legislative assembly hansard 1946 - queensland … · queensland . parliamentary debates [hansard]...

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 4 APRIL 1946

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Questions. [4 APmL.] Questions. 2273

THURSDAY, 4 APRIL, 1946.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. S. J. Braasington Fortitude Valley) took the chair at 11 a.m:

QUESTIONS.

WATER SUPPLY, COLLINSVILLE.

Mr. KERR (Oxley), for Mr. WANSTALL (Toowong), a'sked the Secretary for Public Works-

. '' 1 .. W~en did Mr. Peak carry out an mvestrgatwn of the water-supply position at Collins.ville ~

'' 2. Has his report yet been made available to the Wangaratta Shire Council· if not, when will it be made available' so that. steps can be taken by the council to provrde a good supply of pure water to the town,

'' 3. How many requests have been made by the council to the department for the release of this report~"

Hon. D. A. GLEDSON (IpswichAttorney-General), for Hon. H. A. BRUCE (The Tableland), replied-

" 1. Investigations into a scheme for the purpose. of !iugmenting the supply of water to CollmsVIlle have been going on since September, 1944. The engineer Mr. Peak made his last visit in September, 1945. '

2. Yes, and was forwarded to the council on 21 March, 1946.

3. Two definite requests. A considerable corre~pondence has passed between the councrl and the department. References were made to the matter in some of this ~orrespondence. I may add that work mvolvmg an expenditure of more than ~20,00~ on the C?llinsville . Water Supply rs nearmg completwn, of whrch the Government paid half.''

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, COLLINSVILLE.

Mr. LUCKINS (Maree), for Mr. WANSTALL (Toowong), asked the Premier-

" Will he arrange for all possible assistance t_o ?e given, by the State Electricity Commrsswn, to the Wanga·ratta Shire Council nnrl itA eontractors f01· the surply and installation of transformers and wiring, so that the reticulation of elEctricity in Collinsville may be accomplished at the enr·licst possible moment?''

Hon. E. M. HANLON (Ithaca) replied-'' The action suggested by the hon. mem

ber was taken in October, 1945 when the necessary materials for the 'collinsville electricity supply system were ordered a large proportion of which materials ha~ since been delivered. The State Elect:;icity Com;nission has done everything possible to assist all electric authorities during the war years and in the transition to peace, and will continue to do so.''

TRANSPOR'l' OF BLIND, DEAF AND DUMB CHILDREN TO SCHOOL.

Mr. J. F. BARNES (Bundaberg) asked the Minister for Transport-

"Has he done anything about transporting blind, deaf and dumb children to school, which will save parents considerable time and anxietyf" Hon. E. J. WALSH (Mirani) replied-

" The matter of the transport of blind, deaf, and dumb children to school is not one which comes under the jurisdiction of my department. However, I am advised that free rail transport is provided (a) to every blind, deaf, and dumb child on all occasions of necessary travel between home and &chool; (b) to the escort of every blind child and to the escort of every deaf and dumb child under the age of 11 years on all occasions of necessary travel between home and school. I understand a similar concession is granted on the Brisbane trams.''

RAIL MOTOR EXCURSION, IPSWIOH-LAIDLEY.

Mr. lUAHER (West Moreton) asked the Minister for Transport-

'' Will he be good enough to ascertain whether a rail motor was slnt from Brisbane on a recent Sunday to run as a football excursion train conveying pa·ssengers from Ips,wich to Laidley, and return to Ipswich, whilst a suitable rail motor was lying idle at the Ipswich platform, thus necessitating a 50-mile run to BrisbaneIpswich and return, needlessly and expensively~''

Hon. E. J. WALSH (Mirani) replied-'' The circumstances are as outlined by

the hon. member and action has been taken to prevent a repetition.''

DENTAL SERVICE, C'OLLINSVILLE.

Mr. ll!ORRIS (Enoggera) asked the Secretary for Health and Home Affairs-

'' 1. What salary was paid to the dental officer at the Collinsville dental clinic in each of the years from the time of his appointment up to the time of his resignation'

'' 2. What salary has been offered, in advertisements published, seeking a new dental ofiicer, since the resignation of the previous ofiicer W ''

Hon. T. A. FOLE"f (Normanby) replied-" 1. The dental clinic at Collinsville was

originally operated jointly with the clinics at Bowen and Proserpine, the dentist serving part of his time at each clinic. The dentist in private practice at Collinsville subsequently made an offer to the board to conduct both the public and private practices under the aegis of and in the employment of the board. In view of the increased services provided for the public patients at Collinsville the board accepted the offer. The salary paid was £600 in the year 1941-42, £650 in the year 1942-43, £655 in 1943-44, and £658 in 1944-45.

'' 2. Inquiries are being made from the Bowen Hospitals Board.''

2274 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Questions.

BOWEN COKE WORKS.

Mr. I\IORRIS (Enoggera) asked the Secxetary for Mines-

'' Will he inform me-1. vVhen the Bowen Coke Works were

established~

2. What type of coke oven is used there~

3. Whether any of the by-products which are liberated in the conversion of roal into coke are reclaimed at the above worlm~

4. In coke works, wherein by-products are reclaimed, what are the relative values of coke and by-products~

5. What is the price obtained by Bowen Coke Works for coke~

6. What price per ton do they pay for coal, and where do they purchase itf

7. How much coke can be produced fron1 100 tons of coalf

8. What is the cost of transporting lOO tons of coal from Collinsville to Bowen~

9. What are thP relative rail charges for coal and coke?"

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

'' 1. Construction was approved on 4 March, 1932, and production commenced 22 March, 1933.

"2. The type of coke oven constructed is a vertical retort non-by-product recovery type similar to that installed in many places in New South Wales.

"3. No. '' 4. In view of the type Of retort (non

by-product) in operation at Bowen, this department has not readily available the statistical information requested by the hon. member.

'' 5. Coke is sold to Mount Isa Mines Ltd. at 42s. 4.64d. per ton on rail at works, Bowen, and to other consumers at 44s. 3d. per ton on rail at works, Bowen.

' ' 6. Coal is purchased from the Bowen State coalmine at Collinsville at 17s. 10d. per ton.

'' 7. The recovery would naturally vary with the nature of the plant and the coal. The average recovery at Bowen State Coke Works over the last three years is 62.13 tons per 100 tons of coal.

'' 8. The cost of transporting 100 tons of coal from the Bowen State coalmine at Collinsville to the coke works at Bowen is 4s. 6d. per ton.

"9. This part of the question should be directed to the Hon. the Minister for Transport.' '

ALLEGED LOAFING BY WHARF LABOURERS.

Mr. ~rORlHS (Enoggera) asked the Secretary for Labour and Employment-

" 1. Will he investigate and report to this House on the report published in the 'Sunday Mail' of 30 March that 'on some of Brisbane's wharves wharf labourers

appoint one man from each gang working a ship to spend his time of employment fishing for the remainder of the gang.' and, further, that they 'detail fo;: an hom

· or' two each shift a couple of their number to have a sleep during the working. perio~,' the selected member in each case bemg paid as usuaH

"2. Will he advise what action, if any, he intends to take in this matter~"

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

'' 1 and 2. Waterside workers are contr-olled by the Stevedoring Commission appointed by the Commonwealth Government, and it is suggested that the hon. member direct his enquiries to the Commonwealth authorities. However, from inquiries m.ade, I am informed that the charges contamed in the question are just as ridiculous as they are untrue.''

T.B. CATTLE SLAUGHTERED.

Mr. PLUNKETT (Albert) asked the Secretary for Agriculture and Stock-

'' 1. Where and by whom are dairy cattle, condemned on account of T.B., slaughtered'

"2. How many of such cattle have been slaughtered to date' .

"3. What is the rate paid for slaughtering1

'' 4. What is the total amount paid for slaughtering to datef

"5. What is done with (a) the .carcasses (b) the offal, and (c) the hides, and ~ho receives the benefit therefrom'

"6. By whom is cost of transport to place of slaughter paid'''

Hon. H. H. COLLINS {Cook) replied)'' 1 At the premises of F. E. Staunton,

Evert~n Park, by Mr. Staunton and his employees.

''2. 3,603. "3. Mr. Staunton provides slaughteri~g

premises, equipment, and labour. ~e Is paid a fee of £7 per week. T~e bodies of animals slaughtered become his property.

'' 4. The amount paid as fees by this department totals £424.

'' 5. See answer to 3. '' 6. Transport to place of slaughter is

the responsibility of the owner of the cattle. However, when animals arrive at Mitchelton by rail, the department. pays Mr. Staunton 2s. per head for drovmg to the slaughter yards.''

NEW SECONDARY INDUSTRIES.

Mr. PIE (Windsor) asked the Premier-" 1. Is he aware that many State Govern

ments throughout Australia a;:e enc?ura~ing the development of new mdustnes m their particular State by way of the s;rbsidisation of cheap power and water, bmlding sites, and buildings f

'' 2. In view of the number of new in~ustries both local and overseas, commencmg oper~tions in other States, is he prepared, on behalf of his Government, to make some

Questions. [4 MRIL.] Personal Explanation. 2275

definite statement as to whether the Queensland Government are prepared to offer any "oncession for the encouragement of the development of new local and overseas industries in Qm ensland ~ If so, will he publicly make such details available~''

Hon. E. }I. HANLON (Ithaca) replied-'' 1 and 2. The Queensland Government

is doing everythi!lg possible to encourage the establishment of new industries and the expansion of existing industries in this State. Negotiations have been opened with the Commonwealth Government for the purchase by the State of the whole of the Rocklea munitions factories. If these negotiations are satisfactorily concluded, the Queensland Government will then be in a position to offer accommodation for large industrial enterprises on a long lease at reasonable rentals. Every other assistance possible that the Government can give will be given, according to the circumstances and merits of each particular case. For example, the value of the Industries Assistance Acts is well known to the hon. member, and the benefits of this legislation are available to other industrialists. Whilst welcoming and encouraging new development, it will be appreciated that any concessions that might be granted to any southern or overseas organisations must also be available to Queensland interests engaged in similar industry in this State so that existing enterprises in Queensland might be safeguarded.''

RoYAL CD11MISSION ON COAL INDUSTRY.

.lllr. PIE (Windsor) asked the Secretary for Mines-

" Has he as yet received from Canberra a copy of the findings, not the report, of Mr. Justice Davidson in relation to the coalmining industry~ If so, will he lay such copy on the table of this House for the information of all hon. members~''


" No."

Mr. PIP. (Windsor), without notice, asked the Secretary for Mines-

'' In view of the Government's not having the report of Mr. Justice Davidson's findings, will he bl' prepared to ac~ept a copy from the Queensland People's Partyi''

Mr. SPEAKER: This question is not in order, because it does not seek information, and is of a propaganda nature. Yesterday, the hon. member for Bowen gave notice of a question to the Secretary for Mines. I would not allow it to go on the business sheet, because it was too lengthy, and contained too much detail entirely away from the purpose of questions. I wish to say further that I warn all hon. members that in future if any questions are too lengthy or contain too much detail not strictly in conformity with the purpose of questions, I shall deal with them as I think best.

REPORT OF MR. R. P. JACK ON COAL PRODl:CTION.

lUr. LUCEJ.:NS (Maree), for Mr. WANSTALL (Toowong), asked the Secretary for Mines-

"Will he lay on the table of the House, or make available for the perusal of hon. members, the report of Mr. R. P. Jack, production manager of the Coal Commis~ion, which was made about 1942, and contamed suggestions for alterations and improvements in coalmining methods in Queensland, with a view to stepping-up production W ''


'' If a general report containing sugge.stions for alterations and improvements m coalmining methods in Qu2ensland was made in the year 1942 by Mr. R. P. Jack, production manager of the Commonwealth Coal Commission, it would have been made to the Commission; no copy of such report, if made, was supplied to my departm~nt. Renorts on the Bowen State coalm~e, Collinsville, and Blair Athol Coal ~nd Tunber Company's No. 2 and No. 3 mmes were made by Mr. Jack. These reports we.re made to the Commonwealth Coal Commission, and copies were received _for the confidential information of the Mmes Department of this State. As I have not the authority of the Commonwealth Coal Co~missioner to make these reports pubhc, I am unable to accede to the hon. member's request.''

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Mr. l'\IAHER (West Moreton) (11.12

) by leave: I wish to make a personal :~~ia~ation. In "Hansard" No. 35, page 2096, the hon. member for Windsor when speaking on the Medical . Acts Am:'ndment Bill made use of the followmg words.-

"I know the hon. member for ~est Moreton got into trouble for pubhcly criticising a judge at one time.''

To that I replied ·'No, I did not." Then 'f w· d ·a "The the hon. member or m sor sar , ,

Industrial Court" ~nd then "Hansard attributes the following interjection to me, ''That was during an election.'' The actual interjection that I made was, "Because I had correctly forecast the date of the 1941 election.''

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. members have an opportunity of reading their proofs and making corrections.

Mr. PATERSON (Bowen) (11.14 a.m.): I understand that no hon. member is entitled to see the proof speech of another hon. member. In this case would the hon. mem~er for West Moreton have had an opportun~ty of seeing the interjection attributed ~o him in the speech by the hon. member for Wmdsor~

Mr. l'IIaher: I c'lmP across it only by a perusal of "H ansa rd" No. 35. I had no opportunity of seeing it in a proof.

}lr. SPEAKEl? • 01·der! The hon. member is quite in order in making the personal explanation and having the correction made.

2276 War Service Land [ASSEMBLY.] Settlement BiU.

WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT BILL.

SECOND READING.

Hon. A. JONES (Charters TowersSecretary for Public Lands) (11.16 a.m.): I move--

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

On the initiatory stage I said that the Bill would actually replace the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act of 1917, but I did not wish to imply that it would repeal it because it is well known that there are still a number of soldier settlers of the 1914-1918 war operating under that Act, and so it would not be logical to repeal it.

Hon. members will now realise that the Bill will have the effect of remedying many of the defects that became manifest in land settlement following the last war. I think it will be agreed that there were many reasons for the deplorable failure of soldier settlement, not only in Queensland but in the other States after the last war. It was due in part to want of capital, the areas in some instances were too small, some settlers were unsuitable because of war service to a large extent and want of training, and the value of primary products dropped. These were some of the reasons. In some instances, too, the land was totally unsuitable for effective settlement and did not give the settlers a reasonable opportunity of making a success.

Hon. members generally have adopted a very reasonable attitude towards the Bill and the subject of soldier settlement; especially is this true of those hon. members opposite who have a knowledge of the land and know something of its problems. It was refreshing to hear those hon. members giving advice to some of the young and inexperienced members of the Queensland People's Party, the hon. member for Sandgate in particular.

It is remarkable that even before Japan was forced out of the war the hon. member for Sandgate adopted exactly the same tactics as he adopted the other day, that is, he alleged that the Government had done nothing. He then implied that the Government should go ahead and grab the land and give the owners no opportunity of going to the Land Court to have a fair valuation of the land assessed. He added that the Government would then not be doing anything wrong, and that they were not moving fast enough. I am willing to listen to advice from such hon. members as the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. members for West Moreton and Isis, as well as other practical men on the land, because although they have been critical they have at least been reasonable. They know many of the difficulties associated with such a gigantic scheme that the Government are undertaking. ''Country Life'' is not a journal that supports the Government, but its attitude to the controversy that took place last year in connection with soldier settlement and the criticism levelled at the Government for not

rushing men on the land is reflected in the following article published on 13 September, 1945:-

, 'State and Federal Governments are to be commended on their stand to put on the land none but those with the qualifications to succeed.

' ' The clamour has already started, as it did after the last war, to settle men on the land; as demobilisation progresses, so will the agitation increase.''

That is true, too, of the hon. member for Sandgate.

''The Rural Reconstruction Commission gave a warning that this would happen; the Commission warned Governments of the consequences if they allowed themselves to be stampeded into indiscriminate settlement schemes.

"It is to be hoped the Governments will not submit to press or public pressure from those fickle sections of the community which do not understand rural conditions,''-

Again I say that applies to the hon. member for Sandgate particularly-

' 'and will be first in to the attack when the inevitable failures occur."

I say that also applies to him. The hon. member for Sandgate is one of those who would quickly a;buse and criticise the Government if we rushed into a scheme and it turned out a failure.

