legislative assembly wednesday november

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 1966

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1872 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Questions

WEDNESDAY, 23 NOVEMBER, 1966

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

APPROPRIATION BILL No. 2 Assent reported by Mr. Speaker.

QUESTIONS

EQUIPMENT FOR SCHOOL OF GRAPHlC ARTS

Mr. Hauston, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

( 1) Has all necessary equipment for the new school of Graphic Arts for 1967 been received or placed on order to meet the requirements of the apprenticeship training syllabus?

(2) What is the value of equipment so far received or on order?

( 3) When is it expected that equipment on order will be received?

( 4) Is there any other equipment still to be ordered and what is its value?

Answers:-

( 1) "With existing equipment which will be transferred from the Central Technical College and certain new equipment which will be received, there will be sufficient available to meet the requirements of the apprenticeship training courses to be offered in 1967."

(2) "$19,900." (3) "It is expected that equipment on

order will be received prior to the commencement of classes in 1967."

( 4) "Yes. Additional equipment is being ordered, in stages, to fulfil plans for the extension of training facilities in the School of Graphic Arts. At the present time it is not possible to give firm estimates of the costs involved, but it is anticipated that they will be in excess of $100,000 for the first stage."

SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATIONS, INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Ho.uston, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

Are any post examinations available for diploma classes at the Institute of Technology for (a) full-time students and (b) part-time students? If either or both are not available, what is the reason?

Answer:-

"Supplementary examinations are available for full-time diploma students at the Institute of Technology. Such examinations are not available for part-time students. This is in accordance with established practice, the reasons for which are as follows:-(a) Ful.J-time students must pass

in all subjects in any one year of a course in order to qualify to proceed to the next year of such course. In those cases where they have failed in certain subjects, and their overall performance at the examinations warrants it, they are granted supplementary examinations in such subjects to give them an opportunity to complete the year's requirements, and thus possibly avoid the necessity of repeating the full year's work in all subjects. (b) The course for part-time students is on a unit basis, which means that students are credited for all subjects in which they have passed. They are required to repeat only those subjects in which they have failed. In very special circumstances, e.g. illness at the time of the examination for which there is medical evidence, they may be granted a deferred examination in a subject, as distinct from a supplementary examination."

Nnv MANUAL TRAINI?\G AccoMMoDATION. CAIRNS HIGH SCHOOL

Mr. Davies for Mr. R. Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

( 1) Has any consideration or decision been given in regard to plans and construction for the new six-room manual training block at the State High School, Cairns?

(2) If so, when is it anticipated tenders will be let and work commenced?

Answers:-( 1) "Plans are being prepared for new

Manual Training accommodation for the Cairns High School."

(2) "No indication can be given at this juncture, however, as to when work on this project is likely to commence."

CLEANING OF SURGEONS' SPECIAL FOOTWEAR BY NURSES

Mr. McKechnie, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Health,-

( 1) Has his attention been drawn to a recent press comment by the editor of the Queensland Nurses Journal in which she accused him of either misunderstanding the journal's reference to shoe cleaning or of intending to mask the issue?

(2) Will he clarify the issue?

Answer:-

(1 and 2) "In reply to the Honourable Member I can only repeat what I said on November 15. I emphasise--and reemphasise--that the only footgear hospital staffs are expected to clean is the surgical footwear worn as part of the surgeon's theatre accoutrements. These are donned to ensure the greatest possible degree of asepsis in the operating theatre. The original statement in the Queensland

Questions [23 NovEMBER) Questions 1873

Nurses Journal conveyed the impression that hospital staffs were required to clean surgeons' ordinary street footwear. I regarded this, at the time, as an example of careless amateur journalism, but press statements subsequently issued by the Editor of that Journal force me to the reluctant conclusion that it was intentionally written in that way. I confess I am more than a little disturbed at this situation which I am sure does not represent either the intention or the spirit of the Royal Australian Nurses' Federation."

SAND AND GRAVEL YARDS, KANGAROO POINT

:Vir. Lee, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Lands,-

( 1) What area of land is being resumed by the Government at William Collin & Sons Pty. Ltd., Short Street, Brisbane?

(2) What area of land is being leased or exchanged in lieu thereof at Kangaroo Point to William Collin & Sons Pty. Ltd.?

( 3) If the move is justified and the area of land at Kangaroo Point is greater than that at Short Street, why cannot an equal area be granted and a cash adjustment made?

( 4) Is any other Government land available in the same area for lease or sale to any other firm desirous of establishing the same class of business? If so, will the Government grant this land to an applicant in the same business?

(5) Were Stirling Gravel and Sand Coy. forced to move from land at Kangaroo Point to land at Seventeen Mile Rocks?

( 6) Did the Council or the Government of the day at some time within the last decade issue a notice that all gravel companies would be required to move upstream to an area above Seventeen Mile Rocks?

( 7) If so, was this the reason for this move and, if not, whv was the move effected? ·

Answers:-

( 1) "Resumption of the Short Street, Brisbane, property of William Collin & Sons Pty. Ltd. is not being undertaken by my Department but I am aware that a Notice of Intention to Resume an area of 1 rood 2·67 perches has been issued under '"The State Development and Public Works Organisation Acts, 1938 to 1964". I am informed that the Company's existing works occupy an area of about 3 roods 20 perches which includes the surface area of the wharf and some leased land. It is understood to be most unlikely that similar use of the wharf will be permitted at the proposed alternative site and the Brisbane City Council is expected to impose conditions which will necessitate greater space requirements than is the case at the existing works."

( 2) "Reserve for Departmental and Official Purposes R. 1851, Kangaroo Point, which has an area of 3 roods 31 · 6 perches, has been offered to the company as an alternative site for its sales and distribution functions only. I am informed that crushing and screening, presently carried out at the Short Street property, will be transferred to the company's new works at the Seventeen Mile Rocks which are expected to be operating in early 1967. It appears that the limitations on space use referred to in (1) will offset to a large degree the removal of the crushing and screening plant from the company's city establishment."

( 3) "The Co-ordinator-General of Public Works is negotiating with the company on all matters associated with the proposed resumption and re-establishment and no details can be given while these negotiations are proceeding."

( 4) "There is no other suitable and available Crown land in the same immediate locality for lease or sale to any other firm."

(5 to 7) "There is no information available to me which indicates that the Government or my Department has been involved in any way in these matters which would appear to come under the control of the Brisbane City Council."

NURSING STAFF EsTABLISHMENT, IPSWICH SPECIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Dornlld, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Health,-

Is it the intention of the Health Department to reduce the staff at the Ipswich Special Hospital? If so, will the displaced employees be given employment at the Brisbane Special Hospital or in some other section of the Health Department?

Answer:-"The approved nursing staff establish

ment at Ipswich Special Hospital will be varied. This involves a reduction in male nursing staff but female nursing staff is being increased. Staff presently employed will not be dismissed on this account."

ARBITRATOR'S DECISION, CANTERBURY PIPE LINES PTY. LTD. v. GOLD COAST

CITY COUNCIL

Mr. Hinze, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Local Government,-

( 1 ) What was the amount awarded to Canterbury Pipe Lines Pty. Ltd. against the Gold Coast City Council for alleged breach of contract and other incidentals?

(2) Is the Government responsible for the payment of any part of the amount?

(3) Has an appeal been lodged by the Gold Coast City Council against the arbitrator's decision?

1874 Qw.:stions [ASSEMBLY] Questions

( 4) Is an amount included in the judgment referred to as interest?

( 5) If there is any delay in the hearing of the appeal, will this necessitate any further charge by way of interest?

Answers:-( 1) "Not being a party to the dispute,

I am unable to inform the Honourable Member in relation thereto."

(2) "No." ( 3 to 5) "See Answer to ( 1)."

p ARL!AMENTARY COMMITTEES

Mr. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Premier,-

( 1) Were the Library, Parliamentary Buildings, Printing, Refreshment Rooms and Standing Orders Committees appointed by Parliament on resolution moved by him?

(2) Do any or all of these Committees as such report to Parliament on their activities and actions during the year and, if so, when and where are such reports made available?

( 3) Are these Committees empowered to fix the salaries, wages and working conditions of any or all employees at Parliament House within the scope of the relevant Committee and, if so, when and how was this power vested in these Committees?

( 4) Have any of these Committees recently adjusted or increased the salaries or wages of any employee or employees at Parliament House and, if so, when will the Committee or Committees acquaint Parliament of such action?

( 5) If any or all of these Committees do not of themselves acquaint Parliament of their activities and actions in all regards, what opportunity exists for Members of Parliament, the press and public to ascertain such information?

Answers:-

"The Honourable Member should really have discussed this matter with Mr. Speaker. However, in an endeavour to assist him and to save his time, I have consulted with Mr. Speaker, and I provide the following replies to his Questions:-

(1) "Yes."

(2) "No. They are not required to do so under the Standing Orders of this House. However, I would point out that the composition of these Committees is on an all-Party basis and I would consider it the individual responsibility of Honourable Members to direct inquiries to their selected Committee representatives on any matters on which they are desirous of obtaining information."

