nearer £1,000,000 if all the hauliers paid. The number is increasing each month. That is why I want some very firm action taken to see that they are all obliged to pay the dues for which they are liable.

lUr. Gair: A heavier penalty.

1Ir. HILT ON: As I indicated when the Minister was talking, to my mind, in view of the attitude of most interstate hauliers in the past, the penalties suggested are quite inadequate to ensure that they will all pay and do the right thing. I shall wait until I have read the Bill before I make any fur­ther comment. Except for the inadequacy of the penalty provisions I commend the Bill.

l11r. HART (Mt. Gravatt) (3.30 p.m.): I have been chided for saying, ''Thank God for Section 92! '' I do not remember whether I have said that in the Chamber or not, but I have certainly thought it. I am not going to say that I did not say it, I probably did but I do not remember it. That does not mean that I approve of everything that happens because of the effect of Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution. I

Roads (Contribution to (3 DECEMBER.] Maintenance) Bill. 1505·

strongly disapprove of people being allowed to destroy the roads of the State without paying any compensation. Last time I spoke on this subject in the Chamber I said that I hoped, trusted and believed that the decision of the High Court that charges could be imposed would be upheld and that a Bill could be introduced. I had not stopped to think at that time that it would be neces­sary to charge the intra-State operators as well. We would not charge them if we could avoid it, but it is necessary to include them so that we can reatch the interstate hauliers. There is no reason whatsoever why they should be allowed to destroy the roads and not pay for them. I say now, ''Thank God for Section 92'' because it has done so much for us.

Mr. Power: It has helped lawyers to make a great deal of money.

Mr. Davies: It shows what private enter­prise will do when it has an open go.

Mr. HART: Wait a minute! Let me say what I was going to say. At one stage after the war the Government were trying to stop people from travelling interstate by train. Section 92 prevented that prohibition. How would hon. members opposite like to be told that they were not allowed to travel to SydneyW That is just one instance of where Section 92 was a safeguard. But for Section 92 the Labour Government would have taken over the banks under their Socialistic legisla­tion. They could have ·taken over Bob Windsor's business or anything else, hut Section 92 stopped them. Therefore I say, ''Thank God for Section 92! ''

The Leader of the Opposition made a statement of which he should be ashamed, a statement that he should withdraw. He said that the highest tribunal in the land, the Privy Council, gave a stupid decision. He showed disrespect for the highest court in the land. Let me tell the Committee what actually happened. Section 92 was placed in the Constitution by the people of this country.

Mr. Baxter: democracy~

Do you believe in

Mr. HART: Yes. It was placed in the Constitution by the people. All that the lawyers have done is interpret it. Why has it not been altered or taken out 1 Because the people will not have it taken out. It is the most democratic section of all. Labour Governments, the Socialists, do not like it because they realise it stands in their way. The people will not let them interfere with i1.

Since about 1931 or 1932 two of the justices of the High Court have been giving decisions on the transport cases to the same effect as the Hughes and Vale decisions. Their Honours, the present Chief Justice of the High Court and Mr. Justice Stark, have continually said that a State had no right to impose excessive taxes upon interstate transport. Sir John

Latham and others upheld the right of the States to impose excessive taxes on road transport, but gradually the opinion of the judges changed, and :finally in Hughes and Vale No. 1 the Privy Council upheld the reasons of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Stark. As outlined by the Minister, an attempt was made to get the position recti:fied. In the case of Hughes and Vale No. 2 the judges held that the attempt failed but delivered dicta from which the States could see how they could impose charges. The result was the Victorian Act, which has been upheld, and on which this Bill is framed. I think the Victorian Act which has been upheld, and on which this Bill is framed. I think the Leader of the Opposition was right when he said that we were wise not to differ from the Victorian legislation otherwise we might have to go before the courts again. The hon. member for South Brisbane suggested the penalty should be £2,000 and the hon. mem­ber for Barcoo suggested £1,000 and the cancellation of the license. I am not express­ing legal opinions but .I agree with the Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that we should not differ from the Victorian legislation at this stage.

JUr. Hilt on: Penalties do not affect principles.

J}lr. HART: You may be right, but I am not sure that you are. The G-overnment nre trying to frame a Bill that will stick. Industry will benefit. Before the decision in Hughes and Vale No. 1 the Government were attempting to retard private competition in road transport with the railways.

An Opposition lllember: Which State?

llir. HART: All the States were doing it. The High Court and the Privy Council in effect said: "The competition shall go on and if you want to alter it you will have to go to the people.'' We all know what the people will do. Every time that a Gov­ernment went to the people seeking an altera­tion to Section 92 they were knocked back. The Leader of the Opposition said that much more than £600,000 worth of damage had been done and that the charge should be higher. The opiinon of the Victorian Gov­ernment was that you could not safely impose a greater tax. W·hen you examine the tax it is very fair, although I should like to see it slightly higher.

lUr. liloyd: It is a tax.

Jtir. HART: I used the wrong word; it is a charge.

Jtir. Lloyd: It is a tax just the same.

lllr. HART: No, it is not a tax; it a 8 payment for services. All sorts of strauge opinions are expressed in this Chamber. The Leader of the Opposition who is always will­ing to rush in where angels fear to tread, said that award conditions could not be applied to border-hoppers. We have heard

1506 Roads (Contribution to [ ASSElVIBL Y.] Maintenance) Bill.

the statement that border hoppers cannot be compelled to comply with award conditions. My view is that they probably could be com­pelled to do so. It was said that no check could be made of people coming from Vic­toria, that there could be no control of the conditions or the hours of work, but hon. members have heard the Minister's statement that there will be the closest collaboration between the Transport Departments of the various States. In those circumstances I see no reason why the check will not be just as effective in regard to people coming from Melbourne as it will be in regard to people Cllming from Longreach. I have not much sympathy for the border hoppers, but I believe they could be controlled and made subject to the same conditions.

I am speaking because I was chided on my remark, ''Thank Heaven for Section 92.'' I do not withdraw that remark, but I realise it has certain adverse effects which should be minimised as far as possible. This is the beginning of the process of minimisation. I do not thnk anyone' can tell us how we can go further at the moment. The Minister has said that the legislation will be undBr review continually. I will strongly support an extension of the provisions of the Bill if they are within the law, but it is not in accor­dance with law if in the interests of the Rail­way Department you charge these people more than the damage they actually cause.

Thir. GARDNER (Rockhampton) (3.42 p.m.) : Hon. members realise the difficulties ,eonfronting the Minister and previous Governments. We accept the Bill in good grace. It is the be't that is possible, within the limitations placed on Governments by court decisions.

It is a problem th~t has arisen wi:th modernisation of transport or the evolutionary trends in that sphere. The hon. member for M:t. Gravatt argued that Section 92 is sound, but he must admit that in many ways Section 92 has caused: great injustice to the people of Australia and great difficulties to governments, the representatives of the people. Surely the hon. member, being a Q.C., will concede that the legislation does not go as far as he would wish it to go in Drder to cope with modern road transport.

~ir. Hart: I should like to see it go further.

Mr. GARDNER: The Minister has said quite frankly that the Governments of the three eastern States have been forced to act on a uniform basis. The charge of one-third of a penny a ton mile for Queensland does not seem fair when the circumstances in Victoria and Queensland are compared. Victoria is a small State. With that advantage and the addBd advantage of a big population, the authorities in that State over the years have been able to build a great road system. The

greater population has enabled the Govern­ments of that State to carry out that scheme. Road-building is further advanced in Victoria than in Queensland.

'l'he Minister has said that road damage in Victoria amounts to £3,000,000 a year. Queensland is a huge State with a great road mileage and a sparsely settled population. We can see the evolutionarY trend of moder­nised transport working its way into the northern parts of the State. In the last three weeks there has been a trailer system operat­ing from Sydney to Rockhampton. There seems to be no equity in the payment of one­third of a penny a ton mile in Queensland and Victoria when you consider the distance from the bmder to Rockhampton and the fact that 250 miles would be the longest road jour­ney in Victoria. Where is the equity~ Is the Dine-third of a penny a ton mile an equitable basis of assessment~ No Queens­lander would say it was. The Brisbane City Council and the Rockhampton City Council run municipal bus services. If a person wants to conduct a bus run to Southport under the State Transport Facilities Act he has to pay ;!d. per passenger per mile. I know the legal ruling given and I know that we have to take steps to see that we are not ruled out of court. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government IYere going to keep a "close check on this legislation with a view to arriving at a basis that would compen­sate Queensland. I do not think anybody could give a sound estimate of the damage done by the border hopper. Nobody knoiYS exactly what tonnage comes into the Stat.e. There has to be some measure of control 1n policing this legislation. The Minister seemed to place great reliance on the honesty of hauliers to comply with the provisio_ns of the Bill. Whilst we have many good mterstatf' and intrastate operators there will be a need to police the legislation. It is necessary to deal with those who will not play the game by the State. I hope the Bill will be the means of bringing in £600,000 a year to the State as we richly deserve it. Many people desire to see the modern form of transport continued throughout the State as it brings a great measure of relief to them. It is in competition with the railways. We .are n?t going to deprive people o~ a convemence m the delivery of goods prov1ded the operators enter into fair competition with us. We tried to stem the tide of competition for the pro­tection of the railways. The legislation will give a fair deal to the State; similar legis­lation 1vill protect the other States.

The Minister told us that 12,900 vehicles of 4 tons and over were registered in Queens­land and would come within the scope of the Bill. I can see difficulties ahead for those controlling the scheme. To many truck owners we will have to make some concessions in the way of reduced fees to give them fair and just treatment just because others have not played the game by the State.

Roads (Contribution to [3 DECEMBER.] Maintenance) Bill. 1507

I agree with the statement that the pen­alti~s to be inflicted are a weakness in the Bill. I do not know whether legally they cannot be made higher, but if I had my way I would make them much more stringent. 'l'he legislation will cost a good deal to police, and it will be necessary to inflict very high fines to bring offenders into line. When the Minister is replying, I should like him to tell us whether the scale of fines can be altered

Jir. LLOYD (Kedron) (3.51 p.m.) : It was amusing to hear the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt speaking on Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution. It is because of Section 92 and its effect on Queensland and the other eastern States that legislation such as this has had to be introduced.

It is unfortunate that we have to agree to the Bill, because in my opinion it does not follow the original intention of this type of legislation. I understand that the State transport tax was imposed originally to compensate the State for the loss of rail­way business to road transport.

The recent decisions of the High Court of Australia and the Privy Council have departed from the original intention of the founders of the Australian Constitution. Most of the High Court judges and the Privy Councillors have acted solely upon the language of the Commonwealth Constitution without taking into consideration the inten­tion of its founders. The hon. member for Mt. Gravatt overlooked Section 104 of the Constitution, which deals with the carriage of goods on the railways. Some hon. mem­bers may have wondered why there can be different rail fares in the various States. Section 104 says-

'' Nothing in this Constitution shall render unlawful any rate for the carriage of goods upon a railway, the property of the State, if the rate is deemed by the Inter-State Commission to be necessary for the development of the territory of the State, and if the rate applies equally to goods within the State and to goods pas­sing into the State from other States.''

In other words, there can be differences in rail freights and passenger fares as between the States, so long as they are imposed for the development of the State concerned. If the Federal Government held a referendum on the amendment of Section 104, many diffi­culties that have arisen from the interpreta­tion of Section 92 could be overcome. It would be quite simple to insert in Section 104 a provision relating to the carriage of goods by road transport as well as by rail transport. If an amendment such as that was placed before the people of Australia in a referendum I am certain it would be car­ried. That would be a much better way of overcoming the problems of interstate road transport than this unwieldy piece of legis­lation, which must impose at least some hardship on carriers operating within the State.

I do not know whether the Minister men­tioned the Brisbane City Council buses in his introductory remarks.

~Ir. Chalk: The legislation will have no effect on passenger services.

1\'Ir. LLOYD: That is at least some con­solation. I had some fears that bus fares in Brisbane may have been increased fol­lowing the passage of the Bill.

I differ from the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt on Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Certainly, the arguments on its interpretation and scope have been a great source of revenue for the legal fraternity but that is slight compensation for the many difficulties it has posed the State. I agree with many hon. members on this side who have said that there would be no difficulties if we had the power within the Commonwealth to control interstate trade and commerce. They have it in Canada, and in the United States the States themselves may apply to Congress for the special exercise of powers within the State.

It is unfortunate that the Bill has had to be introduced because it will work hardship on some and there will be many anomalies. I agree with the hon. member for Rockhamp­ton that Queensland, with its large area, will l1ave many more difficulties than Victoria. The small rate of tax will not greatly affect the hauliers who in past months have carried great tonnages of goods long distances, across the border to New South Wales, ancl back to Brisbane. It will not be high enough to deter them. So the Bill will not return to the railways the business they have lost in the past through the activities of unscrupul­ous road hauliers. It is unfortunate that the legislation has had to be introduced but unfortunately we have to agree with it. If, for instance, 40 tons of wool were carried by road train from Longreach to Brisbane, taken across the border to New South Wales and brought back to Brisbane the contribution at one-third of a penny a ton mile would be much less than the rail freight. The rail freight figure of £900 seems rather high.

lUr. Chalk: About £40 a ton.

lUr. LLOYD: 40 tons, £911. That might be so. However, the railways will continue to lose that business. It is unfortunate that it has not been possible to make the rate higher.

lUr. BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah) (3.59 p.m.): The Bill is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is an attempt to grapple with the interstate road transport problem and, secondly, it will impose a tax or leYy on hauliers, with over 4 ton capacity trucks now operating freely under the 15-mile extension.

I listened with interest to the Minister's outline of the Bill. He put the case very clearly and convincingly from various angles. He stressed the need for the Bill and dwelt particularly on the problem of interstate road transport. It is unfortunate that all

1508 Roads (Contribution to [ASSEMBLY.] Maintenance) Bill.

motor transport over 4 tons capacity within the State has to be brought into the same category. As the Minister has said I do not think it is the real solution. Although it is being done in New South Wales and Victoria I am not happy about the provisions of the Bill that impose a levy on all transport. I do not like the introduction of any new forms of tax, or whatever it might be termed. Once they become established they are here to stay. Apparently the rate will be increased in the future to meet the circumstances. When J say these things I am not thinking of the interstate operator because I have no sym­pathy for him. He should pay something towards the wear and tear of the roads for the service rendered to him. I am thinking of the operator of motor transport within the State who may have to pass the tax on to the various sections of the community between which he plies his trade. Undoubtedly the Government need money for the maintenance of roads, but most operators within the State conduct their businesses on very competitive lines. They operate on keen margins so that it may be necessary for them to pass on the charges, small though they may be at this stage, to the people they serve. Some sec­tions of the community rely on motor trans­port. It is the means by which the goods which supply their daily bread are shifted around the State. They are the people who may indirectly have to pay the tax.

I was pleased that the Minister referred to the elimination of much of the book work. I would appreciate further details of when an operator is entitled to exemption from the submission of these returns. Many trans­port operators drive from before daylight until after dark, then prepare their trucks for the following day, it would be very annoying then to have to start on book work. I should be glad to know when they can be given exemption.

lUr. Keyatta: It is the thin end of the wedge.

~Ir. BJELKE-PETERSEN: I do not quite follow the point of the hon. member for Townsville.

Very often we speak of transport in rather scathing terms, justifiably so about the inter­state operator, but on the other hand motor transport within the State has done a mighty job in opening up Queensland. It has pro­vided the connecting link between the people in isolated areas and people in more closely settled areas.

The Minister said that the legislation would be reviewed from time to time. Let me urge upon him to takP into account the effect of any increased rate on operators within the State. They are already giving a service on a keen competitive basis. I hope the Minister will review that aspect from time to time.

Mr. THACKERAY (Keppel) (4.6 p.m.): Some provisions of the Bill should apply to interstate hauliers rather than to the person

in the country area who has a truck. As a: representative of a country electorate I realise that the Bill will have a far-reaching effect, and many hauliers in my area will have another tax superimposed on the tax which they are already paying.

~Ir. Chalk: No, you are wrong.

II'Ir. THACKERAY: I stand corrected. I should like the matter to be clarified. We have not been able to make the interstate hauliers pay an equitable share of taxation to maintain our roads. After the next Federal eiection when a Labour Government are returned with power to amend the Con­stitution I should like to see a Bill introduced for the purpose of increasing the tax on road hauliers in order to put them on the same competitive basis as the railways.

II'Ir. P. R. Smith: That is as big a fairy tale as your prediction that Labour will win.

Mr. THACKERAY: We all have our opmwns. The New Zealand elections are a fair indication of what will happen here. I sincerely hope that the Minister will deal with the law relating to the 4-ton vehicles.

II'Ir. ANDERSON (Toowomba) (4.8 p.m.): I commend the Minister for bringing down the Bill. Like previous speakers, I agree it is not the answer, but it is a step in the right direction. We know the problem that con­fronts the State. The Bill concerns every­body in Queensland who is the owner of a 4-ton vehicle, primary industry, local authori­ties, and ordinary carriers.

There will still be paper work to do,. although it will be reduced to a minimum. The sum of £600,000 is only peanuts in the cost of maintaining our roads. I agree with the previous speaker that it should be more like £1,000,000. We hope that later it will he over £1,000,000. The Bill will not be effective unless it is policed properly. There is not enough supervision on the road. Un­less we engage more police to control traffic speed, the Bill will not provide an effective remedy.

Operators have applied for permits under the previous Act to do certain work, only to be told that the railways could do that work. The department was not able to do it and interstate hauliers have done .the work. \Vhen a complaint was made to the transport authorities, the only excuse given was that their police were off duty that day. There are only five Main Roads police oper­ating under the State Transport Facilities Act. I believe the number has been increased to 15, but more are needed for a Bill such as this.

There should be more co-operation between the police forces of the States. Police patrols should be established at border gates to check vehicles as they pass through.

Unfortunately the Bill establishes more or less an honour system. We depend on acknowledgment by honest operators of their

Roads (Contribution to (3 DECEMBER.] Maintenance) Bill. 1509

Bbligations under the Bill, but those we seek to cover are the dishonest operators who pay no tax or contribution to the maintenance of the roads. I implore the Minister to take every step to ensure that the provisions are Dbserved. I know it is not an easy job.

The maximum penalty under the Bill is £200 for the third offence. Will those penalties be paid into Consolidated Revenue or into the Maintenance Fund~ If they are paid into the Maintenance Fund, I think the total amount received each year will be far more than £1,000,000, that is, if the pro­visions are strictly policed.

Hon. G. W. W. CHALK (Lockyer­Minister for Transport) ( 4.12 p.m.) : There is no need to spend a great time on the points of hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition fairly expressed the views of hon. members of the official Opposition and the Queensland Labour Party.

JUr. Gair: He does not speak for us.

)Jr. CHALK: But he expressed the views -of hon. members of the Queensland Labour Party.

lUr. Gair: He was never considered to be sufficiently competent.

Mr. CHALK: I shall not enter into a -discussion on the competency of the Leader Df the Opposition.

He said that while he was not entirely in accord with the Bill, he could not suggest a better system and naturally was prepared to support the measure. I believe that is the view of most hon. members. 'fhe Gov­·-ernment are not entirely happy with the limitations imposed on them, but the Bill is based on the findings of the High Court and the fact that the Privy Council upheld the findings of the High Court. The Bill brings Queensland law into line with that in other States. This uniform legislation will enable State Governments to be recompensed for the damage caused by these vehicles.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to a higher fee. In some instances I favour a higher fee, but we must have regard to the arguments advanced by the hon. members for Barambah and Rockhampton that pri­mary producers and others who have pre­viously been free of reimbursement apart from registration and petrol tax will now be caught in the dragnet. If a higher fee 1Yas set, we would be placing a further burden on primary pToduceTS. ConsAquently, I am prepared to accept this as the first step towards getting some recompense for weaT and tear of our roads and particularly some right to police the operations both of the interstate haulier and the intrastate operator.

lUr. A. Jones: You might decide on some sort of a radius charge.

Mr. CHALK: I propose to make reference to that. It has been found possible to sustain the provisions of this Bill and

we are prepared to implement them. It is not the complete answer to what we want. \Ve do not intend to lay down our own ic1eas and simply say that the matter is finished. vV e shall get some return under this measure, and while it is in operation it ~wm enable us to get figures of the type of business being done. Having got that statis­tical information we can then approach the Transport Advisory Council, which is a body of T·ransport Ministers in the various States, as well as the Commonwealth Government. We might be able to discuss ways and means of getting a better system than this one. We are doing what we believe is the only means possible of getting some recompense for the services that are provided by the roads that the operators use.

The hon. member for Carnarvon raised the matter of 8peecl. I agree that excessive speed is quite evident amongst many hauliers and speed is a detriment not only to the roads but to the safety of the public. There are certain ways in which speed can be controlled. We have a limited number of police with the Transport Department, but more will have to be appointed to the Main R-oads Section of the Police Department. We shall have additional men on the roads and it will be their duty to attend to overcrowding and dangerous driving. I can assure the Committee that it is my intention to see that they are watched. The Bill gives us the right to intercept and find out who the haulier is and take action against him if necessary. Previously the interstate haulier could virtually tell the police officer almost anything. Because of the briefing most interstate drivers had, our police were in an almost helpless position. The police will now have rights under the Bill and because of the information that must be given to them thev will be able to follow a better line of ittack against interstate and intra­state operators than in the past.

The hon. member for Carnarvon advocated heavier fines. I agree that those provided in the Bill are not excessive. However, the legislation had to stand up to the High Court and the Privy Council. If we make the penal­ties excessive, learned legal men have advised nw that that part of the legislation could be argued before the High Court and the Pri vv Council and used as a lever to have the '"hole of it declared invalid.

JUr. Gair: Is it to be applied to intra­State traffic as 1Ycll as interstate traffic 7

JIIr. CHALK: It will be there as a deterrent. If you make a penalty so high aR to he a complete deterrent, the question cculd be raised whether you were making it ],;gh to put an operator off the road on his fi rRt offence.

~Ir. Gair: I thought there was to be no discrimination between the two types of traffic. Of course, I realise your c1ifficulties.

lUr. CHALK: The hon. me~ber for South Brisbane, as the former Prem1er, knows how difficult the matter is.

1510 Roads (Contribution to rASSEMBLY.] Maintenance) Bill.

ltir. Gair: Other Bills were prepared by the previous Government.

Mr. CHALK: When I took over the Transport portfolio I found a couple of Bills that had been designed by the previous Gov­ernment. However, they could not be pro­ceeded with.

The hon. member for Carnarvon referred also to higher fees. We were guided in fixing the fees by the formula that was successful before both the High Court and the Privy Council. I am not prepared to impos higher fees than those in the other States, and so throw overboard what has been achieved. We believe that we would be justified in imposing slightly higher fees. The Leader of the Opposition said that the £600,000 that we hope to receive from the legislation would not nearly cover the damage to the roads.

li'Ir. Power: Can you increase the fees by regulation~

ltir. CHALK: No. The former Attorney­General knows that some Bills contain regula­tions giving the Government certain rights, but this one is completely berefit of regula­tions. Everything that will be done is con­tained in the Bill itself, and there are no "ifs" or "buts."

Reverting to the point I was making before the hon. member for Baroona interjected, the formula that has been used by the other States has also been used here. Road main­ttnance costs in Queensland are about £4 000,000 a year. The State receives from registration fees, petrol tax and various other fees approximately £3,000,000. Queensland's registration fees, particularly in the higher tonnages, are many pound~ c~eap~r than those of New South Wales and VICtona.

We hope to get £600,000 under the Bill and we will be fairly close to the figure we can legitimately claim using the formula that has stood up to the test of the High Court. For that reason we cannot at present consider going any deeper into the problem without running the risk of upsetting the whole of the legislation and probably finding ourselves involved in considerable litigation.

The hon. member foi' Mt. Gravatt referred to Section 92. We know his views on it. I believe that, taken as a whole, Section 92 has done a great deal of good; at the same time it has brought about many problems for the States, and this is one of them.

ltir. Gair: It may not be Section 92; it may be the varying interpretations of it.

Jtir. CHALK: I concede that. I think it was the Leader of the Opposition who referred to the interpretation· of the Lords of the Privy Council, and I have said on several occasions that perhaps it is not the law that counts so much as the interpretation of it. Very often a commonsense interpre­tation would be much better than an interpre­tation to the absolute letter. However, we are not debating that today.

The hon. member for Rockhampton said that intra-interstate hauliers are now carting to Rockhampton. That is true. The crux of the matter is that unlebs we get some control and collect some fees from them they will be working not only to Rockhampton but also to all other parts of the State and very soon the whole road transport system will break down. vVe cannot expect the legitimate haulier to face up to the competi­tion without some control or payment of fees.

The hon. member spoke, too, of policing the Bill. The Government, the officers of my department and I will police the measure to our utmost. The success of the scheme depends not on what we write into the Bill but on the policing of it. We must see that it is rigidly enforced if we are to protect the State and those who have played the game by us in the past.

