mrgt.!ilattur Qtnuuril - parliament of new south wales

Transcription

2518
Industrial Arbitration Bill
[COUNCIL]
stop this mischievous practice by some doctors so that girls who are of big build will
not be given· this frightful label of being
overweight, and so prevented from doing
their best work in their last years at school.
I make rio apology for raising this ·matter
now. It is a human problem. I believe
that the career of this fine girl has been
destroyed, and I want to ensure that no
other careers are destroyed by the same
doctor or doctors.
Mr. HEFFRON (Maroubra) (Premier
and Minister for Education) [10.41]: If
the hon. member will let me have some
particulars-not for publication-on the
age at which this girl was examined, her
name, address and so on, I promise to look
into the case and to let him know the
position. If a wrong has been done I shall
do whatever is possible to right it.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at 10.42 p.m.
mrgt.!ilattur Qtnuuril
Wednesday, 2 December, 1959
Industrial Arbitration (Amendment) Bill (third reading)
-Valuation of Land and Local Government
(Amendment) Bill (third reading)-Escapes from
Pri~ons (Ministerial Statem~nt)-Banking (Interpretahon of References) B11l (second reading)G.aming and Betting (Poker Machines) Amendment
B•ll (second reading)-Gaming and Betting (Poker
Machines) Taxation Amendment Bill (second reading)-Parliamentary Allowances and Salaries Bill
(first
reading)-Legislative Assembly Members
Super~nn?ation (Amendment) Bill (first reading)Conshtutwn
Amendment
(Legislative
Council
Aboliti_on) Bill-Business oi the House-Printing
Comm1tte~
(Eleventh Report)-8pecial Adjournment-AdJOurnment (Seasonal Felicitations).
The PRESIDENT took the chair at 4.28 p.m.
The Prayer was read.
INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION
(AMENDMENT) BILL
THIRD READING
Bill read a third time, and returned to the
Legislative Assembly without amendment,
on motions by the Hon. J. J. Maloney.
Escapes from Prisons
VALUATION OF LAND AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL
THIRD READING
Legislative Assembly without amendment,
on motions by the Hon. R. R. Downing.
ESCAPps FROM PRISONS
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENT
The Hon. R. R. DOWNING: Hon. members will recall that on 5th November Major
the Hon. H. P. FitzSimons asked me a
question about the security of prisons and
the availability and the adequacy of staff
in these institutions. Following that, I
said that I would make a statement when
the period for appeals to the Crown Employees' Appeal Board had expired, as
appeals might be lodged by staff who had
been dealt with by the Public Service
Board. In answer to an interjection, I
said that I thought the time in which appeals could be lodged was twenty-one days ;
however, I was mistaken. The appeal
period under the Crown Employees Appeal
Act is thirty days. In those circumstances,
I did not feel that I should refer to matters associated with that escape until the
period had expired. Following the escape
of the two prisoners on 9th October a
strenuous campaign was directed against the
administration . of prison services in this
State. Though I do not wish to minimise
the seriousness of this particular escape, I
intend to demonstrate that much of the
comment has been grossly irresponsible and
ill informed.
The escape of Simmonds and Newcombe
has been traced to personal failure. On the
day of their escape the two prisoners were
taken from the workshop, where they were
employed, to the bathhouse, which is in the
centre ·of the prison. The officer who
escorted them and other prisoners to the
bathhouse should have kept them under
surveillance and ensured that they were
returned to the workshop. This he failed
to do. Simmonds and Newcombe were ·
then permitted to pass through a gate leading from the central square of the prison
without being handed ove,: to the control
of a warder, as required by the prison .
(2 DEC., 1959]
rules. Instead of returning to the workshop, the two prisoners made their way to
the southern wall of the penitentiary and
once there they broke into the church.
They removed a ventilator from the
church wall and climbed through into a
vacant area. From there they made their
way on to the driveway in front of the
prison buildings. They were )here detected and chased by an unarmed prison
officer, but were too quick for him and
were able to climb the low perimeter wall
and make their way into open country.
During the chase the prison officer called
on two other officers for assistance. Prompt
action by these two officers may have foiled
the escape attempt. This is not certain, but
even a short delay may have been sufficient.
In the event the two officers failed to render
any assistance whatever. Following an inquiry at the State Penitentiary, the Public
Service Board found the two warders who
failed to give assistance guilty of gross misconduct in their failure to take proper and
prompt action.
One of these officers was dismissed from
the prison service and the appointment of
the other, who was on probation, was
annulled.
Two other warders who had failed to
exercise surveillance as required by the
prison rules were found to be culpable to
a lesser degree, and they were severely censured. A fifth warder thought to have been
lax in his duty was completely exonerated.
In view of the evidence adduced at the inquiry and subsequent developments, the
board is of the opinion that further inquiry
into the supervision exercised by more
senior officers at the State Penitentiary is
warranted and this inquiry is proceeding.
The fact remains however, that this escape
by Simmonds and Newcombe resulted
simply from the . failure of some officers
to do their duty.
The press has also made much of the socalled escape of two female inmates of the
State Reformatory at Malabar. This is
quite a different matter. The two women
were housed in the first offenders' section
which is outside the main walls of the
State Reformatory. All the prisoners in this
section are on the honour system and it
2519
would be a comparatively simple matter
for them to abscond at any time without
negligence or any other failure on the part
of the reformatory staff. The section was
first established in 1936 and except for this
latest incident only two prisoners have
absconded in the succeeeding years. This
is a total of four escapes in twenty-three
years. I advise Major the Hon. H. P.
FitzSimons that the State Penitentiary at
Malabar is now fully manned. The wages
currently paid are fixed by agreement
entered into between the Public Serviee
Board and the Public Service Association
in November last year. Conditions for the
warders have also been prescribed largely
following discussions with the Union. The
level of wages and conditions is such that
an adequate intake of warders is being
maintained.
To establish any criterion by which the
administration of the prison service in this
State may be judged it is necessary to draw
comparisons with other systems. At the
outset it must be said that the simple way
to maintain discipline and security in any
prison is to keep the prisoners in their cells.
Perhaps that is the system that some would
have us adopt. For many years the close
confinement and inhuman treatment of
prisoners was regarded as quite logical.
The aim of imprisonment was retribution
and nothing more-revenge by society
against the lawbreaker. With the passing
of time a more enlightened view has prevailed. All over the world the more progressive authorities have repudiated the idea
of brutal punishment in favour of curative
treatment and rehabilitation. Since 1945
major advances have been made in the
treatment of prisoners in this State. To a
much greater extent than in most other
countries classification and segregation of
prisoners has become a fundamental principle. Institutions and parts of institutions
are set aside for the housing of particular
groups and prisoners are classified into the
following groups: unconvicted prisoners,
appellants, debtors, maintenance confines,
short-sentence prisoners, remedial, recidivist, intractable, homosexual and unclassified. In the unclassified group are any convicted prisoners during the period when the
investigation is proceeding to determine.
2520·
Escapes from Prison•
[COUNCIL]
into which class they will be placed. More- At the State Penitentiary a large number
over, prisoners under 25 years of age are of prisoners .are allocated to work in the
farm area outside the main walls of the
separated from those over that age.
Rehabilitation and training are the key prison. In all these classes supervision is
words of the system. Educational services nominal-and intentionally so. Prisoners
are provided for all prisoners who will could, in many cases, merely walk away
take advantage of them. The level of in- from the area-in these circumstances it is
struction ranges from pr.irri.ary level to of course quite ridiculous to talk of the
early tertiary. There is an impressive pro- "escape" of prisoners, "abscond" is the
gramme of technical training for a wide more appropriate word.
Even at the State Penitentiary any privariety of trades and callings. First-class
libraries have been established and this soner working in the farm area could, if he
facility is very widely used. In most of the were determined enough, abscond from the
institutions controlled radio listening by area. He would merely have to climb the
pris0ners is permitted as a step towards im- low brick wall marking the boundaries of
proving morale, and there have been not- the prison land. This is the wall climbed
able improvements in the quality of food, by Simmonds and Newcombe-tbe wall
clothing and other necessaries supplied to which has been so often photographed and
prisoners. Mere employment in itself is a ~caled by the intrepid gentlemen of the
step towards rehabilitation, and with the press. It is not, and never was, intended
exception of the State Penitentiary all to be anything but a wall demarking the
prisoner~ except those not permitted to work
boundary-it is not the main prison wall.
for disciplinary or medical reasons are
We, of course, consider our present
given employment.
system of prisons, though not perfect, to be
A resident medical officer, a dental offi- the best that can be devised with the
cer, a psychologist and a consultant material and human resources at our dispsychiatrist have been appointed at posal. But what is the assessment of the
the State Penitentiary to assist in the outside observer? Professor Tappan, an
physical and mental rehabilitation of eminent American authority on prisons,
prisoners. At this moment, a further during a visit here last year commented on
investigation is being made into the medical the excellence of the rehabilitation procare and attention in our gaols. Even when gramme of the New South Wales prison
all this has been done, there remains the service. He noted the many worthwhile
major roadblock to the treatment of pris- innovations and said that:
oners so that they may return to society
A very constructive aspect of the proand lead a useful and normal life. n· must gramme, as it is worked here, has been the
be remembered that the overwhelming continuity of effort from beginning to end
majority of prisoners do return to society, of the treatment process such as I have not
not by way of escape but by release at the observed in other countries or in the Sta.tes
end of their sentences. This roadblock is of the United States.
the soul-destroying monotony of institu- Great service has been rendered to the retional life and the lack of contact with the
habilitation of prisoners by private organioutside world. In New South Wales this
problem has been met by the creation of sations-religious, social and industrial. At
training centres such as Goulburn and Emu present there is a committee consisting of
Plains, and prison camps like those at Glen representatives of religious groups, exInnes and Oberon. In these open institu- servicemen and Legacy, together with tradetions supervision is at a minimum-it is an union organisations and representatives of
honour system in the true sense. The insti- the Chamber of Manufadtures who, at
tutional atmosphere is eradicated to a large great inconvenience to themselves, attempt
degree. Even in the closed prisons, prisoners to place in employment ex-prisoners who are
are permitted outside the walls to work likely to become good citizens. I should
on agricultural and afforestation projects. like to read bon. members a letter from the
The Hon. R. R. Downing]
[2 DEC., 1959]
Reverend Ray Weir published in The
Sydney Morning Herald of 13th March
last year. It reads:
It has been most interesting and enlightening to read reports in recent weeks from socalled specialists regarding the prison system
in New South Wales and the rehabilitation of
prisoners.
In 1954 I had the honour of being the
delegate from Australia to attend a world
conference on "Prisons and Prisoners" held in
Geneva. In the official report of that conference (which was circulated to the governments of all countries other than those behind
the Iron Curtain), New South Wales, Denmark and Norway were cited as world leaders
in the field of prison reform and rehabilitation. The report adds: "Such examples should
be followed in every country."
Undoubtedly it would do the "specialists"
some good to see what is being done-or
what is not being done-in many other countries.
I refer also the the article by Professor
Shatwell, the Dean of the Faculty of Law
at the University of Sydney, which'recently
appeared in the Sunday Telegraph. Professor Shatwell in general commended the
New South Wales prison administration for
its enlightened approach. The commencing
paragraphs of this article read:
As recent events have shown, the escape
of a particularly dangerous criminal always
excites emotional feelings in the general
public.
In these circumstances public opinion is
likely to go astray.
This can result in the short-term view in
unfair criticism of the New South Wales
prison administration, which, both at the
ministerial level and the departmental level
is enlightened and highly competent, and in
the long-term view by losing sight of the
important social aims of a modern penal
system.
I think we all accept these assessments
by acknowledged experts, or do the critics
wish us to turn the clock back to the days
when prisoners were kept in their cells,
except for short periods of exercise, and
were flogged for any minor breach of
regulations-to be ultimately turned loose
on society as hardened resentful criminals?
This would avoid the calculated risk of
escape. It would, of course, be necessary
to treble our present prison staffs and to
construct more maximum security gaols,
2521
but no doubt the press would welcome an
increase in taxation to meet this worthy
purpose.
Before this is done, of course, it might
be worth examining whether our system
of administration does in fact lead to a
greater incidence of escapes than those experienced in other countries. A comparison
with England is most enlightening. In
England the daily average· prison population
varied from approximately 18,000 in 1957
to 21,000 in 1958. In New South Wales
the daily average is approximately 3,000.
In 1957 in England there were fifteen escapes
of prisoners from security in enclosed
prisons and fifty-seven escapes from working
parties, and so on, outside the walls. There
were seventeen escapes from medium security
prisons and no less than 777 absconders
from open prisons and Borstal institutions.
During the same year in New South Wales
there were no escapes from security in
enclosed prisons and only two from outside
the walls. Seven prisoners absconded from
open prisons. The year 1958 gives similar
comparisons. In England there were fortyeight escapes from security enclosed prisons,
fifty-seven from outside the walls and eleven
from medium security prisons. There were
eighty-nine absconders from open prisons
and over 600 from Borstal institutions. In
New South Wales there were four escapes
from security in closed prisons, seven from
outside the walls and seven prisoners absconded from open institutions.
It is interesting to note that despite this
very high incidence of escapes in England,
there is little or no criticism of the administration-certainly there are no hysterical
outbursts of the type we have witnessed
here. In New Zealand with an average
daily prison population very close to our
own in New South Wales there was a total
of thirty-seven escapes from prisons in
1957 and thirty-six in 1958. In Scotland
with an average prison population appreciably lower than that of New South Wales,
there were seventy-three escapes of male
prisoners from all types of prisons in 1957
and fifty-six in 1958. When I was in Sweden
I asked for the escape list, and I was informed that the average number of prisoners at large, after having escaped from
institutions, was seventy a day.
2522
[COUNCIL]
Colonel the Hon. H. J. R. CLAYTON: Did
the Minister say that there were seventy· a
day?
The Hon. R. R. DOWNING: The police
were always looking for seventy people who
had escaped or absconded from open institutions. The police have a list, and the
average number of people that the police
were looking for was seventy.
The Hon. Sir EDWARD WARREN: They
might pick up six in one day and lose
another six on the same day?
The Hon. R. R. DOWNING: The prison
iJ>opulation there would be about twice
the prison population here. It would be
about 5,500 to 6,000.
The Hon. A. D. BRIDGES: That is to say,
about 1 per cent would be unlawfully out-side supervision?
The Hon. R. R. DOWNING: Yes. Of
course, in Sweden many of the open institutions are in rugged country. In fairness
I must say that the authorities take much
greater risks with the type of prisoners that
they place in open institutions than we do
in New South Wales.
The Hon. A. D. BRIDGES: They permit
them to mix with the population, in the
same way as the Borstal institutions?
The Hon. R. R. DOWNING: That is
so. Most of the escapees are recaptured;
very few of them get away. When they
are picked up, they go back in for a longer
period. Many of the European prisoners
escape to adjoining European countries.
If they do not come back to their home
country, the authorities do not mind very
much. No statistics are presently available
showing the overall picture in the United
States of America. A standard text
on Gaol Administration by Myrl E.
Alexander, the Assistant Director of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, refers
to "thousands of escapes and embarrassing incidents" each year and details
are given of some of the more ingenious escapes that have taken place. A
cursory glance through the New York Times
index reveals that factual reports of escapes
are quite frequent. Only last year two
prisoners succeeded in evading supervision
at Alcatraz and making good their escape.
Escapes from San Quentin are also recorded. In addition to these escapes there
were almost 100 riots and serious disturbances in gaols throughout the United States
of America during the years from
1950 to 1956. Property damage alone
was estimated at more than ten million
dollars. In ·1946 there was even a major
riot in Alcatraz-that costly maximum
security prison which has been referred to
as the ultimate in "dead-end penology".
Comment on these statistics is almost
superfluous. The record of the New South
Wales Prison Service, despite its pioneering
work in the field of training and rehabilitation, is not even approached by the other
countries of the English speaking world.
I must .say here that it is recognised by
all responsible authorities that the prisoner
who is both intelligent and sufficiently determined to escape will almost certainly
make good his escape at some time. A
good deal of the most exciting literature of
our time deals with the escape of prisoners ·
from confinement of a much more
onerous nature than any obtaining in the
prison systems of modern society. In the
face of machine guns, searchlights, walls
and barbed wire, thousands of prisoners
were able to escape. Despite this, and the
calculated risks taken in the modernisation
of the treatment of prisoners, we have in
New South Wales retained an unsurpassed
record in the matter of escapes.
Finally, it is to be regretted that some
newspaper articles have glorified the exploits of escaped prisoners, for this results
in bad effects on the minds of other prisoners and youthful and immature members
of the community. These newspapers have
glorified the escapees ; they have glamourised people who after all are just savage
criminals. This glorification is an incitement to others to attempt to escape.
Further, it is an incitement to people with
young,
immature and impressionable
minds to try to achieve the notoriety that is
gained by these people.
The Hon. ·A. D. BRIDGES: Unfortunately
it is not confined to adolescents. It affects
more mature people.
Banking Bill
(2 DEC., 1959)
The Hon. R. R. DOWNING: That is
so. When the two escapees were at large
recently, I mixed with crowds of people ;
they did not know me and I did not know
them but I was astounded that many of
them, who looked to be responsible citizens, were saying, "I hope he beats them
this time." It is most regrettable that that
attitude is adopted in the community.
The Hon. F. W. SPICER: They would not
take that view after reading the evidence
given at the coroner's inquiry.
The Hon. R. R. DOWNING: No, but
these things happened before the inquiry.
That is a most improper attitude for any
person to take. I apologise for speaking for
so long on this matter, but I have attempted to deal with it as clearly and as
moderately as possible. In conclusion I
wish to pay a tribute to the prison staffs.
The job of a prisons officer is not an attractive or inviting one, for they are in
charge of all types of people, including
criminals, perverts and others. However,
we are fortunate that we have not had the
experience of some of the American and
European countries who have had serious
riots and other sensational happenings. I
attribute that to the standard of the staff
in our New South Wales prisons and the
way in which they perform their duties.
Occasionally someone diverges from the
proper course, but the people of this State
can be thankful for the magnificent work
and service of the prisons staff.
BANKING (INTERPRETATION OF
REFERENCES) BILL
SECOND READING
The Hon. R. R. DOWNING (AttorneyGeneral, '·M~nister of Justice and VicePresident of the Executive Council) [5.2]:
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This is a simple and short measure and I
propose to be brief in my explanation of
it unless bon. members require further information. The Government has been
approached by the Deputy Governor of the
Commonwealth Bank to make urgent
amendments to State legislation to recognise
Banking Bill
2523
the recently enacted Commonwealth legislation making further provision for the
Commonwealth banking system. As hon.
members know, earlier this year the Commonwealth Parliament passed a group of
Acts relating to banking. Some of the
changes that these Acts will effect from a
date to be proclaimed early in 1960 are:
the replacement of the· Commonwealth
Bank of Australia by the Reserve Bank of
Australia ; the establishment of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, which will ·
discharge certain functions in relation to
the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Savings Bank
of Australia, and the Commonwealth
Development Bank of Australia ; the establishment of the Commonwealth Development · Bank of Australia ; and the repeal
of the Banking Act of 1945, the Banking
Act of 1953, and their replacement by the
Banking Act of 1959. The sole object of
the bill is to enact provisions consequential
upon the above changes dealing with the
construction of references in State legislation to both the Commonwealth Bank of
Australia and the banks authorised to carry
on banking business under the Banking
Act of 1945. I find it difficult to imagine
that bon. members would want any more
information than this, but if more details
are required I shall endeavour to answer
any queries on any other aspects.
