legislative assembly tuesday august · car~ '' 3. ·what returns are kept showing the...

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 23 AUGUST 1949

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Questions. (23 AUGUST.] Questions. 173

1949.

CHAIRBris-

SOURCES OF SUPPLY, NEW TEACHERS.

Mr. nvcn•"'""'"' asked the Sec-retary

''Of the intake of 461 the period 1 January to from what sources were these the teaching service?"

H. A. BRUCE (The Tableland)

''The sources of the 461 teachers who during the 1949, were-The Teachers

ex-teachers, from other States and teachers

from denominational schools, admitted."

COSTS OF VISITS OF MEMBERS TO PEAK DOWNS GULF AREAS.

Mr. KERR asked the Premier-'' 1. What was cost to the Govern-

ment of the recent visit of the members of Parliament to Peak Downs and the Gulf areas~

"2. vvere in

members of Parliament

'' 3. Was invitation extended members of Opposition~

Would the same available for members of as were given to members ment~"

to any

'' 1. and 2. Three Ministers have undertaken official visits to Central Northern Queensland. The Secretary for Agriculture and Stock was not ~v·~v"'"~"'"'"·'V~ by member of Parliament.

Health and two members of mission stations. The amounted to £149 7s. Public Lands and

nine members of Downs and also the

The expenses 9s.

174 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Questions.

to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is apparently showing keen discernment.

'' 4. The same liberal consideration which has always been shown by this Government to members of the Opposition-which, incidentally, is greatly in excess of the consideration shown to the Opposition between 1929 and 1932-will be continued.''

FISH BOARD INQUIRY.

Mr. LOW (Cooroora) asked the Secretary for Labour and Industry-

" l. Has the inquiry into the operations of the Fish Board been completed~

'' 2. Will the report be tabled and, if so, when~ If not, will he give a summary of the findings and recommendations contained in the reporU "

Hon. V. C. GAIR (South Brisbane) replied-

" 1. No, but it is expected to be completed in the near future.

'' 2. This will receive consideration when the report is received.'',

BUILDING MATERIALS CONTROL STAFF.

Mr. LOW (Cooroora) asked the Secretary for Labour and Industry-

'' 1. What is the total number of staff employed under the provisions of The Buillling Operations and Timber and Building Materials Control Act~

'' 2. What was the total expenditure of the sub-department in question for 1948-49~"


" 1. 30. '' 2. Salaries, £13,155; contingencies,

£4,111; total, £17,266."

COAL PORT FOR CENTRAL QUEENSLAND.'

Mr. PIE (Windsor) asked the Premier-'' 1. Is he aware that in the 'Argus' of

17 August, the Victorian Minister for Transport reports that Mr. Hanlon told him that Queensland had decided to abandon the use of Gladstone as a port for coal and concentrate on transporting it to Rockhampton ~

"2. When did the Government decide on this policy of ignoring Gladstone ~

'' 3. On what grounds has the decision been taken~ ' '

Hon. V. C. GAIR (South BrisbaneActing Premier) for Hon. E. M. HANLON (Ithaca) replied-

'' 1, 2, and 3. I have read the statement which appeared in the Melbourne 'Argus' and to which the hon. member refers. I fail to see in that report where Mr. Kent Hughes said that Mr. Hanlon told him it had been decided to abandon Gladstone as a port for coal. The press report indicates that Mr. Kent Hughes said he was told that story, but he does not say by whom. In any case, the statem<:nt furnished to Mr. Kent Hughes by

some unknown informant is obviously in accordance with fact. There is no intention. On the contrary, the ment is at present giving to an application by the Gladstone Board for a subsidised loan of for the installation of modern coal ling, storage, and loading facilities Port of Gladstone, for which already been obtained by the addition, the Government has approved of the construction of a deviation from the Callide coalfield to the Biloela·Gladstone road, cost some £120,000, which will saving of 12! miles on the of haul for coal by road to the Gladstone, thus enabling deliveries to be stepped up. It is also the ment 's intention to encourage possible way, the export of coal Gladstone by improved railway direct from the mine to join the Mount Morgan line. The Governmen also about to commence construction the deviation to avoid the Mount rack railway. These improved will allow greatly increased coal to be hauled by rail from the coalfield to Gladstone at lesser cost at present. Gladstone will thus have road and rail transport from the coalfield. ' '

BLAIR ATHOL AND RIGHT TO

Mr. PIE (Windsor) asked the ''As the present Labour n -----~·

pledged by their platform to socialisation of the means of distribution, and exchange, why, by Act of Parliament, ferred the exclusive rights to to a private company~"

Hon. V. C. GAIR (South Acting Premier) for Hon. E. M. (Ithaca) replied-

" The hon. member's question would cate that he is ignorant of the the term 'socialisation of '"''"'"·~·~ trol by the Government of a mine mean the socialisation of the mining try any more than the taking over city's buses by Lord Mayor Chandler the socialisation of the transport or that the building of a house at Tennyson would mean the tion of the electrical industry. duction of coal at Blair Athol, :eferred to by the hon. member, m the hands of private enterprise years. The substitution of company for the two private :'lready operating on that field is not m any way to the general question of socialisation of the mining industry."

PRICE OF BREAD.

Mr. AIKENS (Muhdingburra) asked Secretary for Labour and Industry-

'' 1. Has his attention been· directed an article in the ' Courier-Mail' of A~gust . la~t,_ hea~ed, 'Bakers hope pnces hft, m whwh the president of

Questions. (23 AUGUST.] Questions. 175

Associated Bread Manufacturers (Mr .. T. Condie) is reported as saying, 'The bakers are not bluffing and planned to cease production if price determinations were not issued soon'~

"2. Did the Prices Commissioner subsequently give a decision increasing the price of bread, notwithstanding this threat of a strike by the bread manufacturers~

"3. Is it not the policy of the Ar bitration Court to refuse to hear or give any decision in respect of any union's claim for increased wages if such union is on strike or has threatened to strike, and has this policy of the Arbitration Court not. been condoned and supported by the Government~

'' 4. In view of the prompt action by the Prices Commissioner in reaching a decision when threatened by a manufacturers' strike, will he apply the same rule to workers and instruct the Arbitration Court to promptly hear and determine claims by unions whose members threaten to strike~"


''1. No.

"2. This is not a matter coming within my jurisdiction.

'' 3. and 4. The hon. member is well aware, from public pronouncements made on numerous occasions by members of this Government, that the Arbitration Court in carrying out its functions is free and untrammelled. The policy of the Court is determined by the Court, and no member of this .Government would presume to instruct the Court as to the manner in which it should function.''

NuMBER AND CosT OF GovERNMENT MOTOR-OARS.

:Mr. WANSTALL (Toowong): I desire to ask the Premier whether he has answers to the following questions I addressed to him on 17 August:-

Will he inform the House-'' 1. The number of passenger cars owned

by the Government and carrying only a 'Q' and not a 'QG' numbed

'' 2. To whom these cars are allocated, indicating which are privately driven and which chauffeur-driven, and showing th" average monthly mileage credited to each car~

'' 3. ·what returns are kept showing the petrol consumed by such cars, the mileage covered, the hours of operation, and the authorisation for particular jobs done~

'' 4. If no such returns are kept, why not, and what is the check to ensure that public moneys are not wasted in private use of vehicles, petrol, and oils~

'' 5. How many chauffeurs are currently in the Government's employ, and to whom are they allocated~

'' 6. Is it a fact that such chauffeurs are paid an extra £1 10s. per week as a substitute for overtime so that they are on call at any time; and what check is made to

ensure that such payment is adequate in relation to the value of overtime such chauffeurs do work~"

Hon. V. C. GAIR (South BrisbaneActing Premier) for Hon. E. M. HANLON (Ithaca) replied-

'' 1. Thirty-one, excluding cars used by His Excellency the Governor and Police.

'' 2. These cars are allocated as follows:-

To w_h_o_m_ca_r_All_o_c_a_te_d_·_.l i~~:~ ~-~-A-~_¥_a~-~-~-LEGISLATIVE ASSEM:BLY.

Mr. Speaker .. I No I 1,271

PREMIER AND CHIEF SECRETARY'S DEPARTli!ENT. *The Honourable the Premier Yes 1,108 *The Honourable the Premier Yes 1,710 The Co-ordinator-General of

Public Works Yes 625 The Public service Co~·-

missioner .. No 973 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOME AFFAIRS.

*The Honourable the Minister I Yes I 750 *The Honourable the Minister No 370 On loan to Public Hospital,

Thursday Island • . No

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

*The Honourable the Minister I Yes I 1 400 *The Honourable the Minister No '685

DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND INDUSTRY.

*The Honourable the Minister I Yes I 891 *The Honourable the Minister No 288

DEPARTli!ENT OF JUSTICE.

*The Honourable the Minister ) Yes 1,561 *The Honourable the Minister 11._ {I 248

*The Honourable the Minister No 600 Prisons . . . . . . No 609

TREASURY DEPARTli!ENT. *The Honourable the Minister I Yes 514 Commissioner of Main Roads No 459

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS AND IRRIGATION.

*The Honourable the Minister I Ye~ I 1,174 *The Honourable the Minister No 995 Commissioner of Irrigation

and Water Supply . . No 908

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND STOCK. *The Honourable the Minister Yes 1, 717 *The Honourable the Minister No (Pur-

Chairman, Central Sugar Cane Prices Board Yes

chased 5-8-49)

1,044

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. *The Honourable the Minister I Yes j 1,145 *The Honourable the Minister No 991

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND IMMIGRATION.

*The Honourable the Minister I Yes I 650 The State Electricity Corn-

missioner . . . . . . No 1,166

RAILWAYS DEPARTMENT.

*The Honourable the Minister I Yes Departmental officers . . No Departmental officers . . No

1,220 360 230

• Cars allocated to Ministers are used extensively by Departmental officers for Departmental purposes. These cars are also made available to visiting Ministers from other States, irrespective of the political party with which they are associated, and to visiting diplomats and distinguished persons from abroad. It will of course be appreciated that Ministers are required to do a considerable amount of travelling by car in order to undertake inspections, the opening of industrial and agricultural exhibitions and other Ministerial business, at the request of Members of both sides of this House."

176 Personal Explanation. [ASSEMBLY.] Disallowance of Order in Council.

'' 3. and 4. Adequate Departmental records are kept to enable the reviewing of running costs and accounts are subject to audit.

'' 5. Twenty-three chauffeurs of passenger cars are employed. This figure does not include truck drivers. Chauffeurs are allocated as follows:-

His Excellency the Governor, 2; Premier and Chief Secretary's Depart-3 (1-Premier, 1-Premier and Departmental officers, 1-Co-ordinator General of Public Works); Department of Health and Home Affairs, 1 (Minister); Department of Public Works, Housing, and Local Government, 4 (1-Minister, 1-Departmental officers, 1-Inspectorial and Construction Branch, 1-Pay Clerk); Department of Labour and Industry, 1 (Minister); Department of Justice, 1 (Minister); Treasury Department, 2 (1-Minister, 1-Main Roads Commission officers) ; Department of Public Lands and Irrigation, 1 (Minister); Department of Agriculture and Stock, 2 (1-Minister, 1-Chairman, Central Sugar Cane Prices Board); Department of Public Instruction, 2 (1-Minister, 1-D~partmental officers); Department of Mmes and Immigration, 2 (1-Minister, 1-State Electricity Commissioner and of!i~ers); Railways Department, 2 (l-Mm1ster, 1-Commissioner and Departmental officers). '' 6. The allowance paid to Ministerial

chauffeurs in lieu of overtime was recently reviewed by Cabinet, when it was determined that an allowance of 30s. per week in lieu of overtime was adequate compensation for any additional work outside normal hours of duty which Ministerial chauffeurs might be called upon to perform from time to time. It will be appreciated that some Ministers, wherever practicable, drive themselves at night and at week-ends. Further when Ministers are absent from Brisbane Ministerial chauffeurs are relieved of ~ great deal of the work which would normally be performed by them. These factors were taken into account in determining what would be a reasonable allowance for any overtime which a Ministerial chauffeur might be required to work.''

PAPER.

The following paper was laid on the tableRegulations under the Primary Producers'

Organisation and Marketing Acts, 1926 to 1946.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. IN GRAM (Keppel) (11.20 a.m.), by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation. In my speech on the Address in Reply on Tuesday, the 16th inst·ant I accused the member for Fassifern (Mr. A,. G. Muller) of advocating the leaving of cows to die if they did not provide a good profit for the owners.

The hon. member for Fassifern denied my statement and, in accordance with parliamentary practice I had to accept his denial.

However, on reading "Hansard" I find that the hon. member for Fassifern made the following remarks in Parliament which ,are reported in "Hansard" of '2 October, 1947-

"Mr. Muller: .... I made a personal test last year and other people have made the same test. I fed lucerne chaff to cows for the production of butter. I also cut lucerne hay into chaff and sold it as chaff and for the part that I put into bags ... ''

Mr. NICKLIN: I rise to a point of order. Is this a personal explanation by the hon. member for Keppel or the reading of a statement made by the hon. member for Fassifern ~

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member for Keppel, I understand, is endeavouring to make a personal explanation and in doing so he is reading to the House what the hon. member for Fassifern said in a previous speech. The hon. member for Keppel!

Mr. INGRAM: The hon. member for Fassifern continued-

". . . . I got £14 a ton but for what I put through my cows I got only £5 a ton. £5 a ton is a losing proposition; I actually lost money in the process. After all, the Minister has to realise that dairy farmers are not a pack of fools. They are not silly enough to put feed through cows and lose money.'' The remarks made by the hon. member for

Fassifern that I wish to emphasise are these:-

'' ..... dairy farmers are not a pack of fools; they are not silly enough to put feed through cows and lose money.''

If the hon. member for Fassifern did not mean, in those remarks, that farmers would allow cows to die if the producers could not get the profit they wanted, then the English language has no meaning.

Mr. MULLER: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Keppel asked permission to make a personal explanation. He is abusing the privilege of a. personal explanation to criticise something I said. He has not refuted the statement I made.

ORDER IN COUNCIL UNDER ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION (OVERSEAS)

LTD. AGREEMENT ACT.

MOTION FOR DISALLOWANCE-ACTING SPEAKER'S RULING.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition gave notice on Thursday last that he would move for the disallowance of an Order in Council of 5 May, 1949, issued under the Electric Supply Corporation (Overseas) Ltd. Agreement Act of 1947.

Standing Order No. 37 A deals with the procedure to be followed when notices of motion to disallow regulations, rules or orders in council are given, and it is there laid down

Address in Reply. [23 AUGUST.] Address in Reply.

that the Speaker is to deeide, in the first instance, whether the subject matter of the proposed motion has been discussed during the currency of the presen~ ses~ion ?r whether an opportunity for discusswn will arise within the next succeeding period of seven days.

The House is at present debating with ~he Address in Reply and hon. members reahse, with me that the scope of that debate affords them arf. opportunity to discuss virtually anything. In the words of "May" the debate on the Address in Reply is ''wide enough to cover the whole field of Government policy.''

'l'herefore under the terms of Standing Order I carf. come ·to no other conclusion than that the opportunity to debate the subject matter of the proposed motion presently exists.

The motion accordingly does not appear on the business paper for today, but I assure the Leader of the Opposition that at t~e conclusion of the Address in Reply debate, m accordance with the provisions of the Standing Order the motion will be placed on the business paper and an opportunity given to record a decision thereon.

Mr. NICKLIN (Murrumba-Leader . of the Opposition) (11.25 a.m.): Mr. Actrng Speaker, as the ruling you hav~ given. today has the effect of denying to th~s ~arl~ame~t the time-honoured right of questwUing m this House the act of the Executive, I have no alternative but to give notice that your ruling be disagreed with, and I do so accordingly.

ADDRESS IN REPLY.

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE-THIRD ALLOTTED DAY.

Debate resumed from 18 August (see page 172) on Mr. Jesso;t's motion for the adoption of the Address m Reply.

Hon. W. M. MOORE qvrert~yr-Secretary for Mines and Immigration) (11.26 a.m.) : The Speech of . His :~pxcellency the Governor presents a concise re~Iew of successful post-war long-range plannmg of the present Labour Government of this State. I desire to compliment His .Excellency ~m t~e interest he has displayed m matters m this State since his appointment and the industry he has shown in travelling to all parts of the country to get first-h8;nd information on its development and the hves of the people.

I desire also to compliment the mover and seconder of the motion, the subject of the debate. These two experienced hon. members of the Government party, Messrs. Jesson and Clark members for the electorates of Kennedy ~nd Fitzroy respectively, represent very important country areas. They have been members of the Government party for many years and I am sure that the Government are fortunate indeed in having in their ranks men of their experience to advise them on matters concerning their electorates.

Honourable Members conversing-

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I desire to point out to hon. members that there· is so much murmuring going on in the Chamber that I am sure the '' Hansard'' staff will have great difficulty in recording the speech of the hon. member. I therefore ask hon .. members to bear that in mind when the hon. member is speaking.

Honourable Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. MOO RE: I was saying that theo Government were fortunate in having in the· ranks of their party men with such a wide experience as the hon. member for Kennedy and the hon. member for Fitzroy to advise· them on the problems in those parts of the· State that they represent. I desire to congratulate those two hon. members on the speeches they made in moving and seconding the motion.

Up to the present the speeches of hon. members opposite have not been very impressive. One would imagine that their time would be devoted to criticising the work of the Government over the period under review and in offering advice to them on the way in which they should administer the affairs of the State, but it appears to me that with the elections in the offing hon. members opposite· have decided to spend their time in manufacturing a little propaganda. Moreover, as is. usual with them, most of their utterances have been based on false premises.

The hon. member for West Moreton, wh<Y incidentally is a Liberal Senate candidate in the forthcoming Federal elections, is normally a very shrewd and wily debater, but has evidently been the victim of some political leg-pulling. I am rather surprised that an hon. member of his experience should be s<Y easily led astray. Evidently, in his desire to become au fait with affairs throughout theState of Queensland, he has journeyed throughout the State, but in the North he evidently has been the victim of some political legpulling. He referred to some matters that come under my department and he invited me to give them my attention.

The hon. member made some complaint about the closing down of the Chillagoe· smelters and referred to some matters at Mt. Carbine. He also referred, to use his own words, to the lack of support and interest given to mining matters in the North by the Government generally.