(3 and 4) "No, but under the terms of their constitution, they do make recommendations to Mr. Speaker."

(5) "See Answer to (2) ."

POLLUTION OF EUREKA CREEK

Mr. Wallis-Smith, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Mines,-

What steps have been taken to halt the pollution of Eureka Creek which has again occurred this year and is a threat to twenty tobacco farms which rely on this creek for irrigation and domestic supplies 0

Answer:-"My Inspectors of Mines have investi

gated this matter on the spot and I have had discussions with representatives of the tobacco growers concerned. I have arranged to have discussions with the mining company. All endeavours are being made to reach an adequate solution."

STAFF, MITCHELL RIVER AND EDWARD RIVER MISSIONS

Mr. Wallis-Smith, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

In view of the staff position at Mitchell River and Edward River Missions due to resignations and transfers to other areas, will he approach the Bishop of Carpentaria so that some arrangement can be devised by which staff replacements can be made, so assisting in the change-over from church to Government administration?

Answer:-"The Honourable Member is referred

to Answer to his Question of September 6 last which referred to alleged staff shortages at Mitchell River. The position now is the same as was then stated and applies to both Mitchell River and Edward River Missions."

RATION SCALE FOR ABORIGINES ON RESERVES

Mr. Wa!lis-Smith, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

Is there rations to and how, from the employers Aborigines' Regulations

Answer:-

any basis for the provision of Aborigines living on reserves

if in any way, do they vary ration scales laid down for under Section 75 of the and Torres Strait Islanders' of 1966?

" Rations provided by the Department are on a 'sufficient without waste' basis and as approved by the Director-General of Health and Medical Services. Each claim is considered on its individual needs and merit and issues may vary from centre to

Questions [23 NovEMBER] Brisbane City, &c., Bill 1875

centre and case to case in the light of existing circumstances. Issues include items set out in Regulation 75."

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL BY MOTORISTS

Mr. Dean, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

Has his attention been drawn to the report in Sunday Truth of November 20, viz. "'Roads packed by menaces. What drink doeo! Tens of thousands of Queensland motorists who toss down half a dozen beers before going home from work are the State's Number One potential killers"? If so, will he consider taking urgent steps to counteract this daily upsurge of potential killers as referred to by Mr. Brian Johnston in conjunction with the road safety experts, Messrs. F. Manning, R. Stower and P. Pritchard?

Answer:-

"Section 16 of the Traffic Acts provides that any person who, whilst he is under the influence of liquor or a drug, drives a motor vehicle on a road or elsewhere commits an offence, and in so far as the Police Department is concerned continual action is taken with a view to detecting persons who offend against this law. As it is always mindful of the danger inherent in the driving of a motor vehicle upon a road by a person affected by liquor, the Police Department will continue its enforcement action. The Government is aware of the necessity for constant vigilance in so far as 'drink driving' is concerned, and only last year it increased the monetary penalties for offences against section 16 of the Traffic Acts and also increased the period of automatic disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence imposable following conviction for such an offence."

TEENAGE DRINKING Mr. Dean, pursuant to notice, asked The

Minister for Education,-

( 1) Has his attention been drawn to the statement in the Telegraph of November 2! by the Commissioner of Police that he was disturbed by teenage drinking and that the enforcement of the liquor laws was being stepped up?

(2) If so, what number of teenagers were charged under the liquor laws this year, and what number of licensees were charged with supplying alcohol to teenagers in the same period?

Answer:(1) "Yes." (2) "During the present year, 324 teen

agers have been charged under the Liquor Laws; and during the same period, 1 licensee and 18 other persons have been charged with supplying liquor to teenagers."

PAPER

The following paper was laid on the table:-

Regulation under the Main Roads Acts, 1920 to 1965.

FORM OF QUESTION

Mr. W ALUS-SMITH (Tablelands) proceeding to give notice of a question-

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member's question is out of order. No hon. member is permitted to ask a question that seeks the interpretation of a statute.

MEDICAL ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION

Hon. S. D. TOOTH (Ashgrove-Minister for Health): I move-

"That the House will, at its present sitting, resohe itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the Medical Acts, 1939 to 1963, in certain particulars." Motion agreed to.

BRISBANE CITY SQUARE BILL

SECOND READING-RESUMPTION OF DEBATE

Debate resumed from 16 November (see p. 1702) on Mr. Fletcher's motion-

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

Mr. AIKENS (Townsville South) (11.19 a.m.): Before I continue my speech on this measure, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to an incident that occurred yesterday when you ruled that the hon. member for Norman had made an insulting remark to the Minister for Education by asking him to understand something if he was capable of understanding.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I gave the hon. member my ruling on that point last night. I ask him to continue with the business before the House.

Mr. AIKENS: You did not give a ruling.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. Bennett: You are functus officio. Sit down.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I advise the hon. member for South Brisbane that I am quite able to control the House without his assistance. I informed the hon. member for Townsville South last night that points of order must be taken at the time they arise.

Mr. AIKENS: In view of your ruling in the case of the hon. member for Norman, Mr. Speaker, I think you should apologise to me and withdraw your statement, otherwise there is one rule for remarks from the

1876 Brisbane City [ASSEMBLY] Square Bill

Chair and another for remarks to the Chair. The Premier suggested this morning that members are able to approach Mr. Speaker, and here is an example of that.

Mr. Bennett interjected.

Mr. AIKENS: You keep out of this.

Mr. Bennett: I am the referee between you and Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I ask the hon. member for Townsville South to continue with the debate.

Mr. AIKENS: The Government, or the Minister for Lands, proposes to vest in the Brisbane City Council in fee simple portion of Albert Street. I refer to some remarks that were made, very sensibly, by the hon. member for Bundaberg when he mentioned the whittling away of the privileges of Parliament. From what I can gather, it appears that the Bill was brought before Parliament as a result of personal consultation (or should I use the word "collusion"?) between the Minister for Lands and the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. This arrangement having been made between those two gentlement, Parliament is now simply being asked to ratify the agreement.

I am not very much concerned with the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. However, it is obvious to anyone that he has made the Brisbane City Council a one-man band. When one looks at some of the Labour aldermen of the Brisbane City Council, I do not suppose he can be blamed for doing that. Judging by appearances, if some of Brisbane's Labour aldermen were out in the back country they would not be employed on even the most menial job of raking up sheep manure. I therefore cannot blame the Lord Mayor for making the Brisbane City Council a one-man band. He probably thinks that doing so is in the interests of the Labour Party, and, for all I know, that may be so.

Although 1 am not concerned with the Lord Mayor, I am concerned with a Minister of the Crown who does not take Parliament into consideration. From what I gather, he did not even take members of his own party into consideration in determining this matter. He merely brought it to his party as a fait accompli, and it is now being brought to Parliament. He said to his party, "I have the Lord Mayor's O.K. on this proposal. Now I want yours." Then the Parliamentary Liberal and Country Parties wrote to the Lord Mayor saying, "Look, if you want this to go through Parliament, we must have the formality of a resolution passed by the Brisbane City Council asking us to do that." Having been goaded into that action, the Lord Mayor took the resolution along to members of the municipal caucus of the A.L.P. and said, "We must have a formal resolution carried at a City Council meeting. When that is done, I have been assured that the Bill will be introduced

and passed by Parliament by weight of Government numbers, and everything in the garden will be lovely."

That is the way the business of the State is being conducted at present. I join with the hon. member for Bundaberg in questioning whether Parliament sometimes needs to sit at all because all it is required to do is act as a rubber stamp for decisions of Ministers, not even of a Government party. So much was the matter left in the air that the Parliamentary Labour Party Caucus is quite concerned about it. I assume the Press st~!tement that I read on the matter was correct, because it would have been issued by the Labour Party Caucus. They have asked the Brisbane City Council--or the Lord Mayor, because he is the council-to let members of the Parliamentary Labour Party know what the Brisbane City Council proposes to do in its negotiations with the Government. So the Parliamentary Labour Party was kept in the dark by the Lord Mayor, and this Parliament was kept in the dark by the Minister for Lands.

There was a little bit of collusion between the Minister for Lands and the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, and all that hon. members are required to do is put the stamp of approval on it. Well, I do not propose to do that, and that is all there is to it. While I am a member of this Assembly, I will fight for the retention of the rights and privileges of this Parliament. As far as I am concerned, Parliament will never become a supine, acquiescing Chamber for the decisions of any Minister, or even for the decisions of the Government.

Mr. Bennett: You are flat out handling the Townsville City Council, aren't you?

Mr. AIKENS: I handle the Townsville City Council fairly well, and I handle it on my own. I did not need another barrister to assist me to win the one case that I won this year, as the hon. member for South Brisbane did in Longreach recently. I do not know whether he gave the other barrister part of his fee, but he should have; the other barrister earned it.