The ''Graziers' Journal,'' which also is not a Labour paper, on 21 June, 1945, said this-

" There is no reason to don bt the Government is sincere in its intentions and no-one can blame them then for not rushing into half-baked schemes.

''Therefore we say that it would be better to tread a safe and sure path. We do not want the dismal failures of soldier settlement that happened last time.

''Thus if the Government is not stampeded it will have opportunity of evolving a sound scheme. If it does not it can be criticised and criticised harshly. But we should suspend our criticism until there is cause for it.''

Again, the same journal in January of this year said-

" We take the point that it would be far better for an intending soldier-settler to take a waiting job so that when he did go on the land it would be in such a stage of readiness that he would have a good chance of making a success of it.

"We hold no brief for the Government. We do hold a brief for the primary producer and we say that judged impassionately the Government's move seems to be a wise one. ' '

I quote from these journals because they are not out to eulogise the Government in any way. I am not suggesting that they are not totally fair, there is some very fine reading in them, and their comments and general attitude to soldier settlement has

War Service Land [4 APRIL.] Settlement Bill. 2277

been sound, if at times they have been eritical. On the other hand, the attitude of the hon. member for Sandgate and hon. mem'bers of the Queensland People's Party generally has been unreasonable. They try to set themselves up as super-patriots. They would lead the people to 'believe that no-one is interested in returned soldiers but two or three members of that party. Hon. mem'bers of the Government Party are just as much interested as they are. A big percentage of the men in the department handling returned-soldier settlement are returned soldiers of this war. The classification committee that was recently set up to help returned-soldier settlement is composed of returned soldiers, including a farmer. Hon. mem'bers who have been critical of Government policy in this regard have really very littll' regard for returned-soldier settlement.

)fr. Kerr: That is a very nasty remark.

Mr. JONES: I say that quite candidly and I have no intention of withdrawing it.

In this matter the Government wish to move cautiously, but to lose no time unnecessarily. Only yesterda'y an Opposition member discussEd with me a certain matter pertaining to soldier settlement. We have been attempting to negotiate for the taking over of a certain estate with a view to cutting it up for soldier settlement---only subdivision is involved to make it ready for the purpose. We are now proceeding to resume that estate, and the matter will ~ltimately come before the Land Court, but if we can arrange the matter by negotiation our arrangements can be completed much more quickly than otherwise.

Mr. Spa.rkes: It is much better to negotiate for cash.

Mr. JONES: Yes.

Mr. Pie: I am not condemning you for that.

1\Ir. JONES: I am not suggesting that the hon. member for Windsor has altogether adopted this attitude. One of two members of his party, however, seem to take a delight in making it appear that I and officers of the Department of Public Lands and the Government generally have no interest in the returned soldier. I can stand fair criticismthat is what we are here for-but if an hon. member attempts to set himself up as a superpatriot contending that nobody else but he and a couple of his party have the welfare of the returned men at heart and nobody else gives a hang, that is totally unfair. I for one regret that hon. members are prepared to use the returned soldier as a pawn in the game of politics, as some hon. members have attempted to do.

There is one matter in this Bill to which I wish to make reference. Several members of the Opposition, speaking on the initiation, made reference to the clause in the Bill :fixing the time within which a discharged member of the forces may apply to participate in land settlement under the Act, which is not more than :five years after 15 August, 1945,

or the date on which he ceased to be on war service, whichever is the later. Hon. members generally suggested that the term should be increased to 10 years. I think the point they overlooked-maybe I did not explain it on the initiation, but I make this explanation now, which I think largely overcomes the objection-was that if any application is received within five years then the applicant is entitled to the benefits of the Bill even though he is not actually settled within that period. It may be 10 or 12 years before he is settled, but as long as the application is lodged within :five years from the time the war finished on 15 August, 1945, or his discharge, whichever is the later, he is protected. The Bill does not limit the settlement of soldiers to that period of :five years; as long as the application is lodged within five years it will be sufficient. At any time thereafter, when land is available, the applicant is entitled to participate. It may be a number of years after the :five-year period. I think that overcomes the objection hon. members have raised in connection with that matter.

I mentioned a moment ago that the classification committee consisted of three returned soldiers of this war. Mr. Creighton, a Land Commissioner, is the chairman of the committee, and is a returned soldier. The same applies to Mr. Atherton, who is the Director of Agriculture and Deputy Co-ordinator of Rural Training. Mr. S. Conochie is a farmer and not a member of the Public Service. He was very keen to act and his knowledge of farming :fits him for the job. He is a returned soldier of the 1914-18 war and served in this war. He is a man with very high credentials. He has judged in Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide shows and at shows in New Zealand from time to time; and he is a recognised authority on cattle and farming generally. His selection has been well received by the returned soldiers' organisations throughout the State. I do not think any quibble can be forthcoming about the selection of that committee.

The Bill lays it down that further committees may be appointed from time to time. I think that is necessary because after all we shall perhaps find that different districts will apply for the setting up of committees to help returned soldirrs, and it will be at the discretion of the Minister whether those committees are appointed.

A good deal of misunderstanding has arisen since I said that the Bill :fixed the maximum area of selection under the Act at 5,000 acres. The hon. member for Windsor and one or two other hon. members who spoke after him showed that they had the two sections of settlement completely mixed. They had no knowledge of the fact that when I was talking of 5,000-arre selections under the War Service Land Settlement Agreement I was referring to mixed farming. ApparentJy that impression h~s been created outside, too. In the "Courier-Mail" this morning there is a letter signed by Corporal N. G. Burnett, Sandgate. The hon. member for Sandgate may have given him this information.

Mr. Decker: Quite wrong.

2278 War Service Land [ASSEMBLY.] Settlem,ent Bill.

Mr. JONES: The letter reads-"! read with great disappointment the

Government's decision in the soldiers ' se.ttlement scheme to make the maximum area 5,000 acres. The proposed loan and rental are very generous"-

I bet the hon. member for Sandgate didn't give him that!

"-but unfortunately the Government is defe-ating its own purpose by the' size of the area. The area is not "large enough and will encourage men to overstock. Five thousand sheep is the least one could run to make a surplus, as a standby in case of drought.

''I would not care to stock a place. under two acres to the sheep, and that is getting very close to the overstocking line.

''I sincerely hope the Government will reconsider the size- of the area decided upon.''

No doubt this gentleman wrote that letter in good faith, but he is under a total misapprehension. When speaking on the pastoral section of the Bill the hon. member for Isis made reference, and rightly so to the necessity of the Government's see-ing to it that each block was of such an area as would guarantee a man a living-that is, that it was a sound living area. That is as it should be. As a matter of fact, the 6,500,000 acres of pastoral holdings that have reverted to the Crown since 1939 will bP subdivide-d in blocks from, say, 20,000 to 50,000 acres according to the carrying capacity of the country. I would say quite definitely, as the correspondent stated in the '~Courier-Mail,'' that that area would be sufficient to carry 5,000 sheep.

~Ir. Sparkes: It depends on the part of the State it is in.

Mr. JONES: That is so. In the Department of Public Lands at the moment we look at it this way: in the Goondiwindi area in which there is some very fine country, th~ number would be 4,000 EheeP; in the Charleville area between 5,000 and 6,000; the same would apply to Ounnamulla; in the Central district, Blackall, Longreach and through to Winton round about 5,000 to 6 000 then getting to the Boulia eountry, it ,;.,ould perhaps be 9,000 to 10,000 sheep; and in the north-west country at nlaces at the back of Cloncurry 7,000 or 8,000 sheep. That is the basis on which we are working at the present mome·nt. I am prepared to admit that there have been mistakes in the past, that areas have been cut up that would carry perhaps only 3,500 or 4,000 sheep, but when these big holdings fnll due, at least 500.000 acres of this country will be needed for additional areas to existing settlers. That is in aceordance with the Government's policy of bringing these areas up to living arras. Of course, some people may be unfortunate. in that no land is falling due within 30 miles of their homes, but after all th~t is the limit that we allow. If a man applies for an additional area, and he is outoide thP QO-mile limit we ilo not consider him as eligible; a man would have some difficulty in working a property 30 miles away. Generally speaking, we attempt

to bring our sheep blocks up to living areas on the lines of the figures I have just quote-d, and I can assure hon. members that in the cutting up of the western holdings the Government fully realise the. necessity of making available living areas in every instance. Of course, 5,000 acres in the West would be stupid and ridiculous. lt would carry only 1,000 sheep, and there is any amount of country 5,000 acres of which would carry only about 400 or 500 sheep. Any practical grazier would know that. I want to make that plain.

In the Bill the 5,000 acres referred to applies to mixed farms under the Commonwealth-States Agreement. In the principal Act, as a matter of fact, 2,560 acres is laid down as the. maximum area. Of course, in most instances that will be ample but as I pointed out on the introductory stage of the Bill, we think it is necessary to make it 5,000 acres, and we are losing nothing by putting that iigure in the Bill. While we may be able to give a man 300 or 400 acres of good agricultural land, there may be an area of poor, inferior country that will be difficult to deal with and could be attached to the better-class country. I wish to make it clear that the limit to which reference has been made by hon. members and the writer to the ''Courier-Mail'' will not apply to our western areas; there has been some misunderstanding in that regard. Of course, the Bill is clear on the point. After all, it is divide-d into four parts, one dealinQ" with land settlement under the Commonwealth-States Agreement, and a later part with the cutting up of pastoral holdings for grazing selections in the pastoral areas of this State.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the hon. gentleman to resume his seat to enable me to receive a message from His Excelle-ncy the Governor.

OFFICIALS IN PARLIAMENT ACTS AND THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

ASSENT,

Assent reported by Mr. Speaker.


SECOND READING-RESUMPTION OF DEBATE.

Hon. A. JONES (Charters Towers- Secretary for Public Lands): I should like to point out also that the Bill will permit of opening land for selection by qualified ex-servicemen and not subject to the terms of the Commonwealth-States AQ"reemPnt, if that course should be necessary. The reason for that is that the State may fino eventually that it will be extremely difficult to conform to the conditions laid down in the Commonwealth-States Agreement with regard to ready-made farms. I say quite canilidly that I have never been very enthusiastic a bout the ready-made farms. I do not suggest for a moment that after subdivision takes place the soldim·s should be jnst put on the land and told to make the best of it for them-

War Service Land (4 A!>RIL,] Settlement Bill. 2279

selves, but they should be allowed to proceed to the farms after subdivision and to take part in the development work, such as fencing, making of access roads, the erection of out-houses, the provision of water facilities and other improvements, and that during that period they should be paid the ordinary wage.

I think hon. members should understand that after we sub-divide a property of say, 50,000 acres into 30 or 40 farms we 'must provide access roads and water facilities, and we must erect buildings and supply stock. This will mean a tremendous amount of work and if we were to proceed under the Commonwealth-States Agreement we should require not hundreds but thousands of men to help in the preparation of the farms. Again, had we been ready at that stageabout nine months ago-we should not have been able to obtain the necessary labour to do the work. I believe that once subdivision has taken place a ballot should be held and the Government should help the soldier, while in occupation, to bring the farm into a state ready for production. Any hon. members who have any knowledge of farming will know that if they were to take up a farming property they would like to have some say in where the homestead and outhouses were built. They would also like to take part in the planning of the farm. If they do not have those privileges the whole thing becomes too mechanical.

I believe that that is the correct approach to the question and that is the manner in which we shall go about it. If the Commonwealth said it was not prepared to co-operate with the State until we had the farms ready for occupation then the State would proceed on its own and give effect to the suggestions I have made.

:rtlr. Brand: And you are prepared to do thaH

Mr. JONES: The Government are prepared to do that. Cabinet has considered the matter already and we are determined that if there is any hold-up in the matter this Government will proceed along the lines I have suggested

Mr. Edwards: Ready-made farms will be altogether too costly.

l'IIr. JONES: The maximum advance allowed in the Bill is £5,000. When we consider that some of these properties, the freeholds in particular, will cost anything from £2,000 to £4,000 to acquire we can readily understand how it may cost the State anything from £7,000 to £8,000 to settle a soldier. Under those eircumstances it would be over-capitalised.

I believe the provision that the rental at the expiration of the assistance period-that is, for the balance of the first 15 years-shall be a sum equal to 1! per cent. of the notified capital value of the land has been well received. Apparently this must have been published in the Southern press because already I have received telegrams from two Ministers of Southern States asking for full particulars of the Bill that we are putting through.

No other State in the Commonwealth is making land available to returned soldiers on such attractive conditions as those set ou.t in the Bill. The Bill lays it down that the rate of interest on advances shall be fixed by regulation or order in council, and in no case is it to exceed 4 per cent. The Commonwealth is desirous that there should be a uniform rate of interest throughout the States and so other States have passed legislation to provide that interest on advances shall be fixed by regulation or order in council. In agreeing to the Commonwealth's request in this connection we are doing the right thing, because if we fix a statutory rate it may be found that in two or three years the rate could be reduced.

Mr. Macdonald: There is a fixed ceiling?

Mr. JONES: Yes, 4 per cent. In subdividing and throwing open pastoral

land for settlement we provide that not less than 50 per cent. of the grazing selections shall be available to returned soldiers. Yesterday I heard hon. member after hon. member opposite get up and say they did not believe in retrospective legislation, but I make bold to say that no hon. member here will vote against the provision in this Bill whereby the Crown seeks to ratify concessions given to Crown lessees while they were on war service, totalling approximately £120,000. That is retrospective legislation. Hon. members opposite yesterday said that that should not be done.

Mr. ~faher: Not· where P'Unishment is concerned.

Mr. JONES: That qualification was not made yesterday by the hon. member for Windsor. Hon. members will agree that this concession is something that the Government owe to Crown lessees, so on the initiatory stage of the Bill I said that the total number of Crown tenants eligible for concessions was 1, 754, holding between them 2,450 holdings, with an annual rental value of £43,746. It is expected that when these men are discharged from the forces and everything is balanced up the concession will reach about £120,000.

I want to make it clear that the pastoral areas in the West will be made available under the ordinary conditions of the Land Act and that they have no relation at all to the Commonwealth-States Agreement.

~Ir. Sparkes: There will be preference to soldiers~

lUr. JONES: It is clearly laid down in the Bill that at least 50 per cent. of the blocks will be available to returned-soldier settlers, but it is also important to note that the returned-soldier settler will be able to participate in the ballot with civilians for the balance of the land, and so I should say that between 60 per cent. and 65 per cent. of the blocks will be available to returned soldiers. It is hard to fix the percentage.

I have given an outline of the main principles of the Bill, hon. members have had an opportunity of reading it, and I content

2280 War Service Land [ASSEMBLY.] Settlement Bill.

myself now with moving the motion that it be read a seeond time.

Mr. NICKLlN (Murrumba-Leader of the Opposition) (11.47 a.m.): This is the fifth Bill we have had dealing with land settlement by discharged servicemen, the others being-

1. An Act providing for acquiring land. 2. An Act validating the Commonwealth

States Agreement dealing with soldier settlement.

3. The Co-ordination of Rural Advances Act. dealing with loans to discharged servicemen.

4. ~1'1: Act validating the agreement proVIdmg for Commonwealth advances to the State Agricultural Bank.

All this legislation is complementary and connected one with the other. No doubt a person could be excused for wondering w~y "'Ye have so much legislation dealing with this Important question and why we have not yet got many soldiers settled on the land.

We all realise the difficulties associated with this question. As the Minister has said as the report of the Commonwealth Rural Rehabilitation Commission pointed out, and as the Commonwealth Government pointed out, one of the things which would happen after the war in land settlement was public pressure to do something. That is quite understandable when we have hundreds of men wanting to go on -the land and cannot get there because land is not available. I do not blame the Mini8ter for the fact that land is not available for soldier settlement at the pre-sent time but I cPrtainly do blame the Commonwealth for tardiness in dealing with its share of this problem. It has resulted in holding up the activities of the States. Moreover, as the Minister realised when introducing this legislation. some of the conditions imposed by the Commonwealth Government under that agreement with the States, particularly that part dealing with ready-made farms, with which I shall deal later, tend to further delay placing soldiers on the land. . I r~alise that these delays are very largely mevita ble, because aftrr all it has been fonnfl necpoR~rV to RCfluire land fm: the purpose of land · settlement. After the last war it was possible to use a considerable amount of Crown land then available. That has made for additional delay but nevertheless what I am afraid of is tha't men who are keen to go on the land will become discouraQ"ed and give up hope of ever getting a block to follow the vocation they wish to enter.