The hon. member for Kedron spoke of the amount of reimbursement. I think I have cleared up that point. If we can find a better way to police the border-hopper and get from him the payment that he owes the State, we will do so. I hope the day will come when we will be able to make some exemp­tions, but at this stage we must abide by the letter of the Privy Council finding.

Reference was made, too, to a referendum under Section 104 of the Commonwealth Constitution. The hon. member for Kedron may have a point there. Dming my short time as Minister for Transport I have read some of the discussions that have taken place at conferences of Transport Ministers, and the hon. member for South Brisbane knows that the same applies to various Premiers' Conferences. It is possible to get unanimity among the State Premiers or Ministers and then have the f'ommonwealth out of step. In such circumstances, how in the name of fortune can one expect to proceed with a referendum under any section~ I do not think hon. members have any illusions about the usual outcome of referendums. They have tried on many occasions to clarify an issue but each time if there has been any doubt the old argument has been, "Vote No.'' While I am prepared to keep on urging a change in the Constitution that will not upset the Constitution as a whole but give some protection to transport, at the present time unfortunately I do not think it is a solution to the problem.

The hon. member for Barambah asked some pertinent questions which should be answered quickly. He wanted to know where the basis of exemption applied. I do not think at any stage I mentioned any basis of exemption. What I did say was that it would be possible under one clause in the Bill for any haulier or person paying the reimburse­ment to make arrangements with the Trans­port Commissioner for a basis of payment of his just dues. That is exactly what my words were intended to convey. If there is a small operator or primary producer in

Roads 1'v1aintenance Bill. (3 DECEMBER.] Landlord and Tenctnt &c., Bill. 1511

his electorate who is able to say to the Transport Commissioner for the 12 months' period, ''These are my average operations, this is what I normally do'', and if he is prepared to declare that his figures represent a true and reasonable return covering the amount he should pay, the Transport Com­missioner has the power to accept his expla­nation if he is satisfied about its truth. Most of these people would be honest people and their explanation would be accepted. On the other hand, if at any stage it is proved that the information is wrong the person who has made the declaration must accept the consequences. \Ve do not want too much book work within the department. We hope to administer the legislation on the most. economic basis with the least possible inconvenience to the person who has to fur­nish the return.

The hon. member for Keppel said that it would be an imposition on people within his electorate who were aheady pa.;ring tax under the State Transport Facilities Act. I thought I clearly indicated thb morning that under the Bill the first cha.rge on the operator of any motor vehicle over 4 tons is. for road maintenance. He must pay that. By regu­lation we shall adjust the State Transport Facilities Act so that the present operator who has paid his just dues over a period will not be any worse off than he is at the present time.

I was asked who got the fines, whether they would go into a pool for road main­tenance. We all know that fines are paid into Consolidated Revenue.

I hope that I have clarified the various points raised by hon. members. As I indi­cated earlier, this is the Government's first attempt to face up to the problem. The legislation is based on the Victorian scheme which has been upheld by the High Court and the Privy Council. I hope that its operation in Queensland will do much to iron out the difficulties that have arisen with interstate and intrastate operators so that u1timately we will achieve our purpose of having freedom on the roads and that those who use the roads will make a fair and just contribution to their maintenance.

Motion (Mr. Chalk) agreed to.

Re~Solution reported.

FIRST READING.

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

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

SECOND READING.

Hon. A. W. lUUNRO (Toowong-Minister for Justice) ( 4.37 p.m.) : I move-

'' That the Bill be now read a second time.''

'l'his Bill was very fully explained and reason­ably debated on the introductory stage. In

those circumstances I do not propose to give another detailed explanation. It may be advisable in order to refresh the minds of hon. members to mention that there were two basic reasons for the introduction of the Bill. The first is the fact that the housing shortage in Queensland has not been solved; in fact the figures which I quoted on the Initiation show that the situation today is worse than it was three years ago. That is very relevant to the first principle of the Bill because, if we were to regard the Bill as being one to tide us over during a short period of particular urgency 1ve could con­sider waiting until the shortage has been overcome before we made some revision of the law. But the plain fact is the housing tihortage has been with us for approximately 15 years, and up to the present there is no indication of its being solved, and there has been no effective plan for its solution. The second background of the facts which influenced the Government to introduce the Bill is that in our view there is a great social injustice in the operation of the provisions of the Landlord and T,enant Acts. It is from those two facts that we proceeded to the main principles of the Bill. Although there are cer­tain subsidiary principles, it is quite clear that there are only two basic principles in the Bill.

The first basic principle is the alteration in the law which has the effect of excluding from the operation of the Landlord and Tenant Act all premises which broadly I might des­cribe as let for the first time after 1 Decem­ber, 1957.

The exclusion of these premises from the operation of the Act means that these par­ticular premises-and I emphasise that; only these particular premises-will not be subject to governmental rental control, nor will they be subject to the recovery of possession pro­visions of the Act, and, as I pointed out at the introductory stage, this alteration of the law will not cause any hardship to anybody, because it will not affect any premises let at 1 December, 1957, or let at any time dur­ing the three years ending on that date.

On the other hancl it will result in some houses and fiats not now let being made available for letting. It will also result in some new houses and fiats being built. Altogether it should make an important con­tribution to the solution of the housing problem.

The second basic principle is the alteration in rental basis. This provides for an altera­tion which is to be effective from 1 March, 1958 of the basic valuation date of 10 February 1942 to a new basic valuation date of 1 Jdly, 1948. This new basic valua­tion llate for rental purposes will apply to all dwelling houses which existed at 10 February, 1942, and to all dwelling houses erected between 10 February, 1942, and I July, 1948.

As I pointed out earlier, premises erected since 1 July, 1948, will not be affected.

1512 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEJVIBL Y.] Amendment Bill.

Those premises are at present dealt with on the basis of capital value as at the date of erection, which of course almost invariably would be greater than the corresponding capital value as at 1 July, 1948.

While \Ye realise that the modifications made by this Bill are not sufficient to restore a complete measure of justice between land­lords and tenants, they go part of the way towards restoring justice, and in such a way as not to create any hardship. They lessen the injustice to those landlords who were more harshly affected by the provisions of the Act.

As I mentioned at the iutroductor.) stage tltere are other alterations of the law, but these do not affect the basic principles. They are merely to some extent incidental to the main principles and to some extent minor matters which we took this opportunity of clearing up. As those other matters were explained at the introductory stage and are clearly set out in the Bill which hon. members have since had the opportunity of studying, I do not think it is neceRsary to make any further explanation at this stage.

Mr. WOOD (North Toowoomba~Leader of the Opposition) (4.45 p.m.): I am more than ever convinced now that the introduc­tion of the Bill is an act of politically folly because it has brought down on the Gov­ernment the wrath of many people. It is also an act of human folly because it is directed against the interests of those in the community who are most deserving of the protection of the Government. It is no use the Minister talking of this being one step in the policy of the Government to restore the housing position. In his introductory speech he spoke of some over-riding action on the part of the Treasurer to accelerate the rate of home construction. We can consider this Bill on its merits, one entirely unrelated to other suggested actions by the Government. \Ve cannot consider it as being something co-ordinated with another step which may or may not follow to bring about home con­strudion. Judged on its own merits, the Bill stands condemned before the bar of public opinion. I personally have received protests from many parts of the State against its introduction, from tenants, trade unionists and working-class organisations.

lUr. Windsor: Landlords?

Mr. WOOD: No. There has not been a single protest to me from any landlord. Every protest has been from tenants against whom the Bill is designed. I feel certain t'hat public opinion on this Bill will be almost universally against its introduction. The Minister said that the housing position today \Yas comparably worse than it was three years ago. It could be truthfully stated that it is comparably worse than it was four months ago. I have seen no evidence to support any contention that there is to be an increase in the rate of home construction.

There has been much talk about it but no visual evidence that more homes will be built by the new Government, but we have evidence to the contrary. It is harder to find a home for rental today and harder to get money to erect a home than it has been for a verv long time. All the indications are that ;ather than see an improvement in the position we are reluctantly forced to the belief as the months go by that the posi­tion will deteriorate even further. Let us forget all this talk about this legislation belng one of the Government's steps to cor­rect the housing position. If other measures are not more effective than this one, God help the plight of the home-seeker in the years that lie ahead! The Government ObYiOuslr are OUt of touch with the needs of the ordinary people.

The Bill is brought in by people who have their heads in the air and their feet off the ground, by a Government who have no kno.w­ledge of the hardships that face the ordm­ary men and women in the community, who have no elose relation with the problems of the average man and woman, and who have not even an understanding of the heartburn­ings that beset those \Yho are unsuccessfully seeking accommodation.

lUr. Windsor: You do not believe that, do you~

JUr. WOOD: Of course I do. These people come to me every day of the week­people who want to exercis_e their birth­right of living a happy life with their families in decent surroundings. They are prevented from doing that either because they cannot find a home to rent or because they cannot get financial accon;modation to build a house of their own cho1ce. A:nyone who thinks that is not happening is living in another world, in an atmosphere entirely unrelated to what is going on.

I cannot help thinking that in introducing the Bill the Minister expeiienced a sense of disappointment in that he could not go further at this stage. That thought was confirmed when I heard him say today that the modifications in the Bill are not enough to restore complete justice between landlord and tenant. I am certain that in his heart the Minister, and with him the other mem­bers of the Cabinet and of the Government parties, regret that they could not have gone ''the whole hog'' as they obviously would have liked to do, and removed rent control entirely. That is their conception of justice between landlord and tenant. They think there should be no control over the bad land­lord, that there should be no rights for the good tenant. Had they given free rein to their desires I believe that the measure would have abolished rent control entirely and that they would not have left it, as we feel certain they will, to be implemented in the later steps that have been hinted at by the l\fin­ister. There is no doubt that those steps will come, as the Minister has said that the present Bill does not provide complete justice

Landlord and Tenant Acts [3:;_DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1513

between landlord and tenant. It provides no justice at all for the tenant, and I believe that even more drastic measures will he introduced at the first opportunity, if enough pressure is brought to bear on the Government. That is no idle statement. Apart altogether from their basw political beliefs, the Government have shown every indication of yielding to the pressure groups to whom they owe allegiance. If the pressure is severe enough they will yield and relax com­pletely any laws that offer some limited protection to the tenant.

There is no doubt that the existing law gives protection to the landlord. If he wishes to recover his home he has the ordin· ary processes of law to help him. If the rent has not been paid or if the premises are being misused, by recourse to law he has the opportunity of regaining possession of them. Again, if he ·wants them for his own pur­poses and can prove that he will suffer greater hardship than the tenant if recovery is not given to him, all the processes of the law are available to him to take the necessary steps. The Act is not one-sided. Protection is given to the landlord, and it is an historical fact that not many good landlords go to court.

Under Clause 2 of the Bill the tenant is not given even an elementary measure of protection with homes to be rented after 1 December, 1957. That is the category to which the Minister referred-homes let for the first time or homes that have not been let in the three years immediately prior to last Sunday. In those circumstances-cir­cumstances that ereate the thin edge of the wedge-I repeat that the tenant has not even an Plementary measure of pro­tection. The landlord is in the position of a Czar over the tenant who is anxious to get accommodation and to keep it if it is suitable to him. For any homes rented in this category all protection is removed and we can be pardoned if we suspect that the same set of circumstances will apply to all types of tenancies before yery long. That is why we should be fail· ing in our duty if at this stage, in the first step of providing what the Minister calls justice between landlord and tenant, we did not register against the Bill the most vigorous protest of which we are cap· able. It is wrong in these circumstances to allow the landlord the right to cease the tenancy summarily on giving 28 days' notice. It is cruel and unjust, and an act of Euprcme folly. The community would be best served if the Bill were framed altogether differently. For instance, it would be better to return to the system whereby neither landlord nor tenant could be represented by a legal man without the consent of both parties. The 1948 proYision was inserted with proper motives but in most cas"s the landlord gets the benefit of it because the tenant can very seldom afford legal representation.

Mr. Hart: Are you sure of that?

JUr. WOOD: Of course I am sure of it.

lUr. Hart: Most tenants seem to be represented.

JUr. WOOD: Let me tell the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt, up there in his ivory tower, that tenant after tenant has come to me with a notice to appear in court and has said that in no circum­stances could he afford to engage a legal man.

JUr. Hart: You get the few who cannot afford it coming to members but you will fiml most tenants appear by solicitor or counsel.

lUr. WOOD: I will guarantee that if the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt liked to check the records he would find that far more landlords avail themselves of the oppor­tunity to engage legal representation than do tenants.

JUr. Hart: Many landlords will not engage legal representation.

ltlr. WOOD: Where one party is not represented it is usually the tenant. I should prefer a return to the system where· by there could be no legal representation without the consent of both parties. In most cases the law is simply defined. In my opinion the Landlord and Tenant Acts do not call for barristers for their inter­pretation but their provisions are based on which party would suffer more hardship under certain circumstances. They are based more on the human element than on involved legal interpretations. The magistrates before whom parties appear are quite capable of interpreting the Landlord and Tenant Acts when hearing the plaint before them with­out involved legal arguments-it is very seldom that legal arguments are involved­without arguments that could cause the parties unnecessary legal expenses. I believe the system could operate quite well on that basis.

I very much doubt the accuracy or the near accuracy of the figures quoted by the Minister on the introduction of the Bill of the number of homes at present empty in Queensland. On his own admission the evi­dence he presented was very flimsy. He can correct me if I am wrong but I under­stand that they were figures taken in the 1954 census-three years ago. The Minister said that since 1954 the housing position has become worse. Is it not reasonable to assume that if a given number of houses were unoccupied three years ago and if the housing position has become worse, many of these houses would of necessity be occupied today? In any case it is quite certain that any empty house at the time that a census official called is not necessarily now an un­occupied house as we know it. I repeat that we have every reason to believe that the figures supplied were neither accurate nor nearly accurate. In any case it is certain that nothing like that number of houses

1514 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

would be available for letting on the passing of the Bill. It is equally certain that the letting of these houses would not in any way help the man on the low income because with an open go under this legislation to charge whatever rents landlords like, it is certain that the people on whose behalf we particu­larly make our plea would not be in a finan­cial position to rent the houses, even if they were in such numbers and even if they were immediately available for rental.

No security of tenure, no protection at all would be given to any tenant who rented any of these homes as other hon. members on this side have pointed out very effectively. 'l'he passing of the Bill would throw a house on the market for rental under an evil and pernicious bartering system under which the landlord with the big stick of 28 days' notice in his hand could seek any rent he liked and dispossess any person, even though he was a good tenant who regularly paid his rent, who would not agree to pay a higher rent to match a rent that might be offered by a desperate home-seeker without accommodation. It is opening up an evil system that could do untold harm to home­seekers throughout the State. It could force people into fhe position of having to move every time they refused to submit to the pressure of having to pay a higher rental. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said, ''Three removes are worse than a fir8.' ' Finally he paid as much for removals as would almost pay for a new home. I am not suggesting that every landlord would do that. It opens the way for every land­lord who wished to adopt that policy to do so. The principle of changing the date of determination of values from 10 February, 1942 to 1 .July, J 948 was very blandly dealt with by the Minister who told us it would mean a rise of 27 per cent. in rent. The hon. gentleman treated it as casually as though it was a minor matter. It may be to legislators, but for the man on the low in­come it may be a major catastrophe if he suddenly has to pay 27 per cent. more in rent. Make no mistake, that would be the position of many people who are renting houses. The growing spectre of unemploy­ment is perturbing enough. The prolonQ"a­tion of the drought is an added anxiety. The imposition of 27 per cent. increase in rent is an unfair burden to ask him to bear. The Minister gave two basic reasons for the introduction of the Bill. The first was that the housing position had not been solved. I shoulr1 say that that is an argument in favour of continuation of controls. If the Minister had said that there were numbers of houses available and there was keen competition amongst landlords to rent homes we could appreciate his argument, but when the hon. gentlrman said tlmt the housing position is becoming worse-that houses are harder to get. I rnnnot see any stren~th in his argu­ment. He quotes that as a reason why we should bring- in n svstem that does Pot apply to one section of houses to be let. It openR

the door to the complete relaxation of all controls of rent. If the Minister considers the amendment he must admit that if there was a great social injustice to landlords­! admit quite frankly a section of them were placed in a position that was not easy-an even greater social injustice is being inflicted on tenants under this legislation. I have gone into reports from other States on this contentious question of rent control. I shall read a short extract from the report on the operation of the Landlord and Tenant Acts of Victoria, tabled in the Victorian Legisla­tive Assembly on 10 October last year. Mr. R. M. Eggleston, who was the Board of Inquiry, says under the l1eading of "Effect on Tenants of Increased Rents''-

''In considering the effects of relaxa­tion of rent control it is necessary to con­sider to what extent hardship would be suffered by those whose rents are raised. As a general proposition it might be as­sumed that the hardship suffered by tenants through an increase of their rents would counterbalance the relief given to landlords in respect of the injustice suf­fered by them from the inability to increase · the prices charged to tenants while all prices charged to landlords have gone up.

It is, of course, impossible to strike a balance of aggregate hardship over the whole field, though it might be assumed that landlords as a class would be more wealthy than tenants as a. class, so that the h~rdships suffered by tenants as fl

whole from an increase of rents would, other things being equal, bear more harshly on them than the injustice suffered by landlords through not being able to increase their rents. ' '

I have a report on the position in South Australia. A four-man committee of inquiry into the Landlord and Tenant (Control of Rents) Acts 1942 to 1950, was appointed by the Playfon1 Government. T~eir r~port was tabled in the South Austrahan Iiouse of Assembly in November, 1951.

lUr. P. R. Smitll: Would you not con­cede that that is a bit out of date~

llir. WOOD: The underlying principles are the same.

On the subject of continua11ce of control of rent of dwelling-houses, this is the committee's finding-

'' It is not possible to reach any con­clusion other than that continuation of the statutory control of rents of dwelling­houses is essential in the interests of the community.''

The committee based its conclusions mainly on the effect of the lifting of controls on the economy through corresponding increases in wages and stimulating inflation through infil­tration into the costs of production.

Landlord and Tenant Acts (3 DECEMBER.) Amendment Bill. 1515

In respect of direct control whereby rents are fixed and indirect control where restric­tions govern the landlord's right to recover possession, the committee made this interesting reflection-

'' If rent control is necessary, it should be effected by means best calculated to achieve the desired end. The direct method has the merit of arriving at uniform mtes for pro­mises of uniform rental value, whereas, under the indirect method, inconsistencies would occur between fixed rents and rents the subject of agreement and would increase numerically with change of tenants. It is not an answer to this objection that if a tenant is prepared to pay a certain rent the State should not interfere and prevent him.''

Clause 2 (2) is at variance with Section 65 of the Act which invalidates contracts to pre­vent the operation of the Act. There is usually a provision in Acts protecting vul­nerable persons, such as working-class ten­ants, against being coerced into bartering away their rights. Clause 2 (2) of the Bill deprives tenants of this protection. The effect will be that tenants will be unable to secure accommodation, except on the term that the landlord may evict them on 28 days' notice. Section 65 of the principal Act reads:-

''Any contract or arrangement, whether oral or in writing, the purpose or effect of which is either directly or indirectly to defeat, evade or prevent the operation of any of the provisions of this Act, shall be absolutely void and of no legal effect whatsoever.''

A dangerous principle is established if a tenant is allowed to contract outside the court in regard to the recovery of premises. Landlords are being given a weapon with which they should not be entrusted.

Opposition members regard this as an exceedingly unjust measure. We oppose the Bill in its entirety. We do not propose to submit any amendments, because we cannot agree with any of the principles of the Bill. We know from the adamant attitude of the Government on any submissions made from this side of the Chamber that our protests will be completely disregarded, but we feel that people who are seeking homes for rental and who cannot acquire satisfactory accom­modation are entitled to the fullest exposi­tion of their rights. We feel it our bound en duty to present the position to the Govern­ment as we see it. \1\f e know it to be true. We know this is a Bill designed only to assist the landlord. We know that every clause of the Bill can be used against the tenant. There should be an even balance of justice between landlord and tenant. vV e protest vigorously against this measure which places no emphasis on the rights of the tenants but is designed only to help the landlord.

~Ir. POWER (Baroona) (5.16 p.m.): In opposing this Bill I say that it is the worst piece of legislation ever introduced into this House. After listening to his remarks, I am confident that the Minister has succumbed to the pressure exerted on him by pressme groups since he took over his portfolio. He spoke about social injustice to the landlord. There has been not only social injustice to tenants but also economic injustice to them. It is apparent the Minister and his Cabinet have very little or no knowledge of the ramifications of the Landlord and Tenant Act. The Bill removes all protection from the tenant and leaves him to the mercy of the unscrupulous landlord. There are unscrupulous landlords in our midst a_ncl nobody knows that better than I. I shall gtve illustrations of the attitude of some of them later. There is no justification for the measure. There has been no hardship imposed on landlords in Queenslancl because they have been getting a return of 10 per cent. on their investments. That percentage included 2 per cent. for depreciation, whic_h does not exist. The Minister agrees that 1t does not exist. Properties have not deprecia­ted in value but to the contrary have appreciated. In addition, 2 per cent. ~>:as allowed for repairs, but in many case~ repairs were not carried out. The Bill prov1des for a 20 per cent. increase in rentals fro~t 1 March 1958 without reference to the Fan Rents C~mt. 'By this legislation the Minis­ter has said that landlords can increase rents of premises by 20 per cent. without reference to the Court. With his colleague the Minister for Agriculture and Stock, he has accused me of being the price fixer in . the State. He is usurping part of the functions of the Fair Rents Court to determine nmtals. It is interesting to note that the Minister for Ag,riculture and Stock 1:ece~tly decided . to have a say in the determmatwn of the pr~ce of wheat. He and the Minister for .Justice are taking unto themselves powers which _t~ey alleged I used from time to t~me. In ~ddttlon to giving landlords authonty to mcreas•, rentals by 20 per cent. from 1 March next, the Bill has a further provision which says that rentals shall be determined on the 1948 valuation of the premises. After having increased the rent as from 1 March, the land­lord can apply to the court for a further increase based on 1948 .-aluations.

I propose now to give some examples , of what can happen following the passage of The legislation. I referred to this matter somL time ago when I was amending the Act, and I now propose to take a little further some of the examples that I quoted then.

In September, 1917, a well-known firm bought two dwelling houses for £400 each, including the land. That was the total amount of the firm's investment. In August, 1954, the Fair Rents Comt fixed the value of one of the houses at £417 and the lan(l

1516 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

at £260, a total of £667. That was an incrmse of more than 50 per cent. on the original cost.

Mr. Windsor: It probably would have been worth about £2,000.

. iUr: P~WER: It may have been. That mterJectwn helps me because it shows that the hon. member has a one-track mind. He believes only in exploiting the workers.

i)fr. Windsor: The owner would be charged probate duty on that valuation if he died.

1\.Ir. POWER: That is so, because that would be the value at which it could be sold. However, it would no longer remain in the .hands of the original purchaser.

. Reverting. to the example that I was quot­mg, the Farr Rents Court did not take into consideration the original investment of the firm, but. increased the value of the dwelling to what rt regarded as a reasonable figure in 1954. That increase was made in the valua­tion despite the fact that the owner was using 7.4 perches of the land as well as some spara under the house for storage purposes. !f the dwelling had been built in, say, 1910, rt would have cost about £18 a square. How­ever, according to figures that have been sup­plied to me, its replacement cost in 1948 v·ould have been £125 a square. It is of 10 squares, which would give it a 1948 value of £1,250. \Vhen the rent was determined in 1954, it was increased from £1 5s. to £2 4s. 6d. a week. Now, however, thA house will be valued at £1,250, which will mean a rent increase of £54 6s. a year, or approxi­mately £1 Is. 6d. a week. That will be an automatic increase on 1 March next without any reference to the court. That is only one -example that I have picked out.

i'IIr. Windsor interjected.

~fr. POWER: The hon. member is not worth anything.

Let me go a little further to show just how false are the claims that the landlord has ?een unjustly treated. On 10 August, 1954, m the case of another dwelling, the Fair Rents Court fixed the value of the land at £225 and the improvements at £352, a total of £577. On the authorised officer's valuation, based on replacement costs less depreciation notwithstanding the fact that the owner wa~ using 8.4 perches of the 12 perches of land and two storerooms under the house for storage purposes, and that the premises were in need of urgent repa.ir, the rent was increased from £1 5s. to £1 14s. a week. Remember, too, that property has not depre­ciated, but rather it has appreciated. There­fore landlords have been receiving a 2 per cent. return on depreciation, which has not in fact applied, and in some cases they have got 2 per cent. for repairs that have not been carried out.