Hon. members have been asked, first by the Minister for Lands and later, if I can believe the Press report, by the Premier, to accept their personal assurance--incidently, the hon. member for Baroona also asked hon. members to accept those personal assurances-that the Bill would not be promulgated until the Government was absolutely certain that the underground car park and the civic square were to become matters of plain fact. In some respects, l suppose, I would not have any hesitation in accepting an assurance from the Minister for Lands. If he said to me, "Tom, I think it is going to rain today," and the rain was already coming down, I would accept his assurance on that point. I have no objection to accepting an assurance from the Premier. But I should like the House and the public of Queensland to know that the business of this

Brisbane City [23 NOVEMBER] Square Bill 1877

State cannot be conducted on the basis of a personal assurance given by anyone. I remind the Minister for Lands, the Premier and other members of this Assembly that, despite their inordinate personal vanity, they are all mortal; they will all die, because death is the natural consequence of life. If, for instance, the Minister for Lands passes to the great silence before the civic square is built and before the underground car park is built, what use is his personal assurance then? That is something that the hon. member for Baroona might take into consideration.

I know that the Minister for Lands is a great lover of good poetry-that is perhaps his one redeeming feature-and I commend to him these immortal words of Keats, which have a distinct bearing on the assurance that he has asked this Parliament to accept-

"The wink of an eye, The catch of a breath; From the warm glow of life To the coldness of death; From a gilded salon To a flower-bordered shroud; So, why should the spirit of mortals be

proud?" Those lines apply to the Minister for Lands and to everyone in this Chamber. Yet the Minister asks. hon. members to accept his assurance that the provisions of the Bill may not be implemented for many years to come.

In addition to that, the Government, politically speaking, is mortal; it may not last for ever. Hon. members know, of course, that the Labour Party thought, during its long term in office, that it was there for ever but it di~ not last for ever. Consequently, ~hat use 1s the assurance given by the Minister for Lands and by the Premier that the Bill will not be promulgated until the Government is certain that the underground car park and the civic square are actually to be built? Which Government? What Government will be in power? Lord Mayor Jones may not be in office after the next council election. Will he be in power after May, 1967? What use is any assurance given by the Lord Mayor of Brisbane on behalf of his manure-raking colleagues in the council that he will go ahead with the civic square and the underground car park? He may not be on this earth; he may not be Lord Mayor of Brisbane after May, 1967. As I said, what ~s~ is any personal assurance given by the Mm1ster or by the Premier that the Bill will not be promulgated?

Those hon. members who are prepared to accept the Bill should bear these things in mmd. I know they are looking for all sorts of alibis and excuses to justify them in voting for the Bill, particularly the members of the A.L.P. They are not going to fall out with Clem Jones. He is too strong with the Trades Hall-Moscow mob for them to fall out with him. After what I saw and heard in Townsville during the Labour-inPolitics Convention there, I should say that it

would be a man of considerable courage in the A.L.P. today who is game to thwart the wishes of the powerful Clem J ones, with the Egerton mob and the Moscow mob at the Trades Hall behind him.

Mr. Dean interjected.

Mr. AIKENS: The hon. member for Sandgate voted for a "Trades Hailer" in opposition to one of the A.W.U. pack. The Catholic Communist from Barcoo also lined up with the rest of them. Members of this House, including members of the Labour Party, will go back to their electorates and excuse themselves by saying, "We voted for the Bill because we had the assurance of the Minister for Lands and the Premier that the Act would not be proclaimed until the Government was certain that the civic square and the underground car park were to be constructed." If they actually believe that, let them be honest and have it written into the the Bill; let this Parliament take control of its own affairs; let this Parliament decide that this Bill shall not be promulgated, or implemented, until Parliament is certain that the civic square and the underground car park are to be constructed.

That is all I ask hon. members to do. Let us put power back into the hands of Parliament; do not let it be taken out of our hands bv a Minister or the Premier, or Lord Mayor J ones, or anybody else. Let hon. members have written into the Bill-if they are honest and if that is why they intend to vote for it -that it shall not be proclaimed until such time as this Parliament is certain that the civic square and the underground car park are to be built. I know they will not do it, because too many forces are pulling them this way and that. I know that members, both of the Liberal Party and of the Labour Party representing metropolitan electorates, are just waiting for the opportunity to go to their electorates and make all the excuses in the world for voting for this Bill in its present form and I ask them now-although I know the hope will be vainly expressed-to be honest and to write such a provision into the Bill. Do not take the risk that the Minister for Lands will live for all time; do not take the risk of his being a personal or ministerial Methuselah, or of this Government remaining in office for ever and ever, or of the Lord Mayor remaining in office for ever and ever, with or without his manure-raking pals. If hon. members do not do that, I will know them for the political hypocrites they are.

Mr. HOUGHTON (Redcliffe) (11.33 a.m.): I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate on this Bill, and particularly to the remarks of the previous speaker. Having some knowledge of local authority work, I fully subscribe to the principles of the Bill. I feel that the Brisbane City Council is responsible to the people and that we are inclined to lose sight of the fact that the handing over of this piece of land to the council for a proposed civic square is the only


principle contained in the Bill. I also think it is the wish of the majority of the people of Brisbane that they have a square. But we seem to be clouding the issue by continually referring to the construction of the car park that is to be embodied in the square.

My own personal views of the problems that confront Brisbane at present lead me to believe that private motor vehicles should not be brought into the central city area. However, I am confident that the Brisbane City Council, in its wisdom and with the technical advice and information available to it, will look to the interests of the people and see that no hazard will be created or, should I say, no greater hazard than already exists in the control and regulation of traffic in the central business area.

I feel that the whole issue is being clouded by the proposed construction of a car park underneath the civic square. The hon. member for Bundaberg endeavoured to draw a red herring across the trail. The hon. member for Baroona conveyed a clear picture to the Chamber of what is required under sections 363 and 368 of the Land Act. I think the Minister has done the right thing in bringing before Parliament a Bill for the handing over of this parcel of land.

Mr. Bennett: He has to bring it to Parliament.

Mr. HOUGHTON: Under the Land Act he could have--

Mr. Bennett: No chance.

Mr. Walsh: Not under the Land Act.

Mr. HOUGHTON: Hon. members opposite say the Minister could not take action for the closure of this road under the Land Act. If that is so, he has done the right thing by bringing the matter before Parliament for ratification.

From statements that have been made it would appear that some people are trying to play politics. They lose sight of the fact that when they do so John Citizen becomes the meat in the sandwich. Irrespective of their political beliefs there are some people who are always prepared to embarrass others. It has been said repeatedly that it is impossible to get everybody to agree to any proposal. I sincerely believe that Lord Mayor Jones has rendered the city of Brisbane excellent service. Although I have not agreed with everything he has done, as one with local-authority experience I would say that he has done a good job; the people of Brisbane clearly indicated that they thought so by returning him at the last Brisbane City Council election.

With all the complexities and ramifications of local government already existing, in the handing over of this parcel of land we do not want to cause any further problems that might jeopardise the efforts of the Lord Mayor in what he is trying to achieve. Everything seems to revolve round the construction

of the car park. In its wisdom this Parliament handed over to the Brisbane City Council responsibility for traffic control in the Greater Brisbane area. Having done that, I do not think it is for us to say that the car park should not be built in that location, although I think it is the wrong place to build it because if we create bottle-necks and other hazards traffic will not be able to move freely in the central business area. However, I am confident that the Brisbane City Council will be fully responsible in this matter and look to the interests and welfare of the citizens of Brisbane in what it does with that area.

Suggestions have been made during the debate that the Minister cannot be trusted. It is not the responsibility of the Minister but the responsibility of Parliament to accede to the request of the Brisbane City Council for the handing over of this land. I believe that the powers that be who are responsible for the Wilbur Smith Report, and the other professional engineers who direct and control these matters, have already come to a conclusion on how to control traffic in the central business area.

I am firmly of the opinion that the car park should be built on the perimeter of the city area, not in the central business area. The wisdom or otherwise of the policy of th~ Brisbane City Council will be determined later. Under our democratic system of government, one of the responsibilities that the people of Brisbane enjoy is the right to determine whether the present Brisbane City Council is responsible; they can substitute another one for it if they think it will perform the task of local government better. The handing over of this parcel of land upon the ratification of the Bill will be watched closely. I have the utmost confidence in the Minister. and in his presentation of the measure and his submissions to the Assembly.

All hon. members are entitled to their own opinion on this matter. I have heard it referred to as "bowyang" legislation, and there has been condemnation of the Parliamentary Draftsman on its presentation.

Mr. Walsh: Nobody criticised the draftsman.

Mr. HOUGHTON: Yes, they did. If the hon. member goes through the debate he will see that some hon. members criticised the presentation by the draftsman.

Mr. Walsh: It must have been on your side.

Mr. Bennett: It was probably the hon. member for Windsor.

Mr. HOUGHTON: I think it was the hon. member for South Brisbane.

Mr. Bennett interjected.

Mr. HOUGHTON: If the hon. member cannot read, I will get him a braille copy.

Mr. Bennett: I did not even speak on the Bill.

Brisbane City (23 NOVEMBER) Square Bill 1879

Mr. HOUGHTON: Because of a political vendetta, certain hon. members are inclined to play politics. They lose sight of the fact that the people are vitally concerned with, and are interested in and responsible for, the civic square. It has been said that the Government will examine the situation closely. I think it will be forced to do so, because the closure of any area in the central city will create more acute traffic problems. I am firmly of the opinion that the handing over of this parcel of land will benefit the city of Brisbane and its citizens.