Colonel the Hon. H. J. R. CLAYTON:
[5 .5]: As the Attorney-General has said, the
House must approve this measure perforce.
It is a simple, machinery bill, which does
something that is most necessary and salutary. Therefore, it must receive the full
support of the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
COMMITTEE AND ADOPTION OF REPORT
Bill reported from Committee without
amendment, and report adopted, on motions
by the Hon. R. R. Downing.
THIRD READING
legislative Assembly, on motions by the
Hon. R. R. Downing.
2524
Gaming and Betting
[COUNCIL]
GAMING AND BE'ITING (POKER
MACHINES) AMENDMENT BILL
SECOND READING
The Hon. J. J. MALONEY (Minister for
Labour and Industry) [5.10]: I move:
The Gaming and Betting Act provides for
the issue to any non-proprietary club registered under Part IliA of that Act or under
Part X of the Liquor Act, of a licence to
keep, use or operate poker machines on
the club's premises. The rates of tax are
prescribed by the Gaming and Betting
(Poker Machines) Taxation Act. The
licence tax on 2s. poker machines at the
present time is £250 per annum for each of
the first five machines and £350 per annum
for each machine in excess of five. If a
licence is issued between 1st January and
30th June in any year, however, the licence
tax is reduced by one half.
For a club of not more than 250 members which has been in existence for less
than three years at the date of issue of its
first licence to keep, use or operate poker
machines, the rates of tax that would otherwise be applicable are reduced by half for
a period of three, two or one years-depending on whether the club is in its first,
second or third year of existence at that
date. The amendments proposed in the
bill and in a supplementary taxation measure that will be submitted for the consideration of hon. members following this
bill, are designed to give effect to the Government'!:: decision to double the licence tax
on 2s. poker machines as from 1st January,
1960. As bon. members are aware, the late
Premier and Treasurer foreshadowed this
amending legislation in his budget speech
on 16th September last. It was pointed out
at that time that although the proposed increased rate of tax was designed to discourage the increasing tendency to instal 2s.
machines in clubs, it was probable that
total receipts from licence fees would increase.
At the present time all licence taxes on
poker machines are paid into an account
at the Treasury called the Gaming and Bet. ing (Poker Machines) Account. The bal. ance to the credit of this account is transferred at intervals not exceeding three
(Poker Machines) Bill
months to the Hospital Fund under the
Public Hospitals Act. It is proposed to
transfer from the Gaming and Betting
(Poker Machines) Account to the Housing
Account under the Housing Act, £125,000
in respect of the year ending 30th June,
1960, and £250,000 in respect of each subsequent year. The amounts so transferred
will be applied towards the provision of
homes for the aged.
The proposed amending legislation provides for the imposition of an additional
licence tax of £125 in respect of each 2s.
poker machine up to and including five,
and £175 in respect of each machine in
excess of five, where any such machine is
kept, used or operated at any time during
the period commencing on 1st January,
1960, and ending on 30th June, 1960. The
present licence tax for the current financial
year on 2s. machines kept, used or operated
at any time during the period commencing
on 1st July, 1959, and ending on 31st
December, 1959, is £250 for each of the first
five machines, and £350 for each machine
in excess of five. If any of these machines
are retained after 31st December, 1959,
they will be subject to the additional tax
of £125 or £175 as the case may be.
Under the existing scale of tax, machines
installed after 31st December, 1959, would
be taxed at £125 in respect of each machine
up to and including five, and £175 for each
machine in excess of five, for the period
ending 30th June, 1960. These rates will
be increased to £250 and £350. Clubs that
cease to keep, use or operate 2s. poker
machines after 15th September, 1959, and
before 1st January, 1960, will be entitled
to a rebate of half of the licence tax paid
or payable in respect of such machines.
Under normal circumstances the provision for rebates of half of the tax paid or
payable on machines withdrawn before 1st
January, 1.960, would operate from the date
of assent to the legislation. However, as
it is felt that some clubs, acting on the
information given in the late Premier's
budget speech, might withdraw machines
before the date· of commencement of the
amending legislation, with the expectation
of receiving a rebate of tax, the refund
provisions have been made retrospective
Gaming and Betting
[2;DEc., 1959]
to 16th September, 1959. As from 1st July,
1960, the date of commencement of the
next licensing year, the rate of tax on 2s.
machines will be £500 for each of the first
five machines and £700 for each machine in
excess of five. I commend the bill to the
House.
The Hon. RICHARD THOMPSON
[5.16]: The bill endorses the view of the
community that poker machines have been
allowed to go too far and this is a restriction, grudging and gradual, that will now
be put upon their operation. Everyone
knows my views on poker machines. I
had the privilege of introducing to this
House the petition from the Council of
Churches against poker machines. I underline all that I said on that occasion ; these
machines are morally wrong and economically unsound. The Minister said that the
late Premier, in his budget speech, promised
that this tax would be imposed and announced that its aim was to restrict the
use of poker machines. The Minister says
that though this is its purpose-and I accept
this-it is likely that revenue coming to
the special fund will be increased because
of increased taxation, even though it may
be imposed upon a lesser number of
machines.
The take from the community and from
the members who play these machines will
be larger than it is now. It means that
this sucker money that will be paid into
the fund will, to a larger degree, come
from a restricted number of suckers. The
justification for clubs was, in the first place,
that they would provide a special fellowship for members. Nothing is more grossly
in conflict with the spirit of club membership than a club's dependence for expansion upon the weakness of some of its members. Some members brush aside the
obvious recklessness of their fellow members and, though refusing to play the
machines themselves, are willing to accept
the increased advantages that clubs provide through the weakness of those other
members. I belonged to several clubs that
have poker machines. Membership of
clubs of that nature, with the number of
poker machines growing to the extent that
it has, is in direct conflict with the spirit
2525
of fellowship supposed to prevail within a
club. As a consequence, I have resigned
from membership of clubs where what I
have suggested has become the usual course
of action and has destroyed the good fellowship and consideration for others that
one expects to find in club life.
Although this bill is a token of the Government's concern about poker machines, the
community is not facing up to the menace
of the operation of these machines in clubs.
The playing of poker machines in clubs is
extending far beyond the membership of
the cluts, and many clubs are dependent
now upon guests and visitors. I specially
draw this . matter to the attention of the
Minister, and request that the Government
give special attention and consideration to
it. I deplore the increasing tendency of
clubs to cater not only for bona fide members but also for those who enter the premises as guests, those who are made honorary members and others who are made
members although they may not possess
the qualifications for bona fide membership.
There are some ex-servicemen's clubs which
give membership to those who are not exservicemen and there are many other similar examples throughout the community. I
urge the Government to investigate the
matter as the whole thing is getting out of
hand. Hon. members who know something
about club life know that this is a very
marked trend and too many young people
are being allowed in the clubs.
The Hon. R. A. KING: Which young
ones is the bon. member speaking of?
The Hon. RICHARD THOMPSON:
Those who cannot legally be on licensed
premises because they are under the age of
18 years. The law is quite clear on that
point-the law enforcement officers know
about it-and I ask that the matter be investigated. This bill is a step in the right
direction, although a faltering and grudging
step, and certainly will not meet all the exigencies of the situation. However, it is worthy
of suppcrt and it has give me an opportunity
to urge the Government to investigate the
growing tendency for clubs to provide
gambling facilities for people who the
2526
Gaming and Betting
[COUNCIL)
Government did not contemplate should
benefit from the legislation that it brought
in to establish licensed clubs.
The Ron. H. V. BUDD [5.24]: I have
no objection to this bill. I believe that if
poker machines are to continue to operate
the revenue from them should be put to
some good use-as is provided in the
measure-but there is some confusion of
thought and an apparent conflict of objectives in the legislation. The .declared reason
for increasing the tax is to discourage the
operation of poker machines. If that objective is achieved, the Government will
not get any additional revenue. At the same
time the Government has a "saver". If the
bill fails to discourage the use of 2s. poker
machines, much additional revenue will be
obtained. As a further sort of excuse for
the source of the tax, the proceeds will be
put to a good cause.
I did not hear all that the Minister said
in his second-reading speech, but I understand that the additional revenue raised
under the bill will be applied towards building homes for aged people. That is a very
worthy object and if more money does
become available for it, I hope that a substantial part of that money will be spent in
country districts where much of the revenue from poker machines will be collected.
In other words, I urge the Government to
expend the additional revenue raised from
poker machines in a fair allocation as between country and metropolitan districts.
There is no doubt that one of the cruellest
things that can be done to an elderly person
is to send him away from his home district and old associates. Therefore, homes
for elderly people should be distributed
throughout the State so that those who occupy them can live in familiar surroundings
close to their relatives and friends. If the
bill restricts the use of poker machines I
have no doubt it will be called a success.
If it does not restrict their use more money
will be raised for a laudable purpose, and
I suppose it will still be called a success.
The measure seems to be an each-way bet
by the Government, but I do not oppose it.
The Ron. C. J. CAHILL [5.28]: Recently when I had the honour and opportunity of saying something about the con-
troversial subject of one-armed bandits,
there was a rather impressive reaction to
my speech. That indicated to me that many
people in the community are deeply concerned about poker machines. I do not
intend to say much today, but I endorse
the bill with the qualification that I regret
that it has not gone far enough. When
I last spoke on this subject it was suggested that I was showing a change of
front because, three years earlier, I had
supported the measure to legalise onearmed bandits. I had not changed my front
really, as the original legislation was of an
experimental nature, unique in Australia,
and like all experimental legislation it was
to be subject to review and any necessary
amendment. Even as recently as last night
we amended a bill which a few years ago
was carried by this House, thus demonstrating that we pass experimental legislation
with the proviso that after it has been
given a trial we still review it. The introduction of this measure in another place
triggered off an inspired protest which had
a little substance. In some small country
towns, where the bowling club or golf club
opens on only two afternoons a week, the
tax on the 2s. machines is too high. Those
clubs are required to pay the same tax as
the palatial clubs in the cities.
No protection has been included in the
bill for the player; it is nothing more than
a challenge to the club committees to retain
the 2s. machines. Many committeemen
have said to me, "If the Government thinks
that it will put the machines out by this
method, it has another think coming." Some
clubs make £100,000 or £50,000 a year
from these machines, smaller clubs also
make substantial sums. I do not refer to
the very small clubs that. cannot pay the
tax, but to some of these small towns in
which £30,000 or £40,000 is taken from
the community each year. What does it
matter to the committees with five machines
if their profit is reduced from £8,000 to
£5,750, or from £10,000 to £8,750? The
profits are an embarrassment to them. As I
said, this bill provides no protection for the
fellow who walks into a club on Friday
Gaming and Betting
[2 DEC., 1959]
night with his pay envelope. Despite publicity, it will take a long time to instil in
him the reasons why he should abstain
from playing these machines.
I commend the bill, for it is an indication that the Government realises that the
2s. machines in particular are an economic
menace and cause tremendous damage. I
do not know much about the conditions in
the city, but I know intimately the conditions in the country. It is not possible to
take £300 a week out of an average country town ; the butcher, the baby shop and
the baker will have to suffer. It is absolutely impossible to take £25,000 a year from
small communities in country towns, which
are- hardly noticed if one drives through
them in a high-powered car. This bill is
a move in the right direction, for it will
be a warning to those who control these
machines that too much money is being
taken from the community.
Last year £20,000,000 was made from
poker machines. There are various methods
of assessing the amount of money that is
taken but we know that roughly 1 per
cent of the total profit was paid to the
Government-£1,000,000. The profit is
about 25 per cent of the turnover and
£20,000,000 is too much to take from the
community. I hope that later on another
review will be made and action taken to
ban these machines.
The present weakness is that too much
temptation is placed in the hands of the
people who administer these machines.
Within the precincts of this House last
night a man told me that in his club they
have nc worry, for none of the officials
mix their money with the poker-machine
takings ; they had a special committee that
was charged with the duty of counting the
poker-rr.achine money. I asked him who
was doing the counting last night while he
was away, for a while he was at Parliament
House the committee could not be properly
constituted. Some system must be devised
whereby this money can be counted, and
the machine should be fitted with some kind
of locking device, as with a cash register.
If this were done the player would know
that it had not been tampered with.
2527
Any bon. member who considers that I
am making incorrect statements about this,
should challenge me, for I shall be happy
to prove that I am right. I move from
one end of the State to the other-from
Lismore to Balranald-and I know what
I am talking about. I go round having a
quiet talk, and I often see the machines
being oiled. I do not say that they are
being doctored, but they have the backs off.
Ten minutes after a machine has been installed, it can be. interfered with. I know
men who can play tricks with these
machines, and I have been told than an
ace has been taken off and a nine substituted. The poor, unfortunate player has
no hope. These are facts, and if any bon.
member challenges them I shall tell him the
times and the dates. As sensible business
men, we should see the evil in these
machines.
The Ron. J. A. WEIR: Does the hon.
member play them?
The Ron. C. J. CAHILL: I play them
now and again. We have all been told
that it is impossible to win, and that th:
average pay is one-in-six or one-in-seven.
Suppose it is one in six: a man puts in his
first five two-shilling pieces, and then he gets
three back. In this way he bets five-to-two
on himself. It is suggested that people
lose money at the races, but there is no comparison, for there is no possible hope of
winning.
Some system should be devised so that
a check can be kept on these machines.
A man should know that the machine on
which he is playing has been sealed by a
Government inspector and that it will
return 90 per cent. At least he would then
know that it will take a little longer to
lose his money. Not long ago I attended,
with another bon. member of this Chamber, a by-election in New South Wales. We
put in ten shillings each and put it through
the poker machines. It lasted one minute.
The Ron. GRAHAM PRATIEN: At least you
got a run for your money. Not like on
the stock exchange.
The Ron. C. J. CAHILL: It was a very
short run. The amount of money being
returned to the people is not large enough.
2528
Gaming and Betting
[COUNCIL)
I have been the president of many clubs
and I know that clubs will exist long after
we are dead. There is no need for them
to create large credit accounts in the bank ;
posterity should pay its share.
When this legislation has had a trial, and
if the Government is satisfied that on moral
grounds poker machines should continue,
I suggest that they should be sealed and
that the percentage of pay-off should be
made known to the player. When club
members play these machines today their
money goes too quickly. With that qualification-that the player should b.e protected-! commend the bill.
Brigadier the Hon. S. L. M. ESKELL:
[5.40]: I congratulate the Hon. C. J. Cahill
upon his courageous stand against poker
machines. He displayed the same courage
when he spoke against them in this Chamber
several months ago.
The Hon. J. A. WEIR: He is trying to
cure himself.
Unfortunately there is no cure for the
disease of playing these infernal machines.
It is like a cancer. If one has the urge
to play poker machines, nothing will stop
it. The bill is probably designed to discourage people from playing the 2s.
machines, but the Hon. C. J. Cahill has
pointed out that the enormous gross turnover from them and subsequent profits will
ensure that they remain in clubs, where the
more affluent members will continue to play
them. The proposal to devote the increased
revenue from these machines for the establishment of homes for the aged is commendable, but it should probably be used
for another purpose that is just as deserving. Like the Hon. C. J. Cahill, I move
round in the country and visit many country clubs, most of which have poker
machines. I find that the 2s. machines are
not played much. When a few men of
affluent means get together they seem to
prefer the 2s. machines. One club that I
visit has four 2s. machines and about 32
Is. machines, which is a fair indication of
the distribution of wealth among the club's
members. I do not say that those who play
the ls. machines are on low wages, but
they are in the lower wage group in that
area. On Friday nights the club makes
food and drink available free from 5 p.m.
until 8 p.m.
The Hon. J. G. PATERSON: Free!
Yes.
The Hon. J. G. PATERSON: Where is the
club?
I shall tell bon. members some other time.
The Hon. R. A. KING: We might be
looking for one ; we should like to know.
The bon. members would be welcome.
These added attractions are available not
only to members but also to their wives and
guests. Other parts of the club are made
available for the young children of members where, though they cannot play poker
machines, they are entertained and looked
after. I do not say that this is a bad thing,
but I contend that the people who can least
afford to lose their money-not the players
of the 2s. machines but those who play
the 1s. machines-are unfortunately those
who lose it. I do not agree with the Hon.
C. J. Cahill that all the palatial clubs are
to be found in this city. On the contrary,
the palatial clubs are now in the country
areas. Many of these palaces have been
opened by various high-ranking gentlemen
of this State. As much as £100,000 has been
spent on them, but they are peopled by
paupers. A man goes to the club on Friday
night and loses about £4. He returns on
Saturday to try to win back his losses.
I have spoken to young fellows who have
done this repeatedly, and I know that their
families have no money for the following
week. In fact, one country club has a
scheme for lending money quietly to fellows who have gone broke playing the
machines. This is not exaggeration ; it is
fact. It happens every weekend. There is
a guilt complex about this measure because
it attempts to stop people from gambling
on machines of the larger denomination
and purports to allocate the money
raised by the taxation of those machines to
help age pensioners. However, the money
Gaming and Betting
[2 DEc., 1959]
should be used to provide for the families
of the men who play the ls. machines,
because they have no money after they
have done so.
Like the Hon. C. J. Cahill, I like gambling
very much, as do other hon. members on
both sides of the House. Some do not.
However, the question is not whether a
man should gamble. We can not prevent
people from gambling, but we must stop
gambling from being made so easy, on
machines where the chances, as the Hon.
C. J. Cahill said, are so low. I know of
families in Taree-The Hon. F. H. CocKERILL; How many?
Brigadier the Hon. S. L. M. ESKELL: I
shall not mention the number in Taree, but
I know of a club in another town that is
lending money to about seventy-five families
after each weekend to keep them going for
the following week. Otherwise they would
have nothing to eat. In this day and age,
in this prosperous and wonderful country,
surely there is something immoral in this
.and we must do something about it. It is
not a matter of stopping the use of machines of this nature or of saying that they
should be thrown into the sea, but we
must prevent these terrible consequences
to people who can least afford to lose their
money. The duty of all governments is to
protect the poor from being poor and the
weak from their own weaknesses. Governments must also help most those who are on
the basic and lowest level.
The Hon. E. L. SOMMERLAD [5.47]:
My attitude to the bill is summed up by
two cliches: first, that two wrongs do not
make a right and, second, that the end does
not justify the means. The measure implies
that the Government wishes to discourage
the use of 2s. poker machines. As a means
of doing this it proposes to increase the
tax on them. There is ample evidence to
justify the discontinuance of these machines because of the effect that they are
having on the community. Brigadier the
Hon. S. L. M. Eskell has, in a forceful
and realistic manner, given some examples.