Here is another case of a landlord being .allegedly unjustly dealt with. I shall now

instance another case at Windsor. The sub­ject premises consist of two maisonettes and were erected in December, 1939, for £1,200, the total cost being £1,360. On 11 July, 1951, the Fair Rents Court fixed the value of the land at £160 and the improvements at £1,458, a total of £1,618. The value was not fixed at what the place cost in 1939, but was appreciated by approximately £300. Is not that evidence that the Fair Rents Court has not rigidly stuck to the original cost of the building~

No doubt the reply of the Minister and some of his colleagues on the front benches will be that there have been improvements to these places. In many cases there have been no improvements, but, on the contrary, the properties have fallen badly into dis­repair. The owners have a.skecl the court to eject the tenants and the court has issued ejectment orders against them. I have given two illustrations and I could give many more. I do not want to take up the time of hon. members unduly, but simply to show the bias of the Government in favour of the owners of premises.

Mr. Blocksidge has said, ''We are going to get some increases, but we are not g~ing to get sufficient to provide the varwus amenities we would like to see provided for our various tenants.'' I know Mr. Blocksidge and I know his premises. He has been pro­secuted under the Landlord and Tenant Acts. He has no interest in the tenants. All he i~ concerned about is getting all the money he possibly can for the properties. That applies to many other commission agents because they get 10 per cent. commission on the rents they collect.

The Minister complained a bout difficulties that owners of premises hacl in obtaining possession of their premises. The Act is very clear. It prescribes the grounds on which tenants may be evicted. It sets out as one of the reasons-

'' That the lessee has failed to pay the rent in respect of a period''

and says further-'' vVhere the lessee's period of occupation

does not exceed six months-of not less than seven days; ''

It gives the period of time they must be given before they can make application for ejectment.

Another is-'' That the lessee has failed to perform

or observe some other term or condition of the lease and the performance or observance of that other term or condition has not been waived or excused by the lessor; ''

We have heard stories about tenants who Laye damaged property and unfortunate owners who have been unable to get them out. Provision is madP in the Act to cover the lessee who has failed to take reasonable care of the premises, or any of the goods leased therewith or has committed waste . There is provision for the ejectment of a

Landlord and Tenant Acts (3 DECEMBER.) Amendment Bill. 1517

lessee who has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers. A magistrate can give a decision only on the evidence sub­mitted to him. He can determine a case only on the facts. The Act goes further and gives as a prescribed ground for eviction-

'' That the lessee or any other person has been convicted, during the currency of the lease, of any offence arising out of the use of the premises for any illegal purpose or that a court of competent jurisdiction has found or declared that the premises have, during the currency of the lease, been used for some 1llega 1 purpose,''

They are some of the grounds on which appli­cation can be made for an ejectment order.

~Ir. WhHlsor: It is pretty costly litigation too.

~Ir. POWER: There is the cost of liti­gation. Do not forget that there are occa­sions when greedy landlords unjustifiably take tenants to court to have them evicted. Tenants have been called upon to spend money on litigation. Many avaricious and rapacious landlords have tried to get tenants ejected without sufficient grounds but it has cost the tenants a good deal of money in legal expenses. On many occasions tenants have been successful in preventing ejectment because of insufficient and incorrect grounds stated in landlords' applications. I know of a case where a person said that he wanted possession of premises because he was going to be married. His fiancee was coming from another part of the world. I do not know why but the magistrate did not even wait for the girl to arrive; he made an order for the vacation of the premises. As a matter of fact, the girl never arrived. It was not very long before this man went back to the court and applied for permission to sell the property. He said his fiancee had decided not to come to Queensland. People have made applications for eviction orders because they said they wanted to live in the homes themselves or some relatives wished to occupy them. It has been found that after re-gaining possession they l1ave let the homes at a higher rental. In other cases they have sold them. Many times I have authorised prosecutions against such people because of what they have done. Some have overcharged. Refunds of rent and ex­penses have been made to persons who have been evicted. I am just giving a few illus­trations of what has happened to poor un­fortunate tenants about whom the present Government are not very much concerned. They are concerned about the person who paid £400 for a home and has been getting a rental on a value of £667, and who is now being given the opportunity to go to the court to get a rental on a valuation of £1,250. That is their attitude; no considera­tion has been given to the tenant.

There are proposed amendments of the law with which I agree. I can see nothing wrong

with the provision that people occupying houses belonging to mentally ill persons must vacate them if the owner becomes normal and wishes to return. We overcame that difficulty by Order in Council excluding those premises from the Landlord and Tenant Acts when asked to do so by the Public Curator. We did not bring business premises under the Landlord and Tenant Acts unless requested to do so by either party. Where a dispute arose over the rent of premises and the tenant was not prepared to pay it and wished to go before the Fair Rents Court we had the premj;ses brought under the, Landlord and Tenant Acts by Order in Council. Many cases were settled without going to the Fair Rents Court. This applies both ways. In some cases the tenants were not prepared to pay an increase and the owners applied to have the premises brought under the Landlord and Tenant Acts, and that was agreed to. There were applications that Mr. Parker would not recommend. In some cases premises became vacant and tenders were called and the highest tender was out of all proportion to the real value. Having got the lease of the premises an application ·would be made to have them brought under the Landlord and Tenant Acts. In cases where the parties entered in to an agreement by lease we were not prepared to give them that right.

I have given evidence of the fair way in which the landlords have been treated. I do not agree with the Minister's figures of the number of houses alleged to he vacant. I think they are hypothetical, and I am not prepared to accept them. \Vhoever gave the hon. gentleman the information was pulling his leg. A provision of the Bill makes it mandatory that after the pexiod of 28 days the Court can ordex the ejectment of a person. I am concerned with the houses that are to be let for the first time after 1 DecembPr, 1957, and those that have not been let for three years prior to 1 December,. being excluded from the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Acts. The tenants will he subject to the provisions of the Summary Ejectment Act which provides for certain notice and makes it mandatory that the Magistrate shall ''not less than seven> nox more than thirty clear clays from the date of such warrant'' order the ejectment of these people from the house.

lUr. P. R. Smitl1: Read the whole of the section.

~Ir. POWER: I have read the part that applies.

lUr. P. R. Smith: Only the part you think applies. ·

~Ir. POWER: The hon. member is a legal man with greater knowledge of the iaw than mine. That is the provision that has operated to date.

lUr. P. R. Smitll: That has not operated since 1939.

1518 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

JUr. POWER: It has operated if premises are not under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

~lr. P. R. Smith: To how many premises in Brisbane does that apply~

~r. POWER: It does not apply to many, hut it will apply to a great number after the p::cssage of this Bill.

J'Ir. P. R. Smith: It will apply only to those referred to in that clause.

~r. POWER: That is the point about which I am concerned. It will apply to those let after 1 December. The Bill contains a special provision to cover premises let for the first time after 1 December or premises that have not been let for three years up to ihat date.

~fr. P. R. Smith: According to you, there are no vacant houses in Brisbane, so why are you worrying?

JUr. POWER: The hon. member cannot }JUt that sort of thing over me.

JUr. P. R. Smith: You said there were no empty houses.

Mr. POWER: I said I was not prepared to accept the figure mentioned by the Minis­ter. Even if there is none now, some may ·be built later, and they will not be subject to the Act.

I do not often agree with the hon. mem­ber for Mundingburra, but I agree with his statement that a person may occupy premises at a certain rental for a month or two months and then find himself evicted under the Sum­mary Ejectment Act when someone offers the landlord a higher rent.

~Ir. P. R. Smith: That is plain rot.

!Ir. POWER: It is all very well for the hon. member to say it is plain rot. I have heard members of his profession in court submit arguments that had no substance or merit, and they lost their cases. I am deal­ing with the position after the passage of this Bill. This clause will apply to houses let or built after 1 December. It is useless for the hon. member for ·winclsor to argue that the clause will have no effect.

The Bill is lopsided. It has been intro­duced for the benefit of onlv one section of the community. It provides for an imme­diate increase in rental of 20 per cent. after 1 March next. The landlord, having received an increase of 20 per cent., can then go to the court and apply for a further increase based on the 1948 valuation. I mentioned the case of one house costing £400 that will now be valued at £1,250, and there are many others.

lUr. Windsor interjected.

~Ir. POWER: The hon. member has said it is only half what it should be. He does not believe in a fair return on the amount of money invested. He believes in a policy of

exploitation, that rentals should be based on increased values, rather than on the capital invested.

I shall oppose the Bill in its entirety.

I think the correct title of the Bill would be "The Landlords' Paradise Bill." Land­lords are the only people to get any real benefit from the provisions of the Bill. I have disproved that Queensland landlords have been clone an injustice. I have given ample evidence of the fair treatment meted out by the courts in rental cleterminations. The Minister says that an injustice has been done to landlords but this Bill perpetrates one of the greatest injustices on the workers of the State that I have ever known to be done to anybody by legislation in this House. The determination of rentals on today's valuations will considerably increase rents without any justification at all. What hap­pens in other States~ It has been said that the Queensland legislation sets a precedent. Rentals in Queensland are based on 1942 property valuations whereas 1939 is the basis in one State and 1940 in another. No allow­ance is made for repairs in some of the other States yet lessors are obliged to keep their houses in good repair. This does not apply in Queensland. One has only to drive around to see that many premises have not been kept in good repair, despite the fact that 2 per cent. is allowed for repairs. Complaints have been made to the Fair Rents Registrar that repairs have not been attended to. In some instances increased rents have been granted conditional on certain work being clone. Some­times it has not been carried out and conse­quently it has been necessary for the Fair Rents Registrar to have investigating officers call upon owners to carry out improvements that they have agreed to uo. Alterations, improvements or addition& are a ground for an application for an increase in rental. I can see no justification at all for the state­ment that the landlords of the State have not been fairly treated.

On the introduction of the Bill the Minister said that this is the first relief that has been given. From his remarks we could assume that further relief is to be granted. I warn him to look at what happened in Western Australia when rent control was abolished. Rents increased by as much as £3 a week. People were unable to pay the rents der!Jancled by th€ owners of premises. The Government of the day found it necessary to take some action to deal with the matter of ejectments made under the Summary Ejectment Acts. What is the position today~ A number of our people are being ejected because the owners require the homes for some reason or other. Sometimes it is for the purpose of repairing them and letting them at a higher rental. The State Housing Commission is unable to provide accommodation for people who are being ejected. There will be whole­sale ejectments in the future because it is mandatory for ejectments to take place under the Summary Ejectment Acts. Where

Landlord and Tenant Acts [3 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1519

will those people go? That is what concerns me. What is to become of them? Some of them will be put out on the street. I have seen it happen. It is all very well to sug­gest that more homes will Le made available but there is no evidence that one more horn~ will be made available as a result of this leg~slation. A woman at New Farm rang me tomght and said, ''it is shocking to hear what is happening to us. We are paying £5 a week now and it will he increased.'' The representative for Merthn will have a hot time in the near futm·'e. N at one more home will he made amilahle and there will he more ejectments. There will he further opportunity for the rapacious l:mdlord to increase rentals and treat the tenants in a way in which he could not treat them under the old Acts. Therefore the action of the Minister in bringing down this Bill is wrong. Why the undue haste~ Why bring it down in the first .session in order to give an increased rental to some people who are getting a rental based on the capital value of their property f I repeat that the title of the Bill should be ''The Landlords' Paradise Bill''. I do not propose to fore­warn you, Mr. Speaker, what action I may take in the near future in regard to the title having had some experience previously whe~ I moved an amendment to the title of another Bill.

. Mr. HART (Mt. Gravatt) (7.23 p.m.): We have been told many strange things by the hon. member who just resumed his seat. The hon. member said ''There will be no more houses; there will be ejectments everywhere.'' The strange part of it is that the ejectments if any, only apply to new houses. If ther~ are no more new houses there can be no more ej ectments.

.:\Ir. Power: I do not know how you became a Q.C.

lUr. HART: The strongest evidence that an hon. member is making a good speech is if the hon. member for Baroona tells him he is making a bad one. One outstanding fact has emerged during this debate. During the last few years the Australian Labour Partv -and I include tlie hon. member fo·r Baroona-failed to solve the housing problem. vVhat do hon. members opposite want to do? They want to go on in th11 same old way­a way that has failed. vVhen another \Vav to sohe this acute problem-one of the worst that could confront any community-is suggested hon. members opposite just cry and say, '' Y on are hurting the workers.'' ·what have hon. members opposite done for the workers? They have not provided them with houses. There is not one hon. member who does not get the most heartrending appeals for houses. Every week I am approached at least three or four times by people who are living with their in-laws and feel that that is causing a break-up of their marriage. :Most of those >rho weTe in the Senices la teT lin•r1 with their f::nnilic'> because thev could

195/-3B ..

not secure a home of their own. They realise the harmful effect on matrimonial relations of residing with in-laws. They are grateful for the assistance rendered by their families but they understand the problems.

The effect of the housing shortage on family life is the most serious aspect of the problem. Many reasons for child delinquency are advanced by psychologists, but, having cross-examined some of those gentlemen, and having to somP extent studied the problem, I am of the opinion that the main cause of child dRlinquency is broken marriages, and nothing leads more quickly to the break-up of a marriage than inability to get a home. The shortage of homes has arisen because of the failure of the State to provide homes for the people.

llir. Lloyd: The State?

lllr. HART: The State. The previous Government by their legislation killed the goose that laid the golden egg, the investor who was prepared to build homes for letting purposes.

llir. Burrows: The cure is worse than the disease.

Itir. HART: I do not think anything could be worse than a broken marriage.

lllr. Burrows: You are going to make the position much worse, because the people will not have sufficient money to pay the rents demanded of them.

Itlr. HART: The outstanding fact is that there are insufficient houses. That does not seem to worry the hon. members of the A.L.P. or Q.L.P. They do not care about the people. They merely bury their heads in the sand, as they have done for the last 40 years. The strange feature is that when the previous Government became a landlord through the State Housing Commission they did not apply to themselves the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act. If a tenant fails to pay his rent to the Housing Com­mission, what happens~ He is out on the street. That was the legislation of the benevolent Attorney-General of that Govern­ment and the benevolent Labour Party. Under the legislation ol' the A.L.P. Govern­ment a tenant who got behind in rent with the Housing Commission would he out on his neck.

The hon. member for Baroona mentioned recently the fairness of the rent that could be demanded under the Act. He said that a landlord was allowed 2 per cent. for depre­ciation, 2 per cent. for maintenance, and an aclclitional 6 per cent. apparently for profit.

lUr. Lloyd: What is wrong with that?

llir. HART: Nothing at all; that is quite fair. I am not complaining about it, but in the next breath he said that that was more than the tenants could pay.

lUr. Lloyd: What about the extra loading?

1520 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amerulment Bill.

Mr. HART: The hon. member for Baroona said that under the Act more is allowed as rent than tenants can pay. My point is that after the passage of this Bill tenants will have to pay less than the rents allowed formerly. The law of supply and demand will operate and rents will be lower than allowed under the Act.

li'Ir. Power: They will not be subject to the Act.

li'Ir. HART: Under the Landlord and 'renant Act, a landlord is allowed to charge 10 per cent., and the hon. member said recently that landlords were unable to get that amount. I believe the statement. That being so, under the Bill they will pay less. One thing is certain, that under the law of supply and demand houses will be built and rents will fall. That might not happen immediately but it will happen. It happened before ·the last world wat. Any person could go along to a house agent and ask for a house and get one. Many years ago you could get quite a decent house at Clay­fielcl for £1 a week. You will again be able to get houses under this Bill. Rents will fall because the law of supply and demand ~IYill assert itself. There will not be the terrible state of affairs of families breaking up because of a shortage of houses.

lUr. Houston: When do you think you wm solve the housing problem~

Mr. HART: It will solve itself under this Bill wilh our building programme. Tlh:e A.L.P. Government got themselves into such a mess never experienced before. Before they got into power there were plenty of houses but now there are none. Psychology is wrap­peel up in this question. Once you force people to do things they will not clo them. If a man has a few thousand pounds to invest will he build a house and put a tenant in, particularly when a magistrate or some court will tell him what he will do with his property~ People do not want to become involved in litigation. I always advise people not to get themselves involved in litigation. Only foolish people like to get involved in litigation. If a person can invest in a concern such as Broken Hill-'-

1\Ir. Houston: Or hire purchase.

1\Ir. HART: Or hire purchase. Would he put money into the building of a house when there is court control~ Does he want a bad tmant who will stop there~

Mr. Lloyd: On your argument there is no incentive.

1\Ir. HART: Under the present Act there is no incentive, but in futme if there is a demand for houses-and there is a demand at present-they will be built and let.

IIIr. Adair: At a price.

JUr. HART: When the houses are there the prices will fall. So long as there is a

shortage of housing there will be :rackets. You can have a Fair Rents Court but if there is a shortage of houses there will be rackets. How many people are paying exhorbitant rents for houses~ Why, for some little place they are being asked as much as £7 7s., £8 Ss. and sometimes £10 10s. a week. The Fair Rents Court cannot con­trol that sort of thing. The only cure for housing shortage is to restore sanity to the community in tl1e shape of houses. 'l'he Labour Party has failed to produce houses.

JUr. Walsh: There is no rent control in New South Wales, so wh~· is there such a considerable shortage there J

JUr. HART: I am telling the hon. member what is going on here. The Leader of the Opposition, if nothing else, is hope­ful and the most trustful gentleman I have met. He told us that the Landlord and 'fenant Act was a simple one. He has another think coming. It is very involved and difficult. Nobody likes getting mixed up with it. It is socialistic legislation. The pl'evious Government drove private landlords out of business and started State landlord­ism. That must result in inefficieny. Once you stop private enterprise and start the State on landlordism, you introduce inefficiency.

Mr. Lloyd: Do you support the Bill?

li'Ir. HART: Is the hon. m,ember all righU The Government are introducing a little sanity. The existing legislation was necessary in war-time.

"illr. Lloyd: It was not introduced in war-time.

li'Ir. HART: I think I will ignore the hon. member. The existing legislation was a continuation of the Commonwealth's Land­lord and Tenant Regulations. They were introduced during the war and have been retained ever since. They were necessary during war-time because there was a shortage of labour and materials, which resulted in a shortage of houses. Whenever there is a shortage it is necessary to have controls. But they should not be continued any longer than necessary.

As I say, the present legislation is socialistic. It is in the same category as the petrol rationing legislation. After the war the Federal Labour Government retained petrol rationing, but the Menzies-Fadclen Government discontinued it. Their opponents said it would result in chaos, but the people got all the petrol they needed.

l\'Ir. Windsor: It levelled itself out.

li'Ir. HART: It levelled itself out, in exactly the same way as the housing shortage will.

The hon. member for Baroona has described this legislation as ''A Landlord's Paradise Act.'' I remind hon. members, however, that if the average landlord has a good

Landlord and Tenant Acts (3 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1521

tenant he will stick to him. That is what happened before the war and it will happen again when the Bill becomes law. It is probable that some people will be evicted but other houses will be available for them.

llir. Houston: Who will eject them?

lllr. HART: The power to eject is in the Bill, but it will be exercised very seldom.

itir. Houston: Who is doing the ejecting now~

J}fr. HART: Mostly people who want their own houses.

lllr. Houston: It would not be the land­lord, would it?

Jir. HART: The landlord cannot do it now without having good reasons. He has the right to eject under the existing law.

Jir. Power: He has nothing of the kind. He has the right to apply to have a tenant ejected.

lUr. HART: In effect, that is a right to eject. People are ejected under the existing legislation.

A Government I\Iember: The State Housing Commission ejects its tenants.

lUr. HART: It is the worst ejector of all.

lUr. JUarsden: It has to apply to the court.

lllr. HART: That shows the Australian I,abour Party's lamentable lack of know­ledge of existing legislation. They say the Housing Commission has to go to court.

:llr. lllarsden: Yes.

Jir. HART: Nothing of the kind. It just sl;oots them ant in fact.

Opposition Members: Absolute non­sense!

lUr. Hilton: Fancy a lawyer saying that!

1Ur. HART: How many cases does the hon. member know where the Housing Com­mission has gone to court to get them out?

lllr. Hilton: In every case of a rented house.

llir. HART: They go along before then. The people go out on their own. They have no defence to the proceedings. When the Housing Commission tells them to go, they go.

For the reasons that I have given I support the Bill.

nir. HANLON (Ithaca) (7.41 p.m.): The Minister said the Bill had been discussed at length on the introductory stage but I was very sorry to note that his own argument has not improved in any way since then. In his short remarks this evening he seemed to be labouring just as heavily as before.

His argument includes some glaring incon­sistencies. He will keep some houses under what the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt has just described as severe socialistic regula­tions and he will abolish the protection on others including new tenancies. If there is a case for the abolition of control on new tenancies, it should apply equally to all tenancies. If the Minister is not prepared to abolish controls altogether he admits that some form of protection is necessary while houses remain in short supply. But the only protection he will give with new tenancies is the 28 days' notice to quit. The principle is just the same as saying, "You can commit any crime you like in South Brisbane but not in North Brisbane." In the case of new tenancies he is giving land­lords the right to do anything they like with the tenants. The landlord with the old house that has been let up to now is required to keep to the Act.

If the Minister is sincere in his claim that the landlords have been unjustly treated, why bring the values only up to 1948? Why not the 1957 value~ He is more or less admitting that the Bill has been introduced in the interests of the landlord alone but he is not prepared to go the full hog to use the vernacular, and bring the basis right up to the present-day value.

.:!Ir. Wood: He is sorry that he cannot.

llir. HANLON: That is so, but he is not game at the moment to go the full way and capitulate to the landlords on the older homes. He spoke of the social injustice to landlords. Perhaps the landlords have not been able to make as much money out of their investment in the early '40's and before as others are making out of hire purchase and other forms of exploitation but there is a greater degree of respon­sibility on the Government to see that people get adequate housing at a reasonable rental or can build homes at a reasonable cost or otherwise provide accommodation for them· selves and their families. There is, too, a responsibility on governments to deal with hire purchase but, because of the inactivity of the Federal Government and because of the lack of co-operation between State Governments, it has not been possible to do anything spectacular about hire purchase control. However, it is possible to do some­thing under the existing Landlord and Tenant Regulation to give the tenant reason­able protection against the landlord.

In his early remarks the Minister saicl that the Bill was part of a four-pronged drive by the Government to overcome the housing shortage. He estimated that it is likely to cause an increase of 27 per cent. in rentals. He conceded that it would probably ulti­mately result in a rise in the basic wage. He was not prepared to estimate what the rise might be. Even if we conceded that the Bill may mean more houses becoming avail· able for renting, if the Minister is going

1522 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

to force up costs by increases in the basic wage he could find that under this amendment by making available for rental a few additional houses that were previously empty he will raise the cost of building to such an extent that fewer houses will be built under the Government's other activities than are brought into use by the Bill.

The Minister has not been very clear :1 bout the agreement that may be entered into between tena.nts and landlords for homes rented prior to 1 December, 1957. I have previously pointed out that many tenants may enter into agreements without realising what they are doing. If they are desperate for homes they will be prepared to sign agreements before they realise what they have signed. Under the old legislation they always had the opportunity to fall back on the provisions of the Act if they went out· side the Act. We know it has gone on. I do not suppose there is any great evil in it if a tenant and a landlord agree on a rental above the amount actually allowed under the Act. However, if the tenant found that his landlord did not honour the agreement or if, after ma.king certain arrangements as to the tenancy, the lancllord wanted to intro­duce new features into the agreement, he always had the right to say, ''If that is the way you are going to go on I will have to go to the Fair Rents Court." When that threat was made many landlords fell into line and gave his tenant a reasonable deal. The agree­ment between the landlord and tenant pro­posed in the Bill will put the parties com­pletely outside the eviction proeedures under the Act. People with new tenancies will be restricted to 28 days' notice to quit, nothing more. A period of 28 days' notice is nothing at all today. With the present housing short­age a person with 108 days' notice would have little more chance of getting a home than a person with 28 clays' notice.

When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, by interjection the hon. member for Windsor chided him because he quoted from a report in 1951. I submit that 1951 is a splendid compa.rison with 1957 when we are considering the housing shortage. The rate of building houses reached its maximum peak in 1951-52 when over 11,000 were built. Since the advent of the first Fadrlen ''Horror Budget" in 1952 home building has fallen away until in the last financial year we built only 7 ,000-odd houses in Queensland. The gradual build-up in the building programme after the war years cut into the serious hous­ing shortage until in 1951 we were making a splendid impression, but since the first of the Fadden budgets the building rate has slackened to below normal requirements. Consequently, the hon. member for Windsor was completely astray in chiding the Leader of the Opposition for quoting from a report for 1951. Unfortunately great blame can be laid at the door of the Menzies-Fadden Gov­ernment. Since 1951 the position has deteriorated anrl the housing shortage is

still just as acute. Mr. Speaker, I and other members on this side, would be prepared to support amending legislation if it was com­pletely fair to both landlord and tenant. As the hon. member for Baroona pointed out, this is a completely one-sided Bill. The Minister indicated that it was only the begin­ning anrl during the next session possibly we will see the relaxation of controls extended to all types of homes. Consequently I oppose the legislation.