I repeat what I said on previous legislation dealing with land settlement, namely, that ~ome effort shonld be made to retain the interest of thPAE' men who desire to undertake land settlement. That cnn be donp in two ways. It can hp nonp hy the immediate implementation of training- schemes that would keep tho9E' mrn or.cnpiPd on the lHnd and at the ~ame timp P"ive them knowledge of the vocation they intmd to take up, and it can be done bv utilising their services ;,n

the preparation of farms, which will later become available for soldier settlement.

That of course is bound up with the question of the selection of men suitable as soldier settlers. This is particularly important. This Bill deals with that problem by setting up a classification committee of three members who, as the Minister has told us, are already at work classifying the men. No doubt the personnel of this committee is particularly important. I am glad that the Minister has selected thrPe rdnrned soldiers to handle this important question. Two of them are members of the Public Service who are well fitted for the job they have to undertake and the other is a practical farmer who is also a returned soldier. ThosE' men should be quite capaNe of sorting out the applicants _and determining their suitability. The selectiOn of the men "''<] the method of their selection is dealt with very fully in the second report of the Rural Rehabilitation Commission which certainly apnroached the question from all aspects. It lays down certain lines of approach that it suggests should be followed by any selection committee, such as the ap-e of thP applicant, his previous experience, if any, and his knowledge and experience of the class of agriculture in which he wishes to engage.

One part of the legislation we ha've already dealt with lays down very definitely that in order to be an approved applicant, one must have previously engaged in agriculture. I do not think that restriction should be applied.

Mr. Jones: Not in this Bill. Mr. NICKLIN: No, but in legislation

that is complementary to the present legislation. I am quoting that fact to show that this Bill is superior in that respect in that it does not impose any such limitation. After all, a·s we all know, many of these lads went into the Army in their teens and had no previous experience in agriculture; and by the rigid provisions of previous legislation they would be debarred from receiving assistance in that avenue. I am glad the Minister has not imposed the same condition in this legislation, because many men, after being given proper training, which is provide-1 for in this Bill, will be quite suitable. I know many successful soldier-settlers of the last war who, previous to going on the land, har1 absolutely no practical experience of agriculture; but they had plenty of common sense and were willing to work hard and profit by the knowledge given to them by adjoining settlers; as a result they made a success of their ventures.

We realise that this classification committee, notwithstanding all the ri!':id provisions they may lay down for the selection of these men, will inevita blv pa'·J wme men who will not measure up to the drsirerl standard when they are put to the prnrti<>al test. We have to realise that that is ineYit~ ble; we have to accept that ris1~ and face thr losses that may accrne to thP lPwlin,. ~nthorities as a result of the failure of these men. But I think as far as is humanly possible the provisions laid down will a 'equatcly cover the selection of suitable applicants. Once these applicants are seleded and graded


along the lines laid down we can go ahead. I take it that they will be graded, that is, into classes of men suitable to a'ssume ownership without further experience, men suitable to assume ownership after a short specialised training course, and men suitable for farming employment but requiring a good deal of further training experience before they are fit to take up the land. The first class can be dealt with straightaway, and we have the full training facilities for those who the committee thinks Tequire further training before they are approved as soldier settlers. The Bill provides for those training facilities.

I should like the Minister to give the House some information in regard to what has been done up to the present time in regard to the training of soldiers. How many have been approved for training, and how many are actually in training~ It was suggested in the first place that selected farmers would be appointed to train these men, who would be placed on these farms for a period, the Commonwealth Government providing the necessary fina'nce to enable them to carry on during their training period. As far back as 12 October last year I, along with many other producers in my area, received a circular letter from the Department of Agriculture and Stock setting out the scheme of farm training and asking whether we should be willing to do anything in regard to training these men.

Mr. Jones: That was under the Commonwealth scheme; nothing to do with this scheme.

lUr. NICKLIN: No, but this Bill lays down a method whereby recommendations for rural training can be made. I am wondering what recommendations are to be made, 11nd what provision is to be made.

Mr. J ones: We are in this position in the first place: I do not know the exact iigure, but there are 500 or 600 practical farmers ready to take up land straightaway. It is no use training men when you ha've practical men ready to take up farms.

Mr. NICKLIN: No, that is so. We must not overlook the man who has all the qualifieations, provided he gets a little extra training.

lUr. Pie: What about the youngster of less than 18!

Mr. NICKLIN: He is one of the men to whom I refer. If we are going to give them the opportunity we have to make the necessary training facilities available.

Mr. Jones: They are available. The Commonwealth is placing them.

Mr. NICKLIN: Where is it placing them? Mr. Jones: That has nothing to do with

this Bill at all.

1\'Ir. NICKLIN: It is important because before an applicant can take up land under this scheme he has to be a suitable applicant.

Mr. Jones: All that the classification committee does is to say to a man, "You

have not had sufficient experience.'' It passes him over to the Commonwealth authorities to get the necessary experience. Those men are placed with farmers.

Mr. NICKLIN: Do they make any arrangement to come back to the classification committee lated

Mr. Jones: They can apply for land when they are ready to take up land-when they have qualifications.

1\'Ir. NICKLIN: Does it lay down the period of training necessary or what conditions does it make f

Mr. Jones: I understand the Commonwealth lays down the period of training with a practical farmer that it thinks necessary.

lUr. NICKLIN: I raise the point because it is important that training facilities should not be overlooked.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I do not think that matter comes within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. NICKLIN: It is definitely bound up with the principles of this Bill because one of the principles is that the classification committee can recommend rural training. I wanted to find out what that position was and I think it is important.

Mr. SPEAKER :Order! In view of the importance of the subject I shall allow the discussion.

llir. NICKLIN: I appreciate the fact that you realise the importance of it because if rural training is not provided it will mean that some of those men will be deprived of the opportunity to become settlers under the various land-settlement schemes. I admit this work is to be undertaken by the Rehabilitation Department of the Commonwealth Government but I am concerned about the fact that little is being done in the matter. I think it is time something was done to give those men the opportunity to begin training and make themselves eligible to participate in soldier settlement. I think the Minister, in administering this Bill and the activities that will take place under this measure regarding land settlement, may be able to co-operate with the Commonwealth department in training some of those men.

Mr. Jones: We have an understanding now that where the committee considers a man to be eligible for training he is passed over to the authorities for the necessary training.

Mr. NICKLIN: There is no doubt that under this Act farms will be prepared in future for soldier settlers and I suggest to the Minister that the preparation of those farms in many respects could be made an excellent training ground for those men who require extra training to enable them to become eligible as settlers. I suggest to him that his officers get in touch with the officers of the Rehabilitation Department and endeavour to build up a liaison to enable that training work to be carried out.

2282 War Service I a uJ, [ASSEMBLY.] Settlement Bill.

Mr. Jones: I do not think that would be a good method of training because it would be more developmental work, such as fencing and making access roads, that would have to be done. That is not learning farming.

Mr. NICKLIN: After all, to be a success on the land a man needs to know how to erect a fence and how to build bails. He wants to know how to carry out various improvements to his farm, and I should think the carrying out of that practical work would be really excellent training. He needs to have a knowledge of all matters concerning the improvement of the farm.

I hope that these young men who prior to enlisting had not the opportunity of obtaining the practical knowledge required to qualify as soldier settlers at the moment will be given that opportunity by the Governments concerned, the Commonwealth and the State.

I entirely agree with the provision included in this Bill under which the State Government, if they so desire, may be able to bypass the provision in the CommonwealthStates Agreement that soldiers must only be placed on farms ready to go into production, in other words, ready-made farms. I am not enamoured of this ready-made farm idea. A soldier will have a greater chance of being a success if he takes part in the building up of his own property and carrying out many of the improvements that will be necessary to enable him to go into production.

Mr. Decker: It will cost much less, too.

Mr. NICK:LlN: In mRnv instRnces it will cost a great deal less, although there is something to be said for clearing land on a large scale by means of bulldozers and machines of that kind; on the other hand, if work carried out by a bulldozer is not very closely supervised it can be tremendously expensive as many farmers on the North Coast area have found out to their sorrow. Modern machinery is very spectacular in operation but it can also be mighty expensive in actual practice. In some instances on the North Coast H has cost in the vicinity of £90 an acre to clear land. That will give an idea of how expensive the use of modern machinery can be. However, in many instances, properly supervised, the use of modern machinery may very largely decrease the cost of clearing land, and in the West in particular.

If we are to wait for every intending settler in this State to be provided with a ready-made farm it will be years before we ever get the men on the land and I am glad the Minister has made provision in this Bill for bypassing the provisions in the Commonwealth-States Agreement where the land must be up to production point before a settler is put on it. The Rnral RPhnbilitation Committee in its recommendation ou this aspect, although it exrre,ses the opinion that the allotment of a farm to a returned man should not take effect nn+.il an a C!eq·1ate residence had been errrterl on thr holding, reasonable road access had been providPd, and the farm had been laid out and sufficient improvements

made to permit of the allottee's commencing active preparation for the production of income at the same time makes a proviso by saying, • 'Unless special circumstances exist.'' Evidently the Minister has taken advantage of that suggestion and has provided in this Bill that where special circumstances exist it will not be necessary to carry out to the full letter of the law the provisions of the Commonwealth-States Agreement. I entirelY agree with that for two reasons; firstly, the need to get men occupied in land vocations quickly, and secondly, by giving a man the opportunity to go on the land and take part in the improvements on his own prope~y he is likely to be a greater success as a soldier settler than otherwise.

For a moment I wish to deal with the provision as to the limitation of the period of operation of this Act. The Minister stated this morning that if application was lodged within the five-year period it could be accepted at any time thereafter.

That does not get over the objeetioll: I raised at an earlier stage, because the fixmg of a firm period of five years may limit the applicants who may receive assistance under the Bill. I suggest that rather than fix a set term of five years a provision be included that such period of five years may be extend~ by order in council, either generally or m respect of particular applicants, and I foreshadow an amendment along those lines when we come to the Committee stage.

Turning to the financial provisions of the measure we find that this part of the administration very rightly will be handled by the Treasurer through the Agricultural Bank. As I said when speaking on the Co-ordination of Rural Advances and Agricultural Bank Acts Amendment Bill, which was before the House the other day, there are so many different conditions attaching to loans to returned soldiers at the moment that there will be a great deal of confusion unless full information is set out in pamphlet form so th~t soldiers will understand which scheme w11l be most advantageous to them. Under this Bill we are making confusion worse confou~ded because we are imposing still more provisions concerning advances to soldier settlers. With the passa'~e of this Bill we shall have three different Acts containing three different sets of conrlitions dealing with assistance to soldiers. Under this Bill the bank is permitted to advance up to 100 per cent. of the improvements exi·>,ting on the property at present and up to 10n per cent. of the improvements that may be effected later. In other legislation dealing with the same thing we limit thP advnnce to 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. In two Ads we limit the maximum advance to £5.000 and in another to £1,000. We also make different provisions for interest and redemption funds, and the matte·r is now so ronf11sod and involved that no soldier cnn T1ossibly be expected to understnnd the rosition unless it js clarified by a circular issneil hv the Agricultural Bank setting out in f1rtnil all the provisions of the varions s<'l'rn'Ps. T hope the Minister will keep that in mind and

War Service Land [4 A:PruL.] SeUlement Bill. 2283

suggest it to his colleague the Treasurer, although the Treasurer did say that he would do something along these lines.

Mr. Jones: I think it is necessary.

Mr. NICKLIN: It is necessary because I will wager that even the Minister, who has piloted four of the five Bills through . the House, could not tell me exactly what the position is without first studying them.

The provisions made by the Government in connection with grazing selections f·or 1·eturned soldiers are very liberal indeed. The Government are to be commended upon the liberality they have shown in connection with these selections in that provision is made that not less than 50 per cent. of these lands shall be reserved exclusively for eligible discharged servicemen for five years after the Act commences and, in addition, servicemen are not debarred from competing in the ballot for the other 50 per cent. Servicemen certainly have a very desirable preference in connection with these grazing selections.

The Minister could not miss the opportunity of having a little dig at the Opposition in connection with retrospectivity, but I suggest that the clauses dealing with war concessions are in no way retrospective. They simply ratify something the Government have already done. The Government have helped very largely the Crown lessees who enlisted in the various services, and that help takes the form of a waiving of rent and other payments during the time that they were. in the services. Although it is a very valuable concession still it is little enough to give to the men who devoted their time to the defence of their country.

I was interested in examining the provisions dealing with the perpetual leaseholds that will be available as a result of the measure and in comparing the conditions contained in the Bill with those contained in the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act of 1917. In the main the concessions are virtually the same; there are just little differences. Perhaps it would be nearer the mark to say that the 1917 Act was a little more liberal than the Bill. For instance, the Bill provides that no rent shall be payable during the assistance period of one year, or more if it is extended by the Minister. The 1917 Act fixed an a~sistanre period of three years. In that inRtanre I think the 1917 Act was more liberal than the Bill. Both the Bill and the 1917 Art provide that there shall be no deposit of rent or survey fee. The Bill lays it down that the snrvey fee shall be payable in :fivr-vParlv instn lments after the tl1ird year, wherens the 1917 Act provided for its payment in 10 annual instalments.

On the initintorv ~taqe the Minister and I got a littl<> ronfnsed on the que~tion of rent. In fact both of us were ri~rht althouuh we were ar!!lllll!! fr0m different anqles. The Bill provide.• fAr the nnvment of 11, per cent. per annum of thP notifiPd caPital value. which is the samp HR th" 1 Q17 Act except thnt in the case of nrm,ir0il lani! the rent included the interest pnvn h]p bv the Crown on the cost of the land. 'l'hnt is where the Minister and

I were at cross-purposes-! was dealing with Crown land and he was dealing with acquired land. In the case of acquired land the interest rate at that time was added to the capital cost of the land on which the rent was fixed. Both the Bill and the 1917 Act provide that the rent is to be determined by the court after 15 years.

However, there is one concession in the 1917 Act that I think with advantage could have been included in the Bill. The 1917 Act provided that the Minister could Temit or postpone rent and other paym.ents, but that provision is not contained in the Bill. I do not know exactly what would be the position under the Bill if any default should occur. At any rate we all hope that the-re will not be many defaults and that everyone will be able to meet his payments.

As I mentioned, this measure is one of five that this Assembly has considered for the purpose of successfully, if possible, settling our soldiers on the land. I am sure all hon. members hope that as a result of this legisation, including this Bill under consideration we shall provide all a venues necessary 'to settle successfully our soldiers who wish to go on the land. We all hope that we shall be able to avoid the mistakes of the past, and that before long we shall see the first of the soldiers have land made available to them and that thereafter the land will become available progressively until all ex-servicemen who desire to take up land in this State will be satisfied.

I wish the Minister and his department well in their efforts to administer this le·gislation. It is the duty of all hon. members to help the Minister, whoever he may be, and the department in dealing with problems that will inevitably crop up under this legislatio:!l.

Mr. DEVRIES (Gregory) (12.21 p.m.) : I rise merely to deal with a particular aspect of this legislation as it appears to me, especially as I represent a pastoral area. After listening to the debate I feel safe in saying that the general principles of the Bill meet with the entire approval of members of the Opposition.

I was rather surprised at the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Sandgate. He first subscribed to the principles of the Bill and then set about saying that the Government were slow in implementing their scheme and that it was onlv in the blueprint ~tage. The hon. member's remarks forced me to the opinion that he was endeavouring to emulate Machiavelli. as at every opportunity that presented itsrlf to him he resorted to ~11 sorts of chicanery that he could possibly indulge in. His nttitnde was at variance with that adopted by the hon. member for West Moreton. I can quite appreciate the attitude .of the latter. hon. member, as he is a pra<'tieal man: hr 1• th" ownrr of a property. ConReqnPntlv T .nay bf; pardoned for Payin<r that thrrP are certain aspects of this Bill •hot mav affect him so far as the acouiRition nf Jon<J io <'Oncerned. I have no quarrel with hi'Yl in that regard. however. The Point i• thqt h'o r~mmendation of the GovP,.nm~'nt f~r mnvmg slowly but surely came from a prae+ira 1 man.