The Hon. C. J. Cahill gave chapter and
verse of many instances of the harm that is
coming to the people who need to be pro-
159
2529
tected from themselves. There can be
little doubt that the tax on 2s. machines is
designed to reduce the number of these
machines in use and consequently the social
evil that flows from them. If that is the
intention, the Government should have had
the courage of its convictions and banned
the machines, rather than playing round
with the problem by trying to tax them out
of existence.
The fact that additional public revenue
may be obtained in this manner, to be
devoted to an admirable cause-which
should stand on its own feet by public support-does nothing to justify the retention
of poker machines. If money is needed
for homes for the aged, as indeed it is, this
is not the way to get it, and it is no justification for the retention of the machines to
say that any revenue that might be received
from the tax imposed on them will go to a
good cause. Therefore, if these machines
are bad, using the money for a good purpose does not make them any better. If
they are bad they should be treated on their
merits and banned-not simply taxed out of
existence. I have always been opposed to
poker machines and I am opposed to them
as a means of raising revenue. The sooner
the Government-as I believe in due course
it will-recognises the extent of the evil, the
· sooner it will accept and stand up to its
responsibilities.
The Hon. ANNE PRESS [5.50]: I cannot allow this bill to pass without, as a
woman and a member of this Chamber,
giving it my wholehearted support. I feel
most sincerely that women and children
suffer more than anyone else from poker
machines. In my own town, I have known
men who have lost their homes by gambling on poker machines. That may appear
to be an exaggerated statement, but I
assure the House that it is perfectly true.
I know of men who gamble their wages
on poker machines before they get home.
The bill should be supported but it does
not go far enough. Stylish clubhouses and
comforts for club members in no way compensate for the suffering caused by poker
machines. Though I support the bill, I shall
be pleased when legislation is introduced
under which these iniquitous monsters are
banned.
2530
Gaming and BettingBill
[COUNCIL]
Colonel the Hon. H. J. R. CLAYTON
[5.51]: I congratulate the Hon. Anne Press
on her maiden speech and thoroughly support every word that she has said. I reaffirm
the view that I have taken thrice in· this
House. These are iniquitous machines. They
should never have been legalised and should
be banned at the first opportunity--<:ompletely and irrevocably.
The Hon. J. J. MALONEY (Minister
for Labour and Industry) [5.52], in reply:
No opposition to the bill has been raised
though considerable opposition has been
expressed against the continued existence
of poker machines. I congratulate the Hon.
Anne Press. She spoke from her heart and
her observations would meet with the approval of all bon. members. I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the pros
and cons of poker machines. The bill is
designed to discourage a certain class of
machine, and the money that is expected
to come from the tax on the machines will
he used to build homes for the aged. The
Hon. Richard Thompson raised matters
outside the scope of the bill and referred
to a])uses that arise in the operation of
poker machines. I shall invite the attention of the responsible Minister to the
abuses to which the bon. member referred
~tnd ask that they be investigated.
The Hon. H. V. Budd urged that some
of the additional money to be collected be
spent on building homes for aged people
in country centres. I point out that country
centres are not neglected. Already, 480
one-bedroom flats have been built in
country towns and I exclude from country
towns the cities of Newcastle and Wollongong. The Government is fully cogruzant
that aged persons in needy circumstances
do not all reside in the metropolitan area.
I am confident that the distribution of
money for the building of home units for
the aged will be on an equitable basis.
Parliamentary Allowances Bill
mission of New South Wales is that homes
are allotted on a comparative basis. It has
worked equitably.
Motion agreed to.
amendment, and report adopted, on
motions by the Hon. J. J. Maloney.
THIRD READING
Legislative Assembly, on motions by the
Hon. J. J. Maloney.
GAMING AND BETIING (POKER
MACHINES) TAXATION AMENDMENT
BILL
SECOND READING
The Hon. J. J. MALONEY: (Minister
for Labour and Industry) [5.58]: I move:
I do not propose to deal at length with the
bill except to say that its contents have
been debated fully earlier. This is merely.
a machinery measure to impose the tax.
The Hon. A. D. BRIDGES [5.59]: In
view of what bas already been said it would
appear that the passage of the bill is a
natural corollary to the passing of the earlier
measure.
Motion agreed to.
amendment, and reported adopted, on
motions by the Hon. J. J. Maloney.
THIRD READING
Bill read a third time, and returned to
the Legislative Assembly, on motions by
the Hon. J. J. Maloney.
The Hon. H. V. Bunn: How would 400
units compare with the number of homes
built in the metropolitan area?
PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES AND
SALARIES BILL
The Hon. J. J. MALONEY: I have no
ftgures for the metropolitan area, but the
principle followed by the Housing Com-
Bill received from the Legislative Assembly and, on motion by the Hon. R. R.
Downing, read a first time.
FIRST READING
Parliamentary Allowances
[2 DEC., 1959]
SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN STANDING ORDERS
Suspension of certain standing orders
agreect to, on motion by the Ron. R. R.
Downing.
SECOND READING
The Ron. R. R. DOWNING (AttorneyGeneral, Minister of Justice and VicePresident of the Executive Council) [6.2]:
I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to increase the
salaries and allowances of Ministers of the
Crown and members of the Legislative
Assembly. Their salaries are to be increased
by £375, and electoral allowances by £150.
The total increase will be £525 a year.
Ministers who are members of this House
are to receive only the salary increase of
£375. The salary increase-£375 a year-·
is less than that granted earlier this year
to members of the Federal and Victorian
parliaments. In both those cases the increase was £400. The increase in the electoral
allowances-£150-is the same as the
increase this year for Victorian members
and it is £100 less than federal members
received earlier this year.
Notwithstanding the pattern of the increases in Victoria and the Commonwealth,
no other increases in the remuneration of
Ministers or other office-holders is proposed, except for the leaders of the three
parties. The Premier's expense allowance
is being increased by £500, so that this
allowance will be the same as that of the
Premier of Victoria. The expense allowance
of the Leader of the Opposition in the
lower R0use is being raised to the same
figure as that of Ministers, namely, £500.
At present he receives an expense allowance
of only £250. The principle of paying the
Leader of the Opposition the same expense
allowance as Ministers is one followed in
both the Commonwealth and Victorian parliaments. Commonwealth Ministers receive
expense allowances of £1,500, and Victorian
Ministers, £600. The Leader of the Country Party in the Ltgislative Assembly at
present receives no expense allowance, and
this bill will entitle him to an allowance of
£200. I hardly need to point out that the
Leader of the Country Party has to meet
additional expenses because of his position
and Salaries Bill
2531
as leader of his party. In Victoria the
occupant of that office receives an allowance
of £175. All the increases made by this
bil! are to take effect from 1st July last.
In 1956 when the Government was last
considering the remuneration of members,
it appointed Mr. Wolfenden to carry out
an independent inquiry and to recommend
a basis on which a decision should be made.
That was only three years ago, and it is
felt that there is no real need for another
inquiry of this sort now. The events of
the last three years hardly justify it. An
inquiry along these lines from to time can
be of value, but it has little to commend
it as a regular manner of fixing salaries of
members of parliament. The responsibility for introducing the legislation rests
with the government of the day, and the
responsibility for approving or rejecting the
legislation introduced belongs to Parliament, and to Parliament only. If we set
up an independent committee to make
recommendations every time a review appears necessary both the Government and
the Parliament run the risk of appearing
to evade their responsibilities.
There is little doubt that a review now
is timely. A review of salaries every three
years is certainly not too frequent. The
Commonwealth Government has adopted
this as a firm policy. Industrial awards in
New South Wales are made for a term of
three years and it is a common practice
to review them soon after they expire.
Since the last fixation of salaries in 1956,
the salaries of parliamentarians of the
Commonwealth, of Victoria and of South
Australia have been reviewed, and increased.
The increases in the bill have been decided
upon in the light of a number of factors.
Since 1956 there has been a substantial
rise in wage and salary levels generally.
Statistics of wages can be no more than an
indication of trend, and a guide of the extent of the movement, but I think several
figures are helpful here.
In the three years ended last September,
average weekly earnings in New South
Wales rose by about 13 per cent. Award
rates of pay have risen also, and the decision of the Commonwealth Arbitration
1-
2532
[COUNCIL]
Commission last week increasing the margins in the metal trades award by 28 per
cent was a recognition to some extent that
wage and salary standards have been rising
in the last few years. The effect of this
increase in the fitter's rate of pay under
this award, combined with basic wage increases which the commission has given in
the last three years, is an increase of about
16 per cent. In December, 1956, the award
wage of a fitter was £16 8s.-it is now
£18 19s.
The increase of £375 in the salaries of
members under the bill represents an increase on existing salaries ranging from 11
per cent for Ministers to 19 per cent for
members.
In considering parliamentary
salaries and allowances, we have on this
·Occasion taken into account a new factor.
·It has been obvious for some time that there
is an increasing need to assist members
financially in providing secretarial assistance
and office accommodation within their electorates. Each Commonwealth member is
provided with an office. The majority have
an office in the Commonwealth offices in
their home State, and the remainder have
an office in some part of their constituency,
for which the cost is provided wholly or
partly by the Commonwealth according to
whether the office is used exclusively or
only partly on parliamentary and electorate
business. A typist-secretary is also provided
for each federal member.
New South Wales members are provided
only with shared accommodation in Parliament House and with shared typing assistance at Parliament House. It is not practicable to provide any specific amount for
electorate services of this nature because
the circumstances vary substantially, but
the increase proposed is intended to offset,
in some measure, the costs incurred by
members in this regard. Other factors of
a general nature justify the proposed increase. The population of the State is growing continually. Growth over the last three
years is estimated to have been about 6
per cent but there has been no increase in
the number of members. The electorate
work of members has become increasingly
heavier. It has been generally accepted in
the past that the remuneration of New South
Wales members should be rather higher than
and Salaries Bill
that of members of the Legislative Assembly in Victoria. At present, both the
salaries and allowances of the New South
Wales member are lower than those paid to
Victorian members, and the bill will correct
this.
These then are the factors that have been
considered in arriving at the amm,mt of
salary and alowances to which members
will be entitled after this bill is passed.
The Government is convinced that its assessment is a fair one. It is convinced that
the salaries and allowances it proposes are
no more than a just and adequate remuneration for the representatives of the people
of New South Wales.
The Hon. A. D. BRIDGES [6.12]: This
is a bill that should be viewed in no spirit
of carping criticism. It should be considered
as a measure designed to provide justice
where justice is merited. Whatever might
be one's personal views of some of the
recipients of the proposed increase, I suggest that the manner in which one should
approach this bill is to say, "What should be
the payment to be made to members of
the Legislative Assembly engaged in the
conduct of their parliamentary duties, and
having no other source of income?" In
considering this .question, I recognise that
many hon. members of the Legislative
Assembly devote themselves exclusively to
their parliamentary duties. Many of them
work longer hours, expend greater sums
of money, and are subject to far greater
inconvenience than many other members
of the community who are in receipt of
substantially greater allowances. I am afraid
that much of the criticism that is so frequently read in the press and heard from
the public, who are not always acquainted
with the facts, stems from the fact that
members of Parliament have, perforce, to
put their claims for recognition through
Parliament. Therefore, it has been assumed
that those who are receiving this remuneration have fixed their own allowances.
The Attorney-General has pointed out
some of the disabilities that must be faced
by the Government and by the Amenities
Committee in arriving at an equitable allowance. The Richardson report, which recommended increased payments to federal
[2 DEC., 1959]
and Salaries Bill
2533
members, provides a precedent ; the Martin the procuration of his taxable income. It
report recommended increased allowances is the net income of the member-not the
for payment to the members of the Vic- gross income-that has to be taken into
torian Chamber. However, in New South account. The allowances that are provided
Wales-the senior State of the Common- for in this measure and those that were
wealth-the responsibilities of each member granted in the previous measure were only
of the lower House are increasing every approximations of the expenses incurred.
day, but the payments made to ordinary Some hon. members conceivably have fewer
members, as apart from Ministers, are less expenses than the allowance covers. For
than those paid in our sister State of Vic- instance, a member for a small city electoria. If the rates in Victoria were to be torate, without any need for extensive
used as a comparison, we would obviously travelling, might not be faced with the
conclude that the members of the New same measure of expense as others have
South Wales Legislative Assembly were for travelling, yet the fact that his constiunderpaid, or alternatively, that the Vic- tuents are so close to him could result in
torian members were overpaid. As the greater expenditure in other directions.
payments to Victorian members were deHowever, in a key electorate-and all of
termined after a thorough investigation by us, being practising members, know that is
Mr. Justice Martin, it must be assumed that an electorate where the representative is
those rates are equitable, and consequently likely to change from election to electionthey provide a good comparison when rates a member has to nurse the electorate assiin this State are being determined.
duously; he has to be at all times aware of
Not many people really appreciate the the possibilities that would confront him if
immense amount of work that has to be he failed to do those things that are necesperform.ed by members of parliament, sary for the retention of his goodwill in
especially those in the Legislative Assembly. the electorate. The expenses of maintainThis aspect has never been ventilated in the ing such an electorate and retaining his
press. It must be recognised that in many parliamentary position are indeed great.
electorates a member's telephone is ringing Those are instances where, as I have said,
incessantly ; long distances must be travelled a parliamentary member's net income can
every day, and a considerable amount of be as low as £900-and for what? It is
correspondence requires attention. Mem- for seven days' work each week, not conbers work not only from Monday to Fri- fined to the hours from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
day, inclusive, but also on Saturdays, Sun- but possibly starting at 7 in the morning
days and public holidays. They have, also, and concluding at 11 in the evening.
the obligation to make donations to all types
The work of members is not, as some
of charities and organisations within their
electorates. In addition to all these things, sections of the press have attempted to cona member of the Legislative Assembly has vey, confined to parliamentary sittings.
With all respect to the newspapers
to provide out of his own resources the
expenses necessary for contesting an elec- concerned, it is a shocking state of
tion every. three years. If people took affairs when a newspaper seeks to
these things into account they would not convey to the public that the only time
think it was excessive to provide the salary a member of parliament works is when the
that is prescribed in this measure.
House is sitting, and that the only way to
At times I have been asked by my col- determine the relationship of his allowance
leagues in another place to assist them in to the time that he works is to have regard
the preparation of their income-tax returns, only to the time that parliament sits. Every
and I can tell hon. members of this Cham- hon. member of this Chamber and most
ber quite sincerely that at least one man
intelligent members of the public know that
has a taxable income as low as £900 in
the year, after providing for the allowable most of the work of a member of parliaexpenses that are permitted by the Depart- ment is done not while the House is sitting
ment of Taxation as expenses incurred in but when it is not sitting. It is then that
2534
Parliamentary Allowance~
[COUNCIL]
the member is subjected to all the calls
that must necessarily be made on him as a
public figure.
In the Attorney-General's concluding
remarks he referred to something that I regard as ·a grave injustice that has persisted
for all too long: members of the Federal
Parliament, who in my opinion do not have
anything like the same measure of detailed
work and responsibility as is vested in a
State member, have the assistance of a
secretary and are provided with an office.
The Hon. F. M. HEWITT: They also control taxation.
The Hon. A. D. BRIDGES: Yes, they
control the funds from which provisions
such as this are made, while this State is
dependent largely on such income as can
be obtained by reimbursements from
federal revenue. Many a member of State
parliament has to use the honorary services
of his wife, with no remuneration or
reward. While he is away from home she
is there to take messages, and often she
has to do his typing when it is not possible
for an amanuensis in the House to do that
work.
These matters are frequently
ignored by the press and others who, in
various assemblies, political and otherwise,
make this criticism of our public men. It
is about time the facts were revealed in
their true light.
The Hon. C. A. F. CAHILL: The bon.
member cannot expect the newspapers to
reveal the facts.
The Hon. A. D. BRIDGES: One can
hope that at least they will attempt to portray the facts as they know them, rather
than jump on the bandwaggon to
act as cheer chasers and simply say
the things that happen to be popular
at the moment. I for one will probably be criticised in many places for
having espoused the cause of men who
in my opinion have not received the
recognition that they deserve. I do not
care to what political party they belong ;
men who are serving their country as public
figures and performing a service without
which we would he infinitely worse off
deserve the recognition that the bill seeks
to give them.
and Salaries Bill
I have only this criticism to make. I
consider that the Amenities Committee has,
to a degree, fallen down on its task because of its failure to provide a formula
demonstrating how this figure, aggregating
£525, has been arrived at. The committee
has failed in its task because it has not
grappled with the problem of arriving at
some automatic method by which these
salaries can be fixed in the future, without
bon. members again being subjected to the
type of criticism that is now current. I
consider also that the bill's retrospective
provision is a mistake. I object to retrospectivity in legislation wherever and whenever it occurs. The time from which
salaries should· operate is when the legislation is passed. I have approached this subject from a constructive point of view, and
I am sure that this is the way in which all
hon members will view it.
{The President left the clzair at 6.28 p.m.
The House resumed at 7.50 p.m.]
The Hon. H. V. BUDD [7.50]: I support
the bill for a number of reasons, some of
which were put by the Minister and others
quite forcefully by the Hon. A. D. Bridges.
After an interval of three ·years these
salaries should be reviewed. Since 1956
wages, salaries and costs have substantially
increased and it is reasonable and logical
that an adjustment should be made to parliamentary salaries. Generally speaking, the
level of salaries paid to members of parliament and to Ministers is not in line with
the income earned by anyone who is at
all successful in the community-either in
the professions or in business. The critics
who are so voluble whenever it is suggested
that the salaries. of members of parliament
should be increased, are completely
ignorant of the earnings of successful people
in the community.
Any man who has made a success of
his life would suffer heavy financial loss
by devoting his life to the work of a member of the Legislative Assembly or of the
House of Representatives. If an bon. member asks a friend who is in a reasonably
good position why he does not enter parliament, the answer nearly always is that
he could not afford to do so. The level
[2 DEC., 1959]
of payment to bon. members is not comparable with the money earned by successful business men. This outcry develops
whenever this matter of payment of members of parliament is raised. It is not a
popular protest but stimulated by sections
of the press. The argument always is that
the increase is too much and that the time
is not ripe. I doubt if ever the time would
be ripe for an increase of salaries.
Another argument is that parliament
should not legislate in a matter like this
without prior inquiry or consideration by
an outside body. It would be a faint hope
indeed that after such an inquiry the findings would be accepted without considerable
adverse comment. Hon. members recall
what happened when the Richardson report
was made public. An exhaustive inquiry
had been made by a number of persons outside parliament, who went carefully into
all aspects of the matter but when the Commonwealth Parliament decided to give effect
to the committee's recommendations the
outcry was tremendous. It is futile to suggest that if an independent inquiry were
made the critics would be satisfied.
Many people want democracy and parliamentary government on the cheap. They
want people to enter parliament and make
all sorts of financial sacrifices-of their
home life and their time-for the sake of
the democratic parliamentary system in
Australia. This constant cry should not be
raised against a reasonable payment to members of parliament. To me it constitutes
an attack on parliament itself. Behind this
attack is a contempt for parliament and
one of the reasons for the strong feeling
is the belief that parliaments and parliamentarians are of no great moment. Nothing
could be more dangerous at this stage than
to spread such a false doctrine. The issue
between East and West is the choice between parliamentary democracy and dictatorial systems.
