Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 1950

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Goal and Oil Shale, &c., Bill. [19 SEPTEMBER.] Address in Reply. 423

TUESDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 1950.

THE ACTING SPEAKER (THE CHAIR­MAN OF COMMIT'TEES, Mr. Mann, Brisbane), took the chair at 11 a.m.

ADDRESS IN R.EPL Y.

PRESENTAT10N AND ANSWER.

The ACTING SPEAKER: I have to report to the House that, accompanied by hon. members, I this day presented to His Excellency the Governor the Address of the Legislative Assembly, adopted by this House on J 2 September, in reply to His Excel­lency's Opening Speech and that His Excellency has been ple.ased to make the following reply-

''Government House, Brisbane, '' 19 September, 1950.

''Mr. Acting Speaker and Gentleme.n. ''As the Representative of His Majesty

The King, I t·ender to you and the mem­bers of the Parliament of Queensland, my sincere thanks for the Address in Reply to the speech I had the honour to deliver r~t the opening of 1'ar1inn1en"t on ~ .A_ugc,~!. ]£:.)0.

424 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Questions.

''I shall be most happy to convey to Hi8 J:\1ajesty 'L'he King the expression of con­tinued lovaltv and affection to the Throne ancl Pc.1·son of His Majesty from the mem­bers of the Legisla tme of Queensland in Parliament assembled.

''I trust that your labours to promote the advancement and prospe.rity of this great State will meet with success in full measure.

'.'JOHN LA V ARACK, ''Governor.''

QUESTIONS.

AliiENDJ\IENT oF Two AcTs IOJ ONE BrLL.

llir. l'IIUNRO (Toowong) asked the Pren1ier-

, '1. Has it eo me under his notice­( a) That the State ElcetTicity Commission Acts and Another Act Amendment Bill of 1950, which is at present in course of passage through the House, is an example of the present-clay praetice of amendment of two separate and distinct Acts of Parliament by the provisions of one amending act; (b) That ''the Harbour Boards Act and Another Act Amendment Act of 19-19,'' which also amended ''the Regional Electri~ Authorities Acts" (the subject of farther amm1dment as in (a) is another and more obvious example of a conglomerate amendment of two separate and disconnected acts; and (c) That the practice as referred to in (a) and (b) makP'l it extremely difficult for ;\~embers of Pal'liarnent, legal practitioners, and oth~r interested. persons to trace tiuough the provisions of amending Acts so as to ascertain the prm·isions of the statute la>Y in operation at any particular time~

'' 2. Having in Yiew circun1stances indl~ c:'tec1 i.n Question No. 1, will he give con­Sl.clera.twn to the issuing of an appropriate ~Hechon, so that amending legislation will m the future be. drafted with greater regard for public convenience in the more read:y .reference to and accessibility of the pronswns of the statutes in operation~''

Hon. E. lU. HANLON (Ithaca) replied-'' 1 and 2. 'L'he practice of this Govern­

ment is to bTing clown separate Bills for measures >vhich are not connected the one with the other, and instructions to this effect ">·ere given to the Parliamentary Draftsman a number of years ago. If the hon. member is conversant with the State Electricity Commission Acts and the Regional Elei'tric Authorities Acts, he should know that these two measures are closely allied and not separate and distinct as stated in his question. Moreover, if the hon. member read the Bill to which he has re.ferred, he would know that it make.' machinery amendments in the two afore­mentioned Acts. For this reason the Bill covers both of the Acts so as to avoid tak­ing up the time of this House in dealing with separate measures. The. Harbour Boards Aets and Another Act Amendment Bill of 1949 is ill chosen by the hon. mem­',~r tu wpoort his contention. In that ease

the triennial ele.ctions of Local Authorities and consequent elections or Harbour Boards and Regional Ele.ctric Authorities had to be postponed consequent on the then projected Royal Visit. As regards the. alleged extreme difficulty of tra~ing thTough the provisions of amending Acts, I would refer the hon. member to the cumuh1tiYe annotated table rmblishec1 in the annual ;;essim1al volume of our Acts. That table shows under the title. of each Act, not only all other Aets by which .it has been amended, but nlso particulars of its sections which have been amended and the Act by which a partieular section has been amended. I take the orportunity of pointing out to the hon. member, \Yllll :s new to this House, that Parlwment deals with a large and ever-increasing volume of very important publi~ business. Th.e GoveTnment, of course, has the responsi­bility of bringing that business befor.e Parliament, and included in that respon~l­bilitv is the. task of seeing that Parha­ment 's time is not· frittcre.d away by the routine of dealing separately with matters which ha Ye an allied purpose.''

SHORTAGE OF MA'rCHES, NORTH QUEENSLAND.

Mr. KEYATTA (Townsville) asked the Premier-

"In view of the acute shortage of matches in TownsYille and northern c1is­tricts, and the representation made, >Yill he advise. what progress has been made to relieve the position in regard to supplies~''

lion. E. ~I. HANLON (Ithaca) replied-'' Through the Queensland Government

liaiso11 office.T at Sydney, arrangements have been made with the Colonial Suga:r Refining Company Limited for one of the Company's vessels to load a quantity of wax matches at Melbourne for Townsville. On present indications it is expected the vessel will arrive at Townsville. on 9 October. Arrangements have also been made through the Queensland Government liaison oilicer at J:\1:elbouTne for a vessel to leave Melbourne for Brisbane before the end of the present month with a consign­ment of matches for transhipment to Townsville. Should it not be vossible to effect shipment at Brisbane for Townsville, arranaements will be made to move thL'· matcl~es north by rail.''

SHORTAGE OF HARDWARE, NORTH QTIEE:-!SLA:<fD.

lUr. KEYATTA (Townsville) asked the Premier-

'' In view of the difficulties and disloca­tion of public works and other projects caused through shortage of steel and hard­ware material in Townsvil!P and nOTthern districts, will he investigate the position and see what can be clone to expedite the flow of supplies~''

Hon. E. :ill. HANLON (Ithaca) replied­'' Active steps have been taken by the

Government through its liaison officers at Sydney and Melbourne to secure adequate

Questions. [19 SEPTEJ\iBEH.] Evidence, &c., Amendment Bill. 425

shipping space to move Queensland's pro­portion of steel and hardware as it becomes available at Southern ports. During my recent discussions with the Commonwealth Minister for Shipping (Senator McLeay) I strongly mged that a regular ship be allocated to clear accumulations particu­larly at Newcastle and Port Kembla for Queensland ports. The recent wet weather and industrial trouble at Southern ports has of course seriously intcrferecl >vit!J shipping schedules. The 'hon. member will, however, be pleased to learn that the 'River Mitta' recently loaded at New­castle, 1,950 tons of steel products for Townsville, 1,100 tons for Mackay, and 1,120 tons for Cairns. The 'River J\1itta' is expected to arrive at Townsville today. This shipment includes galvanised iron, piping, fencing wire, and wire-netting, steel plate and steel sections. A shipment of 200 tons of overseas cement on account of various Northern local authorities, is also due to arrive in Townsville about the middle of October. In addition the Queens­land Cement and Lime Company, since 28 August, has railed 364 tons of cement to Townsville.''

NEW SCHOOL, TOWNSVILLE NORTH \VARD.

Mr. KEYATTA (Townsville) asked the Secretary for Public Instruction-

'' 1. What developments have be.cn made to date in regard to a new school at North Ward in place of the present old school!

'' 2. What is the possibility of a new school site being selected, as the old and present site is totally inadequate and restricted as a school ai1d recreation ground?''

Hon. G. H. DEVRIES (Gregory) replied-'' 1. The provision of a ne1v school build­

ing for the 'rownsville Central State School has received the consideration of the Department and representations have already been made to the Co-ordinator General of Public \Vorks with a view to the allocation of the funds necessary for this pTOject. The further dm·elopment of the project is however dependent upon the se~uring of a suitably located and adequate site for the new school. Dis­cussions with a view to o htaining a new site are at pr<:'sent proceeding, and it is hoped that these discussions will be finalised shortly. \Vhen a new site has been secured, the Department of Public ~Works will be requested to prepare the necessary plans for a new building of design appropriate to the new site.

'' 2. See 1.''

LOSS OF PRODUCTION BY COLLI;-;:SVILLE STA'l'E MINE.

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS (Whitsunday) asked the Secretary for Mines and Immi­gration-

'' 1. In view of the serious loss of employees at the Collinsville State coal-mine

and the consequent loss of much nee(led coal, will he kindly advise this House what action (if any) he has tal,en or is conkmplating to ensure -vvoTking of the mine to full capacity?

'' 2. Is it a fact that many employees have left the State mine aml ~roue to the privately owned Scottville mine because of the better conditions for employee's at that 1nine ')''

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona) replied-' ' 1. The mechanisation of K o. 2 Tunnel

of the State Coal l\iine, Collins\~llc, has been approved. Proposals for such, mechanisation prepared by the mine management and the Coal Board, >Yith the assistance of Powell DuffTyn Technical Services Limited as consultants, provide for an output sufficient to meet demands. Steps are now being taken to implement the mechanisation approved, but it will be some time before full installation is effected.

'' 2. \Vhilst there has been a movement of employees fTom the State Mine, only a proportion of those leaving the State Mine has gone to the private mine. All authorities agree that the working condi­tions for employees in the State Mine are far better than those obtaining in the private mine. On the question of Temunera­tion of employees, the State Mine adheres strictly to the provisions of awards. With the local shortage of labour there is evi­dence that the private mine encourages transference of experienced la hour by payments over and above aw'd'd rates. ~Workers arc entitled to seek employment >vhere.-er they desire, and the GovcTnment does not intend to dirrct employees to places of employment, or to conscript them for labour purposes.''

PAPERS.

The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:-

Report of the Department of :Mines for the year 1949.

Report of the Queensland-British Food Corporation for the year 1949-1950.

Report of the Director, State Children Department, for the year 1949-1950.

EVIDENCE (ATTESTATION OF DOCU­MENTS) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

IXITIATION.

Hon. J. LARCOJI'IBE (Rockhampton­Attorney-General) I move-

'' That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committu of the Whole to consider of the desirableness of introducing a Bill to amend the Evidence (Attestation of Documents) Act of 1937 in certain particulars.''

Motion agreed to.

426 Evidence, &c., Amendment Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Coal and Oil Shale. &c., Bill.

WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT VALIDATION BILL.

INITIATION.

Hon. T. A. FOLEY (Belyando-Secretary for Public Lands and Irrigation): I move-

'' That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of the desirableness of introducing a Bill to validate certain resumptions for war service land settle­ment and certain other matters; to vest certain lands in His Majesty for the pur­poses of the closer settlement thereof; to amend the War Service Land Settlement Acts, 1946 to 1948, and the War Service Land Settlement Acquisition Acts, 1945 to 1949, each in certain particulars; to repeal the War Service Land Settlement Agreement Act of 1945; and for other purposes. ' ' Motion agreed to.

RABBIT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

INITIATION.

Hon. T. A. FOLEY (Belyando-Secretary for Public Lands and Irrigation): I move-

'' That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of the desirableness of introducing a Bill to consolidate and amend certain enactments relating to the introduction into and the keeping in Queensland of rabbits; and for these and other purposes to amend The Rabbit Acts, 1913 to 1943, in certain particulars.'' Motion agreed to.

EVIDENCE (ATTESTATION OF DOCU­MENTS) ACT' AMENDMENT BILL.

I='fiTIATION IN COMMITTEE.

(The Acting Chairman of Committees, Mr. Farrell, Maryborough, in the Chair.)

Hon. J. LARCOMBE (Rockhampton­Attorney-General) (11.23 a.m.): I move-

" That it is desirable that a Bill be inb·oduced to amend the Evidence (Attes­tation of Documents) Act of 1937 in certain particulars.''

The object of the 1937 Act, which it is proposed to amend, is indicated by its title, namely, an Act relating to the attestation of documents outside the State of Queens­land. Documents which are used for many purposes are required by law to be verified, and the most common method of verification is by having the signature of the person making the document witnessed by a justice of the peace. Many documents relating to Queensland transactions must, of course, be attested. A large number are witnessed in the State and others outside of it. The 1937 Act was introduced to facilitate the attest­ing of documents outside Queensland but within His Majesty's Dominions. Before that Act became law difficulty was experi­enced in relation to documents in connection with the administration of the estates, in particular, of deceased persons where the beneficiaries resided outside Queensland.

Some documents were returned unsatis­factorily executed. ·To simplify procedure and to ensure proper and prompt attestation, the 1937 Act provided that any document that could be attested in Queensland by a justice of the peace for this State, could be witnessed in any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Queensland by a justice of the peace for the part concerned, and that such attestation should be noticed judicially. -,.

However, consequent upon certain con­stitutional changes in certain countries since 193 7, a Bill is now necessary to amend the original Act. For instance, Eire is no longer part of His ?\fajesty 's Dominions; it is a republic. While that is a big constitutional change, friendly relations continue to exist between the King's Dominions and Eire. Nevertheless, the. provisions of the 1937 Act are not now applicable. to affidavits and other documents executed in that country. Therefore the proposed amendment is designed to authorise. the Governor in Council to apply, by proclamation, the pro­visions of the 1937 Act to any country out­side the State of Queensland where he ls satisfied that they have ceased to apply. Consequently, if the proposed Bill becomes law a proclamation could be issued to en~ble documents Telatin::; to Queensland tTans­actions to be attested in Ireland in the same "·a:v as they weTe befoTe that countq· became a republic.

Mr. Aikens: What about India?

lUr. LARCOitiBE: I was about to remark that the Act could be applied similarly to any other rountrv that was covered bv the 1937 Act. It could be applied to India and to Burma.

Briefly, the ·essence of the Bill is to per­mit the Governor in Council to apply the 1937 Act to any country to which it formerly applied but which is not now covered by that Act.

Motion (:Ylr. Larcombe) agreed to. Rec,olution reported.

FIRST READING.

Bill presented and, on motion of :Mr. Larcombe, rBad a first time.

COAL AND OIL SHALE MINE WORKERS (PENSIONS) ~\.CTS A:\IEND:\IEXT BILL.

CoMMI'rTEE.

(The Acting Chairman of Committees, Mr. Farrell, Maryborough, in the Chair.)

Clause 1-Short tit1e and construction­as read, agreed to.

Clause 2-Amendments of s.6.; Pensions, Mine workers who are retired-

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS (Whitsunday) (11.28 a.m.): I move the following amend­ment-

' 'On page 2, after line 4, insert the following paragraph:-

''Provided that the tribunal may increase the rate of pension payable

Coal and Oil Shale [19 SEPTEMBER.) 111Iine Workers, &c., Bill. 427

under this section to a mine worker who is residing in a district in which, in the opinion of the tribunal, high living costs justify such increase.'

The amendment embraces a matter on which I have spoken on three previous occasions. I feel that in the various areas throughout the State there should be a higher rate of pension than that at the present time. In support of my contention I point out that there is a basic wage rate for the Sout!J.ern Division, another for the Central Division and another for the Northern Division; and these variations in wages are based on the increased cost of living and other items in the Central and Northern Divisions. I suggest to this Committee that it is only reasonable to assume that if such increases on account of the cost of living are justified in the case of wages they are justified in pensions also. The amount involved is not much. It would mean 3.83 per cent. increase in the Central Division over the Southern Division and an 8.6 increase in the Northern Division over the Southern Division. Thus, if the Southern Division pension was £2 15s., the amount in the Central Division would rise to £2 17s. Id. and in the Northern Division to £2 19s. 9d.