Mr. Bennett: You agree with Labour'·s policy?

Mr. HOUGHTON: Up to a point, I do. I have said that before. I give credit where credit is due, which hon. members opposite do not do.

I repeat that I abhor party politics in local authority administration. I will oppose it absolutely and with all the power at my command in Redcliffe. Hon. members opposite are trying to introduce it. I think it is detrimental in any local authority.

I firmly believe that the Government has acted wisely on this request by the Brisbane City Council. It is an honest one in all respects. I support the Bill in its entirety.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (CunninghamMinister for Lands) (11.45 a.m.), in reply: This simple little Bill has become a matter that in some people's minds is not quite as simple as I, in my simplicity, thought it was when I introduced it.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for having approved of the principles contained in the Bill, for having made some constructive comments and for having agreed that most of the steps we are taking are necessary, desirable, and, by implication, well-conceived. He has assumed, as I have, that the Brisbane City Council will not proceed to make any piecemeal, hotchpotch, or small changes that will be against the public interest. Indeed, I think he took the point that this is something on which members of the public themselves have a right to express an opinion if and when it occurs.

The hon. member for Bundaberg, much to my relief, gave us quite a long and fairly wily speech on the subject. As I understood him, in the main he raised two points: firstly, that the public was not encouraged to object to the closure of the road and he seemed to think that they should have this power to object; and secondly, he desired to know more about the attitude of the authorities responsible for traffic in the city area. I think I touched on those matters to the extent that I thought necessary.

Any objection to a road closure-in the normal way, this is-may be lodged for either of the following reasons: firstly, because it may deprive the owner or the user of land of dedicated access to his property; and secondly, because of its effect on

vehicular or pedestrian traffic. In this case, the Brisbane City Council is the owner of all land abutting the road that we are closing, and in this way it has removed the possibility of any objector to the square being an adjoining owner or user.

On the score of the public use of the road, the needs of pedestrians will be amply covered by the square layout. As to vehicular traffic, there will be no purpose in inviting or encouraging public objections to the closure of this part of Albert Street, for objections will be made, and normally the road would not be closed because of those objections.

However, this case is something over and above the ordinary. This has been the point in bringing the Bill before Parliament. This deals with Brisbane's proposed new civic square which the properly constituted civic authority intends to provide for the citizens of Brisbane. This is a case involving a decision whether it is in the public inte,rest to close Albert Street at this point in order that the new civic square project may proceed. We have examined the council's proposals in the light of the best available advice. I have said that before.

The real question is the effect that the closure of this part of Albert Street will have on the flow of traffic in and through the inner city area. The Brisbane City Council has available to it expert advice from one of the world's top traffic consultants, namely, Wilbur Smith and Associates. I have mentioned that before. After a very exhausting transportation study and discussion with the council authorities, the report of Wilbur Smith and Associates recommends the closing of Albert Street to facilitate provision of the new civic square. It comes under the heading "Recommendations".

Using information available from the transportation study, engineers of the Main Roads Department examined the possible effect of the closure of King George Square on vehicular traffic. The report stresses that the road closure should not be effected until certain necessary street improvements have been carried out. That is fair enough. This involves, they say, reversal of the direction of the flow of traffic in Ann Street; the extension of Turbot Street to Petrie Bight, as recommended in the Wilbur Smith Report; and, in addition, improvement in the capacity of Creek Street between Ann Street and Wickham Terrace.

The report also recommends that an underpass be constructed at Victoria Bridge as the first stage of the Riverside Expressway, and that it operate one way from Elizabeth Street to North Quay till the other portions of the expressway are completed and open for traffic. Other less important adjustments are also recommended in the report. It is obvious that King George Square must be kept open as a road till the underpass at Victoria Bridge is available to take traffic out of Elizabeth, Charlotte and Mary Streets


in order to reduce the load through George, Edward and Creek Streets. This is all contained in the report. Planning of the Victoria Bridge underpass section of the Riverside Expressway is well in hand at the moment. The Bill will not be proclaimed in force till the necessary traffic adjustments are made.

The hon. member for Bundaberg, in his characteristic way so well known to me--

Mr. Walsh: I did not understand you as saying it in that way.

Mr. FLETCHER: Although perhaps not in so much detail, I said it in exactly this way by implication. In his characteristic way, the hon. member for Bundaberg suggested that sinister and scandalous things may flow from the Bill and that some people may suffer from it in some way or other. I was really worried when he did not enter the debate at the introductory stage, because my more or less automatic way of testing any Bill that I bring before Parliament is to wait and see if something sinister in it is suggested by the hon. member for Bundaberg. When he did not speak on the Bill's introduction, I was a little worried that something may have been wrong.

The hon. member was quite right when he said he understood me to say that I defended the rights and privileges of local authorities. I do. He claimed that when I said I would not consider superseding the rights, privileges and autonomy of the local authority, I was talking humbug. He went on in highfalutin detail to explain that in cases of serious public challenge or irregularity the Government must intervene. That was merely stating the obvious; it is not something that I said, by implication or in any other way, that I did not believe in. He ignored the reason for the argument that I put, and took a statement completely out of context.

Mr. Walsh: Yours was a general statement.

Mr. FLETCHER: I was commenting at the time on the attitude of certain hon. members who, as I understand them, are advocating that the Government should override the Brisbane City Council and take direct responsibility for the development and planning of Brisbane, in particular the city square. Of course, we protect the public interest in an emergency. This does not invalidate my statement of general support for local authority rights, which to me seem to be attacked by the suggestion of our interference in the matter of the city square. Whilst my arguments recognise the powers and functions of local government so clearly set forth in law, I at no time suggested that local authorities should be given the blank cheque referred to by certain hon. members by implication. There is a happy medium in all things. The Bill provides sufficient control in that it will not become law till it is proclaimed by the Governor in Council. Before its proclamation, the Government will

need to be satisfied on all aspects of the case. These include traffic, leasing, and other matters discussed here.

On the other hand, the Bill recognises the standing and authority of the Brisbane City Council in the community of Brisbane. It is not laced with elaborate conditions suggestive of irresponsibility by the City Council. That is as it should be.

Some suggested that the Bill should be held over till the citizens of Brisbane voted at the forthcoming local government election. I remind the House that there is no possibility of this Bill's being proclaimed before the election takes place. In those circumstances, it would be quite competent for the incoming council to have a second look at the matter should it have a mind so to do.

The next speaker was the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha, and he suggested, among other things, that the matter be approached by way of amendment of the Town Plan. In effect, he seeks to bring about a position in which the public will be encouraged to make objection, not so much to the road closure but to the scheme of the council to provide an enlarged city square involving a car park underneath.

The section of the road presently under review is the existing King George Square; the Town Plan shows the extended area purchased by the council to be part of the civic square. As the area is already shown as a civic square, it is not clear what change is proposed by amendment of the Town Plan. An amendment of the Town Plan would not, of course, close the road. This would require legislation of the type presently before the House, which is why I am bringing the Bill down.

After amendment of the Town Plan, the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha then proposes that this part of Albert Street be closed under section 368 of the Land Act, which is the general law dealing with the closure of roads. I cannot accept the suggestion that the general public should be invited or encouraged to object either to the closure of this part of Albert Street or to the new square scheme. I have said that before. The council's proposals for a new and enlarged civic square have been before public notice for some years, for those who have been able to take notice of them. Provided suitable arrangements are made to accommodate traffic that normally would use this section of Albert Street, I am of the opinion that the council, as the properly constituted authority to manage and provide for city development, is entitled to carry out its schemes in a responsible manner.

The council has resolved to provide a new ci vie square, and it is entitled to expect that it will be placed in a position where it can implement its proposals. In view of these circumstances, no good purpose would be served by encouraging public objections. Obviously, not every person in the city of

Brisbar:e City (23 NOVEMBER) Square Bill 1881

Brisbane would endorse the council's proposals and, of course, there would be objections. The council, however, has made it clear that it intends to proceed and to stand on that platform; in fact, it has already done so. What purpose would there be in misleading the public by groping around for clumsy machinery to provide for the making of an objection in respect of a matter that has already been decided by the council? I have no intention of making this matter more of a political football than it presently is. The council is entitled, I think, to greater courtesy than this; the citizens of Brisbane are entitled to more respect than is suggested by this.

The hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha suggested also that the road to be closed should be closed under the ordinary or normal law governing road closures. This matter was very thoroughly and very clearly dealt with bv the hon. member for Baroona, who made what I thought was a clear, well-reasoned and reasonable speech. He very clearly sorted out the loose thoughts expressed by the hon. member for Bundaberg and the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha. As the hon. member for Baroona so plainly said, this part of Albert Street cannot be closed under section 368 of the Land Act, and any suggestion that this general law be widened to enable the closure of such streets under the general law would not be in the public interest. This I believe.

Mr. Walsh: You did not hear me say that.

Mr. FLETCHER: I admit that that was not one of the hon. member's arguments.