~Ir. LLOYD (Kedron) (7.51 p.m.): I rise to oppose the legislation. The hon. mem­ber for Mt. Gravatt appeared to be in a state of confusion regarding the prc>vious legislation and this Bill. He said it was 11ecessary for the State to provide homr>s so as to prevent juvenile delinquency. If the State is unable to build homes there will be insufficient homes. Under this legislation there will not be any more homes. There will be homes at a higher rental which the people will not be able to pay, and the people will be summarily ejected on to the streets. ~Will not that be a cause of juvenile delinquency?

l\Ir. Nicklin: You do not believe that.

~Ir. LLOYD: Of course I believe that these people can be more easily summarily ejected from their homes. After 28 days' notice they can be evicted from the house under this legislation which provides that new tenancies will be taken out of the control of the 1948 legislation. The hon. m em her for Mt. Gravatt appeared to think that people living in State rental homes are being evicted by the State. It is evident that the hon. member will not be represe.nting the area for any length of time. In that area there are a number of State rental homes. Under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement it was laid down by the late Ben Chifley that the rental of any home should not be more than one-fifth of the income of the wage­earner. That was the basis of all our lmmanitarian legislation. The Landlord and Tenant Legislation was introduced at a time of shortage of homes so that people would not be victimised. There was also provision to protect the landlord against the unscrupu­kus tenant which indicates how fair the Gov­ernment were. Under this legislation restric­tions are to be lifted on new hom<:'S. Since the report \Yas published many things have happened. I shall Tead from some of the correspondence in my pos~P.ssion in order to give the Minister an indication of how unscrupulous people can operate to the dis­advantage of the ordinaTy working people. I have here an official Teceipt from Mr~. E. L. GeTrard, dated 7 May, 1957, placing a ueposit on a holiclav flat named '' HencloTmar'' on the South d'oast. The deposit was accepted and the receipt was Rent back. Later the property was sold. The agency was changed and the next thing that happened was that a letter was received by Mrs. Gerrarc1 from anotheT auctioneer, real estate, busincws and insurance agent. It Teacls-

Landlord and Tenant Acts [3 DECEMBER.) Ammdment Bill. 1523

''Dear Sir,

"Referring to your booking at Hendor­mar Flats, Winston Street, from 14th to 28th December, I wish to advise that I am now the managing agent for this block which has recently changed hands.

''The new owner has completely reno­vated the building and made extensions. "The tariff has been increased to £14 14s. weekly (all inclusive). If this is accept­able, kindly confirm the booking with me as soon as possible.''

An A.L.P. ])!ember: What was the pre­vious rental~

lUr. LLOYD: £11 5s., and a deposit was accepted on that basis.

Mr. V. E. Jones: You know that seaside homes do not come under the Act.

::\Ir. LLOYD: The next letter of 2 November reads-

'' Dear :Madam, ''Referring to your letter of the 31st

ultimo I have to adYise that the receipt held by you is merely an acknowledgment of the amount paid as a deposit on the rental and is not a binding contract on the mYner.

11 Please adYise by return mail whether you desire to retain the flat at the in­creased rental. If not, I will cancel the booking in your name.''

The next letter received was dated 2 December, 1957. It reads-

' 1 Dear Madam,

1 1 Reference to previous correspondence, we have to advise that the building pre­viously known as 'Hendormar' has been redesigned and incorporated in a block of six new flats, now registered as 'el cubano.'

''These flats are fully modern and are being let for the Christmas period at £17 17s. (large) and £14 14s. (small) to senior bankers and other business men from Brisbane and elsewhere.

"You have been allotted flat No. 3 ( fom persons) at £14 14s. all inclusive and we shall be pleased to have your con­fhmation of this arrangement by 7th in­stant.''

The final paragraph reads-11 Your claim for protection under the

Landlord and Tenants Act is now invalid, owing to a recent amendment to the Act, which de-controls new buildings. The mmer of 'el cubano' cannot afford to let these first class flats at the price quoted you for 1 Hendormar ', which was in very poor condition when taken over by Mr. Preston.' '

ApparentlY the flat for which the tenant was to be charged £11 5s. per week was in very poor condition. According to this cor­respontlence the new owner after renovating the fiats could not afford to let them at less

than £14 14s. and £17 17s. a week. The last paragraph of that letter indicates that some people believe that, having purchased a place and renovated it, a new type of tenancy is created, and they can charge whatever rent they please. No doubt many landlords in Brisbane will be of the same opnnon. I cannot understand how a reput­able real estate agent could be of that opinion unless he had received legal advice or opinion on the matter. The same posi­tion will arise in Brisbane. Homes or flats will be sold and the new owners will secure eviction orders against the tenants on the ground that alterations are necessary. It is easy to obtain eviction orders on that ground. Those new owners will immediately alter those premises by splitting them into two or three flats, unsuitable family accommoda­tion, and let them to two persons. They will refuse to accept families with children. That is a common practice in Brisbane today. 'l'hev will then <lemand increased rentals. I 11·ouid need further arguments before I was convinced that the Bill will make available more accommodation at a reasonable rental.

lUr. Nicholson: You speak so glibly of those things that I am convinced you would do that yourself.

JUr. LLOYD: The hon. member knows me better than that. I shall not refer to what has happened at RedcliffP. He would know more about holiday homes than I know.

The subject is so serious that further con­sideration should be given by the :Minister to the arguments advanced by Opposition members. The Minister may believe that more accommodation would be available, but I cannot see that the Bill will ensure more accommodation for those 1vho cannot afford to pay more than £3 3s. to £5 5s. a week. Those are the people about whom we should be concerned. The Minister probably thinks that by providing more accommodation at £8 Ss. a week there will be less demand for accommodation at lower rental and a reduc­tion in the housing shortage. On his own figures there is such an overwhelming shortage of homes that this ''simple'' amendment will not overcome. The hon. member for Mt. Gravatt said that a Labour Government introduced legislation for the eviction of people from Housing Commission homes. The original legislation for one-fifth of the income to be the rental rebate was intro­duced by the late Mr. Chifley, but the Menzies-Fadden Government altered the Commonwealth-States Housing Agreement so that no rental rebate could be given. The gun was held at the head of the State Government when the Commonwealth Govern­ment said in effect, 11 Sign this agrePmPnt or you borrow your money from tllf Loan Council at 5'/i per cent. instead of 4 per cent., on which we are advancing it to you.'' There was no alternative and the States hac1 to relinquish the rental rebate system. People on low wages were living in State rental hou~es.

1524 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

From time to time we have asked the Minister for Housing to reinstitute the system of rental rebates for people living in State rental houses. Through sickness they have perhaps got behind in their rent to the extent of £50 or £60 and were being evicted. Under the old agreement entered into by Mr. Chifley they were entitled to a rental rebate based on one-iifth of their income ,whilst out of employment or sick. We asked for the reinstitution of the rental rebate system but our requests were turned down,

The hon. member for Mt. Gravatt should study these matters and help us to assiot the working people to secure a home at a reasonable rental so that thev may live in a decent standard of comfoi·t and have somP security in life.

::!Ir. P. R. SlUITH (Windsor) (8.3 p.m.) : A great deal of discussion and comment h~s been made by h?n· members opposite wrth regard to the UnJust position in which they say tenants will iind themselves. The T~m~rks are surely made without due appre­rwhon of what the Bill says. For many ~-ears they were p1·epared to administer an Act, claiming that it was a beneiicial one to tenants. If they are sincere I submit that they are bound by their earlier state­ments. So far as tenants are concerned vvho nTe not struck at by this Bill, everything is still as beneiicial. The Bill strikes at only one small section of the people. First of all the house has to he either a new house or one that has not been let for three years. On the words of the hon. member for Raroona the number would be insigniiicant. He disputes the existence of empty houses in the suburbs.

An Op!lOsition occupied.

lUr. Lloyd: settlement.

J\Iember: They are

In estates awaiting

l\'Ir. P. R. SlliiTH: If they become vacant the housing shortage is overcome. Accord­ing to the arguments of the Opposition in relation to the houses which have not been let for the last three years there will be a wholesale eflux of owners for the purpose of letting them.

llir. JUarsden: At their own rental.

l\Ir. P. R. SlUITH: At the rental they can get, and they can get more than what is deemed a ''fair rent'' only after an agree­I!Ient 'vith the tenant. The rent must be agreed to in writing, otherwise the ''fair rent·' provisions apply.

On the subject of the 2 per cent. allowed for repairs mid depreciation hon. members opposite have set up the cry that we Rhould not allow any stepping up in the capi­tal value of a house. Apparently they have not the honesty or the common ocnse-I do not know which quality is missing-to con­sider how costs have risen in the last few years. Plumbing repairs are essential in any house, but particularly in the type of house

that makes up the bulk of rented houses. In the main they are timber structures with iron roofs, not particularly luxurious or palatial.

]\fr. Wood: I can cite a landlord who has been allowed the 2 per cent. for repairs and maintenance, but has not spent a penny on the house for 20 years.

]\lr. P. R. SJ\IITH: Then the hon. mem­ber's administration fell clown on the job. When the Labour Party occupied the Govern­ment benches they made the rules. If the Act was not administered properly the fault was entirely their own.

lUr. Gralwm: No action can be taken until the tenant makes a complaint.

llir. P. R. SMITH: There were plenty of inspectors going round. If there was any non-observance of the law by landlords, the fault lay entirely at the door of hon. mem­bers opposite.

As I say, in the main the houses to which hon. members opposite are referring would need a good deal of plumbing repair work, attention to wiring and stoycs, and minor repair work such as the replacing of steps and veranda flooring. Not one· of those jobs could be done for the same price today as in 1951. The hon. member for Ithaea said that my remarks in relation to his using a 1951 South Australian survey and applying it to present conditions were inappropriate, but I submit that they were very appropriate. You cannot take a survey of 1951 costs and relate them to 1957. Costs are increasing year after year, and an allowance for repairs of 2 per cent. on £400 capital value would not be equitable. If the allowance is based on an increased capital value of £1,500, the owner will have a chance to make the house habitable.

]}lr. Power interjected.

]\fr. P. R. 8]\IITH: There is appreciation. How otherwise could the Stamp Duties Office have increased house values over the years in assessing succession duty~

'A part from repairs, the Leader of the Opposition admitted that the landlord wac, placed in a not easy position. ·what a mag­niiicent understatement that is! Landlords are struggling and scratching to keep houses standing so that people can occupy them, but the Leader of the Opposition does not want to help them. If a house falls clown the tenant is in a worse position than if he is evicted. He really is out in the street then.

Hon. members opposite show a lamentable ignorance of what really obtains when they talk about people being put out. It is not suggested that a tenant can be put out at the end of 28 davs. I thought that was cleared up on the i;rtroductory stage. Apparently hon. members opposite \Yere not in the Chamber at the time or they have not read the report of the debate. Or maybe they have to be told several times. In any event, it is quite clear that the lengthened period of notice

Landlo1·d and Tenant Acts [3 DECEMBER.) Amendment Bill. 1525

is beneficial to the tenant. He is not put out lock, stock and barrel without a further application to the court.

Mr. Power: He must be put out within 28 days.

~Ir. P. R. SlUITH: If the hon. member for Baroona can find that provision in any one of the State Acts I should like to see it.

Mr. Power: The Summary E,jectment Act.

lir. Wood: You are correcting your own Minister.

~Ir. P. R. SMITH: The hon. member for Baroona, the former Attorney-General.

lir. Wood: No, you are still correcting your own Minister.

)Ir. Walsh: You know the power exists iu the Summary Ejectment Act.

~Ir. P. R. SlliiTH: On court proceedings being taken.

~Jr. Power: I said that.

~Ir. P. R. S~IITH: The hon. member for Baroona was not the only speaker tonight. From what has been said it appears that other hon. members have thought a tenant could be put out at the end of 28 days without any further intervention.

)Jr. Walsh: If they go to the court the tenant must go out.

Mr. P. R. SMITH: To my well-informed friend, the hon. member for Baroona, who understands fully the complexities of law, these remarks do not apply, but to the other hon. members who do not understand them they do apply. I inform them all that there has to be a court proceeding before the tenant is put out.

The remarks of the hon. member for Baroona on the two instances he cited can­not be taken in any other way than as a criticism of the decisions of the magistrates. One had to do with a house sought by some­one whose fiancee was coming to Australia. Apparently she did not anive. We do not know whether she died. Humans die, of course, and that may have been why she did not get to Australia. There may have been other reasons for it, but the only construc­tion that can be put upon the hon. member's remarks is that the magistrates erred in their decisions either culpably or negligently. Earlier in this session the hon. member for Baroona was quick to defend the magistrates. He rose up in defence of the people he now wants to strike down. I ask him to be consistent.

~Ir. Power: I tried to make it clear to you, but you do not understand.

ilir. P. R. SiliiTH: I find it very hard to underst:mcl anyone who blows hot and cold. HmYever, I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily. lify ohservation

does not apply to any of the Government members because they fully understand the position. They made that quite clear just as hon. members opposite made it clear that they did not understand it. If any hon. members opposite intended to rise to discuss the iniquitous provision of the 28 days' notice and the eviction without any further step, and if they have not understood it so far, I urge them to make inquiries of the hon. member for Baroona, who will explain it fully to them.

~Ir. WALSH (Bundaberg) (8.14 p.m.): We have listened to the hon. gentlemen well Yersed in law, or accepted as being well versed in law, and, if anything, they have thrown the House into greater confusion than ever. In view of the remarks of the hon. member for Mt. Gravatt and, latterly, of the hon. member for "Windsor, I cannot understand why the Minister has brought the Dill down. Each one has different theories on the law, but strangely enough, although Opposition members have attacked the Bill because it favours the landlord, no country member of the Government has attempted to point to an:v protection the Bill affords the tenant. It is obvious to any­one who has read it that the Minister has brought down legislation seeking to take rights away from the tenant and to extend further rights to the landlord.

.!\Ir. JUunro: \Ve are seeking to give them houses.

~Ir. W ALSH: I am coming to that. Let me make my point first. Although it

can be said that probably there were many anomalies in the existing legislation and the relationship between the rights of tenants and the rights of landlords, at least the people first to be considered from the humanitarian point of view were the tenants who did not own a home and who could be exploited under the legi!ila tion in days gone by. That is what the Minister is getting back to when he is putting aside all the controls that have existed in Queensland for so long. The Minister knows that in pre­war days before any emergency arose as an after-effect of the war certain protection was afforded the tenants of rented houses in Queensland. ;It was not the war or any emergency arising from it that gaYe the original protection to the tenants of rented houses. It goes back for many years. The hon. member for Mt. Gravatt and the hon. member for ""Windsor must know that.

As I have said on previous occasions the controls introduced under the National Security Act and Regulations thereunder were hased on rent control an<l price control generally in Queensland. 1 do not think that could be denied. 'l'he Minister says that the Bill will provide homes for the people. He seems to think that if you release controls you will get more homes. What better example could there be thnn Xew South Wales~ Never mind all the tulk

1526 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

about cheap politics antl the fact that a Labour Government arc in office.

Mr. llfunro: That is just the point.

lUr. WALSH: All right. We will just sec what the Labour Government have done in New South '.Vales. At least they did ask the Commonwealth Government to float a special loan of £45,000,000 to finance home building in Australia. They were turned clown fiat by the Menzies-Fad den Govern­ment. At least the Minister knows that for years past the New South Wales Labour Government have guaranteed home-building societies and millions of pounds have been expended by home-building societies on the guarantee of the Labour Government in that State. Has that solved the problem of pro­viding homes in New South Wales~ Of course it has not. So many other factors come into it. Even though co-operative building societies have been operating for years in that State the position is worse in New South '.Vales than in any other State of Australia. The mere giving of guarantees to co-operative building societies, or taking rent control avvay as has been done in New South Wales and other States, has not pro­vided homes any more than it will provide them in Queensland.

One important feature has been lost sight of. While we are talking so mnch about the genuine home-owner, the landlord, and the trouble he has to get tenants out, we nre forgetting that the Bill opens up the way for many industrial companies to come i~1 and throw families out onto the roadway ~Imply because they have purchased homes, m some cases for undertakings that could not be justified. Imagine the hon. member for Merthyr supporting legislation of this kind when he knows that in his own area around New Farm dozens and dozens of homes have been taken away from families for seiTice stations and other little business ve~tl:res established in his area. Apart from enctwns by genuine landfords the Bill will open _the way for wealthy corporations to come m and throw families out on the road. That protection they have today.

lllr. Dewar: That is a lot of nonsense.

. ;}fr. W ALSH: The hon. member says that IS a lot of nonsense. The hon. member is in a favoured position in his area. Irrespective of the criticism the hon. member mav have levelled at the type of house built bv the Housing Commission, the fact remain~ that hundreds of homes were built in his area UHder the Labour Go\ernment. The hon. member for Windsor pointed out that certain speakers from the Opposition side were under the impression that the landlord would be able to throw the tenant out in 28 days. No member of the Q.L.P. said that The fact is that they will have to go to court. If the hon. member for Mt. Grm·att or the hon. member for Windsor \Yantcd to do something

useful they would have told us thnt the magistrate would have had no alternative but to tluow the tenant out once the application was made to the court.

JUr. P. R. S:1IITH: I rise to a point of order. 'l'he hon. member is misstating the law. I referred to the law and if the hon. member wishes to disagree 1vith it he should do so by referring to the law.

:ilir. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member for Bundaberg.

lUr. W ALSH: The hon. member for Windsor had his say and I am now having mine. If the hon. member wants to correct me through the hon. member for Merthyr, that is all right. I do nou think any of us were any better informed after listening to the speeches of the legal gentlemen on this issue. Everybody knows that the general practice is where an application is made for ejcctment under the Summary Ejectment Acts as dis­tinct from the Landlord and 'l'enant Acts, the tenant goes out. The hon. member for 'vVind­sor may speak in technicalities, but that is the position. As I see it the real clanger is that in industrial areas comp:wies \Yill buy one, two or three homes.

:ilfr. Ramsden: They are doing that now.

JUr. W ALSH: In the other States there has been an outcry and action has been taken, not by the Government but by the local authorities, to see if something can be done to prevent that happening. The hon. member for Mcrthyr says that they are doing that now. The hon. member knows that under the law an oil company or anybody else who buys a home is obliged to go to the court and proYe that it is a greater hardship on them than on the tenant. 'l'here is the responsi­bility on the nerson who seeks to get the tenai1t out to find alternative accommodation for the tenant. \Vhere are the rights of the tenants now Of course they are losing their rights.

)fr. Dewar: The position has not altered in regard to hmne9 let before 1 December.

~fr. W ALSH: There is the silly argu­ment put up again. It is accepted that there are about 72 per cent. of the people in this State who either own their own homes or are purchasing them. That does not mean that any one of those homes occupied by the owner at any time might have been let out on rent to a tenant. Nobody thinks that the 27 per cent. or thereabouts of rPnted homes is a static figure. Many of the homes that have been rented for yeaTs have been lJurchased by home-owners and they have been taken off the list. In their place there is a number that come out of the pool of the other homes owned by the home-owners themselves. The hon. member for Windsor suggested that it was not going to affect any great number of tenants. That is entirely wrong. I am sorry

Landlord and Tenant Acts [3 DECEMBER.) Amendment Bill. 1527

that the Minister should convey the impres­sion that next year the Government are likely to bring down legislation to remove rent control altogether.

lUr. ~Iunro: I indicated that there would be further legislation that would assist in solv­ing the housing shortage.

~Ir. W ALSH: I am surprised that the Minister should hold the view that lifting of .controls will mean that more homes will be available.

~Ir. Dewar: He did not say that.

Mr. W ALSH: He said it two or three times, just as it has been said by other Government speakers.

lUr. Dewar: He was pulling your leg.

Mr. WALSH: They must be 2_ulling the hon. member's leg.

::H'r. J\Iun;ro: It will providH further homes.

Mr. W ALSH: The Minister has said again that it will mean further homes. I should like some further evidence to prove it. There is nothing to stop investors from building new homes. I have seen some on Ipswich road. A notice is put up, "For private sale.'' Whether they cost £3,000 or £4,000, the homes are being sold. If those builders chose to rent the homes on the basis of cost of construction, there would be nothing to prevent their doing so.

JUr. l\Iunro: You do not see any with a "To let" sign on them.

lUr. W ALSH: The Minister may think the Bill will have the effect of making more homes available, but those with the capital to invest have the right to decide whether they invest it in homes, hire purchase, or the avenue from which they will get the best returns.

li'Ir. JUunro: We are endeavouring to encourage some of them to invest their money in homes.

li'Ir. W ALSH: I defy the Minister to prove that the lifting of controls and encourage­ment to private investors to build homes has in any way relieved the housing shortage in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales or Western Australia.

I am not saying that Queensland has not a housing shortage problem. With an increase in the population there is an extra demand for homes. Private investors will not meet that demand unless the Government allow them to charge any rent they desire, and even if they had that right the capacity of the tenant to pay would have a bearing on the position. The basic wage-earner could not afford to pay rent based on the capital value of a home that cost £4,000. The Bill will be detrimental to the stable economy of the

State. The further legislation predicted by the Minister will make the position in Queens­land worse than it is in any other State.

lUr. RAlUSDEN (Merthyr) (8.29 p.m.): I rise only because the hon. member for Baroona seems to be worried about my future position us representative of the Merthyr electorate. He mentioned a telephone call he had received from one of my constituents who complained about the passage of this Bill. He is not the only person who has received messages from residents in that electorate. I receive many. I have here a telegram I received last Wednesday. It is not on the usual form; it is a congratulatory form of telegram. It read&--

''Mr. Ramsden, Parliament House, Brisbane. Congratulations on Rent Bill, first relief vears. Now we can give people homes:''

An A.L.P. l\Iember: Who signed it?

l\Ir. Power: Pro bono publico.

~Ir. RAJ\ISDEN: I do not know the person who sent the telegram. I have not met her, but I found her name on the roll tonight. She is listed on the roll as house­wife.

1Ur. Hanlon: Does Mr. Blocksidge live in your area?

Mr. RA~ISDEN: I do not know where he lives, nor am I particularly interested. I was interested to hear from the hon. mem­ber for Baroona how the capitalistic land­lord could make such big returns under the present state of affairs. I have with me part of a file of a landlord in New Farm. He approached me many months before this legislation ever came into being. He is a wealthy man! He is on an uge pension and receiving 29s. a week (reduced because of his property). He has a block of four fiats one of which he occupies him­self. Flat No. 2 was let for a long time at £2 6s. 6d. a week and Flat No. 3 for £2 lls. a week and Flat No. 4 for £2 10s. 6d. a week. He carried out a lot of repairs to the bathrooms and had the places painted inside and out. He approached the Fair Rents Court. The court increased the rent of Flat No. 2 by 6s. a week and Flats No. 3 and 4 by 3s. 6d. a week which gave him a return of £2 12s., £2 14s. 6d. and £2 l4s. If you add the figures up he gets £373 a year income from the three fiats. His expenses for the maintenance of those fiats for the year ended 30 June, 1957, were between £525 and £591. He claimed £591 but I went through the particulars with a fine-tooth comb and reduced the figure to £525. That was his expense on fiats which returned £373 a year.

l\Ir. Power: Something is wrong. He is not right in the head.

Mr. RA:~ISDEN: And neither is any other landlord in the community who would invest in fiats such as those.

1528 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

~fr. Graham: Tell us how the £525 in expenses was made up and we will believe you.

li'Ir. RAlUSDEN: To put the hon. member for Baroona right--

JUr. Power: I do not believe it. That is a reflection on the magistrate.

lUr. RA:iliSDEN: That sounds very funny coming from the hon. member for Baroona. after what the hon. member for Windsor said about him reflecting on the magistrate. I do not care whether the hon. member believes what I have said or not. I have the papers to produce to any hon. member in proof of what I am saying.

A lot of nonsense was talked about sum­mary eviction. I want to make it quite clear that the legislation does not in any shape or form affect any premises which are let at the present time. Those places are still under the full protection of the Fair Rents Court and the Landlord and Tenant Act. It is hard to convince members of the joint Opposition-perhaps it is the disjointed Opposition-that the legislation is not intended to create a ring of landlords. The Minister was fair in his statement when he said that the main object of the Bill was to create houses for the people. If in creating ne"- houses we do some measure of justice to people who have been penalised since 1942, that is merely coincidental.

JUr. Graham: You are overlooking the fact that you might do some injustice to the tenant.

:ilir. RAMSDEN: I am not. I dealt with this matter on the introductory stage. If I let a property to the hon. member for Mackay at a rental mutually agreed upon between us--

lUr. Nicklin: You would be taking a risk.

3Ir. R.AlUSDEN: I realise that. I am merely supposing this. Let us suppose that we mutually agree upon a rental of £5 a week. I find that he is a goocl tenant who looks after the property and pays his rent regu­larly. vVhy would I want to put him out and take the risk of getting a bad tenant~

The hon. member for Bundaberg has spoken about what is happening in Merthyr. He pointed out that many companies, particularly the wool stores, are making inroads in to housing in the New Farm-Teneriffe area.

~Ir. Walsh: That is why I cannot under­stand your support for the Bill.

Mr. RAIUSDEN: I support it because the existing legislation has not been able to stop what is going on.

Mr. Walsh: I thought you had more regard for the family man.