2284 War Service Land [ASSEMBLY.] Settlemem BiU.

'!.'here is a tendency for members of the Opposition to deal mainly with farming lands; although they may be a Country Party in name they have yet to prove that they represent or speak for country areas. The resumption of pastoral lands is altogether different from the resumption of land in the fertile belts along the coast. As the Minister indicated, the Crown has exercised its rights of resumption over 6,500,000 acres of land. The Minister proceeded to say that it is possible to place only 300 soldier settlers on those 6,500,000 acres of pastoral land.

J\'Ir. Decker: Three hundred settlers.

Mr. DEVRIES: Very well, 300 settlers. 'l.'he hon. member has argued for exclusive preference to returned sodiers. What is the use of the hon. member's telling me he has noH I am fearfnl that if that is the attitude of the Opposition its members are considering only -one thing, and that is the establishment of ex-servicemen on pastoral properties.

An Opposition Member: That is not so.

Mr. DEVRIES: It is so. All the hon. member's quibble about preference to returned soldiers is hooey. We know that under the land laws the settlers who have been on the land for 10 or 15 years were given what was deemed a reasonable living area at the time they went on the land; the size of the areas is beside the point at the moment. This Bill deals with war-service land settlement, mainly the establishment of servicemen on not only rural areas but pastoral areas. During the years between 1942 and the present year men who have been established as settlers have endured many trials. Many young fellows were not able to leave that industry and become members of the fighting personnel.

JUr. SI)arkes: They may not have been eligible.

Mr. DEVRIES: I grant that. Keeping the settler on the land and enabling him to make a success of his enterprise should be as important as settling the returned soldier on the land, in the interests of future security.

Mr. Sparkes: It is wrong to take that land.

:ur. DEVRlES: It is not wrong at all. I have heard the hon. member express the opinion that there are miles and miles of good country in the Northern Territory along the Barkly Tableland. If that is the attitude of the Opposition as to the placing of the returned soldier on the land-pushing him into the backblocks-then I say this Government cannot introduce such a scheme.

l'lfr. Sparkes: That is absurd.

Mr. DEVRIES: That is the policy of the people you represent.

Mr. SPARKES: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to rise to a point of order, but when the hon. member makes a deliberate statement that i8 untrue I must rise. I did

not mention the Barkly Tableland as being suitable for soldier settlement.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I ask the hon. member to accept the assurance of the hon. member for Aubigny.

Mr. DEVRIES: I accept the assurance. It is the general beli,ef not only of members of the Opposition but the grazier himself-! distinguish between the grazier and the selector. Under the land laws of this State, when the grazier took up land he was given the best parcels of land, and now he enjoys the use of the best of the country on the river frontages.

When we are placing returned soldiers on pastoral land the vital problem must concern us of placing a man on the land in such a way that he becomes a contented and successful settler. The provision of water to those men on the land has been a problem that has been somewhat overlooked by the people in authority. When certain lands are being cut up either for closer settlement or for the provision of additional areas there is often no natural watering facility on it; consequently, if you are going to place a returned soldier or a civilian on land and ask him to produce from the bare soil when the necessary facilities are not present, he is not going to be successful, particularly in the western areas of this State.

Mr. Brand: Are you opposing the Bill?

Mr. l)EVRIES: I am not opposing it, but I think the provision of watering facilities should receive the attention of this Government. It is true that our watering facilities in Western Queensland are provided by artesian or sub-artesian waters.

Mr. Brand: You are not suggesting that the Government are not making that provision, are you f

Mr. DEVRIES: I am suggesting that whether we are establishing returned soldiers or civilians on the pastoral lands of Queensland, provision should be made to enable production to take place immediately the person takes up the block of land. I repeat that until the selectors are relieved of the burden imposed by financial houses we cannot have a very prosperous industry and consequently the population will not increase in the surrounding areas.

There is a provision for £5,000 to be advanced to the settler. Let us see what happens to a selector with 20,000 acres on which he has no water. There may be surface water for two or three months in the year, but during dry times that natural surface water dries up. He has to sink an artesian or a sub-artesian bore and, according to the reports the average depth at which the artesian water is obtained is somewhere about 1,500 feet and the sub-artesian water about 600 feet. The cost of sinking such a bore today would be anything up to £2 a foot. If the Government place these men on the land to produce the natural wealth of the State they must be helped to a greater extent than in the past.


At 12.33 p.m.,

The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. Mann, Brisbane) relieved Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Sparkes: You want trust bores. W onld you suggest putting down an artesian bore on 20,000 acres'

lUr. DEVRIES: Why not?

~Ir. Sparkes: Because the cost of putting down a bore on 20,000 acres would be out of all reason.

lUr. DEVRIES: I am surprised at the hon. member for Aubigny's saying that, because the artesian bore could service 100,000 acres. I am not suggesting that an artesian bore should be put down on every selection.

Mr. Sparkes: What you want is trust bores.

Mr. DEVRIES: There are not many trust bores. Where natural watering facilities do not exist then I say the responsibility should not be thrown on the selector entirely to provide watering facilities. In other words, I believe the financial assistance that could be given to those people should be more generous. If money is going to be cheap and water can be provided for those people, then I say why should not the Government take control of watering facilities' You are going to settle your rural areas by placing men on 300 acres. You are going to give them ready-made farms so that there will be production right from the start. What is wrong with extending the same principle to the pastoral lands1 Men who have been on pastoral lands for some years may be in the position that under existing circumstances their holdings cannot be defined as reasonable living areas. Six and a-half million acres of land are being resumed by the Crown and the Opposition argue that the whole of that should be made available for the settlement of returned soldiers exclusively, but what about the man who has not and who it can be proved has not a reasonable living area~

Mr. Brand: Who told you the Opposition said that' The Leader of the Opposition did not.

lUr. DEVRIES: Provision has to be made not only for ex-servicemen but for existing selectors. The Minister, in his wisdom, has agreed to apportion 50 per rent. of the resumed country for the exclusive settlement of returned soldiers. The other 50 per cent. is to be made availRble for additional areas. I am concerned with the watering facilities in Western Queensland.

Many of these properties' today are obliged to draw their water snpplies from the adjoining big pastoral companies, and many of them pay a fairly high water rental each year. It may be a~ked, why should the holder not sink a bore of his own, but I would point out that the sinkin~ of an artesian bore is in my opinion beyond the financial capacity of the average small selector, and consequently in a dry period he is forced to cart his water

either by motor truck or horse-drawn vehicle. I am appealing to the Minister to consider the question of providing water facilities for men on the land and particularly for the returned soldier who takes up land, otherwise soldier settlement on the pastoral area is doomed to failure. Give him the wherewithal to produce and give him water, even if the finance to provide the water has to be supplied free of interest. What is wrong with thaU Time was when certain money was made available for ringbarking on station properties free of interest. That is not so now in the pastoral districts of Queensland. It may be argued that I should not be pushing the barrow of the selector to that extent but the success of the inland communities depends entirely on the successful conduct of the pastoral industry. Consequently the greater security given to these people the greater will be the prosperity of those who depend on them for the wherewithal to live. I hope the interest of those people already successfully ~sta~lished on the land, and who under certam cucumstances may consider their areas are not reasonable living areas, will receive as much consideration as the returned soldier. After all what would be the good of disturbing th~ successful man to put on a ma'n _w~o would have to be tried f I suggest the Mmister give some attention to that aspect of the matter. In other words, the fina'ncial position that exists in the pastoral industry today will destroy the settlemept sch?me . for the soldier unless some defimte achon Is taken and the only action that can be taken ~s for the Government to take a greater gnp on the industry and implement to a big extent the principle of socialisation.

Mr. O'SHEA (Warrego) (12.39 p.m.): This Bill provides for soldier settlement •. so far as I can see, in two different categones. There seems to be some confusion as to . the intention of the Bill. Primarily it provides for the settlement of soldiers on agricultural or farming areas, and secondly for a v~ry generous preference to soldiers in grazmg areas. Some people appear to be unable. to distinguish between the two fields in which this Bill is intended to operate.

The grazier from Sandgate, _for instance, shows his confusion by speakmg about a limitation of 5 000 acres. That is not the intention of the'Department of Public Lands, of the Minister, or of the Governmep.t. I think the Opposition will at least give us credit for realising that in . some parts . of the country it would ~e simply courtmg disaster to settle a soldier on 5.000 acres. The Minister has told us quite nlainly that in the grazing districts bl~cks will ~e designed according to the ca:rymg capaci_ty. o~ t~e land. For instance, m the Goonihwmdi. ~Istrict 5 000 acres might be a reasonable hvmg area: At Welltown, which is one of the best properties in South-West Queensland, a number of men make an excellent living on 7 000 and 8 000 acres. When you go further s~uth-west down round Wyandra, it is necessary on ~ertain properties to hove .a much bigger area. The hon. member for Isis knows Clnverton and he will realisp that a man might make a reasonable living on 15,00()


acres but when we go 100 miles from there it is possible that a man would need 100,000 acres.

Mr. Sparkes: How many sheep would you carry on 15,000 acres at Claverton year in and year ouU

}lr. O'SHEA: About 5,000 sheep. The Department of Publie Lands estimates the carrying capacity of that area at one sheep to three acres. The hon. member for Aubigny knows, too, that the seleetor does not always :restrict his flock to the carrying capacity estimated by the Department of Public Lands.

Mr. Sparkes: He may get into trouble if he tries to carry more.

]fr. O'SHEA: They often get into trouble.

As far as I can see, the Bill not only gives returned soldiers exclusive preference to 50 per cent. of the land but also gives them a substantial preference in the second ballot.

Mr. Brand: It gives them equal rights with others.

Mr. O'SHEA: And I think that might be assessed at round about 25 per cent., thus giving them a total preference of 75 per cent. Actually this Bill does make for successful settlement whereas attempts by previous Governments have not been successful. We cannot lose sight of the fact that it is necessary in the interests of the State to have on the land men who will be successful.

The Leader of the Opposition suggested that the prospective settler should have some training on the farms that are to be acquired. Perhaps he means that he should be asked to do 4 or 5 miles of fencing. From what I know of fencing I can say that all that is required is that he should be broad and strong and big in the forehead. Perhaps it will be suggested, too, that if we are to educate prospective settlers some lessons in tanksinking might be a valuable aid.

Mr. Sparkes: They should know how a tank should be sunk.

Illr. O'SHEA: I am coming to that. He will require an expert to teach him how to put down a tank, but I think it would be better if he employed a contractor to put down the ·f.ank for him and forgot about doing it himself.

I have heard no criticism, either from hon. members opposite or anyone else, of the committee that has been set up by the department to deal with these matters. This is one of the finest attempts ever made in connection with soldier settlement, because the committee comprises soldiers themselves and they should be in a position to make helpful recommendations to the Government.

I have no desire to rake up the old skeleton of the Beerburrum soldier settlement, but I think I should make passing reference to some of the soldier settlements in the South. Not one ~oldiPr settlement in the whole of New South Wales after the 1914-1918 war was a success. It was not because the men

were unsuitable, but because of the high price at which the land was acquired. The land· was over-capitalised, and the men had no chance of carrying on successfully. That will not happen here. The Government took the timely action of freezing certain pastoral areas at certain values, and so prevented inflation and exploitation. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that there has been some confusion about rentals and interest payments, but the trouble was that these interest payments were immediately placed upon the shoulders of the soldier settler, and as thB land was acquired at a price that was too high, he had no chance of making a success. That did not happen in Queensland. There is still going to be a great deal of heart-burning about this matter, and it will have to be admitted that you are not going to have 100 per cent. efficiency amongst the settlers in the pastoral areas. When we set ont to train soldier settlers we shall find that many of these trainees will not be so eager to go on the land after they have had five or six years' experience as station hands or in some other calling associated with the western paEtoral lands. We must realise that no matter what we may do in cennection with grazing holdings and grazing selections, the area set aside for each selector must be sufficient to enable him to make a living. We must see to it that the settler has a sufficient area because if we do, even though he may not have had the experience of a finished settler, he will in time make a success of it. He will get generous assistance from those who do know something about it.

One of the tragedies in settling men out in the far-flung areas of this State, which is essentially a wealthy man's country, is that the individual settler cannot make a success of his business unless he is equipped with the necessary capital. He must find means to raise the capital required. \Vhat do we find is the position todayf A man who has to go out on some of the areas that have been held by the cattle kings of this State for almost a century is immediately compelled to spend £70 or £80 a mile on fencing his area. He will be unable to do that unless he has sufficient capital although he may get generous assistance under normal conditions, particularly when material becomes available for the purpose, to make his country dingo-proof. We have had instances of men who have settled in pastoral areas on 30,000 or 40,000 acres, particularly in the Quilpie district. They have battled along for the last 35 years and like Micawber and his wife are still hanging on, hoping that something will turn up. Some of those men have not earned the equivalent of the basic wage over the last 25 years.

I am very pleased with this Bill because I believe it will do all the things expected by the people who are vitally interested in land settlement. It has visualised a very liberal settlement of soldiers on land that has been proved. The Government have been wise to make sure :fir~t of all that the areas selected for settlement are true farming areas. We know the good side of the pastoral areas, and we know the uncertainty of the life of


aettlers, but the attitude taken up by the :Minister has certainly provided the :first safety valve that has ever ooen applied te land-settlement in farming areas.

We face another difficulty, however. We cannot be satisfied that when the men are settled on farms everything in the garden is going to be lovely. We shall have to consider such matters as the marketing of the produce from those farms. This has nothing to do with this Bill, but it is one of the factors that have to be taken into consideration.

Some of the arguments I have heard advanced have centred principally round the question of farming alone. Mention has been made of the 6,500,000 acres that are becoming available now and the other 6,500,000 acres that will be available within the next three or four years. There seems to be an endeavour to scare the Govern-

ment Party, particularly Western members, on the question how this land is going to be settled. What is proposed by the Government in that regard f I think a very generous proposal is one that leaves the private citizen free to compete in ballots. I take it that if there is an insufficient number of soldiers to take up all the land that will be available, it will be necessary to make some alteration in regard to the settlement of that land out in the back country.

I spoke recently concerning the ravages of pests and so forth that the settlers had to contend with. I repeat that while this Bill provides for the settlement of these people on the land, there is something else that has to be considered; and later on I hope the Minister, under the Stock Routes Improvement and Animal and Vegetable Pests Destruction Acts, will take, the necessary measures to protect the people who will be settled on these lands from the ravages of the dingoes and other pests that the cattle kings and others have allowed to multiply.

At 2.15 p.m.,

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the chair.

Mr. MORRIS (Enoggera) (2.15 p.m.) : I and the party to which I belong have studied this Bill with very great interest and in all sincerity because we believe it. will do much to help returned servicemen in settling on the land. It is a Bill with which in the main we agree because it does at least repre· sent some concrete effort to settle returned soldiers on the land. However, we believe also that the Bill can be improved considerably and to that end we have prepared certain amendments, which we will present at the correct time.

Speaking generally, I should say from a quick reading of the Bill that one fault that presents itself is that I do not think the pro· vision regarding the :five-year period is so worded that it completely covers members of the forces who perhaps have been s•erving for five or six yea'rs since 1939 and have now decided to join the occupational force in .Japan.

Mr. J ones: Definitely they are covered by the Bill.

Mr. MORRIS: If I remember rightly, the wording of the Bill would indicate that a man who has been in the forces is deemed to have been discharged from those forces when he ceases to be on war service. I rather doubt whether technically members of the occupational force are deemed to be on war service, but even if they are deemed to be on war service at the moment-and I am open to conviction on that point-in three or four months they may be deemed not to be on war service. According to my readinl!: of that provision they then must be deemed to have been discharged from the forces.

Mr. Jones: The biggest percentage of the applications were received from men while they were on war service.

Mr. MORRIS: Then the provisions of the Bill will not cover them for five years-for the period following the time they do actually leave those forces and re-enter civil life. I will present an amendment that I think wfll cover the position much better than it is covered by the provision in the Bill at present. It will make very clear to everybody who may read it a provision that I believe from the interjection of the Minister he desires to have in the Bill.

Mr. Jones: Do you suggest that a man who has just enlisted should be eligible!