The general law will not permit the Executive to close Albert Street, or, for that matter, Queen Street, Adelaide Street, or any other important street. It rightly respects the definite rights of the general public in this city. But this does not reflect any deficiency in the general law, which prescribes !'OOd, sound general principles that apply in normal cases. This is not a normal case. Any amendment to this general law would, in my opinion, give the Executive far too wide a power to close roads and to override the rights of individuals to object.

The provisions of the Land Acts are sufficient as they presently stand, and they are consistent with the law as it stands in other States. The charge made by the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha that the Land Acts are out of date and behind the law in other States is a pretty loose and ill-considered statement. The Land Acts were consolidated and amended in 1962 and, had there been any shortcomings in their provisions dealing with road closures, necessary amendments would have been suggested by expert men, who are not in such meagre proportions in Brisbane and in our department as the hon. member would seem to suggest.

For the reasons so clearly stated by the hon. member for Baroona, the existing law is good law requiring no adjustment. As

62

to the position in other States, I might quote the practice in Victoria. In the light of what the hon. member mentioned, I inquired into the position in Victoria and New South Wales. The State of Victoria quite rightly claims to be proud of its handling of public roads and closures. The general powers of the Executive in Victoria to close roads limits the power of closure to roads that are not used. Before the Governor in Council may proceed to close an unused road, he must secure the concurrence in writing of the local authority and the owners of adjoining land. It is clear that the road-closing powers of the Executive in the State of Victoria are even more rigid than they are in Queensland. Likewise, in New South Wales the power of the Executive to close a road is limited to unnecessary roads.

In view of the statutory provisions in Victoria and New South Wales in this matter, I am not prepared to accept any loose charge that our general law should be widened to bring it into line with other and superior standards in other States.

Also, I can see no justification for the assertion that in the future there will be hundreds of cases parallel with that of the Albert Street closure, as suggested by the hon. member. I cannot recall a single previous case, and I cannot find in the records any suggestion that there is likely to be another one-at least in the near future. There was a suggestion in the local Press relative to Anzac Square, but I do not think there was any suggestion that it involved the closing of Adelaide Street to traffic.

At vadous stages of the Bill I have been the recipient, hon. members will have noted, of various pieces of advice, based allegedly on expert knowledge of land administration, by the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha. Fortunately-! think fortunately-! have not been persuaded to become involved in the various indiscretions, I might call them, that the hon. member has pa,raded before us. I am a responsible Minister, and I cannot afford to waste a lot of time on this hotchpotch messing around with a multiplicity of ideas, with, in most cases, last-minute reconsiderations and changes of ground that inevitably come with the acquisition of a little more knowledge about the subject. It was suggested that my approach should be more sensible and sophisticated by the use of a subsurface title. When I informed the hon. member that that possibility had been looked at and discarded as having no advantage, he shifted ground and told me that what he really h~d in mind was the leasing of an underground level. He said he imagines that some people require leases that are registrable and that there will be great difficulty in registering a lease over an underground section of land.

I have never heard of any such difficulty, nor have my advisers, or the Registrar of Titles, or the Parliamentary Draftsman. There is plainly no such difficulty of registration, and there never has been. There is


not the slightest problem, nor is there the vaguest justification to warrant the making of nebulous statements that there should be some sensible sophistication, details of which are patiently awaited by those who are responsible for working out such suggestions. My organisation has more to do than to waste time on this sort of irresponsibility.

At another stage the hon. member counselled me to amend the Bill to provide compensation for all those who might be affected by the road closure. This was actually set up to me as a possibility.

Apart from the far-reaching precedent created by this and the lack of any yardstick or measure to assess any claim, only one person's claim was outstanding at the time, and that claim was approaching finality, and indeed has been since finalised. To accept the hon. member's whim would have unfairly disadvantaged the interests of one of the parties to the negotiations going on. Fortunately, I was not misled or trapped into that one. Likewise, on the question of the need for special legislation and the alleged inadequacy of the general law dealing with road closures, need I say any more than was said by the hon. member for Baroona who, like myself, manages to keep his feet on the ground?

Nor am I interested in the hon. member's proposal that the Town Plan be amended to change King George Square from King George Square to King George Square. The legal status of the square cannot. be changed by rezoning under the Town Plan. This is clearly born out of the desire to embarrass the Brisbane City Council, even at the expense of misleading the public into the making of objections against a decision that has already been made by the proper authority. I do not mind the hon. member differing from the views of the Lord Mayor or his council, but I rather think that this is a pretty devious way of going about it. As to his condescensions and references to my own and my officers' alleged lack of sophistication and administrative ability and to other experts, we are not dependent on his opinion; I think we can afford to ignore them. We have not found any honest meat to chew on in the fare served up by the hon. membernot on this occasion, anyway.

I have already said that the hon. member for Baroona made a clear-cut contribution, and a good one.

I am afraid I have to take much the same attitude towards what the hon. member for Toowong said as I did at the introductory stage. I understand that he honestly thinks we should take responsibility for planning, especially for the car park, away from the Brisbane City Council-that we should do it ourselves, so to speak. I have said I do not think that this is the respect we owe to a duly constituted body such as the Brisbane City Council. I will say what I said before to the hon. member for Bundaberg, that is, that I

do respect the responsibilities, rights, pnvJleges and dignity of constituted local authority. I do not think the attitude of the hon. member for Toowong is consistent with this. I could be wrong and the hon. member could be right, but that is my attitude. And I think it is the attitude of most of the men who were born and bred in the tradition of local authority and educated to some extent through being members of a local authority.

As usual, the hon. member for Townsville South was entertaining and easy to listen to, but he engaged in his usual gambolling away from the meat of the subject. I did not mind his saying that he could not accept my assurance on this matter, but an assurance given by a responsible Minister on behalf of a responsible Government does not devolve upon the person giving it. He is the mouthpiece of the Government. There is nothing very much more secure in this life than the assurance of a responsible Minister in an Anglo-Saxon community, so I do not think we need worry too much about the hon. member's charges.

Mr. Aikens: Can you give us an assurance about how long your Government will be in office?

Mr. FLETCHER: Yes, for 25 years; and I will live for 30.

Mr. Houston: You have spoiH a very good speech.

Mr. FLETCHER: I will withdraw that remark. It was only a facetious response to a facetious interjection.

I do not think the hon. member for Townsville South is always to be absolutely relied upon when he makes charges of sham-fighting, shadow-sparring, and that sort of thing. I have to acknowledge the graceful reference to my own literary tastes, and I think I can return the compliment. I think I can also say in respect of the hon. member that I find in him a replica of a character in Charles Dickens's "David Copperfield," who has always been a favourite of mine. Those of us who know "David Copperfield" will remember with affection Betsey Trotwood, who had an old retainer, Mr. Dick, who, though perhaps not terribly bright, was a nice chap. He was in the process, in all the years we read of him through the book, of writing a memorial. I am not too sure what the memorial was, but he was also bedevilled by a mental block, because everything he wrote turned out to be about King Charles's head. Mr. Dick's preoccupation with his memorial and the fact that King Charles's head got between him and any coherent expression has reminded me for years of the hon. member's disposition to let the Townsville City Council get between him and his thoughts.

Mr. Aikens: You want to read what the Mayor of Townsville said about you in last Saturday's "Townsville Daily Bulletin". It was not very flattering.

Brisbane City [23 NovEMBER] Square Bill 1883

Mr. FLETCHER: That could be. I now recognise our political Mr. Dick as having come down--

Mr. Murray: Do you think Dickens would really be able to describe the hon. member for Townsville South?

Mr. FLETCHER: No, of course not; but it is near enough. I think we do have a political Mr. Dick, and I suggest to hon. members that from now on they take notice and see how often the hon. member lets the Townsville City Council cut right across his very healthy expressions of opinion.

Mr. AIKENS: I rise to a point of order. At the beginning of my speech I started to make some reference to the manner in which the Minister had misled the House in dealing with the Townsville City Council and you, Mr. Speaker, ruled me out of order.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member used the expression that the Minister has misled the House. In raising a point of order I do not wish him to cover up on one point of order by committing a breach of the rules of this Parliament.

Mr. AIKENS: You ruled out of order any reference by me to anything that was done by the Minister with the Townsville City Council, and I accepted your ruling and let it go at that. Now we have the Minister ranting and raving for half an hour about the Townsville City Council.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is not saying anything about the Townsville City Council; he is simply referring to the Townsville City Council as the pet obsession of the hon. member for Townsville South.

Mr. FLETCHER: The hon. member does not realise that I am being most affectionate. I have always liked Mr. Dick.

The hon. member for Redcliffe said, as I expected he would (because he is a local authority man), that he respects the responsibility of the Brisbane City Council in this matter. As I understood him, we must recognise its rights and responsibilities. In his own words he gave us a very sturdy defence of the rights of a local authority, and what it can expect from this House.

I thank those hon. members who have made constructive suggestions in this matterand there have been many of them.

Motion (Mr. Fletcher) agreed to.

CoMMITTEE (The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Hooper,

Greenslopes, in the chair) Clause 1--Short title; Commencement

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (12.15 p.m.): I shall confine my remarks to subclause (2), which reads-

"Commencement. This Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by the Governor in Council by Proclamation published in the Gazette."