Mr. RAMSDEN: I shall tell hon. mem­bers a story about a family man. He was a near neighbour of mine. I shall not mention his name.

An Opposition lllember: Graham Hart?

:ilir. RAlliSDEN: No. He was not on our side of the fence, he was a strong supporter of the Australian Labour Party. In about 1942 he Lought a house for £600. One of the wool stores made him an offer for it and he stuck out for a good price. He finally got £7,:300 for it. That is the sort of thing that is happening in Merthyr.

\Ve have heard a good deal of nonsense from hon. members opposite who have painted heart-rending scenes of people being evic­ted. Existing tenants will be fully protected. Where will all the people who are to be evicted come from~

-;:\Ir. Power: What you say is not right. Under the Bill the landlord can increase the rent Ly 20 per cent. without going to the court.

-;:\Ir. RA",}ISDEN: I must correct the hon. member for Baroona. This must be one of his off nights as hB does not seem to be able to understand anything. Under the amending legislation the rent wil~ go up in proportion to the increase in valuation to the 1947 level, but the '' recoYery of posse:;sion'' proyisions of the Act will not be altered.

I\Ir. Hanlon: Can you tell us why they protect one tenant and not the other 1

3Ir. RAI\ISDEN: We are not giving the private landlord any right that the State as a landlord does not itself already hold. Before I came to the House I worked with a relief organisation for ex-servicemen and for the past :;even years I have been arguing with the Queensland Housing Commission to stop evicting ex-serYicemen from fiats and houses when they were in arrears with rent. On a number of occasions ·when a tenant received a notice to appear in court I was told that under the Summary Ejectment Act the Queensland Housing Commission had no need to go to the court, but, in fairness to the tenant, it adopted the same procedure as the ordinary landlord and went to court. Once I had the temerity to suggest to a tenant that he fight the action for eviction and the Com­mission officers said, ''Don't be so silly. Don't let him waste his money. He isn't in the hunt. He can't possibly fight us in court.'' I put that to some legal gentlemen -not the legal gentlemen in the Chamber­and I learned that it was perfectly true. \'Vhen the State gave notice to quit and went to court for an eviction the tenant was just wasting his money if he did anything else than put in an appearance and say, '.'Yes, guilty, my lord. I will get out.'' In sp1te of the interjection by the hon. mem~er for Port Curtis, we did not hear any wa1ls from the members of the Opposition when they were the Government about the summary ejectment of their own tenants in Housing Commission homes.

Only last 'veek, in company wi~h other hon. members, I inspected the Housmg Com­mission work at Inala and I saw what a

Landlord arrl '-'"enant Acts [3 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1529

mighty show it was. One lady graciously admitted us to her home and showed us rount1. I lost my way and was the last to leave so I said to her, ''If you do not mind, what rent do you pay?" She said, "I don't mind telling you at all. We are paying £4 5s. a week.'' I said, ''Are you happy with it?'' ''Oh, very happy,'' she said. ''That is a most reasonable rent for a house like this.'' There was n woman in a State Homing Commission home quite happy to pay £4 5s. a week for rent. You were with me at the time she made the comment, Mr. Speaker. Why should we deny others the right to pay a similar rental to a private landlord to get a house they can call their OYV11?

Jir. :iiann: Do you think that was a fair rent-£4 a week1

:Er. HAJJ:§DEN: It is not what I think; it 1·.· wkt oho thinks. She is quite happy \Yith it.

:iir. lrnnlon: '\Vhat do you think she 1\'0Ulil pay a private landlord for a compar­abL' housd

]fr. RA3ISDEN: About the same.

}fr. Jfann: Private lAndlords do not pro­{1uc·· comparable houses.

Jir. UA::'rl§DEN: There are no compar­·a bl~ hcUS?S.

The hon. member for Bulimba by interjec­tion nfeked when the Government expected to dean up the housing shortage. Just to put it on 1 ecord I assure him now, as I did by way of interjection at the time, that we hope to have it cleaned up long before hon. members opposite are back on the Treasury benches.

Iitr • .Hanlon: You have got only three years to go.

3fr. RAJUSDEN: I would not say that.

1Ir. Power: You are only there by a fiukl' you know, on a minority yote.

3Ir. RA?iiSDEN: I am sorry you would rule me out of order, :M:r. Speaker, if I started to discuss the election results in this -debate.

Jir. SPEAifER: Order!

Jir. RAMSDEN: But may I through you .ask the hon. member to have a look at the perc·rntage votes of each hon. member~ He might be surprised.

A Government IIIember: Including Baroona.

}'fr. RA~ISDEN: Including Baroona. I cannot repeat this often enough because

it takes a lot to get it into the heads of hon. members opposite: the whole purpose Df the Bill is to create the position where landlords will release more houses for letting. I think the hon. member for Bundaberg asked how the Bill was going to make any

more llomcs a\·ailablc. I repeat what I said in Committee on the initiation of the Bill. If I am looking for a home at the present time the only place I can logically go to ask for accommodation is the Queensland Hous­ing Commission be, a use virtually there is no other body in the State with houses to let. So I go to thP Queensland Housing Commission only to be told, ''Leave your app!iPntion on the table. In a month's time we shall have a look at it. That makes you 7R5th on the list for this month.'' The position unc1~r the amPm1ing legislation is that 1\'C hope--and know because of the tcle­g-rnm I rc,F1 to the House a few moments ago ...

Jl[r. Nicholson: What does it say? I missed it.

]fr. RAliiSDEN: "Congratulations on rcn t Bill, first relief years. Now >Ye can invrst, give people homes.''

An 0IJposition 1\Iemher: Signed "Mickey Jliiousc. ''

llir. RA~ISDEN: I am not going to put electors' names on record. I am quite pre­pared to show that telegram to any hon. member. The Bill is going to do what that telegram says. Take the case of an elderly widower living on his own. In the past he has not been game to let his house in ease he got a bad tenant and he could not do anything about it. Now he will be quite preparer1 to live 1\ith one of his in-laws or sons and let his house for a reasonable return. That means one less house the Housing Commission will be asked to make available.

Mr. J1Iann: A very weak story.

1Lr. RA.LUSDEN: It is not weak. If the hon. nLmber for Brisbane adds it up he will see th:<t what I am saying is perfcctl;r: true. It me;ms one more house available for rent­ing >Yhich, in tum, means that the Housing Commission will be relieved of the cost of p1·oviding one more house. Again in turn it \Yill menu more money uyailable to the Commission. ·

That briiJgs me to the horrible position we hear that the 2\'JenzieR-Fadden Government have put us in. I belieYe that had tlie Queensland Government been prepared to assure the Federal Liberal-Country Party Government that they \Yere agreeable to give away State landlord-ism and gh·e people the right of homc-0\mcrship they would have got a far better deal. They tried to say "We are going to Soyietise housing and make this the greate~t landlord State in Australia" and then expected the Federal Government to give them more money to do it.

~Ir. Gajr: They refused applications to sell the homes.

~Ir. Power interjected.

::lir. RAiUSDEN: That is quite incorrect. That was right n t one stage. It is true that

1530 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Hill.

the Commonwealth Government used to advance money to the State and then say, ''You can pay it back over 30, or 40 years,'' whatever the agreement was, ''but if you sell a house you have to pay the lump sum for the value of that house.'' I understand the amending legislation gives the State the right to pay it back in instalments. Hon. members opposite are engaging in political propaganda.

I\Ir. Davies: Do you think Menzies has succeeded in putting value back in the £1.

3Ir. RAIIISDEN: I have not heard rsuch an irrelevant and absurd interjection since I have been here. As the hon. member for Bundaberg said, in my area there is a host of flat dwellings. There are many people there now who are paying £3, £4 and £5 a week for one room, the use of the kitchen and share a bathroom. This legislation will make houses available for them and enable them to get out of the clingy rooms they now occupy.

1Ur. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (8.52 p.m.): I do not know whether the Minister is for­tunate or otherwise in having so many quali­fiel1 legal advisers. I failed to follow the arguments put forward by them. It was said that the Bill would make available more homes and then we were told that the rents would not be excessive. The hon. member for Merthyr told us he met a woman who ·was happy to pay £4 5s. a week. That may be true. The advertisements in this morn­ing's "Courier-Mail" show clearly that these homes which are available for letting cannot be classed as workers' homes. Dur­ing the initiation I prophesied that the hon1es that became available would be too costly for the worker. The following appeared in this morning's ''Courier­Mail":-

4-bedroom home at Ashgrove 3-bedroom home at St. Lucia

for three months Half-house at Dutton Park 3-bedroom house at Ashgrove 2-bedroom house at Highgate

Hill 2-be(lroom house at West End Half -a -house

£ s. d. 9 10 0

12 12 0 5 0 0

10 10 0

10 10 0 8 15 0 7 0 0

.Jir. Herbert: Those would be furnished.

}[r, HOUSTON: No, unfurnished. Are they workers' homes~ Are they homes that will relieve the shortage~ I think every hon. member will agree that the housing shortage is suffered by the workers on small incomes. We get inquiries every day from people looking for accommodation. I believe it is everyone's right and privilege to own his own home, but the Government, as the representatives of the people, should provide a~commodation for those who cannot afford to purchase a home. Those who have not a deposit for a housP should be provided with a home at a fair rental. I believe the

Bill is the first step in the total decontrol of rents. Is it not logical to assume that further pressure will be brought to bear'/ Take the position of two homes similar in type, one not subject to rent control ancl for· which the owner is getting 10 guineas a "·cek, and the other subject to rent control and for which the owner is getting £4 a week. Will not the latter person ask the Govern­ment to do something to correct the posi­tion? I predict that before long the Minis­ter will ask hon. members to agree to a Bill to rectify that position. I suggest that will be an argument used in favour of the intro­duction of a Bill. I agree that that is an unfair position, but it will be created by the Bill. Apart from any other provision, I woulcl oppose the Bill on that ground alone.

Many reasons for the housing shortage have been given. Under the previous Govern­ment hon. members must admit that no building workers were unemployed.

::Ur. Hooper: Did you read the paiJ'er this morning~

JJr. HOUSTON: That was the position until a few months ago.

I\Ir. Hooper: Many of them are now advertising for work.

llir. HOUSTON: There were no building workers out of work until 12 months ago, so that more homes could not be built. One of the reasons why more homes were not built was that insurance companies and other branches of private enterprise were erecting magnificent buildings, thus tying up finance and the available building workers.

llir. Dewar: They were putting them up in three months, not anything like the time taken to erect that building near the> Canberra.

llir. HOUSTON: Taking into account all the difficulties, I believe the previous Govern­ment did a good job. It ill becomes Govern­ment members, particularly back b<mehers, to devote their complete time to criticism of the previous Government. They would be doing a better job if they told us how this legislation would improve the housing position.

The Minister mentioned homes built by private builders for snle. He asked why they werp not offered for letting. It is obvious that a builder must recoup his out­lay so that he eau build another home and sell it for a profit. If he reutec1 a house, all that capital would be tied up and he would not be able to build any further homes. If he could make a better profit by letting homes, he would let them.

)fr. Dewar: How many builders do you lmmy who build homes for rental purposes~

lUr. HOUSTON: None, because it is not profitable.

)fr. Dewar: And the position has never been different.

Landlord and Tenant Acts [3 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1531

lUr. HOUSTON: Builders make a better profit by selling new homes.

JU:r. Dewar: You are on the wrong track. Builders have never built homes for renting purposes.

Jir. HOUSTON: And they will not do so after the passage of this BilL It will not mean one additional home being available for letting. The only way to overcome the housing shortage is to builcl more new homes. It does not follow that the aggregate number of homes is greater if more homes are available for letting purposes. What happened after 1 December~ Advertisements appeared in "The Courier-Mail", "Wanted, cheap homes.'' Those advertisements were inserted by speculators for homes of £1,500 or £1,600. They will not pay more for homPs, as they know they cannot get more rent. The fact that more homes are avail­able for renting does not mean that more accommodation is available. Those homes are occupied by tenants rather than pur­chasers, and the tenants will have to pay higher rents than normal payments. The main difficulty of potential home owners is lack of finance. Even prior to 1 December many homes were for sale. They cannot buy these houses because they cannot get the money. That is the answer to the question. If the finance is available homes will be built. It is no good the Government saying otherwise, because it is the policy of the Federal Government to refuse to make money available to the State.

lUr. DA VIES (Maryborough) (9.1 p.m.) : The arguments against the Bill have been put forward logical!~- and calmly by mem­bers of the Opposition and I do not think there is any necessity for me to add to those already advanced. Had it not been for the statements made bv the hon. members for Windsor and Mt. Gravatt I would not have spoken. During their speeches certain thoughts came to my mind. I am surprised that the Government should have brought down Bills this session which cl~arly open the way to the exploiter to upset the living standards of the people built up by Labour Governments. I cannot remember anv Country Party member having spoken ;, word on this Bill. According to the grape­vine, the Country Party look with strong disfavour upon this measure and consider it ill-advised, one that is likely to bring dis­credit on the Government in the eyes of the people. I can place no other interpretation on the failure of Country Party members to speak on the Bill. Thev either remain out­side the House while ti1e debate is on or remain silent in their places. I challenge memb~rs of the Country Party to speak on the B1ll,

I\Ir. Roberts: Your challenge does not mean a thing. It is like a boy holding out a lolly.

I\Ir. DA VIES: The empty vapourings of the hon. member for Whitsunday confirm my thought that there is a division in the Government Party on this Bill, or that some concession is being paid by the Country Party to get support for the Land Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill.

I\Ir. ROBERTS: I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. member right in saying that some price was being paid~ That is definitely a reflection on members of the Country Party and I ask that his statement be withdrawn.

I\Ir. SPEAKER: Order! I think the hon. member is expressing an opinion.

I\Ir. Roberts: It is a pretty rotten opinion.

Mr. DA VIES: I hope members of the Country Party will speak on the Bill or that they will cross the floor and, vote against it. They claim to have independence of thought. They say that they are not bound by Caucus decisions and will not vote against their conscience. Then they should support the Bill or cross the floor and vote against it. The hon. member for Windsor endeavoured to excuse the legislation by saying that it was for the minority, ''only the small minority,'' he emphasised, in the same way as the Minister for Lands emphasised that only a small number of landholders would be affected by the Land Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill. Whether the num­ber is small or large, I can assure the hon. member for Windsor that the Australian Labour Party will always be interested in justice for everyone in the community, even if it is for only one person.

The Bill reeks with injuRtice because it gives the exploiter an opportunity to do to the people what the Labour Party has always protected them from. I repeat the argument of the hon. member for Ithaca and invite the Minister to reply to it. Why should landlords be divided into two groups: thoRe who will be controlled and those who will have an ''open go''~ Again, why should tenants be divided into two groups: those who will be protected to a degree and those who will be exploitecl ~

The hon. member for Mt. Gravatt spoke about socialism. He said that anv form of control is detrimental to the interests of the community. But he joined with the Govern­ment in urging control over transport; he joined also with the Minister for Agriculture and Stock in urging control over the wheat­gi·ower. ·when control suits hon. members opposite they advocate it, but when it comes to control oYer the landlord they are opposed to it.

The Government lack the courage to do what they would like to do-to abolish rent control. It is detrimental to the interests of the community to have controls lifted from some while another section will have them retained. I am sure that next year we will see the total abolition of rent control.

1532 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

When considering any legislation, the Government should examine what has hap­pened in other States that have introduced similar legislation. Repeatelly I have appealed by interjection for some informa­tion on what has happened to rents -in New South Wales and Victoria. Of course, we all know what happened in Tasmania and \Vestern Australia when rent controls were abolished. There was an immediate unfav­om·able reaction.

I refer hon. members to what was said by Sir Thomas Playford when he spoke about the necessity for controls over rents and prices generally at a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers in November, 1956. These were his remarks-

" \Ve took the most effective measures we could to ensure that the prices struc­ture in South Australia remained stable, 'o that to the best of our ability we would preserve to the industrial worker the award that had been granted to him by the court, and so that the benefits of his wages would not be frittered away by increases in the cost of living which, in many instances, could not be justified on examination. In some instances, price increases had been imposed onl;y because the economy was buoyant.''

People took economv to generally.

advantage of increase rents

the buoyant and prices

In Tasmania there was a steep increase in the basic wage following the lifting of rent controls. Has the Minister given any con­sideration to the effect that increased rents will have on Queensland's basic wage~ Surely what has happened in Western Aus­tralia and Tasmania must be some indication of what iYill happen here. At the con­ference to which I have just referred the Deputy Premier of Tasmania said-

'' For instance, about 12s. of the recent increase in the basic wage in Tasmania was attributable to the abolition of rent control. I think a similar situation exists in Western Australia, where there has been complete abolition of rent control. In that State, about 15s. or 16s. of basic-wage increases has been due to that factor.''

Let me remind hon. members opposite of what happened in Western Australia follow­ing the abolition of rent control. Mr. Hawke, the Premier of Western Australia, speaking on 30 November, 1956 at the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers at Canberra said:-

''However, when the Labour Govern­ment, in its first year of office, introduced measures for the purpose of continuing control over prices and rentals an Opposi­tion majority in the Legislative Council rejected both measures, and consequently destroyed the legislation providing for rent and prices control. I emphasise that this happening took place virtually only a

few days after the Commonwealth Court had decided not to grant a quarterly cost­of-living adjustment and the State industrial tribunal had followed suit.''

So we see quite clearly that the cessation of controls must lead to incTeased prices and increased rents and, as a natural corollary, increases in the basic wage and in general costs, sadly affecting the plans of the Govern­ment for the future.

Jlir. Windsor: Improving the standard of living.

Jlir. DA VIES: The hon. member's inter­jection is not worth answering. How increased rents can result in an improved standard of living I do not know. The hon. member for Merthyr said a while ago that my interjection was the most irrelevant he had ever heard.

lUr. Ramsden: So it was.

1Ur. DA VIES: Evidently he has so little understanding of Commonwealth-State finance relationships that he could not follow the sequence. I asked him if he believed the Prime Minister of Australia had kept his pr'omise to the people to stabilise the economy and restore value to the £1. Had he suc­ceeded in doing so the situation with rents and prices would have been eased and con­ditions generally would be much impToved today.

I do not wish to prolong the debate but I say in answer to the hon. member who produced one solitary telegram that we have hacl an avalanche of verbal protests in our electorates over the week-end, including some from prominent members of the Country l'arty asking why the Liberal Party is per­mitted to lead the Country Party by the nose and suggesting that the total vote in their favour at the next election will be reduced to a figure which will mean that they will be removed from the Treasury benches of the State.

I again point out the unfairness of the Bill. If the owner of a house keeps his house closed for three years and refuses to relieve the housing shortage, what is his reward W He can charge any rent he likes. Vve know what will happen. The man who has been renting a house four or five years is being kept under rent control. The Bili is full of inconsistencies and it lacks courage. The Government are not in favour o£ controls in general and bv gradually white-anting the security that the workers have enjoyed over a number of years they hope to achieve their objective. It is regretable that Opposi­tion members do not get the headlines that the Government get but if we can place the facts before the people they will awaken to the realisation that so many of them made a serious mistake when they voted the Government into power.

Landlord and Tenant Acts [3 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1533

I support the arguments advanced by other members of the Opposition and I express my appreciation of the soundness of the case presented by my leader. The Bill may be summed. up as a ''Sign up, pay up· or get out'' Bill.

In Maryborough we are proud of the excel­lent workmanship in our State homes. When families got behind in rent and the Govern­ment had to pull them into gear, they were not put o_ut on the street. They were given legal notice that they were behind and if necessary would have to appear before the court. In all the cases I have handled I do not know of one eviction. In every case in some way or other they have been able to pa:J: sufficient each week to catch up with theu back payments and remain in possession.

The ruthless clauses of the Bill will not afford tenants any protection from unscru­pulous landlords. The timing of the Bill is bad. If the Government were sincere in their belief that this legislation would help !o solve the housing problem why introduce It now when houses are so short~ When no othe~ roof is offering a man will be prepared to sign any sort of agreement to get into a house. All along the Bill is loaded in favour of the landlord. If somebodv else offers a few pounds more for a week's rent what will_ happen? The Bill is full of injustices. It IS not in the interests of the people of the State. Because of the clear division in the ranks of the Government I ask the Minister to withdraw it even at this late hour. The Government know that unemplov­ment ~s 3; serious problem at present and they lmYc md1catecl that they are not prepared to face . up to it. In answer to the many questions put to them about how many unem­ployec~ the_r~ are in the State they say, "Make your mqmnes of the Federal Government.'' A Government conscious of their responsi­bilities have all the&e facts at their fingertips. They handed the Statistician's Department over to the Commonwealth Government. I ngret the Bill, which is indeed a blot on the record of the new Government.

Hon. A. W. lUUNRO {Toowong-Minister for Justice) (9.17 p.m.), in reply: The hon. member for Maryborough ended with all sorts of challenges to the Government. He wanted to know why we did not have more speakers at this hour. As the Bill hn,s already been discussed at length for hours there is a very simple answer to the hon. member's question. We do not bring on our big guns unless there is something worth shooting. About ten clays ago when I wn,s replying to the debate on [\llOther Bill I complimented the Opposition on the effec­tive way in which they had stated their case. While listening to it I was almost convinced that they were right. Indeed, I thought it necessary to bring forward new material to demonstrate that their arguments were not right. But on this occasion the debate has been different. It has had some bearing on

the fact that some of our senior members have not spoken nor would I consider it n_ecessary for them to speak. The Opposi­tion have not even made a prima facie case. The Leader of the Opposition started off with a great fanfare of trumpets when he referred to political and human folly. However throughout his remarks and the remarks of succeeding speakers on the Opposition benches I failed to see any great evidence of political and human justice. Those are the things with which we are fundamentallv concerned in the Bill. The Leader of th~ Opposition went on to say that the Bill has be~n. condemned before the bar of publie opmwn. But there has been very little said to support that, and no evidence has been produced. As a matter of fact, I made it my business to sound out public opinion on the Bill. I regard public opinion as being the remarks heard on the buses, the trams and the trains. It is the typical comment f~·o.m the man in the street-not from poli­ticians. The comment was along these lines "If it helps in any way to solve the housing problem it will be well worth while." "It is a fair compromise between two conflicting viewpoints.'' The third comment was a typical one-" It is time the poor old landlord was given a fairer go.'' Those are typical of com­ments from the man in the street. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say that not only is the housing position worse than it was three years ago, but that it is worse than it was four months ago. I am prepared to accept that. We have no statisti­cal infonnation up to date, but if that is so it is all the more reason for the Bill, because the position in this State has drifted to such an extent that it is completely hopeless unless we apply new ideas and new ways of doing something about it. That is the main reason for the Bill. There is a need for some­thing to be done and we are doing something constructive about it. Although I sat here from the middle of the afternoon and lis­tened most carefully to everything said by members on the other side I say this-and if anv hon. member wishes to correct me let hh~ do so-that I did not hear a single con­structive suggestion as to how we could over­come the housing shortage, and how we could deal with the matter in a better way than we have dealt with it in this Bill. •

I\Ir. Davies: Leave the rent control as it was and tackle it through the Housing Commission.

JUr. JUUNRO: There is one suggestion­leave it alone; leave it in the position it has been for the last 15 years. We know from the statistics that during the last three years it has not been getting better, but worse. Yet that is put forward as a con­structive suggestion. The most rational speech from the Opposition was the contri­bution by the hon. member for Bundaberg. I am sorry the hon. member is not present now. He discussed the question rather logic­ally, and questioned whether this legislation

1534 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

would have the desired effect in encouraging new building. I concede that in dealing with a matter of this kind, where the endeavour is to encourage a certain course of action on the part of a large number of persons, there must be a certain amount of doubt as to what degree of success will be achieved. I concede that, but I emphasise that the housing shortage cannot be solved in any other way. I do not suggest that the pre­vious Government did not try to solve it. I know they did, but their effort to overcome it by building homes was nullified by the oppressive Landlord and Tenant Act, which completely dried up the building of homes by private enterprise.

Mr. Mann: You are an accountant. Tell me how much return should be received on the capital value of a home 20 years old~

~Ir. lliUNRO: If that question was relevant, I woulrl answer it, but as it is not I shall not do so.

Past experience in spheres other than hous­ing has proved that we cannot prosper if we have black markets, key money, something akin to rationing and so on. I ask hon. members to throw their minds back to the dreadful davs before the Menzies Govennnent were returned to office when black marketing and rationing were well known.

)Ir. Hanlon: Did you not hear about the war? It was mentioned in all the papers.

I\Ir. lliUNRO: Yes, but the Menzies Government later overcame that bad state of affairs. The war concluded more than 10 years ago yet the housing position in Queens­land is getting worse. That has not been denied by any hon. members. Something must be done to improve it.

The hon. member for Bundaberg made a further point that might almost be taken as convincing. He said that in New South Wales three years ago action similar to the action we are now taking was taken in that State and that the housing problem was not over­come. He said in effect that if the Labour Government in New South Wales could not solve the housing problem in that State then the Country-Liberal Government in Queens­land cannot solve it here. Hon. members will detect the flaw in that logic. It does not follow that we will fail because the Labour Government in New South \Vales have failed.