Hon. members will notice that the amend­ment leaves the matter entirely to the tribunal; it may increase if it so desires.

I know that the payments to the fund are not really embraced by this Bill, but are fixed by the tribunal, and I suggest that tribunal may think it advisable to add the increases to the subscription, paid by miners, which is 3s. 6d. throughout Queensland. If that "·as done, instead of being 3s. 6d. in the Central Division, it would be 3s. 7,)d. and in the North and North-west 3s. 91td. I offer that suggestion to the tribunal ;nd I feel that the miners in those areas would not mind paying the small increase so that the pen­sioners there might get their just dues.

The amendment is a very necessary one. I brought the matter up in my speech on the Address in Reply, hoping that the Govern­ment would embody my suggestion in the Bill, because I felt it was something that would appeal to them. I am expecting their support in this matter.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (11.35 a.m.) : 'l'his sudden desire of hon. members opposite to take an interest in the coal­miners nnd workers of the State is incon­sistent with their general attitude, and one natnrallv looks for the milk in the cocoanut. One has· not to go very far to :find it.

1\Ir. Sparkes: It seems to worry you.

Mr. BURROWS: The hon. member is inclined to placate the unplacatable in t::te shape of the Collinsville coal-mines. The principle the hon. member is now adopting is no doubt prompted by the law of self­preservation and from that point of view I can forgive him.

1\Ir. Sparlres: Do not worry about him, ge on >vith the amendment.

lUr. BURROWS: The principle is not appEcal>lc to other pemions and the hon. member, being a member of the party in

power, should exercise his influence or1, the members of that party. We never hear of parities in regard to age and invalid pensions. Whv the sudden desire to start on one cert'ain section of the community~

Mr. Sparkes: You must start some­where.

Mr. BURROWS: If there is any sin­cerity in the advocacy of the hon. member why is it not a principle of child endow­ment and age and invalid pe.nsions ~ These cover a far greater scope and number of people than those involved by the principle at issue.

].Ir. 'De-war: Is it a good or bad amend­ment~

Mr. BURROWS: It is definitely a move of the Opposition to try to embarrass the Government. After all, why are pensions payable at all~ They are paid primarily because the political forebears of hon. mem­bers opposite -had such rotten conditions pre>·ailing in the mining :fields.

Mr. Sparkes: Never mind that. Is it a good or bad amendment~

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order ! There is a barrage of interjections, which are irrelevant. If hon. members must inter­ject their interjections must be relevant to the matter under discussion. I ask hon. members to listen to the hon. member who is speaking; by doing so they will probably learn.

Mr. BURROWS: The political humbug that has inspired this advocacy of the Opposition is disgusting. Hon._ members opposite know full well that the GoYernmenu are trustees of this fund. If it was dissipated, as suggested b;r hon. members opposite, they would of course be happy. But the Govern­ment have a duty not only to the miners at present recipients from the fund but also to the men still contributing to it in the hope that some clay they will receive benefits from it. What would be the feelings of the hon. member if after having contributed to a fund for a number of years he came to the evening of his life expecting to draw benefits from it but found that the money had been dissipated owing to the extra­vagance of the trustees~ As I have said, hon. members opposite are more concerned about embarrassing the Government than about the welfare of the miners. If they are sincere let them advocate so improving working conditions in the mines that the health of the miners will benefit. \Ve know th:1t the expectancy of life of coal-miners is reduced by the rotten conditions imposed by employers years ago.

Mr. Sparkes: You have been there for over 30 years and have not c1one it yet.

1\Ir. BURROWS: Every time we intro­duce a measure into this Chamber to improve the conditions of the miners or to impose an obligation upon the employers hon. mem­bers opposite are up in arms. _'Why, I remember an hon. member for the former West Moreton electorate, who represented a

428 Goal and Oil Shale [ASSEMBLY.] Mine Workers, &c., Bill.

district of colliery employers, when speaking to a· Bill to pTOvide a minimum of 5 feet for the height of the tunnel in which men had to work, asking for time to consult the colliery employers. How would any hon. member like to work for eight hours a day in a space less than 5 feet high~ That hon. member wanted time to consult the mine· owners in his district and he was voicing the opinion of hon. members opposite when he protested against the passing of that Bill until he could do so. Hon. members opposite are dictated to by mine-owners and they are not concerned about the welfare of the employees one bit, as the hon. member for Bremer pointed out the other day and as did the Minister when he quoted their remarks as contained in '' Hansard.'' Their history shows that they are unsympathetic towards the miner and the worker generally. The hon. member for Whitsunday happens to have a few coal-miners in his electorate and he realises that if there is a straight-out contest at the next election his political life is threatened. He has come along now as the saviour of the miners, but if he wanted to do anything for the miners he could dissociate himself from the party he is sup­porting and get behind a working-class move­ment and try to do something for the masses.

Mr. EVANS (Mirani) (11.43 a.m.) : After listening to the outburst of the hon. member for Port Curtis, one wonders whether hon. members opposite are at all serious. I know the reason why the hon. member for Whit­sunday brought this matter up. It was. because the pensioners of Collinsville a pproachecl him and asked him to raise the issue. He IYas selected as their member under the laws of this country and it was his duty to bring it forward.

I remind hon. members on the Government side that on manv occasions statements have been made by Ministers that it is the duty of the Government to allow these pensioners to live in the districts where they worked all their lives and where their friends are. What is going to happen if this small con­cession is not granted~ In itself the amount is not much-in fact, the pension itself is not much-but this little extra money would not only enable the pensioners to offset the increased cost of living in the Central and Northern Divisions of the State, but would allow these people, who are disabled, to live their lives with their friends and relations in the areas where they have given the best years of their lives in producing coal for this country.

This principle is contained in our hospital legislation and why should not the Govern­ment be consistent~ The amendment does not ask for very much.

The comparison made by the hon. member for Port Curtis with the age pension has no force, because that pension is covered bv Federal legislation. Moreover, many peopie who are receiving the age pension have paid very little in income tax, but these miner­pensioners have paid into their fund and helped to build it up to the substantial position in which it is today.

I strongly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Whitsunday and I want to tell the hon. member for Port Curtis that it is not a question of him winning hi"' seat again. He could probably earn a better living where he was than in Parliament. I have in my hand the letter from the pensioners asking the hon. member for Whitsunday to do what he could for them, and as their Parliamentary representative he is but doing his duty in moving the amendment.

lUr. AIKENS (Mundingburra) (11.45 a.m.) : I do not think anyone can accuse me of not being interested in the welfare of the miners, or any other section of the working class of this State. In reply to some of the aspersions that have been made by the hon. member for Port Curtis, let me say that during election time it is customary for mem­bers of the Government to quote the number of occasions on which I vote against the Government in this House. They use that as a basis of their attempt to establish that I am not--

Tl1e ACTING CHAIRl\IAN: Order ! The matter referred to by the hon. member does not come within the scope of the Bill.

1\Ir. AIKENS: Whilst I am in this House I shall judge any amendments, or Bills, or any other matter that is brought before the House, not on the basis of who may bring it forward, but on whether it is justified. I ask myself this question on every amend­ment or Bill brought down: ''Should any hon. member who is a genuine representative of a working-class party support it, or should he oppose it~" As I believe that this amendment is in the interests of the working class, I propose to support it, although I do not subscribe to the suggestion of the hon. member for Whitsunday that miner's pay­ments into the fund should be increased in certain areas.

Let us examine this amendment in simple terms; let us get down to the essence of it. It is not an attack on the Government at all, nor is it a desire to embarrass them. How sensitive they are to embarrassment, these people with the pachydermatous political hides! All that it does is to give to the tribunal, on which the miners are represented, on which the mine-owners are represented and on which the Government are represented, the option, if it so desires and in its wisdom, to make increased payments to retired miners in the Northern, Central, or Southern, or any other division, of the State. In other words, it gives the tribunal administering this fund, on which all parties arP represented, the option of differentiating in the payment of pensions. In the name of simple honc·sty, how does that embarrass the Government~

The Government have adopted the principle of regional parities. As a matter of fact, that is a very sore point with members of the Opposition, and I am particularly pleased to see that they are coming round, in this respect at any rate, to a belief in the principle of regional and divisional parities. Industrial Court awards contain provisions for the pay­ment of a central parity and a northern

Coal and Oil Shale [ 19 SEPTEMBER.] 1'.1ine Worke1·s, &c., Bill. 429

parity, and the Railway Award, at any rate, and many other awards, provide for the pay­ment of western parities in addition. Those parities are fully justified and are needed by the people who live and work in those areas in order to compensate them for the extra cost of living there. If the worker in the Northern Division or the Central Division, or in the West, is givGn extra wages by the industrial tribunals of this State--

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that industrial awards have nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. AIKENS: I am merely stressing it as a point. If the Industrial Court gives these people an extra wage in order to com­pensate them for the extra cost of living in those parts of the State, what objection can the Government have to giving this tribunal the right to give miner-pensioners extra pay­ments to compensate them for the extra cost of living that they have to bear?

To sum it up, this amendment merely seeks to give the tribunal that administers this fund the snme right as the Government gave to the Industrial Court in the flxing of wages. The Industrial Court has the right to grant parities in respect of wages and the amend­ment simply seeks to give the tribunal admin­istering this fund the right to grant the parities in respect of pensions, and because of that I wholeheartedly support the amend­ment, with the proviso that I do not sub­scribe to the views advanced by the hon. member for Whitsunday with reg'ard to dif­ferences in the contributions to be made by miners.

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona-Secretary for Mines and Immigration) (11.51 a.m.): I do not propose to accept the amendment and for very good reasons that I shall giye to the Committee.

First of all, let me say that any request that has been· made for this alteration, if made to the hon. member for \Vhitsunday, which I am not doubting, has not been made to me by the union that met me in deputa­tion. When I introduced the Bill I pointed out the miners' pensions fund was economic­ally and actuarially unsound. I think I should give the position of the fund again to indicate how actuarially unsound it is. It is important that we should realise how serious the position is.

An Opposition lUember: Are you taking the necessary steps to remedy the position~

Mr. POWER: Yes, the necessary steps will be taken. It may involve an increase in the price of coal, if the tribunal decides to take a certain course of action, but of course I do not direct the tribunal on that matter. It may mean a greater contribution from the mine-owners. I pointed out before that the actuary has indicated that there is a deflciency in the fund of £939,452. That in itself is something that must be seriouslv considered, yet we had the remark bv a responsible hon. member on the front Opposi­tion bench, one who knows a good deal about

business-! took down his statement at the time-that the. fund was in a hcalthv financial position.

Mr. Evans: That statement was made in the House last week.

lUr. POWER: It was made here today; the hon. member made it today. Whom are we to believe-the hon. member who made the statement or the actuary who made the report~ Whose opinion are we to take~ I am sure that the hon. member would not like to run his business along lines that were economically or actuarially unsound. It is all verv well to talk about giving extra con­ditions' when you are handling money belong­ing to other people.

If for no other reason than that contained in the actuary's report I should be justifled in rejecting the amendment. But I ht;ve other good reasons, and I propose to grve them to the Committee. This matter has been investigated and ~ know that a n;rmber of miners eh an O'e therr place of resrdence from time to thne. They may live in the northern and western areas for two or three months, and then perhaps change to the South-eastern District. \Vhat would be the position in regard to thei~ pensions 9 We should need a staff of tramed clerks, and trained detectives too, to discover where these people were. They would be. entitled to a certain rate of payment for tins month and a lower rate next month hecause they had changed their place of living.

Mr. Evans: They cannot travel round like that.

lUr. POWER: They travel from place to place. We are paying pensions to miners as far away as Boulder in Western Austral~a, to pensioners in New South Wales and Vrc­toria and to four overseas. The proposal subm'itted by the hon. member for Whitsun­dav was tried some time ago by the Common­we'alth Social Services Department, and Mr. Burdeau the Director of that department in Queensl~nd, tells m: that at one time the Commonwealth pensrons were payable on a quarterly assessment basis according ~o the cost of living, but it was found that rt was almost impossible to administer that system because the only time the pensioner was satisfled was when it meant an increase. When decreases occurred, it caused irrita­tion and friction. It was found impractic­able to apply the principle to age and invalid pensions.

lUr. Dewar: How many pensioners would be involved~

l\Ir. POWER: Quite a large number; I will get the information.

Mr. Dewar: It might be a negligible nmnucr.

Mr. POWER: Even if only one was inYolved the fact is that such a scheme has been tried previously. It is all Yery well for the hon. member to suggest that we should lavishly throw away money out of a fund that according to the actuary shows a deficiency of £939,452, and according to that same official is actuarially unsound. As

430 Goal and Oil Shale [ASSEMBL Y.3 lliine Workers. &c., Bill.

a matter of fact, the Opposition objected to the principle of this Bill when it was originally introduced. Let us be fair. There is no sound reason why we should make this amendment. As a result of this amending legislation, the wife of a pensioner in this State is going to be 7s. 6d. a week better off than her counterpart in New South Wales. I have given the matter a good deal of con­sideration and I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS (Whitsunday) ( 11.57 a.m.) : I first wish to deal with the statement made by the hon. member for Port Curtis, by reading a letter that I received on 15 May, 17 days after the election. I might mention that the only day on which I was in Collinsyille in the last three years was one day pnor to the last general election. I did not then have the pleasure of meeting the writer of this letter. It is from the Collinsville and Scottville Pensioners' Asso­ciation and is dated 15 May, 1950. It reads-

'' At a meeting of the above association it was decided to write to ;rou asking you to. do your u~most .in trying to get the ;tuners' penswns m creased. I might mform you that I am writing to the Premier, the Hon. E. M. Hanlon as he promised that he would make the pensions in Queensland up to New South Wales or even better. In New South Wales the pension is 15s. more . . . ''

That is on a fortnightly basis-'' ... than in Queensland and that is

a bout seven months ago, so you see we are not getting a decent go. Well, to tell you the truth I do not know how a man and h!s wife can live on £8 18s. 6d. per fort­mght no;v the cost of living is going up all the t1me, so I hope you will do your best, and oblige."

I presume the Premier, when he received that letter, would pass it on to the relevant departme;tt. As I said in my speech on the Add.ress. m Reply, I got very few votes in CollmsVllle, but my duty now is to represent ~ll the .electo;·s of Whitsunday. I feel that m fightmg. th1s matter I am only obeying my own conscience and discharging the duty I owe to these people.

The. Minister said that this fund was not actuanally soufolcl and read from a report dated 1947 iYluch stated that it showed a deficit of £939,452. After all is said ancl clone, anyone with a lmowleclge of figures knows that these opinions are based merely on supposi.tion. ~ ou have to suppose how many penslOHers Wlll come on the fund and how many w~ll g.o off it, because of death. The whole thmg 1s merely supposition.