It is true that we have heard more from the Minister this morning relative to this phase of the Bill. He did not elaborate to the same extent on the introduction of the Bill. If he had, of course, he would have saved a good deal of time and criticism. However, no doubt because of criticism through the Press the Minister has thought fit to make a little clearer the Government's attitude on this phase of the Bill.

I realise that this is a normal provision contained in a Bill when it is proposed to delay proclamation of the Act until such time as the Government of the day, or Cabinet, sees fit to proclaim it. In any case that proclamation will be tabled in the House and, under the Standing Orders, can be debated. Its fate could be the same as that suffered by a proclamation tabled under the Motor Spirits Distribution Act of 1957, which was disallowed.

The Minister has been a little more specific this morning. I remind him that part of my comment during the second-reading stage was that the Minister had presented little or nothing to this Parliament to justify its making a decision on this matter. Peculiarly enough, I noticed in yesterday's issue of "The Courier-Mail" a statement by a senior official of the Main Roads Department, who was not nominated, relative to the chaos that would result if this street was closed before the other traffic adjustments were made.

The Minister outlined this morning what the Government will expect the Brisbane City Council to do before the Bill is proclaimed. He should emphasise that again in his reply, if he intends to reply, and make it clear that this street will not be closed for approximately seven, eight, or nine years, or even longer. Obviously if, as the Minister has outlined, all these things are to be done before the Act is proclaimed, it will take a good deal of time; it will not be just before or just after the next council election, or even the one after that. If I am any judge, by the time the council gets rid of Victoria Bridge and does a few other things it will not have much chance of continuing Turbot Street and building the underpass and doing the other things that have been suggested unless it does so at the expense of a good deal of other work within the area of the City of Brisbane.

Mr. Rarn.sdoo.: It will be so long that Labour will not be in office.

Mr. W ALSH: And the hon. member for Merthyr might get his tunnel.

I am pleased that the Minister gave us a little more information this morning and gave Parliament an assurance that the Bill will not be proclaimed until, in effect, the traffic hazards that are likely to follow the closure of Albert Street have been resolved.

Mr. LICKISS (Mt. Coot-tha) (12.19 p.m.): I suppose, in speaking to clause 1 in its two parts, I could reiter~te that which I haye said before. I am mmdful of the very mild


rebuke which I received from the Minister. If one receives a rebuke from a responsible Minister one should heed it. In this case, of course, I do not propose to heed it because I do not believe that the Minister is acting responsibly in these matters.

As usual, the Minister has changed his ground. I have a clear recollection of the introductory stage of the Bill, during which the Minister said that the proclamation would be made after the Brisbane City Council had more or less satisfied the Government on the plans for the parking station and the way in which the city square would be constructed.

Another innovation has now been introduced to persuade members to support the Bill, and that is the ironing out of traffic difficulties. I do not recall that subject being mentioned at any previous stage. I might be doing the Minister an injustice in saying that, but I do not think so; Parliament will decide that.

The introductory clause of the Bill provides that the legislation will be known as the Brisbane City Square Act of 1966. This presupposes that the Government condones, authorises or anticipates the future use of the land now known as allotment 21 of section XI of the City of Brisbane. The Minister, again in his usual blase way of trying to drag red herrings across the trial, said that already this is shown on the plan as a city square, which is King George Square. The very purpose of the legislation is to allow a public road to be changed to Crown land and then to land in fee-simple, and closed as a public road. I throw that back at the Minister. That is sheer humbug. Of course he is amending the Town Plan, and he intends to change a public road to Crown land and then to land privately held by unencumbered title in fee-simple.

Mr. Aikens: If you talk like that the Minister will accuse you of having an obsession against the Brisbane City Council.

Mr. LICKISS: I do not care what the Minister accuses me of.

That is my first point. I shall now have a little more to say on the matter of the road closure. What I want to point out in clause 1 is that the Government has condoned the turning of this piece of road into a city square. I also accuse the Minister of overlooking the provisions of the very legislation that we passed to deal with the planning of Brisbane, known as the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act of 1964, and the method by which the Town Plan can be amended in accordance with that law. Section 6 of that Act provides, "Brisbane City Council may propose amendments of the Plan." The Minister said that the present proposal cannot be opened to public objections because there would be many. That is a callous denial of the rights of the individual. If such callous tactics have to be used with regard to the rights of the

individual, it is about time we started to look not only at the legislation but at the Minister who administers it. I am fed up to the teeth with what is going on in land administration in this State.

Mr. Houston: You could resign.

Mr. LICKISS: I shall not resign. I am prepared to stay here and fight for some sort of sensible approach to these matters. If hon. members do not believe what I say, let them test the feeling outside.

It was rather generally accepted that once plans for the development of the city square were approved by the Government, the Bill would be proclaimed. Now another consideration has been introduced. I am pleased that an undertaking has been given to look at all the traffic problems that will be caused by the closing of Albert Street, and the measures to be taken by the appropriate authorities to alleviate them.

Mr. Coburn: Have that incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. LICKISS: I should like to see that done. But trying to force an amendment to legislation at this stage is much the same as the hon. member's trying to homogenise milk in Townsville.

I have referred to some of the special fa:ctors that I should like to have seen written into the Bill. I appreciate the Premier's intervention to give a clear undertaking that all matters relating to the proclamation and the date of proclamation will be considered and that they will be wider than those that were to be considered initially when the Bill was introduced. I hope that I, for one, will have my attention drawn to the actual approval given by the Governor in Council, because I wish to see that all pertinent matters have been covered adequately.

In my opinion, by naming the Bill the Brisbane City Square Bill the Government has taken the political and other responsibility away from the Brisbane City Council. It has avoided the need for an amendment to the Town Plan. However, I still believe that, for the proposal to be legal-! will mention this matter on a subsequent clause-provision should be inserted that the Brisbane City Council will satisfy the Government that the Town Plan has been amended in so far as this land is concerned and in so far as its future use is concerned.

Mr. PORTER (Toowong) (12.27 p.m.): As did the hon. member for Bundaberg, I shall speak very briefly on snbclause 2 of clause 1.

I think it is clear that there is a massive ground swell of public apprehension about the way in which this closure of Albert Street is being made. Members of the public are apprehensive that the closure will cause a very real traffic problem if it is made too far in advance of other requirements of the Wilbur Smith Report. It was indeed pleasing to

Brisbane City [23 NovEMBER] Square Bill 1885

receive the Minister's assurance this morning that all the requirements will have to be satisfied before the Act is proclaimed.

Mr. Houston: He said that at the introductory stage.

Mr. PORTER: I must have been asleep. I was not aware that it was said in such clear terms.

Mr. Houston: It was. We understood it.

Mr. PORTER: The hon. member is very fortunate to have such a remarkable capacity for understanding. I do not have it. As I said, I am very pleased to have the Minister's assurance on that point, and I was very pleased also to read in the Press on Monday morning an assurance from the Premier along similar lines. It is a matter on which hon. members must be given a definite assurance. It may not be seven or 10 years before the Act is proclaimed, as the hon. member for Bundaberg suggested. That may be too far ahead, but I should think it would be a considerable time.

I agree with the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha that there is some consternation, certainly among people in the circles in which I move-they may not be similar to those in which hon. members opposite move-that a Government which, in 1957, began with noble proposals to institute a Bill of Rights to ensure that individual rights and liberties should be enshrined impregnably in legislation is now taking this action. It was not possible to introduce that proposed Bill-I was quite sure at the time that it would not be-but, nevertheless, the Government began with those ideals. It is a matter for regret that it should now be doing something that, in one fell swoop, removes all possibility of public objection in a matter of major concern.

I reiterate that the traffic problems associated with the square, which is to be the roof of a car park, need to be very clearly and definitely resolved. The census figures for Brisbane, which were released only about 10 days ago, show that the population of this city as at 30 June, 1966, was 719,140, which is an increase of 22 · 38 per cent. on the population at the time of the previous census. In other words, in the intercensal period, Brisbane's population has increased by 131,506. By the time the next census is taken, on that rate of advance-! am sure the rate will be accelerated-the population will have increased to 880,000, and long before the following census it will be over 1,000,000. That will seriously affect the city's traffic-carrying capacity, and any responsible Government must be quite sure that it is doing the right thing in permitting a city council to take this action under an Act of this Parliament.

Mr. AIKENS (Townsville South) (12.30 p.m.): During the second-reading stage of the Bill I suggested that an amendment might be moved to take the implementation or the promulgation of this Bill out of the hands of the Minister for Lands, the Premier, or whoever it might be at the time, and vest it

in this Parliament. I scratched out an amendment something along these lines: "In subclause (2) of clause 1, after the word 'Gazette' add the words, 'but not before this Parliament is completely satisfied that the land, the subject of the Bill, will not be used to constitute a traffic hazard'", or words to that effect. But having given the matter some consideration I am now completely convinced that if I move it, despite the opposition to the Bill from a very worthy group in this Parliament who have at least infused some life into its debates, we would have a more or less useless division and it would be defeated, as usual, by the Labour Party walking over to join their political blood-brothers, the Tories, and voting against the hon. member for Bundaberg and myself.