1Ir. Hanlon: Can you tell us why two houses side by side should be in one case controlled and in the other case not con­trolled~

lUr. lliUNRO: Two identical houses side by side at present might be controlled at different rentals.

Mr. Hanlon: You raised an objection when the Act was introduced, but you are per­petuating the same principle.

1Ir. lliUNRO: There is differentiation between one house and another and between one landlord and another, but the Govern­ment are taking the first steps to remedy the position by getting away from it. The posi­tion is not being made worse. We are not complacently accepting that very bad state of affairs.

An hon. member referred to the figures for unoccupied houses and said that they were not correct. The figures are correct. Every such figure that I quoted was taken from the census of the Commonwealth of Australia at 30 June, 1954. If the hon. member for Baroona cares to look at this publication, I shall give it to him.

lUr. Power: This is 1957, not 1954.

::\Ir. lUUNRO: The figures were quoted as 1954 figures.

1Ir. Power: I assure you that I did not accuse you of giving wrong figures.

1Ir. MUNRO: It was also said, I think by the hon. member for Baroona, that those figures were not a fair indication of the houses that would be made available as a result of the passage of this Bill.

1Ir. Power: And they are not. Many of them are seaside homes.

3Ir. 1\iUNRO: The hon. member for Baroona said that, and I completely agree with him. I said so in clear and distinct terms when I quoted the figures.

JUr. Power: I never at any time said that you were misleading the House with wrong figures.

JUr. lliUNRO: I understand that. The point is that as the hon. member for Whitsunday pointed out, if only 5 per cent. of these houses classified as unoccupied could be brought into use that would be a material contribution towards the solution of the housing problem.

The hon. member for Kedron made some interesting remarks but based his case on the view that if the legislation did make more houses available it would mean that they would be houses and flats at a high rental. It is true that they would be houses and flats at a higher rental than the rental artificially based on the 1942 values. Responsible members of the Opposi­tion, with hon. members on this side, stated that many houses offered for letting at the present time do not bring rentals as high as what one may describe as formula-con­trolled rentals on the basis of present-day values. That is because costs have become so excessively high. \Vhilst some hon. mem­bers opposite may work themselves into a fury about the higher rentals the more thoughtful members must realise that our costs are so high in relation to the capacity of the people to pay rentals that you get just as effective control of rentals by the economic forces of supply and

Landlord and Tenant Acts [3 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1535

demand as you would i:f you applied the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act on present-day costs. If the argument is applied to new construction that the appli­cation of the new law must mean higher rentals, it is unsound. Actually the main purpose of the legislation is to bring more houses and more flats onto the market and if we succeed to any extent at all anybody with the slightest knowledge of economics must know that it must in effect bring down the current value of economic rentals. I am not referring to the February, 1942, basis of rentals which is completely absurd.

I did not hear any constructive sug­gestion from the Opposition. Another point made by hon. members opposite was that properties have been allowed to fall into disrepair. That is very true. In going around Brisbane and looking at some of the poorer suburbs, one can almost distinguish the rental property from the property occupied by the owner because so many of the rental properties are in a bad state of repair. Broadly speaking, they are not so well looked after as houses occupied by owners. Is not that a condemnation of the system in operation for the last five or ten years~

.iUr. Power: It is a condemnation of the gree~~- landlord who is getting money for repairs and is not spending it.

JUr. JUUNRO: It is to some extent a condemnation of these greedy landlords, as the hon. member for Baroona refers to them, but the present state of affairs has been produced by the legislation and administration of Labour Governments. If we have greedy and unscrupulous landlords, it is not a condemna­tion of the Bill but of the legislation and administration of the past five or 10 years. The hon. member for Baroona brings in the catch-cry that we have heard so often. He refers to the greedy landlord. It is very . easy to use epithets of that kind. There have been frequent references during the debate to the unscrupulous landlord.

llir. Power: There have been numerous prosecutions to support my statement.

lllr. lliUNRO: There may be some unscrupulous landlords, but what about un­scrupulous tenants~

Mr. Power: I have had no experience of any of them.

Mr. MUNRO: Let us be factual and 1·ealistic. I should say that there are some unscrupulous landlords, and I say with equal truth that there are some unscrupulous tenants.

Mr. Wood: And you would not defend either~

lllr. MUNRO: No, but I shall examine the effect of the existing legislation and its administration. Some landlords and some tenants have become unscrupulous because

they have become completely fed up with the impTacticaiJility of the requirements. The only real solution of the problem is to supply a pool of houses so that if a landlord and a tenant cannot get on together, they can agree to part company. 'I.' he tenant can say to the landlord, "I will leave your house and get another one.'' The existing legislation has had the effect of tying two cats together by their tails. I have had dozens of letters from landlords some of whom have reached the stage of completely hating their tenants, and letters from tenants 1vho completely hate their landlords. That is what the prPsent repressive legislation has giyeu rise to. Is that good~ Is that something of which members of the previous Goyernment feel proud~

}lr. Power: There is provision in the existing legislation for a landlord to get rid of an unscrupulous tenant.

lUr. lUUNRO: There is very little pro­nswn. The principle of the existing legis­lation that depends almost completely on tying a tenant to a landlord is bad.

lllr. Power: You have to legislate for the majority, not for the minority.

lllr. lliUNRO: I agree that we must legis­late for the majority. That is why I say that you can never solve the housing short­age by tying a tenant to a landlord. Let us get back to a decent, healthy state of nffairs where that ,,-m not be so.

From my experience the most unscrupu­lous landlords are tenants. In case my meaning is not clear, I should say that prob­ably the most unscrupulou~ among those who let premises are people who rent them from somebody else and sub-let the accommoda­tion.

lllr. Power: I do not agree with that.

Mr. "iliUNRO: I think it is probably so. By and large, people who rent premises and sub-let them are likely to be much tighter in their relations with tenants than other landlords.

The hon. member for Baroona, who has had a great deal of experience in these matters as the former Minister controlling the legisl:ltion, asked, ''Why the undue haste~'' The war has been over for 10 years or more and the position in Queensland has been deteriorating for three years. "G p to the present nothing has been done. There has been no plan. Yet he asks, "Why the undue haste~"

Mr. Power: I repeat it. And if nothing has been done the reason has been that the same political party to which you subscribe in the Commonwealth Government h~s starved the State for money.

lllr. MUNRO: In reply to the hon. mem­ber's question about undue haste let me say that I have been anxious to make a start not only because, with the economic trends

1536 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

in the State, we are three years behind the times but also because we are three years behind almost every other State in the Commonwealth.

Hon. members opposite have made a great &tory out of the Bill \vith their inflammatory speeches which, if believed, could do an immense amount of harm. Thev could inflame public opinion against the" Govern­ment of the day, and they are based on f:tlse premises. The Bill has been painted as though it were most revolutionary, radical and harmful. We have been a little original in some respects but in principle we have clone the same as the other States did three or four years ago.

l'llr. Power: It is not true.

l'\Ir. MUNRO: Yes, it is.

lllr. Power: 1939 values in Victoria, 1940 in New South \Vales, 1942 in Queensland.

ltir. JUUNRO: The two main principles of the Bill provide for some relaxation of the old basic values and the .a:emoval of new lettings, new leases, or new buildings, from rental control. We have been attacked most strongly because, to encourage the building of new houses and the letting of existing houses and fiats, we have saicl that the recovery of possession provisions will not apply to premises let for the first time after 1 December, 1957. While we have not fol­lowed the exact wording, in principle we have merely followed the example of South Australia in 1953, Tasmania in 1954, Vic­toria in 1954, and Xew South Wales in 1954.

Mr. Power: What about Victoria?

Mr. M:UNRO: Very much the same. The former Minister is very ready to make denials. I do not like taking up time but as he denies the correctness of what I say let me read to him from their Act. The Victorian provision dealt with the matter in a slightly different way. They brought it into the definition of prescribed premises. Under their Landlord and Tenant Act ''prescribed premises'' means ''any premises other than" and then a fairly long list is set out. I will read only the parts that are relevant because of the similaritY. It said- ·

'' (c) premises which were or are erected, or the erection of which was or is corn­pleted, after the first clay of February One thousand nine hundred and fifty-four;

(d) premises which were not let to a lessee at any time between the thirty-first clay of December One thousand nine hun­dred and forty and the first clay of February One thousand nine hundred and fifty-four.''

Mr. Power interjected.

JUr. lUUNRO: They may perhaps have increased rentals on a basis that was not dissimilar. I have clearly proved that the point made by the hon. member for Baroona is not right. I see he is changing his ground somewhat. That action has been taken in four of the other five States. And the failure to take similar action here by Labour Gov­ernments is, in my view, very much in line with their policy in other respects. For instance, they discouraged individual enterprise, they failed to attract new indus­tries and did not encourage the extension of existing industries, so that Queensland, despite its wonderful potential at the pres­ent time, is just about the most backward State in Australia. That is what we are endeavouring to correct. As I mentioned previously, what has made the revision of the law a matter of urgency is not so much the assessment of rentals on houses built prior to 1948, but the necessity of getting away from the undesirable position in which one tenant is tied to one landlord. It is artifi­cial it creates such unfriendliness, personal bitterness and unkindness between one person and another.

JUr. Jesson: You are going to legislate to do away with these human elements~

Mr. lllUNRO: We are going to greatly improve the relationship. Do not think that we suggest we are going to solve the problem in a week or a month. The problems left to us will not take weeks or months to solve, but years. At least we are making a start by dealing with it on sound principles and we are entitled to expect reasonable co-opera­tion from the Opposition. All I ask is that they do not misrepresent the facts. That is a fair enough request. Hon. members opposite are quite justified in offering criticism. There will be differences of opinion about how the Bill will work out, but do not misrepresent the legislation.

The test of good goyernment is the capacity to make good laws for the welfare of the people as a whole. That is our objective and the objective of this legislation. I give my opinion for what it is worth. I believe that in the course of years the Bill will succeed in its objective. It is not claimed that it will completely achieve its objective. It is only a part of a general plan, and other parts of the general plan will be implement­eel during the course of our term of office. Finally, I do ask hon. members, _as I ;tsk the public, to consider this legislatwn fair~Y and impartially, keeping in mind the ba.slc objective. If they do, I_ am sure that _w1th the co-operation of all mterested parties­the investor the landlord and the tenant­we will p~ogress towards solving what during the past 10 years has been one of the State's most difficult problems-the housing shortage.

Landlord and Tenant Acts [3 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1537"

Question-That the Bill be now read a second time (Mr. Munro 's motion)-put; and the House divided-

Mr. Ahearn Beardmore

AYEs, 30.

.. B.ielke-Petersen

Mr. Munro Nicholson Nicklin

Chalk De war Evans Harrison Hart Heading Herbert Hewitt Hiley Hodges Knox ~Iadsen M tiller

Mr. Adair Baxter Byrne Clark Davies Diplock Donald Foley Gair

, Gardner Graham Gunn Hi! ton Houston

AYES.

Mr. Gaven ,, Low

Gilmore Lonergan Anderson

., Rae Ramsden Richter Roberts Smith, P. R.

.. Taylor Tooth Watson Windsor

Tellers: Mr. Jones. V. E.

Hooper

NOES, 26.

PAIRS.

Mr. Jesson Keyatta Lloyd M ann

.. Marsden Power Thackeray

, Wallace Walsh Wood

Tellers: Mr. Burrows

Hanlon

]\J"OES.

Mr. McCathie Smith, A. J.

, Dufficy Davis Jones, A.

Resolved in the affirmative.

COMMITTEE.

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

Clause 1-Short Title-

ltir. WOOD (North Toowoomba-Leader of the Opposition) (9.57 p.m.): The Opposi­tion take particular exception to this clause, as it introduces a principle that could easily be accepted as the basis of the Government's rent policy. It will probably set the pattern to be followed in the other steps of which the Minister has spoken.

Hon. members of the Opposition in no way set out to misrepresent the position. In discharging our duties as representatives of a very large section of the community, we believe that we should state the position as we see it~ Neither the Minister nor any other hon. member can dictate the terms in which hon. members may state their case. If we believe that a Bill is right, we will say so; if we believe it is wrong, we will say so, giving our reasons and without any misrepresentation whatever. The cavalier attitude of the Minister to the contributions of Opposition members indicates that tenants can expect very little sympathy. The Govern­ment's attitude to tenants is epitomised in this clause of the Bill.

Tlte CHAIRMAN: I trust that the hon. member will connect his remarks with the title of the Bill. Clause 1 deals only with t]Ie title of the BilL

ltir. WOOD: I am sorry. My remarks. are a little premature.

Hon A. w. ltiUNRO (Toowong-Minister for J~stice) (10 p.m.): I have a. written note on this clause, ''Clause 1-Title--No comment.''

Clause J, as read, agreed to . Clause 2-N ew s. 4A inserted; Certain

premises excluded from operation of the Act-

Mr. WOOD (North Toowoomba-~ader of the Opposition) (10.1 p.m.): The remarks I made in error on Clause 1 apply to this clause. I repeat that the attitude of the Minister in dealing with the Opposition's presentation of their . case . wa.s .rather cavalier and does not giVe an mdrcatwn of sympathy for the tenant. We think that the landlord generally can ~ook aft.e~ himself pretty effectively. He is m a positiOn where he has advantages and assistance from various sources and I do not think he needs a clause such as this to protect him. As an indication that this Bill has led to harsh steps being taken I quote the ease of an ex-service man living at Caboolture. He was previously paying 21s. a week but he has been notified by letter that from 7 Decembe1· his rent is to be increased to 32s. 6d. a week an increase alread:· of 54.7 per cent. befo;e the Bill is law. The Bill in general and this clause in particular will le~d to such steep rises in the rents to be paid that I am sure the complacent attitude of the Minister's towards the Opposition's presen­tation of their case will be shaken. We think the clause is a particularly unneces­sary one. \\re see no virtue in it and we oppose it entirely.

Hon. A. W. MUNRO (Toowong-Minister for Justice) (10.2 p.m.).: ?'his clause co~­tains one of the main prmciples of the Bill that we have been discussing for several hours. It is absolutely essential for the operation of the objects of the Bill.

lUr. LLOYD (Kedron) (10.3 p.m.) : The Minister has said that this clause IS very essential. It is the whole crux of the Bill anrl it is the one on which he should con­cent-rate in replying to the I,eader of the Opposition. It will create a position \~here new homes will be offered at exorbitant rentals. It will not help the wage-earner to rent a home which I think the Minister recognises is one of the great essentials at present. \Ve must try by every means at our disposal to create new homes for rental purposes if the State cannot erect the houses. We cannot expect any more homes for people who require them at a reasonable rent::~l. The only thing that will happen is that there will be more homes for rental at an exorbitant rate. The people who can afford only moderate rentals will be thrown out to make wav for those who can afford to pay high rentals.

Hon. A. w. ltiUNRO (Toowong-Minister for Justice) (10.4 p.m.): The Deputy Lea~er of the Opposition did not hear what I said.

1538 Landlord and ~'J'enant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

I indicated that this clause contained the most important principle in the Bill. In fact it is the main part of the Bill that we have be_en discussing for several hours.

~Ir. Lloyd: It is the beginning of the ~nd.

lUr. MUNRO: It is the main principle of the Bill. We have been discussing it for some hours, and it would involve needless repetition if we were to go over all the arguments for and against it. However, seeing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposi­tion is so persistent, I should like to make the point a little clearer. As I said during the introductory stage and again during the second-reading stage, we must do something a bout the housing shortage.

~Ir. Jesson: It has nothing to do with the housing shortage. It is only an excuse, and you know it.

ltlr. lUUNRO: It has everything to do with the housing shortage. Efforts to solve it by State building, State ownership, and State landlordism have failed. Therefore, we must do something to encourage private enterprise to do its part. vVe cannot expect private enterprise to do its part if we retain restrictive provisions that create a state of nffairs under which nobodv would dream of building houses for rent.al. In addition, people with houses that could conveniently be converted into flats are not converting them. There are many large houses here that are not fully occupied; in some case;; a large house is occupied only by a ''"idow, ''"hereas its best economic use wouhl be to convert it into flats. That is why I said previously that the inclusion of the clause is essential to what we regard as the main objective of the Bill.

Jllr. Lloyd: It will inflate the selling price of old homes.

lUr. JliUNRO: It may increase the selling price of old homes, but in most cases it will tend to restore them to something like their true economic value. That is not inflating values; it is merely restoring the economics of housing to a better balance.

lUr. Lloyd: You did not understand my meaning. If an owner is selling a house, there will be very keen competition from prospective landlords against people who want to buy it for their own use.

lUr. JliUNRO: That could not give any home a market selling value in excess of its economic value.

}Ir. Lloycl: A landlord could charge any rcnt:>l he liked.

j)fr. ~IUNRO: He could not. We have gone through that before.

)Ir. L'loyd: He would be a new owner.

:iUr. JIUNRO: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is implying that the landlord will not be controlled by the provisions of this

clause, but that does not mean that he can charge any rental.

Jllr. Haulon: He can charge whatever he can get.

lUr. JUUNRO: It has already been affirmed on both sides of the Chamber that present economic forces arc such as to keep present­clay rentals at a :figure less than the formula­controlled rental on the basis of present-day costs.

Mr. Lloy<l: There is a class of people prepared to pay anything at all for a rental home. They are the ones who will take the homes.

Jllr. JliUNRO: I do not think that is right. If it ~were so the objectives of the Bill would be greatly curtailed and at best the Bill would be only slightly successful. How­ever I think verv few would come within that category. The" great advantage of having rent controlled by economic factors rather than by one of the artificial formulas is that the control is much fairer.

lUr. Lloyd: You can only do that when the supply is there. There is no supply of homes.

Jllr. JUUNRO: But the clause applies to so few houses that its economic effect will not become important until such time as, by the other effects, we shall have gone a long way towards solving the housing shortage. The whole point is that it is part of a general plan. It is absolutely essential that it be considered ii~ conjunction with the other measures we have in mind so that it will be a contribution. There will be other contri­butions and we will get away from the artificial shortage. I did not wish to reply at length and I do not intend to. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, this is an important clause but I shall not repeat what I have already said.

Jlir. W ALSH (Bundaberg) (10.12 p.m.) : At least we have the admission from the Minister that this is the most important cl a use in the Bill.

JUr. Jlinnro: I said so when I introduced the Bill.

Jlir. W ALSH: At least the hon. gentle­man has confirmed it. Because of the type of person who will be affected by the clause. I think any Government desirous of approach­ing the matter from the humanitarian point of view should at least have given it more consideration before they brought the Bill clown. It will be conceded that the people the Government should look after-and certainly the people whom the Labour Government always sought to look after­are tho.se on fixed incomes, wage-earners and salaried employees. Those engaged in bu~iness, who accumulate profits year by year, are in a far better position to pay the increased rentals that will follow the aboli­tion of rental controls. Very few people are

Landlord and Tenant Act8 (3 DECEMBER,] Amerulment BiLl. 15311

actually on the basic wage these days, thanks to such additions as overtime and penalty 1·ates, but the man on a wage near the basic wage could not pay the rental that would be asketl for a house that cost £3,500 to £4,000 and reserve a considerable part of his wage to buy the other necessaries of life. The Minister has conceded that the clause contains the most vital principle in the Bill, that it is directed against those on fixe cl incomes.

Mr. l\Iunro: No, I made it very clear that the important objective is the economic effect on the housing situation generally. That is the purpose.

lUr. W ALSH: What would be the economic effects of it~ Is there anything to stop anyone with capital from investing it in a house today and getting the full economic rental even under the present law~

I\Ir. Power: No, there is not.

Mr. WAL.SH: No nothing whatever. Elven if it cost a person £10,000 to build a home today he has the right under the law to extract the full rental value having regard to the capital outlay. That cannot be denied.

lir. JUunro: That part is not important. The important part is that at present he never knows when he is going to get pos­session once he rents it.

lUr. W ALSH: The Minister should not Hhift his ground. The economic factor in the first place is whether he is going to get a fair return. If that was the point nothing would have prevented the Government from bring­ing .clo·wn a measure to amend the Act to provide for 12 per cent., if they so desired, but still retain controls. If 2 per cent. is insufficient to cover depreciation and main­tenance costs that a landlord could be expected to meet, the Government should have brought clown a measure to increase the percentage.

Mr. Munro: We did not want to do that.

l!Ir. WALSH: No, apparently what the Minister is doing is at the dictates of those behind him outside, and Government pressure within. I should hate to think that this is a Country Party proposal. They would sub­scribe to the principles contained in the Bill only with some qualifications, because they are not typical of men who have been reared in a country atmosphere. It would be just the same as if you were asking for the right to throw them off their farms.

The Minister knows full well that even if controls have been removed in other States it will not provide one more house in Queensland. Anybody is at liberty to invest his money today in the construction of homes and get the full rental value. If the Minister can get away from that he is making a frank admission that his Government are prepared to allow the door to be opened for the exploiter to come in and demand any rental

that he desires. The man on a limited income will not seek to pay these rentals but rather will he look for some shoddy old place to live in. He may even go back to a bond­wood hut or a tent because he will not have the money to pay these rentals.

As to the other part of the clause dealing with agreements in writing, we know that in previous years the Government had to bring down provisions that ruled all th<>se agree­ments out when parties sought to get outside of rent control. Imagine a woman with five or six children being told by her landlord, ''You have 28 clays' notice! '' She is put in the position of having to pack up her chattels and get out and look for another home. Would she not sign an agree­ment~ Of course she would. The Minister knows that any number of families at the present time have to rent houses because they cannot afford to purchase them. We of the Q.L.P. are not tied to anybody else's attitude in the suggestions we may make. We are prepared to state our attitude and vote accordingly.

Question-That Clause 2, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided.-

AYES, Mr. Beardmore

Bjelke-Petersen Chalk Dewar Evans Harrison Hart Heading Herbert Hewitt Hiley Hodges Hoop er Jones, V. E. Knox

.. Madsen

30. Mr. MUller

Munro Nicholson Nicklin

ri~. Noble Mr. Rae

Ramsden Richter

,. Roberts Smith, P. R. Tooth Windsor

Tellers: Mr. Ahearn

Watson

NOES, 25. Mr. Adair

Baxter Burrows Byrne Clark Davies Diplock Donald

, Foley Gair Gardner Graham Hanlon Hilton

AYES. Mr. Gaven

Gilmore Low Lonergan Morris Ewan

Resolved in the

PAIRS.

Mr. Houston J0sson Keyatta Lloyd Mann Mars den Po,ver Walsh Wood

Tellers: Mr. Gunn

Wallace

:fOES. Mr. McCathie

Dufficy Smith, A. Davis Jones, A.

.. Thackeray

affirmative.

J.

Clause 3-Amendment of s. 7; Meaning of terms-as read, agreed to.

Clause 4-Amendments of s. 16; Maximum rentals-

llir. WOOD (North Toowoomba-L,eader of the Opposition) (10.25 p.m.): This clause contains another major principle which the Opposition oppose, as it will

1540 L~~nilorcl end ':Tenant .. '._(·ts [ASSEMBLY.] Amnulnvnt Bill.

inevitably bring about a steep increase in rents. The landlord can now get a fair return on the capital invested in his house. It must be admitted by the Minister that the change in valuation date from 10 February, 1942, to 1 July, 1948, will have the effect of increasing rents by at least 27 per cent. I quoted the cas\\ a moment ago of an ex-service man at Caboolture whose rent was increased by 54.7 per cent. There is no way of ensuring that increases will be only 20 or 27 per cent. More scope is given to landlords to impose their will on tenants. \V e oppose the claupe for the many and varied reasons that have already been given.

3Ir. POWER (Baroona) (10.27 p.m.): From time to time, Government members, when in Opposition, spoke of interference with the courts. This clause reads-

'' The court shall, in fixing tlw fair rent of any dwelling-house, pursuant to this section, disregard the effect on the capital value of that dwelling-house, of the National Security (Economic Organisa­tion) Regulations of the Commonwealth or Part V-Land Sales, of 'The Profiteer­ing Prevention Act of 1948 '.''

Over the years Government members were critical of the previous Government. They complained about interference with the rightc, of courts and the duties of magis­trates, but under this Bill the Gc ernment are telling magistrates what they hall dis­regard, that they shall not take in: o account a bDsis that h"-s been conside:-ecl for a number of years.

The need to consider these factors was recognised by the Commonwealth Govern­ment when they administered the laws relat­ing to rent control. The Commonwealth GovernmeHt t1eciclc<1 that the value of pre>nises for rent calculations should be as at n cei·tain date. That section of the National Security Regulations was intro­clucrc1 for very good reasons, in the interests of the State and tenants. No longer can GoYcrnn1Pnt ll1_enl1)ers accuse n1e or nny other member of the Opposition of interfering with courts or directing that they bhall rlisrcgarcl certain things to which they have h~d regard for many yem·s.