Mr. MORRIS: I think I have made myself very clear on the point. I am suggesting that any man who has been on war service and in the forces for some years, and who has voluntarily gone to Japan in the occupational force, and who probably will be there for two, two and a half or three years, should not be disqualified from benefiting.

Mr. Jones: Nor is he.

Mr. MORRIS: He should not be disqualified from benefiting under this Act for the period of five years after he leaves the service. It may be quite clear. I do not think it is and I am quite at liberty to say here and now in this Assembly where I think faults lie in the Bill. I am going to claim that privilege on every occasion that I desire to speak.

IIIr. Jones: You ought to have a good reason because what you are talking about is contained in the Bill.

Mr. MORRIS: I am just as capable of reading a Bill as the Minister and I fully expect that inside 12 months I shall have the opportunity of showing him how to present a Bill very much better than he does. I have pointed out one of the faults, which I think is contained in this Bill and I hope it will be overcome.

There is provision in this measure for the appointment of classification committees.

One has already been appointed and we are informed by the Minister that the three members of that committee are returned soldiers. I am very happy to hear that, but I notice that it is specified in the Bill that at least one member of these committees must be a returned soldier. That, I assume--and I think I am entitled to assume-ae.know-


ledges the fact that there is need for a returned soldier on the committee and, further, it acknowledges that there is a need for the outlook of a returned soldier on the committee. No matter how sincere at heart a man may be who has not experienced war service--and I am not at the moment questioning the sincerity of such a man-I do not believe that the men sitting on such a committee would have the knowledge and the understanding to work on that committee that would be most suitable from the point of view of the returned soldier unless they themselves were returne-d soldiers. The Government acknowledge this principle in part at least because they specify that one member has to be a returned soldier and I hope that the Government will accept the amendment we ask for.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member is not entitled to introduce a question of amendments on the second reading.

lllr. MORRIS: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I did not realise that I was getting on to an amendment of the Bill. I hope the Government will acknowledge that the prin· ciple of having returned soldiers on these committees is desirable, and when the matter arises in Committee I will go into it in more detail.

There is a third principle with which I do not altogether agree. It deals with the transfer of property. If my memory serves me rightly, I understand that a property cannot be transferred from a returned soldier to another civilian inside a period of 10 years. That is likely to inflict a grave hardship on certain men who may desire to transfer. For instance, a returned soldier may have been fortunate enough to obtain one of these properties and after five, six, or seven years, because of health or innumerable other reasons, it may be impossible for him to carry on on his property.

Mr. HHton: The Bill makes provision to meet a case like that.

lUr. MORRIS: The Bill provides that if he is unable to carry on he may get permission from the Minister on the certificate of the Land Court to transfer that property to another eligible person, that is, a pe-rson eligible under the Act. There may not be any persons eligible under the Act who desire to take ove-r that property, in which case that man may be called on to suffer grave disabilities because he is not able to ''get out from under'' and sell his property or transfer it-whatever you will-without losing the money he has put into it. If the conditions, personal and private, are bad enough he may be forced to walk off his property because there is not an eligible person to take it over. There again I do not think that that intention is in the Bill at all, but I think it is possible for nu DmPnoment to be framed that will cover that difficulty.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! If the hon. member will keep on bringing up the question of amendments on the second rPading I shall l1ave to aRk him to resume his seat.

Mr. MORRIS: I did not say that I forecast an amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member was talking about an amendment.

Mr. MORRIS: Very well, I will again bow to your ruling. There is another aspect of the Bill that I do not think is suitable or wise.

There is a clause in the Bill whereby it is possible for the bank to cancel all or part of the sum advanced to the settler, and the authority for the cancellation of all or part of that loan is the bank. There is also a clause whereby the bank may, if it believes that the money has not been used for the purpose for which it has been obtained, cancel the balance of the loan. That is a grave fault in the Bill. I do not think this is a power that should be in the hands of the bank. I believe this power should be vested only in the Minister himself. I base my argument on the fact that the Minister will be entirely responsible for the cancellation or withdrawal of that loan and because of that fact he will, in order to protect himself, obtain all the information he ca'n possibly get on the case. He is then directly responsible for its cancellation or withdrawal. That power should be vested in the Minister only and not in the management of the bank, and I sincerely hope that clause will not remain, because it is a very dangerous principle to embody in a Bill of this kind.

I said at the outset that I had studied this Bill with sincerity and with purpose. The purpose is a desire to see that any legislation that goes through this House is made such as is good for the community, a'nd for the people for whom we are now legislating. I a·m now and always have been very sincere about legislation of this type in this Parliament.

I wish now to refer to certain remarks that were made by the Minister. He referred to members of the Queensland People's Party and said that we put ourselves up as superpatriots, that we had very little regard for returned ·soldier settlers.

Mr. Jones: I did not say that at all!

Mr. lliORRIS: He said that the returned soldiers were being used a's pawns in the game of politics. When he was introducing the Bill I went down to the table so that I could hear every word and those are the words I heard. I know those are the words that were spoken.

Mr. Jones: I withdraw nothing that I have said.

~Ir. MORRIS: Following upon that, there were certain interjections by the hon. member for Nundah and the hon. member for Merthyr, and I resent those ·words with every fibre of my being. It was suggested that all we were doing with regard to the rrturned soldiers was obtaining an election move and eleeti0u cry. Those words are absolutely untrue, and I throw the lie in the teeth of tl1e men who uttered them.

War Service Lanil [4 APRIL.] Settlement Bill. 2289

Mr. Jones: You accused the Government of doing nothin~r; what are you talking abouU

.Mr. MORRIS: I will not be side-tracked by any interjection whatsoever. These statements that have been made a'nd to which I have referred are foul lies.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I am not going to allow any hon. member to indulge in p"lrsonalities. I have given the hon. member for Enoggera ample latitude to reply to the remarks of the Secretary for Public Lands.

1\'Ir. Pie: Who started it?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member for "'\Vindsor interjects, "Who started it~"

Mr. Pie: Yes.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have a pretty fair idea of the proceedings and this is not going to continue.

Mr. MORRIS: I am not introducing any new matter into the debate; I am only replying to statements made in this Chamber which I heard. As I said before, they are foul lies and I here refute them absolutely ann utterly not only for myself but for every member of my party.

Mr. MOO RE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Enoggera has; introduced my name into this <lebate and he used the phrase ''foul lies.'' I siloul<i like to repBat the interjection tha't I made, which is true, and that is that my opponent at the last elections, a member of the Queensland People's Party, did accuse the Labour Party of having no interest whatever in returned soldiers.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. mBmber for Enoggera will have to accept the a'ssurance of the hon. member for Merthyr. I have given the hon. member for Enoggera very wide latitude. I want this debate to be conducted on propBr lines. I want to give every hon. member a chance to reply, within reason, to anything that may have been s•aid, but I am not going to allow any hon. member to disrupt the proceBdings and cause uproar in this Assembly.

Mr. W ALSH: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for :Elnoggera has made the statement that statements by hon. membBrs on this side of thB House were foul lies. I ask whether that is parliamentary, and if not that it be withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Enoggera: must withdraw that statement. It is unparliamentary.

.Mr. MORRIS: Ever since I havB beBn an hon. mBmber of this House--

Mr. SPEAKER: OrdBr! The hon. member will withdraw that statement.

Mr. MORRIS: I am unable to withdraw the statement because I 'believe it.

.Mr. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member for the third time to withdraw the statement. As he does not do so, I have no alternative but to' name him for disregarding the authority of the Chair.

lUr. Pie: He cannot hear you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr • .MORRIS: I won't withdraw it.

SUSPENSION OF MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have to report that I have named the hon. member for Enoggera for disregarding the authority of the Chair.

Hon. E. M. HANLON (Ithaca-Premier) (2.34 p.m.): I suggest to the hon. mBmber for Enoggera that he accept the authority of the Chair. We spent a long and trying day here yesterday during which hon. members expressed the opinion that the authority of the Chair must be upheld. Several hon. members pointed out yesterday that occasions occur when rightly or wrongly a·n hon. member will resist what h€ considers to be an injustice to himself, but all hon. members deprecated any attempt to resist the authority of the Chair. I ask the hon. member for Enoggera to maintain the discipline that we were all talking about yesterday.

.Mr. MORRIS: Mr. Speaker, no member in this House has more desire to uphold the dignity of the Chamber than I have. I have always desired to be sincere in this House also, but I am afraid I cannot sacrifice my sincerity of purpose for a rule in this particular instance.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

.Mr. JUORRIS: I do appreciate the courtesy which you have extended to me but I must be sincere before anything Blse.

Hon. E • .M. HANLON (Ithaca-Premier) (2.36 p.m.): I have no alternative but to move-

'' That the· hon. member for Enoggera be suspended from the service of the House for one week from today.''

JUr. PIE: Mr. Speaker,-

JUr. SPEAKER: Order! Motion (Mr. Hanlon) agreed to.


SECOND READING--RESUMPTION OF DEBATE.

Mr. BRAND (Isis) (2.37 p.m.) : The Bill we are discussing is one for the purpose of helping returned soldiers to rehabilitate themselves in civil life and to take up life on the land in a manner in which they can make a reasonable livelihood. There has been a general clamour throughout the _whole country in the last three years, and m the legislative halls of our State, that those who were fighting the battles of freedom for this country should receive something worthy of them on their return. I believe that at long last the Government have responded te

2290 War Service Land [ASSEMBLY.] Settlement BiU.

that eall and are endeavouring to do something that will be fitting for them. The Opposition have been very loud in their claims to the Government that something should be done for returned soldiers. We even moved in certain legislation that preference should be given to returned men. Since the Government have recognised that we have a duty in this respect-the Opposition must accept its responsibilities in the difficulties that may confront the Minister in charge of Government policy in the settlement of returned soldiers in Queensland.

The Minister indicated in the course of his second-reading speech when dealing with the principles of thi~ Bill th;at he ~oes rec~gnise the difficulties assocmted wrth soldrer settlement. I believe he recognises too that a measure of this kind cannot alone be introduced as a one-party measure, that all parties must give of their best in an endeavour to make settlement of returned soldiers successful far different from what befell it after wo'rld War I. In that respect we are under an obligation to help the Mini~ter. As an Opposition we will do everythmg to help him. Our criticism may be based on a fact that he feels himself, that i~, that we a_re not getting along fast enough m the settlmg of these men who have come back.

But perhaps it is beyond the cap~city of the Minister, because of lack of essent~al manpower and materials, to car:y out ~his gre~t task. The Minister has given evidence In the Bills he has submitted that he does appreciate the difficulty that surrounds t~e settlement of soldiers in industries that :Will provide a profitable return to them. I b_eheve the Minister has given very careful consideration to the settlement of our men on the land so that a reasonable measure of success will result from their labours.

We have to realise that our industries must be protected. We are living in a time when Commonwealth legislation has a restrictive effect on the acts of State Governments and on the activities of private citizens; and we have to subscribe to what the Commonwealth Government are doing in this respect. We all recognise that the Commonwealth Government are mainly responsible for the rehabilitation of returning servicemen, because defence is a measure that is within Commonwealth jurisdiction. I think it is to the credit of the Queensland Parliament that the Government of the day found it necessary to supplement the legislation passed by the Commonwealth Government, and to make more liberal allowances and advances for the settlement of our returning serviceiPen. After all, there are many ways in which returning soldiers can be settled in civn life; there are many other avenues in which they can be settled than on the land.

Having followed the campaign for more action to settle returned servicemen, I must commend the Minister for the action he has taken in regard to making provision for the settlement of soldiers in the industry so that there will not be a breakdown in the econorr.ic W"elfare of that indnstry. I should like to say that the Minister, who was approacheq

on the matter by the Returned Soldiers' League, has been instrumental in having a royal commission appointed to inquire into the possibility of settling soldiers in the sugar industry.

Mr: Walsb: The sugar industry organisations have some interest in that too.

Mr. BRAND: Definitely. }fr. Walsh: Why do you not give them

the crediH

1Ur. BRAND: I think it is my duty, knowing what has taken place, to pay a tribute to the Secretary for Public Lands tecause I know he dealt with the request and obtained Cabinet approval to it. He already had the assurances of the sugar industry, which were given after the rank and file conferences of those organisations, and they favoured the appointment of a royal commissiOn to inquire into th·e possibility of such settlement. Some people seem to think that ~he matt~r o~ settling soldiers in the sugar mdustry IS qmte an easy one. It is a difficult one because we have to take into consideration the economic position of that as of every other industry in which settlement takes place. I b~lieve that something may result from the find mgs of the royal commission that is now hearing evidence in the sugar industry. There are other industries too that the Minister has been particularly interested in, but he has been very careful not to overload any industry and run the risk of causing an economic breakdown in it.

VV: e can refer to many industries in which soldiers could settle, but I think there are on~ or two such industries in Queensland in which we could settle men without affecting the economic conditions obtaining in them. The beef-cattle industry is one.

I sh_o~ld like to make a few suggestions to the Mmister because I believe it is necessary that in any industry where we can settie soldiers. and. _others without affecting the economic position of that industry we should do our best to see that land is made available so that successful settlement can take pl~ce: The Minis~er, when outlining the prmciples of the Bill, made it clear that in the pastoral industry, whether in respect of be~f-ca~tle or sheep-ra~si:rg, he was not gomg m any way to hiPit holdings to an area that would be unprofitable for the man who went on that land. That is a commendable spirit and it is evidence that the Government are taking stock of the failures that occurred in the past and that they are willing to try to correct them. From 'the experience we have 1mined it is proposed that we should rectify the position and see that men settled on the land are srttlei! satisfactorily.

Another claim that has been made is that when land settlement takes place for the betterment of returned soldier~ thev should not IJe placed in settlements on their own, but shonld he miw0 with or0inarv settlers, surrounded by other exprriencrd settlers who may help them in their endeavours to make a worthy liwlihooil. T believe th1t such a policy will be mo~t RlW"e~ofnl rnrl it is provided in this measure, thflt whrre Crown lands

War Service Land [4 .Al>lm..] Settlement Bill. 2291

are available it is the intention to allot 50 per cent. of those lands in priority to returned soldiers while the other 50 per cent. will be open to the general public, including returned soldiers. As a result we may have settlements throughout the country where experienced men in particular industries will be able to assist returned soldiers in their earlier life on the land. That is something that is very necessary and of real advantage.

I believe we have reached the stage in the beef cattle industry where we can ill afford to have any further lands producing beef cut up for other rural industries. It is possible that there are some areas in some settled communities where mixed agriculture or dairying would be an advantage, but, generally speaking, it would be wise for the Government to see that as far as possible our grazing areas are not reduced. There is a need in this country to produce sufficient beef for the people of the continent. In 1926, the then Labour Government recognised their duty to the Australian nation to see that Queensland should continue to produce sufficient beef for the requirements of Australia and a royal commission was appointed to inquire into the industry. It is a very great mdustry. The results of that inquiry have since been embodied in legislation. As members of this Assembly we have to exercise great care to see that we do not lose our herds of beef cattle because the people need good beef. I feel that the Minister should recognise that this industry must remain and continue to produce sufficient beef of good quality to meet the needs of the people of Queensland and Australia.

At the present time our meat production is only sufficient for Australia, with 20 per cent. only for export. In other words, of the total production we are exporting only 20 per cent. It means that if there is an addition to our population of about 1,500,000 no beef will be available for export because Australia will require the whole of the production. This industry has to be benefited, and I think the Minister recognises that. It is an industry in which large areas may be cut up for the same purpose, that of cattleraising, without detriment to the economic conditions of that industry. I understand that the hon. gentleman has takrn an interest in the Mt. Auburn lands, and has them in train for early settlement under this Bill, and in that respect the addition of new settl~;rs, returned soldiers at that, into the industry will not in any way incrrase productivity o.f beef or lower the standards of living of thosl' already in the industry. The Minister should give early consideration to the position as it affects this great industry. The Minister will agree that action has been taken, that on the recommendation of land commissioners land, principally l:md vrowing bref cattle, has been frozen. These lands have been "flagged" for some 12 months or 18 months, and whilst I have no obiection to the Minister's freezing or ''flagging'' land for the purpose of determining its qualifications for the settlement of returned soldirrs, there is an obligation on him not to cause any great disturbance in the existing industry.