. The fund has be~n in existence. for about mght years ancl durmg that time the tribunal has acr.umulated a credit of £330,000. That ' means that approximately £41,250 a vear has been netted. I went into these fig~res o>er the week-end and 5peut much time on ~l~e1;1. This £41,250 profit made each year, 1f mvested at a small interest, such as 3± per ~ent.-and t.h~re are any amount of Government secunhes on which you can do better thau that-would mean that by 1965

the fund would be in credit to the extent of £1,289,187. In addition to that the £41,250 would still be going into the fund and £41,000 in interest would be coming along each year. That is the figure anybody can check. ThP figures stated by hon. members opposite are mere supposition and mine too are supposition, and one supposition is as good as another.

'The Minister has intimated that he is not going to accept the amendme.nt. ~lore shame on him! I honestly thought that the provision would have been embodied in the Bill in the first place.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (12.3 p.m.) : 'l'he fantastic figures quoted by the hon. member for _vVhitsunclav have evidently been compiled in complete ig11orance of the principles of actuarial pmcti~e. The hon. member took the fund up to hundreds of thousands of pounds and provided 811

excellent example of the old saying that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. If the figures hacl been quoted by the hon. member for Logan or Sherwood, or even the hon. member for Toowong, I would accept them, but it is apparent the hon. member bas rnshec1 into this matter without sufficient investigation. Certain members have been cm1 Yassed by a section in the communitv -a section that has nothing to build but all to destroy-not with the desire to improve the conditions of the coal-miners but in order to embarass the Government.

JUr. Sparkes: You are twisting now; you ''aid before that it was election propa­ganda.

l\Ir. BURROWS: I have heard about Don Quixote and I liken the hon. member ancl the hon. member for Mirani to him.

The hon. member for \Vhitsunday said these funds had been built up. Hon. mem­bers opposite speak 'withoU:t knowing all the. facts. Por instance, the other day the hon. member for Fassife.rn spoke on this Bill and when I asked him how much a miner paid he did not know, which indicates how much interest he. had in t·he matter. The hon. mem,ber should be honest ancl, if he criticise.s, should see that his facts are correct.

The hon. member for Whitsunday said that he spent much time over the matter during the week-end, but his figures appeared to be based on the assumption that the people entitled to pensions all died before re.ceiving them. When I first became aware of this fund I asked how it was that it had accumu­lated. I got a simple answer, which made it very plain to me. During the war a num­ber of miners who had reached the age of 60 continued at work in the war effort and did not come on H1c fund as otherwise they wonlcl have ..

Mr. Aikens: You do not know anything about the fund. They retire at 60.

Mr. BURROWS: They continued work until they reached the age of 65. As a evnsequence, tho demand on the fund during the war years was not nearly as great as it

Coal and Oil Shale [19 SEPTEMBER,] Mine Workers, &c., Bill. 431

is today or is likely to be. in the future­not only the distant future but the near future. I understand the hon. member has a weakness for poetry and is a bit of a poet himself. I would remind him of a little poem which goes something like. this-

"If some great design you do intend, Think of the means, the manner and the

end.''

Mr. NICKLIN (Landsborough-Leader of the Oppo,ition) ( 12.G p.m.) : After lis l'ening to the poet laureate. on the Govern­ment benches and the remarkable statement he has made in connection with this pensions fund and the effect of this measure., l wonder that the Government put up to speak an hon. member with so little real knowledge of the subject. The hon. member is an embarrassment to them. \'V"hen he rose to speak he made the rather significant state­ment that the hon. member for Whit,undav was endeavouring by this amendment to placate the unplacatable. Does the hon. membm· mean that the Government have written oil' the Collinsville mine and will not take any notice of any suggestion for the improvement of the. ind~1stry that comes from the Collinsville miners? It looks mighty like it. Collinsvil!e is a Government-owned· minE; and the Government pose as the ideal en~ployers in this State. Notwithstanding tlus they propose to write off their own employees at tlw. Collinsville coal-mine. (Government interjections). That is the position. That is the reason advanced for oprosin~ the amendment moved lw the hon. mcuber for \Vhitsunday-an ame.nclme.nt to apply to miners' pensions the same prim·iple us is applied in this State to coal­miners' wagPs and all basiC-\I"<IO'e rates. It is a principle rccogni~ecl in ta~ation also; the State. is zoned for the purposes of vm·ious concessions. It is a reeognised principle that persons living in the Central and N 01·thern Divisions are entitlP•] to higher pay than those within the Southern Dhision. This being so, 1vhy should not the principle be applied to coal-miners' pensions 1 The hon. member for Port Curtis asked whv dicl we not do what the amendment suggests in regard to age pensions ancl child endow­ment, but ·we haYe no control over these things. Vie are dealing only with things ow.r which we have control. ·

The :i'.'Iinister said he hacl two excellent reasons for not accepting this ame.ndment the first being thnt the funcl was actuarially unsouncl and the second being the drnin on the fund. Let us look at the act,wrial soundness of the fuiH1. The :i'.finish•r quotes the actuary's report, whieh states that the fund is some £930 ,000-odd "in the blue." We. have not had access to the aetnary 's report but it has hPcn mentioned in previoas debates in this Parliament that most super­annuation funds are at their commencement' actuarially unsound and become sound as they progress. On the figures available to us, the fund at the present time has a creclit balance of £80,000-ocld, plus a reserve of £200,000. Sure1y that shows that the fund must be building up.

Mr. Power: Are you questioning the actuary's report~

Mr. NICKLIN: I am not questioning it at all but am simply pointing out that the fund is building up and that possibly an actuary's report in iive years' time would reveal that the deficit was not anywhere near the sum quoted by the Minister.

The hon. gentleman asked, "What shall we do to make this fund actuariallv sound 7' ' The only thing he can think of is' increasing the contribution by the mine-owner or, alterna­tively, the coal-miner, but he does not for one moment suggest that the Government should accept some of their responsibility and pay a greater contribution into the fund. At present payments into the fund are two­fourths by the mine-owners, one-fourth by the miners, and one-fourth by the Government, but, mark you, the Government's contribution is limited to £15,000. When the fund was first established the Government's contribu­tion was onlY £13,000. It has been increased by £2,000 siil.ce. If the fund is so actuarially unsound, as the Minister suggests, then I suggest to him that he examine the question of the Government's making a greater contri­bution to it. I suggest also that the Minister quote further from the actuary's report, and tell us what suggestions that gentleman has made for making this fund sound and whether he has made an:' prediction as to what the funrl is likely to build up to in iive or ten years' time. I make that suggestion to him Lecause of the figures aYailable to us. We find that the credit balance is growing from :v~ar to year and that the trustees have found it possible to put to one side £200,000 as reserve.

It was suggester1 by the hon. member for Port Curtis that the mncndmont would place a tremendous rlrain on the funrl. \Vhcn we look nt the numbers of eonl-mincrs in tite ::\ orthern and Central divisions--

lUr. BURROWS: I rise to order. I did not sng-gcst that it a tremendous drain on the fnm1. hon. gentlcn1an is exaggerating.

a point of would 111nk~ I think the'

Thlr. NICKLIN: The words of the hon. nlcln ·•-'l' WL'fP to the effctr- tll::1t ir the ;IH1('1ld­Il1Clt v:as agn•ec1 to the fL~nd ·,roulr1 be \Yrctk( ~1 ancl tlw tr~~.tce8~--

lUr. BURROWS: I rise to another point of crdt t. I !-·tiinted ont lltnt t! :..:·c'lll'l'<.d }(l·"~l of the Oppo-:dtlon \•:as to r_F~s~;)a~_1 thr, fn:~,L

I ask t1l hon. llil'Jllilcr to ncc,.?l~t 1n~· a~St:.l'<lHCC'.

The ACTING \.i"iil tl>r' L':' u· of assur::mce of the Curtis?

CIIAIR:UAN: tl~e Ci;rosir:on hon. 1ll'2HilJcr

Order! ar~"'pt the' fo: Port

Thlr. NICKLIN: I accept his explanation, bnt all I can sn v is tllflt all hou. members ou this side of tlte Chamber got the same impression as I did from the hon. member's r0marks, that if the amendment was carrie:l the fund would be iinancially ruined. He went on to say that the Govermil.ent, ns trustee of the fund, should not allow the dissipation of the fund in that way. But, Mr. Farrell, the Government are not the trustees of this fund.

432 · Coal and Oil Shale [ASSE::.\1BLY.] 1'.1ine Workers, &c., Bill.

The trustees of the fund are appointed under the Art, ancl it will he their job to sec that the fund is not diRsipated.

Dealing with the actuarial position of the rund, I think all hon. members \Vould he ])leased if the Minister gave the fullest details possible of what the actuary found in his investigation and the date of his report. ·we should then be nble to form an opinion whether the fund is likely to become sounder or the reverse in the future.

The carrying of this amendment would not place a tremendous drain on the fund, because the number of miner-pmhioners in the Central and N orthem Divisions of the State \Yonld not be very groat. The Minister has said that the amendment would give rise to great administrative difficulties, but I do not think it would. If a pensioner drew his money as a resident of the Central Division he \Yould receive the Central Division parity, and if he llrew it as a resident of the Northern Division he would receive the Northern parity, and if he drew it whilst resident in any other part of the State he would receive no parity at all. The administration of the amendment, there­fore, would present no great difficulty. It was raised merely as a bogy, and is not a good reason for the rejection of the amend­ment.

The main point that has emanated from the discussion this morning is the f3ct that the Government are not very concerued with the welfare of their own employees at Collinsville. They say they cannot do anything for these men because, no matter \1-hat is done for them, they will not be satisfied. Collinsville pensioners would receive some advantage as the result of this amendment, and if this principle is recognised in other legislation, it should be recognised in this legislation and the Rmendment agreed to.

liir. AIKENS (Mundingburra) (12.18 p.m.J: With due respect for all who have spoken on this amendment and for the opinions they have expressed, I think hon. members are wandering far from the track. The Minister has said, ''We are not going to do this,'' and, ''\V e are not going to do that,'' and, '' \Ve are not going to bankrupt the fund,'' and one would gather from the general trend of the debate on this amend­ment that this Parliament was being asked to grant these parities to the miner-pensioners. If this Parliament was being asked to grant parities to miner-pensioners, all the discussion that has taken place on this amendment would be relevant-and, in passing, I might mention that I should support that also. This age could he reasonably called the Account­ants' Age, because accountants and actuaries today are four bob a dozen, and anyone knows that you can submit your books to twelve different accountants and get twelve different balance sheets, the result depending entirely on the viewpoint of the accountant.

I am not concerned with the credibility or lack of credibility of the actuary who pre­pared the report so glibly quoted by the Minister, I give due credence and regard to the actuarial dissertations of the hon. member for Whitsunday and the actuarial and

accounbnev dissertations given by the hon. member for Port Cnrtis, who is one of that numberless brood.

But let me read the amendment so that we shall know what we are talking about, and particularly I refer to the first five words of it. It says, ''Provided that the tribunal may ... '' I emphasise the word ''may''­there is nothing mnndatory about it. The amendment simply provides that the tribunal may in its wisdom grant these parities to the miners. So far we have heard the Minister express a very definite vote of no confidence in the tribunal because he began to talk along the line of the tribunal's automatically granting the divisional parities to the miner· pensioners. I only hope that the tribunal will automatically grnnt them. But the Minister seemed to think that if the amend­ment was carried the tribunal would absolutely disregard the actuarial report and any other evidence that might be placed before it and immediately proceed to grant the divisional parities to the miner-pensioners. The Government have the right to appoint th-eir own chairman to the tribunal and I um1erstand that the chaiTman is to be the Under Secretary for Mines, Mr. Clark, a very efficient oiricer.

The ACTING CHAIRJUAN: Order ! The composition of the tribunal is not involved in the mnendment.

Mr. AIKENS: But we are discussing the optional powers to be given to the tribunal.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: The com­position of the tribunal is not involved in the amendment.

1\Ir. AIKENS: Very well. Let us assume that the amendment is carried. The tribunal will then be charged with the responsibility of examining all aspects of matters placed before it in support of regional or parity allowanceR. Does the Minister suggest that the members of the tribunal will so neglect their duty that they will grant the divisional allowances without iirst considering all the matters that had been placed before them, because that was the tenor of the argument he advanced today~

So far as I am concerned I regret that the amendment does not go further, and is not mandatory on the tribunal. The amend­ment simply seeks to give the tribunal the option of granting regional parities to miner­pensioners and I see no reason why the Minister should deplore the fact that the fund would become bankrupt. Once again let me say that I do not give three hoots in hell for any actuarial report on anything. Let us stick to the amendment and let us have confidence in the tribunal. That is the essence of the argument.

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona-Secretary for .Mines and Immigration) (12.23 p.m.): The hon. member for Whitsunday did not say who signed the letter.

Mr. Lloyd Roberts: I can tell you. There is no secret about it. It was signed by W. Parkinson, the secretary.

Coal and Oil Shale [19 SEPTEMBER.] Mine Workers, &c., Bill. 433

~fr. POWER: I thought so. According to the remarks of the hon. member, Mr. Parkinson finds it very difficult to live on £8 14s. a fortnight, but the income of Mr. Parkinson is £7 10s. a week and he would not have much difficulty in accepting a mere £7 10s. a week.

The hon. member referred to the actuary's report and set himself up as being superior to the actuary. No doubt the hon. member has had an excellent education, but I am not prepared to accept his opinion against that of the actuary. I have already n>ferred to the deficiency in the fund, which amounts to about £939,000, according to the actuary. The hon. member has not advanced any good reason why I should accept his amendment.

I come now to the Leader of the Opposi­tion, who in the course of his remarks made reference to the observations of the hon. member for Port Curtis. He placed his own interpretation on what the hon. member had said and went on to add that the Government did not want to do anything for Collinsville, that we had written Collinsville off.

That is the interpretation placed by the Leader of the Opposition on the remarks of the hon. member for Port Curtis and he might well be aware that it is not true. 'We have not by any means written the Collins­ville miners off. I might just transgress for a moment to support my remarks.

Very recently thP Premier has been negotiating for coke-ovens to be erected there to solve the problem of the shortage of coke in Australia, and in addition, as Parliament knows, it has been decided to mechanise the Collinsville mine at a cost of some hundreds of thousands of pounds. That is an effective reply to the interpretation given by the Leader of the Opposition of the remarks of the hon. member for Port Curtis. I would also remind hon. members that insurers do not get any higher bonuses from insurance companies by reason of the fact that they live in the Western or Northern Division, nor are any parities paid by those companies with respect to bonuses.

We had the most remarkable statement from the hon. member for Mundingbuna that accountants and actuaries could be had for 4 bob a dozen. An accountant or an aduary must devote much of his time to fitting himself for the high position he holds. In addition. he is subject to control by the Government. These men are an excellent body of men and are doing a good job. I dissociate myself entirely from the remarks of the hon. member for Munclingburra in connection with accountants and actuaries. I would remind him that a little knowledge is dangerous. 'vV e are use cl to the hon. mem­ber making wild and extravagant statements. So far as I know, there is only one actuary in Queensland; there may be two. Actuaries are very few and far between, therefore the hon. member for Mundingburra must have little or no knowledge of the position, but he must be pardoned because he would not have sufficient intelligence to understand their work.