It is serious indeed that sections of the
press should be constantly publishing matter
derogatory to the institution of parliament.
The constant claim of some newspapers is
that members of parliament get so much
for so little. This is yet another example
of the ignorance of the working of parliament. Apparently some people have the
and Salaries Bill
2535
childish idea that the only time an bon.
member works is when parliament sits ;
they total up the number of days and say
that hou. members were paid too much for
the few days on which parliament sat.
My father was for many years a member
of the Legislative Assembly. Fortunately
he was a man of independent means and
not compelled to rely upon his parliamentary salary for the maintenance of himself
and his family. I know, however, that after
eighteen years he was not a penny better
off because of his parliamentary salary. That
is the experience of all members of parliament. From time to time I have been
approached by bon. members of the Legislative Assembly-! shall not say how many
have done so-who have asked me to help
them find employment so that they could
supplement their parliamentary earnings. I
knew their family .responsibilities and I
agreed with them when they told me that
they were really hard up and could not
live on their parliamentary salaries. That
proved to me, if I needed any proof, that
the parliamentary salary and allowance is
not much more than a subsistence payment
and leaves a member with nothing to save
for his old age. That is one reason why
Another
salaries should be adjusted.
reason is that bon. members should be able
to live decently and maintain their families,
and a third reason is that payment should
be adequate so that men of ability will be
encouraged to serve the people in Parliament.
It is completely wrong that service in
Parliament should be a sacrifice. It has
been said that members of the House of
Representatives and the Senate are provided each with a secretary and office
accommodation, but neither of those important forms of assistance is available to a .
member of this Parliament. However, anybody who is familiar with the work of the
Federal and State parliaments will realise
at once that a member of a State parliament has far more to do as a representative of the people than has a member of
the Federal Parliament.
One has only to consider the activities
and responsibilities of the States to realise
that that is true. For example, New South
2536
[COUNCIL]
Wales bas to administer education, agriculture, transport, tourism, the mining industry, forests, local government, housing,
the Jaw, public works, electricity, water,
harbours, rivers, conservation and so on.
A few remaining matters like defence, communications and customs are left to the
Federal Parliament, but the great body of
ordinary every-day activities that touch the
lives of the people are the responsibility
of the State. All the legislation and administration in connection with the matters
that I have detailed involve members of a
State parliament in constant activity to
satisfy the needs of their constituents. A
member who represents a country electorate
is usually regarded by his constituents as a
city agent, and beside doing his country
work he is constantly asked, by the people
that be represents in the country, to work
in the city by making representations to
this, that or the other department. Those,
incidentally, are some of the duties that
occupy bon. members when Parliament is
not sitting.
Thinking over these things, I wonder
whether the bill is too modest. In any
event the increases suggested are thoroughly
justified. In comparison with the earnings
of a successful man outside Parliament
these salaries are modest indeed. I suppose that according to the new scheme a
member of Parliament will earn only about
twice as much as an ordinary tradesman
in industry. An bon. member representing
a constituency is under a great deal of
expense that is not covered by his parliamentary allowance, and to meet those
commitments he bas to draw on his private
means. Much more could be said about
this measure but I content myself by remarking that the people who, every time
increases of salary are mooted for members
of Parliament, object and say they are not
merited, are doing a grave disservice to
parliamentary democracy and freedom in
this country. They are also discouraging
able men from entering the service of the
State. I support bill.
The Hon. F. M. HEWITT [8.6]: I support the bill but I wish to say something
about how parliamentary salaries and allowances should be handled in the future.
and Salaries Bill
Much has been said about the way in which
members of Parliament are regarded by
the press and the public. I believe that the
way one is regarded by the press and public
is but a reflection of the way in which be
regards himself. Many members of Parliament have developed a defeatist complex
and they almost apologise for the fact that
they are members of Parliament. That, in
spite of the fact that it is an honourable
occupation. Nowhere is that attitude exemplified more than in the way periodic
salary increases have occurred.
In our economy for the past fifty years
or so it bas been necessary periodically to
increase the remuneration of everybody.
Increases in industry are administered by
the arbitration tribunals and increases to
executives in business and commerce are
granted by boards of directors. Every year
or two the directors decide to increase
their executives' salaries. However, when
determining parliamentary salary increases
a hole-in-corner method is adopted which
is absolutely wrong. For example, this
measure has not been handled properly, as
it is quite wrong to push it through in the
final stages of a long session when it is quite
obvious that there was no need to handle
the matter in that way. Members of Parliament throughout the Commonwealth
should realise that they are engaged in a
dignified occupation and they should
handle their affairs with dignity, but the
way in which they increase their salaries
is far from dignified.
Everybody realises that the salaries of
bon. members have to be increased periodically, but I suggest that it is necessary that
the increases be made according to a formula that is reasonably acceptable to the
community. Our arbitration tribunals deal
with one section of the community, and
other sections are dealt with in ways that
are just as fully recognised as the arbitration system. Therefore, Parliament should
decide on a basic formula to be applied
automatically every two years. The people
would accept that without question, and this
press publicity would be avoided. Hon.
members know what happened when the
[2 DEC., 1959]
salaries of members of the Federal Parliament wue increased recently. The publicity
gravely injured the dignity of Parliament,
which we should all strive to preserv~.
I appeal to the Minister to ensure that
when tbi& matter is considered again the
salaries of members of the Legislative
Assembly are fixed on an acceptable formula. In many industries this type of
formula is used, and there is no reason why
one cannot be evolved for fixing parliamentary salaries. In this way it would be possible to avoid the objectionable feature of
retrospectivity, which is always unpopular
with the public. Let us have a formula
that is automatically applied at set intervals, and so obviate much of this trouble
that accompanies increases to parliamentarians, necessary though they may be.
and Salaries Bill
2537
parliamentary institution to deteriorate. The
Minister referred to the lack of amenities
available to bon. members of another place.
Although he did not mention it, he might
well have included the lack of amenities
available ·to members of this Chamber.
There is no doubt that the members of
another place and the members of this
House are called upon to do vitally important work in what is truly the legislative
slum of Australia. I am certain that the
lack of accommodation for bon. members
of this Parliament of New South Wales can
be regarded as nothing less than appalling.
I remind bon. members that in any reasonably efficient and well-equipped business all
members of the staff who bear any major
responsibility, who have any real obligation
to perform at the executive level, have
their own personal offices, filing systems and
The Hon. RICHARD THOMPSON secretarial assistance. Indeed, those things
[8.12]: I support the proposed increases of are regarded as almost incidental to the
salaries and allowances, which I consider carrying out of their executive functions.
are necessary. My principal criticism of
Apart from party leaders and Ministers,
the measure is along the same lines as that no bon. member of this Chamber or of
mentioned by the Hon. F. M. Hewitt, for another place enjoys the services that are
the bill highlights the imperfect method of available to the ordinary, run-of-the-mill
assessing these salaries and allowances. I bu~iness executive. Hon. members should
object also to the retrospective provisions weigh up the appalling conditions under
in the measure.
which they work in this House and in anI can understand that the salary incroases other place, and they should take into
announced in another place in respect of account the vitally important duties that
judges and top-ranking administrators, have members of Parliament must discharge. If
sound grounds for being back-dated. How- bon. members need any further support for
ever, it is a reflection on parliamentarians or evidence of the need for these increases
that there should be any need to make their in salaries and allowances, I ask them to
increases retrospective. The existence of look at the circumstances in which bon.
the Richardson report in the federal sphere members are called upon to work.
has caused reluctance on the part of memI do not intend to oppose the retrospecbers of another place to press for an increase tive provisions of this measure, for I have
in their salaries. That is an inescapable in mind that bon. members of another
conclusion. It is to be deplored, for in this place must appreciate their relationship to
instance the claims for increases are well their electors. They take this action with
based and entirely justified. I do not relate their eyes open, and they must be quite
New South Wales parliamentary salaries to aware that they will have to account for
those received in the Commonwealth or in their action to the people who have elected
other States ; I relate them to the condi- them. If they choose to make these paytions within this State, as I know them. ments retrospective, it is on their heads
All reasonable people will agree that the if there is any public outcry or protest.
members of another place are entitled to Hon. members of this House do not suffer
the proposed increases.
any of these difficulties, for we are never
This bill, and the circumstances surround- embarrassed about explaining the salaries
ing its introduction, tend to emphasise the we receive. Of course, we do not receive
condition into which we have allowed the any salary; the payments made to members
2538
[COUNCIL]
of this Chamber, as hon. members well
know, go nowhere near covering the direct
expenses involved in our privileged duties.
We do not complain or attempt to amend
this bill to our advantage ; we do not
attempt to say a word for ourselves.
We accept our position, for it is our
privilege to serve on the existing basis.
However, it is up to us to say something for those in another place. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting
these increases and I hope that it will not
be long before the government of the day
and the public generally give evidence of
their realisation of the appalling conditions
under which the legislators of this State
are called upon to fulfil the functions of
their high and honourable office.
The Hon. GRAHAM PRATTEN [8.18]:
I wish to make a few brief observations
on this measure. I think that Major the
Hon. H. P. FitzSimons and myself are the
only bon. members of this Chamber who
have had the privilege of serving in a lower
House. I well remember the time, as a
young fellow, when I had the honour of
holding the Federal seat of Martin. I had
the privilege of fighting a by-election following the death of my uncle, who had
been the Minister for Trade and Customs
in the Bruce-Page Government. I was fortunate enough to win that by-election. At
that time the salary for Federal parliamentarians was £800 a year. On that salary
members of the Federal Parliament had
to live in Canberra. I was fortunate
enough to be able to afford to live in
the Hotel Canberra, which accommodated
us for half rates. I think I paid £10 a week
for my wife and myself. However, I also
had to keep a home in Sydney. If it had
not been for the fact that I had a job in
my company at £250 a year, I would have
found it hard going.
While I was in Canberra this question of
the increase of member's salaries came up.
I well remember the party meeting at which
the proposal was made to increase salaries
from £800 to £1,000. I have never seen
a quest1on decided so quickly. Even the
£1,000 was little enough. I am sure the
public does not understand, and even
many hon. members of this Chamber do not
appreciate the expenses incurred by the
and Salaries Bill
representatives of an electorate. I should
think that a member of another place in
this Parliament would represent from 22,000
to 24,000 electors.
The Hon. R. R. DOWNING: Some represent almost 30,000.
The Hon. GRAHAM PRATTEN: In
1928 a federal constituency had from
50,000 to 55,000 electors. Today I believe
that the average is about 40,000. When the
House was sitting in Canberra hon. members journeyed there by train on Tuesday
night, arriving on Wednesday morning.
There were no aeroplanes then. We went
to our hotels and had breakfast, attended a
party meeting during the morning and conducted our business in the House until
Friday afternoon at four o'clock when we
caught a train back to Sydney, arriving at
about eleven o'clock at night. That was a
"holiday", because on Saturday morning
when the member attended his office he
would find it filled with age pensioners,
people inquiring about private and public
telephones. war-service homes, and so on.
On Saturday afternoon there was a bazaar
. somewhere-at Hunter's Hill or Abbotsford-and the member went there and spent
his ten shillings on all sorts of articles that
he did not want, rushed home to dinner
at night and then off to a Nationalist Party
dance at North Strathfield or somewhere.
Having done his duty there-The Hon. R. A.
his way out.
KING:
Having danced
The Hon. GRAHAM PRATTEN: The
hon. member is quite right. On Sunday
morning he had about five invitations to
church. He accepted one, and the other
four ministers were angry. On Sunday
afternoon there was generally something to
attend to, but if he was lucky he might
have the afternoon off. On Monday and
Tuesday his office was again filled with
pensioners and others. Perhaps I was somewhat fortunate, because I found someone
who was happy to be employed by me
and another federal member to do some of
the office work for fifty shillings a week
from each of us. The reactions of members
of the staff of some departments to my
inquiries were quite amusing. Electors
[2 DEC., 1959]
regarded me as a new chum, and when I
made representations on behalf of some of
them I would be confronted by a file that
I could scarcely jump over containing all
the former representations made for them
and left to work out the answer for
myself.
I had a most interesting experience in
federal politics for about fourteen months,
during which time I fought three elections,
which must be a record. When I left the
Commonwealth parliament the total salary
I received was up to £1,500. I was fortunate
that my father was able to afford to help
me and was anxious for me to get
into public life. My first election campaign
cost £1,000, though of course I did not pay
all that. My father helped me also with the
next two campaigns which cost £500 each,
so after being in Parliament for fourteen
months I came out losing £500. After this
was all over I was told that I had better
go back to the firm and do some work.
The Ron. J. D. KENNY: I think the
bon. member exceeded the amount of election expenses that was legallly permitted.
The Ron. GRAHAM PRATTEN: No. I
think the permitted personal expenditure
was £300, but bon. members appreciate that
candidates paid what they liked into party
funds. I remember my uncle telling me
that when he travelled by train to Melbourne, some of his poor colleagues could
not afford more than a cup of tea at
Albury and he got much pleasure from
being able to say to them, "Come with me,
boys, and have a plate of steak and eggs."
Their predicament was not funny. A man
representing an electorate is up against
much expense, and a lot of it is unfair.
He is written to by every charity and
frightened to refuse. Some sort of legislation should have been introduced long ago
to prevent charities from imposing on member~ of parliament.
I received letters
addressed to my uncle twelve months after
he died seeking subscriptions to "The Jolly
Boys Swimming Club" and other organisations like that.
The system under which members of the
Commonwealth Parliament worked when I
was there was a little different from what
it is now. We had no private secretaries
and Salaries Bill
2539
but we received a postal allowance of £40
a year. Members could telephone anyone
in Canberra free, but if they rang Sydney
or anywhere else the charge was deducted
from the postal allowance. I was able to
manage well enough on that, but I recall
that Mr. Grosvenor Francis, who represented the electorate of Kennedy in Queensland, which is about half the size of that
State, spent all the time from getting off
the train on Wednesday morning until
Parliament sat writing letters and sending
telegrams. Other members and I used to
give him some of our stamp allowance to
help him out because he had no chance of
meeting those expenses. I wholeheartedly
support the bill. The increases that it proposes are no more than reasonable.
Candidly, what the bill proposes to pay is
not much more than twice what I am paying
many employees in my printing firm. Considering the responsibilities that hon.
members of another place have, they have
every reason to receive this increase.
The Hen. H. D. AHERN [8.30]: I believe in payment to members of parliament
of a sum adequate by parliamentary standards and support the bill except the
retrospective content. Retrospective legislation is repugnant to me and a
challenge to the rights of the individual. It might be argued that the
bill will not transfer or remove any
rights of the indivdual but this is a matter
of personal opinion. The level of salaries
for members of parliament is the business
of no other organisation than parliament
itself. The responsibility for the fixing of
payments to its members is parliament's
alone. The salaries of New South Wales
members of parliament should be as high
as those of any other State of Australia. I
do not include members of the Legislative
Council which operates under special circumstances. I make no comment tonight
whether these are right or wrong. The
salary for New South Wales members of
parliament should be at least equal to the
salaries of members of the Commonwealth
Parliament with certain adjustments for
geographic difficulties.
I have taken quite a part in obtaining
increases in salaries for members of the
2540
[COUNCIL]
Legislative Council. I was one of a committee from this side of the House who
approached the late Premier on this question. For that excursion into financial
politics I suffered the severe rebuke of
senior, influential members of the party to
which I belong. As I said, the fixing of
parliamentary salaries is the responsibility
of parliament. I protest against the establishment of outside committees to advise on
this matter. Tonight hon. members have
heard about the Victorian and Commonwealth committees that reported on salaries.
I completely deprecate the establishment of
such committees ; it means the delegation
of responsibility to persons who cannot
accept it.
Again I register my emphatic protest
against the retrospective aspects of the legislation. I do not object to retrospective
payments of salaries under awards made
outside parliament but a special responsibility rests with parliamentarians regarding
retrospective .legislation ; it should be
resisted at all times. Those who do
not agree with me on retrospective
legislation may justify their own consciences. If members of parliament are entitled to an increase in their salary it should
be effective from the date decided upon,
not some previous date. Parliament should
set the standard on retrospective legislation and do nothing that would warrant the
belief that it favours such legislation.
Major the Ron. H. P. FITZSIMONS
[8.36]: I have had some personal experience of the demands made on an hon.
member in anot)ler place. Before making
a few brief remarks, might I say that the
presentation by the committee of its recommendations was the worst piece of public
relations that I have met in many a day.
If the committee had taken the press and
the public into its confidence, no criticism
would have followed. On any examination
it is apparent that an increase in parliamentary salaries and allowances is quite
justified. An hon. member of the Legislative Assembly has a precarious existence
-unless he is one of the fortunate few
who have the privilege of representing a
blue-ribbon seat. The average member of
parliament representing a bordefline, or
and Salaries Bill
even slightly better than a borderline, seat
has no security of tenure ; he is unlike any
other citizen occupying a responsible position in life. Under the demands of the
political situation he is expected to give
almost full-time service to the virtually fulltime job of representing a constituency.
The public press is constantly clamouring
for a better type-just what that means I
do not know-of person to enter public
life and to offer himself for service to the
various political parties. But an immediate
clamour a_rises the moment it is suggested
that the State should provide adequate remuneration for any person in business or
professional life who enters the haphazard
business of politics.· If the public and the
press want what they call a better type of
representative in parliament they must be
willing, as industry of all kinds is willing,
to pay salaries that will attract the services
of that type of man and to give him some
security.
The Ron. H. V. Budd sounded a note of
warning and gave a dignified reproof to
the press, of which he is so distinguished a
member, for the haphazard, rather loose
and dangerous way in which it is prone to
criticise any suggestion of adequate remuneration for members of parliament.
The Ron. Graham Pratten spoke of his
experience as a representative in the Commonwealth Parliament of which he was a
member for fourteen months and three
elections. I was for fourteen years a member in another place. In almost the same
way, in my first two years I had to fight a
by-elec.tion and two general elections. My
financial difficulties were quite serious. The
parliamentary allowance in those days was
£600 a year and that was subsequently
raised by the incoming government to £875.
That action brought a clamour from the
same metropolitan press that is raising a
cry about the present increase of £525.
The members of the Legislative Assembly now have to bear the caustic comments
on their political integrity that were made
against us so many years ago. If we expect the younger group of men on both
sides of politics to enter Parliament and discharge their public duties in a proper manner, and by so doing mortgage their future
[2 DEC., 1959]
to politics, we must pay them to do so.
They must receive a salary sufficient to put
them above fear and to enable them to
carry out their duties to the people who
~lected them. This increase of £525 a year
certainly does not seem excessive, and it
reminds me of what was said by Warren
Hastings when he was impeached before
the House of Commons. He was charged
with enriching himself while engaged on
public duty, and he said, "When I saw the
riches of India I marvelled at my own
modesty." I marvel at the modesty of the
members of the Legislative Assembly.