The story of Chillagoe is well known to most hon. members and the people concerned in that area, but I want to say very briefly that the decision to close down the smelting works at Chillagoe was not arrived at hastily, nor without very grave consideration of all the facts of the case. I would remind hon. members generally, and tell the public, that. we have in our Cabinet hon. members who have a very intimate knowledge of that part of the country and its mineral potentialities. They are thoroughly conversant with all the circumstances and these ;were co'nsidered when the Government finally decided to close· the works. Apart from the advice tendR1'1i'-il:

178 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

to the Government by these Cabinet Ministers, the representations of every person who :placed his views before the Department of Mines, were very carefully examined. It was with very great reluctance that it was :finally decided to close the smelters and I intend

-to give a brief resume of the facts associated with that decision.

The smelters at Ohillagoe were originally designed some 50 years ago to treat silverlead and copper ores principally from the Chillagoe district. Gold-bearing mineralised ores from the Etheridge field were furnaced and their importance is evidenced by the fa_ct that the mining and smelting company bmlt and controlled the railway to Forsayth. After the smelters were acquired by the State, about 1919, lead and copper smelting was begun a~d continued intermittently as ore supphes accumulated, until 1927 when operations were suspended. During that period copper and lead ores were obtained from the Chillagoe, Herberton, Etheridge and other :fields, but the largest individual supplies came from Stateowned and State-operated mines at Mungana.

On the reopening of the smelters in 1929, silver-lead ores were bought and stock-piled in order to encour"age and help producers of these ores. A short lead-smelting campaign quickly cleaned up this accumulation. With the falling off of silver-lead ores offering it became obvious that gold and copper ores coming forward from the Cairns hinterland were, by themselves, of insufficient tonnages to maintain continuous smelting operations at Chillagoe.

The rise in the gold price made available increasing amounts of siliceous gold-bearing ores, which could not be smelted with the limited oxidised copper ores offering. Consequently, supplies of copper ores containing sulphides were necessary and ore-producers in the Oloncurry district were offered very favourable tariffs and rail freights to Chillagoe. These freights involved considerable financial loss to the Railway Department, but in spite of that and in order to keep the smelters going to help people who were dependent on the smelters for a living the Railway Department continued to carry the burden of that loss. Considerable tonnages of Oloncurry ores were regularly sent to Chillagoe, and during the latter years two-thirds of the ore smelted at Ohillagoe came from the Oloncurry district. In addition, special tariffs were given to suppliers of sulphide flux ore from various districts, notably Herberton.

During this period, when the price of copper was low, continuance of supplies for smelting was made possible only with governmental assistance in the form of payment of a price for copper much in excess of the ruling market price, special bonuses for sulphide ores, cheap freight rates, and revision of treatment charges, and in other forms.

In spite of all this assistance by the Government, supplies of ore coming to hand fell off, and although for the last few years prior to the closure in 1943, special efforts were made throughout the State to obtain ore, even to the extent of railing pyritic

concentrates from Mt. Morgan to help our smelting campaigns, the plant had to be closed because of the lack of ore.

That is the real reason why the Chillagoe smelters were closed. As is known by all >yith any experience in mining, regular deliveries of suitable ore supplies in the required t?nnages are _essential to any smelting operations, and Without such supplies no smelter can be maintained in operation. Small mines alone cannot give a steady supply and there must be at least one major source of supply of ore of suitable type and grade. An investigation of potential sources of supplies of cop.rer ores for the Chillagoe smelters, made m 1944, by two technical officers of the department with locaT knowledge of all the producing :fields, failed to show the existence of such a major deposit. The claims made for old mines could not be substantiated.

The combined output of the fields at that date would have had to be increased fourfold to meet the requirements of the smelters. At Mt. Molloy, more recent production came from pillars of high-grade secondary ore from the upper levels now depleted and there are no prospects of future supplies. Two high technical officers of the department made an investigation, which again shows that the step of closing the smelters was not taken until after careful investigation by men :fitted for the job.

Over the period of six years that have elapsed since the smelters were forced to close, numerous persons and associations, most of them like the hon. member for West Moreton, with little if any background in mining, have protested against the cessation of smelting or have urged reopening of the Chillagoe smelters, but although repeated requests have been made for information no-one has been able to indicate definitely where any substantial and regular tonnage of ore is likely to be available.

Deputations of persons interested in the matter waited on my predecessor, the hon. member for Normanby, and I have had a couple of deputations on the subject, and on each of these occasions these people were told that if they could show any real reason for believing that any deposits of ore existed that would help to keep these smelters working the department would be only too pleased to have them thoroughly investigated. Up to date there has been no information forthcoming.

The Government cannot be accused of hasty or precipitate action in dismantling the smelters, because for six years the plant and machinery have been maintained at Chillagoe under the supervision of caretakers in the hope that there would be some major development that would warrant the reopening of the smelters, but although the prices of copper and lead have been good for some time, there have been no developments that would in any way warrant consideration of even a limited smelting campaign.

Experience has shown that there is little hope that a major deposit will be located in

Address in Reply. [23 AUGUST.) Address in Reply. 179<

the Chillagoe district by the restricted method necessarily employed by small miners with little or no capital. I am sure that all members will agree that mining today, particularly where there are bodies of low-grade ore of any kind, is a task for a company that is financially strong, and the methods employed must be modern and the equipment used of the latest design.

Mr. Sparkes: Why are you giving us all this information~

Mr. )lOO RE: I am replying to the matter raised by the hon. member for West Moreton, who sits next to the hon. member for Aubigny. He indicted the Government for closing Chillagoe, stating that it should not have been done. I have been endeavouring to show, as I said earlier, that the hon. member has been the victim of misinformation. I am making the statement hoping that a large mining company with an expert technical staff and organisation as well as ample funds, whilst providing the necessary safeguard to ensure that small miners will not be interfered with, will be willing to operate on these fields.

Mr. Sparkes: That would not be the case at Blair Athol.

Mr. MOO RE: The Government will reply to all the stories on Blair Athol before this session is finished. The Government have nothing to hide about that field and when the whole story is told I am sure that even the hon. member for Aubigny will compliment the Government on their foresight in trying to develop such a huge body of coal. The Government through their Department of Mines has succeeded in encouraging just such a company, the Broken Hill South Company, to prospect the Chillagoe field in an endeavour to resuscitate mining there. Although to date results obtained by this company have not been promising, investigations are being continued.

Mr. Sparkes: In other words, if the Government can not do it, you allow private enterprise to do it.

Mr. MOORE: Private enterprise?

Mr. Spad:es: When you fall down on the job private enterprise has to get you out.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. MOO RE: With the encouragement that this Government have given over the years to private enterprise members of the Opposition are getting a little bit worried and embarrassed about their frequent references to the socialistic Government.

As I was saying, the Chillagoe field is now being prospected by the Broken Hill South Company and although to date the result has not been very encouraging investigations are still proceeding. This company has clearly indicated that if it is at all possible that ores will be found it proposes to treat them in a very highly modernised way. This only a big financial company can do. It proposes to treat the ore, if it is found in large quantities, with its own treatment facilities.

I might mention that the authority given to the Broken Hill South Company does not include the slag dumps at the smelters. 'rh8' hon. member for West Moreton based nis. information on matter given to him by the Mareeba Ore Producers' Association. To my knowledge, the principal man in that show is Mr. W. Kelly. Early in 1949 Mr. Kelly visited Brisbane and had various discussions" about the closing of the Chillagoe smelters. He went so far as to raise the question of th8' acquisition of the smelters by his associatioiL for cement manufacture and other purposes, including the treatment of the slag dump at the smelter site. It was pointed out to Mr~ Kelly that the success of cement production depended not only on the market for the product, but also on the availability of the supplies of limestone and clay, and also of gypsum and coal. Although limestone and clay are available in the Chillagoe district the Department of Mines has no record that gypsum is found in that area, so that the· manufacture of cement there, particularly at this period would not be economic. I do not think the Government or the Department. would be justified in encouraging men to start out on a venture that was not economically sound.

Mr. Kelly says he has been informed that there are good coal and gypsum deposits in the area. He went as far as to say that he would ascertain the locality of these deposits,. and he also offered to produce a guide who would take officers of the Department of Mines to those deposits. The department offered to make available the services of two ge_ologists if . this information could be supp_lled, but neither Mr. Kelly nor his associatiOn has honoured the promise to show where these deposits can be found. Again it is' a very easy matter to theorise on matters. such as this and again the Department of Mines was fully entitled to ask Mr. Kelly to, pr_oduce his proof of the existence of the. mmerals that he said were in that district.

~r: Kelly was told also that apart from bmldmg a power plant the Chillagoe smelters were unsuitable for cement manufacture .. There i~ a very small amount of machinery there smtable for that purpose. Some of this machinery is 40 years old, and on the other hand the Department of Mines could find much better use for some of it in conne<Jtion :"'ith coal, for which no-one can deny there· Is an urgent demand at the moment. It wa& intimated very clearly to Mr. Kelly that the Government would be pleased to receive and: consider any proposal he or any organisation cared to submit, but no practicable suggestion has come forward. Although the Chillagoe plant is old and the smelting plant is. obsolete there are many units in it that are required by other mining undertakings. throughout the State, both Government and privately-controlled, and the Government. would be culpable if they allowed this plant to remain idle to deteriorate if it could be· used to help increase production elsewhere. That is the attitude the department has. adopted in the matter.


The hon. member also went on to say that as far as mining was concerned the Government had neglected the northern parts of the State. I propose to quote a few figures to show that again the hon. member is basing his statement on false premises. He referred to the fact that the Moore Government did a good deal for mining. We agree that they opened the smelters. In what was virtually the last year of their office they spent in the northern part of the State some £17,688, or approximately 50 per cent. of the total allocation for mining in this State. Subsequent Labour Governments have spent much more money than that there. I do not propose to weary the House with all the :figures I have, but in 1934-5 the present Labour Government spent £34,800 on mining there and round about 1938-9 they spent £46,8l5, or 66 per eent. of the total allocation for mining in the North. The figures show that again this Government have been cognisant of the wants of the northern areas of the State and on all occasion& have given every consideration to requestS made by mining interests in the North.

The hon. member went on to criticise the water supply for Mt. Garnet. Again he based his indictment of the Government on unsound premises.

Mr. Sparkes: It would seem that the people in the North and the Government are at variance in their views.

Mr. MOO RE: I cannot see it.

Mr. Sparkes: The people of the North keep on saying that they are being neglected and the Government keep on saying that everything in the garden is lovely.

Mr. MOO RE: The only opinion we have about that is that somebody told the hon. member for West Moreton something, and certain newspapers, as is their custom, were willing to print anything in order to endeavour to embarrass the Government. I had such an experience during the coal strike when the "Sunday Mail" printed an article on the activities of my department in connection with rationing. On the Sunaay night the "Courier-Mail," which is really the same concern, rang my home and asked me to comment on the statement made in the article. I said to the member of the newspaper staff making the inquiries, ''What information do you want me to give~" He said, "Is the statement true~" Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, I sl1ould not have believed, prior to these dealings I had with the paper that such a thing could happen. He said, ''I want you to tell us whether the statement is true.'' My rejoinder was, ''As you printed it, I think the obliga,tion is on your newspaper to know if the statement is true.'' Incidentally, the statement was not true. So much for what newspapers will print and so much for the indictment of the Government made by the hon. member for West Moreton. He said he was told. I admire the hon. member for his political views and his powers of debate but I am rather surprised that he

fell for the political leg-pulling that has been indulged in. Newspaper reports are often not true.

Here are the facts regarding the water supply at Mt. Garnet-

Mr. Sparkes interjected.

Mr. MO ORE: The door of the Department of Mines is always open to people who want to· interview its officers; Cabinet Ministers are only too pleased to listen to these people if they come along and help them. The hon. member for West Moreton said that he was told by the North Queensland Ore Producers' Association that a water supply could be obtained by gravitation from the Mary River. Investigations of that proposal were made som~ years ago by Mr. Bond, a Main Roads Commission engineer, who took levels which disclosed that the rise of the ground was too great and that the scheme was impracticable. That was the finding of an engineer of some repute. As a result of representations made to the Secretary for Agriculture and Stock, Mr. Collins, improvement of the water supply to Mt. Garnett was investigated by Mr. Bond who suggested that if 2,000 yards of silt material were removed from the dam its capacity would be greatly increased. An amount of £550 was made available by the department to have the dam cleaned and deepened but it was not used, as the contractor could not carry out the work because he had disposed of his equipment.

The hon. member for West Moret0n comes along to this House with a story told to him that no offer was made by the department. In December, 1948, Mr. J. Ross, of Mt. Carbine, suggested that if the department supplied a gravel pump he would undertake to remove the tailings from the dam. A suitable pump was railed from Charters Towers on 17 January, 1949 by the department and was made available free of charge. At the end of February, 1949, Mr. Ross reported that the flood had worked all the tailings out of the dam and that the dam was cleaned out. At the present time there is a plentiful supply of water in the dam for battery use. Despite the stories that the hon. member for \TV est Moreton brought here there has been no application from anybody in that area to the Department of Mines on this subject. The dam having been cleaned out, the plant was sent back to Charters Towers ..

Further criticism was offered by the hon. member for West Moreton concerning compressor plants. The facts are that the department possesses 16 fully equipped compressor plants, with jack hammers, hoses, drill steels, and other accessories, and nine of the 16 are in use in the northern division of the State. Five new compressor plants have been on order since the beginning of the year. The equipment is hard to get and is due for delivery at the end of the year.

These plants will be hired out in the different parts of the State where the department thinks they will be useful.

Address in Reply. [23 AUGUST.] Address in Reply. 181

There have been requests for compressor plants and other plants and they will be made available as required. There are the facts of all these cases.

JUr. Sparkes: Then the hon. member for West Moreton and the hon. member for Mundingburra are all at sea when they say the North is neglected~

Mr. MOO RE: I have given the facts, and if the hon. member for Aubigny and his colleagues cannot see what is right from the facts I have given, then I am sorry for them.

Mr. Sparkes: You are quite happy about the North~

Mr. MOORE: Yes, quite.

Mr. Aikens: The only people who are not happy about the North are the Northern people.

Mr. MOO RE: Hon. members opposite are prepared to indict the Government purely for political-propaganda purposes in view of the forthcoming elections, and they are not careful to base their criticisms on facts. That was strikingly exemplified in the recent coal strike when my department was criticised in many ways, and I can come to only one conclusion, that is, that it was a purely political-propaganda campaign against the Government.

Let me draw the attention of the House to an advertisement that appeared in a Saturday paper round about 13 August. It indicates the depths to which the opponents of Labour will descend in.order to confuse the minds of the people and exemplified the great amount of money they apparently had at their disposal for the purpose of propaganda of this kind. In the early stage& of the coal strike an advertisement appeared on a Saturday morning containing a direction from the Institute of Public Affairs that members of Parliament be criticised constructively or destructively. I was amazed at the gameness of some peope to put such stuff in print-that members of Parliament should be criticised destructively. Let me say, incidentally, that most of the criticism levelled against the Government during the coal strike was destructive and based on false premises. I have here the advertisement to which I refer, over the name of Mr. M. D. Davies. It is an advertisement commenting on the coal strike. Let me tell hon. members that Mr. Davies is president of the Chamber of Manufactures. Let me tell them also that during the strike I presided over a rationing advisory committee that did an excellent job in this State. I met representatives from the Employers' Federation, the Chamber of Manufactures, and I think the Chamber of Commerce also was represented. Mr. Davies is president of the Chamber of Manufactures.

Mr. Sp.arlres: You told us that before.

Mr. MOO RE: I think I may be pardoned for a little repetition, particularly where the hon. member for Aubigny is concerned, because he does not appear readily to assimilate facts when they are given to him,

especially when compared with other hon. members. There were present at the meeting, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Suggars and Mr. Wainwright. These gentlemen were in my office for over an hour. I very frankly and very fully acquainted them with the position that the Government found themselves in when coal-mining operations ceased. I told them of the whole position, including the position of coal supplies, and the position industry found itself in. Furthermore, the Rationing Advisory Committee was present and I invited those gentlemen who had waited on me to ask its members any questions. They took advantage of my offer. At the conclusion, they thanked me for the very full interview I had granted them, and they thanked me also for the information I had given. They admitted, too, the seriousness of the position, and the need for rationing. They said they would collaborate in every possible way.

Yet this is what you get! I will quote from this advertisement-

'' And what of employers during this period~ Immediately the strike began they were faced with rigid restrictions.''

Yet this conference that waited on me was very representative of business men, manufacturers, an~ other interests in industry and they admrtted to me that the restrictions were necessary and were not unduly harsh. Yet the article states-

'' Immediately the strike began they were faced with rigid restrictions.''

Yet three members of this association were in my room with me for over an hour and amongst others, thanked me for the fuli account that I had given them of our activities.

The article goes on to say-'' . . . : . suffice it to say they were

more drastrc and lasted longer in Queensland than anywhere else. In some cases these meant the complete shut-down of establishments. In many others however there was a choice between this ~ourse and the installation and operation of auxiliary power units.''

It further proceeds to state a lot of tarriclidclles-

'' The promise of full employment has been honoured by employers not by the Government. ''

I think I have said enough.

JUr. Gair: Is that the letter in which he complains about use of power and light for the Exhibition.

JUr. MOO RE: No, I have another letter here about that.

Mr. Suggars said that he was amazed and surprised that the Government would lift the restrictions for the Exhibition. I do not think that any fair-minded man in this State would complain of the action of the Rationing Advisory Committee in recommending the lifting of the power restrictions for the ]Jxhibition. The Government were pleased to do it.

Mr. Gair: It was a very wise decision.


Mr. MOO RE: Coal supplies were very low, but we regarded the Exhibition as an event of national importance. It is so for everyone in this State, manufacturers, primary producers, and everyone else.

Mr. Sparkes: We appreciate that.

Mr. MOO RE: Of course the hon. member would. The members of his association were very courteous to me and thanked me for the action of the Government. There is no accounting for the actions of some men. Some men cannot let occasions such as this pass without endeavouring to n;take so_me political capital out of them. It 1s amazmg that The Chamber of Manufacturers and the Communist Party were both railing at the Government for precipitating power rationing and both complained of the hardship of it.

I have not a great deal of time left but I should like to show the House that power rationing was not precipitate and that the rationing decided on with the power available did not cause extreme hardship. Rationing in Queensland was not imposed until the Wednesday after the production of coal had ceased. Rationing was adopted in New South Wales up to 30 per cent. prior to cessation of coal mining.

Mr. Pie: In other States industry got up to 80 per cent. of its power.

Mr. MOO RE: The hon. member should keep quiet. He ought to be the last person to interject.

There was no undue hardship for sick people or for the young or the old. There was no undue domestic hardship generally under domestic rationing.

(Time expired.)

Mr. MciNTYRE (Cunningham) (12.6 p.m.): In addressing myself to the motion I wish to deal in the main with primary production, believing that in all the problems associated with the well-being of this country primary production should have Priority No. 1.