Now we come to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that increased

charges would be necessary if this amend­ment was accepted. There is no suggestion for any further assistance by the State Government in the matter. Let me tell the Committee how much the Government have contributed up to elate to this fuml, which at present has a credit balance of over £300,000. The amount contributed by the Crown up to elate is £199,706 15s. 8c1. That is not a barl effort. ThP Government con­tributed in direct grants £126,250. As owners of the Collinsville State coal-mine-not taking into consideration the Scottville mine-they have contributed also £56,747 Ss. 3d., in addition to payments in respect of the Mt. Mulligan mine, £3,733 13s. 3d., and t~e ~tyx mine, £12,975 14s. 2d. These contnbut1.ons have been made by the Government· as nune­owners in addition to the direct grant of £126,250. That is not a bad effort on the part of the Government. Money is not so easy to get as some people imagine. We have also some responsibility as custodians of the public purse .. Nevertheless, we hav.e made a fairly extens1ve and healthy contn­bution to this fund.

The Leader of the Opposition asked for a little more information from the aduary 's report. I am happy to be able to give it to him. I do not propose to read the >vhole of it. It is dated 18 November, 1947. I will read to the Committee the salient points of the report, upon which I am basing my argument. It says-

'' Should no immediate steps be taken to remove the deficiency, the future pro­gress of the fund may be judged from ~he following considerations. The pens10n outgo is gradually increasing (for example, in the financial year 1942-43 it amounted to £29,228 and in 1946-47 to £47,703) and this increase will continue. It is estimated that if the number of contributors remains roughly constant, and if no change is made in the method of finance, the con­tribution income of the fund about 1965 onwards will be less than the benefits payable.''

'vVe shall be receiving less money into the fund than the amount of the benefits we are paying out. Under those circumsta~ces no fund can continue. for any length of t1me.

There has been much talk of the amount in reserve today. I point out to the hon. member for Whitsunday that that is invested in Commonwealth loans; it is not lying idle in the bank. According to the remarks of the hon. member he would lead the public to believe that the fund was lying idle and n,o revenue was received as a result.

Mr. ~lorris: Was more paid out in 1949 than in 194H

Mr. POWER: Yes, mueh more. I have ah-eady pointed out that the fund has been invested in Commonwealth loans.

Mr. Lloyd Roberts: I naturally thought that.

}Ir. POWER: If the hon. member thought so he was not fair when he said that the money should have been invested.

·'i34 Coal and Oil Shale [ASSEMBLY.] Mine Workers, &c., Bill.

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS: I rise to a point .of order. I said at the time that in working .out the £41,000--

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: What is the point of order~

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS: The point of ·order is that I did not say that at all. I expla;ined that the 0redit was £41,250 a

·year invested at 3± per cent. and would bring in a certain figure.

Mr. POWER: I am prepared to accept the statement, if I misunderstood the hon. member.

For the information of the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha I point out that the amount paid out in 1947 was £47,703 and the amount paid out in 1949 was just under £90,000.

lUr. Kerr: What was paid in?

Mr. POWER: I cannot give the hon. member that at the present time. It must be clearly shown that more people are coming on the fund and the whole thing wilL have to be further considered, because the fund cannot go out of existence.

We have certain reserves and it is sug­gested that we should make certain increases and draw on them. My accountant friends, who are very keen, will agree with me­although they do not agree politically­that it would be unwise to tamper with a reserve fund. That is sound business.

Mr. Hiley: Is not the effect of what you sa:· that something has to be clone now to ensure the future solvency of the fund'?

Mr. POWER: That is under considera­tion by the tribnn::d, which has the right to increase the rates. At the present time the rates in Queenslan<1 are 3s. 6d. a miner and in New South ·wales 4s.; in Queensland the owner pays 12s. 3d. and in New South Wales 14s. 2d. for each employeP. In addition to that the Government pay £15,000 a year to the fund.

JUr. Hiley: Would the effective difference in thcl<c eunniuutions work out at roughly 2d. n to•r.

]fr. POWER: I am not in a position to give that information and I do not wish to be nccusec1 of giving wrong information to the hon. member. I did not anticipate that question, otherwise I should have had the information aYailable. No sound argument has been advanced by those supporting the amendment and I do not propose to accept it.

Mr. :DECI\ER (Sandgate) (12.36 p.m.): There is a point upon which I am not clear. The Minister has said that we on this side have ,·ery little sympathy for the coal-miners, or in fact, any workers.

Mr. Power: I did not.

]fr. DECKER: It was a statement made In· t'le lwn. member for Port Curtis. The Govermnent have no monopoly of interest in the workers in general. Everything we can do for the miners we will do, and by this

amendment we propose increasing this pension in accordance with the parities in wages applicable to the Central and Northern Divisions of the State. From its very incep­

. tion this Bill has had the support of members of this side, and those on the Government benches, but to the crenit of members of this side I would point out that many amend­ments aimed at improving the pensions scheme were moved when former Bills were under discussion, but they were not accepted by the Government. This amendment makes for another forward move, which should be accepted by the Government if at all possible. The excuse for its non-acceptance is given as the financial position of this fund. We are led to believe that this is insecure and that the actuarial position gives cause for much worry and concern. The actuary's report was made in November, 1947, and we should expect that if the Government had the miners' interests at heart and wanted to protect these pensions and give the maximum to the miners their first care would be to act on that report and say that they were not in a position to make the increases with­out jeopardising the fund. It is very dis­turbing for us to find, knowing that this information was a;-ailable in 1947, that no actual attempt has been made to improve the position either by the tribunal or by the Government in these three years. Such a report calls for as much study as possible.

The ACTING CHAIR]IAN: Order! The Committee is not discussing the actuary's report, which was mentioned by the Minister only when giving an explanation. The Com­mittee must deal with the clause before it.

lUr. DECKER: You must admit, Mr. Farrell, that this amendment was not accepted by the Go;-ernment because the Minister strrted that the actuari:tl position of the fund is unsound. The l\Iinister used that argument all along and as a member of the Opposition, surely I have the right to comment~ If I hrrYe not, I will bow to ;·our ruling, ::\fr. Farrell, and resume my seat. I contend that the actuary's report hns a direct bearing on why this amendnwnt should or should not be earriec1 in this Committee today. If it is actuarially unsound, that is not a good enough reason \Yhy the amend­ment should be turned down, but is a sound reason why the Government should take steps to ensure that the fund is put in a position not only to pay the rate of pensions at present applicable but the increased rate sought by the amendment.

I\Ir. Aikens: Make the fund sound enough to carry the amendment.

Mr. DECKER: That is the point I am aiming at. If the Government cannot do that, they cannot govern, and it is a pity that we are not on the Government benches so that we might have a chance of doing so. (Laughter.) We would have amply demon­strated to the workers and the coal-miners our interest in their well-being. I say again that the monopoly of interest in the workers does not lie on that side of the Chamber; the truth is that it is to be found on this side.

Coal anrl Oil Shale [19 SEPTEMBER.] l'viine Worke1·s, &c., BilL 43&

I think the :Minister should reconsider the acceptance of the amendment with the ultimate object of enabling the fund to, carry the cost. He must admit that it would be an improvement to the Bill to have the amendment incorporated in it and a distinct advantage to the miners in the Central and Northern Divisions, as they would be on a parity above those in the Southern Division. I think the Minister should make provision for building the fund up to a state of actuarial soundness.

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona-Secretary for :Mines and Immigration) (12.41 p.m.): The hon. member who has just resumed his seat spoke about a monopoly of interest in the workers. It was a remarkable statement, as was also his other statement to the effect that his party would have demonstrated their interest if they had been the Government ::md had the chance of doing so. I remind him that when his party were the Government they made no attempt to do anything for the miners and, what is more, a very prominent hon. member of his party who occupied the front benches said that he was prepared to shoot the miners.

1\Ir. NICKLIN (Landsborough-Leader of the Opposition) (12.42 p.m.): I expected that the Minister would delve into the distant past to bolster up a pretty bad case. In his earlier remarks he accused hon. members on this side of the Chamber of opposing the introduction of this measure, but I challenge him to bring into this Chamber any evidence of opposition from this side of it to the introduction of the Coal and Oil Shale Mine Workers (Pensions) Acts.

Mr. Power: The hon. member for Fassifern said the Bill was top-heavy.

1\Ir. NICKLIN: There were no divisions on the measure at all and I remind the Minister that previous Ministers of the Crown have accepted amendments from this side to improve the working of the Act. We on this side of the Chamber are just as interested as the Government in seeing that the miners of this State get a fair deal in their pensions scheme-in fact more interested.

I wish to quote from the Auditor-General's report as to the Government's share in main­taining the financial stability of the fund. The Minister quoted from the actuary's report and he said that the fund needed an increase in contributions. The basis of con­tributions is one-fourth by the worker, one­fourth by the Government, with a maximum of £15,000, and two-fourths by the mine­owners. Looking at the contributions to 30 June, 1949, it will be found that the Treasurer made a contribution of £15,000, the workers a contribution of £25,800, and the owners a contribution of £82,483. If the Government had paid their quarter, with­out the statutory limitation of £15,000, this fund would be on the way to stability, because their contribution last year would have been £10,000 greater than it was. That demonstrates the interest the Government have in the miners of this State, and it shows

very effectively that hon. members opposite think more of pounds, shillings, and pence than their welfare.

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona-Secretary for ~lines and Immigration) (12.43 p.m.): In reply to the Leader of tile Opposition, I again refer to the statement of the hon. member for Fassife.rn made at the conclusion of his speech in 1941 to the effect that the whole scheme in connection with this fund was top-heavy.

Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition and the Con~mittee generally what the Government have done in an effort to make the fund actuarially sound. After re~eiving the report that I have. referred to in 1947, the tribunal increased the miners' contri­butions from 2s. 6d. a week to 3s. 6d. a week and the mine-owners' contributions from 6s. 3d. a week to 12s. 3d. a we.ek. Despite that, however, the fund is still actuarially unsound.

Mr. Morris: You have limited the Government's contribution.

Mr. POWER: We have not. \¥e are paying more money into the fund per capita than >ve are into any fund dealing with anj other section of t·he community. I repeat that the Government have made every effort possible to make. this fund actuariallv sound.

Question-That the words proposed to be inserted in Clause 2 (Mr. Lloyd Roberts 's amendment) be so inserted-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 23. Mr. Aikens

All pass Bjelke-Petersen Deck er Dewar Evans Ewan Gaven Hiley Jones, V. E'. Low M ads en Mcintyre

Mr.

r:i~. Mr.

Morris Munro Nicholson N!cklln Noble Pizzey Sparkes Watson

Tellers: Chalk RDberts, L. H. S.

NoES, 36. Mr. Brown

Burrows Byrne Cl ark Collins Davis

ri~. Mr.

Devries Dittmer Donald Duggan Dunstan Foley Gair Gardner Graham Gunn Hanlon Hi! ton In gram

AYES.

PAIRS.

Mr. Taylm, H. B. Wordsworth

Mr. Jesson Jones, A. Keyatta Larcon1be Marsden McCathie Moo re Power Rasey Riordan Smith Turner Walsh· Wl,yte Wood

Tellers: Moo res Roberts, F. E.

NOES. Mr. Brassington

Taylor, J. R.

Resolved in the negative.

Clause 2, as read, agreed to.

436 Coal and Oil Shale [ASSEMBLY.] Mine Workers, &c., Bill.

Clauses 3 to 5, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 6-Repeal of s.10 (3) ;-Pensions, special provisions-

:Mr. AIKENS (Mundingburra) (12.55 p.m.): This clause provides that i:lection 10, which was written into the Principal Act by the 1948 amending Act, is repealed. It has been there for only two years. I will not read it in full; it provides that miners' pensions shall be adjusted according to the rise of age and invalid pensions and other .Social Service payments of the Common­·wealth Government. In the two years Sec­tion 10 ha? been in the Act the miners have received no benefit from it because age, invalid and other Social Service benefits paid by the Common wealth Government have not been increased in that period. There is now a

:Proposal by the Commonwealth Government to in~rease age and invalid pc.nsions and other payment~ made under the Social Service lcgislat1on, so that nO\Y, when there is a possibility of the miners' benefiting undl'.r Section 10 the Government come forward with this bald proposal to wipe it ont. The Government inserted Section 10 two yean ago, ostensibly to benefit the miners, and now when the miners look like benefiting by it, thev ·wipe it out.

The Government 1vere particularly proud of the fact that they placed Section 10 in the Act. I have correspondence here from the Premier in which he makes great play of this section it is now proposed to excise from the Act. I do not suppose that the Minister will deny the Premier. Here is a letter WTitten by the Premier on 5 January this vear to Mr. Ic1ris \Villiams, general president of the Miners' Federation, Sydney, the relevant part of \\'hich reads-

'' Until 1948, 1Jenefits were fixed, and could onlY be incru1'ecl lJy amendment of the Acts, cbut in 1948 the Act was amended to provide that all benefits would be increased by a sum equal to any inerease in the Age pension. I would stress that at the time of this amendment, the benefits under the Queensland Acts were more genewus than those in New South, Wales and the Queensland Government, by including the provision of automatic increases of benefits as the Age pen­sion rose, guaranteed continuity of the then Tclationship of the Miners' Pension to Social Service payments.

"Your Union has publicly stated that the decisions of the National Convention of the Federation held from the 24th August to the 1st September, 1948, included the following in relation to pensions:-

'This Convention directs the Central Council to take the necessary steps to maintain existing margins of Mine \Vorkers' Pensions over the present Old Age and Invalid Pension benefits.'

''This is exactly what has been clone by the amendments I have mentioned above.

"It is considered that in the long rnn, the Queensland Act, as it now stands will prove more beneficial to all pensioners

,under the scheme. It is unfair to condemn

it the moment the New South Wales pay­ments have become slightly greater in some categories, although Queensland benefits have been more generous for some con­siderable time and will in the long run continue to prove so by the guarantee of automatic increases in line with Social Service increases. ' '

There we have a letter from the Premier to the general president of the Miners' Federa­tion boasting, I might say gurgling, over the fact that the Government placed this provision in the Act as recently as 1948 and the moment that Queensland miners look like getting some benefit from it this Government brings clown Clause 6 of this Bill to cut Section 10 out of the Act!

I was going to read another letter that I have here, which was sent by the then Secretary for Mines, the hon. member for Merthyr, to Mr. Donalcl, the secretary of the Parliamentary Labour Party who graciously sent it on to Mr. Tucker, secretary for the Q.C.E.U., but on reading it through I find that it is a repetition of the letter I read out from the Premier to Mr. Williams, so I will not worry the Chamber by reading it.

I should like to tell the Committee what the miners themselves think of the deletion of this Section from the Act. I quote an urgent telegram I got from the three officials, Mr. Millar, Mr. James and Mr. Tucker, who wired me from Booval on 14th insta11t. It reads:-

, 'Following wire forwarded to Minister for Mines quote District Executive Strongly Protest at Government's failure to make increases to miners pension retrospective to October 16th, 1949, also repeal of provision for automatic increases in line with Commonwealth pension and in addition Premier's assurance that under State con­trol that Queensland miners would be brought up equal to New South Wales miners and in many instances better.''