Mr. Ramsden: That is the first time I have known you to be concerned about a useless division.

Mr. AIKENS: There are times, of course, when I consider whether or not the time of this Parliament should be wasted. I suggest that the hon. member for Merthyr give some consideration to that point, because time and time again, old "Sapper Sam", as he is known, has wasted the time of this Parliament with interminable speeches about nothing, if I might call a tunnel under the river nothing.

I do not intend to offer myself up as a burnt offering to either side of the Chamber. I suggested in the second-reading stage of the Bill-and I am convinced now beyond a shadow of doubt-that the opposition we get from a certain section in this Chamber is purely and simply a little bit of party-political sham-fighting and shadow-sparring. I know, of course, that the Minister for Lands treats this group with the studied and deliberate contempt that he treats the people of the city of Brisbane with by denying them the opportunity to have a popular vote on this matter. He is shrugging his shoulders about whether it is raised in the Country-Liberal Pa,rty Caucus this afternoon by saying, "There are only seven of them."

I am not going to quote Dickens. When the Minister replied I enjoyed it very much indeed, because I am blessed-or cursedwith a sense of humour, and when he said to the hon. member for Clayfield--

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am blessed with a sense of humour also, but I cannot see what this has to do with clause 1 of the Bill.

Mr. AIKENS: One of these days I will quote Dickens, but that is beside the point. Here we have a Minister for Lands not only treating the people of Brisbane with studied and deliberate contempt but also treating the young crusaders of the Liberal Party with studied and deliberate contempt, as well as derision.

I leave the matter at that; I leave it to those who are disposed towards this Bill. But I remind the Minister for Lands and


members of the Country-Liberal Party who feel that they are too firmly entrenched in control of this Government to worry about a small group, that there is a very trite but true saying: "Great oaks from little acorns grow". Up in the North, of course, they say, "Great blokes from little Aikens grow".

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I do not think the hon. member for Townsville South has said one word relative to clause 1 since he rose to his feet. I now ask him to do so.

Mr. AIKENS: It is a matter of gratification for me to be directed by you, Mr. Hooper, on these matters. We get so much irresponsible advice from the back-bench members of both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party that one wonders--

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. AIKENS: Although I have given all opponents of the Bill every opportunity! have almost spelt the words out for themto move an amendment to protect this Parliament, it would seem that they have no intention of doing so. I therefore propose to let the matter rest at that.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (CunninghamMinister for Lands) (12.35 p.m.): I do not think there is anything very much to reply to. The hon. member for Bundaberg apparently feels assured, and I am glad of that.

Mr. Walsh: I am going to vote against the Bill-don't have any misunderstanding about that.

Mr. FLETCHER: I think I can advert to what I said at the introductory stage, when it was made pretty clear what the intention was. I said in part-

"It is most important to note that the Bill will not operate until proclaimed in force by the Governor in Council. This means that Albert Street at this point will not be closed as a road until some future time. Even though the Bill is passed by this Parliament the mad will remain open for public use until all matters are finalised."

Mr. Aikens interjected.

Mr. FLETCHER: The hon. member may be right. Perhaps I should have elaborated on that point. That is in the minds of those who intelligently would not do anything else. They have to be satisfied that traffic can flow, that there will not be a bottleneck--

Mr. Aikens: Do you put yourself in that category-the intelligent ones?

Mr. FLETCHER: Most decidedly. To my recollection there was a good deal

of discussion on this very point at the introductory stage. I just cannot understand how hon. members who listened to the introduction of the Bill could not now have the

impression that what I am saying is a fact, that this was going to be subject to everyone, on expert advice, being satisfied that the thing would work.

As to the matter of re-zoning the King George Square area if we hand this piece of land over to the Brisbane City Council, if it is necessary to re-zone it the council will do that, but we cannot re-zone a road. You do not re-zone roads. The hon. member has the cart before the horse.

I am not quite sure what was the point of the hon. member for Toowong. I am not quite sure that I see the relevance of his Bill of Rights argument.

I can assure the hon. member for Townsville South, who interjects so often-in quite good humour most of the time-that I am not treating anyone with contempt or derision. That is not my nature. But if somebody says something that causes me and my officers a lot of trouble, I am entitled to draw the attention of the Chamber to it. If what is said is irrelevant, immaterial and siiiy, I am entitled to say so. Why should I, as a responsible Minister, by my silence encourage somebody to bring in irrelevancies and things that arise out of goodness knows what sort of personal reactions to certain political personalities or parties, and allow him to carry on in that vein? This Parliament has to be treated with respect, and I am treating. it with respect when I say that certain things--

Mr. A:ikens: It comes strange from you when you say that this Parliament has to be treated with respect.

Mr. FLETCHER: I do not have to get a personnel reference as to the respect I get from any hon. member.

I do not mind anyone having a different opinion from me, even the hon. member for Townsville South. That does not affect me at all.

Mr. MURRAY (Clayfield) (12.39 p.m.): I just want to say in relation to what the Minister has just said that it is a rather sad state of affairB----'although it may not read that way-that the Minister's statement this morning sounded to my ears and other ears in the Chamber like a pretty studied operation of thinly veiled insult to the hon. member for Mt. Coot,tha.

Mr. Aikens: And sarcasm.

Mr. MURRAY: Yes, and sarcasm. It sounded like it. The Minister may not have intended it that way-I will inspect it and see how it reads_jbut, it dripped out that way.

In relation to the Minister's statement that this sort of thing causes a Minister and his officers trouble, he was referring to the matters raised earlier, on the first reading, as he called it. May I ask the Minister for Lands and other Ministers to stop talking about first readings; we do not have them;


they are formal stages. We have not got the Bill in the introductory debate, so it is not a first reading.

The Minister said that this sort of thing causes a Minister and his officers some trouble. What a pity! If there is one jot of truth or relevance in any matter raised by the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha or any other hon. member relating to this Bill in rhe introductory stage-or at any other stage, that gives the Minister and his officers some trouble, then this Parliament-perhaps in terms of some of the remarks that have been passed earlier one might refer to it as "The Old Curiosity Shop"-is served well.

I deplore the Minister's attitude and I ask him to have a good look at what he said. The attitude should not be allowed to develop, of what may appear to be a Minister holding in contempt a back-bench member of the Government. All is fair in love and war, I know, but it is going a little bit far to hold an hon. member in contempt for his suggestions, and we are reaching a pretty desperate low in the conduct of our parliamenrary affairs if that attitude is allowed to develop.

Mr. E. G. W. Wood: What did the hon. member say a~bout the Minister? Refer to that, please.

Mr. MURRA Y: Lots of things are said, but that does not necessarily mean that if the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha made some remark about the Minister, the Minister should then turn on what I consider to be a pretty heated flood in reply.

Mr. Aikens: Vituperation.

Mr. MURRA Y: That is so. It does not necessarily follow that this should happen, and I do not like this trend at all. I think it is tremendously dangerous.

I remind the Minister of a few words relating to what he has said, and the problems that have been caused. He said that responsibilities and problems would be created by giving the public an opportunity to protest in the normal way on this matter. I should like to quote from a very interesting little document I have picked up, written by one Ross Anderson. Hon. members opposite should remember well who Ross Anderson was; he lectured in law and he was certainly not a supporter of this side of the Chamber. He wrote of this problem of the individual right, and went on to say-

"The question which has evoked the greatest discussion and debate is the control of the many discretionary powers vested in the administration to make decisions and take action prejudicial to the rights and liberties and interests of citizens. The welfare state has necessarily propagated a forest of powers of this kind in such fields as town and country planning, transport, social services and insurance, health, the conduct of trade and commerce, and a host of others. A widespread feeling has grown that the interests of the individual may not be given due attention in the execution of

social policy. This feeling has been strengthened by the bringing to light of such examples of Government bungling as the Crichel Down case, which led to the resignation of a Minister.

"It is recognised that Parliament and the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility are no longer adequate instruments for the protection of the individual against administrative abuse and ineptitude."

We have to watch this, and watch it very closely indeed.

I shall come back, when the next clause is debated, to matters more closely related to the Bill. I wanted to raise that matter at this opportunity because the Minister said things that I belie¥e should not have been said by a Minister in this Chamber.

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (12.46 p.m.): I shall not delay the Committee longer than necessary. I give the Minister credit where he is entitled to it, and he is entitled to it in this case because he has given the Committee an assurance that the Act will not be proclaimed until certain things are done. I think we should accept that assurance.

The Leader of the Opposition said he understood what the Minister conveyed to the Committee in his introductory speech. There are few other hon. members on either side of .the Committee who could say they understood. I think the Minister remembers that what he said was that the Act would be proclaimed when matters in relation to the closure of this street had been resolved.

Mr. Fletcher: That includes traffic.