I should like to pay a compliment to His Excellency the Governor for the splendid way in which he has discharged his responsibilities. He has lived up to the highest expectations of everyone. I compliment him particularly on his great interest in our primary industries, and the interest and encouragement he has expressed from time to time.

I think one of the chief standards by which we can gauge our food production is the basic foods we are exporting to the United Kingdom. These are on the downward grade. I propose to speak more on the volume of food than money values. The 1948-49 report of Dr. Wilson, the Commonwealth Statistician, show that the Australian exports to the United Kingdom have dropped substantially. It goes on to show that the United Kingdom received less butter, beef, mutton and lamb but more wheat from Australia.

In 1948-49 butter exports to Britain amounted to 72,000 tons, valued at £20,667,000, compared with 75,700 tons, worth £18,998,000, in 1947-48. While the volume of exports is considerably down the money value has increased.

Beef imports by Britain from Australia totalled 67,627 tons, valued at £4,295,000, compared with 94,651 tons, valued at £5,371,000, in 1947-48.

Mutton and lamb exports amounted too 41,770 tons, valued at £3,733,000 compared with 51,098 tons, worth £3,947 000 the pre-vious financial year. '

Dr. Wilson's :figures go to show that the wheat shipments totalled 34,198,475 bushels, valued at £29,991,000, and flour 217,343 tons, worth £9,796,000. In 1947-48 the exports of wheat totalled 17,225,932 bushels, worth £14,751,000, and flour 50,326 tons, worth £2,403,000.

These :figures go to show that with the exception of wheat the export of our basic foods to the United Kingdom showed 31

definite decline in 1948-49, compared with the previous year. I think those :figures are an effective reply to much of the loose talk that has gone on inside and outside this Chamber about what our primary industries are doing. Unless something is done to remedy that position, it will deteriorate and become aggravated.

It is estimated that if the present number of migrants coming to Australia continues we shall in a very short period be asked to support a population of 10,000,000. I think an analysis of the :figures will show that if that happens, Australia, instead of being an exporter of foodstuffs, will become an importer.

In the publication of the Federal Bureau of E~onomics, issued late in 1948, some very starthng figures are made available. Here again I would draw the attention of members. to the fact that I deal with volume of produce rather than value. It is a shock to us as Australians to be told in this quarterly publication that to support a population of 10,000,000 this country, on present production would have to import about 91,000 tons of beef and veal, 21,000 tons of mutton and lamb, 22,000 tons of pig-meats, 156,000 tons of potatoes, and 37,000 tons of citrus fruits. A population of 10,000,000 is well within the bounds of possibility within a relatively short period if the present rate of immigration is maintained and it is inconceivable that a great exporting country like Australia should have to become an importer. If that happens it will be the result of national policy rather than any dearth of resources. It is a very remarkable fact, that at a time when there should be a tremendous surge forward in output to take advantage of prevailing prices and consolidate marketing opportunities, the man on the land :finds himself hog-tied by oppressive taxation and shortage of labour, plant, and material.

Naturally the question is asked: what are we going to do about it~ I am inclined to think we are doing very little indeed. Our


resources are great but we are not exploiting them. A great responsibility rests on .Ministers of the Crown in this State to do all that is possible to remedy this downward trend. About the only thing I can notice is the experiment at Peak Downs. We are told again and again that Peak Downs 1s our reply to our shortage in production but the Premier told us the other evening, that if we attempt to criticise Peak Downs in this House we shall be charged with disloyalty to the British Empire.

,Mr. Power: That is not true.

Mr. MciNTYRE: That is what he said. Mr. Power: He did not say that at all.

Mr. MciNTYRE: That is the interpreta-tion I put on it-that any criticism of Peak Downs and all that it stands for meant disloyalty to the British Empire.

Mr. Power: No.

Mr. lliciNTYRE: In addition the Premier said something else, which I do not know was appreciated by hon. members present, that is, that Peak Downs is only an experiment. In other words, the best reply that we can give to this downward trend in production is some doubtful experiment in production. We should aim at doing something more than that. As one who has visited the Peak Downs area I appreciate the fJrthright statement that Mr. Kemp voluntarily made to the Press when he told the story of the production at Peak Downs. I have no wish to dwell on Peak Downs in this speech but I must mention that I compliment Mr. Kemp on his forthrightness. He told the story that the total production of Peak Downs is 320,000 bushels of grain sorghum and as the result of my visit there I know that much of this is of a very low quality. The production averages a little over 10 bushels to the r.tre and that is a very poor result for what has been done there.

Mr. Aikens: Is the sorghum itself of poor quality~

Mr. MciNTYRE: A lot of the grain is of poor quality, not as the result of anything the Corporation did or did not uo but because of the prevailing conditions. '.rhere are many difficulties associated with the scheme-! appreciate them-but I resent the statements made in this Chamber regarding the scheme. An hon. member-! do not know who-said there was no loss of grain on the ground. That is just a silly stupid statemr;Ut. I inspected these fields in company with Mr. McKeon and we mutually agreed that with the conditions prevailing-which of course were not due to any fault of his-there was anything from 25 to 30 bushels an acre of grain on the ground that could not be garnered. It is just stupid for anyone to come into this Chamber and say there was no loss.

Mr. Aikens: Do you mean that the loss on the ground was 25 bushels to the acre~'

Mr. lllciNTYRE: Yes, or eight bags to the acre. But that is not unusual. My experience of growing grain sorghum has been

that with unsatisfactory harvesting conditions even though you might have a crop of 60 bushels to the acre you can lose the lot. I have had that experience, and for anyone to come in here and try to misrepresent the position by saying there was no loss is simply foolish.

Other hon. members said there was no evidence or danger of soil erosion. Others said some steps had been taken to combat soil erosion. Both statements are absolutely untrue. There is every evidence that soil erosion will become a major problem at Peak Downs, particularly if modern farming methods are applied.

Mr. Roberts: Surely you noticed that they had contour ploughing there.

Mr. MciNTYRE: There was no contour ploughing of any kind at all, and I was all over the area. Absolutely nothing has been done to combat soil erosion and I suggest that if Peak Downs is going to be, a succees something will have to be done about it. I am not condemning the scheme, but I do know that the margin of success as against failure is very narrow. It has been the custom to compare Peak Downs with the Darling Downs. The fact is that on the Darling Downs the margin is very narrow indeed and if the methods adopted at Peak Downs last year and again this year were applied to the Darling Downs they could not possibly succeed. At Peak Downs they are, relying on producing a crop from the moisture that falls during the growing period. That· method is seldom successful on the Darling Downs. The only way by which we can succeed on the Darling Downs is to go in for a system of semi-fallowing and conserve some of the moisture, to be utilised during the growing period. That applies to all crops on the Downs, and unless modern methods are applied at Peak Downs similar to those adopted on the Darling Downs, the Peak Downs scheme must fail.

The early boast about what was going to be done at Peak Downs is most distressing to those people who are responsible for carrying on the project and they are now feeling the bump greatly. It is all right to say, "If this had happened and if that had happened things would have been different.'' In farming there are many ifs and buts. You are never sure of anything till you have done the job. I put in two days up there and I could take up the whole of my time today dealing with Peak Downs.

Mr. Ailiens: You have made a very interesting contribution to the debate on it so far.

Mr. MciNTYRE: I thank the hon. member.

I wish now to make some practical sugges· tion that would help to step up production. The first is that we should direct many of our suitable immigrants to the production areas. If we are going to build our population up to 10,000,000 we must have a fair percentage of our people settled in our producing areas, otherwise we cannot populate the country satisfactorily.


The next thing that must be done is to establish the economics of production on a sound basis so that those who engage in primary production will have a chance of succeeding.

In the first place, immigrants are not J:leing directed to primary production. There .1s no ordered method of interesting them in pnmary production. The other day I picked up one of these immigrants along the road and asked what he thought of Australia. He sai~ it was a splendid country, except for the stnkes. I said, ''The trouble with you is that you are hanging around the city. You should g~t o':t into the open spaces where opportu~1ty IS

waiting for you.'' He said, '' No-one duected me there or offered to help me there. How shall I find these open spaces~'' T~at is a reflection on th0se who are responsible--

Mr. Turner: It would be if it was true, but it is not true.

Mr. MciNTYRE: It is true. Another fact is that those who have been

attracted to primary production stay in it .o:nly temporarily, th~n. drift ba.c~ t~ the mtles, because of cond1t1ons preva1hng m the country. They are pitching their tents towards Sodom and eventually will be living in the city. I think. that somethin&' practical ~hould be done to brmg those men mto our pnmaryproducing areas.

One of our major problems is that the Government have no ordered land settlement policy. There is nowhere for these men to go. Only recently a doctor came to me and he said, ''I have two sons; they have taken their junior and I want to put them on the land. I have gone to the Department of Agriculture and Stock and the Department of Public Lands and they leave me cold. They cannot tell me where I can go and what I can do to get my sons onto the land.'' Our land-settlement policy does not allow for easy access into primary production.

Mr. Rilton interjected.

Mr. JUciNTYRE: If our land-settlement policy will not provide for local young fellows to get onto the land, what are the prospects for the immigrant~

I now come to the economics of production and I say that no major regard is being paid to the economics of production, particularly by those who should be responsible. We had a demonstration in this House a short while ago by the Secretary for· Agriculture and Stock, who spoke of the price of pigs and the drop in the production of pigs, but at no time did he· endeavour to relate the price to the cost of production. As a practical farmer I say it was most distressing to hear the Minister recite a whole lot of things, discrediting somebody somewhere, and at the same time making no attempt to relate price to cost of production.

I wish to acquaint the House with a statement made by that eminent dairy authority, Dr. Peterson, in these words-

'' In this country the basis of sound economics in the dairying industry is to

be found and found only in the amount of money left after selling the product and taking from the proceeds the cost of producing the article. ''

That is a simple formula and one that everyone can understand. It was distressing to hear the Minister talk as he did the other evening.

The Deputy Premier, in a broadcast the other night, said that we must overcome the rural labour shortage. He boosted the primary industries, as I am endeavouring_ to do, and he spoke of their value to the country. We on this side of the House have been saying that for years. He went on to say that the only way the State could overcome the rural labour shortage, if it wanted to meet the increased demand for primary products, was by the payment of wages and the provision of amenities comparable with those obtaining in city occupations. That is very sound, but whilst he was saying that his brother Minister was away in the South making a contribution to a decision depriving the dairy farmers of the cost of production for their commodities. There is no use talking about supplying wages and amenities unless the wherewithal to do so is first provided.

We had another glaring example in this Chamber last year during the passage of the Wheat Stabilisation Bill when the Secretary for Agriculture and Stock again and again blindly refused to face up to the principle of production costs. He could only talk about stability. You cannot have stability unless you have economic stability. I want to remind hon. members that we must establish the economics of production if we are to succeed. There must always be a margin left over between the cost and the sale of the article.

What is happening with regard to the dairying industry~

The position in the dairying industry is most disquieting, and unless production is stepped up we shall find that in a few years, if our immigration policy is carried out on the basis suggested we shall be importers of dairy products. I believe that by the time we get a population of 10,000,000, unless our production is stepped up, we shall be importing dairy products into this country. And we aim at a population of 20,000,000! This is a question that must be faced up to. Something must be done.

There are two chief aspects of dairy production that we must have another look at, the first the volume of production, and the second the quality. The two are interlocked. IY e cannot get away from them. The Department of Agriculture and Stock is helping us considerably in the matter of quality, but we must look further afield because we are not getting the desired results. Capacity to do so is something that has been aptly demonstrated in other fields of production by scientific research. We know that our pastures are an important factor in quality production and we know also that our butter and cheese quality problems are increasing every day, largely because of the fact that our best


pastures, our best grasses, ~ave gone, and that the trace elements essential to our stock in quality production are being eliminated. We must concentrate on this problem.

The health of our cattle is a major factor. I have in this chamber on previous occasions referred to the great loss occasioned in the dairying industry through what may be regarded as preventable diseases and nothing is being done about it. In other fields of primary production great achievements have been carried out and I refer now particularly to the sheep industry in South Australia, in which remarkable things have been done, but nothing much has been done in the dairying industry.

Over there they have a large area of waste land. A laboratory was set up under the direction of C.S.I.R.O., taking an area of 6,000 square miles in a 90-mile desert in the south-western part of South Australia, 3,000 acres of which had been abandoned as almost useless. Nothing but a struggling heath and sparse, miserable grass would grow there. Sheep put on it would sicken and die within a year. The scientists found that at infinitesimal cost they could turn it into luxuriant pasture in which succulent grasses such as subterranean clover grew in profusion-land so rich that it would fatten two to four lambs an acre. It is so rich that they say its future is in raising fat stock and not that of the more frugal land that grows wool to perfection. And associated with the research has come the cure for straight steely wool, the mysterious condition that produces wool that is harsh and crimpless, hard to process, and of low value.

It is all done by the addition to the sand of minute amounts of cobalt, copper aml zinc sulphates. These salts are plentiful and cheap. Zinc, copper, and cobalt are some of the trace elements which are present in ordinary, healthy soil. The amounts needed to correct some of these desert soils are so small that by the time they have been assimilated by sheep they defy ordinary analysis. The scientists trace them by an odd process of making them radioactive and then searching for and measuring the small emissions.

The malady that killed sheep in this 3,000 square miles of South Australian desert had been known for a thousand years and more. The Norsemen had a name for it. They knew it in the Cheviot Hills and the raised beaches of the Hebrides. But the origin of the diseases had always been a mystery. Shepherds only knew that if they moved dying flocks to other lands they usually recovered dramatically.

The officers of the C.S.I.R. in the course of their investigations recognised the South .&ustralian disease as similar to one that existed in other countries. It was an a.naemia, with very much the same results as pernicious anaemia in human beings. They set to work in this desert and analysed the sand, adding traces of this chemical and that, pla.nting new grasses, evolving ways of precisely measuring the growth of grasses, running sheep on new pastures, carefully recording what sheep ate,

and the results. Within three years they had shown that the disease that killed sheep-it is often called Coast disease-was the result of a deficiency of cobalt. They found that an intake of one-300,000th of an ounce of cobalt a day made all the difference between a hea.lthy sheep and a sheep that would die. Very soon after the C.S.I.R. men described the result of their work on that South Australian desert, the disease in other parts of the world also was found to be due to cobalt deficiency.

Evidence of the effects of copper deficiency in animals led to incret:esing concentration of copper tests in areas of sand. The desert came to life. Tests showed also that the sands were deficient in zinc in many places and always in phosphorus. That opened up a vast hinterland .of sandy country, where rainfall was adequate, but productivity was so low that the country had been regarded as useless, or as marginal at the best. The C.S.I.R. experts state that the cost of the zinc, coba~t and copper salts is about 5s. an acre. It Is not quite certain yet how long t~e first dressing of the trace elements Will last ~mt pastures created four years ag? sho;v ~o SI&"n of deficiency so far and t·heir soil IS still gaining in organic content.

These investigations by our scientists have had a marked influence on the sheep industry but we have not yet applied similar meth?ds of research to production in the dairymg industry. I think the same principle can apply to the dairying industry just as much as the sheep industry. The result will be to tend to build up the stamina of the stock and reduce stock losses from disease. This should be one duty of our agricultural colleges and our research stations. They can :find out and exploit all these possibilities so far as the dairying industry is concerned.

Science is only valuable when applied practically. We should have practical farms to test out the evidence of these research laboratories to see how far they fit in with the economics of practical farming. When I was in Tasmania which is a wonderful country, I visited the Oressey Research Station in c0mpany with the Direc.tor of . Dairying. The station was not very Impressive. No research work in dairying was done. Most of the research work was associated with sheep and pigs. The Director .told me th~t they were endeavouring to reclmm an area m the NorthWest for the purposes of research work and practical farming side by side. Queensland could do the same. The trouble with our colleges and research stati?ns is ~hat ~he practical is not presented Side by Side with research work. We know, for example, that the Gatt0n College costs 5s. to earn 2s. I suggest to the Minister and the Government that side by side with research work there should be practical farms so that we can. test out the findings of our research operatiOns. Until that is done we shall not be able to do anything that is of any value.

We find that the price problems in the dairying industry can apply to the wheat

186 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.) Address in Reply.

industry also. It is very easy to stabilise an industry when world values are high. The wheat industry has been a striking example of that. We have heard much about its stability, but the position is that world values of wheat have always been higher than the amount at which we are seeking to stabilise our industry. When we were discussing the Wheat Stabilisation Bill last year the Minister in charge refused to have regard to the coot-of-production principle.

I am somewhat apprehensive about what is to happen to the industry when world values come down. They are on the decline all the time, and the cost of production is going up. A few years ago our wheat sacks cost Ss. a dozen and last year they were 30s. a dozen and this year, we are informed, they will cost us 36s. a dozen, or 1s. a bushel for bags alone. A comparable rise in the cost of production applies to virtually all the activities in the wheat industry.

lllr. Devries: That would apply to all basic industries.

lllr. MciNTYRE: There is no doubt about it. We must have due regard to the essential relationship between the price of the commodity and the cost of production. An industry can survive only by relating those two; and only to the extent that that principle is recognised can we succeed.

We find our stabilisation plan is overshadowed by the International Wheat Agreement, which, as is generally known by those associated with the industry, came into operation on 1 August this year. Let us have a look at the immediate effect of the agreement. It has reduced the Australian export price from a maximum of 14.6d. a bushel to lls. 3d. a bushel for the first year. That is a reduction of 3s. 3d. a bushel. The highlight of the agreement is, of course, the four years of duration, from 1 August, 1949, to 31 July, 1953. A maximum price and a minimum price are fixed for each of the four years. Transactions outside the agreed range of prices will be entirely free, but they will not count towards fulfilment of the obligations assumed by signatory countries, 37 importing nations and five exporting nations, whose delegations signed it. The list includes all important nations and all principal exporting nations except Argentina and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

A new International Wheat Council is formed, consisting of representatives of all nations that ratify the agreement. Exporting countries, Australia, Canada, France, United States of America, and Uruguay, guarantee to sell 454,283,389 bushels of wheat annually to signatory importing countries at prices no higher than the maximum. Importing countries, 37 in all, guarantee to buy 454,28?,389 bush~ls of wheat from signatory exportmg countnes annually at prices no lower than the minimum. The guaranteed sales and guaranteed purchases are the same for each country for each of the four years of th8 agreement.

The agreement fixes ceiling and floor prices between which transactions are to be concluded. When requested to do so the exporting country must sell at the maximum price the quantity it has guaranteed to deliver. When requested to do so, the importing country must purchase at the minimum price the quantity it has guaranteed to buy.