As I said, that was sent by ::VIillar, J ames and Tucker who, I presume, are the three execu­tive ofiicials of the Miners' l''ederation in Queensland. So without actually labouring the point I want to again stress the fact that two years ago this provision was put into the Act and that in two years the miners have not benefited one penny from it, yet in that two years the Premier and other members of the Government have lauclecl themselves and, to use the VQrnacular, patted themselves on the back for putting that provision in the Act, and nmY, when the miners look like getting some benefit fron; it, they propose under Clause 6 to delete It. I opposed the deletion of Ser.tion 10 and consequently I oppose Clause 6 of the Bill.

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona-Secretary for Mines aml lmmigration) (2.18 p.m.): In reply to the remarks of the hon. member for J\funclingburra, I point out that this clause was put in the Bill at the request of the 2.1iners' Federation some years ago when it was thought that as a result of increases in social service pensions the provisions would operate as far as the miners were concerned. We found it has operated to the detriment of the miners because during the period it has

Coal and Oil Shale (19 SEPTEMBER.] Mine Workers, &c., Bill. 437

been in the Act there has been no increase in pensions. The Miners' Federation-I mean the general federation-including Mr. Grant, the general secretary, Mr. Williams, Mr. Tucker, and I think another gentleman, met me by deputation asking for increased pensions similar to New South Wales. We are doing that. The promise made by the Premier to the Miners' Federation in Queens· land that they would be increased to the level of those in New South Wales is being honoured, and in addition we have gone a little further because our pension rates in Queensland in some respect are better than they are in New South Wales. That applies particulaTly to the wife of the pensioner. In New South ·wales the amount payable to the wife is £2 7s. 6d. and in Queensland it is £2 15s. In addition to that, iu New South Wales they have a statutory limitation in :regard to the payment covering children; they provide for only one child in New South \V ales, whereas in Queensland there is no restriction on the number. I understand from the registrar of the Miners' Pensions Tribunal that some pensioners in Queensland are draw­ing somewhere in the vicinity of between £10 and £11 a week as a result of the fact that there is no limitation in Queensland. The Miners' Federation met me in connection with the matter and I pointed out that this operated to their detriment.

T'he.y said they wanted the same con­ditions as in N'ew South Wales. I said, "I am prepared to giye you the whole of the New South \Vales Act, if you so desire." They said, ''No, we do not want the whole of the New South \V ales Act; we want our pensions to be brought up to the same rate as New South \Vales, but at the same time ,, e >Yant nll the better provisions tlmt are contained in the Queensland Act.''

lUr. Sparkes interjected.

Mr. POWER: The hon. member is con­sistent in his in~onsistency. At one stage he wants to give the. miners something similar to New South \Vales, now he wants to go one better. The, position is that the miners have asked for an amendment of tlw Act to bring the pensions up to those of New South Wales. I am doing that: that is what this Bill contains. If we leave the Section in the Act that operated to the detriment of the minel's, and now there is the suggestion by the Commonwealth Government-and only a suggestion-that there might be a general increase in Social Service pensions, we a re going to put these people on a much higher rate than in New South Wales. If we are going to give them a much higher rate than New South Wales, that in itself will have a serious effect on the fund. The alteration hns been brought about at the request of the miners themselves and now they are. object­ing to the omission of the Section from the Act. They want it both ways, but they can­not have it both ways. If they >vant the whole of the New South \'Vales Act, even at this late stage, I will withdraw the Bill and give them the whole of the New South \V ales Act. The miners will fin cl that they will be much worse off under the New South \Vales Act than under the Queensland Act.

At least we are consistent in granting· the miners what they asked-that they should get the same rates as New South \V ales­but having got them, they have gone a little further and want to extend the provisions of the Act. At this stage we are not pre· pared to clo so.

~Ir. LLOYD ROBERTS (Whitsunday) (2.2~ p.m.J: The l\iiuister has just stated that this clause operates t·o the detriment of the miners. 'The best judge of that would be the miners themselves. If it is operating to their detriment and they still want it. leave it· in the Act and let it opemte to their a1legec1 detriment. When all is said and done, as I quoted the other day, 22 February, the Premier's department hung its hat on this particular clause. It pointed out the ndY:mtage. Reference was m:H1e to the nmnlJer of children and so on. I \\oulcl su;~­gest thnt would not be a very· importaiit item, because the percentage of miners who have children collecting this particular pension would not be very high. Although the Minister said that the clause acts to their detriment, the miners clo not think so.

Mr. Power: I say it has acted to their detriment.

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS: Very well, it it has acted to their detriment in the past, it should not act to their detriment in the future. In FebrJJary, 1950, only a few months ago, it was not acting to their detriment. That appears in the "Han­sarcl'' report of the debate on the sewnd reading of the Bill. There is no need for me to repeat it. It was not operating to their lletriment then, and it is not operating to their clet·riment now. They have every right to have it kept in the _\et.

To bring it home to members of the Com­mittee, I will again read what they them­selves say-

" \Ye are extremely incensed at the breach of faith by Mr. Hanlon, and we demand his promise to the Federal am1 District Executive lJe fulfilled, and the increase in benefits being brought clown by this Session of Parliament be made retro­spective to the date as applied in New South Wales (16 October, 1949).

"lYe strongly object to the repertl of Section 10 of the Act which provides for automatic inr~·eases consistent with any increases made :'rom time to time unde.r the SO('ial Services Consolidation A,"t, 1947-48."

That is an extract from a Press cutting from Ipswich, dated a fortnight ago tomorrow. With those remarks I strongly oppose the deletion of this clause.

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona-Secretary for Mines and Immigration) (2.26 p.m.): I want to put the hon. member for Whitsunday right. I regret that statements have been made in this Chamber that there has been a breach of faith on the part of the Premier. There has been no such thing and I throw that back into the teeth of those who made the statement. The Premier promised that the legislation would make provision that

438 Coal and Oil Shale [ASSEMBLY.] Mine Workers, &c., Bill.

the rates of pension would be at least equal to those of New South Wales. As I have pointed out, our rates are better than those obtaining in New South Wales and I do not want to weary the Chamber by reiterating what I have already said. Our rates are much better in many cases, particularly for those pensioners with children. The hon. member said it did not matter but it mattere a great deal to those with children.

lUr. Ailrens: Only 41 children in the whole State are involved.

~Ir. POWER: It makes quite a lot of difference. The hon. member for Whitsunday has a rather queer psychology. He said that it operated to the detriment of the miners on one occasion. Applying his psychology, if a man wanted to cut his throat you would give him a razor to do it. The miners have com­plained because their rates were lower than those of New South Wales but we decided to increase the Queensland rates to those in New South Wales and, as I said previously, in some cases ours are better than those in New South Wales. The miners cannot have it both ways. If the miners want the New South Wales Act they can have it in its entirety, lock, stock and barrel. If the request is made to me to have the New South Wales Act I will withdraw this legislation and give them the provisions of the New South Wales Act. It is very unfair to say that the Premier has not honoured his promise to the miners. The Premier has honoured his promise and by this legislation we are going further than the New South Wales Act.

Question-That Clause 6, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 34. Mr. Brown

"Burrows Byrne Clark Crowley

ri~. Mr.

Devries Dittmer Duggan Dunstan Foley Gair Gardner Graham Gunn Hanlon Hi! ton Tngnm1 Jesson

Mr. Jones, A. L::ucon'be Marsden McCathie Moo re Moo res

, Power Rasey Riordan Roberts, F. E. Taylor, J. R. Turner Walsh Whyte

TelleTS: Keyatta \Vood

NOES, 20. Mr. A!lpass

Chalk Deck er Evans Ewan Hi!ey Jones, V. E. Low Madsen :V[clntyre I\llorris

AYES.

Mr. Brassington Collins Davis Smith

PAIRS.

Mr. Muller Munro Nick! in Pizzey Roberts, L. H. S. Sparkes Watson

Tellers: Aikens Bjelke-Petersen

NOES. Mr. Taylor, H. B.

Heading Wordsworth Luckins

Resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 7 to 12, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 13-Date on and from which increases in pensions, etc., payable-

.lUr. LLOY'D ROBERTS (Whitsunday) (2.31 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment:-

' 'On page 5, line 29, after the word 'prescribed' add the following proyiso :-

'Provided that the incTcased pensions payable under sections two and four of this Act shall be payable as fTOm the sixteenth day of October, one thousand nine hunr1red and forty-nine, or from the date on which a pension first became payable, whichever is the later date.' ''

The original application for this increase in pensions was made in 1949 by the miners in both New South \Vales and Queensland, and on 16 October, 1949, the increase was granted in New South Wales. The miners as a whole cannot understand the Teason for the delay by this Government. As a matter of fact, nobody can understand it.

It is almost 12 months since the increase was granted in New South Wales and although the loss to the individual pensioner is considerable I am reliably informed that it is not considerable in the aggregate.

Mr. Gair: Had they increased the age and invalid pensions the miners would have had that increase by now.

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS: Thank you very much.

Mr. Gair: It was tied up wi.th that.

~lr. LLOYD ROBERTS: I am reliably informed that the cost of making these pensions retrospective to the same date in 1949 would be in the vicinity of £8,000. It is through no fault of the pensioners them­selves that this increase was not granted earlier and any delay in this connection must be accepted as the responsibility of the Government. That being so, it is only fair to make the pensions retrospective to 16 October, 1949. I know the Minister has already said that he does not intend to do that but when a pension scheme was intro­duced for members of Parliament it was made retrospective and if it was good enough to make a pensions scheme for members of Parliament retrospective in those circum­stances it should be good enough for the miners also.

Mr. AIKENS {Mundingburra) (2.37 p.m.) : I do not intend to recapitulate all the arguments I used on the second reading of the Bill nor do I propose to read all the correspondence again that I read on that occasion. I read enough to convince any fair­minded hon. member that the miners in May, 1949, sent a deputation to the then Secretary for Mines and received from him an assurance that if the pensions were going to be raised in New South Wales, as was then expected, the Queensland miners would receive a similar increase. The Acting Premier by interjection just a moment ago, when the hon. member for \Vhitsunday wns

Coal and Oil Shale [19 SEPTEMBER.] Mine Workers, &c. Bill. 439

speaking, said that had the Menzies Govern­ment increased the age and invalid pensions late last year, the Queensland miners would now be getting the extra 7s. 6d. or extra payment per week, as the case might be. In other words, he is passing the buck not only to the present Menzies-Fadden Federal Government but also the previous Chifley Federal Government. The Government did hope or expect that the age and invalid pensions would be raised by the Federal Labour Government just prior to the last Federal elections and consequently the State Government thought that by Section 10 of the Queensland Act, which has just been .repealed, the miners would have got the rise at present provided for in the Bill. How­ever, I pointed out before that the previous Fe~eral ~abour. Government, led by Mr. Ch1fley, d1d not mcrease the age and invalid pensions hut Menzies and Fadden-I repeat, those two much-bemedalled heroes of two world wars-have not increased the age and invalid pensions, but it is expected or hoped that they will be able to bring down a Budget some time next month increasing them, but in the meantime--

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. member is now getting away from the amendment before. the Committee.

Mr. AIKENS: I should not have digressed even that far, Mr. Farrell but for the interjection a little time ago' by the Acting Premier. I know that I mrely digress from the subject matter before the Chamber. The fact remains that because of what might be termed philandering on the part of this Government and the Federal Government, the Queensland miners have lost nearly 12 months' pension adjustments. They have lost this increase from October last u?-til the day when this Bill becomes operative.

~Ir. Gair: That section was inserted at then o~n1 request .. The Government suggested that nuneTs' penswns should be tied up with the old-age pensions and their union approved of it.

Mr. AIKENS: Surely the Acting Premier or any other Government member does not expect me to believe that the miners wanted to diddle themselves out of any increase in the pension~

Mr. Gair: They tied themselves up with the o]_d -age pension.

lUr. AIKENS: The miners' leaders thought they were acting in the best interests of their members. Let me assume that the Govennnent also acted in what they thought was the best interests of the miners, but the shot, to use a billiards term, d:ld not come off. Neither the age nor the invalid pension was increase(] by the Chifley or .1\Ienzies Govern­ment and nmy the miners are left holding the bag. They should not be asked to hold the bag. 'l'hese men took what they and I think was every reasonable precaution to protect the interests of their mcmhers. It was not their fault that the shot did not come uff, and we should not, therefore, let them hold the bag.

lllr. MULLER (Fassifern) (2.42 p.m.) : The amendment is quite reasonable. There are special circumstances surrounding this case which we should not lose sight of. After all, the amendment simply seeks that there be retained in the Act what was inserted 11 months ago. During that period living costs have increased very considerably. We must have regard to the fact that those who were able to work enjoyed the increased basic wage to offset increased living costs, but the poor unfortunates who have been forced to accept the pension have undoubtedly suffered an injustice. After all, the amendment would entail no great sacrifice. The amount involved is not big. Here we have a number of people whose health has been affected and who are unable to help themselves. We cannot deny that these people are deserving of some assist­ance, seeing that they are unable to earn money to offset increased living costs, and consequently suffered thereby. The under­lying idea of this fund was to help unfortunate people who were unable to work.

I was interested in the Minister's reply to the speech I made when this Bill was under consideration last week in which, he said the fund was not actuarially sound. I have every respect for the Minister's statement, but after listening to the arguments of both sides of the Committee, and considering the small amount of money involved, approximately £8,000, I think the amendment should be accepted, particularly as the fund has a credit at present of over £300,000.

I look upon this matter from a human point of view. All that is asked by the amend­ment is to help those who are not able to work. TherefoTe, we are only asking for social or common justice. The hon. member for \Vhitsunday is to br commcndcd for moving the amendment and every hon. member should be prepared to take a human view of it aml thus help those who will benefit.

Hon. V. C. GAIR (South Brisbane­Treasurer) (2.45 p.m.): This debate is a very inte1·esting one aml I believe that the most interesting feature of it is the attitude of hon. members opposite, particularly the older members.

Each time an amendment of this Act has come before Parliament they have either resisted it or questioned whether the fund was actuarially sotmd, and whether we could con­tinue it and confine it to the coal-miners and not extend it to the metalliferous miners, and just how far we could go with such a pensions scheme. I can understand the atti­tude of the hon. member for VVhitsunday who, until his election for an electorate that embraces the Collinsville and Scottville coal­mines, hacl no more regard for the. con­ditions of the coal-miners than Billy the 13lackfellow and who ~omes into this Parlia­ment with a view to making some political capit:tl out of the matter.

1\Ir. Evans: Are you judging him by your O\\·n ir1cas?

~Ir. GAIR: The hon. member would no1 bl· a judge of character who interjects.