If it is necessary to flag these holdings, it is obligatory on him to appoint a commission immediately to inquire into these lands to see whether they are suitable for the purpose.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member is getting away from the principles of this Bill. There is nothing in this Bill about lands being frozen.

Mr. BRAND: It is in the settlement of land. The Bill deals with the settlement of the lands that have been frozen.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. BRAND: It sets out the means by which these lands will be settled. We know that lands have been frozen by direction of the Minister and much of this land will not be of any use for the purpose that this Bill proposes. I ask the Minister to recognise that point.

Mr. Hilton: How do you know they will not be suitable f

Mr. BRAND: I have a fair knowledge of the land myself and I know that even the hon. member, without that knowledge, wou1cl not place a returned soldier on that land. The Minister knows that lands have been frozen that will not be acceptable for the purpose of placing returned servicemen. He has already stated in this House that he proposes to see that good lands are provided 'f{lr the settlement of returned soldiers. ·

Mr. Hilton: We all know that. Mr. Jones: Much of that land will be

unfrozen at a very early date.

.Mr. BRAND: I am very pleased to hear that.

.Mr. Jones: Anything that is unsuitable for settlement.

Mr. BRAND: Exactly. We have an obligation to see that these lands are nnfrozen ~ecause the freezing of them is disturbing an mdustry that should not be disturbed.

When he is unfreezing this land the Minister should consider those engaged in the beef-cattle industry who have rendered excellent service to both the industry and the State.. Perhaps I can quote no better example of this t~an the hon. member for Aubigny, who, of his area of 15,000 acres has ntilised 1,000 acres for the purpose of growing fodder for his stock. I think the Minister will have to give consideration to opening up lands that may be used in this way so that the industry might be enabled to fatten stock continuously throughout the year. The :industry's greatest drawback is that it is seasonal, that in certain months of the year it Cannot produce enouf!h fat stock to mRintain a continuous export trade. For that reason, steps must be taken to fntten beef cattle on sown pastures and the hon. mPmber for Aubigny has provided an exc<'llent example of whRt can be done in thi• r1irection. He has shown whRt forwarrt st<''"'R can be taken to the adv:mtaP"e of ret•uned soldiers. He has a stud of 2,000, whirh has

2292 War Service Land [ASSEMBLY.:. Settlement Bill.

served an extremely useful purpose in our community and he is able to fatten stock all the year round. The Minister would be well advised to make a personal inspection of his property with a view to encouraging this practice in the settlement of returned soldiers.

It is only reasonable to assume that a Minister who introduces a Bill such as this is anxious to achieve success. It was certainly not to the credit of those who were in charge of affairs at the end of World War I. that the calamities we remember only too well occurred. The present Minister is moving along the right lines in his endeavours to make the settlement that weuld take place under this Bill successful. I know that it is difficult to obtain qualified surveyors at the moment, but I suggest that he might overcome the initial difficulty by designing land and allowing the men to taH:e up occupation now, leaving the survey until later. These are times when we must take extraordinary measures. The method I have suggested was successful in the olden days and we should be able to design certain lands now for the purpose of allowing young men to go on their holdings and get to work almost immediately.

Mr. Walsh: That will be very difficult without a traverse.

)fr. BRAND: There are plenty of men who with a small compass could run a trave_rse quite satisfactorily and very near .to the !me that would be made by the expenenc~d su:veyor. I am speaking now of pnsmatlC surveys. The Minister for Transport knows that prismatic surveys have been used extensively in the sugar industry and that they are very reliable too. He knows as well that the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board has accepted prismatic surveys as being sufficient for purposes of cane assignments. We shall have to do something extraordinary. There are excellent men waiting to go on the land. The Minister told us that there were many experienced men anxious to take up these blocks so let us get on with the job. If we ar~ to be held up for all time through lack of surveyors we are not likely to get on with the job at all. We can get over the difficulty satisfactorily to a great extent by having prismatic surveys carried out by men who are not surveyors. Indeed, they could be carried out by returned soldiers who have made prismatic surveys throughout the war.

Mr. Walsh: Are they going to put their fences on a traverse line~

lUr. BRAND: The Minister knows something about traverse lines.

Mr. Walsh: So does Mr. Payne.

Mr. BRAND: I am not going to buy into that argument. I want to approach this subject with the sincerity that has been displayed by the Minis,ter in charge of the Bill. He gave us a great deal of information concerning his proposals but I do not think that he iB bevonil accepting advice from hon. members on this side that will quicken settlement in the interests of the men who have

finished their war service and are now eager to take up civil life again. That is the object of the measure.

The Minister will be doing something of value for th'Ose who will settle under the Bill if he makes a survey of the economics a8Bociated with the industry in which they will engage. He has indicated in respect of one industry that he is not going to be stampeded in placing returned soldiers on the land and thereby perhaps drag down the entire industry to an uneconomic level. I refer now to the sugar industry. He has given proof of that by his actions over the past 18 months and this Bill is proof of his determination not to be stampeded into settling them on areas that are too small so that they would ultimately become a liability on the State. It has been the complaint of hon. members on this side for years that the areas offered for settlement have been too small.

The proposal to increase the area of agricultural farms to 5,000 acres is a good one. I had almost despaired of such a liberal land law emanating from a Labour Party. However, the Minister has convinced his party of the wisdom of it and there is no doubt that it will be of advantage to successful settlement in Queensland in the years to come.

He is laying down some definite policy for the future of land settlement. The Bill will be looked on as an excellent measure for successful settlement in the future. I commend the Bill. It will be one worthy of a Parliament that is endeavouring to do something for men who have fought for the preservation of this country, and one which when put into operation, which will be almost immediately, will be the means of relieving the strain on returned servicemen, who are almost despairing of ever being settled on the land.

lUr. HILTON (Carnarvon) (3.6 p.m.) : It is very refreshing and very encouraging to see the favourable reception accorded to this Bill by thinking hon. members. It is the last Bill designed to implement the whole scheme of soldier settlement. I realise that a certain amount of confusion has arisen regarding soldier settlement because of the various schemes that have been proposed. Most of that confusion has arisen because of the uninformed comment that has been made by certain members of the Opposition, particularly members of the Queensland People's Party, who in the initial stages of this Bill put up a lot of Aunt Sallies to talk about. As a result some erroneous information has gone forth to the public.

Mr. Decker: That is absolutely incorrect.

Mr. HILT ON: Anyone who has listened to the debate or has read the papers must realise the :;bsolute truth of my statement.

I realise also that because of the various schemes designed to assist returned servicemen to go back to a life on the land it is necessary that an informative booklet should be prepared setting out the various schemes, including their purpose and limitation. That booklet should be circulated among all ex-servicemen as speedily as possible. AA

War Service Land [4 APRIL.) Settlement Bill. 2293

soon as that complete information is compiled I am sure that the Press will willingly assist in disseminating it throughout the length and breadth of the State.

At present there are five schemes whereby ex-servicemen can be assisted to go on the land. First of all, we have the grazing selections that are now in the process of being surveyed. Under that seheme absolute priority will be given to ex-servicemen in respect of 50 per cent. of the area reverting to the Crown. Then we have the assisted scheme under the auspices of the Agricultural Bank brought about by the legislation passed earlier in the session. We then have the. Commonwealth's rehabilitation scheme for men who were engaged in primary industry prior to enlistment. That by the good grace of the Government is being administered by the Agricultural Bank. In addition, we have the scheme outlined in the provisions of this Bill that is contained in the CommonwealthStates Agreemmt. In this Bill power is taken for the State to provide for that settlement without due recognition of the provisions of the agreement. I am glad that provision is embraced in the Bill. If circumstances warrant, it will mean that a number of men will be settled much more speedily than under the Commonwealth-States scheme. However, there is a definite principle underlying all these schemes. Each has its own peculiar function and I do urge on the Minister to clarify the whole position by issuing a comprehensive statement outlining all its aspects and embracing, if possible, the area of land to be made available, the approximate location of that land, and all the conditions appertaining thereto.

I know that it will not be possible to give all that information at the present time, but if we can give something approximate it will be helpful to the men who are seeking to go on the land, because they will have some idea how they stand.

Reference has been made during the debate to the matter of settling men in the sugar industry. The hon. member for Isis referred to the bref-cattle industry, and I think there was much merit in some of his arguments. I wish to put forward again a plea for the earnest consideration of the matter of settling men in other forms of primary pursuits. When speaking on the Address in Reply I referred to certain primary industries in which I thought ex-servicemen could be suitably and profitably settled. One was the tobacco industry. I again make the plea that very early consideration be given to the matter of settling men in that industry. I do so for several reasons. First, the amount of land required to settle a man in that industry is very small; 20 acres would be ample for tobacco-growing, although it would be advi~able to give him a few acres :for incidental purposes. Where the land is suitable and where water is available it will be possible to start a man on 50 acres; and tobacco-growing is a very profitable industry indeed. It hns received many setbacks. I was interrded to read comment by the Commonwealth Minister for Agriculture and Commerce, Mr. Scully, during recent months; and

I am now firmly convinced that it is the desire of the Federal Government to foster this very important industry. At the present time Australia grows approximately only onesixth of her tobacco requirements. That being so we can readily see the wonderful scope there is for the expansion of this industry. There a·re suitable areas in northern and southern Queensland, and the industry offers wonderful prospects for the settlement of ex-servicemen.

lllr. Brand: It is under consideration.

Mr. HILT ON: I do not think tobacco land comprises part of the land being surveyed-in the South, not so far. Investigations are being carried out with the object of finding suitable land in various parts of the State. We all know that there must be delay because of the shortage of surveyors and assistants. Many areas are listed for consideration. We want to get men on the land as speedily as possible; therefore, let us deal with the smaller areas as early as possible.

Mr. Sparkes: It does not matter how small they are, they would still have to be surveyed.

Mr. HILTON: Yes, but a surveyor and his gang who went on an area of 1,000 acres to cut it up into 50-acre blocks would carry out the task much more quickly than it would take them to survey large areas of pastoral or grazing lands.

lllr. Sparkes: They would not have to bother about water.

Mr. HILTON: That is true. Most of the anas suitable for that industry are adjacent t? pe;-manent ~ater. I do make the suggestion m all senousness to the Minister that action should be taken in the near future for the surveying of suitable lands for settling men in this very important industry.

This Bill, because of its unanimously favourable reception by the House, does not call for much debate. I do wish to touch, however, on a point raised by the hon. member for Enoggera before his unfortunate but nevertheless self-imposed suspension by the House this afternoon. He referred t"o the fact that he disagreed with the principle of a 10-years residential qualification on those blocks, and to the principle that returned men could not, even if given permission by the Minister, for health and other warranted reasons, dispose of their blocks to other than eligible persons. I was a·mazed to hear that comment coming from an hon. member who cla'ims to espouse the policy of preference to returned men.

JUr. P:ie: He does. He has gone through more than you have.

II'Ir. HILTON: I am willing to concede that he has been sincere in his efforts in that direction, but he has either given very little consideration to the matter, or, like the other members of his party in the initial debate on this measure, he has put up a lot of Aunt Sallies for the pmpose of knocking them down and causing confusion.


_-we all know that one of the charges l'arsed by ~any ex-servicemen throughout Queensland m respect of soldier settlement after the last war was that their farms were allowed to drift into the hands of Italians and other foreigners. That is true but I wa'nt to say that most of those blo~ks that eventually fell into the hands of foreigners were blocks that had been abandoned by ex-servicemen for many reasons, and they were open for selection by any citizen of this State. Anyone who minted ·such a block could have selected it under the usual conditions. . I do not see that any policy of preferential trea'tment has been accorded to foreigners in that direction. Definitely, it was not the case. The provisions contained in thi~ Bill in regard to the 10-years residential penod and the fact that if those men desire to dispose of their blocks they cannot do so to other than eligible persons under the terms of this Act are very wise ones indeed.

Mr. Pie: That would apply in the case of returned soldiers.

Mr. HILTON: That is so. I think I can put it this way: from my observations, I think most hon. members will agree that when land settlement for servicemen has been carried out to its limits, there will still be many ex-servicemen whose requirements remain unsatisfied.

Mr. Pie: They might not be eligible six years afterwards.

Mr. HILT ON: The demand will be greater than the supply. I think it would be very unfair that blocks set aside specifically for the settlement of ex-servicemen should be made available to other than those men when the original settlers have to dispose of them.

1\'Ir. Jones: Hear, hear!

Mr. HILT ON: I agree that men who were not able to get a block of land in the first instance should have first preference for any of those blocks. if they are subsequently disposed of.

Mr. Pi.e: Those men may not be eligible six years afterwards.

Mr. HILTON: They will still be eligible. The Minister said this morning that five years after the cessation of hostilities or five years after the date of their discharge, whichever is the later, if they make application to the Department of Public Lands to go on the land, that application will be granted as soon as possible, provided of course that they are successful in the ballot.

Mr. Sparkes: It does not matter if it is 10 or 15 years afterwards.

Mr. HILT ON: It does not matter if it is 10 or 15 years afterwards. I think we can safely say that we shall still have hundreds or thousands of men who desire to go on the land, and I think the principle contained in the Bill is' sound and just. It follows the policy of preference to soldiers in rPgard to land settlement.

I realise that there are many aspects of this important question. At this stage,

no-one can safely predict what the future of the whole scheme will be, but it can be said that so fa'r as we have gone there has been an earnest desire on the part of this Government, the Commonwealth Government, and other Governments, throughout Australia tQ see that the mistakes made after the last war are not repeated on this occasion.

One of the big factors of course is the economic factor. Provision has been made in the legislation for revalution and for writing down before men are finally settled. Valuations will call for a great deal of serious consideration and attention. At the present time there is a very great demand for experienced and competent valuers throughout Queensland and I offer the suggestion that early steps be taken to ensure that sufficient of these men will be available with the necessary knowledge and experience to make reasonable and fair valuations of all these properties, taking all factors into consideration. If that is not done and the valuations are on an unsound basis it spells only disaster for many men who will be settled under this scheme. I hope that the position can be met fairly and squarely and I join with other members in expressing the hope that ·in the near future many men will be happily and satisfaetorily settled on the land under the provisions of this legislation.

Mr. DECKER (Sandgate) (3.22 p.m.) : At the introductory stage I took the opportunity to make suggestions and recommendations. I have now had the opportunity of perusing the Bill and there is very little for me to add. But I must reply to the abusive criticism of the Minister and two members of the Government Party who spoke on this measure this morning. I feel highly flattered that my remarks have been so carefully studied that the Minister has already taken heed of several recommendations I made in this Chamber over the past few years and that are recorded in ' 'Hansard. ' '

Mr. Walsh: There must be something wrong with the Bill then.

Mr. DECKER: I was always outspoken in this Chamber in criticism and I have the right to give my opinion without fear that other opinions may clash with it, and in respect of ready-made farms the Minister this morning agreed with my contention. Another point I made was that this Government must accept their share of responsibility for settling their own returned soldiers on the land.

Mr. Jones: If you were pulling your own leg you would be lop-sided.

Mr. DECKER: As I pointed out, the Commonwealth Government were obstructive in their tactics but today I find that th-e Queensland Government can implement their own schemes independent of any Commonwealth ~chemes. That is a grand idea, and evidently is the outcome of criticism made by me previously. There is now only one point left and that is that in spite of all the Acts that have been passed and the plans that have been made not one soldier in this State is


settled on one foot of land. The Government cannot get away from that bald fact.

Mr. Jones: You said that 18 months ago.

Mr. DECKER: I did, and I said it last week. I now say it again and it should not cause umbrage on the part of the Minister. Surely that is legitimate and fair criticism, particularly as we know that the Cl-overnment were warned so long ago that this would happen unless plans were brought forward to deal with the situation.

Mr. Jones: I take more notice of the farmers on that side of the House than I would of you.

Mr. DECKER: The hon. gentleman took enough notice of me. He spent a-quarter of an hour on me this morning.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I think this is a matter that hon. members can discuss without displaying any heat. I appeal to all hon. members to avoid personalities, which can cause much harm in debate.

Mr. DECKER: I have referred to the steps that have been taken in New Zealand where they foresaw the position we are in today. Through lack of planning in Australia we take a very backward place in connection with soldier settlement when we look at what other countries have done. If we look with pride to Acts that we bring down and think that that will c.lear the situation we are making a wrong approach to soldier settlement.