These basic minimum and maximum prices, in dollars, are as follows:-

Crop year. August-July, 1949-50

1950-51 1951-52 1952-53

1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20

1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80

The remarkable thing about the agreement is that while the minimum comes down every year the maximum is not allowed to rise.

I suggest that the terms of that agreement will place major responsibilities on Queensland and the Commonwealth under the Wheat Stabilisation Bill that has been placed on the Statute Book, first by the Commonwealth Parliament, and later by the various State Parliaments in their complementary legislation. Because of the operations of the International Wheat Agreement the drop of 3s. 3d. for the :first year will be repeated in other years and the financial responsibility of this Commonwealth will as a result be increased. I hope that it will be discharged so that at least some measure of justice will be done to the wheat-growers, notwithstanding the fact that no true analysis has been made in the agreement of the question of production costs.

I therefore feel that this House and the Federal Government must at all times have close regard to the stepping up of the volume of production in primary industries, because it must be a very distressing thing for responsible people in Australia, a country that is regarded essentially as being a primary-producing country, to appreciate the fact that within a very few years Australia will be importing many of the major food requirements that she should be able to produce in abundance. The Government and those responsible have a major responsibility. In the main they have not discharged that responsibility to the degree they should have done.

My time has almost expired and in view of your ruling this morning, Mr. Acting Speaker, which has the effect of limiting the debate on this very important question of Blair Athol--

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! 1 understood the hon. member to say that my ruling limited the debate, but I would inform him that the debate is as wide as the ocean. The hon. member can debate any question he likes on this motion.

Mr. lllciNTYRE: I am only expressing my opinion. I accept your ruling. Blair Athol is a very important subject. Millions of pounds are involved in the development of the secondary industries and to a lesser degree the primary industries are wrapped up in our production of coal, which shows


:a definite lag and continues to do so. Because of what has happened I move the following :amendment:-

'' Add to the question the following words:-

'We desire to inform Your Excellency however, that this House disapproves of the continuance of the Agreement between the Premier and The Electric Supply C~nporation (Overseas) Limited ---;-o: assignees thereof-regarding the mmmg of coal deposits at Blair Athol or else~h~re in Queensland and expresses the opmion that the Premier should f?r.thwith take action under the prov~swns of the Electric Supply Corporatwn (Overseas) Limited Agreement Act of 1947 to determine such Agreement.' ''

(Time expired.)

Mr. EV ANS (Mirani) (12.44 p.m.) : I :second the amendment, as the line in connection with the franchise given to the Electric Supply Corporation (Overseas) Limited passes through my electorate.

When the Bill was before this House I informed hon. members that I prophesied what has actually happened today. I said that the company would go to N ebo and that is what has happened. I oppose with all the force at my command the continuance of this franchise. I oppose it because there are conditions in it that are absolutely unfair ~oncessions have been given to the corpora: twn that should not have been given.

One of the main concessions was the reduction of roJ:alty. Why was that given~ The royalty paid by the old companies that had held the fort for years, which were endeavouring to develop Blair Athol under adverse conditions, sometimes with no markets was 1s. a ton. Immediately the new crowd' came in a franchise was granted and the royalty was reduced to 6d. a ton for the first one million tons, 3d. a ton for the second million tons, and 1d. a ton for the third million. Why was that done~ The Government want to give it away~ The effect of this is that if the. company does operate, most of that coal wlll be exported and, as I pointed out to the House when the Bill was brought down, the greatest black-coal asset in the world would be merely a hole in the ground in 50 years' time and all that Queensland would receive from the company would be about £600,000 or £700,000.

There was no statesmanship behind that deal. There was no thought of future gener~tions, of posterity, of industry on our coasthne, or of de!ence. The franchise gave t~e company the nght to construct a railway hne on a location that suited it most. It was given the right to build a line of any gauge it desired. There was no thought of defence t~ere. The company was even given the nght . to have a break in the line by const.rc;ctmg an elevator over the range, again givmg no thought to defence. All this proves that the Government, as is usual with them in handling all affairs of State, lack the knowledge, intelligence and business acumen that is so necessary in any body that aspires to running the State and protecting the people.

There is one remarkable provision in the agreement that gives the company the right in accordance with the provisions of Sectio~ 54 of the Companies Act of 1929 of England -not of Australia, because it is contrary to law in Australia-to pay interest on share capital during the period of construction and to charge the sum so paid by way of interest on share capital to the cost of construction of the work. I have always been doubtful about that provision. It is not because the corporation has failed to get the money that I am prompted to say these things, because I mentioned it to the Government right from the beginning when the Bill was brought down. I ask the Government and the people of Queensland why that clause was put iu ~ Where is the money to come from to pay that ~nterest ~ If it is right for the company laws ~n Q?-eensland to debar co~panies from paymg mterest on share capital, why is it not right to debar this company~ Why was this concession given to this company~ We can assume many reasons for its inclusion in the agreement and I will tell the House why this practice is debarred in the Queensland law. It is debarred in an effort to control go-getters.

Mr. Aikens: And to stop dishonest practices.

Mr. EV ANS: I was coming to that, but go-getters are mainly linked up with dishonest practices.

Why is it in this agreement~ We were told by the Premier, not once but several times, that this company had millions of pounds. When I asked him a question about the gauge of the railway line we were told that they had the rolling stock, locomotives &c., and the rails. '

Mr. Aikens: And the colliers.

Mr. EVANS: Yes. We were also told that when the agreement was signed Mr. Hirst would be back in 12 weeks' time, that they were analysing the aerial surveys in England, but where is Mr. Hirst today~ He has gone with the wind. He led the Premier and the Government down the garden path. He got permission from the Government to have it assigned and there has been a consideration. But what has the corporation done~ It has done nothing at all. It had the advantage of the aerial surveys supplied by the Queensland Government and the Defence Department, but what is it doing today~

We were told by the Acting Premier in reply to a question I asked that it is b.-ring to find where the coal is so that it can huild a line on that location. Nothing is further from the truth. They have fooled the people -these people who had all the money and were of the financial standing that the Premier spoke of. In reply to a question asked, the deputy Premier said that they had assets in Western Australia and Tasmania. Those assets have all gone with the wind, the same as Mr. Hirst. These people are here in Queensland. They hawked this business all over England and they hawked it all over Europe and were assisted by the Premier during his stay in England, but they failed to


get the money and they have come back to this sympathetic Queensland Government. The Deputy Premier of that sympathetic Queensland Government says that the coal belongs to the people. He has given it away. He allowed them to hawk the show all over the world.

It is two years since these people got the franchise and at the time they got it they were supposed to start in 12 weeks. They are at Nebo today. They know that there is coal there. Nebo is not far from Miranionly 30 or 40 miles. They were told to go to Nebo, as there was plenty of coal there. They were told to bore in N ebo and "You will &till get your c:It.'' That is the story. That is what is happening. Find out where they are boring at Nebo and analyse the geographical position so far as the line is concerned and anybody will know they are not concerned with locating the route of the line but are concerned with the forming of a company to get the Nebo coal, as I told this House. Blair Athol will stay where it is. I told this House previously that coal was at Nebo. The Government have their records-there are the surveys-and to build a line from the vicinity of Mirani to the stockyard gate route you can get on top of the Tableland within 22 miles. I told hon. members also that the rise in the range was about 700 feet in just over 20 miles and that it would be one of the easiest grades in Australia.

The Government were not concerned. They were led up the garden path by Mr. Hirst. They swallowed him hook, line and sinker; and he was only a boy. The Government said, ''We will give you this; we know it is good. It is the greatest coal deposit in the world. We know from our Forestry records that there are 30,000,000 feet of timber and within 20 miles of Mirani there are 12,000,000 feet of hoop pine. We know that it is the finest fattening country in Queensland, that the rainfall is 30 inches. We know that Mt. Flora is one of the richest copperfields in Queensland and that the Mt. Barker silverlead mine cannot be worked because of lack of transport. But we are not concerned about that.''

Why did the Government do iU What is behind it~ Why was this interest clause put in~ I know that hon. members opposite know that they have been caught and that there are hon. members on the Government side who will say today that there has been a horrible mistake. That clearly shows that Labour cannot govern. (Government laughter.) The Government have no practical men on their front benches. Would any business man with a reasonable amount of business acumen, looking after the affairs . of Queensland, allow that to happen~ What were we told in this House~ The Premier said that the Government had investigated the :financial position of the company and that it had £18,000,000. Where has that £18,000,000 gone~ The Government did not have th.; business acumen necessary, nor have they rrotected the great interests of the State

or the people. They may say that they have, but the company has hawked the concession about-go-getters purely and simply.

Mr. 1\'Iorris: Have they not got the £18,000,000 ~

Mr. EV ANS: Nothing like it. Friends of mine have investigated the position and they tell me that the company has a 40,000-odd lousy quid. The Company's officers are boring and they are spending some money. I saw the borers working. I saw their plant working. But you do not have to bore to find coal at Nebo. I saw coal taken from Nebo for the Mackay City Council. The plant and men were landed on the field at 6 o'clock one evening and next day they had 20 tons of coal out. I take off my hat to the men who did it particularly the Mayor of Mackay and his aldermen. On the previous day when I was there not a pick had been driven into the coal but next day they had 20 tons for the generation of electricity in Mackay snd for use in the locos of the mill of which I am the chairman.

But it will be economically impossible to continue to cart coal from N ebo to Mackay t:nder present conditions, a distance of 100 miles. The road is so ground up by the constant heavy traffic as to be covered with thick bull dust. That is the position at the present time in dry weather-and what of the wet weather~

A Government Member: What do you mean by bull dust~

Mr. EVANS: The road powders away into very fine dust beeause of the constant heavy traffic over it.

Mr. Aikens: Bull dust is what the Government got from the eompany for the agreement.

Mr. Maher: On the subject of interest, if no income is being earned from what sourec is the interest paid~

Mr. EVANS: The interest is paid out of share capital and is charged against the cost of the construction of the job. If by a miracle the company should get the money and built the line the Government had to take it over eventually at cost, the Government would have to pay that as part of the share capital.

Mr. Kerr: And the interest.

Mr. EV ANS: That is, the interest represented in that part of the share capital.

Mr. JUaher: But is that not irregular according to our company law~

Mr. EV ANS: It is contrary to our company law but it was v<J,lidated by the Act. I want the Government to tell me why that clause was put in the agreement. 1 am anxious to know. What is happening today'? If the company has failed to carry out the conditions of the agreement then the Government should cancel the franchise.

During the debate on Supply I referred to Blair Athol and on the same day the Premier

Address in Reply. [23 AUGUST,] Address in Reply. 189

issued a statement, which appeared in the Press, in which he said that the Government were getting impatient with the Electric Supply Corporation because it had not started. On the following day a representative of the company replied to that statement saying that the Queensland Government had never asked them to hurry, had never told them that that was in the agreement-that certain things had to be done.

Mr. Collins: You suggest that they cannot read~

Mr. EVANS: That was their reply. I take it that the hon. gentleman reads the papers. I read that in the paper and the statement has not been contradicted.

Clause 49 of the schedule of the Electric Supply Corporation (Overseas) Ltd. Agreement Act provides-

'' the Company may with the consent in writing of the Governor in Council assign the benefit of this Agreement but shall not assign or purport to a&sign the same except with such consent as aforesaid.''

Section 48 provides-'' (1) If the company

(a) Fails to make the necessary boring tests or surveys as speedily as possible ; or

(b) Fails to commence or continue the construction of the works without unnecessary delay; or

(c) Commits any breach of or fails to observe any of the provisions of this Agreement''

the agreement may be determined by the Governor in Council.

The essential fact is that the company has been given a franchise of coal deposits in relation to which private companies hold the leases. It has held that franchise for about 19 months but has not yet approached the holder of any lease for the purposes of negotiating with him or to make an agreement. We know that if the company does not conclude any such agreement the power is vested in the Government to force an agreement. !'he company is at that stage today that it 1s not concerned with Blair Athol. It is looking at getting something out of the franchise by coming somewhat closer to the coast.

Mr. Gair: You advocated a railway from Blair Athol to Mackay.

Mr. EVANS: Certainly, and I do still. I am pleased with that interjection. Any Government worthy of the name of Government, having deposits of coal such as exist at Blair Athol, together with the other resources and potentialities of the hinterland are recreant to their duty if they themselv'es d0 not build a railway. Further, if the company can build a railway, and even if it has to import steel rails, as we are told it will have to do, cannot the State, possessing sovereign powers and assets as it does, build the rail:vay and allow the people of this State to go mto and develop all the resources of that area without handing them over to a monopoly~ I have always thought that the Labour Party was opposed to monopolies.

Mr. Gair: You should have known, through being in the sugar industry, that we are not.

Mr. EVANS: There are very few monopolies in the sugar industry. The concerns operating within it are co-operative. I am chairman of one. We are responsible t() our shareholders, the suppliers. But this is a monopoly. On the one hand the Government, in their party platform, say they do believe in nationalisation, &c., and then orr the other hand they hand over the greatest coal deposits in the world to a monopoly.

Where is the link-upW Let us look at what the term ''coalfield'' means. It means-

'' . . . . an area to be agreed upon between the Company and the Minister within a radius of five miles from the railway station of Blair Athol from which area the Company intends to obtain ceal and/or such other area or areas as are from time to time agreed upon between the Company and the Minister and approved by the Governor in Council by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister."

It really means that it is not only a franchise with respect to Blair Athol; it is a franchise with respect to coal deposits in Queensland.

Mr. JUoore: That is not true.

Mr. EV ANS: That is the statute. If I did not understand more about business than the Government, who handed over such a franchise to this company, I should not hold the position I do today.

Mr. Gair: Modesty is your telegraph address.

Mr. EVANS: It may be. I say to hon. members opposite that they sold out th6' people of Queensland. There is not much doubt about that. They are allowing the company to go on hanging onto the last straw as it is today.

From the bottom of the range it is only 20-odd miles to the top, yet here are a Government with all the assets of this great State and they are not big enough to build that line. They know the potentialities and the resources; they know it is their duty to do· it, if they were big enough to do it. They are allowing this concern to go on. They allowed it to assign the franchise; they know there has been a consideration; they know it has no money. They know that it is boring and spending money to try to get a show in order to try to get money. Here are a Government who call themselves Labour allowing this to continue. We have given them an opportunity to put themselves right today.

]}Ir. l<'oley: We built a line 239 miles.

Mr. EV ANS: I am talking of the franchise in this area; the Government have not built any line there.

Mr. Foley: It is 250 miles.

Mr. EV ANS: The Minister knows as well as I do that the company failed. He knows it is now scratching and boring to try


:to get something to push up to the people to ,get them to invest and to make some money. He knows that as well as I do. I _know the geographical position of Nebo better than anybody in this House.

llr. Gair interjected.

Mr. EV ANS: I know more than the hon. :gentleman does about business.

Mr. Gair: That is what you think.

Mr. EV ANS: I can prove it to him. I ·never had anyone to help me along. I never got anybody to push me. Where I have got -to I got on my own. But that is beside the .question; I am putting the facts and hon. members opposite do not like it. I know they agree with me; they know I am right.

Mr. Gair: You are the most presumptuous man I know.

Mr. EVANS: The hon. gentleman knows that I am right. He was not a party to this. He was led into it. He has signed on the dotted line and when the whip cracks he has :to come in. That is the whole story. It is time the hon. gentleman was told. The Premier said to them, ''Everything is lovelymillions of tons exported overseas; we will do this and that." It has failed and now out of loyalty to him the hon. gentleman is trying to protect him.

Mr. Gair: Fancy that!

Mr. EVANS: You are trying to be ·personal with me.

Mr. Gair: No.

Mr. EV ANS: The hon. gentleman knows I have been successful. He knows I built up from the bottom and I was responsible for .my own success. I formed a company with no money.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I ask the hon. member to address his remarks to the motion before the House.

Mr. EV ANS: I am addressing myself to the Address in Reply.

I was saying that a 20-mile line will go to the top of the range. I was going to say that in a coal area I was connected with soi:ne years 3:go 14 or 15 farmers with no money and very httle assets formed a company with joint and ·several guarantees and built a line 5 miles; but here the Government say they cannot get the money, that it is a matter of money, they have the assetE! of this great State to iina.nce from. Here is a State waiting for ·development, and it has all these resourcestimber, agricultural and pastoral-and the .abattoir report suggests that if there is a line over the range Macka.y would be on No. 1 priority; yet they will not face up to it. They ·say, "We do not want this; it is too far .away from Brisbane; it is up in Mackay; let it go; hand it over to this monopoly; give it all these concessions; give it everything possible; protect it aginst damage from fire.'' The company's liability is limited to £1,000 if they burn any property. Its export coal is exempted from the jurisdiction of the Coal Board. The Government have given the

company these concessions and yet they tell us they are looking after the people's right. Nothing is further from the truth.

Mr. Foley: If the line was built, what would you have to do then~ You would want colliers and port facilities.

Mr. EVANS: The corporation has no colliers and it has no money. It is only a go-getter. It is only hawking this thing around. The Minister knows it as well as I do. I have heard him say there was a market for coal in China and in South America, and that they would supply colliers but I am not concerned at all with export . We must provide for the generations ahead and posterity. We want industries, facilities, and population, and where there is coal there comes industry, provided of course the Government in power are big enough to do the job. The Government should give these facilities, in fact should give all support. There is no dodging that position, but the Government are not game enough. They have sold the people out. They have handed over this asset.

Speaking on the initiation of the Electric Supply Corporation (Overseas) Limited Agreement Bill, the Premier said regarding the £12,000,000 capital required-

"We asked the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank to investigate the bona fides of this company and advise us. After investigation the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank wrote back saying that it would be safe to enter into any undertaking.''

There was plenty of money but we know now that that was wrong.

I wish to quote a few of the statements made by the Premier, but would mention first that the Secretary for Labour and Industry when acting as Premier on 5 N ovember, 1948, said that Australian capital would be given an opportunity to participate in the project. The Premier differed from that. On 24 January, 1949, he said in Sydney, upon his return from Britain, that the necessary capital to develop the Blair Athol project had been arranged and there would be no shortage. He said the estimated cost of the venture varied from £12,000,000 to £18,000,000. The Secretary for Labour and Industry had been misled. He did not know what he was talking about.

On 24 February, 1949, replying to criticism, Mr. Hanlon said-

'' The people who say these things are the usual knockers and Queensland haters. They are the type of people who hope Blair Athol development and the British Food Scheme will fail and that Queensland will go insolvent because a Labour Government is in power. Believe me, if those financial and industrial concerns that are behind Blair Athol have not the finance, nobody in the British Empire has.''

Mr. Donald: You said they were broke.

Mr. EVANS: Now to go a bit further. The hon. member is in a hurry. I am showing how the Premier misled him and others.