440 Coal and Oil Shale [ASSEMBLY.] 111ine Workers, &c., Bill.

I can forgive the hon. member for Whit­sunday for adopting this attitude, fo1 political expediency-I can understand that -but I cannot forgive the political hypocrisy of the hon. member for Fassifern, which is indicated by his change of attitude in this House. Hon. members all heard his remarks this afternoon when he was crying over the coal-miners of this State who he feared might be disadvantaged compared with the coal-miners in New South Wales because of this delayed in~rease, but let me read what the hon. member said when the original Bill was introduced in 1941. He was then con­cerned about its effect on the whole system of social services, and whether we should pick out the coal-miner for preferential treat­ment.

Mr. Aikens: He has since seen the light.

lUr. GAIR: If that is so, if the hon. member for ::\Iundingburra 's interjection is correct, at least I can be gratified about that too; but I cannot be sure because the atti­tude of the hon. member for Fassifern in other matters would not indicate that he had seen the light on anything. This is what the hon. member said vYhen the Coal and Oil tihalc Mine Workers' (Pensions) Bill was introduced in 1941 :-

"If the Government introduced legis­lation to make the principle of this Bill a general principle and ~harged it up to the whole of the community instead of providing a benefit for one section at the expense of another, it vvould be all right.''

l'\ ow he wants to add to the evil for which we vvere responsible. when we as a Govern­ment introduced the original Bill.

He goes 0n-'' I feel that the Bill is top-heavy-''

It was top-heavy then when it was intro­duced and before he knew how it was going t-c• operate-

" -if it seeks to provide benefits for one section of the people at the expense of anothe.r. I think that the point made by the Deputy J_,eader of the Opposition can­not be refuted. At any rate, I have not heard any argument advanced from the other side of the Committee to convince me that there is anything unsound in his remarks.''

That is the statement made by the hon. mem­ber for Fassifern, yet- he comes here today and he cries for the coal-miners m·erely because by an arrangement with the Coal­:\.finers' Union the amendment was put into the Act providing that we should base the coalminers' pensions on the old age pensione so that when there was an increase in that pension there would be a corresponding increase in t·he coal-miners' pensions. That was done after conferences and by arrange­ment with the executive of the Coal-Miners' Union of this State. Unfortunately the l\Ienzies Government have been slow to increase the age. pensions.

At the time of t·he introduction of the orig·inal Act,- the hon. member askerl wh;v it should not be extended to the metalliferous miners. Why should we se.ctionalise 'r

lUr. Decker: Why?

Mr. GAIR: I will tell the hon. member why we were compelled to sectionalise when Mr. Menzies, the present Prime Minister of Australia, refused to adopt national insur­ance. He walked out of J oe Lyons's Cabinet rather than agree to national insurance. That is why we vvere forced to adopt sectional national insurance in the interests of the workers of this State. ·

It is to be deplored that one section of workers have a form of pension while other sections have none at all. It is true that the metalliferous miner is entitled to a pension, so has a man who sweeps the street, drives a tram or train. All sections of workers are entitled to some pension scheme so that they will not be dependent on an age pension scheme such as we have today-that would have been an accomplished fact today had it not been, as I have said, that the pre­sent Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Robert Gordon Menzies, a member of the Lyons Cabinet, walked out of the Cabinet and threatened the destruction of that Government on that very issue. Notwithstanding this the hon. member for Sandgate asks, ''Why~'' The hon. member has never supported any­thing progressive or in the interests of the workers since he has been in the public life of this State. He has been regarded as a reactionary, as a man who never lifted a hand in the interests of the workers.

The hon. member for Mundingburra said by way of interjection, that I was prepared to pass the buck. Not at all. The facts are these-and we must be realistic: if in confer­ence a union and Government come to an agreement that we tie the miners' pensions with the age pension, that is a contract. And if the Federal Government, irrespective of politics-Labour or anti-Labour Gov·ernments, are slow for reasons best known to themselves to increase the age pension and that union suffers by it, well, after all, as a party to the contract it cannot come along afterwards and say that in New South Wales they wore not tied with the age pension and they got an increase, and ask why the increase here should be delayed, or why they should not get an increase. They were parties tO' a contract with the Government, and if the Federal Government have been slow to advance the age pension it is just too bad for the miners. They must be realistic enough to recognise this. That arrangement was made after a conference, their union was a party to it. They cannot have it both ways-to put it in plain language.

I c:umot get ·down to billiard-room language because I do not know it. I have never had sufficient leisure to frequent billiard rooms and so learn the language. I have dealt with this question in other places. The miners of Queensland have to recognise very clearly that notwithstanding the fact that they suffer a disadvantage, probably temporarily, com­pared with New South Wales miners, because they agreed to tie the miners' pensions with the age pensions, they enjoy many advantages

Coal and Oil Shale [ 19 SEPTEMBER.] Mine Workers, &c., Bill. 441

under the legislation under whiPh their pension scheme operates in comparison with the miners of New South Wales.

I\Ir. NICKLIN (Landsborough-Leader of the Opposition) (2.54 p.m.): It is rather mnusing to sit here and listen to the TL'asmer. (Opposition interjections.)

The ACTING CHAIR3IAN (Mr. Farrell): Order! I am sme that the Leader of the Opposition can make his speech without help from members of his own party.

Mr. NICKLIN: It was rather amusing to heur the 'l'n surer this afternoon telling us of his alleged regard for the eoal-miners of Queensland and to blame eYCryborly but his own Government for any shortcomings in this legislation. He endcavomcd to pin onto the present Prime Minister of the Common­wealth the alleged responsibility for the fact that Australia has not a national insurance scheme. ~What greater opponents of a national insurance scheme for Australia were th~rc than his own party?

JUr.· Gair: He walked out of Cabinet on t!J·~ i,.Slll'.

JUr. NICKLIN: The Treasurer knows very well that had it not been for the uncom­promising attitude of the Labour Party we should have had a national insurance scheme for Australia.

That lwn. gentleman also endeavours to condemn the hon. member for Fassifern because he advocated the extension of the principle to cover metalliferous miners. Vvhy should not metalliferous miners have a pen­sions scheme, the same as the coal-miners~ They are entitled to one but apparently hon. members opposite do not think they are. Talking about supeTannuation schemes, what Government denied the raih;-aymen of this State a superannuation scheme~ Why did they take it avYay from the railwa:nnen ~ Because it was allegedly not actuarially sound. Let us not forget that the Minister this moming said that the present coal­miners' scheme was not actuarially sound and that it was £930,000 ''in the red.'' I have not hem·d that hon. gentleman suggest that this scheme should be thrown overboard because it is not actuarially sound; they should endevaonr to build it up to make it sound. 'rhe same thing could have been done with regard to a railway employees' superannuation scheme.

Referring to the amendment, it is only right after all that the miners of this State should have equal consideration to tlw~ gi\·en to the miners of other States. The Minister said that the miners could hav'C th•o Xew South Wales Act if they took the whole bang lot. We on this side of the Chamber have had very desirable provisions included in this legislation in an endeavour to overcome the hiatus that has existed because there has been no rise in the age-pension rates. Do not forget that this legislation was introduc0d ~in 1941 ancl whilst the Minister and the Treasurer have been trying to say that we on this side of the Chamber have opposed it, I challenge them to read '' Hansard'' and to

point to any opposition by hon. men;bers on this side of the Chamber towards 1t. The worst that was said about that Bill was said by the hon. member for Fassifern, but ~le was suggesting an improvement to the B1ll and not voicing opposition to it. In the Act of 1941 we included a very useful prov1s10n in that vve tied the pension rate with the basic wage. It was provided that p~ns~one;s should receive the benefit of any vanatwn m the cost of living and, as I pointed out in my second Teading speech on this Bill, if that provision had been in the Act we should ~ot have had to introduce at least three amendmg Bills, and this measure, to give the mineTs £2 15s. a week, because they would have been getting £2 17s. a week, according to the move­ments of the basic wage.

In 1942 that very desirable provision was taken out of the A'ct. It was not until last veal' that ceTtain provisions were inserted in the Act, as the result of constant ad vocacv from this side of the Cham her that this legislation should provide for yariations in these pensions in accordance vnth move­ments in the l1asic wage. \Vhen the matter vYas again raisec1 on the second reading the then Recretary for Mines introduced a late amendment tlwt provided for vaTiations in these pension ra tcs in accordance with age pension-rate movements. Unfortunately f?r the miners there has been no movement 1n the age pc'nsion Tntes since that time. This Bill lws now been intToduced to increase miners' pension rates, but it is very likely that before it receives the Governor's assent there will be a moYement in the age-pension rates, which if applied to these rates wou~d bring ahout exactly the same result as thiS legislation will.

'rhe vv-orst feature of this legislation is that bY removing both the basic-wage pro­Yision 'and the age-pension provision, miner­pensioners are deprived of the Tight to any movement in their pensions except by amend­ments made in this House.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Farrell): Order! The clause under discussion deals onlv vv-ith the elate on and from which inci·eases in pensions will be payable. I should like the Leader of the Opposition to get back to the subject matter of the amend­ment.

:fiir. NICKLIN: If those provisions still existed in the legislation, the date from which payment would be made v_voul~1 be the moment there was a movement 1n mtheT the basic-wage rate or the age-pension r>1te. As the result of this legislation, hovYever, there can be no movement in the payments under this Act except by an amendment passed by this House. Although the miners will receive a long-delayed increase in their pension rate~, they vvill be much worse off because thmT rates will be pegged pending the introduction of further legislation to alter them from time to time.

In view of the great disac1Yantage that the miners will suffer as the result of the introduction of this amending Bill, we should at least give them the advantage that the amendment proposes of paying them the

442 Goal and Oil Shale [ASSEMBLY.] Mine Workers, &c., Bill.

increased rate from 16 October, 1949, which was the date on which their brother pensioners in New South Wales received the increase. The amendment provides a con­solation prize for the miners of this State in return for the great loss they have suffered as the result of the excision from the Act of the provisions tying them to the basic-wage rates and the age-pension rates.

Mr. MORRIS (Mt. Coot-tha) (3.4 p.m.) : I support the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Whitsunday, in support of which he has advanced an excellent case. I am sorry that the Minister has not taken advantage of the wisdom, the experience, and the knowledge displayed by the hon. member for Whitsunday.

Before I discuss the amendment, I should like to say that I take very strong exception to a comment made by the Treasurer, who is the Deputy Premier of this Government, about_ the hon. member for Whitsunday, who he smd had no more regard for the miners before the election than Billy the black.

Mr. Burrows: He would not have been selected if he had.

Thir. JIORRIS: I do not know why the hon. member for Port Curtis will come into this debate and reveal his complete lack of knowledge of what has happened. The hon. member for Whitsunday, who is advancing these arguments in favour of improving the conditions of the miners, knows a great deal more about their conditions than the Deputy Premier. The hon. member for Whitsunday was in the army. He is a returned soldier, and that is the reason why I am on my feet at the moment making these comments. He was a prisoner of war for 3:} years in the hands of the Japs and for half of that period of 3~ years he worked underground. That is the experience that the hon. member has of the conditions of work underground. It is because of that background, that experience and that suffering as the result of his loyalty to this country, that he brings forward these amendments to improve the conditions of the miners. It is because of that background that he advances these arguments, and for the Deputy Premier to have the temerity and the hide to get up here and criticise the hon. member in the terms that he did is shocking and shameful and I condemn him roundly for it.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the hon. member to deal with the amend­ment.

1Ir. MORRIS: I am not only enlarging upon the qualificatioNs of the hon. member for Whitsunday, but I am also condemning the Deputy Premier for his unwarranted and unfair attack.

I return now to the amendment. It ig full of merit and has been sought by the miners themselves. I put this to you, Mr. Farrell: if these amendments were not of any value in helping the miners themselves, why would the strongest advocate for the miners in this Chamber walk out rather than record his vote in favour of the Govern­ment's decision. I put that question to you

and I put it to the Minister in charge of the Bill. Where is the hon. member for Bremer at the moment?

An Opposition Member: Outside.

Mr. MORRIS: Why did he not record his vote in favour of the decision of the Government~

The ACTING CHAIRThiAN: Order! 1Ir. MORRIS: He knows very well that

the Governnwnt 's decisions are distinctly unfair to the miners.

Mr. POWER: I rise to a point of order. There is no reason why I as Minister in charge of the Bill should know where any hon. member is. I do not know where the hon. member for Bremer is.

The ACTING CHAIRThiAN: The hon. member like any other hon. member, has occasion' to leave the Chamber from time to time in connection with his business and I do not know where the hon. member is at the present time. I ask the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha to keep to the amendment and avoid personalities.

Mr. MORRIS: It is not my habit to engage in personalities, but it is my desire to say that the amendments have been moved by the hon. member for Whitsunc1ay to make the Bill infinitely better than it is from the miners' viewpoint. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister handling the Bill will realise that the amendments have been put forward by somebody who knows what he is talking about and that they are in the best interests of the miners them­selves.

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona-Secretary for Mines and Immigration) (3.8 p.m.): The speech made by the hon. member is purely a hypocritical one.

Mr. liORRIS: I rise to a point of order. The Minister suggests that I was a hypocrite. I resent it. It is repulsive to me. It is not true, and I ask him to withdraw.

The ACTING CHAIR~IAN (Mr. Farrell) : I do not know whether it is my hearing that is at fault, but I do not think the Minister referred to the hon. member as a hypocrite. He only referred to his speech. He criticised his speech. Therefore, I propose to call on the Minister to proceed.

Mr. MORRIS: I rise to a point of order. The Minister said that my speech was hypo­critical. That statement is repulsive to me. I object to it, and because it is repulsive to me I ask that he be asked to withdraw it.

The ACTING CHAIR~IAN: Order! I thought I made myself quite clear previously. The Minister's speech was unambiguous and I do not propose to ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. POWER: I do not propose to accept the amendment and I am going to give reasons why. The Deputy Premier dealt very fully with some points in regard to retrospective payments of pensions. The clause under discussion is being substituted

Goal and Oil Shale [19 SEPTEMBER.] Mine Workers, &c., Bill. 443

for the existing section because it was possible that under the section the pensions payable in Queensland would be higher than in other States. It is unfortunate that this did not happen.

How did the section come to get into the Actf It vvas placeli there at the request of the miners' officials themselves and when they found it did not operate to their satisfaction, they asked that the pension rates be placed on the same level as New South \Vales. As a result, their contributions have been much lower than those made in other States, not only as ;·egnn1s the miners themselves but the contributions by the ownel'S also.

The Lender of the Opposition challenged me to produce evidence that members sitting behind him had miseu any objection to the Act. I Jll'Opocc to accept the challenge. I will quote from '' Hansard,'' 1941, at page 892, from the discussion on the introduction of the Act. The hon. member for Fassifern, who might be described as the collier's only son, Little Jim, because of the tears he has shed today, on that occasion said-

'' There are no coal-mines in my district, but I wish to deal with the principles of the Bill. The :first I take is the compulsory retirement at the age of 60 years. I can­not concede" that principle.''

He could not concede the principle.

lUr. Muller: There is nothing very wrong about that.

1'\lr. POWER: I was challenged to pro­duce proof that any member of the Opposition disagreeu with the Bill. The hon. member said he would not concede that principle. Let me go a .little further, and deal witl1 the hon. member for O::ley 's statement.

Mr. JUuller: Don't let the hon. member for Fassifem off like that.