Mr. Jones: You said that nothing had been done. Three hundred men have been assisted now under the first Agricultural Bank scheme. Why do you not be fair~ That information was given to you in the House.

Mr. DECKER: I have not said in the House that nothing has been done.

Mr. J ones: You have just said it.

Mr. DECKER: I said and I still say that not one soldier has yet been put on one square foot of land in this State.

Mr. Walsh: We can show you 300 who have been assisted through the Agricultural Bank.

l'l!r. DECI{ER: The Minister should not inte.rject to me. He has already put a returned soldier out of the House today.

Mr. Walsh: That is his own fault.

1\Ir. DECKER: You put him out.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I ask the hon. member for Sandgate to address the Clmir. Let me point out that as custodian of the affairs of this House I had to deal with the hon. member for Enoggera for refusing to obey my ruling. That incident is closed.

Mr. DECKER: I agree that the Agricultural Bank has helped to place men on the land, but let me say also that not one of the men who have been helped by that bank received the help without having to dral privately for his land before coming to the

bank for financial assistance. He had to do that because there is no State scheme yet offering to him and I venture to say that even with the passing of this Bill it will be many months before we see any soldier receiving any benefit from it.

I wish to support the remarks of the hon. member for Isis in connection with settl€ment on pastoral leasehold land. I think we have made a wrong approach to that question. The Minister must know, just as we all know, that almost every pastoral holding in this State lms been surveyed.

Mr. Walsh: You do not know anything because no pastoral holding has ever been surveyed. That is all you know.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I ask the hon. gentlemen on my right to allow the hon. member for Sandgate to make his speech. They will have an opportunity to reply.

Mr. DECKER: We know further that most of the State has been aerially surveyed, and we know that if the department is not 'in possession of most of the details required it should be so far as concerns the lands held by the Crown. We know there are plans out for particular areas that require subdivision and, like the hon. member for Isis, I see nothing in the world to prevent our making tentative subdivisions in the office of the department itself and so at least have some chance of going ahead with the scheme.

I believe that we are handicapped, and I believe that the Minister has not been open enough in telling this House what his troubles really are. I do not think that surveyors are his real trouble. I think his trouble lies more in the fact that some imposition may have been put on the State by the Commonwealth Government, and it is up to the Minister to let us know whether our surmise in that direction is correct. If we have to submit everv block of land to the Commonwealth Government for approval before this scheme can operate, and if we have- to make subdivisions under the Act according to the Commonwealth Government's ruling and have every area properly surveyed, then we are being delayed through no fault of the State Government.

Mr. Jones: We do not have to submit pastoral holdings to the Commonwealt1J Government.

Mr. DECKER: If the Government have not to submit subdivisional plans of the areas, then it is time we went about the matter in a businesslike way. Why not get right on the job and do it :1~ ordinary business people~ With the advantage the department has in the information available to it I do not think tl1ere is anything to prevent us from going ahead with the job and 'nbdividing in the meantime on plans.

If he wants to go further there is nothing to prevent him from sending out inspectors with a subdivisional plan to see where the water facilities could be provided. I venture to say that if the plan was marked with prismatic bearings the serviceman could settle his line and determine where the fence


was to be. There are many men in the various districts apart from the returned soldiers who can use the prismatic compa'ss and so determine roughly where the fences should be. These lines could be laid down roughly on a plan already in existence and later on adjustments could be made when a proper survey was carried out. That would give the settler a chance of getting on with the job. There is no real justification for the present dela'y and we should be able to go ahead much faster than we have done.

It is no credit to the Government to say that they have not reached the stage when the blocks are ready for ballot. It all hinges on that. It has been said that perhaps the settlement will take place in 1947, but the war has been over now for many mouths and we have only ourselves to blame if we do not criticise the Government for their laxity. No-one in the House would urge that there should be undue haste in this connection, but we know that public pressure eau be brought to bear on the Government with dire results if they allowed themselves to be forced when they were not prepared to go on with ~ plan. Do not forget that public pressure IS brought about through lack of planning on the part of the Government. It happened after the 1918 war and it is happening again now.

Mr. Jones: The returned soldiers' organisations appreciate the difficulties.

Mr. DECKER: Perhaps we could appreciate the difficulties too if we knew what they were. I venture to say that they have not been made known to the House. I think that many of the difficulties could be overcome by a little determination and better management. The Minister is in a position tod::-y to_ make a name for himself if he only avails himself of the opportunities that present themselves and if he has the business ability, which I hope he has, to bring pressure to bear to get things moving. I shall be behind h~m au.d will giv~ him all the help that I can m this connection. However, if he has no plan and there is no action we have the right to criticise the Government to_ ~I:e full.est e:ctent in the hope that our cntrCism Will brmg some action.

There is also trouble in connection with the areas that have been frozen. The owners were served with notices as far back as May l~st year but since then the grass has been literally trampled down by the inspectors and others who have been over the properties. H?wever, nothing has been finalised. Is that fau to the returned men whom we are trying to put on those areas, and is it fair to the P.eople occupying the land at the present time1 If we know the district, if we know what we want, and if our minds are made up, let us deal with these frozen lands so as to bring about a satisfactory result for both parties, the soldier settler · and the owner. The people are getting very annoyed. I know they want to see something done with these fro7en areas but it is unfair of the department to hold these lands unless it is prepared to help the owners, who are in their present position through no fault of their own.

The conditions set down to help returned soldiers are very much in their interests, as I have said before. It is strange, however, that although we lay it down that soldiers pa'rticipating in the ballot must be classified by the classification committee in order to see that they will make suitable settlers, the ordinary rank and file of the public can ballot for the pastoral bloclis notwithstanding that they possess no qualifications whatsoever. It would be a good idea, and I make the suggestion, if a similar committe~ could be set up to apply the same conditrons to applicants other than returned soldiers who desire to ballot for Crown leases.

Mr. Jones: Civilians have no rights in respect to these farms under the Commonwealth-States Agreement.

Mr. DECKER: I realise that the civilians have no share other than the 50 per cent. specified.

Mr. Jones: They have not got that under the Commonwealth-States Agreement.

Mr. DECKER: That is so but they have that right to ballot for pastoral leaseholds. That places an unfair balance on one side of intending settlers unless similar conditions apply to both civilians and soldiers. That is just a suggestion I am making. An examination of candidates for ballot could be carried out with great effect, not only with respect to soldiers but with civilians.

Mr. Jones: Is your suggestion that we are too generous to the soldiers in the ballot~

Mr. DECKER: No, you cannot be too generous to the soldiers in the ballots,. When we talk about the ballot we must realise the importance of this Bill, but when we get right down to bedrock what does the last part of the Bill mean~ It means that at the most 180 soldiers will be settled on pastoral leases.

Mr. Jones: That is on the land available now but not on the land that \Vill be available in the next few years.

Mr. DECKER: Today we are passing legislation that taken at its maximum will permit 60 per cent. of the pastoral blocks thrown open to selection to be selected by returned soldiers. That ia<, 50 per cent. prrference will be e-iven to returned soldiers outright and a further 10 per cent. may benefit through being permitted to ballot with the civilians for the remaining blocks. Therefore, at the most 180 soldiers will be settled on the pastoral land available for selection.

Mr. Jones: You are only repeating niy argument now.

Mr. DECKER: It is a very generous scheme. I praised the scheme at the beginning and I am not going back on it now. The returned soldiers who are fortunate enough to draw a block under these conditions will be very lucky indeed. I do not know where they will get better conditions. Nevertheless, the maximum number of sol-

War Set·vice Land (4 Al'RIL.) Settlement Bill. 2297

diers that can be settled on the pastoral land to be opened for selection i~;~ 180, notwithstanding that we have· thousands of soldiers who want to settle on the land, many of whom will be denied the opportunity of participating in the scheme. We on this side are willing and anxious to help to settle the returned soldiers on the land. We always will help the Government in that respect and lend a hand in every possible direction designed to assist them, but we reserve the right to criticise the Government in the way we think :fit.

Mr. SP ARKES (Aubigny) (3.38 p.m.) : This is the fifth Bill that has been brought down to provide for schemes of land settlement for returned soldiers.

I am not one of those who will criticise the Minister for not opening up the land quickly, but I quite appreciate the position of the hon. member who has just resumed his s~mt. There is a clamour among the public for returned-soldier settlement schemes to be proceeded with quickly and more quickly. These people think, and rightly so, that after their boys have been away four or :five years :fighting for this land they should be settled as quickly a's possible on the land. But most of our land-settlement troubles after the last war were caused by giving way to clamourings by public bodies and people to accelerate schemes for the settlement of returned soldiers.

In some cases settlements were set up, and various areas were surveyed, and then there was the clamour from near-by towns to cut the land into smaller areas, and the clamour was so great that the Government of the day gave heed to it. What did we find~ Most of these settlements were an absolute failure. I should like every opportunity to be taken to accelerate the settlement of soldiers, but it would be much better for a soldier to wait 12 months than to put two unsuitable soldiers on land straightaway or put two suitable soldiers on unsuitable land straightaway.

~Ir. Joues: Hear, hear!

Mr. Walsh: That is a practical approach.

Mr. SPARKES: When the Bill becomes law there is one thing I hope the Minister will be able to do, and that is to be able to say to the people whose lands are frozen, either "We want your land" or "We don't want your land.'' I appreciate the hon. gentleman's position as far as surveyors are concerned. I know you can run off land for cultivation or scrub for clearing, but it is a different matter when it comes to surveying for water and that type of thing; and in those are.as i_t is v~ry difficult. But nothing of that kmd rs reqmred to enable the Minister to tell these people whether he wants their land or not.

At 3.42 p.m.,

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Mann, Brisbane) in the chair.

OF COMMITTEES relieved Mr. Speaker

:Mr. SPARKES: I am not making any claim on their behalf as to whether their land should be taken or not, but I do say that it is impossible for a settler to plan his improvements and carry out the efficient working of his property if he is insecure. The very word ' ' security' ' governs the successful running of your property. If they have this uncertainty hanging over their heads from day to day they cannot plan ahead and make improvements. For that reason I appeal to the Minister to tell us whether he wants the lands or whether he does not. We are nearing the winter in the greater part of Queensland and the knowledge is very important to stockowners. They might be landed in middle July or August with a number of stock to sell within a few months during a dry time. A loss to the individual is a loss to the State as well. If these men knew their lands were going to be taken, they could make arrangements to dispose of their stock. I appeal to the Minister at the earliest moment to give these people the information whether their land will be taken. No survey is required in order to be able to do that; an inspection is all that is necessary. Any ordinary intelligent man with some experience could go on a property and say straightaway whether it was suitable or not; he does not have to make a survey.

I appreciate the Minister's difficulties. I am going to say now that there will be failures -many of them. We have failures in the ordinary course of settlement, so how can we expect to settle large numbers of soldiers without having failures~ We realise that, and we realise how careful the Minister has to be in order to try to avoid these failures. ~ am being continually approached by people m my area because something like ·2,000,000 acres are frozen. These people are continually saying, "We have raised no objection, we have made no approach to the Minister we have put ourselves in his hands, but 'now after nearly 12 months we should like to know what is going to be done.'' It seems to. me to be a reasonable request. I hope it Villi not be unduly long before the Minister can tell these people where they stand so that they can make their plans accordingly.

I say without fear of contradiction and in all sincer!ty that those frozen lands today are reducmg the output of our various commodities. Men who are selling their bullocks say, "What is the use of buying more store ~ullocks if my land is gone next year?" That Is only reasonable.

The hon. member for Gregor:v spoke this morning and we must take notice of statements made l•y the hon. member because he represents a very big pastoral arra. I am very sorry that he is not in the House now, but I cannot help that. He said that settlers were not given water and instanced the case of a man on 20,000 acres. He said those men should have water and by way of interjection I asked if he would put a bore down on 20,000 acres and his reply was, "Why not f '' Let me tell hon. members of this Assembly that the cost of putting down an


artesian bore is very great and it would absolutely over-capitalise any 20,000-acre block in Western Queensland, or, for that matter, any part of Queensland where artesian water is available. I did ask him

Mr. SPARKES: Very good. I bow to your ruling. I am only replying to statements made by hon. members on the other aide who accused hon. mEmbers on this side of the House of things that were not done.

at the time why we should not have trust bores and the Secretary for Public Lands said there were not many trust bores. Perhaps that is so, but by way of reply he might tell us why there are not many trust bores. The hon. member for Gregory went on to say that these small settlers were forced to pay high prices for their water from adjoining graziers. He commented unfavourably on that poor unfortunate grazier.

Mr. Jones: You have got to admit that trust bores have not had much success.

Mr. SPARKES: At last I have got the ear of the hon. gentleman. I am pleased at that interjection, but will he get up in this Assembly and tell me why1

Mr. Jones: Yes, simply because they cannot agree in most instances.

Mr. SPARKES: Exactly, and they do not pay1 yet we have the hon. member for Gregory telh:D-g us here that they were being fleeced, as It were, by the grazier for the use of water from his bore. As I have suggested, why not have trust bores for those small graziers and allow the Government to control them~ The Minister admits that they do not get on and it is a very difficult matter to provide a bore for them.

Mr. Jones: It is very unsatisfactory.

llir. SPARKES: Yet here we have the grazier condemned, but he is able to provide water for them. I take exception to that.

Mr. Jones: There is nothing in this Bill that . deals with bores, you know.

Mr. SPARKES: I appreciate. that, but did the hon. gentleman say that when the hon. member for Gregory was speaking! Not on your life. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the same privilege as the hon. member for Gregory enjoyed. I am only replying to those statements.

Later on, we had the hon. member for Warrego and in an excess of fear and hate he hoped the soldiers would not be fleeced by the cattlemen and dingoes allowed to r<Jam over the properties. That is one section of the community who are are looked upon by the hon. member as possibly not doing any good for anybody. The other day in this Assembly we had the same hon. gentleman saying that my shire encouraged dingoes and my property bred them. If the hon. gentleman can find a dingo on my property--

Mr. DFPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The hon. mtmber is getting a long way from the matter before the House and I should like him to get back to it.

]fr. SP ARKES: T am Rimply replying to what the hon. member said.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have allowed a good deal of latitude and I should like the hon. member to get back to the matter before tl1e House.

Getting back to the provisions of the Bill, I do think some little alteration should be made in regard to the period in which a soldier can dispose of his property.

'l'here appears to be quite a misunderstanding on that part of the Bill. Is it or is it not possible for a soldier at the end of five years with the permission of the Minister to dispose of his property to any but a returned soldier~ That seems to be so because the Bill sets out that the transferee must be ''eligible under this Act. '' He shall be allowed to transfer only to someone eligible under the Act; that is, to a returned soldier. I think the Minister might well look into that matter. After all, 10 ye·ars is a long time. This is a matter that can be dealt with better in Committee.

Mr. Jones: If he is an applicant, within five years he is entitled to a farm by transfer.

Mr. Wanstan: If he has not applied within five years he is out.

Mr. SP ARKES: First of all, under the law he cannot transfer it inside of 10 years without permission.

Mr. Jones: See me afterwards and I will give you some legal advice on that point.

Mr. SPARKES: The Minister knows that in the many settlers who go on these lands we unfortunatelv shall have many men whose health will not be the same as yours and mine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and others who have been fortunate enough not to have gone through what these men have suffered. There is no doubt about that. They may look quite healthy when they go on the land but the ravages of this awful war may have taken it out of them and may force them off the land in five years. You will injure these soldiers if you do not allow them to dispose of the land to a transferee, whether he is a soldier or a civilian.

Mr. Power: Thinking of your exploiter friends again.

:ttir. SPARKES: The hon. member is about a fraction of an inch wide between the eyes. That i.s one o~ the same old ~tories that he invarrably brmgs forward. Will the hon. member tell me who is bring exploited if after five years the health of the returned soldier fails and he wa~ ts to dispose of th~t property~ Who is bemg exploited f Is It not the returned soldier if he has not a farmer to sell his land to~ It is the same old question: who is being exploited f It. is the returned soldier, the very man vou wish to help that you are going to exploit. I do not want a man who is in good health to be ablr to sell his land within a few years to some one and get a few thousand pounds out of it but there will be manv sol(iiers who have 'e:one through the awful ravages of this war whose health prohahly will not stand up to many years on the land. If the hon. mem-

War Servicl} Land [4 AP1UL.] Settlement Bill. 2299

ber came out to my place for about three months I should make a decent man out of him-or kill him altogether.