The Premier led the hon. member down the path just as the miners led the hon. member. (Government laughter.) When the miners went on strike the hon. member backed the miners' executive and he had 10 to 1 each way. When they were going back to work he raced in and suggested that they go back to work.


Mr. EV ANS: On 15 March the Premier made a statement to Parliament. He said that the Electric Supply Corporation found itself without the resources that it anticipated and that the corporation would assign its rights and obligations to a company to be registered in Queensland called the Central Queensland Coal Development Pty. Ltd. He also said that this company would be acting for the Power and Traction Finance Company Ltd. The capital of the company would be £250,000, of which £50,000 would be allotted to the Electric Supply Corporation. What a great rake-off! What did they do~ This is the Premier's statement. He went on to say,-

'' The decision as to whether or not the Power and Traction group will proceed with the Blair Athol scheme depends entirely upon the result of the investigation now being undertaken by its consultants (Powell, Duffryn Technical Services Ltd. and Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners). If favourable, the Power and Traction Group would undertake the financing of the Blair Athol project.''

That comes back to what I have been saying. From the geologist's report on the boring and testing these people know there is 200,000,000 tons of coal in sight at Blair Athol. They know the present company working there has stripped a lot of this coal, so what are they boring for~ Even though they handled 3,000,000 tons a year, taking the period of the franchise as 50 years, they would not exhaust the 200,000,000 tons there. What are they waiting for~ I have told hon. members what the company is doing. It is putting in its time at Nebo and it will come along to this Government eventually and ask that the franchise be transfered to Nebo.

Mr. Burrows: And you will be as happy as the boy who shot his father when they do it.

lUr. EV ANS: I will certainly oppose it, as I did previously, but I know hon. members on the Government side will be good boys and say, ''Here it is again; we give it to you on a platter.'' The Premier did not know where he was going. The Acting Premier makes one statement and a few months afterwards the Premier makes another. He says they have plenty of money and if they have not got it no-one else in the British Empire has. Now he comes along and says they have to ass~gn it. And these are the people who are runmng Queensland !

It is now 21 months since the agreement was signed. I have one letter with which I wish to deal. It was written on 15 March, 1946, by the Mackay Harbour Board. At that

time the Mackay Harbour Board had a credit, after meeting its commitments, of roughly £6o 000. The board wrote to the Treasury asking for a franchise and was informed that the request was receiving consideration and it would be informed of the Government's decision later. As yet no advice has been received. Why was not that local body, representative of the whal: of the .Mackay district given an opportumty to bmld. th~t line, and why do the . Government no~ give It the opportunity today mstead of allowmg these people to go on boring at Nebo~ The Government must know why they are boring at Nebo. Their advisers must have told them that where' they are boring is right away from where this company can build a line and that. the company is simply boring for coal.

Here is a body of people on th<J Mackay Harbour Board who have built a breast wharf out of revenue from the harbour. At the time of writing the letter the boa.rd h.ad a credit of £60 000 and it has a still bigger credit now. I know it has approached t_he Treasury wanting to pay off some of Its debt and I should like to know why the Gov~rnment are refusing the people of t~is district where all this wealth is, a franchise' to build the line.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I. wish to point out to hon. members th~t I mtend to restrict the debate to the subJect matter contained in the amendment.

Mr. MAHER (West Moreton) (2.34 p.m.): I desire to support the ame~dment moved by the hon. member for Cunmn~ha~ and seconded by the hon. member for Muam, which calls upon the Government, through the Premier, to take actior; forthwith under ~hC' provisions of the Electnc Supply Corporation (Overseas) Ltd. Agreement Act of 1947. to determine the agreement that was entered Into by that corporation.

We understood when the Bill went through Parliament, from the informatio::r that w~s given to the House by the Premier, that It was to be an agreement specifically i~ respe~t of Blair Athol only, although. there IS pro':Ision in the Act to enable Cabmet by order. m council to give this overseas corporatiOn leases of other coal-bearing areas. The whole tenor of the Premier's speech and the support that came from the Government side for the agreement with the overseas. company was entirely centred round Blau Athol. Of course there are now rumours abroad that the co::Upany through its assignees is attracted to good coal deposits at Nebo in the Mackay district closer to the coast and, as the hon. member for Mirani suggests and believes, it is all cut and dried. If this is so all attention will now be diverted to the Nebo deposits and the original plan to go to Blair Athol will be ignored.

In this respect I quote what the Premi:r said in the House on 4 December, 1947, m reply to a query raised by me whether the Bill confined the company's activities to· Blair Athol or whether it was intended that it should extend its operations to any other payable coalfield, even to the Callide Valley.


I raised the point at the time that if the oG-overnment were so callous as to completely ignore the existing mining lessees on Blair Athol, after a half century of developing the :area, when coal was showing in great seams <Jn an open-cut basis, they would be equally capable of handing over the coal-mining

]eases at Nebo and elsewhere to this company-areas in which they had become so deeply interested. The Premier said at that time-

'' The hon. member-'' that is myself-

'' ... can be quite sure of that. I£ there was another iield there would be another railway and the other things associated with it and it would be fantastic to say that under this agreement a totally new iield could be opened up.''

'That is the interesting statement made by the Premier.

Whilst there is not sufficient evidence yet to indicate that Blair Athol has been :abandoned by the company, as contained in the Act, nevertheless there are many indications that something of the kind is contemplated. I think that the hon. member for Mirani is pretty hot on the scent-hot on the trail-when he suggests that the original company, through its assignees, the Central '9ueensland _Coal Development Co. Pty. Ltd., 1s now anxwus to try to take hold of the Nebo iield. It is a change of front if that is so and it would indicate that things have not moved as the Premier expected when he introduced the legislation in the iirst place.

First of all, the Premier was either misled by Mr. Hirst and his principals when he informed the House that the company had a m1mmum of capital of £12,000,000 or the J>remier did not correctly inform the House. The Premier also stated, because of the inflationary tendencies this sum might run to a :considerably greater amount and the sum of £18,000,000 was mentioned as representing the eapital of this company.

Very obviously the Electric Supply Corporation is not what it was represented to be by the Premier in this Parliament. The members of this Assembly have been misled. To the question whether the Premier in turn was misled by the company concerned and its representative or whether the Premier delib·erately misled this House, of course we cannot supply the answer, but the fact remains that this House was misled because the Electric :Supply Corporation could not command the minimum of £12,000,000 mentioned by the J>remier in this House nor the £18 000 000 of oeapital that was freely and loosely talked of in this House at the time. The company has turned out to be nothing more nor less than a seeker of concessions. That is what I said :at the time and what I suspected and what ! feared. ~ said that it was a company seekmg concessiOns, that once the company got its hands on the concessions it would hawk them round England in the hope of attracting eapital to work them and it has since transpired that that was so. These concessions were given to the company and the company hawked them round England,

and hawked them round Europe looking for capital. There are Press rumours to the effect that they were hawking them in the United States, trying to raise dollars, to interest American capital in the Blair Athol mining show. This company did not have the necessary capital and it has now assigned its right, title and interest in the concession to what is known as the Central Queensland Coal Development Co.

We want some information from the Acting Premier or from whoever is going to speak for the Premier today. For instance, we want to know who are the members of the new company that becomes the assignee of the Electric Supply Corporation. What is the background of the directors concerned and what amount of capital are they able to attract in order to carry out the terms of the assignment and the agreement entered into with the Parliament of Queensland~ We are entitled to ask for the determination of the agreement because we know nothing about this company. Whatever information there is about it remains the secret of the Queensland Cabinet. All the information we have disclosed to this Parliament is in the order in council we have challenged, an order in council that can become law if it is not challenged in this Assembly. That is one of the weaknesses of our democracy. This order in council would have gone through Parliament and become law had it not been for the action of the Leader of the Opposition in moving for its disallowance. It is not possible for me to discuss that matter at the moment but it is a great weakness of our parliamentary system when such a condition can obtain. However, that remains for another day.

We know nothing about the bona iides or the iinancial standing of the assignee of the Electric Supply Corporation and we are entitled to ask that as the original company is not able to fuliil its obligations, not able to carry out its contract with this Parliament, the whole agreement should be determined and all the more so when we come to take into account the bad treatment that has been meted out to the Australians who have developed the mine.

These men put their capital into the development of their leases and have stuck to the job accepting all the ups and downs, the buffetings and all the obstacles caused by their remoteness from the coast and the length of the rail haulage and the difficulty of iinding markets in earlier years against the competition of older established companies situated nearer the coast. They did all the pioneering work. The Premier charged them in Parliament with being unprogressive and said they were doddering away there over the years and achieving nothing. Their coal had to be transported a long distance by rail, yet, as I pointed out the other day, these men kept on. One of the coal-mining leaseholders at Blair Athol as far back as the '20's interviewed Mr. Theodore when Premier of Queensland and asked for a franchise to build a railway from Blair Athol to St. Lawrence. They said that if they got the franchise they would

AddreBB in Reply. [23 AUGUST.] AddreBB in Reply. 193

develop coalfields in Queensland known today raise capital on the Australian market to finance its cost, which was estimated, if I remember correctly, somewhere about one and a half million pounds. You would not build a railway for that amount today. Mr. Theodore declined to grant a franchise because he stated that he was opposed to privately-owned railways. He stood for the Socialist policy of State railways. That may have been all right if Mr. Theodore had said, ''Well, we deny you gentlemen the right to a franchise to construct a private railway but seeing that you have a valuable asset that can be helpful in the development of the State and you are enterprising men anxious to promote the well-being of the State we will build a State railway from Blair Athol to Broad Sound as it will develop not only the Blair Athol coalfield but also the great hinterland," as referred to in such glowing terms by the hon. member for Mirani. It is all past history. I mention that to show the Premier that the slur on the men whom he referred to as being unprogressive is without foundation. They were hamstringed by the policy of the time in the '20's.

The Premier has tried to justify his extraordinary attitude in completely ignoring the men who held the leases of Blair Athol and in not consulting them in any way, even denying them an interview when they sought to see him to see where they stood in the matter, by condemning these men and saying they were unprogressive. That is not playing the game. I have here an extract from the '' Sunday Mail''-

''The whole Blair Athol £18 million project hinges on the British capital interests taking over the leases of the two local companies.

' 'The unusual feature of the negotiations is that at no time have the directors of the two companies been brought into consultation with the Queensland Government or with the British interests.

''It's an amazing piece of political arrogance-like selling up somebody"'s house over their heads.''

Why~ What is the reason why these men are being completely left out in the cold and ignored~ What encouragement is that to local investors~

Mr. Burrows interjected.

Mr. MAHER: It is not a question of squealing: it is a question of basic justice to a decent body of Queenslanders who put their money into the show and who have made very little profit out of it over the years. When they did try to get capital to build a railway to the coast the Government of whom the Treasurer was one denied to those pioneers of Blair ,Athol the right of a franchise to build a railway.

I dra,w attention to the extraordinary somersault performed by the Treasurer, who away back in the 1920s rejected the application of these men to build a private railway but who nearly 29 years later was prepared to give a vote for a franchise for a private railway to an overseas corporation.

1949-G

Let the Treasurer examine his conscience in respect of his political sins of the past and the present. There is an instance of a complete somersault, a complete volte face on the part of the Treasurer, because he sat here as a member of the Theodore Government who rejected the application. The Treasurer was a member of the Government at that time, or at least a supporter. You see how time makes these changes. Whether the hon. member started off vividly Red and has become such a pallid pink that he is able to make this change, I do not know, but the fact remains that as he grows more mature and more mellow he becomes more conservative than he wa,s in the '20s. He is prepared to throw overboard a vital principle of socialistic policy, namely, State ownership of railways. He is prepared to give it away in 1947, whereas ~e stood firmly for adherence to that principle m the 1920s under Theodore 's leadership.

You see how times have changed, and what a grave injustice we have done to these men who founded this field and who exposed the vast quantity of coal there and who have made it possible for those interested in coalmining in other parts of the world to fall into temptation and envy its wealth when they see these cliffs of coal and calculate its cash value. Then there is an urge to try by all means to get hold of that coal. It doe's not matter whether it means depriving the man who exposed the seam of his rights in the matter or completely ignoring him or them. As the newspaper said, they were completely ignored. If they had been consulted, if the Premier called them in and said, "We have an application from overseas capital, from men prepared to invest capital in coal-mining in Queensland, and we are afraid that unleE~s you are able to get a move on and put in new plant and carry out the work of getting the coal, we may have to do business with them. We will give you a chance and we will give you encouragement and help.'' That would be talking common sense; that would be the act of a paternal Government anxious to help and friendly disposed to their Australian citizens who invested their money. No E!Uch approach was made. The whole trend was to disparage the men who did the job there and to give the impression that they were sitting there and that the coal produced had been the result of some action by the Government. Justice has not been done to these men. 'rhe value of the coal is well known, and the time has come, when this overseas corporatir~n is unable to redeem its obligations to determine the agreement. The hon. member for Mirani made these important points. Men who call themselves Socialists, in this assignment allowed the Electric Supply (Overseas) Corporation to receive 50,000 shares as its reward. What for~

Mr. Aikens: As its rake-off.

Mr. MAHER: Yes, of course; I stick to the parliamentary term. (Laughter). You can term it as you like, but the corporation gets 50,000 shares as its reward. What has this overseas capitalistic investment concern done to earn 50,000 £1 shares as its interest in a company which might or might not develop coalfields in Queensland known today


as the Queensland Coal Developmer..t Company~ (Government interjections.) What effort has been put into getting coal in Q~ee:r;sland t~at would warrant this corporatiOn s gettmg 50 000 £1 shares as its reward~ I could un'derstand an extreme right-winger 's justifying it. He would say that by all means the corporation should get it because it. got ~he concession from the Government. It IS theus. It is a marketable commodity and these men were entitled to get 50,000 £1 shares-they can exploit it· they are entitled to get it. I can understan'd that an extreme right-winger in this Parliament should say that, if there are any in this Parliament, which is very doubtful. (Laughter.) I can understand his justifying it, but I cannot understand how a body of socialists, men pledged to .the nationalisation of the means of productiOn, distribution and exchange, men urging that creed on their fellow men and workers in this Parliament and on the platform at election time can do it. How can they jusdfy these conditions of their own creation into which they went with their eyes open, whereby this overseas company takes out 50,000 shares in coalfields yet to be developed, without so far as I can see, giving any quid pro quo~

There it is! The whole thing stands today revealed in its rottenness. The obvious thing for the members of the Government to do is to adopt the terms of the amendment and act upon those terms, and determine the agreement with the Electric Supply Corporation and its assigns and turn round and encourage the people who are already established at Blair Athol and any coal company of Australian origin that might be established at Nebo or Callide to raise the capital and go after the coal in a big way. In turn the Government could, if they will not give a franchise to a Queensland company to build a private railway, although they are prepared to give it to an overseas company, build a State railway to assist in getting that coal out. What in the name of fortune would be the good of all our big sheep and cattle stations in the far north-west and west of Queensland if there were not railways to bring in the wool after it is shorn or to bring in the cattle after they are fattened ~ Coal is an essential com~odity. It is the lifeblood of industry and m many respects more vital even than wool. F.oundries, factories, power of every kind hmges on coal. Therefore there is the strongest possible case for the State to build railways linking knoV~~n big seams of coal with the ports.

That is why I say that I view with major apprehension the proposal of the Government to. build a line of railway from Callide on to Brloela and the~ to short circuit Mt. Morgan by the construction of a further link in order to get the coal by a long round-about way to Rockhampton.

The obvious thing is to establish a power generating station at Callide an electric Iailway and build direct to the coast at Gladstone. The obvious thing in regard to Biair Athol, to?, would be for .the State,. having determine,i this agreement, either to grve a franchise to a company established here to do the job, or, if they are not prepared to give a franchise

to local men to build the line themselves. They should build a railway connecting Blair Athol with Nebo, if they wish, and open up that valuable hinterland referred to by the hon. member for Mirani with its timber, copper, and other rich resources, and carry on to the coast. That would be st·atesmanship. We are only getting into a deeper series of difficulties by persevering with these companies. The whole question seems to resolve itself into our building railways and getting the coal to the coast in the most economical way. If we do that we shall have made a valuable contribution to the development of our country, and done it in the right way.

Hon. J. LARCOMBE (RockhamptonTreasurer) (3.2 p.m.): The hon. member for West Moreton says times change. Certainly they do, and so do speakers. The hon. member referred to me a few moments ago as a conservative. Last week he referred to me as a communist, so arguments change as well as speakers. The hon. member is logically and ethically irresponsible in the speeches he makes. He forgets t·his week the speeches he made last week and therefore contradictions and anomalies are obvious in every utterance he makes.

This amendment has followed a declaration by the Premier that if action was not taken by the company concerned the agreement would be determined. Now the Opposition come in behind that declaration by the Premier and try to gain some political kudos and advantage by moving the amendment that has been proposed by the hon. member for Cunning ham.

The hon. member for West Moreton suggested that the Government were abandoning the Blair Athol field. Nothing could be further from the truth. He talked about searching our concience. He ought to have searched his own concience before making the statement he did because he knows it has not a scintilla of evidence of fact or truth in it.

Further, the hon. member for West Moreton. attempted to weave round the Government's action an atmosphere of suspicion, suggesting not only the abandonment of Blair Athol but also that the Government had agreed to the company's developing Nebo too. That is just· a fantastic assertion drawn from his imagination, entirely without foundation in fact, and in argument, ethically and logically, it is hitting below the belt and is most improper because there is no evidence to support the contention.

Further what the hon. member for West Moreton s~id about the Blair Athol proposal he said about the Queensland British Food Corporation Scheme in the Central District also. Apparently he has a vicious hatred of anything that will develop Central Queensland.

Mr. Maher: Not at all.

Mr. LARCOMBE: There is no doubt he has a bitter antipathy to Central Queensland. Anything that is done in Central Queensland by a Labour G~vernment is ar.athom:-t to him.


It must be condemned; no good can come out of it! He condemns every proposal brought forward by Labour Government to develop Central Queensland, that will help to solve the problem of decentralisation. He throws overboard all his ideals and principles in order to discredit a Labour Government. He shows his bitterness and hatred of the central part of the State. I know that the hon. member would welcome such a scheme for South Queensland. He would welcome a scheme such as the Blair Athol scheme or the food scheme if it was for the south of Queensland, but because these schemes have been developed away from Brisbane we have heard nothing but bitter opposition from the hon. membP:' for West Moreton.