Mr. POWER: I am still speaking of the hon. member. I will go on and quote further from his speech.

''Perhaps I may not be worth a great cleal at that ag-e, but it is wrong in principle to force people on to a pension and the unemployment list at 60 years of age and make them a charge on the community.''

The hon. member objected to their being forred out of work at the age of 60 and being macle a charge on the community.

lUr. Muller: If they are able to work.

Jllr. POWER: Therefore, I say the hon. member disagTeed with the Bill. I do not think tl~o·re is any need for me to quote him an_,. further to prove that he disagreed with the DilL

Let me deal with two or three other matters, I repeat that any assurances that have been given to the miners by my colleague, the former Minister, Mr. Moore, have been honoured and any promise given by the Premier to the miners has also been honoured. Labour at all times honours its promises; there is no doubt about that what­soeYer.

Then we have the complaint of the hon. member for Mundingbuna, who has now left the Chamber. He complained that we were late in introducing this Bill. It is a fact that in June we agreed that miners' pensions in this State shoulcl be the same as in New South Wales. We were not able to introduce legislation to that effect then, as the House was not in session. Can anyone say that there has been any delay in introducing the Bill in this session 'I It was either the :first or second Bill of which notice was given in this House by me and actually the second Bill that was brought down by the Government. There­fore, there can be no charge against the Government of delaying its introduction for any length of time.

I feel sure that if we have to sit here all night the Bill will go through as the Com­mittee stage and after that it· wiil not be long bcf ore the miners get their pensions.

Thm1 we have the statement of the hon. member for J'ilundinglmrra, who makes wild and extravagent statements, a bout the philandering of the Government. There has been no philandering on the part of the Government. The Government are a stable Government and they just will not do the popular thing tor the purposes of popularity. We do not want to become popular by not doing the right thing. We could grant all these requests and concessions could be handecl out for the purpose of making the Government popular, but we do not want to become popular by being extravagent with public moneys.

I wish to draw the attention of hon. mem­bers again to the rel'ort of the actuary. Despite the fact that the statement was made that this proposed amendment might cost us only £8,000, I have pointed out-and 1 point out again in onler to emphasise how irrespon­sible some members of the Opposition are; I notice that some members of the Opposi­tion \Yho are keen businessmen, while they support party policy and vote with the party in cliYisions, remain silent on this matter because of the irrefutable facts that are contained in the actuary's report-that the funu is not :financiallv souml. \V e. have made svmc attempt to c~rrect that.

Let us show the enormous increase in pensions paid from 1947 up to the present time. For the purpose of giving members of the Opposition the true position I read the following from the report of the actuary who was called upon for a report:-

'' Should no immediate steps be taken to remove the de:ficiency, the future pro­gress of the funcl may be judged from the following considerations. 'rhe pension outgo is grauually inerPasin~' (f,Jr example, in the :finan~ial vear 1942-43 it amounted to £29,228 and i1~ 1946-47 to £47,703) and this increase will continue. It is estimatecl that if the number of contributors remains roughly constant, and if no change is made in the method of :finance, the eontri­bution income of the fund from about 19fi5 onwards \Yill be less than the heno:fits pnyalJlC.''

444 Coal and Oil Shale, &c., Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Coal Mining, &c., Leave Bill.

That is the statement of the actuary. It is our duty to see that the fund is not wiped out by an irresponsible amendment moved by a member of the Opposition or anyhody else. The report goes:-

''It vvill t·hen be necessarv to draw upon the reserves held-'' ·

I point out that the reserves are held for the purpose of meeting any deficiency that may arise from time to time. The report continues:-

''-and a decrease. in membership would lead eventually to a complete absorption of these reserves.''

The Leader of the Opposition had some­thing to say about railway superannuation. I believe you will allow m_e; Mr. Fanell, to digress a little in order to reply to the state­nJents made by the Leader of the Opposition that t·he Government had wiped out that superannuation scheme.. The railwaymen wiped out the scheme, as a result of a ballot amongst themselves. The scheme was financially unsound from the clay it was put into operation; everybody knovYs that; it is apparent from the actuary's re.port. The scheme was abolished at the request of the railwaymen.

I do not propose to reply to the matters raised by the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha, because 'in my opinion they are not within t11e ambit of the Bill. We have very good reasons for amending this legislation. If the :?\liners' Union itself had not sought an amendment of the legislation it would not be before the. Committee today. This legis­lation has been brought before the Com­mittee at· the request ~f the :Miners' Union, vvhich asked that the rate of pension should be. increased to an amount similar to that in New South Wales. We are doing that m1d in some instances the pension payment received by miners in Queensland will be much bet.ter than that paid in New South Wal~s. Havu;g got the Government to . agree to cer~am things, they are now askmg for somethmg else.

I do not want to become popular, Mr. Fanell, at the expe~se of doing something I do not think is nght. The Government have given full consideration to this Bill. I repeat that before this last clause goes through, if the miners ask me to withdraw this legislation and give them the whole of the New South ·wales legislation I shall be quite happy to withdraw the Bill and give that to them.

Question-That the words proposed to be added to Clause 13 (Mr. Lloyd Roberts 's amendment) be so added-put; and the Com­mittee divided-

AYES, 22. Mr. All pass Mr. Muller

Bielke-Petersen Munro Chalk Nicholson Decker Nickl!n Evans Pizzey Gaven Roberts, L. H. S. Hiley Sparkes Jones, v. E. Watson Low Madsen Trllers: Mcintyre ~!r. Ewan

" Morris Dr. Noble

Mr. Brown Burrows Byrne Clark Collins Crowley Da1ds Devries Duggan Dunstan Foley Gair Gardner Graharn Gunn Hanlon

.. Hllton Ingram .lesson Jones, A.

AYE.

NOES, 37.

PAIR.

:>Ir. Keyatta Larcorube Marsden

u Moore Moo res Power .Rasey Riordan Roberts, F. E. Smith Taylor, J. H. Turner Walsh Whyte Wood

Tellers: Dr. Dittmer Mr. McCathie

No. Mr. Taylor, H. B. Mr. Brasslngton

Resolved in the negative. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Bill reported without amendment.

COAL MINING INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEA YE BILL.

INITIATION IN CoMMIT'rEE.

(The Acting Chairman of Committees, Mr. Farrell, Maryborough, in the chair.)

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona-Secretary for Mines and Immigration) (3.29 p.m.): I move-

'' That it is desirable that a Bill be introduced to constitute a Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Trust Fund, to provide for the payment therefrom to employers in the coal mining industry of amounts paid by them to employees in respect of long service leave_ accrued to such employees under a certam award, to validate certain matters and for purposes connected therewith.'' The appropriate Commonwealth industrial

authority, the Coal Industry Tribunal, has awarded long-service leave pr~v~lege~ to cer­tain employees in the coal-mmmg mdustry. The award provides for a maximum of 13 weeks' leave for employees engaged in the industry on 19 June, 1949. Further entitle­ments of 13 weeks' pay accrue on completion of each 10 years' continuous service there­after. In cases of retirement or death prior to 1 January, 1954, payment of 13 weeks to 19 June, 1949, plus pro rata entitlement to date of termination of service, is payable. Employees who do not avail themselves of long-service leave when due ~n 1 ~une, 1954, may accumulate such leav·e till retuement or death. No maximum is provided. However, leave cannot be taken till each separate 13 weel<s' long-service l0ave has accrued, except in the case of retirement or death.

Although long-service leave is normally a responsibility of the employer, the Common­wealth Government believe that in the coal­mining industry, it is impracticable to pl~ce on individual employers the full financral responsibility for payment for such leave, especially as many men still in the industry

Coal Mining Industry [19 SEPTEMBER.] Long Service Leave Bill. 44&

have been employed by collieries no longer in existence. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Government desired that if States would accept liability for the reimbursement of employers for amounts paid to employees under the award, the Commonwealth would in turn help the State by financial grant to the extent necessary to meet all reimburse­ments made to employers and administrative costs involved.

In furtherance of that decision, the Commonwealth has passed the following legislation-

( a) State Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Act, 1949, which provides for-

(i.) The creation of the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Fund;

(ii.) Payment into that fund of amounts received from excise duties on coal as well as any amount voluntarily contributed by States in lieu of excise which is not payable on State coal;

That would apply to Queensland. Our coal is not subject to excise duty and we are willing to meet the situation by contributing voluntarily an amount equal to the amount of excise.

(iii.) Payment from that Fund to States of financial assistance in reim­bursement of amounts paid by the States to employers in respect of long­service leave;

(iv.) Agreement between the Common­wealth and a State to be ratified by legislation.

The Commonwealth proposes to amend this provision to obviate the necessity for ratifica­tion by legislation.

(b) Coal Excise Act, 1949, and Excise Tariff No. 2, 1949, which provide for an excise duty of 6d. per ton on coal (not being coal the property of a State) as from 1 November, 1949, and other related purposes.

After consultation and agreement, the Government of New South Wales passed the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Act, 1950, the principal sections of which provide for-

(a) Creation of a special fund in the State Treasury into which should be paid amounts advanced by the State Treasurer (to commence the Fund) and amounts received from the Commonwealth, and from which payments are to be made, firstly in reimbursement of employers of amo~nts paid in respect of long-service leave after approval of the amounts by the Adminis­trator, and secondly, costs incurred in administration;

(b) Reimbursement of employees of amounts paid after obtaining approval of the Administrator;

(c) Payment to the Commmnvealth by the State in respect of coal won from State Coal Mines of such amounts as would have been payable had State coal been subjected to the exci~e duty-this to te operative from 1 November, 1949;

(d) Appointment of an Administrator of the Fund who shall be a permanent :,)tate Public Servant;

(e) Duties and powers of Administrator.

On 30 May, 1950, the Prime Minister Jf the Commonwealth approached the Premier of Queensland, seeking agreement whereby Queensland on its part would-

(i.) Sponsor immediately legislation on similar lines to the New South Wales Act mentioned in paragraph 4 hereof, including the payment into the Fund by the State of 6d. per ton on coal won at State mines;

(ii.) Nominate an Administrator for appointment by Queensland and concur­rence by the Commonwealth Minister for Labour and National Service;

( iii.) Limit recoupment of administration costs to such amounts as are approved by that Minister;

(iv.) Not subsequently amend the legisla­tion without prior approval of the Commonwealth. The Queensland Government haYe replied

to the Prime Minister saying that they agree that it is llesimble that one scheme should apply to all employees in the coal industry who are entitled to long-senice lea,-e, and accordingly, concur in the proposals ma~e. It was indicated also that the necessary legis­lation ·would be introduced during the forth­coming session of the State PaTliamcnt. The draft is on the same lines as the ~ ew South Wales legislation.

We' have appointed an administrator of the fund. He is the Registrar of the Coal Miners' Pensions Tribunal, :Mr. Biggers, who has clone an excellent job in that capacity, and I was very happy to make the recom­mendation that he should be appointed to· that position. He will haYe a first-hand knowledge of the position of miners generally, an cl he has been associated with the Pensions Tribunal.

That is all that the Bill contains.

Mr. HILEY (Coorparoo) (3.37 p.m.): The general purpose of the Bill commends itself to me anc1 my colleagues, but there is one question that I should like the Minister to take note of, so that he may perhaps on the second reading, illustrate actually how it will work. It appears to me that there is to be a fund administered within the State, whereas the scheme will be general or of Commonwealth application. I should be interested to have some details about the matter I am about to raise. Let us suppose that a miner spends twenty years in the industry at Wollongong, and then comes to­Queensland, where he spends another twenty years in the industry. How will the fact that he has served in two States be taken care oH Perhaps the Minister can look into the point and haYe something to say about it on the second reading. I shall be grateful for any information he can give me.

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona-Secretary for Mines and Immigration) (3.38 p.m.): T can give the Deputy Leader of the Opposi­tion the information now. The position is that wheTeYer that miner is working. wl1ell1

4'16 Petroleum Acts Amendment Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] JVlining on Pte. Lands, &c., Bill.

h0 becomes eligible for long-serdce leave, it will be paid for in that State. The obliga­tion will he accepted by that State.

Mr. HILEY (Coorparoo) (3.39 p.m.): Let me develop the matter a little further. Let us suppose that a man establishes his long­service rights in New South Wales and comes to finish his mining career in Queensland. It could mean that we should take a relatively heavier bl!rden than otherwise. Conversely, a man nnght serve a number of years in Queensland and finish his service in the industry in another State and qualify for his long-senice leave there. ·

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona-Secretary for Mines and Immigration) (3.40 p.m.): Any money paid out by a State is refunded by the Commonwealth. It is not a charge on the State.

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

FIRST READING.

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

PETROLEUM ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE.

(The Acting Chairman of Committees, Mr. Farrell, Maryborough, in the chair.)

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona-Secretary for Mines and Immigration) (3.42 p.m.): I move-

" That it is desirable that a Bill be introduced to amend the Petroleum Acts 1923 to 1939, in certain particulars.'' '

The present provisions of these Acts require that . before aba~doning any oil well the pernntee shall w1thdraw the casing there­from and shall effectually shut off and exclude all water from penetrating any petroleum deposits. The requirement to remove casing is not in accordance with best practice and could result in wastage of a petroleum deposit or serious diminution of ·valuable underground water supplies. With the revival of interest in the search for oil and the commencement of the deep test well by Shell (Qld.) Development Pty Ltd., this ·matter has been the subject of serious review by both the Department of Irrigation and Water Supply and the Department of Mines, and an agreement has been reached as to the necessity for the amendment of the Petroleum Acts in certain directions.

The principles of the amendments pro­posed are-

( a) Casing shall not be removed without the consent in writing of the Minister, ivho will obtain first the views of the Chief Government Geologist as to the likely effect on petroleum deposits, and secondly the views of the Irrigation and Water Supply Commission as to possible effects on underground water supply;

(b) If consent to withdraw casing is with­held, the Minister is to determine the value ,of such casing in situ and notify the former

permittee of the value determined, where­upon such casing shall be deemed to be vested in the Crown. Before any other person is permitted to use that well and casing, either in further search for oil or for water supply purposes, such person shall be required to pay the determined value of the casing, and the amount so paid is to be paid over to the original permitee who was the original owner of the casing;

(c) Any abandoned oil well may be declared by the Governor in Council to be an artesian well within the meaning of the Water Acts, 1926 to 1942. From the date of such declaration the casing in such well shall be deemed to be vested in the Crown. Its value shall be determined by the Minister and notified to the former permittee anrl to the Commissioner for Irrigation and Water Supply.

Before the issue of any licence under the Water Acts in respect of the declared artesian well, the proposed licensee shall be required to pay the determined value of the casing, which shall be paid over to the original owner of the casing. In other words, we did not want pennittees to take the casing out and to destroy either our water supply or possible petroleum deposits.

Mr. AIKENS (Mundingburra) (3.45 p.m.) : If I followed the Minister correctly when he was reading the provisions of the Bill it would appear to me that if an oil company had been drilling for oil and had sunk the casing to a certain depth anc1 decided to abandon the bore and someone else came along and wanted to deepen the bore, and used the casing for striking an artesian water supply, that person would have to recompense the Crown and the Crown in turn would recompense the original owner of the bore­casing.