Mr. Power: I should be dead from starvation.

1Ir. SPARKES: Because he would not have the guts to stand up to it.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. SP ARKES: There are many returned soldiers who will not be able to stand up to the work on the land; it is hard on the constitution. The hon. member knows nothing about it. However, I will deal with the Minister. 'roday prices of products are high and there is a rush for the land, but inside of 10 years products of the land may not bo worth one-fiftieth of what they are today. These things have happened before.

There may be a big fall, a slump may come along, and the soldier will be unable to get rid of his land because no other eligible returned soldier will be available to take it ever. Surely if a returned soldier works his land for seven or eight years he should have the right to dispose of it or do as he likes with it f All I ask is that the returned soldier have the right to do what he likes with it after seven or eight years. He has to obtain the approval of the Minister. The Minister can inquire into the case, and if there is any exploitation he will be able to detect it. If it is a case of a genuine war disability or sickness, surely the Minister will allow him to get out f

Mr. Jones: One hon. member on your side congratulated the Government upon this principle because it would prevent this land from getting into the hands of foreigners.

1Ir. SP ARKES: Fortunately I have the right to say what I think in this House and that right is enjoyed by every hon. member on this side. It is one of our proud boasts that we can do that. I am pointing out the position as I see it and I am sure the Minister will be inclined to agree with me if he goes into the matter carefully.

Before resuming my seat I make a final appeal on behalf of the people whose land has been frozen. I do hope that the Minister will be able to tell them "Yea'' or "Nay" at a very early date.

.iUr. W ANST ALL (Toowong) (3.57 p.m.) : During the course of the speech of the hon. member for Aubigny my name was mentioned in a slurring way by the Secretary for Public Lands and I desire to take the earliest possible opportunity of making my opinion on the matter under discussion quite clear. It concerns the eligibility to transfer selections under the Bill as it stands. As I see the matter, after 10 years' residence and occupation the selector can transfer the selection without anv imneiliment and until he has occupied it for 10 years he can transfer it only with the permission of the Land Court and the approval of the Minister, but he can only

transfer it within the 10-year period with the permission of the Minister to a person eligible to select under this Act. It seems to be perfectly clear that up to that stage he ean only transfer it to a person able to select a similar selection in terms of the Act. The persons eligible to select similar selections are persons who come within the definition of "'eligible person " in the Bill, and who have the further qualifications that they have applied for a selection and have been examined and classified by the classifying committee.

Mr. Jones: Up to a period of five years.

At 3.59 p.m., Mr. SPEAKER resumed the chair.

lUr. WANSTALL: That is so; so that it is only to a person who has made application and has been classified that the selector can transfer his selection within the 10-year period. There may not be any available transferee who is eligible in the sense that he is classified as well as discharged from the forces, and the point the hon. member for Aubigny discussed with me was that there may be some discharged persons who have not made application within the five years and who have not been classified. Why should not the selector be permitted to transfer his selection to a returned soldier who has made application six or seven years after his· discharge~ We are giving nothing away; we are hurting nobody and we are guarding against a position that may arise in which the person who has made his application within five years does not want a particular selection and no person who has made his application within five years wants a particular selection.

Mr. Jones: The point the hon. member for Aubigny made was that he should be allowed to transfer or sell to any person, any civilian.

Mr. 'lYANSTALL: That was one point.

Mr. Sparkes: If a returned soldier was not available.

Mr. WANSTALL: I am not making that point; it is not my point. I want to clear up something that passed by way of interjection in which my name was mentioned. Unless you have a certain number of persons who have made application and have been classified as being eligible to select you cannot transfer to anyone except those within the 10-year period .

Mr. Jones: That is admitted.

llfr. WAN STALL: The Minister should make provision to deal with the srarcity of eligible persons within that classification so as to make it possible for a selector with the p~rmission of the Minister to transfer to an eligible person within the definition and not neces,garily a person who has applied and been classified.

Mr. Jones: When there are not sufficient discharged men available~

Mr. WANSTALL: Yes.

2300 War Service Land [ASSEMBLY.] Settlemer.t Bill.

Mr. Jones: We may give consideration to tha't.

Mr. WAN STALL: That is my point and I want to clear it up. The Minister made some remarks concerning me that I did not like, but I think he made them under a misapprehension and I am glad now that he realises that my point is an entirely sound one.

Mr. PIE (Windsor) ( 4.2 p.m.) : There are one or two observations that I should like to make although I do not desire to express my view concerning the practicability of settlement on land that I have never seen and may not see in my lifetime. There are one or two points I want to deal with as the leader of the Queensland People's Party a~d. I do not intend to bring in any personalities whatever. I want to contradict most emphatically the statement made in this House from the opposite side that the returned-soldier members of the Queensland People's Party were super-patriots that they had very little regard for retu;ned-soldier settlers and that the returned soldiers were bei~~ used as pawns in the game of playing politiCs.

Mr. JONES: Mr. Speaker I rise to a point of order. The hon. me~ber has made the statement that certain remarks were made by hon. members on this side of the House. If he considers that someone on this side made the s,tatement then he should say who made it. '

Mr. PIE: If you will let me do it, Mr. S]:!e~ker, but I a_m only trying to keep personalities out of this. However if you will give me permission to do it I a~ prepared to do it. I do not want to do anything contrary to your direction.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member must accept the full responsibility for anything he may say.

Mr. PIE: When the hon. member for Enoggera was here the Minister made the statement that members of the Queensland People's Party were super-patriots, that they had very little regard for returned soldiers, and that the returned s.oldiers were being used as pa'wns in the !!ame of politics. The M!nister ha~ eonfirme?i that last statement With the statement that he made just a little while ago.

Mr. Jones: I believe that.

Mr. PIE: I am not bringing in the personalities. All I want to say iq that the Queensland People's Party gives that statement an emphatic denial. It is untrue and I. want to deny it in every way. It is partiCularly hurting to certain members of the Queensland People's Pa'rty who are returned soldiers and to one in particular who has probably suffered more from his war service than all the othrr returned soldiers in this House. On you, Mr. Speaker, or me, who have not served, they may not have the same effect, but on those men who have gone throu!!h thP war and have pa'id the nenalty of service for you and me and the Minister

they have a very different effect. To them they have an altogether different meaning from what they have to us.

Mr. Walsh: There are returned soldiers on this side of the House, too, you know.

Mr. PIE: I do place at the door of the Secretary for Public Lands the responsibility of putting my colleague out of this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member has repeatedly defied the Chair. It is apparent that he is not prepared to deal with this Bill but seeks to cast reflection again on the Chair. I stated here an hour ago that being in charge of the conduct of this House I called on the hon. member for Enoggera to obey my ruling. If the hon. member for Windsor will persist in that subject, then I shall have no alternative but ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged. The hon. member for Windsor said he had come to the conclusion that the Secretary for Public Lands was responsible for putting his colleague, the hon. member for Enoggera, out of the Chamber. That is offensive to me and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member for Windsor to withdraw that statement.

Mr. PIE: What statement do you want me to withdrawf

Mr. JONES: That I was responsible for putting him out.

Mr. PIE: Yes, I am sorry. I will withdraw that statement and apologise, and say just in clarification that it was by the provocation--

lUr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member is not permitted to discuss the suspension that occurred here this afternoon. That is now closed.

~Ir. PIE: The incident is closed and I can go on now. I am glad that I made my point clear in that regard.

There are very many difficulties regarding soldier settlement in this Bill. One that I see-and I am looking at it purely from the viewpoint of a man who has had no actual practi<'nl experience in lnnd development; I am looldng- at it purely from that angle-is that I havr not yet obtninei! from the Minister, notwithstanding- that I have asked him on mnnv occasions, what it i~ going to cost the State Government to put this scheme into operation. How much does he estimate it will cost to put a man on the land under this scheme~ Surely we in this House are entitled to know what the cost of the scheme will be~ I assure that it will cost well over one million pounds.

Mr. Jones: It is impossible to know what the land will cost.


Mr. PIE : Surely at this stage it is possible for the Minister to give an estimate of the cost of a scheme for putting 500 men on the land~

Mr. Jones: We do not know what it will eost us for the land. You ought to know that.

Mr. PIE: The hon. gentleman told me the other ctay that he had 6,000,000 acres of leasehold available for servicemen.

llr. Jones: It will cost us nothing to settle that land.

Mr. PIE: There is being allocated to servicemen 6,000,000 acres of land. Will the hon. gentleman tell me that it will not cost this State Government a penny piece in loan money to put men on that land~

Mr. Jones: They are settled on the land the same as is any civilian. They are not entitled to loan conditions.

Mr. PIE: Here are 6,000,000 acres of leasehold land. Are the Government dividing them up in 8,000-acre blocks and saying to each applicant, ' 'You go for your life; we have no responsibility'' 1 Surely the State has some responsibility.

Mr. Jones: We get the rentals.

llr. PIE: Will the Government say to these men, after they cut up this 6,000,000 acres of land, ''Here is your share of the ballot' '-5,000 or 6,000 acres, as the case may be-'' go and build something out of it''~

Mr. Jones: It is evident that you have not read this Bill.

Mr. PIE: What cost will it be to the State Government to help to put these men on the landW No cost whatever~

Mr. Walsh: What does it matter what the costs are as long as you get them on the land~

Mr. PIE: The Minister said that under that 6,000,000-acre scheme at the most 300 men would be settled, 150 of them being returned soldiers. What do the Government estimate the cost will be to open up that land and put those men on it~ If it costs £2,000,000 I do not care, but surely to goodness we oug·ht to know whither we are going in that direction.

Mr. Jones: I should have to make a speech to make you understand.

Mr. PIE: Perhaps it would be wise if the hon. gentleman made a speech.

Mr. Jones: I gave a full speech this morning.

Mr. PIE: Another thing that must be taken into consideration is the question of conflicting legislation between the Commonwealth and State Governments. The State is

administering this scheme, and it is a harder one to administer than any of the schemes that have been prepared. The Minister cannot deny that. I repeat the prophecy-and we shall see whether I am right in five years -that this scheme will probably be administered effectively and the easy schemes will be administered by the Commonwealth Government, but they will not be able to administer them successfully and they will revert to the State Government to administer properly. I do not think the Commonwealth Government have the first idea of what the conditions in Queensland are.

Reference has been made to what happened after the last war in regard to the settlement of returned soldiers. I have been able to get something that was published in 1918 when a glowing picture was painted of what returned-soldier rehabilitation would mean. This is headed, ''Socialism at Workf'' and says-

"More than six months have elapsed since the first blocks were selected at Beerburrum by returned soldiers, and the men have all held to their farms and speak enthusiastic:;tlly about their prospects. Many are marrying and most have come to regard their blocks as permanent homes. ... Though a substantial proportion of the applicants had far from recovered from wounds or sickness at the time of entering upon the work of the training farms, they have speedily benefited from the healthful open life; and the hopeful outlook before them has roused their ambitions in a manner inspiring the utmost endeavour being thrown into their activities.''

Socialism at work in 1918 at Beerburrum! Imagine the disappointment of all these men when the whole of their ambitions had been raised by the scheme ! We dare not let that happen again.

Mr. Jones: Who were the committee who were responsible~

llr. PIE : I am quoting from something published by this Government. It is there for anyone to read. They were going to establish a cannery there. It also says-

"Beerburrum was the first soldier settlement on which men have been placed on their holdings. The scheme adopted there is to be extended to the other group settlements.''

They had 60,000 acres at Beerburrum, 17,000 acres at Stanthorpe, 157,300 acres at Oswald 's Track and 218,000 acres at Sunnybank and neighbouring areas. There is the story of the failure of soldier settlement after the last war, and after building up the story of Socialism at work!

Mr. J ones: It is not peculiar to Queensland.

ltlr. PIE: I am not blaming Queensland. I am glad the Minister mentioned that. I quote again-

'' Owing to the quantity of available land in Queensland, the State ~overnment has been able to rend(lr exceptiOnally valuable


service to the repatriation work of the War Council. No other State of the Corn· monwealth, with the possible exception of West Australia, had retained unalienated such large areas of country suitable for successful closer settlement.''

How successful was that f Well, we know the story.

Mr. Jones: You have it in Victoria.

Mr. PIE: Everyone has been blamed, but here at that date in 1918 this Labour Government were taking full credit for that scheme and even saying that men out on the land were glad to be there, that their ambitions were at the peak and they looked to the future with every hope. Do not let us ever build that fairy story round these men again! Surely a lesson may be learned from what happened after the last war. "Socialism at Work" is a revelation to me of broken promises to the men after the last war.

Mr. Kerr: And broken hearts.

Mr. PIE: And broken hearts, as the member for Oxley savs, and w~ dare not have that repeated. The eligibility of the returned lad has been debated very freely. This Bill makes it quite clear that an eligible person is a discharged memher of the forces who may be able to participate in land settlement not more than five years after 15 August, 1945, or the date on which he ceased to be on war service, whichever is the later. Take the man wl1o in the firs•t year of the war was honourably discharged. Does he come under that provision~ It says, "not more than five years after 15 August, 1945, or the date on which he ceased to be on war service, whichever is the later." Does that define his eligibility~ That means that he is not eligible to come under this Bill because it is clear that his time has expired. If we read it to mean that an eligible per· son is a man who must apply within five years a'fter he is discharged on 15 August or, alternatively, the date on which he ceased to be on war service, whichever is the later, then a man who is on service for say six years after the war, nni- in a combat force but in a forPe surh as the OPrnpational force in Japan, does not come under this clause.

Mr. Walsh: You can argue that in the Committee stage.

Mr. PIE: There is another point I want to get cleared up on this· stage and that is the case of the mnn who has b· en en the land for six years and then has to get out. He can only transfer that land to an eligible person, but there is no eliP"ible rdurnod soldier under this Act because it is stipulated than an eligible person shall be a discharged member of the forces, five years after 15 August., 1945-say in 1951.

Mr. Jones: But his application would be in.

Mr. PIE: Suppose he has no application in. For instance, suppose there is a lad

who has come back from the war, aged 24, and wants six years' experience before he goes on the land. He is not eligible under this clause.

Mr. Jones: The Commonwealth-States Agreement has to be considered in relation to that.

Mr. PIE: I am talking about this Bill. I am not worried about the CommonwealthStates Agreement.

Mr. Jones: It is complementary to it.

Mr. PIE: I am dealing with the principles embodied in this Bill. There is nothing in this Bill to say that such a lad would be eligible. Take the case of a returned soldier that was put forward by the hon. members for Toowong and Aubigny. After six years that returned soldier wants to get out but he can only dispose of that property to an eligible person.

ltlr. Jones: That is so.

Mr. PIE: That eligible person has to be a returned soldier.

Mr. Jones: We have to protect the soldiers.

Mr. PIE: I want you to protect them, but after six years, if a man has not got an application in--

Mr. Jones: Do not sob about him.

llir. PIE: I am not sobbing. If the Minister calls" sobbing" pointing out things that we think should be altered then perhaps I am sobbing. I am not sobbing, but I am trying to get down to a clarification of the principles contained in the Bill.

Mr. Jones: We are trying to keep the land in the hands of the soldiers. You should appreciate that.

.N'Ir. PIE: So am I. Let me make it quite clear. I want to make it possible for him after six years to be eligible to tal{e over from another man who has to get off his property. That is all I wa'nt and surely the Minister must see that. I do not ''ant to elaborate the position any further other than to say it will be debated on another stage. I do waut the Minister to give consideration calmly to that point between now and then because I think there is a wide difference. I think we ca'n make provision to provide for those cases while this Bill is being passed. There may not be many sneh hlS+.ances, but surely we want to give every returned man the opportunity~

There is nothing further I have to say at this stage. The Bill will be debated on the Committee stage, when certain amendments will be moved by us.

Motion (Mr. Jones) agreed to.

The House adjourned at 4.21 p.m.

legislative assembly hansard 1946 - queensland … · queensland . parliamentary debates [hansard]...

Documents