I was Secretary for Railways at the time the Mount Isa Railway Bill went through Parliament. I piloted that measure through this House, and I well recollect that hon. members opposite used then the same arguments they are using today. They tried to create an atmosphere of suspicion; they ridiculed the scheme, and suggested that the Government were going to get something out of it politically if not otherwise. The hon. member for West Moreton cannot get away from the actions of his party because the Opposition denounced the scheme and even ridiculed it. Today that is one of the finest schemes in the whole of Australia, producing millions worth of wealth. We have now the same atmosphere of suspicion in debatJ and the same ridicule of the Government and the same detestation of anything that may be done outside southern Queensland.

Mr. Nicklin: If your statements are correct, why did the Moore Government save Mount Isa by the guarantee~

Mr. LARCOMBE: The Moore Government were compelled by the logical sequence of events to do what little they did. I have pointed out that Mr. Moore, the Leader of the Opposition, ridiculed the scheme and said it was only a political stunt. That was when he had the opportunity of supporting the scheme originally but later on when it became a huge success he tried to claim a little credit. He gave it some little assbtance between 1929-32, assistance that he could not escape giving. He said earlier it was a speculative scheme and that people should not be taxed to carry out a scheme of such a kind. He suggested that the Labour Government were unbusinesslike and were imposing a heavy burden upon these

, people, but history reveals the absurdity of the forecast and all the arguments used by the Opposition at that time, because today the scheme is one of the finest of its kind in the Commonwealth.

The hon. member for Mirani has done the Mackay district a great disservice. In order to conduct his case for a railway to Nebo he has come in and denounced this very fine Blair Athol scheme in Central Queensland. There was no need for him to do that, because if he wants a railway to be built to Nebo there is a proper way of advancing his case. He can

submit his case to the Government for consideration. He has prejudiced all that, however, because he has denounced the scheme as promoted in Central Queensland; he has tried to bolster up a case for a railway to Nebo. That I say is a false attitude to adopt and one that has rendered a great disservice to N ebo in the Mackay district. He has taken up the wrong line of reasoning and argument and has damaged the Mackay district in a way that apparently did not reveal itself to his imagination. There is a correct and proper way for the hon. member for Mirani to promote his case for a railway to Nebo, and it should not be done in the snide way of denouncing the Blair Athol scheme. That was the unfortunate method he adopted.

The hon. member for Mirani and the hon. member for West Moreton talked about the poor old pioneers and of what should be done for them. What did they do for them when they were in power~ They sent the gatling guns to Central Queensland many years ago to shoot down the pioneers. That is what they did when they had the opportunity. They have never lifted a finger for the pioneers but today for the sake of making political capital they pay some regard to the pioneers of this country. The pioneers of this country have been protected and assisted by Labour Governments in a way never contemplated by antiLabour Administrations. The hon. member for \V est Moreton and his colleagues cannot gain any support for this amendment by any crocodile tears and alleged sympathy for the pioneers of this country.

There is another aspect of this debate that is very interesting. The hon. member for West Moreton and the hon. member for Mirani have thrown over private enterprise and now want socialistic railways. They told us last week they were opposed to Socialism, that they did not want any State enterprises, but this week they come into Parliament and say that the Government should build socialistic railways.

JUr. Maher: That is what you are there for.

Mr. LARCOMBE: What we are here for! Last week hon. members opposite said that we could not run railways successfully, that we could not conduct a socialistic enterprise successfully, but now they say in effect·, ''Go on, build socialistic railways; that is what you are there for.'' If that is what we are here for then why complain about the extension of State enterprises in t·his State~ Hon. members opposite really believe in Socialism, they pioneered Socialism in this country. An antiLabour Administration established the Governmental monopoly-post and telegraph offices and they pioneered State railways in Queensland. These socialistic reforms were developed and fostered by Labour Governments but Tory Administrations-

JUr. Evans: But we never sold out to the go-getters.

Mr. LARCOMBE: They sold out to anyone they could sell to. Let the hon. member


read Mr. Bernay 's hook, where he will find reports of scandals perpetrated by Tory administrations in Queensland. He will learn of royal commissions appointed for the purpose of investigating them and he will hear of the damaging statements made before them by anti-Labour members concerning antiLabour administration.

Hon. members opposit·e have done nothing at all for the coal industry in Queensland and now they come forward at this late hour and profess to be the champions of the industry. I ask the hon. member for West Moreton what he or his party has ever done for the coal-mining industry in Queensland. The only thing he has suggested has been low wages and conditions that caused industrial unrest in the community.

Mr. MAHER: Mr. Acting :!Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I object to the remark that I have never done anything for the coalmining industry and that I have advocated low wages. I have never advocated low wages. On the contrary I believe in high wages. I also believe that the Industrial Court should decide what the wages should be. Never have I advocalled low wages. I resent those remarks and I ask that they be withdrawn.

Mr. LARCOMBE: According to Parliamentary practice I withdraw them but I have heard hon. members opposite talking about costs in industry, saying that they must come down. Does that not mean that wages should come down W I accuse the hon. member for West Moreton also of provoking trouble in industry. Did he not suggest that some of the miners should be committed to a five year term of imprisonment W

Mr. Maher: The leaders.

~Ir. LARCOMBE: Ah! Is that kind of viciousness and vindictiveness going to produce peace in the coal industry-Blair Athol or elsewhere~

Mr. ~Iaher: Do you think these fellows who brought all this misery on to this country should go unpunished~ Answer that one. (Interjections.)

The ACTING SPEAKER: I hope hon. members will not allow the debate to get out of hand and that they will allow the Treasurer to debate the question before the Chamber.

Mr. LARCOMBE: The Government have already shown that they will not allow any communistic leaders to go free without penalty. (Interjections.) Those leaders are in gaol today. (Interjections.) Hon. members opposite should answer the question: What is their Tory Premier in Victoria doing with the so-called communistic leaders in the coal industryW He has done nothing. The Victorian Government imported coal from overseas and the ship lay in the harbour unworked, until recently. They could not get the coal off it then because they were not game to work the ship. We know further that they had to go and ask the assistance from the Labour Prime Minister

to haYe the ship unloaded. These are the great powerful anti-Labour leaders! Instead of dealing with the Communist leaders in the coal and other industries, their Victo:cian Tory Premier appointed a Royal Commission, which is going to take 12 months in hearing evidence.

Mr. EVANS: I rise to a point of order. What has the coal position in Victoria or the party in power in Victoria to do with the cancellation of the Blair Athol franchise~

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I allowed the Treasurer to reply to an interjection, and I ask now that hon. members debate only the question before the House.

Mr. LARCOMBE: If the reply was irrelevant, so was the interjection and the interjector knows that he should 'not have made it.

I say that the party opposite has done nothing for the coal industry in Queensland. What right have its members to come along now and suggest methods of developing the industryW Why, their leader in 1929, when approaching the Premiers' Conference said, ''I have no plans; I am waiting for the Prime Minister to come forward with his programme.'' That was the attitude of their Premier in regard to coal and other commodities! Yet they come along now and criticise the Government on their coal policy when they know that last year nearly 2,000,000 tons of coal was produced in Queensland, a record for the State. That result was obtained under a Labour Govern· ment.

So I say that the Government of which I am a member have handled the problem very well in Queensland generally. It is deplorable to think that the party opposite is trying to discredit the Government's handling of the Blair Athol franchise in order to focus attention on the proposal to build a railway from Mackay to N ebo. There is no occasion for alarm with respect to Blair Athol. There is no intention on the part of the Government to let that proposal go. On the contrary the Government have plans in hand that will be revealed at the proper time, if the company does not carry out its obligations and the undertakings it has given. We know that there have been difficulties, and it is only because of those difficulties that action was not taken earlier. The Government are responsible for endeavouring to bring about action at the earliest possible time at Blair Athol in the way I have indicated. .

Mr. Maher: The House has been misled.

Mr. LARCOMBE: That is a favourite phrase of the hon. member's. There is no truth in it.

~Ir. Mal1er: This company has a capital of only £40,000, yet we were told it had £12,000,000.

Mr. LARCOMBE: That is an absurd statement to make. The Blair Athol coalfields have been there since 1859.

Mr. Maher: They have not been. Since 1909 these people have been there.

Address in Reply. (23 AUGUST.] Address in Reply. 197

Mr. LARCOlliBE: They have been there much longer. What has private enterprise done to develop them~ I realise the present companies have been working under great difficulties, but the fact remains that befure the Government endeavoured to enter into any agreement with any company these fields were crying out for developme:at. We allowed private enterprise the greatest possible scope.

Jllr. Evans: You refused them a franchise.

Mr. LARCOlliBE: There was no franchise required; they had leases and they could have developed the field to the greatest possible extent.

Mr. Maher: You refused a railway franchise.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I remind the hon. member for West Moreton that I have had occasion previously to call him to order and if he does not obey my call I shall have to deal with him.

Mr. LARCOMBE: We know quite well that those fields have been there for hundreds of years really; they have been there under Queensland's constitutional control since 1859, yet nothing of any value has been done. What is the good of blaming a Labour GovernmenU What has become of their vaunted private enterprise, which they say is superior to State enterprise and socialisation ~ Private enterprise has fallen down on the job.

Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. LARCOlliBE: Private enterprise has failed to develop those great resources. When private enterprise has failed hon. me~bers opposite have fallen back upon State enterprises and socialisation; they now ask the Government to go in for a socialised railway. I am not saying that their argument is unsound, but I am pointing out they are illogical from the viewpoint of hon. members opposite who say we should leave everything to private enterprise and not allow the Government to construct socialist railways or engage in socialist enterprises otherwise.

There is another aspect of the matter to which I should like to make reference. It is suggested that the Government have given a monopoly to a private company. That is an absurd and false statement. We know that under the Act the Government can take over after a given time; everything may revert to the State after a. given time.

JUr. Maher: When there is no coal there.

llir. LARCOMBE: The hon. member said that there were hundreds of millions of tons of coal there and now he says there will be no coal left. We know there will be coal left for many years to come; probably for centuries to come coal will be mined at Blair Athol and transported to the coast. It is no use endeavouring to build up an argument on the false statement that a monopoly has been created and gi.-en to a private company. And not only has the State the right

to take over after a certain time, but there are provisions in the Act that make for the protection of the people of Queensland.

When we consider the case from every aspect, we find that the amendment is purely political propaganda, purely designed to get publicity for the case of hon. members opposite who want a railway to Nebo. Let them go about their proposal in the proper way. Let them ask the Government in the proper way for a railway or a franchise, and not come along and try to discredit this very fine scheme for the sake of political kudos and in the endeavour to put forward a case for a railway to Nebo.

Mr. AIKENS (Mundingburra) (3.24 p.m.) : This afternoon we have listened to a most extraordinary performance on the part of the hon. member for West Moreton. If the hon. member for West Moreton can perform acrobatic somersaults physically as efficiently as he can perform a somersault in talk there is a job waiting for him as star performer with the acrobatic troupe of Wirth 's Circus.

We have seen the hon. member for West Moreton this afternoon, I presume speaking on behalf of the Opposition, performing an over-act of contrition. In other words, he stood here and for 40 minutes, following the lines of the old adage that attack is the hest means of defence, admitted by his statements his own gullibility and the gullibility of his party and that of the Queensland People's Party in respect of the franchise that was given with regard to Blair A thol.

This franchisB', as it was contained in the Bill, was passed through this House in 1947. I remember the scene very well indeed. The Premier in his slimy, oleaginous way, was telling the story of Blair Athol, how it was going to be developed in the interests of the State, how great thriving secondary industries would spring up round it like mushrooms, and how the whole of Queensland was going to march forward boldly on the road to progress. I watched the members of the Opposition who have moved and sponsored this amendment on that occasion. They were sitting there with their eyes and mouths open but their brains dumb, falling for the greatest confidence trick ever put over this Parliament or the people of Queensland. They swallowed every word uttered by the Premier, and no member swallows these words to a greater extent than the hon. member for West Moreton and the hon. members of the Queensland People's Party.

Mr. Maher: I qualified my statement.

Mr. AIKENS: They virtually hung round the Premier's neck and congra.tulated him on his far-sightedness and his statesmanship. Here it is indelibly printed in '' Hansard,'' where they voted for the passage of this iniquitous Bill. In that division there were only two dissentients, the hon. members for Bulimba and Bowen. I was on my way home, having been suspended during the first full debate on that iniquitous Bill. Members of the Opposition including the facile debater,


the hon. member for West Moreton, lined up with the Government and voted for my suspension in order to prevent me from dise~osing the things that have been disclosed dur~ng this debate. They voted for my suspens~on in order to prevent me from doing the thmg that they are now belatedly doing.

There is an old saying-it is rather trite but nevertheless true-tllat honesty is the best policy. With reg~rd to the Blair. Athol Bill and the franch1se, I can cla1m to be honest because I hold the same opinions now with regard to this stinking racket in conr.ection with Blair Athol that I held when the Bill was going through. On the other hand the Opposition have taken a violent somersault on the question. Just prior to my suspension I was trying to explain to the House that many rank-and-file members of the Government were very dubious about the Premier's veracit;y in regard to the Blair Athol franchise. I know what I said was true because many rank-and-file members of the Government have since said to me, privately of course, ''You were right, Tom, when you said that Blair Athol stinks.'' And so it does stink. It stinks more than an A.L.P. plebiscite and God knows that that stinks badly enough.

Mr. Sparkes: Give the hon. member for Mirani his clue.

lUr. AIKEN.S: I will give him his due; I was going to come to that. The hon. member did make a fine speech against the provisions of the Bill granting the franchise and he left for home with me on that evening's train rather than vote in favour of the Bill. I give the hon. member that credit; I was talking of the most marvellous somersaulter, the hon. member for West Moreton.

This is what I said just before my suspension on that memorable day, and I have not failed in my duty to the people because in this House I represent the people of Mundingburra through the organisation that sponsors my candidature and I said in reply to something Mr. Speaker had said-because the Speaker had been instructed to put the finger on me during that debate, and he did it very effectively, because I was later suspendedafter replying to interjections--

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Hilton) : Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to reflect on the Chair in that way. If he does so again he will have to resume his seat.

Mr. AIKENS: Very well.

lUr. Power: Hear, hear!

Mr. AIKENS: I can see it is on again. Whacko!

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. AIKENS: Whacko!

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the hon. menber to withdraw that statement.

Mr. AIKENS: Very well, I will withdraw the statement.

This is what I said in reply to several interjections made by the Premier, supported, or rather, buttressed by the Speaker-

'' I do so, Mr. Speaker. I will tell my electorate from the public platform ":hat happened in Caucus and that will be actlOnable. Let any member of the Labour Party take action. Nothing said here is actionable.

' ' Let us examine the whole question. Who is in favour of this Bill~ Who is in favour of the grossest exploitation of Blair Athol by an overseas company in the interests of the shareholders of the company~ Let us line up those who have openly declared themselves in favour of the Bill. Let us line them up: the Sydney 'Bulletin,' 'CourierMail,' Brisbane 'Telegraph,' Country Party, the Queensland People's Party, and, Mr. Speaker, that apology for a Labour Party that graces or disgraces the Treasury benches in this House. They are the people who are lined up together-banded together in one unholy alliance to hand over the gross exploitation of Blair A thol to the tender mercies of the overseas financial institutions.''

Just after that, of course, I was suspended.

What really happened~ A man named Mr. Hirst suddenly appeared on the Queensland scene. He was a nice young fellow, well dressed, and had all the accomplishments, and apparently he had sufficient money to stay at Lennon 's Hotel-if the Government did not subsequently meet the bill-and he was able to entertain various prominent members of the Queensland Labour Party. After a while, on the very last day of the session, when the whole Bill could be rushed through the House in the three readings in the one day, the Premier stood up and told us he had granted this Mr. Hirst, who was acting on behalf of some company overseas known as Electric Light or Overseas Corporation or some sueh thing-the name does not matter-this valuable concession. Mr. Hirst was in the lobby of this Parliament when the Bill went through the House, and, as I say, the Opposition, with the exception of the hon. member for Mirani-the Queensland People's Party in particular-looked at the Premier like the country visitor from Boggabilla looking at the pigeons flying round the post office clock that the city confidence man is about to sell him, and they bought the Bill, just as the country man from Boggabilla buys the pigeons flying round the post office clock from the city shrewdie.

After that, of course, we saw that newsreel filmed on the screen of the local picture shows to which we go and saw the Premier signing the Blair Athol agreement-I think with a golden pen-to the flash of light bulbs of set cameras and the clicking of newsreel cameras, and there was a little bit of blah, blah, blah by the commentator, saying that the Premier of Queensland was signing an agreement that would bring unparalleled prosperity and development to the fair State of Queensland. What were the Opposition doing~ The Opposition, looking at the picture, were still swallowing it hook, line and sinker, while


I was out on the public platform in my ele<J<torate denouncing and exposing the Blair Athol agreement for the odoriferous, stinking racket it is.

Then the next thing we knew was that Mr. Hirst took this agreement over to Great Britain and, as has been truthfully said by some members of the Opposition-they have seen the light of day, because they have realised the wisdom of the remarks I and the hon. member for Bowen and the hon. member for Bulimba made in this House two years ago; they now realise the truth of the whole position. Mr. Hirst took the agreement home to Great Britain and he and his fellow gogetters hawked it round the money markets of England.

They hoped to raise on the strength ·Of this concession, which really belonged to the people of Queensland, £12,000,000, from which they themselves hoped to get a rake-off of 10 per cm;t. or nearly £1,250,000. What were they gomg to do with the flotation commission· and the £1,250,000 and amongst whom would they divide it I am not permitted to say, but I am per¥litted to say that your guess, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is as good as mine.

Despite the fact that the concession appeared to be gilt-edged it is now apparent that the financial magnates of Great Britain were not as gullible as hon members of the Opposition. The financial magnates of Great Britain who had the money to spend were either afraid of the concession or thought that the rake-off was too great or were afraid of the men hawking it about. Consequently Mr. Hirst and his go-getter friends were unable to raise the £12,000,000 for the development of Blair Athol. The Premier deliberately misled this House and deliberately misled the public of Queensland because he deliberat·ely created the impression in the minds of every hon. member and in the minds of the people of Queensland that £12,000,000 was on hand ready to develop Blair Athol when the Bill was passed. The Premier must have known when he created that impression that he was deliberately creating a false impression. He must have known he was telling a lie and he must have known he was lying. If he did not know that the £12,000,000 was not available he was not fit to hold the office of Premier of this State and I challenge any hon. member of this House t·o stand up, now that the matter has been opened, and deny that he honestly believed that £12,000,000 was in hand to develop Blair Athol when the House agreed to the concession as embodied in the Bill. It was only afterwards that we found that the members of this corporation had raised only £44,000 and they raised it for the express and only purpose of sending Mr. Hirst out to Queensland to bulldoze and glamorise the Premier, to inveigle from him this valuable concession that they wm·e going to use as a bait on which to hook the financial magnates of Great Britain in the sum of £12,000,000 with a 10 per cent. rake-off for themselves and their friends.