In all seriousness, it does not appear to
me beyond the bounds of modesty to claim
an additional £525 a year. I agree with
the Hon. A. D. Bridges, who sounded a
wise and sincere note in his speech. He
suggested that in future all members of
another place, and of this House, should
set up some form of statutory committee
charged with the duty of continually observing the expenses, responsibilities and
commitments of members of Parliament
and arranging that in some automatic way
every two or three years salaries should be
adjusted to meet current circumstances.
Some years ago, during the Forgan-Smith
regime, a similar system was ·introduced in
Queensland, not including the remuneration
of Ministers. I believe that it provides
for an automatic adjustment of salary
without forcing the recipients to bear the
odium of public criticism.
We expect Parliament to uphold its dignity and to discharge its duties properly.
If we expect that we should put the members of Parliament above the carping and
odious criticism they receive every time
their remuneration is altered. Between now
and the next general election, an all-party
committee might again consider how to set
up a statutory body representative· of both
Houses, that could make adjustments of
salaries according to a formula; avoid press
criticism and maintain public confidence in
the parliamentary institution.
[8.46]: I intend to be brief, but I must go
on record as having something to say about
this bill. I support all the remarks of the
Hon. A. D. Bridges and I speak as one who
and Salaries Bill
2541
opposed any allowances being made to bon.
members of this House. Therefore, I believe that I am qualified to say that it is
absolutely essential to the health, sanity
and proper working of democracy in this
State that the members of the Legislative
Assembly should be properly remunerated
for the work they do. If we do not pay
them an adequate salary we shall not get
properly qualified men in Parliament.
Our representatives in the Legislative
Assembly are somewhat above a good
average cross section. of the people. First,
they are men of public spirit, or they would
not be there. Before election they have to
qualify in social activities, civic life and
other spheres of service. I am appalled
to hear of the dreadful duties that most of
them have to perform for their constituents,
and I wish we could eliminate those ; their
proper function is to deal with the economic and social circumstances of our life
and introduce legislation to improve those
conditions.
It is impossible for anybody outside Parliament to say what the salaries of members
should be. Parliament itself should fix the
salaries, as it has that responsibility. In
doing so, it should invite any criticism
from the press and the public. My sincere
criticism of this measure is the fact that it
was found necessary to award retrospective
allowances. That was unwise, because all
these things must be done frankly and
openly and must not create any suspicion
of secrecy or something undisclosed. I do
not say that there has been any secrecy, but
I suggest that the way this matter has been
dealt with may have given that appearance
and have created an unworthy suspicion
.of the motives of straight and decent men.
I thought, with these few words, I would
declare myself definitely and clearly on
this subject, which I think may be subject
to improper criticisms unless these statements are made.
The Hon. J. D. KENNY [8.50]: Colonel
the Hon. H. J. R. Clayton said that he did
not wish to remain mute, and he made a
clear and unequivocal statement that he
supported the measure. I am in precisely
the same position. I do not wish to remain
2542
[COUNCIL]
quiet during this debate, but prefer to express my views and to indicate quite clearly
that I also support the measure.
The measure before the House seeks to
increase the remuneration of members of
the Legislative Assembly ; it applies from
the bead of the Government through the
Cabinet, including the Vice-President of
the Executive Council, to the, members of
the Legislative Assembly. Important questions arise when legislation of this nature
is being considered by Parliament. For
instance, bon. members must keep in mind
that a precedent has been established for
the fixation of the remuneration of members of Parliament. Reference has been
made to the various inquiries that have
been undertaken in different parts of Australia over the past few years, and bon.
members must view as relevant the Richardson report in the federal sphere, the Martin
report in Victoria and the Wolfenden report
in New South Wales. All these investigations covered the circumstances affecting
the remuneration payable to bon. members
in various parliaments.
The Commonwealth Conciliation and
Arbitration Commission has decided to
undertake periodic inquiries into the basic
wage. This commission sets the basic wage
that is applied to federal awards, though
New South Wales awards have a basic wage
that, as a result of the decision of the Labor
Government in this State, is fixed in accordance with the quarterly fluctuation of the
C-series index that is compiled by the Commonwealth Statistician. The Commonwealth
Conciliation and Arbitration Commission made a complete investigation into the
federal basic wage, and decided not to reintroduce quarterly adjustments. However,
it bas notified the trade-union movement,
which prosecutes these cases on behalf of
the workers, that in future it will not have
to undertake a complete investigation every
time an application is made to reassess the
basic wage. Therefore, a basis has been
established whereby the Australian Council
of Trade Unions and the metal trades
group of unions, who conduct these cases
before the Commission, will not have to
submit detailed evidence on all aspects of
the economy. The advocates of the unions
The Hon. J. D. Kenny]
and Salaries Bill
will have to show only that there has peen
a change in the cost of various commodities, .and the basic wage will be increased
automatically. On figures that have been
carefully analysed and checked, it is believed that the basic wage will rise at least
22s. when the next application is made.
On the principles laid down in the
Richardson, Martin and Wolfenden reports,
it would be proper for the amenities committee of this Parliament to examine the
circumstances and make a recommendation
to Parliament. Parliament could then, in
its wisdom, take action, irrespective of the
cheap criticism that comes from newspapers
and individuals. In view of the remarks
made by bon. members opposite, it is not
necessary to go into the value of the work
performed by members of the Legislative
Assembly. The Hon. Graham Pratten
described his experiences in the federal
Parliament. It is proper, as prices increase,
to adjust the salaries of our parliamentarians
in a fair and equitable manner.
Retrospectivity is a vexed question with
workers, and members of the Legislative
Assembly and the Government must recognise the importance of this point. The
Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act prevents retrospectivity beyond the
date of application but the equal-pay legislation, which was designed to restore to
women in this State the £1 that had been
deducted from the margins, provides a good
example of how retrospectivity can be dealt
with. Retrospectivity will not be granted
beyond the date of application. Therefore, the unions were advised by myself and
other officers that their applications should
be lodged no later than the day after the
legislation became law. However, though
that was done, when the Industrial Commission_ finally granted the increase of £1,
instead of making the payments retrospective to the date of the applications, which
was the day after the bill became law, it
compromised between the date of the applications and the date suggested by the employers.
If retrospectivity is to be granted to one
group, there should be a close examination
of how far retrospectivity should spread.
However, hon. members should not lose
Parliamentary Allowance6
[2 DEC., 1959}
sight of a potential danger in claiming
retrospecivity. It is possible for one to be
confronted not with an increase but with a
decrease of wages. In those circumstances
I do not know how the Industrial Commission would be able to extract money
from the employees if the decrease were
made retrospective. The contention of the
Hon. H. D. Ahern that all retrospective
legislation is abhorrent cannot be accepted
by the House. In some circumstalnces,
which it is not necessary for me to mention, retrospective legislation is essential,
and I cannot accept the proposition that
it should never be introduced.
In 1939 the basic wage was 82s. In
1949 it had increased by 50s. to 132s.
In 1959 the Commonwealth basic wage is
273s., which is an increase of 141s. since
1949. An extraordinary situation is developing with wage fixation in this country.
The recent decision of the Commonwealth
Conciliation and Arbitration Commission
that margins of metal trades employees
shall be increased by 28 per cent will subsequently benefit a considerable number of
employees throughout Australia.
and Salaries Bill
2543
wealth Government arrests this inflationary
spiral, further adjustments will be necessary. Now, acceding to the Hon. F. M.
Hewitt's request, I return to the bill. I
repeat, unless the Commonwealth Government arrests this inflationary spiral, a further
adjustment will be necessary. If it were
made on the basis that the bon. member
suggested, it would be accepted in a better
spirit by the newspapers and the public.
Everyone would appreciate that Parliament
was not rushing through legislation but was
dealing with it on a sound basis and that the
adjustments were being made for good and
cogent reasons. In these circumstances,
the bill should receive the unanimous approval of bon. members.
Brigadier the Hon. T. A. J. PLAYFAIR
[9.8]: I had hoped through you, Mr. President. to extend a welcome to the Hon.
Robert Mahony, but apparently he has been
forced to leave the Chamber for a short
rest. All hon. members regard him with
extreme endearment. I recall his attendance
at many all-night sittings. Though always
of a different political opinion from me,
the hon. member was ever courteous and
·The Hon. J. A. WEIR: Some of them will gentlemanly and helpful to hon. members
on this side as well as to Government supget only 2s. a week increase.
porters.
The Ron. J. D. KENNY: That is my
The bill is of the greatest importance to
point. The hon. member has anticipated this State. I address my comments especimy argument. The 28 per cent increase ally to hon. members who support the
in margins falls far below the submission Government, particularly the Hon. J. D.
by the Australian Council of Trade Unions Kenny, who always speak for the wage
on behalf of the metal trades employees.
~arner as though there is some special
The Hon. F. M. HEwirr: Is the hon. secret in their hands of how to look after
him. A vast number of men in this counmember speaking to the bill?
try are providing work for wage earners,
The Hon. J. D. KENNY: I intend to looking after them properly and giving
relate this subject to the bill, and I shall them the best amenities. I feel keenly on
deal with it much more intelligently than this subject, because speeches such as the
the hon. member did. There is danger of Hon. J. D. Kenny just made become rather
an inflationary spiral if employers pass the soiled and out-of-date. The wage earner
increases on to the public through prices. is well looked after in our country and will
If this happens, the amenities committee . continue to be by the employer who is
will probably recommend within at least
born of conditions today. I regret to see
nine to twelve months that the rates now
proposed be further increased. The danger bon. members opposite shaking their heads.
of an inflationary spiral is so great that it They are getting old-fashioned themselves
is explosive. I speak not with any political if they do that. The employers of today
bias ; if bon. members study the position know how to look after employees. If
in twelve months' time they will see whether Government supporters go to the trouble
I am right or wrong. Unless the Common- to inspect conditions in many industries
2544
[COUNCIL]
they will find that what I say is true. Employees are of more interest to their employer than they are to union officials.
This country is growing so quickly and
is bringing so many new citizens to its shores
that if the Australian does not pull up his
socks and work he will be left behind.
That goes for both employers and employees. No one knows it better than the
men in the meat industry. Unless employers and employees are encouraged to
do things properly, they will get nowhere.
I have wandered a little from the bill but
I now return to it. In these discussions
of the wage-earner, bon. members forget
the intelligent, intellectual and educated
man. I mean the member of Parliament.
He may be educated only in politics, but
he must be educated to hold his job. He
deserves to be paid better than he has been
in the past. When bon. members talk of
the tail wagging the dog we recall that
many speeches about the wage earner have
been made in this Chamber but the executive, the parliamentarian, the man who is
to manage the country, is looked upon as
almost nothing. I support the bill. Otherwise I would not say what I have said.
Public outcry always follows a decision to
introduce any important legislation in the
Legislative Assembly so late in the session.
Such late legislation often appears to have
been secret-almost under the lap-and
this is an unfortunate assumption.
The Australian economy needs more care
than this Government is capable of giving
it. I say that advisedly. The Government
is managed from the Trades Hall and again
it is the tail wagging the dog. I agree with
increased salaries but entirely disagree with
the conduct of government by a body outside parliament-a body that is never
elected, never will be, and only heaven
knows who its members are. Parliamentarians are entitled to an increase in salary
but they should break the rope around their
necks. Even the Speaker of the Legislative
Assembly was told, presumably by someone outside parliament, that he must behave
himself. I support the bill entirely.
The Hon. W. R. COULTER [9.13]: I
support the bill. I have listened carefully
to the remarks that have been made in this
and Salaries Bill
debate, some of them quite glowing, in
praise of men who do a remarkably good
job. As the Ron. J. D. Kenny pointed
out, many other persons in trades and professions in this State and in the Commonwealth do not receive an adequate money
wage, but to some extent the bill will restore
the position of members of the Legislative
Assembly. Members of parliament both in
the Commonwealth and the States are
grossly underpaid. Ministers of the Crown
would earn not less than £5,000 a year if
they were employed in a private capacity.
Would anyone suggest that the Premier,
if he were running a private business of
the magnitude of the State of New South
Wales, would be paid less than £10,000 a
year? I take the bill seriously and am not
concerned with side issues. I am concerned
that those who are doing a good job should
be adequately paid. I emphasise, too, that
when politicians are adequately paid they
should give all their attention to the job
they are elected to do. If one looks at the
division lists from another place it is apparent that quite a number of members
of parliament are attending to their own
private business when they should be concerned with the affairs of the State and
the nation. Only a few members of parliament do so, but it does happen ; therefore I register my protest. I honestly believe that members of parliament are entitled to an increase in salary and I firmly
support the bill.
The Hon. A. E. ARMSTRONG [9.18]: I
shall speak briefly on the bill. Hon. members have listened to some interesting
speeches from both sides of the House,
especially from the Hon. A. D. Bridges
and Major the Ron. H. P. FitzSimons.
Basically, members of parliament are not
paid too much. I wholeheartedly support
the bill. I would not mind if members
in another place were paid a little more
than it proposes, but I do not like one
provision of the measure. I do not believe
in retrospectivity. If members of parliament vote themselves a salary rise it is
better to take it from the date it is voted.
With that reservation, I wholeheartedly
support the bill. I repeat, the salary rises
are not excessive and I would not mind
. Legislative Assembly Members
[2 DEc., 1959]
if they were slightly higher: nevertheless
I dissociate myself from the retrospective
provisions of the measure.
Motion agreed to.
amendment, and report adopted, on motions
by the Hon. R. R. Downing.
THIRD READING
the Legislative Assembly, on motions by the
Hon. R. R. Downing.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
SUPERANNUATION (AMENDMENT)
BILL
FIRST READING
Bill received from the Legislative
Assembly and, on motion by the Hon. R. R.
Downing, read a first time.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Suspension of certain standing orders
agreed to, on motion by the Hon. R. R.
Downing.
SECOND READING
The Hon. R. R. DOWNING (AttorneyGeneral, Minister of Justice and VicePresident of the Executive Council) [9.23]:
I move:
The purpose of this bill is to increase
contributions to the Legislative Assembly
Members Provident Fund by one-third and
at the same time to increase future pensions
by one-third. Instead of contributing at
the rate of £234 per annum-£4 lOs. a
week-as at present, members of the Legislative Assembly will in future contribute
at the rate of £312 per annum or £6
a week. Concurrently with this increase
in contributions the bill will, as I have
said, provide for rates of pensions to be
increased by one-third. This will mean that
the highest pension-that is the one based
on fifteen years' service-will increase
from £18 a week to £24. The lower pension for members, based on service in three
parliaments and now standing at £15 a
week will increase to £20 a week, while
the pension for widows will rise from
£12 15s. to £17 a week.
160
Superannuation Bill
2545
In accordance with the practice followed on the last two occasions · when
pensions were increased, the proposed rates
will apply only to new pensions emerging
after the bill becomes law. This means that
the increases in pension rates will not involve any additional cost to the pension
fund for the time being. An immediate
effect which will be felt, however, will be
the incrtase in contributions, amounting to
something of the order of £7,500 per
annum. This will mean that the total of
members' contributions will rise from
£22,527 to £30,000 per annum. Pensions
being paid as at 30th June, 1959, amounted
to £23,855 per annum towards which a
subsidy is payable from consolidated
revenue equivalent to the deficiency on the
sectional accounts.
This subsidy was
£14,749 in respect of last financial year.
The accumulated balance of the provident
fund as at 30th June, 1959, stood at
£128,056, which was almost wholly invested
and
semi-government
in
government
securities.
The decision to increase contributions and pensions has been taken concurrently with the decision to increase parliamentary salaries, as it is usual in most
superannuation schemes for increased
salary rates to bring with them increased
Under the Legislative
pension rates.
Assembly Members Superannuation Act
there is no provision whereby pensions are
automatically increased as salaries are increased, so that in order to provide for
higher pension rates in these circumstances
it is necessary to amend the Act. Hon.
members will.observe that the provisions of
the bill do not disturb the existing relationship between contributions and pensions.
I have €xplained briefly the provisions of
the bill, and I believe that I have explained
· fully the effect that is sought to be secured
by the passage of the measure. I commend the motion to bon. members.
The Hon. A. D. BRIDGES [9.27]: If the
superannuation fund is sound, and there
is no reason to suppose it is not, the proposed increase in pensions being proportionate to the increase in contributions will
mean that the. fund will remain in the
2546 .Legislative Assembly Members
[COUNCIL]
same satisfactory position that it is in today. It must be recognised that this type
of provident fund is subject to circumstances vastly different from the circumstances that most provident funds are likely
to encounter. If there were a political
landslide and the colleagues in another
place of bon. members on the Government side lost their many seats, the
demands on the fund would be great. That
being so, the contributions from consolidated revenue to make up the deficiency
could be quite considerable. In the interests of the fund perhaps bon. members
would prefer that a landslide did not take
place.
Speaking seriously, however, this bill
seems to be a natural corollary of the
Parliamentary Allowances and Salaries Bill
that has just been passed. If adequate
salaries are to be paid, adequate pensions
on retirement or death should also be paid.
The contribution of £312 is within the
allowance permitted under Commonwealth
legislation as a deduction for taxation purposes in arriving at assessable income. In all the circumstances if we are
to support the increases in Legislative
Assembly members' allowances and salaries,
we should also support increased pensions
for them.
The Hon. R. S. JACKSON [9.30]: I
agree with the Hon. A. D. Bridges that if
one supports the measure to increase
salaries for members of the Legislative Assembly, he must automatically support this
measure. However, this bill contains no
provisions for retrospectivitY, and, to be
consistent, surely that omission should be
rectified. Many bon. members have given
a lifetime of service to this Parliament, but
in retirement they find that they are receiving little above the age pension.
People who receive the age pension have
made contributions in taxes over the years,
but retired members of Parliament, who
also have made these contributions as well
·as contributions to this fund, receive only
their parliamentary pension-for which
they have paid. I am sure the Hon A. D.
Bridges knows that £80,000 to £100,000 is
in this superannuation fund.
Superannuation Bill
The Hon. A. D. BRIDGES: But the fund
has contingent liabilities.
The Hon. R. S. JACKSON: Even if
there were a landslide-and the Hon. A. D.
Bridges seems to think that there might
be wholesale landslides, with which I do
not agree-the fund still will have large
assets.
The Hon. A. D. BRIDGES: That is not a
surplus.
The Hon. R. S. JACKSON: I think it is,
and it is growing all the time. Members
continue to pay into this fund, which is
building up, despite disbursements. I take
exception to the fact that the committee
that dealt with this matter did not consider
the widows of ex-members of Parliament.
I shall mention, with respect, a few examples. Mrs. Cahill, the widow of our
late Premier, will receive £12 a week. Recently bon. members beard speeches from
all sides of the House, highly praising the
work that the Hon. J. J. Cahill did for
this State. However, his widow will receive
only £12 a week, whereas in future the
widow of a man who bas been a rank-andfile member will receive £18 a week or more.
The widow of the Premier who preceded the late Hon. J. J. Cahill receives
about £7 lOs. a week, though her husband
paid into this fund for a number of years.