An important principle is involved. The cbuse will make for steep increases in rent. After an increase of 20 per cent. has been imposed, the landlord may apply to the court for n fmther increase based on the 1948 valuation. Hon. members of the Q.J~.P. oppose the clause.

Hon. A. W. JUUNRO (Toowong-Minister for Justice) ( 10.29 p.m.) : I am at a loss to understand some of the statements of the hon. member for Baroona. They would appear to have greater application to Clause 5 than to Clause 4. Clause 4 substitutes the valuation date of 1 July, 1948, for the previous basic valuation elate of 10 Feb­ru::ry, 19·12. I cannof see that it amounts to a. direction to a court.

Mr. Power: The clause provides that the court shall in fixing the fair rent do so­and-so. That is a direction to the court.

The CHAIRMAN: O·rcler!

Mr. 'fiiUNRO: To make the matter clear I refer to the principal Act and Section 16, sub-section 3, which says-

'' Where consent has been given under the National Security (Economi_c Organisa­tion) Regulations of the Commonwealth or under the Profiteering Prevention Act of 1948 to the purchase of any dwelling­house, the purchase price being the con­siclera tion shown in the terms of the trans­action as so consenter1 to shall be the capital value of that dwelling-house for the purposes of this section unless, regard being had to the foregoing provisions of this section, the court is satisfied that such purchase price was not fair and equitable.''

\V e are not giving a direction to the court in sub-clause 3 any more than direction was given in sub-section 3, but we are revising the wording to accord with the new conditions that apply at the present time. There can be no valid objection to the clause on the grounds submitted by the hon. member for Baroona.

Question-That Clause 4, a~ read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Coinmittee divided-

AYES, 30.

Mr. Ahearn Beurdmore Chalk De war Evans Ha1-rison Hart He,ding­Tierhert Hewitt Hiley I--Ioopcr ,Tones, V. E. Knox =.1arlsen 'Vfiiller

Mr. Munro Nicholson

, Nicklin Dr. Noble ~Ir. Rae

Ramsden H.ir:1_te1· Roberts Smith, P. R. Tooth VVatson \Vindsor

TeUers: I\.ir. Bjelke-Peter;:.;en

Hedges

NOES, 25. 11fr. Adair Mr. Houston

Burrows ._Tesson Byrne Keyatta Cl ark I.Ioyd Davie$ 1\.iann Dip lock Power Donald Wallace Foley \Valsh Gair Wood Gardner Graham Tellers: Gunn Hanlon ilfr. Baxter Hilt on l\Tn:rsden

PAIRS.

AYES. NOES. Mr. Gaven 1\Ir. :NlcC'lthie

Gilmore Dufficy Low Smith, A. J. Lonergan Davis :Morris Jones, A. E1van Thackeray

RcsolYecl in the affinna tive.

Landlord and Tenant Acts (3 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1541

Clause 5-Power to increase rental-

Ur. LLOYD (Kedron) (10.38 p.m.) : I object to this clause. It takes away from the court the power to fix the 1948 valua­tion for the purpose of assessing rent. It says that where the rent has previously been iixed, for instance, on the 1942 valuation, as from 1 March it can be increased by 20 per cent. In other words, the decision on the 1948 valuation is taken out of the hands of the Court.

The clause says-

'' The fair rent of any dwelling-house as varied under this section shall for the purpose of the provisions of this Act (excepting the provisions of section tv.enty-three of this Act) be deemed to be fixed under a determination under this Part.''

J n other words, the rental will be fixed at 20 per cent. more than the previous rental. The clause will be the cause of a good deal of misunderstanding where the rental has not previously been fixed. If a tenant has been paying a reasonable rental and has not approached the court, the landlord will be entitled to increase the rent by 20 per cent. We are definitely opposed to this clause. Apart from basing the rental on the 1948 valuation the determination is taken out of the hands of the Fair Rents Court. The Minister himself determines by means of the 20 per cent. increase what will be the 1948 valuation of the premises.

Hon. A. W. lUUNRO (Toowong-Minister for Justice) (10.41 p.m.): I am rather sur­prised that the Deputy Leader of the Opposi­tion should take exception to the clause because it differs from the previous ones in that it is merely the machinery for facilitat­ing the implementation of the principles that have already been accepted by the Com­mittee. I could see differences of opinion on Clauses 2 and 4 because they contain the vital principles of the Bill but, having accepted the second vital principle, namely, the substitution of the basic valuation date of 1 July, 1948 for the former basic date, 10 February, 1942, all members of the Com­mittee should agree that Clause 5 is good and necessary. First of all, it does not take mvay 'Jny power from the court.

:Mr. Lloyd: Don't you think the court itself will take into consideration the clause in the circumstances?

Mr. :MUNRO: No, it will not. We have gone to great pains to make it clear. Al­though we provided that the new basic valua­tion date would not come into operation until 1 March next, there was still the possi­bility that quite a number of landlords might immediately after 1 March lodge applica­tions with the court. There would then be considerable congestion and expense.

~Ir. :Marsden interjected.

lUr. MUNRO: I freely concede that it goes up by 20 per cent. It can go up by 20 per cent. quite automatically but that does not take the place of a decision by the court.

lUr. Houston: Do you think the court might by its determination give an increase less than 20 per cent~

l[r. MUNRO: I do not think it is likely but it is perfectly open to the court to give an increase of less than 20 per cent. because the. 20 per cent. is not in any way binding on It.

lUr. Lloyd: Will it be binding on the tenant? That is the important point.

::lir. :MUNRO: No, not if the case goes to the court. Subsection 2 makes it clear. Firstly, the provision does not debar the tenant from having the rental determined by the court.

JUr. Mann: The 1948 valuation, which shall be 20 per cent. higher than the 1942 Yalue.

:Mr. :MUNRO: No, it does not say that.

Jir. Lloyd: It is a bluff provision.

:Mr. JUUNRO: The 20 per cent. does not relate to values. It is what one might regard as :m automatic increase in the rental not in the value, pending the determinatio~ by the court.

Mr. Marsden: And the court cannot interfere.

JUr. lUUNRO: Yes, the court can. I do not think I ean do better than read section 20C, sub-section 2 as it will read when the Principal Act is amended. It says-

'' The fair rent of any dwelling house as varied under this section shall for the purpose of the provisions of this Act (excepting the provisions of section twenty­three of this Act) be deemed to be fixed under a determination under thil'l Part, but any variation of the fair rent by the lessor under this section shall be deemed not to be a determination for the purpose of section twenty-three of this Act.''

That does not deprive either the landlord or a tenant of the right to have a rental deter­mination under the Act. Hon. members will remember that Section 17 sets out in detail the various matters to be considered in deter­mining the fair rent. Incidentally, I might mention that among the matters to be con­sidered by the court in determining the fair rent, even if the court determines it on the basis of values as at 1 July, 1948, is ''any hardship which would be caused to the lessor or lessee or any other person by the making of a determination increasing or reducing the rent.''

1542 Landlord and Tenant Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

lUr. POWER (Baroona) (10.47 p.m.): Regardless of what the Minister said the court may or may not do under the Act, the position does not call for much clarification. It makes provision for an increase of 20 per cent. in rent as from 1 March, 1958. In other words, the Government are beating the gun by this clause. It is true that it does not take away any of the powers of the land­lord or the tenant. In spite of what the hon. gentleman said about hardship under the old Act it is mandatory under the pre­vious clause that the valuation of the pre­mises shall be on 1948 value.s. Direction has already been given to the court to disregard all other values. The Government are going to adopt the role of fixer of rents in this State for the first 20 per cent. increase to take effect as from 1 March. That is what the Bill says and I am opposed to it.

:ilir. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (10.49 p.m.) : The Minister said that the Court could make a determination of less than 20 per cent. Would there be a refund to the tenant if the court determined that 20 per cent. ·was in excess of a fair rent~ If the determination were above 20 per cent. would the tenant have to pay back rent~

vVe all know that people on wages at the present timr have their wages completely budgeted. Because of hire purchasP pay­ments anc1 that type of commitment they have no spare money. The average working person today is not paying anything into the bank because he is using every penny for normal living. An increase of 20 per cent. even on a rental of £2 a week is Ss. The item that will be affected is the amount of food that these people can purchase. All other commodities except food and clothing are fixed. If they are spending their full income now they will have less left for foofl and clothing.

Hon. A. W. lUUNRO (Toowong-Minister for Justice) (10.51 p.m.): In reply to the question of whether there should be an adjustment of the rental, there is no provi­sion in this clause. That is a matter for consideration under the Landlord and Tenant Acts generally, and it is a matter for the court and the parties. In regard to the 20 per cent. increase, we should endeavour to see it in its proper perspective. It must be realised that this 20 per cent. increase only relates to the cost of a dwelling-house which existed on 10 February, 1942. It is a 20 per cent. increase on an extremely low rental. Hon. members have some idea of the depre­ciation in the currency which has taken place since Februaq, 1942. Coincidental with that depreciation in the purchasing power of money, there is the tremendous increase in wages and salaries since 10 February, 1942, and the tremendous increase in the price of other commodities. Having regard to that, in making this adjustment, we are bringing back at least some measure of justice between landlord and tenant, and 20 per cent. is a very moderate figure.

~Ir. Davies: What effect do you think it will have on the basic wage~

~Ir. :iliUNRO: I am not prepared to answer that offhand. 'rhat will be a matter for the Industrial Court to determine. Let me make this point also: during the period since Februar?, 1942, the income of all wage­earners has increased to a tremendous extent whereas the income of these unfortunate landlords has only been increased to a slight degree to cover outgoings such as rates and maintenance. So that really their net income has not been increased at all. I suggest to hon. members opposite that if they are really concerned with justice they should give some consideration to the landlords, many of whom have very moderate means and who since 1942 have had virtually a fixed income, whereas most tenants have had increases much greater than the 20 per cent. mentioned in the clau/ie.

;)Ir. LLOYD (Kedron) (10.54 p.m.) :. There is no doubt that the landlord or the tenant can appeal against the 20 per cent. Let us assume that the court has the oppor­tunity of assessing the valuation of the pro­perty on the basis that 20 per cent. on the previous rental should be added. It is presumed that the court will do that. Having placed this in the Bill can we say that the court itself will not take cognisance of it and say that the Legislature has decided that the reason­able increase is 20 per cent~ It must be remembered that land sales controls were still in operation in 1948 so that the 20 per cent. would not be a fair assessment of the increase in valuation for the six-year period. In all probability it would be much less. The figure of 20 per cent. has apparently been dragged out of the air and inserted in the Bill as a presumption that the difference between 1942 and 1948 valuations is 20 per cent. I should be surprised if the court does 11ot take cognisance of that. How many people, tenants in particular, know that they have the right of appeal to the court. I should say they would be very few in number. I could mention several phone calls I have 1·eceived from people who are paying £3 a week and who want to know what the correct increase should be, whether it should be the increase suggested by their landlords of £2 a week, making the rent £5 a week. I have told them that they should appeal to the court if their rents are increased to the limit allowed by the Bill. At the same time I realise that the court must take notice of the increase provided in the Bill. That will suggest to the court that the legislature con­siders an increase of 20 per cent. should be imposed.

Hon. A. W. :iliUNRO (Toowong-Minister for Justice) (10 57 p.m.): I do not desire to devot<' more time than necessary to the Bill, but I must deal with the views that are expressed. There is no presumption that the r~ourt will deal with any case in a particular way.

Landlord and 'l'enant &c. Bill (3 DECEMBER.] Land Acts, &c. Bill. 1543

J'[r. Lloyd: I said that in the provision in the Bill you are presuming the decision of the court.

Jllr. lUUNRO: No. There are separate clauses dealing with those matters. One clause of the Bill provides that these matters may be determined by the .eourt if either party wishes the court to do so. It would not be in the interests of landlords or tenants if the Bill provided that every case for deter­mination of rent must be dealt with by the <-Ourt. Costs are involved. I should imagine that many landlords will after considering the Bill decide that an increase of 20 per cent. is sa ti~factory.

Jlfr. l\Iann: Just the bare 20 per cent!

Jir. JIUNRO: Yes, 20 per cent. increase on the arbitrary and unfair figure deter­mined in the past. After giving notice to the tenant the lanc1lord may discuss the matter with him. Ultimately, if they are both sensible about it, they may agree not to take the case to court. It would o bviouslv not be in the best interests of the community to make every landlord and Yery tenant go to court. If this clause was omitted that would be the effect. I put it to the Opposi­tion fairly and clearly that, if they want all these matters determined by litigation or everv issue between a landlord and tenant to be decided by a comt, they should vote against the clause.

lUr. POWER (Baroona) (10.59 p.m.): Government members do not understand the position. I gave figures this afternoon to show that the 20 per !Cent. increase will be on the 1942 valuations. If my memory is cor­rect, the increase in the case I quoted would be Ss. 9d. Then a further application may be made to the court by the landlord-it woul•l not be made by the tenant-for an additional increase based on the 1948 valua­tion. Instead of providing that the parties should ask the court to determine the rental on the 1948 valuation, the Government have granted a preliminary increase of 20 per cent. on the 1942 valuation and have given laud­lords the Tight to apply to the court for rr further increase based on the 1948 valuation. That is the position; it is useless to deny it. That is the true position, and we cannot get RI\ ay from it. The Government have laid the foundation for any landlord to get an increased rental up to 20 per cent. on the 1942 valuation, and they Jmye laid it clown that the court in determining the rent of premises shall fix it on the 1948 value if the cwner goes to the Court.

Hon. A. W. JUUNRO (Toowong-Minister for Justi~e) (11.1 p.m.): The Committee can­not afford to a.ecept the legal advice of the hon. member for Baroona because the opinion he has given, although no doubt honest, is inaccurate.

Question-'fhat Clause 5, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 30. Mr. Ahearn

Beardmore Bielke-Petersen Chalk De war Evans Harrison Hart Heading Herbert Hiley Hodges Hooper Jones, V. E. Madsen M tiller

~Ir.

r){ .. :l!lr.

Munro Nicholson Nicklin Noble Rae Ramsden Richter Roberts Smith, P. R. Tooth \Vatson \Yindsor

Tellers: Mr. Hewitt

Knox

NOES, 25. Mr. Adair

Baxter Burro,vs Cl ark Davies Diplock Donald Foley Gair Gardner Graham Gunn Hanlon Hi! ton

AYES.

Mr. Gaven Gilmore Low Lonergan Morris Ewan

Rcsoh-ed in the

PAIRS.

Mr. Jesson Keyatta Lloyd l\iann :l!Iarsden Power Wallace Walsh Wood

Telle1·s: Jlfr. Byrne

Houston

NOES.

J\fr. ~IcOathie Dufficy Smith, A. J'. Davis Jones, A. Thackeray

affirmative.

Clauses 6 to 10, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, ·IYithout amendment.

LAND ACTS AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

SECOND READING.

Hon. A. G. JUULLER (Fassifern­Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (11.9 p.m.): I move-

'' That the Bill be now read a second time.''

In view of the very full debate on the Bill during the introductory stage, there is scarcely any need for me to explain it furtheT. However, I should like to refer to the machinery clauses.

I have here a copy of the brochure that I referred to during the introductor:v stage. It contains virtually all the provisions of the Bill and I should like to have it recorded in '' Hansard'' for the benefit of all readers, particularl;· those who would like to convert the tenure of their land from leasehold to freehold. The Land Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill of 1957 provides for free­holding, at the option of selectors and lessees, of land held from the Crown under perpetual , lease tenures. Its provisions are

1544 Land Acts and Other Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

entirely. optional. It enables landholders to convert their perpetual leases to freeholding tenures only if they so desire. If they wish, they may continue their existing perpetual lease unaltered. That is important. Opposi­tion members, on the introductory stage, made a mouthful of the claim that freehold would not be as good as perpetual lease. If that is the view of lessees they are per­fectly entitled to continue with their leases.

The only selections that may be converted to freeholding tenures are those not exceed­ing 2,560 acres in area. Applications for conversion of land in excess of that area will not be considered. All town, suburban and country perpetual leases may be con­verted. I stress the limit on the area because some people have concluded that any perpetual leaseholder will be entitled to convert.

Applications for conversion of existing perpetual leases to freehold tenures may be made by the following:-

1. Selector of a-( i.) Perpetual Lease Selection; (ii.) Perpetual Lease Prickly-Pear

Selection; (iii.) Perpetual Lease Prickly-Pear

Development Selection.

2. The lessee of a Perpetual Town Lease, Perpetual Suburban Lease, or a Perpetual Country Lease.

Applications in respect of both selections and town leases may be made on the pre­scribed form which may be obtained from all district land offices or from the Secre­tary, Land Administration Board, Brisbane. The forms will be provided in numbers and anyone contemplating conversion will be e_ntitled to obtain them and make applica­tion. The form will set out the information required. After carefully filling in all par­ticulars prescribed and signing the form, the completed document should be sent to the Secretary, Lands Administration Board, ~risba:w·. The Bill. does r;ot impose any trme lnmt for lodgmg applications for the converting to freehold tenures. Application may be made at any time.

Upon receipt of the application for con­version the Minister shall cause the laml to be inspected and valued by an official valuer and the report anti valuation shall be for­warded to the Land Court. The court shall notify the selector or lessee of the reference of .the matter to the court and give dup notice of the place and date of hParing. I stress that for the benefit of members of the C?Pposition, :md I am sure they will appre­ciate the information because it may save time in the debate. After the appliea­ti?n is received, officers of my department wrll he expected to state what in their opinion is the fnir value of the land under consideration. The vRluation >Yill be sent to the Land Court and the Land Court >Yil! notify the applicant >Yhen the case will be heard.

I mentioned on the introductory stage that the applicant will then be entitled to appear before the com·t in person or to engage counsel to represent him or to sub­mit his case in writing.

The Bill now provides that 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 'imple of the land assuming it were unim­proved and were offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require. When the Land Court determines this Yalue it becomes the purchasing price of the land under the new freeholding tenure. Within three months from the date of the court's determination of the unimproved value the landholder must notify the Minister in writing whether he elects to proceed with his application for conversion to freehold. If he does not so notify within such period of three months the application lapses, the existing perpetual lease tenure continues, and the court's de­termination of Ynlne ceases to have any effect.

lUr. DAVIES: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I draw your attention t{) the state of the House.

(Quorum formed).

lUr. lliULLER: I should like to point out that the three months should be sufficient time for any applicant to make up his mind. At the expiration of three months if he fails to notify the court as to whether he is accepting the determined value, his appl.i­cation lapses. The lease will continue as 1f nothing at all had happened.

As to freeholding perpetual lease selections under the Land Acts, all perpetual lease selections held (whether ordinary perpetual lease selections or perpetual lease prickly pear selections) which are being converted to freehold become agricultural farms and the purchase price is payable in 20 equal annual instalments without interest. Selectors of perpetual leases held under the Closer Settlement Acts and the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Acts on lands which were re­purchased by the Crown for the purpose of settlement which are converted to freeholding tenure shall pay the purchasing price by a deposit of one-twentieth for the first year and the balance in 19 equal annual instal­ments, with interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum. Hitherto under these Acts the rental rates varied from 3 to 5 per cent. per annum of the unimprovPd capital value ~ncl when land was being freeholded the rate of interest hitherto payable was 5 per cent. per annum. The Bill imposes a new uniform rate of 3 per cent. per annum in all cases where the land is being freeholded.

There shall be no discrimination regardless of the fact that some of the lessees at the moment are paying as high as 5 per cent. interest or rent, whichever you may term it.

Land Acts and Other Acts [3 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1545

Their rental will be reduced to 3 per cent. This, of course, applies only to those who make application for conversion.

The purchasing price of perpetual town, suburban and country leases as determined by the Land Court shall be paid by a deposit of one-tenth for the first year and the balance in 10 equal annual insta'lments with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. If an:v holding at the time of conversion is subject to residential improvement or de­velopmental conditions, such conditions shall continue on the new freeholding tenure. Religious authorities of all denominations will be permitted to freehold the perpetual leases they have been granted for church buildings at one-half of the unimproved value of the land as decided by the Land Court. Further particulars may be obtained from the Secretary of the Land Administra­tion Board, Brisbane or from district land officers. We are putting this hooklet up in such a way that it will give any person who contemplates conYersion n clenr outline of ''hat he is required to do.

During the initiation some confusion mose as to whether a sale would be on a freehold basis, on a leasehold basis, or whether it would be optional. In orC!er to meet the point raised by members of the Opposition, after mature consirleration I have come to the conclusion that the dause dealing with optional sales shoul([ be deleted. I shall move the appropriate amendment in Com­mittee. The clause was put in the Bill for the purpose of assisting people who were perhaps not able to pay for freehold. It was intended that some blocks would be offered on the optional basis. The difficulty that might arise is that the person bidding on a freehold basis would finrl difficultv in competing with the person birlding on" the leasehold basis. I feel that the better way to get over the difficulty is to offer the blocks on the leasehold basis and if the pur­chaser wishes to retain it on that basis he can do so or he can convert it to freehold. I did not wish to convey the impression that all lands would be sold on a leasehold basis. I think I mentioned on the initiation that at least one or two sales will take place on the South Coast or perhaps in some of the other coastal areas on a freehold basis in order that we may get a fair guide as to '"hat people will pay for freehold land by public auction. The clause was put in to give the Minister the right to sell on a leaoehold, freehold, or optional basis.

If the clause is eliminated it will be clear to the people 'vho contemplate purchasing land. that if they are purchasing on a lease­hold basis they can retain it on that basis and if they wish to convert to freehold they can do so.

~Ir. Burrows: And vice versa.

lllr. IIIULLER: There is no vice versa when the Crown is one of the parties. The Crown is not ohligecl to buy anybody's land.

ltir. Burrows: Would not that bar the man who wanted leasehold in that area~

:iUr. JUULLER: If the sale is on a lease­hold basis and the purchaser wishes to con­vert to freehold he can do so. Of course if he pure hases it on a freeholrl basis he owns it.

JUr. Burrows: If he is not prepared to take freehold he cannot get any land in that area.

lUr. IIIULLER: Don't be so dumb. I have already said that if land is sold on a leasehold basis it can be converted to free­hold.

11Ir. Burrows: You said you would sell some land on a freehold basis.

1Ur. l\IULLER: Assume that we sell the next 38 blocks at Broadbeach on a freehold basis. They cannot then be converted to leasehold. There is a further point that no court determination of vnlue is required of land sold on a freehold basis. The pur­chaser who bids that price for the freehold land in that way determines the value of the land. He make5 the bid at public auction, and the Bill provides that that becomes the value of the land, but pur­chasers on a leasehold basis who desire to convert their land to freehold are obliged to apply to the court for determination of the valuation. We propose to make that proce­dure as simple as possible. The department will suggest a valuation; the court ma.y accept it, increase it or reduce it. The Bill is fair in every way to the buyer. The only direction given to the court, if it can he described as a direction, is the request that the court be guided by the amount an experienced and prudent buyer would be pre­pared to pay. That provision is inserted because some sale prices are boosted by special advertising. In other cases the buy­ers are excited for one reason or another and pay more for the land than it is worth. The court is entitled to use its discretion. The Bill simplifies as far as possible the procedure to be adopted. \V e want the pub­lic to understand the position thoroughly. \Ve want the work to be as clear as possible.

There is a further slight error in the Bill which may be obvious. I think Clause 14 provided that the purchaser has three weeks in which he can lodge his deposit. Until the court determination has been given, a pur­chaser could not be expected to pay his deposit. At the Committee stage I' shall move an amendment to provid0 for the pay­ment of a deposit in three months. It was an error in framing the Bill.

Sound land administration means the appli­cation of common sense to the facts under consideration. \Vhy it is called common sense, I do not know.

l\Ir. Burrows: It is not very common.

~Ir. lUULLER: It is not a common commodity.

1546 Land Acts and Other Acts [ASSEJ.\IIBL Y.] Amendment Bill.

In the administration of my department I feel there is greater need to be guided by common sense than by every detail of the Act. From my short experience I :find it is very difficult to frame legislation and policy to :fit the many and varied aspects of the Land Acts to be considered by the members of the Board. Ioand administration must be equitable; there must be no discrimination between persons. Everyone with a like case should be treated alike. In justice we can­not make :fish of one and flesh of another. I propose to administer the department not on nanow technicalities but on the broad principles of equity, justice, and practical common sense. The practical view is the one that always weighs with me. I believe it is the experience of all hon. members that a little practical knowledge is worth a ton of theory. And so it is with the adminis­tration of my department. If there is one outstanding pTinciple for which the Govern­ment stand it is equality of treatment between the citizens of the State. · We do not cater for any favoured class. In my introductory speech I said that the very essence of the Bill was to cater for the needs of those who were less able to help them­selves. We do not discriminate with this legislation.