Mr. Power : Yes.

Motion (:Mr. Power) agreed to.

Resolution reported.

FIRST READING.

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

MINING ON PRIVATE LAND ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE.

(The Acting Chairman of Committees, Mr. Fan·ell, Maryborongh, in the chair.)

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona-Secretary for Mines and Immigration) (3.49 p.m.): I move-

'' That it is desirable that a Bill be intro­duced to amend the Mining on Private Land Acts, 1909 to 1929, in certain particulars.''

In deeds of grant issued prior to the Mining on Private Land Act of 1909, it was not the practice to include a reservation to the Crown of the coal in the subject land. However, certain deeds issued many years prior to the

Mining on Pte. Land, &c., Bill. [19 SEPTEMBER.] Goal Mining, &c., Bill. 4471"

passing of the Mining on Private Land Act of 1909 did contain a reservation to the Crown of coal in the subject land. Two instances of such reservation of coal that have come pointedly to notice are Queens Park reserve and Recreation Reserve R.816, both in the Ipswich district.

A further complication arises in these two cases in that the freehold land is vested in trustees for specific purposes only, and the trustees are not legally capable of dealing with the coal in the land. By virtue of the Mining on Private Land Acts, 1909 to 1929, coal on or below the surface of land (except land subject to The Agricultural Lands Special Purchase Act of 1901) which was alienated in fee simple from the Crown on or before 1 March, 1910, is the property of the grantee of the land or his successor in title.

The last declaration of the law in this respect was in- 1925 when the Mining on Private Land Act was amended to specially declare-

'' 'l'hat coal on or below the surface of land (except land subject t·o The Agri­cultural Lands Spe~ial Purchase Act of 1901) which was alienated in fee simple from the Crown on or before 1 March, J 910, is the. property of the grantee of the land or of his successors in interest to the land or to the coal.''

It could be argued that this later declara­tion of the law might be construed as nullifying the earlier reservations of coal to the Crown made in the deeds issued, and that as a result in those cases where the de.eds did reserve the coal to the Crown, the owner­ship of that coal ·has reverted to the free­holder. The Solicitor-General, however, is of opinion that a declaration of the law is desirable. This declaration is embodied iu the Bill.

Ot-her minor amendments arise from pro­posed amendments to The Coal Mining· Acts, 1925 to 1949, which are intm1ded to empower the Governor in Council to grant coal n>in­ing leases over all freehold land under the safeguards afforded to the freeholder by the existing provisions of the Mining on Private Land Acts, and with further special provision that royalty on privately owned coal shall be paid to the Minister, who will then pay the amount received to the O\Yner of the coal.

Following on the introduction of t·his Bill will be a Bill amending the Coal Mining Acts. In this Bill we are taking the rig-hi to allow any person to mine on private lanu subject to certain safeguards. The follow· ing legislation will contain a protective clause so far as the owner of the. property is concerned. To make it quite clear, the Crown is not taking away anything at all from the owners of the coal. There arc certain people. who will not sell their coal at this time, when coal is badly required. They place obstacles in the way of the adjoining coal-owners who want to mine it. We believe the. coal should be won but we believe also that the owner of the coal should receive a royalty for it. I give that infor­mation in advance so that hon. members will

know exactly what is proposed. Bill contains ithe neces'sary measures.

The other protective

This Bill is necessary. There are a num­ber of instan~es in which owners of coal on. private land willingly agree. to allow the· eoal to be won. Royalties have been fixed and they are being paid. In this Bill w.e protect the owner of the coal: We see to 1t that the royalties are to be pa1d to the Crown although we make no charge for the collec·· tion of the royalties and we then pay over the royalties to the owner of the property ·

Motion agreed to. Resolution reported.

FIRST READING.

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Power,. rea cl a first time.

COAL MINING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

INITIATION IN CoMMITTEE.

(The Acting Chairman of Committees, Mr. Farrell, Maryborough, in the chair.)

Hon. W. POWER (Baroona-Secretary for Mines and Immigration) (3.56 p.m.): I move-

'' That it is desirable thnt a Bill be introduced to amend the Coal Mining Acts, 1925 to 1949, in certain particulars.''

For the information of the Chamber I want to say that by virtue of the ~rining on Private Lands Acts, 1909 to 1929, coal on or below the surface of land (except la?d subject to the Agricultural Lands Special Purchase Act of 1901) which was alienated in fee simple from the Crown on or before 1 March 1910 is the property of the grantee of the land ;r his successor in title.. The only exceptions to such private ownership ~re a few cases in the original deeds of which coal was specifically reserved to the Crown.

In the \V est Moreton district virtually all freehold land was alienated before 1 March, 1910, and accordingly the coal in such fre~­hold land, unless reserved to the Crown m the deed, is the property of the freeholder, who is free to arrange for the coal to be mined or to prevent exploitation of what could be regarded as a national heritage.

The Crown at present can only grant coal­mining leases (under the Coal Mining Acts) over-

( a) Crown land including Reserves and Roads; or

(b) Freehold land alienated after 1 March, 1910.

It has no power or authority to grant coal­mining leases over private land in which the coal is owned by the freeholder, or over land below subdivisional roads.

In New South Wales the Crown is empowered to grant leases over privately owned coal under conditions which provide for payment of royalty to the Crown, which then pays that royalty, or the bulk of it,. to the owner of the coaL

448 Goal Mining Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

The fact that the Crown cannot grant the right to mine privately owned coal­particularly in the West Moreton district, where greatly increased production is essential to meet metropolitan requirements -and that the exploitation of this private -coal depends upon the whim of the owner, has retarded production in the West Moreton district, and in some cases has resulted in bodies of coal, which bv themselves are insufficient to warrant tl;e opening of a separate mine, remaining unexploited.

It has been competent for a freeholder who also o>ms the coal in such land, to deal with such land and coal in various wa vs the principal of which are- · '

(a) the freehold land can be sold either in one piece or in numerous subdivisions either absolute]~- or down to a specified depth only, leaving the original freeholder the owner of the coal below that specified depth;

(b) the private coal can be solu outright to a coal mining company for a fixed sum \\·ith or without limitation as to the mini­mum depth helow which coal can be mined :mu without fixation of any term for rem mal;

(c) the freeholder can enter into a private lease with a coal mining company for a fixed term (sometimes 99 years, but more _recentl:'·, generally 2I years) whereby the nght to mine the private coal is con­veyed, with or >Yithout the fixation of a minimum depth, on a rovaltv basis nsuallv from 4d. to ls. a ton of coal produced ..

It sometimes occurs also that the holder ?f such_ a. lease is not a mining concern or, If a mmmg concern, not in a position to mine the coal, and conseqnentlv a sublease of such Tights may be arranged.

These existing conditions give rise to certain undesirable results, the chief of which is that they. _mitigate against colliery companies acqmnng or holding an area of sufficient size to ensur0 to n. mine a life long enough to >varrant capital expenditure on a moderate or large scale.

Early this n"n consideration was given to the t>~·o co~rses that present themselves, namely-

( a) j_mendment to provide that the ownership of all coal in freehold land shall revert to the Crown.

This would be repudiatory and undesirable. There arc numbei·s of people who have pur­chased freehold land and the coal therein either to work it themselves or to lea~e it to mining companies to work. The Government do not propose to repudiate anythin2' in that direction. o

(b) Amendment of existing legislation on much the same terms as the existing New South Wales law, that is, to give the Oro\vn the right to grant coal-mining leases in respect of privately-owned coal subject to certain conditions, including one that royalty paid shall be paid back to the

.. owucr of the coal.

That is >vhat we are doing under this legisla­tion.

It was decided on I3 January, I950, to proceed on the lines set out in (b).

In another Bill recently before Parliament, certain amendments of the Mining on Private Land Acts I909 to I929, have been suggested, which, witl1 those proposed to the Coal Mining Acts, 1925 to 1949, will empower the Governor in Council to grant coal-mining leases over all freehold land under the safeguards afforded to the freeholder by the existing pro­visions of the Mining on Private Land Acts, and with special provision that royalty on privately-owned coal shall be paid to the Minister, who will then pay the amount received to the owner of the coal.

Whilst preparing amendments on the fore­going lines, opportunity was taken also !O cure known deficiencies in the present Act m the following directions:-

(a) Although the existing Section I2 stipulates that every coal-min_i:r;g lease shall conta-in covenants and conchbons, one of which is that a lessee covenants not to assign, underlet, or part with the possession of the land or any part thereof without the nrevious consent of the Minister, one case has come to notice where an applicant for a coal-mining lease, without ;}finistcrial con­sent, has entered into an agreement with other parties under which those other parties undertook to carry out the labour conditions, pay the royalty of 6d .. a ton to the Crown and to pay to the applicant for the lease 2s. Sd. on each ton of coal removed. Recently this rate of 2s. Sd. a ton has been voluntarily reduced to Is. Sd.

That is the ease at Callicle. When I was in Gladstone a short time ago I went out to Oallide and discussed with a gentleman named N eill the royalty of 2s. Sd. a ton that he was receiving. I said that the royalty was t?o high, and Mr. Neill said he. would s~e me m Brisbane. However, I recerved a wrre from him on the Gladstonc showgrounu to the effect that he had agreed to reduce the royalty from 2s. Sd. a ton to Is. Sd.

Mr. Hiley: It is still too high.

Mr. POWER: I shall deal with that matter now.

The opinion of the Solicitor General is that this agreement is not a b~each _of the existing provisions. The co.al Ill th.Is c3;se is owned by the Crown, which reqmres 1ts lessee to pay royalty at 6d. a ton on the first million tons produced in any calendar year and the lessee has, for a period, pass~d on to other parties all his obligations (including payment of 6d. a to.n royalty to the Crown) for which he recerved as con­sideration 2s. Sd. a ton for a time, and more recently l s. Sd. a ton.

He did not even pay the royalty, a~though he was receiving 2s. Sd. a ton. Durmg the Second Reading stages I propose to give to the House some information obtained from the investigations we have made regarding the amount of money that this gentleman has received as the result of that procedure .

Coal Mining Acts [19 SEPTEMBER.) Amendment Bill. 449

It is proposed in the amending Bill to remedy this particular matter by proYiding-

Firstly, that every existing coal-mining lease shall be deemed to contain a covenant on the part of the lessee not to enter in to any such agreement without the previous consent of the Minister.

The amending Bill also contains a pro­vision tying the Minister down, and I know that hon. members opposite will be pleased to know that the Minister is tied down, and that his powers are not discretionary. 'l'he other provisions in the amending Bill are-

Secondly, that the Minister shall not con­sent to any such agreement where the lessee is to receive for his own use as considera­tion :for coal won by another party a sum exceeding the royalty payable to the Crown in respect of the coal won. We do not propose to allow any coal-owner

at any time to get a greater royalty for his coal than the amount of 6d. a ton that the Crown receives, and the Minister cannot agree to any sub-letting or disposing of the lease unless specific provision is made that the royalty paid shall not be greater than the amount of royalty paid to the Crown.

JUr. Hiley: That should mean that the owner of the coal-mining lease will have to operate the lease himself or give it awayW

JUr. POWER: He could form a company to operate it.

Mr. Hiley: That would amount to the same thing as working it himself.

JUr. POWER: I gave a good deal of consideration to the wisdom of including a provision to the effect that the owner would either have to work it himself or get out, but I could see that there could be manv difficul­ties. For instance, a man could have had a coal-mine but very little capital, and he might have been killed or died. He would have certain aPsets. If I made it mandatory that the owner must either operate the lease him­self or give it to someone else it would im·olve a compulsory sale and his equity would not be preserved. I had no desire to do that.

Thirdly, if any such agreement made before 1 September, 1950, without the consent of the Minister---:-and that will specifically inelnde the particular agreement refened to-is varied to provide that on or after the pass­ing of this amending Bill the coal-mining lessee or his nominee shall not be entitled to be paid for his own use in respect of coal won, by the other parties to the agreement, a sum not exceeding the royalty payable to the Crm1·n, then the continuance of that agreement as varied shall be deemed to be not a breach of the covenants of the Acts.

When Thiess Bros. called on me in connec­tion with the matter I pointed out that if there was to be any reduction in royalty it was not to be paid to Thiess Bros., that it was to go to the consumGrs. The Crown is a tig consumer of Callide coal. vV e have a very healthy stock-pile of coal from Callide which is a great insurance in the event of

1950-Q

intimidation or a hold-up such as we occa­sionally have. We can use that at any time. It means that the Crown has received a reduction in price by ls. a ton as from the date at which the company made the reduc­tion but the reduction has gone to private consumers as well. Therefore, any reduction that has been made as a result of my negotia­tion with Thiess Bros. has meant also a reduction to consumers generally.

I know that the Premier has been success­ful in negotiating direct with the Victorian Government for the use of Callide coal and any further reduction in royalty will mean a further reduction in the price. There will be a reduction to 1s. 2d.; at present it is 1s. 8d. That will mean a reduction in the price of coal to the Victorian Government, in addition to any other reductions that will be brought about as a result of the arrangements that the Premier has been able to enter into.

1\'Ir. Hiley: If the sub-lessee was paying royalty to the Crown plus ls. 8d. to the lessee, the saving will be ls. 8d., not 1s. 2d.

Mr. POWER: No. The saving will be 1s. 2d. as the Crown royalty will continue to be payable in addition to the 6d. royalty per­mitted to the lessee. It ·will enable us to get a market for this very important Callide coal in which the hon. member for Port Curtis has been interested for a long time. He has been the super-salesman, the advance agent as it were, in this connection and no man has worked harder than he has to obtain a market for this coal. I compliment him on his endeavours.

Although all coal-mining leases carry labour conditions, machinery for citing a lessee to show cause against forfeiture for a breach of such labour conditions is not at present embodied in the Coal Mining Acts. Some time ago, in important proceedings against Cambria colliery for breaches of the labour conditions, this deficiency came pointedly to notice and although in that case the machinery of the Mining Acts, 1898 to 1948, was used without objection, it is now proposed to insert the machinery in the Coal Mining Acts also.

In the subdivision of freehold land, the subdividing freeholder dedicates the land for necessaq subdivisional roads to public use. The Solicitor-General has brought to notice that it is desirable to clarify the legal position in respect of coal in or under the land in subdivisional roads dedicated to public use, and has pointed out that where the dedication has been outright the owner­ship of the coal should be vested in the Crown, hut that where the dedicator has limited the dedication to a specified depth below the surface or any specified part of the surface of that land, the ownership of the coal should remain with the freeholder.

This Bill will clarify the position. I have endeavoured to give a very full outline of the Bill. It contains some important pro­visions. We should eliminate the man who takes up a piece of land and decides not to do anything with it, and later sub-leases it to someone else and allows that someone else to work it and receive a royalty of

450 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.]

2s. Sd. a ton on all coal mined. That coal belongs to the Crown and the people and we should not allow anyone to exploit it. If the original lessee is not prepared to work the land and desires to hold it only in order to get what he can out of it, the royalty payable. should be 6d. a ton, not 2s. Sd., which he has been getting.

Motion (Mr. Power) agreed to.

FIRST READING.

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

The House adjourned at 4.14 p.m.

Questions.