Mr. W ALSH: We were entitled to have something more definite, and we got it this morning. The Minister will give me credit for this: I felt that the Brisbane City Council wanted to be able to convey some assurance to those who might tender for this project that the Government would honour its part of the contract in respect of the closure of Albert Street. I do not think, from the debate as I have followed it, that anybody else gave consideration to Turbot Street and the other things .that are linked with the closure of Albert Street. If A.L.P. members had obtained rank-and-file opinion on the matter, particularly from taxi-cab drivers who transport many people through the city, they would have had an entirely different viewpoint from the one that has been expressed.

Mr. Aikens: They are not allowed to get rank-and-file opinion. They have to do what the Trades Hall says.

Mr. W ALSH: They could get the information in their own way. It is idle to suggest that because the A.L.,P. may have been casual in the first place in determining on a party basis its attitude to the Bill, we should have accepted everything that the Minister put up.

The Minister will agree that nobody was more consistent than he, when on this side of the Chamber, in insisting that all these


assurances should be given. Representing the Government, the Minister should do all the things he demanded of the previous Government. Having given credit to the Minister for saying something specific on the matter, I am prepared to accept his assurance and that of the Government.

The little dog-fight between the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha and the Minister has nothing to do with me. My only observation is that if the hon. member for Mt. Coot-tha seeks to ladle it out he must be prepared to take it.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (CunninghamMinister for Lands) (12.49 p.m.): The hon. member who has just resumed his seat stated the position exactly. I am glad he is now reassured. I am happy to be complimented by the fact he accepts my assurance.

I am not sure yet how I have been affected in my personality by the lofty lecture I received from the hon. member for Clayfield. He dealt with matters of principle and told me that I should not object to my officers being put to any trouble. I perhaps should have used one extra word-"unnecessary" trouble. If one thing after another is put up and each turns out to be trivial and unnecessary, I am entitled to say on behalf of my officers, "Go steady. Make quite sure of your ground before you do this." That is all I am doing.

With regard to his lofty principles and idealism--

Mr. Aikens: Come out of your ivory tower.

Mr. FLETCHER: I have never been in an ivory tower. 'vVith regard to the late Ross Anderson, I think his was a rather leaning ivory tower-a lean to the leftalthough I am bound to say that in many ways I respected him as a gentleman.

Clause 1, as read, agreed to.

Clause 2--Closure of Part of Albert Street-

IYI•·. LICKISS (~t. Coot-tha) (12.51 p.m.): Th1s IS the operative clause under which it is propose~ to ~lose the road, the land being that contamed m allotment 21 of section XI City of Brisbane. '

In connection with the alteration of the Town Plan for the city of Brisbane in the first instance the Minister said that the land was to be used for a city square, so that its purpo5e was not being altered and the proposition that I previously advanced had no effect. In winding up the debate the Minister said that it would probably be necessary for the council to amend the plan when the land was handed over. I should like to know where the Minister stands on this matter. Does he know how to go about amending the plan. or whether it is necessary to amend it? It is the Crm1 n that is giving the title, and it is the Crown that will close the road.

I remind the Minister of the definition of "allotment" under the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act. The present legal status of the land is a road. It is proposed in one fell swoop to close the road and to deal with it by vesting it in the Brisbane City Council in unrestricted fee simple. I shall leave it to others to judge whether that is or is not amending the Town Plan.

I regret that personalities have entered this debate. So far as I am concerned, the matter should be debated on the wisdom of the contents of the Bill and how they affect the citizens of this State. I expressed the opinion previously that the method adopted to close the road and vest the land in the Brisbane City Council was not wise. I reaffirm my statement that this is a callous denial of, and disregard for, the rights of the individual as evidenced by the wording of the Bill. No protection is written into it except that its proclamation may be postponed till a time fixed by the Governor in Council. That is the issue to which I take exception.

In connection with closing roads generally, the Minister said he has no record of past necessities to close roads for town-planning purposes. This is a road that would continue to be used by the public, and of necessity a choice has to be made between the use of the land for a road in the public interest, or for some other purpose. That could have been decided by an amendment of the Town Plan under section 6 of the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act, as a proposal to amend the Plan. That section sets out how a proposal shall be advertised and what action shall be taken so that the community generally can decide whether it is advisable to have a city square, whether it is advisable to retain all or part of the road, or just what should be done. To sav that that right cannot be retained is so much humbug, because if the Town Plan is amended, the road system will be changed in many instances.

The Minister rests very heavily on the Wilbur Smith Report as being a report that recommends this souare. I point out to him that the Wilbur Smith Report is a traffic study, not a road plan. If he thinks it is some sort of a road plan, I point out to him that it is not a concise one. If the Minister wants evidence in support of my contention, I refer him to Mr. Paul Ritter, the town planner of Perth, Western Aus.tralia. He can ask Mr. Ritter what he thmks of the Wilbur Smith Report. I suggest that the Minister will find that it is not a road plan but a traffic study. It is a traffic study concerned only with motor vehicles; _it disreaards completely other modes of pubhc trans;ort. Consequently, it is a guide to the Government, not a bible for it.

It is not fair of the Minister to put the Bill forward on the basis that the city square was recoanised and recommended in the Wilbur Smith Report. Indeed, as I said earlier,


Wilbur Smith and Associates considered the city square as a fait accompli and planned round it. Another matter that is being taken into consideration now, but which was excluded earlier, is that when all the other traffic adjustments are to be made the Act will be proclaimed. The question that the Committee is now considering is: when will it be possible to proceed with the construction of the city square? It might be five years before a road system is finally constructed that will allow for the alleviation of traffic problems created by the closing of Albert Street. The matters to which I have referred are of great importance.

Earlier in the debate I referred to what I described as a callous denial of, and disregard for, the rights of the individual evidenced by the wording of the Bill. If there had been a proposal to amend the Town Plan, the public would have been invited to object. If the matter of the road closure had not been open for public objection, at le::cst a ministerial inquiry would have been necessary. At no stage did I say that the road could be closed under the provisions of existing legislation. If the Minister wants to quote me, he should quote me correctly. I suggested that if the legislation was not adequate, the existing general legislation should be amended to permit the closure to be made.

To put the matter beyond doubt, I suggest to the Government that what is badly needed in Queensland, in view of this legislation, is an Act to provide for the opening and closing of roads in the State of Queensland, and that it should take the form of general, not special, legislation. In view of what has been said in the course of this debate, such legislation will be as much needed-it will be needed even more as town-planning ventures are proceeded with-as the longawaited consolidated resumption Act for Queensland. I was hoping that this legislation would be given priority.

Mr. AikellS: Those remarks seem to imply personal abuse.

Mr. LICKISS: I am not making submissions on a personal basis. I am merely putting forward honest criticism and pointing out what I believe should be done.

In my opinion, the wording of clause 2 confirms what I said about the weakness in administrative procedures in the Bill. I pointed out that the procedure as adopted in the Bill shows a grave weakness in land administration, particularly in relation to recurring administrative problems. Whichever way we look at this city square legislation, we can rest assured that cases of a similar nature will recur from time to time. Therefore, in the interests of sound land administration I believe we must look at our general legislation. As I said before, I think it is in that legislation that the rights of the individual are more likely to be protected.

It is in this type of sledge-hammer legislation that the rights of the individual are usually thrown to the winds. The Minister has already said that if we do something else someone might object. I am not prepared to sit in this Chamber representing a section of the community, representing the people of Queensland, and see their rights whittled away so unnecessarily. I believe in the judgment and good sense of the average man in the street. I believe that we are treating this man's judgment with contempt. There is already provision in the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act, first of all, for objections to be raised. We could amend our general legislation so far as it affects road closure, and in all this the main issue is the rights of the individual.

Whilst I do not intend to move an amendment, I propose to read what I felt would have been the proper wording for clause 2. Since I do not intend to move it as an amendment, I want to give the Committee some indication of how this clause might have been more properly worded, first of all, if it was deemed necessary to have special legislation to do it, and secondly, in the event of the special legislation being necessary, then what it should have been in order to protect the rights of the individual. I refer to clause 2, "Closure of part of Albert Street," and I suggest it should read-

"On and from the date of the coming into operation and by virtue of this Act the land (in this Act called the 'said land') comprised in the part known as King George Square of Albert Street in the City of Brisbane, being the part of that street between Adelaide Street and Ann Street, described as allotment 21 of section XI, City of Brisbane, containing an area of 3 roods 23 perches, as shown on Plan Catalogue No. B.3.2197, deposited in thte Survey Office at Brisbane is closed as a public road and, subject to the Brisbane City Council submitting evidence satisfactory to the Governor in Council that all claims for disturbance severance deprivation of access and all claims for compensation whatsoever by reason of the closure of that part of Albert Street described as the said land or by the acquisition or resumption by the Brisbane City Council of any property adjacent to or fronting that part of Albert Street described as the said land have been fully paid and satisfied, is vested in Brisbane City Council for an estate in fee-simple." Mr. Walsh: Move it; the A.L.P. might

support you. Mr. LICKISS: Not a chance in the world! I believe that if the clause had been worded

in that form at least it would have shown some intention on the part of the Government to protect the rights of those who in normal circumstances, and certainly under this Act, cannot protect themselves.

Progress reported. The House adjourned at 1.6 p.m.

legislative assembly wednesday november

Documents