Complaint \Yas made that we are not reviewing the capital value of allotments submitted at Broadbeach in August, 1957, although other capital values may be reviewed. If we review any of the sales made recently we would be obliged to review sales made prior to those auctions. Hon. members will agree that everything in the Bill is practicable and based on common­sense. I have prepared schedules of the prices bid at auction at Broad beach for perpetual leases at the last two sales, namely January, 1957, and August, 1957. I should like to mention that the hon. member for Carnarvon interjected when I was speaking recently when I said that the January sales were high and that the highest price of £15,000 was equal to the £15,000 bid in August, 1957. The hon. member said that they were for business sites. They were not for business sites but for Tesidential sites. The price bid was before the Government came into office and there was no indication to lead people in January last to believe that legislation of this kind would be introduced.

1\'Ir. Foley: Land could be used for the building of serviced rooms.

lUr. JUULJ,ER: They were residential sites. The conditions of sale were announced and I think the hon. member will agree when he hears them that the allotments could not be used for serviced rooms. Since the Bill was introduced we have been in touch with some of the people who bought the land and thev haYe informed us that their inten­tion wa:s to comply with the conditions of sale advertised at that time, and that the land will be improved as required.

In January, 1957, when 37 allotments ":ere offered as perpetual leases the upset pnces ran.ged from £500 to £650. I should like hon. members to note what a difficult job the Land Court is facing. The prices realised Rt auction at those two sales ranged fTom £2,100 to £15,000. Th0y Yary from 4 to 23 times the npset prices. In the variation from £2,100 to £15,000 it is hard to reconcile the­differences bet\Yeen the prices bid. At the l::;st sale in August, 1957, also of 37 allot­ments the upset prices were increased anrl ranged from £1,000 to £2,200. The prices bid for the perpetual leases ranged from £5,000 to £15,000, or from 5 to 15 timco the upset prices. The values placed on the allotments were grossly inconsistent each to each. I sb all give another illustration of how diffi~ult it is to follow the bids and to show the dJffi­culties that the Court will have in determining what might be a fair value. If \Ve rlo not give the Court a direction that they a ;e ex­pected to :fix a value on what expenencecl persons would pay, they could not be guit1ec1 by prices bid at auction at those two sales. They vary so much that it w~uld be w1:y diffi.cult for anyone to determme the f:nr value.

)lr. Foley: The same applies in Br!s!Jane. Land in Brisbane that was sold ongmally for 2s. 6d. an acre is now bringing thoumnds of pounds a foot.

l\Ir. l\IULLER: Who is paying it?

Jllr. }'oley: The people.

illr. 1\IULLER: The hon. member cannot blame me for what the people are tloing. In any case, what has that to do with the Bill~ You could buy land for less than 2s. 6c1. an acre at one time.

l\Ir. Foley: Why are you quibbling because somebody bids a high price~

Mr. l\IULLER: I am not quibbling. The Iwn. member does not know what he is talk­ing about. ·whatever anyone bids is his own business.

l\Ir. Folev: You are suggesting in the Bill that yo~ \Yill get the comt to reduee it.

lUr. JIULLER: I am not asking the court to reduce or increase anything. It is being asked to :fix a value. How can it be arguerl that the court is Leing asked to reduce the value? It will make a deter­mination of \Yha t an experienced person \YOuld pay. The hon. member for Bel_rando can give no reason why people bid high price,, ~ncl nPithcr ean I. I am not saying that the court should be carried away with excessive price,; that might be bid. How­eYer, the hon. member for Belyando does not seem to realise that when people bid \'Cry high prices for land they seriously affect other landholders in the locality. Either the Department of the Valuer-General or the Department of Public Lands would be expected to use the high bicls as a basis for mluation.

Land Acts and Other Acts [3 DECEMBER.] Amerulment Bill. 1547

j}Jr. Fo'ley: That has happened in every city in the world.

j}Ir. JUULLER: I do not care if it has. The hon. member for Belyando has been following Labour's policy, whereas we are endeavouring to protect the interests of the people who live in the areas where high prices are paid.

If therE> is one outstanding principle for IYhich the Government stand, it is equality of treatment between all the citizens of the State. We do not cater for the favoured class. That is my reply to the hon member. The complaint is now made that we should not review the capital values bid at auction at Broadbeach in August, 1957, although other capital values may be reviewed. I will show that such a contention is quite impracticable.

It would be very difficult for any tribunal to fix valurs if it is to he guided by prices that have been hid. 'Ehis is something that has neYer previously been known in Queens­laud's history. The hou. member mentioned the price at which land was sold only a few years ago. Nobody can explain what hap­pened and I am not saying that it will not last. who knows what will happen~ A year or two ago when land values bega11 to soar we said that the people who paid high prices would burn their fingers. However, there is no indication that values are falling, although anything could happen to cause a reduction in valuations throughout the State.

It would be grossly inequitable adminis­tration to allow a review of values in the case of one group and not in another. The claim that the bidders at the last sale are receiving some advantage over bidders at previous sales is undiluted piffle. All are being treated alike. All will have to pay a fair freehold value based on ordinary sales as distinct from spectacular, unusual sales where some special motive 1vas being served.

The Government propose to treat everyone alike, regardless of their vocation in life. Hon. members opposite have grown accus­tomed to discriminating between citizens. That is not the policy of the present Govern­ment. It was that which caused all the trouble with lands administration a short time ago and no-one should know it better than the hon. member who has been inter­jecting.

An Opposition lliember: You are getting nasty now.

JUr. lliULLER: Hon. members opposite :ne inYiting me to be nasty.

CompuTable lands acquired in comparable circumstances will be treated in a comparable way. To that principle we IYil! steadfastly adhere. What is the fair valuation for con­version to freehold?' A fair valuation is not ~what the unimproved land might pos­sibly fetch on the open market, when the buyer has some special motive to serve, but the amount that experienced 1nd prudent

men, knowing all the advantages and risks~ would willingly pay for the land if it were available to them in fee simple. It may be an exceptional sale and it may not continue if further blocks were offered. At what valuation would there be not one buyer but a queue of buyers? We think this is an equitable principle of valuation. It is a paraphrase of the principle of valuation incorporated in the Act, and we are entrust­ing it to a judicial tribunal-the Land Court-after hearing evidence equitably to administer, when lessees are seeking to free­hold. I mentioned that because anyone who w:wts to go to court to defend a valuation IYill have a perfect right to do so. He can submit all the evidence that the hon. member has spoken of. If he can show that the cletermina tion is too high, he may do so.

~Ir. Burrows: They won't make it too· high nt Southport as far as I am concerned.

3Ir. MULLER: I am not worried about Southport or any other port. All we are trving to do is to see that justice is done. Tlw policy of the Government is not to discriminate against one section of the people or fnvour another. So inconsistent have been the values realised at auction that I may be forced at a later stage to recon­sider the auction system, so favoured by the previous Government. It seems to me to· giYe the man with money an undue advan­tage and it does not sufficiently protect the orclinary working man.

j}Ir. W oo<l: I agree with you there.

j}Ir. 1\'IULLER: I am glad the Leader of' the Opposition agrees. I am concerned about it. It is the first time that any hon. member has mentioned it here in my time and that is 20 years. I am concerned at the way these prices are being forced up by people who are in a position to find the money. The ordinary working people can­not compete with them. What is more, they are being pushed out of these important residential areas. The ideal method of administering the public estate is to give 1 he humblest citizen and the IYealthiest Pxactly the same consideration. That is a goal worth attempting to achieve. I will strive to achieve it.

I think it was the hon. member for Bunda­berg who rightly said at the introdl!cto:y stage that there was as much speculation m leasehold as in freehold. Since then I have been amazed. I have looked up some of the sales of leasehold land in the last few weeks. I do not want to bring people's private business affairs into the Chamber, but a comparison of what the leases cost with the price for which they were sold entire!y disposes of the argument that freehold mU cater for the person out to speculate ln land.

j}Ir. Foley: Is your definite objective to reduce those values~

1548 Land Acts and Other Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. ])fULLER: No. I cannot under-stand why the hon. member should ask the question.

1\.l:r. Foley: You say you object to the values that were bid.

lUr. ])IULLER: I am not objecting to them. Who told the hon. member I objected~

:lir. Foley: You have just said so.

1\'Ir. lliULLER: I did not say so.

J[r. Foley: Yes, you did.

l'lfr. llfULLER: The hon. member should listen carefully. I did not say I objected to the values that were bid. I said it was entirely their own business. I suppose I have said that three times tonight. We are not asking the court to be guided by those I1igh values that were bid. As I explained a little wi1ile ago, if you were to take £15,000 as the value of the whole of it, the court would be obliged to go up to the top or down to the bottom. We are asking the court to exercise sound and fair judgment and to be influenced by what experienced persons would pay.

3'Ir. Foley: What better way to arrive 1lt that than by public auction~

Mr. MULLER: That is not pushing the value up or uown. I know that the public auction system has served a purpose. It is very difficult to dispense with it even now. P.ut I am concerued about what is happening at public auctions. It is making it verv difficult for the man with a small amount of money to compete \Yith persons with an un­limited amount.

I may find it desirable at a later date to revert to the system Jf submitting town and suburban lands to ballot at a fair valuation, but any suoch decision will depend on the results of more auction sales of allotments as freeholds, and a number of other factors will also need consideration.

vVe need a little more experience and infor­mation about these sales to decide whether we are going to adopt the ballot system. I realise it is full of difficulties. I have here a notice convening a sale of land. It will give hon. members an idea of ll'hat is happening. It will explain not only how \Ye describe the hnd being sold but "what the upset prices were and what the realisations were. This notice appeared in the form of an advertisement in the papers on 13 December last year. I shall not weary hon. members by reading it all but I draw the attention of the House to the more important points. It reads-

" It is hereby declared that any person who, at the date of sale is the holder of a perpetual town lease in the town of Broad­beach shall not be competent to bid or apply for any allotment specified in this notification.''

That direction was not issued by me but by the hon. member for Belvando when he was Minister for Public Ltu{ds. Hon. members

opposite talk about dictation. I am not suggesting for a moment that I am going to remove that condition but hon. members opposite talk about being upset and try to tell other people what to do. The notice con­vening a sale which took place in January last states-

'' The maximum number of allotments which may be purchased by any bidder or applicant as a Perpetual Town Lease or as Perpetual Town Leases in the whole area to which this notification has reference is one allotment.''

The hon. member for Belyando says, ''We will not sell you more than one allotment.'' I am not complaining about that. The notice continues-

'' Each purchaser must hold and use the land for his own exclush·e benefit unless he shall previously have obtained per­mission from the Governor in Council to make the purchase as a trustee for another person, association, or body, and when called upon, so to do shall furnish a declar­ation of competency to purchase and hold the lease.

Each purchaser shall, at the time of sale, pay a deposit equal to the amount of the first year's rent, the survey fee, and the stamp duty on the lease.

The annual rent will be an amount equal to 3 per centum of the capital sum bid at auction, subject to appraisement every 15 years.

"Within two years from the commencement of the lease the lessee of a Perpetual T'own Lease purchased in terms of this notifica­tion shall make substantial improvements on the land, to the satisfaction of the Minister, of a value of not leoo than £500.

The value of any improvements on the land must be paid by thP purchaser within twenty-one days after notice of such value as by law determined has been given to him.''

JUr. Foley: Is there any objection to thatf

Mr. liULLER: No, but the hon. member for Belyando is the one who has been com­plaining. Yet he laid down the conditions under which the land could be sold and how much would be sold.

lir. Foley: It prevents some of them getting five or six blocks.

}Ir. IUULLER: Yes, but what happened? Thev still bid up to £5,000. What were the upset prices at that sale~ They were from £500 to £650 and the prices paid varied from £2 100 to £5 000. I shall now refer to the ne~t sale th~ t took place in my time. The Crown has all the power to lay clown how much land thev shall be entitled to and what improvements ·are to be made on it during a prrscribed period. The only difference in the notice dated 18 July this year is that the value of the improvements was lifted from £500 to £2,000. The sales were made

Land Acts and Other Acts (3 DECEMBER.] Ame~ulment Bill.

just the same. It is just a lot of tripe to say there have been complaints about the prices paid. There is a table in the Bill dealing with agricultural perpetual leases. I have here another table which refers to town and suburban blocks. As I mentioned previously, the deposit on these will be £10 and there will be 10 annual instalments of £11 13s. 1d. for each £100 worth of land. For a block valued at £1,000, the deposit would be £100 and the annual payments on each £100 would he £11 13s. 1d. Mention was made during the debate of reasons why there should be no discrimination between the interest rates on freehold land and per­petual leasehold. This has been a burning question with some hon. members. As I mentioned on the initiation, lands held by the Crown and let on the perpetual leasehold basis at H· per cent. interest would be con­verted interest-free on paying the annual instalment. I have here a table to show how difficult it would be for people convert­ing perpetual leases to freehold if we added interest to their charge. Take the area of 2,560 acres at £2 10s. an acre. That would not be choice land. Much of these lands described as agricultural farms are the same as poor grazing property.

]Ur. Burrows: Most of the good land in my district is already freehold.

lUr. lUULLER: Then why does the hon. member complain about other people's free­hold~

)Ir. Burrows: Because it is all tied up and thnt is dri.-ing the little man out.

~Ir. JliULLER: We both believe in having the option. I am glad that the hon. mem­ber has come round to our way of thinki!lg. An area of 2,560 acres at £2 10s. an acre on the present basis of 1:t per cent. would be 9<1. an acre or £96 per annum. If free­holded over 20 years the interest on the annual payments would be 2s. 6d. an acre, or £320 a year, or an increase of 246 per cent. If interest is charged at 3 per cent. plus 18d. per acre per annum diminishing as yearly payments are made, the interest pay­ment would be 4s. an acre, or £512 per annum. an increase of 457 per cent. Hon. members will see that if you are going to charge the interest rate on top of it your annual payments would go from £96 per annum to £512 per annum.

::!Ir. Mann: After 20 years they pay nothing at all.

Jir. MULLER: That is so.

3Ir. Mann: You are giving them a hand­out.

Jlir. JIULLER: It would be utterly impossible for poor people to conveTt to freehold if intRrest was charged. It must be remembered that these people aTe primary producers and as ~uch are entitled to consideration.

The hou. member for Brisbane, by way of interjection, said that after 20 years no payments will be made. Let me tell the hon. membeT that provision is not a great deal different from the law relating to the agricultural holdings. Payment for those was over a period of 20 ye:us. They paid only an annual rental of 1} per cent., plus interest of 1 per cent., a total of 2} per cent. If it was for a period of 40 years it would be 2} per cent. Under the Act landholders could freehold the lancl at the end of 20 years if they paid the balance. The comli­tions of the Bill arc to some extent simil~r. They are able to freehold the land in a shorter time.

I think hon. members will find in nc:wy instances people who now contend thfit they are itching to get freehold land will eleet to continue on a leasehold basis. They may uo so at their option. If they think they "on!d be better off by buying it outright, they are able to do so. The risk taken with perpetual lease is that it is subject to review and reappraisement. Landholders do not know what the reappraisement will be. Although they pay a great deal more money during that 20-year period, the land beconws their property at the end of 20 years.

Mr. Jiann: And the Crown gets no revenue after 20 years.

iUr. JIULLER: Some may decide to free­hold the land and others to continue on a leasehold basis. That is n matter for their decision. Many factors influence different people. Some go on to the land with little or no money, have to effect improvements and stock the land, and they may prefer to continue on a leasehold basis.

On the whole, criticism of the Bill, as far as I can judge, has not been convincing. It has been aimed mainly at aliPnation of land in fee simple as well ns the land valuations in conversion to freehold tenure. It should be borne in mind that in regarcl to country land the Bill provides that perpetual lea.cc selections must not exceefl 2,560 acres, so that there is no danger of large aggregations of land being alienated.

JUr. Burrows: Is there any limit? If I already own freehold land, am I pre­vented from taking another piece off the· Government~

1Ir. JIULLER: It is not a matter of taking things from the Govemment; it a matter of buying lantl.

)lr. Burrows: Never mind being smart, be intelligent for a change.

Jir. JIULLER: If you have a perpetual lease of 2,560 acres you are entitled t' convert it.

}Ir. Burrows: If I already have a free­hold block of 500 acres I can also ap} ':V for conversion to freeholrl of a further hie }, of 2,560 acres?

1550 Land Acts and Other Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

l'lr. ~IULLER: Application may be made but it may not be granted.

Mr. Burrows: Is there anything in the Bill to prevent it~

Mr. !IULLER: Yes.

)lr. Burrows: Quote it.

Jir. l\IULLER: It is known of course that there are perpetual lease selections greater in area than 2,560 acres, but it will be the policy of the Government to disallow any request for subdivision in such cases as to permit a selector to convert part of his selection up to an area of 2,560 acres. If the present area exceeds 2,560 acres, the selector must make up his mind that his perpetual lease tenure will not be changed. It will be limited to 2,560 acres. The Gov­ernment will not permit him to increase that in some other IYaY. If the area ·was not limited to 2,560 ac;es, it would be a departure from the principles of the Bill.

3Ir. Burrows: If you threw land open and I already held freehold land, not a con­ditional purchase holding would the holding of the freehold bar me from getting more 'i!

Jir. lliULLER: That case would be con­sidered on its merits. I gave the hon. mem­ber the conditions of sale which have been in existence for a long time. We are not obliged to sell him land unless we desire to. He cannot tell us that he can demand the Crown to sell him anything. He might be a bush lawyer.

l\Ir. Burrows: You cannot discriminate.

Jir. l\IULLER: But that does not give him the right to buy anything. It was made dear in my introductory speech that no perpetual lease land would be exchanged for freehold tenure except at the wish of the lessee. The Government do not propose to enforce a change of tenure upon the lessee. In a new opening of country land applicant& ·will decide whether to hold the perpetual lease, or freehold. Applicants for agricul­tural land under the former Government were required to accept pPrpetual lease tenure without the option. This method is regarded as dictatorial because they were told that they had to have leasehold or nothing at all. The fee simple title has one great advantage over perpetual lease, and upon the issue of deed of grant the land is freed from adminis­tration under the Land laws which could be made harBh by another government. The land­holder might prefer freehold to perpetual ll a se although he will be requirPd to make greater annual payments to the Crown. The Government are leaving it entirely to lessees. When purchasing under freehold tenure the Crown is not entitled to anything more than the fair unimproved value and prices paid by experienced persons 1Yill be taken into consideration. Valuation will be recom­mended by departmental officers. That is very important. There has been a good deal uf contention over this. Valuations will be

referred to the Land Court and when a matter is set clown for hearing before the court the lessee will have an opportunity of appearing or being represented so that evid­ence of land values will be available to the court.

JUr. Jesson: We will take it as read.

1\Ir. MULLER: If the hon. member does not want me to give him the information I will not do so. The Opposition were crying that they clicl not understand the Bill and I had not given the explanation they required.

JUr. JUann: We will want a fuller explanation.

J}lr. JIULLER: Lessees will not be pre­vented from transferring to a qualified person any holding which was transferable un cl er perpetual lease tenure, but in respect of selections converted from perpetual lease to agricultural farms the fee simple of the land will not be obtainable until after the first five years of the agricultural farm has expired. Lessees will not be able to sell their lands as freehold until the period men­tioned has elapsed and until they secure a certificate that all conditions of the agricul­tural farm have been performed.

ilir. Burrows: You will not refuse a a transfer to a qualified person.

3Ir. lliULLER: You can do it now.

:ur. Burrows: If I owned 500 acres of freehold, is there anything to disqualify me from baying another lot~

l\Ir. ~IULLER: Tllat would be a question to consider.

]}Ir. Burrows: Show me the clause in the Act to protect the Government.

l\Ir • .i}IULLER: The hon. member says that he can compel the Government to sell him anything.

JUr. Burrows: Be honest, sensible and intelligent.

l\Ir. l\IULLER: Lessees will not be able to sell their lands as freeholcls until the period mentioned has elapsed, and until they secure a certificate that all conditions of the agricultural farm have been performed.

In the case of town and suburban leases, provided the conditions of sale have been complied with, lessees may accelerate the purchase of the land, get a deed of grant, and thereafter sell as freehold.

I think I have explained every point that has been raised. The hon. member for Port Curtis has asked me how much more land we will sell him. He should know bv now that the CroiYn will offer land on a fr'eeholcl basis under certain terms and conditions. If the buyer does not agree to the terms and conditions, he need not buy the land. Again, if the Crown thinks he already has enough land it can withhold the transfer.

Land Act8 and Other Act8 [3 DECEMBER ] Amendment Bill. 1551

Mr. Burrows: You have not that power in the Bill.

Mr. MULLER: Would the hon. member like to be given the power to steal some­thing~

Mr. Burrows: There is an Act that stops me from stealing.

ltlr. lUULLER: I think the hon. member for Port Curtis is foreshadowing an amend­ment.

The Bill is a first step in implementing the Government's proposals with Tespect to the Land Acts.

I am sure all will agree with me that land legislation has played a tremendous part down tl1rough the years in the development, progress and prosperity of Queensland, a result which has been achieved in considerable measure by the primary producer, who has battled with adverse seasonal and market conditions in pursuit of his career on the land.

The offering of freeholding tP.mue is but a small reward to those countr-Y Crown tr·nants who have helped the State to reach its present position.-

As a contribution by my Department to the Centenary Celebrations for which we are. now preparing, it is planned to place before Parliament a consolidated Land Act of 1959, and I look forward to the privilege of intro­ducing such an important measure to this Parliament.

In the new Land Act the needs of existing lessees will not be lost sight of, while it is anticipated that a number of future land seekers may be able to realise their hopes of going on the land under closer settlement provisions to be included in the consolidated Act.

I hope that next year I shall be able to introduce legislation consolidating the Act. When that is done, all the points that have been raised by hon. members, and by people outside, will be considered. We intend to act along the lines of common sense and justice to all sections of the people. It will not be a matter of the hon. member for Port Cm·tis saying, "I will do so-and-so." It is not our policy to have dealings with Slippery Joes. We will be fair to every­body. If you gave some people all the land in Queensland, they would want part of New South Wales too. 'l'Iie officers of my depart­ment have to be fair. Before anything is decided it will be submitted to the Minister for his approval. The members of the Land Administration Board do their best, but they cmmot be right all the time. They have all types of people to deal with, people who expect all kind of concessions and go even to the extent of demanding what they want. No-one can say, "You cannot prevent me from buying such-and-such a piece of land.'' There is a provision in the Act to deal with that.

1967-30

Mr. Burrows: I hope there i.s, but I want you to show it to me.

I\Ir. JUULLER: Let the hon. member try to buy land that we think he is not entitled to. If he wants to buy something that the Crown does not want to sell him, let him have a go and see what happens. The Crown is the seller and it lays down the conditions of sale. It decides how much land will be sold. If he thinks that the intending buyer already has a fair share of laml, it will decide whether it will sell him any more.

They can tell you the conditions and im­provements you have to effect on the land before you get the title deed or even before you get a continuation of the lease. Today any lessee who does not !Carry out the improve­ment conditions takes the risk of surrender­ing his lease. All kinds of people demand all sorts of things. They say, ''I can do it because of the Land Acts. You can't stop me. I can do it whether you like it or not.'' All I can say to the hon. member is that he had better have a try and see what he can do. We have no time for the greedy man who thinks he is entitled to all the land and who is prepared to let others go without. If we do our job conscientiously we must think of the generations to follow.

Jir. Burrows: That is all we are asking you to do.

I\Ir. lliULLER: We have to think of the young folk coming along who want land. If the hon. member for Port Curtis wants to tell me he already has a big block and he wants to demand more--

Mr. BURROWS: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is imputing something to me that I never said or suggested. I asked him a sensible and intelligent question namely: if a man already had freehold would that make him eligible to apply for another agri­cultural farm~ He has hedged for half an hour. I ask him to withdraw the imputation.

Mr. MULLER: Perhaps I was a little hard on the hon. member but I must say he asked for it.

I\lr. lliann: You are trying to bully him.

I\Ir. lUULLER.: Not at all. I do not try to bully anybody. However, the hon. mem?er asked a lot of silly questions and I dealt with him in his own way.

Mr. Burrows: Do not try to bluff me because you won't get away with it.

I\Ir. ~UULLER: It is not simply a ques­tion of whether he will get the land or not. It is a matter for the Crown. It is clearly set out that the limit of leasehold tenure for conversion ·will be 2,560 acres.

llir. Burrows: What is the limit on freehold~

1552 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.]

llir. lliULLER: Is not that clear enough? Has not the hon. member enough common sense to work out simple arithmetic~ If he had 2,500 acres and applied for another 2,500 acres, that would be 5,000 acres. The reply to his question is embodied in the Bill in the limitation of the area of conversion.

I have outlined the provisions fully. I repeat that there is nothing sinister in the Bill. Nothing is being taken away from any­one. We are trying to administer the land laws honestly and fairly in the intm·ests of all the people. We will see that no-one ran over-ride the department and grab more land than he is entitled to, so leaving the less fortunate people out in the cold, Everything sougth to be done in the Bill protects the rights of those less able to defend themselves than others. Those more fortunate, with more thaT\ a fair share of this world's goods, can look after themselves. ·what we seek to do is in the interests of the people generally, to give justice to everybody.

Debate, on motion of Mr. Wood, adjourned.

The House adjourned at 12.16 a.m.

Questions.