Taking into account the purchasing power
of money these days, it is a s;rying shame
that a Premier's widow receives a pension
of only £7 lOs. a week. Hon. members
know of a politician in the federal sphere,
who after retiring from Parliament went
to reside in another country. He holds
other positions overseas, bringing in big
salaries, but be is also given a colossal
pension. Looked at from any angle, it is
an indictment of this Parliament that it
pays to the widow of an ex-Premier the
sum of £7 1Os. and makes no effort to
arrange for the provisions of this measure
to be applied retrospectively.
The late Clarrie Martin did work for
this State that bas never been surpassed
by any Attorney-General. There bas been
agitation by various interested people to
erect a monument in his honour. He held
with dignity and honour the position now
Legislative Assembly Members
[2 DEc., 1959] ·.·· ·
occupied by the Hon. R. R. Downing. He
did a marvellous job for the State. It is
a crying shame that his widow is receiving
a pension of the wonderful amount of £6
a week. Clarrie Martin's death was caused
by the services he rendered to this State ;
his life was cut off earlier than expected
but that
is
all
that his
widow
She
would
receive
many
receives.
other considerations if she were on
the age pension ; for instance, she would
enjoy free medical services and other benefits. The committee that investigated this
matter lacked forethought and a sense of
duty when it allowed this measure_ to be
presented without its advantages being extended retrospectively to these widows.
Surely this could be done, especially in view
of the amount of money that is in the
fund.
This bill should be amended so that exmembers or their widows will receive the
benefits that will be conferred by this
measure. Some bon. members who have
served as Ministers and have given years
of service to the State are receiving probably £9 a week. The Hon. Hamilton
Knight, a former Minister for Labour and
Industry, for instance, would be receiving
about £9 a week. I ask the Minister for
Labour and Industry whether that would
be correct.
The Hon. J. J. MALONEY: That is approximately correct.
The Hon. R. S. JACKSON: Any member in future may receive £20 a week as a
pension, though men who served as Cabinet
Ministers are given only £9 a week. In
Committee I shall move an amendment to
provide for retrospectivity. I am sure that
every right-thinking bon. member in another place would support the principle
that I have enunciated. Surely they do not
feel proud when they hear that Mrs. Martin is receiving only £6 a week. They could
not feel happy about the fact that Mrs.
Cahill will receive £12 a week and that the
widow of the Hon. James McGirr is receiving only £7 lOs. a week.
The Hon. GRAHAM PRATIEN [9.41]:
I could not agree more with what the Hon.
R. S. Jackson has said. When bon. members
Superannuation Bill
2547
on this side had a majority in the House a
few of us agreed to support the passage of
the principal Act that we are now amending.
The Hon. J. J. MALONEY: The bon. member must have a good memory.
The Hon. GRAHAM PRATIEN: I have
been here for a long time. We supported
the proposal because we contended that
young people entering politics should be encouraged to devote their lives to the- service
of the State and that after serving for nine
years in Parliament they deserved a pension,
particularly when they contributed to it.
For this reason my colleagues and I support
the bill, but we are disappointed that the
widows of former Cabinet Ministers are receiving as little as £6, £7 lOs. and £12 15s. a
week, although the wife of an hon. member who dies after the passage of the bill
will receive £17 a week. Is it fair that the
widows of former members should receive
so little? It may be difficult under the pensions scheme to provide extra payments,
but some government action should be
taken to remedy the defect. When my colleagues and I supported the principal Act
we were assured that if the fund got into
difficulties Parliament would be asked to
decide whether the Treasury should subsidise it. Apart from the pension that
should be paid to bon. members, in fairness something should be done for widows
of former members so that they may cope
with the present cost of living.
The Hon. C. A. F. CAHILL [9.44]: I
support the bill, as I did the previous measure that granted increases in salaries,
though I did not speak in the debate. I
heartily endorse what was said by the Hon.
R. S. Jackson and the Hon. Graham Pratten about the plight of widows of deceased
members on both sides of the lower House.
The bill clearly provides that after its commencement, and only then, the increased
rates will apply. Hon. members of this
Chamber and in another place have presented some cogent arguments in support
of the increased salaries. The strong argument running through the debates was that
the cost of living has increased and justice
demands that salaries should be increased
to cope with the increased cost of living.
However, consider the plight of the widows
2548 Legislative Assembly Members
[COUNCIL]
of deceased members. The widows o{
many Labor stalwarts who gave great service to this country are still on a miserly
pension of £6 a week. This is not what
one would expect from the Government.
It is no~ just. In return for the £1 notes
that the deceased members paid into the
fund, their widows are receiving only lOs.
notes. If the arguments that were used to
support the increased salaries of hon.
members of the lower House were valid,
why are they not used by the amenities
committee so that the right thing can be
done by widows of deceased members? I
appreciate that the amenities committee
does not control the fund, but it could
make the necessary recommendation to the
Government, which could take appropriate
action. I recall that the last time a bill
to increase pensions of bon. members was
being debated I made similar observations
and I was informed that my suggestions
would be considered. However, though the
present members of the lower House have
looked after themselves and their wives
quite properly, the people who have gone
are forgotten too soon. One does not expect this of the Government. The widows
of deceased members are, in effect, being
cheated, because they are receiving only lOs.
notes for the £1 notes that their husbands
contributed. Because of this the bill by
no means gives justice to all those who are
entitled to it.
The Ron. R. R. DOWNING (AttorneyGeneral, Minister of Justice and VicePresident of the Executive Council) [9.48],
in reply: The only subject that calls for
reply is the provision of pensions for
widows of ex-members. This is a difficult
;Jroblem because the pension fund is a con~ributory scheme to which members pay
during their lifetime. The difficulties that
confront widows . of ex-members are the
same as those that beset the widows of all
ex-subscribers to superannuation schemes.
The same difficulty applies to widows of
public servants and employees of many
private firms that have superannuation
schemes. It is not easy to solve the problem
by charging to the fund something for
Superannuation Bill
which no contributions have been made. I
appreciate the position of widows of· many
prominent members of Parliament who gave
a lifetime of service to the State. They
were helped by their wives at great inconvenience to themselves and it is desirable
that something be done for them. The
only practicable way to help them is for
the Government to make an ex gratia payment in addition to the pensions that they
receive.
The Ron. A. D. BRIDGES: There is a precedent for that.
The Ron. R. R. DOWNING: There is.
In view of the remarks of the Ron. R. S.
Jackson, the Ron. C. A. F. Cahill, and the
Ron. Graham Pratten I propose to refer
that suggestion to the Government, which
no doubt will be guided largely by the
views of the trustees of the pension fund to
which members of the Legislative Assembly
contribute. I appreciate the justice of the
claim made by those hon. members, but
the practical difficulties to which I have referred prevent any provision for it from
being included in the bill. I call the attention of the Ron. R. S. Jackson to the fact
that section 5 of the Constitution Act makes
no provision for the amendment of bills,
which originate in the Legislative Assembly,
appropriating any part of the public revenue
or for imposing any tax. The only way
in which any additional payments to widows
of ex-members could be made would be by
including some charge for it upon consolidated revenue. It is not within the province of this House to originate such legislation. Everyone appreciates the motive
behind the hon. member's remarks and I
am sure that hon. members of the Legis·
lative· Assembly would appreciate the position in which the widows of their deceased
colleagues find themselves. I shall ask the
Government to seek the adv1ce ·of the
trustees to see whether something can be
done, if not through this bill by an
ex gratia payment, for the widows of
ex-members of the Legislative AssemJ?ly.
Motion agreed to.
Constitution Amendment Bill
[2 DEC., 1959]
IN COMMITTEE
Clause
2.
(Amendment of Act No. 32, 1946.)
The Hon. R. S. JACKSON [9.52]: In
view of the Attorney-General's remarks I
have no wish to take the matter any further.
I am sure that the suggestion of the
Attorney-General would be received favourably in another place.
Clause agreed to.
ADOPTION OF REPORT
Bill reported without amendment, and
report adopted, on motions by the Hon.
R. R. Downing.
THIRD READING
the Legislative Assembly, on motions by
. the Hon. R. R. Downing.
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ABOLffiON) BILL
The PRESIDENT: I have to report the
receipt of the following message from the
Legislative Assembly:Mr. PRESIDENT,The legislative Assembly having this day
passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to abolish the
Legislative Council; to provide that an·other
Legislative Council shall not be created, constituted cr established nor shall any Chamber,
Assembly or House, other than the Legislative AMembly, designed to form part of
the Legislature or the Parliament in New
South "Vules, be created, constituted or established until a Bill for the purpose has been
approved by the electors on a referendum;
to amend the Constitution Act, 1902, and
certain ether Acts; and for purposes connected
therewitlt,''-presents the same to the Legislative Council for its concurrence.
RAY MAHER,
Speaker.
Legislative Assembly Chamber,
Sydney, 2nd December, 1959.
[9.55]: As a matter of precedence and
privilege I move:
That the bill be returned to the Legislative
Assembly with the following Message:Mr. Speaker,-The Legislative Council,
in accordance with long established precedent, practice and procedure, and for that
reason, declines to take into consideration a
bill which affects those sections of the Constitution Act providing for the constitution
of the Legislative Council unless such bill
shall have orginated in this House and re-
Cons_titution Amendment Bill 2549
turns a bill, intituled "An Act to abolish
the Legislative Council; to provide that
another Legislative Council shall not be
created, constituted or established nor shall
any Chamber, Assembly or House, other
than the Legislative Assembly, designed to
form part of the Legislature or the Parliament in New South Wales, be created, constituted or established until a Bill for the
purpose has been approved by the electors
on a referendum; to amend the Constitution
Act, 1902, and certain other Acts; and for
purposes connected therewith,"-without deliberation thereon, and requests that the
Legislative Assembly will deem this reason
sufficient.
Legislative Council Chamber,
Sydney, 2nd December, 1959.
The question of privilege arising under this
motion immediately concerns the rights and
privileges of this House from a constitutional point of view.
The
Constitution Act provides that "The Legislature", wherever those words appear in
the Act, means His Majesty The King with
the advice and consent of the Legislative
Council and Legislative Assembly. Section
5, which is the second part of the Act, refers
to the powers of the Legislature and provides that subject to the provisions of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act, the Legislature shall have power to
make laws for the peace, welfare and good
government of New South Wales in all cases
whatsoever. The matter of privilege to
which I have referred relates to all those
matters which require hon. members of this
part of the Legislature to carry out their
proper parliamentary duties and functions.
Traditionally, these have been styled privileges, but, in fact, they are duties imposed
upon members, and arise out of their
membership. Let us examine what these
duties are. The obligations of every l}lember from the moment of his election and
ever thereafter until the expiration of his
term are to attend the Legislative Council,
and there, exclusively with fellow members,
to hear, consider and speak and cast his
vote, upon every bill presented to the Legislative Council or originated in it, whether
proposed by the Government or by private
members; second, to require to be laid upon
the table of the House, for examination, all
public papers and all regulations made
under any Act upon the statute book, and
to seek information on those papers and to
challenge and move in relation to those
2550 Constitution Ame.ndment Bill
[COUNCIL]
Co~titution
Ame.ndment Bill
regulations also ; third, if he thinks
proper, to present a petition, to move a
motion, and to ask questions ; finally
if he thinks it necessary, to speak upon
the adjournment on matters of urgency
and public importance. These duties are
the duties of each and every member of this
House. They are inescapable, cannot be
delegated, and may not be transferred.
Such importance has been attached to this
matter that historians of parliamentary government have, from time to time, with
one accord, demonstrated how imoortant it
is that proper performance of parliamentary functions should be safeguarded if
constitutional government is to be maintained. It has always been formally recognised that every Chamber and every member thereof is charged with the responsibility
of defending these so-called privileges which
have been conferred by the electors, and
that that is a responsibility which, in honour, no member may shirk or surrender.
On another occasion-on 4th November,
1896-the House declined to take into consideration the Referendum Bill, which had
originated in the Assembly and was forwarded to the Council for its concurrence
on that date. The bill purported to make
provision, by means of legislation, for cases
of disagreement between the Legislative
Council and the Legislative Assembly. The
debate hinged on the point that it was a
restriction on the powers of the Council,
whereas the Assembly powers were left
unimpaired. On the motion for the first
reading, an amendment was moved:
Turning to the history of New South
Wales, I first refer to a position which arose
on 2nd April, 1873, when a bill intituled
"the Legislative Council Bill", affecting the
Constitution of the Legislative Council, was
first introduced in the Assembly and forwarded to the Legislative Council for concurrence. On that occasion the then President, Sir Terence Aubrey Murray, on a
question of privilege, called the attention
of hon. members to the fact that the object
of the bill was completely to alter the
Constitution of the Council. He referred
to many authorities, including Blackstone,
Lord Lyndhurst, Todd's Practice and Privileges of Parliament, May's Constitutional
History, Hallam's Constitution History, and
said of them that they all bore "in the same
direction, that where any alteration is to be
made in the constitution of one House of
Parliament that alteration must originate
in the House immediately affected by it".
Following this ruling, the Legislative
Council of New South Wales resolved on
motion, as follows:
The amendment was carried on division, and
reference to it may be found in the Legislative Council Journal, Vol. 55, page 203,
and in the Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 86,
p. 4678. Similarly, in August, 1916, on the
motion for the second reading of the Members of Parliament (Agents) Bill, which
had been introduced in the Assembly and
forwarded to the Council for concurrence
a point of order was raised, "That the bill
was improperly before the House, it being
a bill that concerned the privileges of this
House . . . " In his ruling, the then President, Mr. Fred Flowers, stated that the
rulings given by his predecessors and the
practice of the Imperial Parliament, as set
out in May's Parliamentary Practice, were
very clear upon the point that any measure
affecting the privileges of members of either
House of Parliament to any degree whatsoever must be introduced in the House
immediately affected by that measure.
Therefore it seemed clear to him, from a
perusal of the bill before the House, that
it undoubtedly sought to impose a fresh
restriction upon members and consequently
indirectly involved an extension of the
disqualification provisions of the Constitution Act. For those reasons he therefore
upheld the point raised.
This House declines to take into consideration any bill repealing those sections of the
Constitution Act which provide for the Constitution of the Legislative Council, unless such
bill shall be originated in this Chamber.
Colonel the Hon. H. J. R. Clayton]
That this House declines to take into consideration the bill . . . as it concerns the privileges and proceedings of the Council, and
therefore should have originated in this Chamber, the bill being against the spirit of a
resolution of this House passed on 2nd April,
1873, declining to take into cqnsideration any
bill repealing sections of the Constitution Act,
which provide for the constitution of the
Legislative Council, unless such bill shall be
originated in this Chamber.
Constitution Amcndme.nt Bill
[2 DEC., 1959]
In November, 1918, in connection with
the Women's Legal Status Bill, on the
motion for first reading Mr. Flowers again
mled that "any bill concerning the privileges or proceedings of either House should
commence in that House to which it relates." I now refer to the remarks made by
the late Sir Daniel Levy when Speaker of
the Legislative Assembly. These remarks
will be found in the Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 82, page 3998, on 21st December, 1920. They are as follows:
. . . There is, however, another and a very
serious point to which, as the custodian of
the rights and privileges of this Chamber, it
is my duty to direct the attention of hon.
members. It is a well-known rule, for which
there is abundant authority, that neither of
the two Houses of Parliament should initiate
legislation affecting the proceedings or functions of the other Chamber; or to put it in
another way, any bill concerning the privileges
or proceedings of either House should commence in that House to which it relates. This
is not a musty rule, culled from the archives
of parliamentary antiquity. It is a rule which
is in full force and vigor at the present day
From the references quoted, it is clear that
the practice and procedure of the New South
Wales Legislature has been to originate
bills in the House which they immediately
affect, and the following bills affecting the
Council have been originated in the Council: Constitution (Amendment) Bill, on 15th
October, 1925; Constitution (Amendment)
(No. 2) Bill, 20th January, 1926; Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment
Bill, 9th May, 1928; Constitution .(Further
Amendment) Bill, 19th September, 1929;
Constitution Further Amendment (Legislative Council Abolition) Bill, 2nd December, 1930; Constitution (Amendment) Bill,
2nd December 1930; Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill, 13th September, 1932;
Constitution Further Amendment (Legislative Council Elections) Bill, 15th December, 1932; Constitution Amendment (Legislative Council Elections) Bill, 23rd August,
1933 ; Constitution (Legislative Council
Elections) Amendment Bill, 1st December, 1937; and Legislative Council Abolition
Bill, 4th December, 1946.
As the bill referred to in the message
under consideration is one that vitally affects the Constitution of the House-in
fact its very existence-! consider that it is
Constitution Amendment Bill 2551
improperly pr~sented to the Legislative
Council, and should have originated in it.
That is the legal position, and now I wish
to add a practical comment. The reason
that thi~ House, following its right, should
move to send back to the Legislative
Assembly the message that I have read, is
that the terms of the message we have
received ask for the concurrence of this
House in a particular bill. It is difficult, in
all the circumstances, for this Chamber to
understand with whom it is supposed to
concur. There are three parties to be
found in another place and there is no
concurrence among them in that House.
One parliamentary party in another place
submitted this measure, not because it
formed any opinion of its own, but because
of a direction from an extra-parliamentary
body. The second parliamentary party was
not quite sure of its position, and said that
it was unable to make up its mind ; however, it suggested on this occasion it thinks
the will of the people should be ascertained.
The third parliamentary party knew its own
mind, and expressed it.
Hon. members of this Chamber are asked
to concur. To concur in what? It is a
dilemma. We do not know with whom we
are asked to concur. It might be glibly
answered that we are to concur in a decision of another place, and that decision,
by just the rule of the majority, results
from the passage of this bill through that
Chamber. But what passage? And how
can this House address itself to a question
like that? We are asked to concur. But
to concur in what? We do not know. If
this House were left to itself and bad to
consider whether it believes in the continuation or abolition of the Legislative Council
it would have no hesitation in giving a
proper answer, after due consideration.
However, this House, having regard to
~hose privileges of which I speak, and
the privileges that are only a connotation
of duty-and are in themselves duties, inescapable and inalienable, such as to preserve the Chamber's independence and
conformity with its precedents, tradition
and history of the occasions to which I
have referred-should say, "We cannot and
do not wish to accept this message."
2552 Constitution Amendment Bill
[COUNCIL]
The Ron. R. R. DOWNING (AttorneyGeneral, Minister of Justice and VicePresident of the Executive Council) [10.14]:
During the time I was considering the attitude that some hon. members of the Legislative Council might take when this bill
was presented in this Chamber, I conceived
that an bon. member might pursue the
course that has been adopted now by
Colonel the Ron. H. J. R. Clayton. How•ever, upon further consideration of the
question, I could not see, in the light of the
authorities, that such a course could be
adopted· and admitted as being justified. I
hope to show clearly that there is no foundation in past practice or precedent for the
motion. Also, if the privilege claimed did
exist, as suggested by Colonel the Ron ..
H. J. R. Clayton, it has been removed specifically by the law of the land, by an Act
of this Parliament that was approved by
the electors of New South Wales. I wish
to make these things so clear that when I
have finished the hon. member will concede that he has overlooked-to put it
generously-the provisions relating to parliamentary practice and the statute to which
I propose to refer.