After the scheme was blocked, the Premier, by one of those most amazing coincidences,

which must hit one in the centre of the forehead as a .44 bullet does, decided to tak;e a trip to Great Britain. When he got back we learned for the first time that there was talk of the concession's being transferred from one gang of go-getters to another-from Hirst 's gang known as the corporation to the Power and Traction Group headed by some Schickelgruber or some such eminent gentleman of the financial world overseas.

It would appear that the Power and Traction Group have the valuable concession locked up and are not very enamoured of the prospect of development. . They knew that Hirst was not able to ra1se the £12,000,000 to develop Blair Athol in accordance with the terms of the agreement and they have gone elsewhere in the hope that they will be able to say that they have a better proposal ~o develop now-a proposal better than Bla1r Athol-"What about weighing in £12,000,000 to develop Nebo and let us get a rake-off of 10 per cent. for ourselves and our friends.''

That is the position we stand in. I went home on the train that night after the d~bat.e 011 the Bill with the hon. member for Muam. I was suspended I think, _until 7.40 p.m. The Premier knew I was gomg home ·On the 8 o'clock train. To do the hon. member for Mirani complete justice, I say that he went home rather than stay in the House and vote for the Bill as his party wanted him to do.

Rather than stay here and vote for the Bill as his party had instructed its members to do he refused to pair and went home to his el~ctorate. I believe he would have done what I did, and that he would have gone into the highways and byways, onto the hustings and the public platforms, as I h:;we done a dozen times, without any p:otect10n from the law of libel and defamatiOn, ~nd told the people of North Queensland JUSt what lies behind Blair Athol. Some o~ the little owners of newspapers have prmt~d much of what I had to say about Blau Athol and if what I said was untrue it was distinctly defamatory, but. no action has been taken against me or agamst the courageous newspaper editors who published my remarks in connection with Blair Athol. I have not been idle in this connection but hon. members opposite who, when . they found they had been sold a pup, tned to unload the pup onto someone else.

The hon. member for West Moreton, knowing that the best means of defence is attack, sought to unload it onto the Government instead of standing up humbly and contritely saying, ' 'I was a mug, I fell for it and I now admit before all the world that I was a simpleton and I was a sucker.'' But no, he stood up in the House today and tried to blame the Labour Party. He was just as bad as the rest of the Country Party and all the members of the Queensland People's Party. They were just as bad as the Labour Party in connection with Blair Athol and it is no good trying to unload it onto the Labour Party. They were just as bad as the Labour Party itself.

The idea behind the scheme was not so much to get Blair Athol coal for export. I


got information from England myself. I wrote to friends in the trades union movement there and they told' me that the real idea behind the development of Blair Athol was not so much to get Blair Athol coal for export overseas as to get Blair Athol c_oal and sell it to other subsidiary manufacturmg companies of the Electric Supply Corporation. The idea was to ship the Blair Athol coal to India, Burma, China, Japan, and other places where they have cheap coloured labour to use this cheap coal and cheap coloured labour in the production of textiles and other materials, and ship those cheaply produced textiles and other things back to Australia and so close down Australian manufactures.

:Mr. Evans: And to sell the coal at fictitious rates.

:Mr. AIKENS: In order to dodge taxation they were going to sell the coal to the subsidiary at a particularly low rate. That would enable them to dodge the Australian taxation on their own earnings by the Blair Athol company. They were engaged on a twofold purpose. The first was to mine the Blair Athol coal and use that cheap source of power overseas in cheap-labour countries in the manufacture of goods that would be shipped back to Australia and so drive the Australian manufacturer out of production and the Australian worker out of work.

As I said at the time the Bill was going through, the franchise this amendment seeks to revoke or determine is a shocking franchise. It does in effect give the compan;y the right virtually to set up a feudal State in Central Queensland, because it gives the company the right to say who shall or shall not be carried on its railway system, and it gives the company many other concessions that are denied to the genuine Australian company. For instance, if I remember rightly-and I speak from memory now-the liability of the company in case of accident or damage is only £1,000. If any of its locomotives, in passing through a canefield, is responsible on account of negligence for damage by :fire the company is liable for only £1,000. It car: run down a man and kill him and despite the fact that death may be due to the negligence of the company it can be sued for only the paltry sum of £1,000.

Yet we have members of the Opposition who complain from time to time-and complain rightly and justifiably-that it is not right for the Commissioner of Railways to be limited to a liability of £2,000, voting for a shocking franchise in which the financial liability of the Blair Athol Company shall be £1,000!

One of the things that turned me against the Blair Athol proposal and made me regard the Peak Downs scheme also with suspicion was the fact that this Bill was introduced on the last day of the session, so that it could bo rushed through all three stages in one day. That meant that hon. members would have to pay some attention to what the Premier said and take his word as gospel. Knowing the Premier as we know him, we know him now as a politician and Queenslander whose word is not worth a roasted peanut. Time and

again he has sold the people of Queensland and the back-benchers of his own party; time and again he has sold his friends within the party; time and again he has sold the members of the Opposition and on this occasion he has sold the people of Queensland in the most shocking and damnable confidence trick ever put over the people of Queensland. I have no hesitation, therefore, in declaring here and now that I intend to vote for the amendment.

Mr. KERR (Oxley) (3.46 p.m.): When speaking on the Address in Reply, I remarked that some consideration should be given to the Blair Athol franchise with a view to its cancellation. This amendment is in keeping with my thought on this particular question at that time. I intend to give the House the benefit of some of my research in regard to the progress of this franchise through various companies. In the first place, the Electric Supply Corporation (Overseas) Limited was a company registered in England in 1926 with a capital of £5,000. As the hon. member for Mundingburra pointed out, it was subsequently increased by another £45,000 in May, 1947, just about the time when Mr. Hirst came to this country with a view to negotiating a franchise for the company he represented. Subsequently, the franchise and agreement of the company were transferred to the Central Queensland Coal Development Pty. Co. Ltd. That company was registered hm·e in Queensland as a Queensland company on 19 April, 1949, with a capital of £50,000 issued capital. Its nominal capital, which means nothing at all, was £250,000 to work and develop this franchise. Everybody will be able tu see how stupid it was to try to develop a venture like the Blair Athol show on a nominal capital of £250,000, and when they only issued £50,000 worth of capital.

It is interesting to know who received those shares. What took place was this: the Electric Supply Corporation (Overseas) Ltd. assigned its franchise to this new company, >vhi.:lh was registered in April this year, for 50,000 fully paid £1 shares, and the share capital of the . Central Queensland Coal Development Co.-the issued capital-was paid up to £50,000. No money whatsoever passed in the transfer of this asset. This company, which has the franchise now, is supposed to do the boring, the development, and the survey of this Blair Athol project. How can it possibly do it with no capital at all' Therefore something else comes into the picture. That is the Power Traction Group, which has the finance, I understand. I shall have more to say about it presently. In the meantime I want to retrace my steps.

I examined the balance sheet of the Electric Supply Corporation (Overseas) Ltd. in the Supreme Court toda_y. It has to place its balance sheet in the Supreme Court in order to comply with the Companies Act. Its last balance sheet was dated 31 December, 1948.

On the asset side of the balance sheet it shows that the cost of the Blair Athol venture up to 31 December, 1948, was £13,929 Os. 7d. It is there for anybody who wishes to look

Address in Reply. (23 AUGUST.l Address in Repf.y. 201

at it. It transferred that asset, which cost it in travelling expenses and money for things incidental to the procurement of the franchise £13,929, for 50,000 fully-paid shares apparently making a profit of £36,000. There is no guarantee that the intermediate company will not do the same thing. When the time comes it may transfer the franchise againand there is nothing to prevent it from doing it-to some big powerful group. The Premier has said that the money is available now. When he entered into the agreement with the Electric Supply Corporation there was nothing to show that those people had this money; in fact, they did not have the money.

An Op·'osition Member: He said they did.

Mr. KERR: He said they had all the money in the world. Neither has the int~rmediate company that holds the franch1se now any money.

What is going to take place~ In all probability that franchise will again be transferred. There is nothing in the agreement to prevent that from taking place. I am going to suggest that there should be no question whatsoever of allowing trafficking in this valuable franchise; that is a state of affairs that we as a Parliament representing the people should not allow for one moment. Here is a case in point where we see before our eyes that the transfer of an assignment has taken place and a rake-off of £36,000 has been made; £150,000 or £250,000 may be made on paper in the next transfer or assignment of the franchise. Who is to tell~ There is no question that trafficking in this franchise could be interminable. We do not know ·where it is going to stop.

The Premier has also assured the public that this money is now forthcoming. That is tantamount to an admission that the original company did not have the money. Now he says it had. I am not disputing that, however, the Premier did not tell the peorle the full story, not by any means.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I hope the hon. member is not imputing improper motives to the Premier. If he is, he is out of order.

lUr. KERR: You anticipate me wrongly, Mr. Acting Speaker. I am not imputing any motives whatsoever. I say he has not told the full story. You should know me sufficiently well--

Tlte ACTING SPEAKER: Order!

~Ir. KERR: . . . . to know that I would not resort to that kind of thing. I can give this House this assurance: no money will be forthcoming for this project from any company until the company has contracts for the supplies of coal tied up. No money will be spent in Queensland on the developn"ent of this franchise either at Blair Athol or anywhere else until sufficient contracts or a sufficient quantity of coalsay 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 tons per annumare securely tied for many years ahead.

Mr. Moore: What is your authority for thaU

Mr. KERR: I am telling the hon. member. What I say is true. Regardless of the value of the development of the field nothing will be done with this valuable asset until that condition has been absolutely secured.

This House is entitled to know from time to time the progress that is being made by the holder of this valuable franchise. We do not know the contents of the report of the Powell Duffryn Technical Services Ltd.

I think every hon. member realises that there is probably anything up to 1,000,000,000 tons of coal in the Callide and the North. There may be a great deal more. The agreement distinctly states that the franchise is over a certain area. There is no question, as was said by the hon. member for West Moreton, that every hon. member understood the franchise operated over an area of a five-mile radius from the Blair Athol railway station. We accepted that in good faith and gave the thing our blessing-and I still do-but as the hon. member for Mirani has said, there is no doubt there will be a divergence from that centre. It is an absolute certainty that an incursion into some other area will be attempted, and so far as I can read the Bill and the agreement, there is nothing to prevent the corporation from doing this. The Government can do it by order in council.

What the hon. member for Mundingburra said was perfectly true. He does not say many things that are true, but on this occasion he said something that was exceptionally true when he said that this coal will probably be produced at a loss. I pointed this out when the Bill was before Parliament. There is nothing to prevent this company from selling every ton of coal outside Queensland at a loss to places such as Ceylon, Singapore, and Hong Kong-selling it at a low price. There could be nothing coming to the revenue of the State or the Commonwealth from the coal other than the miserable royalty of 6d., 3d., and Id. a ton. As I said previously, it should have been the other way round, ld., 3d., and 6d. a ton on big quantities so that the great volume of revenue would accrue to the State. That coal will be exported to foreign countries that work under cheap labour, and the next thing will be that manufactureil products in these countries will be imported and compete with Australian manufactures. In that respect the hon. member for Mundingburra was perfectly right. That is verv dangerous. It recalls the times of the old East India and South Sea companies insomuch that it is the most reactionary and capitalistic action any Government could take. We in this House are entitled to get from the people who have this valuable franchise a report on their progress. There should not be a hold-up for two years and nothing done.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (3.59 p.m.) : The hon. member who has just resumed his seat agreed with the hon. member for Mundingburra in the statement that there was nothing to prevent this company from exporting the coal to countries such as


India and Ceylon and using it there to manufacture products in competition with the local manufacture. There is much to prevent the company from doing that; for instance, the economics of the thing. At the present time the Victorian Government are importing coal from India. Is anybody so foolish as to think that it would be economic to transport coal from Queensland to India in order eventually to compete with Australian industry~ Any person with knowledge would know that India hl:ts almost as much coal as Queensland and there is no need t~> transport coal to India.

I listened with a great deal of surprise to han. members opposite who perhaps wanted to anticipate some action we all more or less expect in respect of this agreement. Their memories are short, and their scruples, politically at any rate, are such that one would require something smaller than our present known measures to measure them. I have taken the trouble to peruse '' Hansard'' and I have found that the only hon. member who was absent at the time when the Bill went through and who I thought might have opposed it at the time was the hon. member for Mirani. He said that we on this side had the whips cracked on us.

Mr. Evans: So you did.

Mr. BURROWS: The hon. member for Mirani had the whip cracked on him and he knows why he and the hon. member for Mundingburra so conveniently caught the train that night.

lUr. Pie: You are cracking the whip on the Government now about Callide. We know that.

Mr. BURROWS: Why does not the hon. member keep quiet~ The hon. member for Mirani has sought to work the parish pump over this matter. I was in a very much worse position than the hon. member for Mirani in respect to the Blair Athol coal proposal, but I did not catch the train in order to dodge showing which way I was prepared to vote. I stayed here and voted on it.

Mr. Evans: There is no doubt about my opinions. I gave them in the House.

Mr. Gair: But you did not vote against it.

lUr. BURROWS: I think we had better leave the question ·Of why the hon. member for Mirani did not vote and why he had to catch that train where it is. It would have suited me very well to have caught the train that night, too.

Mr. Sparkes: You admit it now.

Mr. BURROWS: But I have never run away from anything yet, and I should like the hon. member to know that.

I honestly believe that if Callide did not exist there would have been a much better possibility of developing Blair Athol. I was never very worried about Blair Athol ever developing, but I could not honestly get up and convince hon. members because hon. members opposite, as well as hon. members of my

own party, know that· if I opposed Blair Athol I should have been accused of being parochial, and it would have been suggested that I was only seeking to push Callide 's interests. I discussed this question with the people of Gladstone. They said, ''This will be the end of Callide." I said, "You have no need to w:>rry about· Callide.'' I said, ''Compared with Blair Athol, Callide is a much better and much more economical proposition than Blair Athol will ever be, until Callide is worked out '' and at question time tomorrow hon. me~bers will have some idea of how much coal is at Callide.

The whole thing is a matter of common sense. The hon. member for Mirani was advocating Mackay and ~ ebo; I was advocating Gladstone and Calhde.

Mr. Hirst unfortunately fell in~o ~he Blair Athol proposition with an artifiCial po;t between Rockhampon and Bowen. We ;m Gladstone knew that we must have been sitting pretty because from the Callide to a goo.d port is only 60 miles, whereas from Blair Athol to Flock Pigeon Island or one of those places is a much gre.ater distance. A gentleman in the lobby sard to me that he remembered seeing a fox terrier dog walk across there one day; and they are talking about building a harbour there! They cannot take our harbour from us. If they could, t.he Government of the hon. members opposite would have taken it to Rockhampton. (Interjections.)

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I hope hon. members will allow the hon. member for Port Curtis to continue his speech without interruption.

Mr. BURROWS: The point I was making is that Callide is and always will be a better proposition because of its proximity to the coast and the fact that it is served by an excellent harbour. The hon. member for Mirani knows that the Mackay harbour charges Ss. a ton and I ask: can export coal pay Ss. a ton~

Mr. Evans: They fixed it at 6d. You do not know what you are talking about.

Mr. BURROWS: I shall proceed to illustrate how much the hon. member knows what he was talking about and I go back to his speech on the Supply Bill. He spoke for eight minutes before the luncheon adjournment, and on resuming he said that he was speaking about the statement made by the hon. member for Port Curtis about capitalism and democracy.

Mr. Pie: What number of "Hansard" is thau·

Mr. BURROWS: No. 1. I will give £5 to any charity he likes to mention if he can prove that he mentioned my name before lunch. He also attacked the Blair Athol agreement and he was shocked because he said there was a clause in the agreement contrary to company law that gave the company the right to pay interest on dividends. This is the hon. member who says that I do not know what I am talking about. It is evident that he does not know what he is talking


about even after he had read what he had said. He boasted about his business capacity and his business associations and his directorship of companies, and yet he was talking about interest on dividends. ·

lUr. Evans: You know it is a misprint in · ' Hansard. ' '

JUr. BURROWS: I do not know that it is a misprint. If it was, I now ask the hon. member what did he mean~ Interest on whaU

]}lr. Evans: Interest on share capital, of course.

lUr. BURROWS: What is wrong with interest on share capital~

Mr. Evans: It is contrary to company law.

Mr. BURROWS: If it is contrary to company law I am prepared to give another £5 to charity.

~Ir. Pie: Let us se.e your fiver.

Mr. BURROWS: Here it is. I will give it to you.

The hon. member for Mirani is a director of a company and he spoke about his business associations and his directorship of companies, and he just now said that it was contrary to company law. I will give £5 if it is not in Section 66 of the 1931 Companies Act introduced by the Moore Government. It is in the 1929 English Companies Act, and if my memory serves me correctly, it is consistent with the Suez Canal Act. There is nothing wrong with that in projects that take some time to develop.

If hon. members will look at the prospectus relating to the raising of capital for the. North Queensland cement works they will find the same conditions there.

lUr. Evans: With the approval of the Attorney-General.

]}Ir. BURROWS: The condition in the Blair Athol agreement is approved by a higher authority still-by this Parliament.

According to the hon. member for West Moreton the ''Courier-Mail'' has suddenly developed a conscience and has announced itself as being opposed to the Blair Athul agreement. What was the attitude of the '' Courier-Mail'' two years ago and, indood, what was the attitude of the Country Party and all hon. members oppositeW They wert loud in their praise of the agreement and this proposal, but I will be honest and say that I think they genuinely believed that it would turn out all right. But why do they not be consistent"/ They are looking for a way ont, and it is not a nice way that thev have selected. •

Mr. Evans: You knew it would not be a success, so what are you talking about~

Mr. BURROW,§: My reply to that interjection is that any person capable of adding

two and two would know that if you could get good coal 60 miles from a good port as ngainst coal 205 miles from no port at all--

Mr. Nicklin: Do not say that.

Mr. BURROWS: . . . . it is only logical to say that the proposal involving the conveyance of coal over the shorter distance would be the better.

Mr. Pie: What about taking Callide coal to Rockhampton ~

Mr. BURROWS: I am not talking about Rockhampton. I do not know whether they have a port there at all. The "Courier-Mail" and members of the Opposition realise that economically the prospects of Blair Athol are not very bright, and when the agreement was first adopted not everyone in Queensland was aware of the vast amount available at Callide. Over the past 18 months much drilling work has been carried out there and I do not know the exact estimate of the coal deposits at the moment, but a question that I have directed to the appropriate Minister on the matter will be answered tomorrow and we shall then know the potentialities of the Callide coal region. Very few hon. members have taken the opportunity to visit the Callide field, despite the fact that there is an open invitation to ho:v.. members on both sides of the House. I undertake to have transport arranged from Gladstone to the coalfield at no cost to hon. members; they will be the guests of the people 0f Gladstone.

The position is that in view of the latest dt>velopment the Opposition are looking for a way out in con:1ection with the Blair Athol scheme and the "Courier-Mail" too has suddenly discovered that this should not have happened. The hon. member for Mirani would have done i.Jetter for himself had he not madE' the excus<"s that he has.

Mr. NICKLIN (Murrumba-Leader of the Opposition) (4.15 p.m.): The amendment that has been moved to the Address in Reply has not been lightly moved. It has been moved fo_r a specific reason, that is, to give to Parliament the right to determine whether the national assets of this State shall be allowed to deteriorate or whether they should be developed as they should be.

In 1947 the Premier brought before this House an agreement for the development of the coal resources of Blair Athol. There was a difference of opinion among the members of the Opposition as to the merits or demerits o~ that agreement, but the majority of us, actmg on what the Premier told us about the bona fides and the financial value of the company concerned thought that it was right that this company with the very large capital the Premier told us it had behind it should have an opportunity to develop the Blair Athol coalfield. This Parliament, when it agreed to that agree· ment, did not intend that that agreement sho~:tld be hawked round the country nnd be assigned to other people, as has happened now. Neither did we agree that that com· pany should sit clown and not carry out its agreement with this Parliament, namely, tc;

~04 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

'develop the resources of Blair At~ol in a way they should be developed and m a way we expected they would have been developed.

lf we cast our minds back to the agreement we find that there were provisions in it whereby the Government coul.d, if t~e c_ompany did not carry out certam obhgahons devolving on it, call upon it to do so or cancel the agreement they had entered into with it. If we turn to one clause of the agreement we find that the Govern~ent may direct the corporation to carry out 1ts agreement and if it fails to make the necessary boring tests and surveys as quickly as possible, and if it fails to continue with the construction of the works without unnecessary delay or if it fails to observe any provisions of its agreement, or if it fails to obey any provisions of the agreement, that agreement may be determined by the Governor in Council. That corporation did not carry out the terms of the agreement, but instead of determining its agreement by order in Council and having the great natural assets we have at Blair Athol developed by other means, the Government when the first company fell down on its job by order in council, which this Parliament had not .yet had an opportunity to discuss, allowed it to assign its franchise to another company for a consideration. That was never the intention of any hon. member in this Chamber, no matter on what side he sat, when he recorded his vote on this matter. We never thought for one moment that the corporation to which this franchise was given would be permitted to assign its right and title for a consideration, as has happened in this case.

M:r. Duggan: Are you contending that it was an undue consideration W

Mr. NICKLIN: I am contending that it was an undue consideration, but if the first company could not carry out its obligation then the Premier should have reported back to Parliament and another agreement entered into. It should have been determined by this Parliament, not by the Executive Council as was the case.

We cannot allow the natural assets of this State to be given away by order in council. That is the job of this Parliament.

During the debate the question was asked by a Government member, "What did these people get for their £50,000 ~" Let us see what they got for their £50,000. They got first of all the right to mine coal in that area within the five-mile radius of the Blair Athol railway station,

''and/or such other area or areas as are from time to time agreed upon between the company and the Minister and approved by the Governor in Council by order in council on the recommendation of the Minister.''

In other words, they got the right of mining coal anywhere in this State whatsoever. Is that not worth £50,000 to anyone~ Of course it is. That is why we are moving this amendment today asking that this Parliament should determine the agreement, which the original company has not stood up to and which further has been assigned to another com-

pany, . which may not be any more stab~e financially than the previous one-and th1s Parliament has not had any say in that whatsoever. That should be sufficient to cause every hon. member in this Chamber who has any regard for the rights of this Parliament and for the future of these natural assets to support this amendment and direct the Government that the agreement shall be immediately determined and other plans be put in train to develop the great natural coal resources we have at Blair Athol.

The honourable the Premier definitely led this House to understand that this company was backed by very large sums of money; up to £12,000,000 I think he quoted. He also got a report from the Commonwealth Bank. When the hon. member tabled a statement as a result of a question asked by the hon. member for Logan, he said that following the action of the United Kingdom Government in nationalising British electricity undertakings, the Electric Supply Corporation (Overseas) Limited, found itself without the resources it expected would be available to begin the development of the Blair Athol project; yet the nationalisation of the electricity projects in Great Britain took place long before the agreement was introduced into this Chamber. Notwithstanding that, the hon. gentleman gives here in a Ministerial statement the excuse for the assignment of the benefits under this franchise to this company, that it could not find the money beause it did not get as much money as it expected as a result of the nationalisation of the electricity undertakings-when these undertakings were nationalised long before the agreement was entered into.

The whole thing has been, and I say this advisedly, one deep disappointment right from the beginning to the end, because those who supported that measure when it went through did believe the Premier when he said the company we negotiated with was a company of standing and that it could command the capital. But it was not so; it was a company of straw, a company that was endeavouring to obtain a tremendous advantage.

Undoubtedly it has already done that because it has assigned its right for a very substantial consideration.

It is ahnost 21 months since that agreement was passed by this Parliament and one would have expected that something really worth while would have been done by the company to put the franchise given to it by this Parliament into effect, but we find the first elementary provision in the agreement has not yet been put into force.

That elementary provision is that the area upon which the mining operations are to be conducted has not been proclaimed. Why has ibis not been doneW When this agreement was passed through this House every hon. member thought that the company was going to develop the enormous coal resources of Blair Athol. If it had any int·ention of doing that one would have thought that within a period of 21 months the area upon whieh it

Address in Reply. [23 AUGUST.} Address in Reply. 205

was gcing to operate would have been proclaimed. That has not b'een done. Why~ .Apparently this company has lost interest in Blair Athol and I think the hon. member for Mirani hit the nail on the head when· he said that these people have found that there is coal in large quantities nearer the coast than Blair Athol and ·naturally as they have demonstrated up to the present time, they are people who are out to get all they possibly can from this agreement. They are not going to spend money in the development of coal resources 200-odd miles from the coast if they can get similar rich deposits within 100 miles of the coast ; and the fact, is that they are not now interested in Blair Athol, as is borne out not only by the fact that they have not yet applied for that area to be proclaimed a mining area but they have not yet made any approach to the two existing Blair Athol companies.

As the hon. member for v\lest Moreton said, these companies have received a very raw deal. They set out to develop the Blair Athol field under great difficulties. They had to depend on a very p8or transport system. They had initial difficulties in getting capital to develop a coalfield such a long distance away from the st>aboard and with only poor transport facilit'es, at a time when ample cheap coal was available right against the seaports of Australia. These companies carried on with great difficulty. They had courage and belief in the future of Blair Athol but now, when they should be able to reap some return for the money they put into the field, they have not been able to do so. They have had an axe guspended over i:heh heads-the fact that they could have their properties taken from them at any moment without adequate co:npensation for their initiative, energy and capital. From those viewpoints, I think the validity of the objection of the hon. member f(lr Miraui is more than amply demonstrat·ed. He said that this company is now n?t interested in Blair Athol but is interested m getting into something better closer to the coast.

Another paragraph in the agreement requires the corporation to conduct such bores and tests as are necessary to determine the site or sites and extended area of the coal bed. Instead of carrying out boring tests at Blair Athol as one would have expected it to do to deten'nine the extent and quality of the coal, it has lost interest in any boring effort.

The company is putting any activity in connection with boring at present into the Nebo area. It seems that under cover of the agreement that this Parliament gave that corporation it has been endeavouring not to develop Blair Athol, which was the prime purpose of the agreement, but to find and exploit coal deposits of its own to which it could, under this all-embracing agreement, be given the right to develop to its advantage and possibly to the disadvantage of the State.

It was never intended by this Parliament, when it agreed to that legislation originally, that this agreement should degenerate into a

roaming commission to the corporation to cart this franchise round the country and get the best possible price it could for it. It seems as though the hon. member for Mirani were right when he says the Premier has been taken for a ride by this corporation, which has come here with the intention not of putting big sums of money into what was, after all, a fairly risky enterprise far away from the coast, but of obtaining an OVE)r-riding franchise on any coal deposit in. the State wherever it may be. It has been demonstrated by the actions of this corporation since it came here that it is not interested in Blair .Athol but is interested in developing other coal resources under the all-embracing powers that Parliament was so unwise as to agree to its having. For that reason it is right that this Parliament should ask that this agreement given to this company be determined immediately, under the provisions written into the agreement, and that before any other · company or any other assignee of the existing company obtains an opportunity to develop the coal resources of this State, special legislation be brought before Parliament so that it may have the right to determine the extent of any operations that should take place in the development of those resources.

On the information this House has before it at present, the only action to take is to determine this agreement, and if it is necessary to develop the coal resources of Queensland by agreement with any other company it should be done by fresh legislation and all members of the Assembly should be given an opportunity of expressing their opinions and voting on the matter. We cannot allow the assets of this State to be bandied about and hawked round the countryside for the financial advantage of a few and to the humiliation not only of the Government but of the whole State. I certainly support the amendment which is highly necessary and desirable whe~ we consider the state of affairs that has developed under this Blair Athol agreement.

ltir. PIE (Windsor) ( 4.34 pm.): I think the hon. member for Mundingburra made it very clear that when this Bill was going through the House we on this side voted for it. We willingly admit that, but I say emphatically right now, in view of subsequent events, that we were certainly sold down the line by the Premier of the State. And when you hear the attack made by the hon. member for Mundingburra on the Premier of this State in the way he made it, and when you know that no hon. member of the Government side rose to defend the Premier, it clearly shows that hon. members opposite were sold down the line by the Premier, who must have been saturated in hypocrisy to put it before the Chamber. No hon. member on that side of the House rose to defend the Premier--

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Do I under.stand the hon. member to say that the P_remier was saturated in hypocrisy W I ask him to use language more in keeping with the dignity of the House. '

Mr. PIE: I appreciate the position very clearly. I trusted the Premier and I believed that he was sincere in everything he


said when he put it before hon. members of this House; and every hon. member on that side of the House believed it also. What did subsequent events prove~ That everything he put before this House was based on very poor foundations.

Let us look at the position. We became suspicious on this side because of the delay. One of my directors happened to be in London. I cabled him; I have a copy of the cable in my office. I cabled him to make full inquiries as to what was happening in relation to this matter. We found that the British Treasury had refused to give this company permission to raise the capital to float this venture. The leader of my party exposed that in this House. This Government were going to Europe seeking foreign capital to develop this national resource. They did not get capital from the ''boys'' in Europe. Hon. members know what I mean. Capital is coming out of Europe in big lumps through Switzerland and hon. members know it. This is like the olden days when you came out to the Colonies, got a concession, went back home and floated a million-pound company. That is what iS happening today.

The hon. member for Oxley raised a very important point when he said that nothing would be done in the development of Blair A thol coalfield by this so-called company. The Premier said-and I have it here-that this company had £18,000,000 capital at its disposal. No-one can deny these Blair Athol files I have here. Every one of them proves that this Parliament and the people of Queensland were sold down the line by somebody. Was it the Cabinet of the Queensland GovernmenU

Mr. Gair: No. What about goodwill?

lllr. PIE: The people of Queensland were sold down the line by the Government and the Premier had not even been to the field to see what it was like before he sold it.

Mr. Power: That is rubbish.

Mr. PIE: It is not rubbish. He has not been to the Callicle field. He allowed a Federal Minister to go up and see the great Callide field by himself. The Secretary for Mines and Immigration never goes there. (Government interjections.)


Mr. PIE: This is Federal election year and there is no doubt about it. I have the 1946 records here to show the great thrusts made by the Federal Government in relation to the development of Queensland-what they were going to do. Remember how the exmember for Capricornia was going to build a great big woolstore in Rockhampton before tlle elections. (Interruptions.)


Mr. PIE: The same thing is happening today. The Premier is in Canberra discussing great schemes with the Federal Government a;1d Federal Ministers are coming to Queensland.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I hope the hon. member will connect his remarks with the subject before the House.

Mr. PIE: The following report on Blair Athol appeared in ''The Sunday Mail'' in 1946:-

, '£2 Million to Boost Blair Athol Coal. "Large-scale development of the huge

black coal deposits at Blair Athol by the open-cut method, financed jointly by the Commonwealth and State Governments, has been proposed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) by the Premier (Mr. Hanlon)."

That was in 1946, just before an election. This company was to spend between £12,000,000 and £18,000,000 and the Premier went South to see the Prime Minister and talk about schemes for Queensland. Today he is doing the same thing, except that today he is talking with Mr. Chifley about the Callide field.

The report goes on-" 'Mr. Chifley is impressed by the pro

posal,' said Mr. Hanlon yesterday. '' 'I will discuss details with him in

Canberra next week,' said Mr. Hanlon, who will leave Brisbane tomorrow by plane for the Premiers' Conference. . . . Development of the Blair Athol field is estimated to cost between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. ''

Not more than nine months afterwards this very scheme, which the Prime Minister was told was to cost £2,000,000-they were working in conjunction, the Premier of Queensland and the Prime Minister-was sold to a private company as it were, which it was reported would spend between £12,000,000 and £18,000,000. The election time is here again, and again we have the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland in consultation, but this time on the subject of Callide. The Prime Minister has sent a special Minister to Callide to investigate the proposal.

This business of hypocrisy ancl broken promises will not go clown. We had the hon. member for Port Curtis saying that he never believed in Blair Athol, that he believed in the Calli de, and today it was a case of ''The shut mouth catches no flies.'' There is no doubt that the hon. member got his Government into more trouble today than he will ever forget. Probably he will be an Independent at the next election.

Later on we have the report by the Transport Minister, who said, "You produce the coal and we will shift it.''

Mr. Aikens: Which Transport Minister, Mr. Duggan or Mr. Walsh~

Mr. PIE: Mr. Walsh. That was in 1946. He said, "You produce the coal." That is all that is needed at Blair Athol-not huge quantities of plant and machinery, but transport to shift the coal. The overseas company was supposed to spend £18,000,000 but mainly on a railway line from the field to the coast, not a line to open up the country or to develop the country but simply to carry the coal.

Mr. Moore: You agreed to it.


Mr. PIE: I agreed to it because I was sold a pup, and so was the hon. member and every other member of Parliament. I give credit where credit is due. The Premier put it over this Parliament politically in a way that was unsurpassed.

The ACTING 1SPEAKER: Order! It is highly unparliamentary to say that the Premier put it over Parliament and I hope the hon. member will withdraw that remark.

Mr. PIE: If it is offensive to anyone I will withdraw it.

Mr. AIKENS: I rise to a point of order. Parliament includes every hon. member. The Premier did not put it over me or the hon. member for Bowen or the hon. member for Bulimba or myself.

Mr. PIE: I could go on and read right through these extracts. It would do any Labour member's heart good to read these things, to see how it has been put over us all. It has been put over us all-there is no doubt about it. I wonder what is underneath it all. I believe this Blair Athol scheme is designed to be a Labour election winner for this Government. That is why we should be grateful to the mover and seconder of the amendment, which will enable the people to realise that this Government, who have lived on promises since I have been in Parliament anyhow, are not carrying out the promises they made to the people. After three years this great socialistic Government is becoming impatient over Blair Athol. They want something done. I say very definitely that those at present working Blair Athol are doing a splendid job.

Mr. Foley: What do you call splendid-150,000 tons a yead

Mr. PIE: I am glad that the hon. gentleman raised that issue. I will give him some figures. Today I had a conversation with a technical man who has had a lot to do with equipment that is being used and could be used in developing the Blair Athol and Callide fields. He confirmed my opinion as a firsthand observer that the present position has been brought about by the problem of transport from the mine. You can hire a machine from the Commonwealth Government if you like-there are half-a-dozen of them available locally. One machine is capable of handling 500 tons of coal per shift per day. The Commonwealth Government will make these machines available for the development of these coalfields. The Minister for Transport will see that if four of these machines were worked two shifts a clay you could have 4,000 tons of coal a day from one mine.

JUr. Foley: Duplicate your line?

Mr. PIE: Duplicate your line-I agree. You have a track running into your _back mine and the other mine is about H miles from the railhead. If the Secretary for Mines and Immigration looks into the question, he will see that this company has to employ 81 men to screen the coal as it comes from the mines.

Then there is another feature in handling Blair Athol coal. At Emerald I saw about 15,000 tons of good coal from Blair Athol lying at grass. It had been brought down from Blair Athol. What do we find~ We fi~cl one gang of men loading it into trucks ~nth an end lo:;der and 50 men shovelling it mt? trucks agam to be taken away. That ls takmg us back to the stone age. I should like to know what the coal at grass at Emerald cost the Government. No-one will ever know. The clay of the pick-and-shovel men is gone. It is wrong to employ these men in the process that is undertaken there. One gang of men shovel the coal from the truck onto a screen and another gang load the screened coal. Y on never saw anything like it. Yet for £25,000 the most modern handling equipment could be established there.

Then when we get the coal from Blair Athol, what happens~ It is taken to the coast and brought down to Brisbane. Where are the coal-handling facilities at Brisbane for this coal~ Along the Brisbane wharf there is not one place. Y on are back to the pick and shovel again.

While you have these costs your open-cuts will be difficult to work on an economic basis. Y on are definitely being sold down the line in relation to this agreement, and the quicker the Government get out of it the better it will be for the people in Queensland. Let us make it possible for those people who have brought the mines to the stage at which they are-and we must give them credit for the work they have clone over the last six or seven months at Blair Atholto have a fair go. During the whole period of the strike the men at Blair Athol were removing the overburden. They never stopped. While the strike was on some of the 81 miners, although they were not working at Blair Athol, were working at Peak Downs, and a meeting could not be held until the train came in from Peak Downs.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member is getting away from the subject matter before the House, which is the agreement.

Mr. PIE: I am pointing out the basis under which these men who are trying to develop the mine are working. I say very definitely that it cost the company £500 a week excess cost because of the agreement it has with the Government to screen the coal, which it has to do by out-of-elate methods. That would undoubtedly add to the cost of the coal.

This Parliament has been sold by the Government in relation to this Blair Athol scheme. vVhen the whole position is analysed -as other hon. members and I have doneit becomes very clear that if the true facts had been placed before Parliament the agreement would not have been entered into. The Govern!?ent know that very clearly now. If they reahse that let them come out in the open and say, "We made a mistake and we will get onto the job to develop it with Queensland capital and Queensland people.''

Debate, on motion of Mr. Gair, adjourned. The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.

legislative assembly tuesday august · car~ '' 3. ·what returns are kept showing the...

Documents