In regard to the existence of the privilege, I notice that Colonel the Ron. H. J. R.
Clayton has quoted from rulings of past
Presidents of the Legislative Council, on
bills affecting the status of the Council. It
has been claimed that the rulings given by
the past Presidents were following what is
set out in May's Parliamentary Practice.
As far as the existence of this privilege is
concerned, this House follows the forms,
procedures and practices of the Mother of
Parliaments. Where no specific legislation,
rules or standing orders prescribe a practice, we follow those forms and procedures.
May's Parliamentary Practice is the undisputed authority in respect of these matters,
and at page 469 of the 15th edition the
matter of privilege adverted to by Colonel
the Ron. H. J. R. Clayton is considered. It
says:
While as a general rule bills may originate
in either House, the exclusive right of the
House of Commons to grant supplies and to
impose and appropriate all charges upon the
people renders it necessary to introduce by
far the greater proportion of bills into that
House. For obvious reasons also, measures
which are likely to arouse political controversy
are generally introduced in the House of
Commons.
This is the relevant passage:
Bills concerning privileges of one House.A bill which concerns the privileges or
proceedings of either House should, in courtesy, commence in that House to which it
relates.
Objection was taken in the Lords to the
Poor Litigants (Scotland) Bill, 1920, which
had been received from the Commons, on the
ground that it repealed a standing order of
the House of Lords as to costs in certain
cases before that House, and the motion for
the second reading of the bill was accordingly
withdrawn.
The authority for this quotation is mentioned as the Journal of the House of Lords
for the year 1920 at page 251. Then Mcry
goes on to say:
Bills affecting the privileges of the other
House have, nevertheless, been admitted without objection.
Then there is a long series of instances
of bills that have been admitted without
objection. The House of Lords is probably the oldest parliamentary institution in
the British Empire. No doubt, no persons
would be more jealous of the privileges
of that Chamber than the members themselves of that august body. The Parliament Bill was introduced into the House
of Commons in February, 1911. It sought
to restrict the rights of the House of Lords
to reject continously the legislation coming
from the elected representatives of the
people. It was read a second time in the
Commons in 1911, and during the same
year it was before the House of Lords.
On 29th May, 1911, it was drastically
amended in the Lords and sent back to
the Commons, but its amended form was
rejected in the House of Commons.
Following that, when Mr. Lloyd George
obtained the consent of His Majesty to the
appointment of a number of Lords sufficient to carry the bill, it was agreed to in
1911 by the House of Lords.
The Parliament Act of 1949, which
further reduced the powers of the House
of Lords, was introduced in the House of
Commons and accepted eventually by the
[2 DEC., 1959]
House of Lords. The sole object of claim- opm10n contrary to mine by any constituing precedent and privilege on this occa- 1ional authority in Australia whose repusion in this Chamber is to defeat the will tation is worth one iota. Any sound legal
of the elected representatives of the people. opinion must confirm that the procedure
I propose to show why this is so. On the being adopted with this bill is the correct
authority of Sir Erskine May, no inviolable constitutional procedure and that the staterule of privilege of this or any other House ment I am making is the right one. Secis breached when a measure is brought tion Ss of the Constitution Act is part of
forward by the elected representatives of our law, specifically approved by the people
the people. There is a stronger authority in a referendum as the result . of a bill
than any of these that I have quoted, which passed by both Houses of this Parliament.
is the Constitution Act itself, for the in- That section provides:
troduction of this bill in the Legislative
If the Legislative Assembly passes any Bill
Assembly. If hon. members were success- other than a Bill to which section 5A of this
ful in their stand on privilege against this Act applies, and the Legislative Council rejects
or fails to pass it . . . if after a free conbill they would put aside a section of the ference
between managers there is not agreeConstitution Act and could for ever defeat ment between the Legislative Council and the
the will of the elected representatives of Legislative Assembly, the Governor may conthe people. Some well-known provisions of vene a joint sitting of the Members of the
Council and the Members of the
the Constitution Act have not been tested. Legislative
Legislative Assembly.
-Section Ss was inserted in the Act after it
This is the part of the section that is most
was approved by a referendum of the
important to my argument:
people of New South Wales. In every
This section shall extend to any Bill whether
democratic country in the world that has
it is a Bill to which section 7A of this Act
an elected chamber and a non-elected applies or not.
chamber, provision is made for overcoming As hon. members know, section 7A applies
deadlocks. The framers of the amendments to any bill for the alteration of the Conto the Constitution Act in the 1930's sought stitution of New South Wales or for the
from the people approval for a provision abolition of the Legislative Council or the
that, if the Legislative Assembly passed any reduction of its powers. Therefore, the
bill other than a bill to which section SA framers of section 5s of the Constitution
of the Act applied, and the Legislative Act-approved by the people-provided by
Council rejected or failed to pass it, the statute that whatever privilege might have
procedure of appointing managers and previously been claimed by the Legislative
holding a joint sitting of both Houses could Council had disappeared, because section
be followed, and the matter. could be sub- Ss applies only to bills introduced in the
mitted to the people to ascertain their will Legislative Assembly, and yet that very
at a referendum.
section says in express terms that it applies
If a referendum is required on whether to a section 7A bill. In other words, the
this State should have two legislative framers of this provision saw to it that the
chambers or a reformed chamber, and this bills which can originate only in the LegisHouse does not want to agree to it, then lative Assembly were covered by the deadthe only way that the problem can be over- lock provisions of section Ss, which specicome is through the deadlock provisions of fically applies to bills covered by section
section 5B, which operate only one way ; 7A-and this is a bill that comes within the
they operate only on measures originating provisions of section 7A.
in the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, if
The procedure under section Ss is a comhon. members claim this privilege they are
saying in effect, "There is to be one class plicated one that has never been availed of
of bill on which the people will never get by any government since its introduction
a chance to express their opinion." I shall in 1933. It has been suggested that that
demonstrate why this is so. The argument procedure will not work, but I say most
that I am putting forward is irrefutable, deliberately that this method of opposing
and I defy hon. members to produce an the bill has been resorted to so that section
[COUNCIL]
5B cannot work. I have no doubt that the
intention of the framers of this motion is
to avoid the requirement contained in the
standing orders for the appointment of
managers as stipuated by section 5B. Hon.
members are adopting this attitude so that
they will not have to shoulder the responsibility of appointing managers and eventually allowing this matter to be decided by
the will of the people. They will refuse
to appoint managers to confer on a bill
that they have declined to entertain.
There has been no constitutional lawyer
or authority on the procedure and practices
of Parliament in any legislature in Australia
greater than a distinguished occupant
of the chair of this Chamber, the late Sir
John Peden. In 1943, when the Legislative
Council Reform Bill was introduced in another place and came up here for discussion, it was read a first time and read a
second time without any points being
taken such as that taken tonight. Why?
Because Sir John Peden knew that the procedure was correct. It is easy to appreciate
what happened. I know Sir John Peden's
view, because I anticipated that this sort of
point might come up on that occasion. The
view that I am stating now is the view of
Sir John Peden-tbat any privilege that
ever existed was specifically waived by the
insertion of section 5B in the Constitution
Act. No one was more jealous of the
privileges of this House than Sir John. That
is undisputed. He would have raised this
objection immediately in his position as
President of this Chamber if there had
been any substance in it. Leading the
opposition to that bill was another great
constitutional lawyer, who was equally
jealous of the privileges of this House, Sir
Henry Manning. Did he take this point?
Of course not. Both those eminent lawyers
recognised that there was no validity in
the claim that is being put forward now.
I say to those bon. members who propose
to support the motion that there is an
attack on democracy in it, because it is an
attempt to do something that the Constitution Act specifically says they should
not be able to do. The New South
Wales Constitution provides that any
bill may be put to the people by way of a
referendum, including a bill to abolish the
Legislative Council. Hon. members may
counter my argument by saying that this
motion does not stop the operation of the
deadlock provisions. That may be so, but
I say deliberately that this form of procedure is designed to build up a case so that
when the appointment of managers is being
considered, bon. members can take the
same point of privilege to avoid their responsibility to appoint managers as provided by section 5B and to avoid the eventual joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament to consider this matter.· If this
motion is carried bon. members are saying
to the people of New South Wales, "Eventually the will of the elected representatives
of the people will prevail with any type
of bill, except one to abolish the Legislative Council. I say that this procedure
bas been adopted solely for that purpose.
It will be found that when this House is
asked to appoint managers the same arguments will be advanced. Hon. members
opposite will say that they will not appoint
managers. Because the bill did not originate in this House, they will frustrate the
provisions of section 5B which operates only
one way. It can apply only to measures
that originate in the Legislative Assembly,
not to measures that originate in the Legislative Council. It is clear that if this
bill is defeated tonight and I were to
introduce a bill into the Legislative Council
tomorrow to accede to this demand of
privilege, I could not use section 5B afterwards to get the matter to a referendum.
I have nothing more to add except to say
that the two greatest authorities on
the Constitution Act in respect of the
provisions that apply to the relationship
of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council were the late Sir John Peden
and Sir Henry Manning. If this bill bad
been introduced in their time and this question of precedent and privilege arose,
neither would pervert their profe~ional
standing and status by attempting to advance a proposition such as that put forward
by Colonel the Hon. H. J. R. Clayton. I
hope for the sake of democracy and for
the reputation of this House that this
motion will be defeated.
Cons:titution Am~ndment Bill
[2 DEc., 1959]
The Hon. C. E. BEGG [10.33]: I am
deeply conscious of the fact that in one
sense this is an historic occasion. In this
mother of parliaments of Australia, the
first established parliament, this Chamber
is now under attack. It is against that
background that this Chamber has to ensure that it so conducts itself that in the
fullness of time it will have been shown to
have been the servant of the people by
whom and for whose protection it was
established. The motion, far from being
what the Attorney-General has said, namely,
an attempt to destroy democracy, seeks
to ensure that democratic processes will
continue in this State. I put to bon. members that first the Attorney-General can
cite no precedent against the proposition
for which hon. members on this side now
contend.
The simple fact is that the parliamentary
tradition and parliamentary rule that has
been established over the years is unmistakably as Colonel the Hon. H. J. R.
Clayton has intimated to hon. members.
The corporate duty of this House as one of
the arms of the Legislature is to uphold
parliamentary procedure ..It has been recognised for nearly a hundred years in this
Parliament that bills that affect either House
should originate in the House so affected.
Colonel the Hon. H. J. R. Clayton has
called attention to the ruling of the late
Sir Daniel Levy, himself a learned gentleman, and at the time a Speaker of the
Legislative Assembly. He was conscious of
the fact that this was not an erratic ruling
which he sought to have effected in the
Legislative Assembly of New South Wales.
Not only do all these rulings to which
Colonel the Hon. H. J. R. Clayton has
referred appear in the Journals of this
House and other Chambers, . but in fact
they have been acted upon by governments
of the day.
The long line of bills that have been
introduced on this subject shows that with
only one exception all have been originated
in this Chamber-including the last similar
bill in 1946. I shall deal with the
only exception, the bill of 1943, and
the way governments have acted in
the past. The simple answer is, of course,
that a House is entitled to waive its rights
and on that occasion did so. That is why,
when the Attorney-General read from
May, he quoted a passage with which I
wholly agree-"that bills have however
been admitted without objection." Some
have not been admitted without objection.
This is one that is not being admitted without objection and for good and sound
reasons. Let me deal with the second
matter referred to by the Attorney-General.
He said that this move, as he has described
it, was an effort to defeat democratic processes. When one carefully studies the
introductory speech of the Premier in the
Legislative Assembly one find that he made
no reference to the fact that this bill was
being introduced in that Chamber pursuant
to section 5B of the Constitution. In fact
in his speech he rather intimated that it was
not. He said that the deadlock provisions
were vague and I quote his words on that
occasion:
There were, of course, the "deadlock" provisions-but these did nothing to resolve
deadlocks.
He discussed the question of deadlocks and
said in fact that every possible obstacle was
placed in the way of holding a referendum.
The Premier himself said that section 5B
which the Attorney-General referred to,
places every obstacle in the way of holding
a referendum. He said:
It is complex and vague, it is ·difficult to
apply in practice. To follow the procedure
it sets out may take anything from six months
to a couple of years.
There is only one express section of the
Constitution touching on the question where
bills should originate. That is section 5,
which is the only section in the Constitution
Act of New South Wales that declares where
bills should originate in specific cases.
Section 5 of the Act under which we function states:
The Legislature shall, subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act, have power to make laws
for the peace, welfare and good government
of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever.
Provided that all Bills for appropriating any
part of the public revenue, or for imposing
any new rate, tax, or impost, shall originate
in the Legislative Assembly.
That is the only express provision in the
Constitution Act that lays down in what
Chamber a bill shall originate.
[COUNCIL]
If the Attorney-General has any fears
that the purpose and intention of hon. members here is to defeat the will of the people
let me immediately deny that proposition:
The Hon. R. R. DowNING: I said the
will of the elected representatives of the
people.
The Hon. C. E. BEGG: I was under the
impression that the Attorney-General said
that this was a challenge to democracy.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
This House represents the people of New
South Wales and was established by the
people of New South Wales by referendum
in 1934. As an established House of the
people each and every one of us has a
duty to the people of this State. The
referendum proposal submitted by the
Government-{lnterruption.]
The PRESIDENT: Order! Too many
bon. members are interjecting. The Hon.
C. E. Begg is entitled to be heard in
silence.
The Hon. C. E. BEGG: The AttorneyGeneral assumes that this measure involves
a referendum, but there is not one word
about a referendum in the bill. If the
Government wants to test the feeling of the
people of New South Wales let it put a
series of questions to the people so that
they can indicate their wishes about the
whole of the Constitution and not an
isolated part of it.
The Hon. R. R. DowNING: On a point
of order. The Hon. C. E. Begg is speaking
to the substance of the bill and not the
motion before the House. The motion is
that the bill is an infringement of the
privileges of the House and I submit that
you should rule that the bon. member
should confine himself to the terms of the
motion.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Hon.
C. E. Begg to confine his remarks to the
motion before the House.
The Hon. C. E. BEGG: I shall
try to do so, Mr. President, although
I was endeavouring to answer the
remarks made by the Attorney-General that
the purpose of hon. members on this side
of the House was to adopt undemocratic
methods to evade the will of the people.
I assure the Attorney-General that if a
referendum is submitted to the people this
Chamber will ensure that a proper series of
questions is submitted in the referendum
and not a loaded question.
The Hon. R. R. DOWNING: On a point
of order. I submit that the bon. member should confine his remarks to the
question before the Chair which is a matter
relating to the privileges of this House.
The Hon. C. CoLBORNE: On the point
of order, Mr. President, the Hon. C. E. Begg
does not know the question that he is supposed to be addressing himself to.
The PRESIDENT: Order!
ber may proceed.
The bon. mem-
The Hon. C. E. BEGG: There are some
important matters that should be mentioned.
At one stage there was apparently a suggestion by the Government that this bill
was an appropriation measure. According
to the Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Anembly we find-Message received
by the Legislative Assembly from His
Excellency the Governor:
In accordance with the provisions contained
in the 46th section of the Constitution Act
1902 the Governor recommends for the consideration of the Legislative Assembly the
expediency of making provision to meet the
requisite expenses in connection with a Bill
to abolish the Legislative Council: to provide
that another Legislative Council should not
be created, constituted or established ... ;
to amend the Constitution Act for purposes
connected therewith.
That entitles hon. members of this House
to become a bit suspicious. We have not
been told whether it is intended to regard
this measure as an appropriation bill.
The Hon. R. R. DowNING: It was intended to have a referendum and that involves the expenditure of money.
The Hon. C. E. BEGG: That is not
correct, as the Appropriation Bill that was
before us a few weeks ago contained a provision for the appropriation of £112,000, I
believe, for the purpose of a· referendum.
Therefore, if the Government intended that
this measure should be considered to be
[2 DEc., 1959]
an appropriation measure and some resort
had to section 5A of the Constitution Act
which would enable section 5B to be
avoided, bon. members are entitled to ask
what are the intentions of the Government
and how does it expect this Chamber to
react?
When I was debating legislation this
morning at 1 a.m. I said that we protested
against the speed at which legislation was
being rushed through at this time of the
year. The measure with which we are now
dealing is the last matter on the business
paper, and is presented to us when the
House is a bout to rise. Are we being asked
to deliberate all night on this important
matter? When the Attorney-General says
that we are endeavouring to obstruct the
processes of democracy we are entitled to
say that those processes have not worked
very quickly in regard to this measure in
another place. Indeed, the bill has been
delayed considerably in the Legislative
Asse'mbly, and w·e are all in favour of this
matter receiving proper and adequate consideration. We shall see that it gets it in
this Chamber.
The Attorney-General is certainly not
entitled to assume that managers will not
be appointed in due course. He is not entitled to assume that our intention is to
· deny democracy. Our firm intention is to
look at the measure conscientiously and
properly and in accordance with the highest
traditions of Parliament. If this is done
the people may rest assured that this Cham- .
ber has done everything in its power to
ensure that the measure bas been properly
considered.
I suggest to bon. members that they support this motion so that we shall not be
asked in the dying hours of this session
to deal with constitutional matters of fundamental importance. Let the measure be
introduced in this House at the proper
time. . The House will see to it that it is
properly and conscientiously dealt with.
The Hon. R. R. DoWNING: It would
meet the same fate ..
The Hon. C. E. BEGG: The AttorneyGeneral and Minister for Justice apparently
fears his fates too much or his deserts too
small.
The Hon. T. N. P. DouGHERTY: The bon.
member is afraid of the people.
The Hon. C. E. BEGG: For those reasons
we submit that this motion of privilege,
clearly established in accordance with our
parliamentary traditions, should be upheld.
We invite the Government, if it ~ishes to
proceed with the measure, to permit its
introduction in this Chamber. The AttorneyGeneral and Minister of Justice cannot dispute that the Government is fully
empowered and entitled to introduce the bill
in this Chamber and we invite him to do so.
The Hon. J. J. MALONEY (Minister
for Labour and Industry) [10.52]: Hon.
members with any sense of fairness cannot
deny that the Attorney-General and Minister
of Justice has given a complete answer to
the motion moved by Colonel the Hon.
H. J. R. Clayton. One does not have to
be a legal man to understand plain English.
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind
that the move made this evening by Colonel
the Hon. H. J. R. Clayton is designed to
deny to the people-Colonel the Hon. H. J. R. CLAYTON: On
a point of order. My motive or design bas
nothing to do with the matter. We are
now dealing with the motion before this
House. The object and design of the motion
does not matter tuppence.
The Hon. J. J. MALONEY: I am entitled to put my interpretation on the motion
before the House.
The PRESIDENT: The Minister is correct.
The Hon. J. J. MALONEY: Whether or
or not I am right in the eyes of the bon.
member who moved the motion, the motion
before the House is designed to stop the
operation of the Constitution of this State.
It is all very well to quote May's Parliamentary Practice and the rulings of Sir Daniel
Levy and various speakers going back to
the 17th or 18th century. Hon. members
opposite have not cited the Act that was
passed in 1934, which resulted in the reconstitution of this Chamber. That Act was
passed with the express intention of preventing anything happening to this Chamber
[COUNCIL]
without a referendum being held. When
this bill comes along it is said that it should
not have come here in the way it did-that
it should have originated in this Chamber.
I submit that this was not the intention of
those who drafted the sections that have
relation to the deadlock provision or to the
holding of a referendum before any change
or alteration can be made in the constitution of this House. It is a denial of democracy to attempt to keep the bill from
the people by means of-I say it deliberately-a fictitious constitutional point that,
if carried by a majority in this Chamber-The Ron. AsHER JOEL: Why will the
Government not initiate the bill . in this
Chamber?
The Ron. J. J. MALONEY: If the bill
were introduced here, the same point could
be taken.
The Ron. ASHER JOEL: Why?
The Ron. J. J. MALONEY: The
Attorney-General has explained it. The
hon. member has asked why the bill was
not initiated here. He does not want it to
be initiated anywhere. He and his colleagues want to deny the people their right
of determining whether this House will continue to function. Each bon. member
claims to subscribe to democracy and the
rule of the people, and to the method of
parliamentary election. This House has a
method of election that goes against the
grain of some people ; they are not willing
to accept it. Will anyone dispute that a
few short months ago during the State
election campaign the late Premier in his
policy speech assured the people of New
South Wales that if his Government were
returned to office it would permit them to
vote at a referendum for the retention or
abolition of this Chamber?
This part of the Constitution of New
South Wales was laid down not in
1873 or 1783-not in Sir Daniel Levy's
time-but as late as 1934. It provides
the methods by which the Legislative
Assembly can determine legislation and
forward it to this Chamber for con-
sideration. If we try to deny the rights of
the people's elected representatives, the
deadlock provisions can be enforced to
enable the issue to go to the people. That
is precisely what hon. members opposite
are doing tonight. Whether bon. members
favour continuance of the present s'ituation
or prefer a reformed Chamber, they cannot possibly deny the people the right to
express their will. It must be borne in
mind that the people returned the Government, which has given an assurance that a
referendum will be held. It is all very well
for constitutional lawyers from the other
side to pick out these points and bring them
up to try and stop the operation of the
very Constitution that their friends framed
at a time when they never believed that
Labor would attain a majority in this
Chamber.
The method of election was framed deliberately to keep Labor for all time in
the political wilderness in both Houses of
Parliament. It was designed without the
people of New South Wales being aware
of the fact that their best representation
and interest could be served by a Labor
government. Only the continued confidence of the people of New South Wales
in the Labor Government has enabled us
to have a majority in this House. Now
that we have a majority the members of
the Opposition are not content. They are
not willing to follow the principle laid
down by their friends in 1934 to let the
people decide. Why are they not game to
go to the people? I have no fear of going
to the people on any issue. Here is our
own Constitution which lays down the
methods by which the government of the
day can go to the people in spite of the
opposition that may arise in this Chamber to ~my measure that emanates from the
other House. Yet hon. members opposite
have gone back into the archives of history,
forgetting altogether the legislation that defines our own constitution. They seek to
introduce rulings and procedures of the
Mother of Parliaments and of this Parliament. Those who have moved and supported this motion are more concerned, in
view of the fact that apparently they have
organised sufficient support in this House
to ensure its being carried, with these things
[2 DEC., 1959]
than with upholding constitutional rights.
I do not for one moment play second fiddle
to any bon. member in this Chamber when
it comes to espousing democratic rights.
Unless the Constitution does not mean what
it says, surely the principle is quite clear.
Section 5B of the Constitution clearly
deals with matters concerning motions or
bills to reform or change the constitution
of this House. I join with the AttorneyGeneral and Minister of Justice in submitting that the motion before the House is a
fictitious one, for it has been moved with
no sincere wish to uphold our parliamentary
democracy. Indeed, it forgets entirely parliamentary democracy, and has been moved
for personal reasons. Apparently those who
have moved and supported it are afraid to
test the issue whether the people of New
South Wales wish this House to be continued.
As I said earlier, that question does I)Ot
arise on this particular issue. This is a
threat to our Constitution. It is made not
by some outside organisation, but by some
within who wish to break down parliamentary democracy as we know it. This
is a white-anting of parliamentary democracy from inside, by denying to the elected
representatives of the people in another
place an opportunity to force the will of
the people upon the members of this upper
House. That is the position if bon. members here refuse to accept the legislation
that allows the people of New South Wales
to be the final determining factor rather
than the members of the Legislative Assembly or the members of the Legislative
Council.
Are hon. members opposite afraid of the
people of New South Wales? Are they
afraid of the result? Have bon. members
opposite no confidence in their ability to
convince the people of New South Wales
that this Chamber is an essential part of
our democracy, and that it is essential to
preserve the bicameral system of government? If hon. members opposite had any
confidence in their ability to place before
the people a case for the retention of this
House, they would not be . adopting such
snide tactics to preclude the people from
having a vote. I do not say "snide tac-
tics" in an offensive way ; they are bogus
tactics. I am using an expression that was
used by an hon. member of the Opposition
in another place, who used the word "snide"
and then gave its definition, pointing out
that he was not using it offensively. If it
was not offensive for him to use it, it is
not offensive. for me to do so.
I appeal to bon. members in this Chamber
to recognise that the fundamental principle
here is to carry out the will of the people,
which was expressed on this issue as recently
as in March of this year when they returned
a Labor government to office after it had
included in its policy speech the promise
that they would have an opportunity to vote
on this issue.
The Hon. F. W. SPICER: Was the proposal to increase parliamentary salaries included in the policy speech also?
The Hon. J. J. MALONEY: The elected
representatives of the people of New South
Wales should have that opportunity. All
members of this Chamber and every member of the community who believes, or disbelieves, in the bicameral system of government or our methods of election will have
an opportunity to express their opinions.
If the people, in the final analysis, determine that anything is wrong, I would prefer
their decision to rulings given in 1873 or
to May's Parliamentary Practice. The
people of New South Wales are supreme in
the eyes of all democracy-loving people,
but apparently they are not supreme in the
eyes of hon. members opposite.
If anything, the motion is out of order ;
but I suggest that the complete legal answer
has been given by the Attorney-General
and Minister of Justice. Those hon. members opposite who uphold the fine traditions
of the legal profession and of democracy
are concerned with retaiping their positions
here and are not running the risk of having
the people determine this question. I appeal
to all bon. members, particularly those on
this side of the Chamber, to play the role
that democracy asks them to play, and to
oppose this motion. Hon.·members should
recognise the merits of this measure and
permit its passage through this Chamber
so that the matter will finally go to the
people for their determination.
[COUNCIL]
The Hon. C. A. F. CAHILL. [11.17]:
The legal aspects of this motion have
already been discussed by three members
of the legal profession in this House. The
Attorney-General and Minister of Justice
dealt with them rather fully and comprehensively, and therefore I shall make my
comment quite short. I submit that the
Attorney-General has completely answered
the matters raised by Colonel the Hon.
H. J. R. Clayton and the Hon. C. E. Begg.
In opposing the motion I submit that, while
a long string of authorities was referred
to by both the legal gentlemen who have
spoken from the other side of the House,
they were all before the 1933 enactment.
Colonel the Hon. H. J. R.
That is not so.
CLAYTON:
The Hon. R. R. DoWNING: All the rulings were.
The Hon. C. A. F. CAHILL: As I understood it, that was so. I have every respect
for May's Parliamentary Practice, but any
quotations from that authority, at any rate,
referred, as I understood them, to matters
that arose before the House was re-constituted in 1933. In 1929 section 7A was
inserted in the Constitution Act. Shortly,
it provided that the Legislative Council
shall not be abolished nor, subject to the
provisions of subsection (6) of that section,
shall its constitution or powers be altered
except in the manner provided in that section. Subsection (6) does not carry the
matter any further but pursuant to that
provisio:1 the government of the day1 think the Stevens Government-referred
the matter of a reconstitution of the House
to a referendum, which approved the reconstruction of the Council as it is at present
constituted.
This was carried out by means of the
Constitution Amendment (Legislative Council) Act of 1933, which inserted, as the
Attorney-General has pointed out, section
5B, which provides that any bill introduced
in the lower House and not approved by the
upper House may, in the due course of time,
be put to a referendum. The point is that
subsection (5) provides:
This section shall extend to any Bill whether
it is a Bill to which section 7A of this Act
applies or not.
If this motion is agreed to and the bill is
sent back with a message it would, in my
opinion preclude the operation of section
5B if, as is intended by the motion, the bill
were then introduced in this Chamber under
section 7A. In my submission we should
receive this bill and debate it on its merits.
[11.11], in reply: I shall be very brief indeed. The Attorney-General referred to
some great constitutional decisions by Sir
Henry Manning and Sir John Peden. It is
the first time that I have known a lawyer,
particularly an Attorney-General, ever to
attribute great constitutional decisions to men
who said absolutely nothing. The AttorneyGeneral cannot attribute to them one remark that they made because, like you, sir,
on certain occasions they sat silent in the
chair while the debate went on. He can
only impute to them these opinions.
The Hon. R. R. DoWNING: I asked Sir
John Peden, before it came on, what his
view was.
Quite so. Now we are getting evidence,
which is not admissible, of some personal
conference between the Attorney-General
and Sir John Peden.
The Hon. R. R. DowNING: He said it
also in his law school lectures.
I was there, and I did not bear it.
The Hon. R. R. DoWNING: The bon.
member was not there in 1933. He said
that the 1933-34 amendment completely
took away-The PRESIDENT: Order! The bon. member who is replying should be heard in
silence.
I should like to say that I was there under
Sir John Peden and, being a member of
his party, I had much more intimate conversations with him ; but I shall not repeat
them now for they are just as elusive as
those put forward by the Attorney-General.
Business of the House
[2 DEC., 1959]
Question-That the motion be agreed to
-put. The House divided:
Ayes, 33 ; noes, 25; majority, 8.
AYES
Mr. Ahern
Mr. Armstrong
Mr. Bassett
Mr. Begg
Mr. Bridges
Mr. Budd
Mr. C. J. Cahill
Mr. Carter
Colonel Clayton
Mr. Cochrane
Mr. Falkiner
Major FitzSimons
Mr. Gleeson
Mr. Grace
Mr. Hackett
Mr. Henley
Mr. Hewitt
Mr. Joel
Mr. J. L. Kenny
Mr. Paterson
Brigadier Playfair
Mr. Pratten
Mrs. Press
Mr. Saddington
Mr. Snider
Mr. Spicer
Lt.-Colonel Steele
Mr. Richard Thompson
Mr. Walmsley
Sir Edward Warren
Mr. Wilson
Tellers,
Brigadier Eskell
Mr. Sommerlad
NOES
Mr. C. A. F. Cahill
Mr. Colborne
Mr. Coulter
Mr. Dalton
Mr. Day
Mr. Dougherty
Mr. Downing
Mr. Erskine
Mr. Graves
Mr. Jackson
Mr. J.D. Kenny
Mr. King
Mr. Love
Mr. Mahony
Mr. Maloney
Mr. Murray
Mr. O'Dea
Mr. Peters
Mrs. Roper
Mr. Sutherland
Mr. Thorn
Mr. Williams
Mr. Wright
Tellers,
Mr. Cockerill
Mr. Weir
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
BUSINESS QF mE HOUSE
[Papers tabled.]
The Hon. R. R. DOWNING (AttorneyGeneral, Minister of Justice and VicePresident of the Executive Council)
Lll.28]: Because it is desirable for the
House to receive the Printing Committee's
report on the papers that have just been
tabled by the Minister for Labour and
Industry, I respectfully suggest that you
leave the chair for about five minutes, Mr.
President, to enable the Printing Committee to meet and prepare its report.
[Sitting suspended from 11.29 p.m. until
11.38 p.m.]
PRINTING COMMITTEE
ELEVENTH REPORT
The Hon. J. A: WEIR, as Chairman,
brought up the Eleventh Report from the
Printing Committee.
Ordered to _be printed.
161
Adjournment
2561
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion (by the Hon. R. R. Downing)
agreed to:
That this House, at its rising today, do
adjourn until Tuesday, 8th March, 1960, at
four o'clock, p.m., unless the President, or if
the President be unable to act on account of
illness or other cause, the Chairman of Committees shall, prior to that date, by communication addressed to each memb~::r of the
House, fix an earlier day and/ or hour of
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
SEASONAL FELICITATIONS
The Hon. R. R. DOWNING (AttorneyGeneral, Minister of Justice and VicePresident of the Executive Council) [11.40]:
I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
In doing so I extend the season's greetings
to you, Mr. President, and to all bon. members. It is customary at this time of the
year for the person occupying my position
to extend these greetings and I do so in the
spirit of the season that we are about to
celebrate. I take this opportunity of thanking you for the courtesy and consideration
you have extended to me and to all bon.
members in the debates that have taken
place this year. I know that at times it
must have been trying for you, but always
you have treated us with the greatest consideration and courtesy. To all hon. members-those who have either supported the
Government or voted against it-I extend
the season's greetings. I wish them good
health and the compliments of the season.
I especially want to extend the season's
greetings to my old friend and the old
friend of most bon. members here, the
Ron. Robert Mahony. I am especially
pleased to see him looking so well for a
man of his great age, and I do not think it
inappropriate to say at this stage that I am
happy indeed to have seen the Ron. Robert
Mahony supporting me again tonight.
I extend the season's greeting to the Chairman of Committees and to the Temporary
Chairmen of Committees. I congratulate
them for the way they have facilitated discussion in Committee during the sitting and
the able manner in which they have handled
the sometimes involved Committee procedure. To Major-General Stevenson and his
2562
Adjournment
[COUNCIL]
staff, including the amanuenses and the
attendants, I offer on my own behalf and
on behalf of my colleagues our best wishes
for an enjoyable festive season.
I am sure that we all appreciate the way
in which Major·General Stevenson and his
staff have helped us during the year. Hon.
members are especially indebted to MajorGeneral Stevenson for his help, particularly his advice in respect of the forms and
procedures of the House, which has ever
been willingly given to me and to every bon.
member of the Chamber. Likewise, his
staff has assisted us all ; the amanuenses and
attendants have given wonderful service to
bon. members and performed their work in
a manner that has made the duties of bon.
members of this Chamber much less
onerous. We are grateful to the Librarian
and his staff for the ready assistance they
have rendered on all occasions when bon
members have been making research into
particular subjects. We have all been impressed by the expert way in which they
have been able to provide the information
that we have sought.
We all owe a special debt of gratitude to
the Editor of Debates and the Parliamentary
Reporting Staff. They have had to suffer
innumerable inconveniences from me and
other bon. members at times, especially
when we speak in such a way that it is
difficult for them to hear what we are saying. On occasions I have looked at the
Editor of Debates and his staff when they
have been reporting the proceedings of this
Chamber and bon. members-and I, too
-unconsciously have spoken in such a way
that our words must have been inaudible to
them. Often I have been astounded, as no
doubt many other bon. members have been,
at the accuracy of their record of the proceedings of this House.
To the House Secretary, the parliamentary stewards and the members of the joint
staff, we extend also our good wishes and
appreciation for the assistance that they
have rendered to each of us during the past
year. We extend thanks also to the members
of the police force who are on duty in
the establishment, and the Government
Printer and his staff. Members of the police
force are in attendance here at all hours,
Adjournment
and I have no doubt that on occasions the
hours of the sittings of both the Legislative
Assembly and Legislative Council might
seem to them to be disorganised and even
illogical. At all times these officers have
been at our service, and we thank them for
it. The Government Printer is to be commended for the expedition with which he
prints Hansard and the amendments that
are made from time to time to the bills
that come before the House.
I should like to record our thanks also
for the work done on our behalf by the
Parliamentary Draftsman and his staff. I
suppose that the work of no section of the
parliamentary establishment is of greater
value to this institution than that of the
Parliamentary Draftsman and his staff.
Because of the strictness with which courts
in English-speaking countries interpret statutes, of necessity the draftsman must spell
out his drafting to meet every possible
contingency.
This is something more
peculiar to British countries than to many
continental nations. These officers have
done a remarkable job and even though at
times the language they use in various
measures is subject to criticism for complexity, I am sure that this is voiced only
by persons who have not a full knowledge
of the fact that the Parliamentary Draftsman must of necessity have regard to the
decisions of the courts and that he must
spell out legislation accordingly.
Finally, I extend our appreciation to the
members of the press gallery for their attendance here during the year. I do not think
that the newspapers have printed all that
the members of the press gallery
have reported of the proceedings of
this Chamber, and I do not blame them
for that. However, I am sure that the omissions of the past by the newspapers in this
regard will be well and truly remedied tomorrow by the fullness of the space they
will give to the reports of tonight's proceedings. To the gentlemen of the press,
therefore, I have much pleasure in extending
on your behalf, Mr. President, and on behalf
of all bon. members the season's greetings
and best wishes for an enjoyable festive
season.
Adjournment
[2 DEC., 1959]
[11.48]: I should like to associate myself
and those for whom I have authority to
speak with the most kind remarks of the
Attorney-General. To you, Mr. President,
may I extend thanks for your unfailing
courtesy and impartiality, which are striking
by their consistency and complete accordance
with the high traditions of this Chamber.
I shall say little more, because I regard the
Attorney-General as the Leader of this
House, not of one section of it. Never has
a man conducted himself with greater honour, courtesty and cheerfulness at all times
than has the Attorney-General. At times
he must be irritated exceedingly by the
remarks of bon. members on the southern
<;ide of this House, but always he is
courteous. Never once has he failed to
extend to hon. members a helping hand, or
failed to supply the information they seek.
This is what one would expect of a man
occupying the high office of AttorneyGeneral, as well as being the leader of the
Bar and of this House. I emphasise that he is
regarded by the bon. members on this side
of the House as their leader, in addition
to being leader of the members in this
House of his own party. Therefore, I join
with him heartily in all his expressions of
thanks.
Questions and Answers
2563
J4rgialntittr Aaarntblg
Wednesday, 2 December, 1959
Questions without Notice-Legislative Assembly Members Superannuation (Amendment) Bill-Parliamentary Allowances and Salaries Bill-Legislative
Assembly Members Superannuation (Amendment)
Bill-Printing Committee (Twelfth Report)-Bills
Returned-Senate of the University of SydneyConstitution Amendment (Legislative Council Abolition) Bill (second reading)-8pecial Adjournment
-Business of the House-Bills Returned-Adjournment (Seasonal Felicitations-Traffic Sign, Miranda).
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at 2.30 p.m.
The Prayer was read.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
CHESTER HILL NORTH PUBLIC SCHOOL
Mr. EARL: I ask the Premier and
Minister for Education whether adjacent
to the Chester Hill North Public School,
which has an enrolment of more than 900
children, is an open earth drain that is
a · serious nuisance and a health hazard
to pupils. Is it a fact that I have tried
unsuccessfully to have action taken for the
piping or concreting of this drain? Does
the responsibility for this job rest with the
Bankstown Municipal Council, but has the
Department of Education not yet transferred an easement to the council? Will the
Minister cause his officers to expedite the
transfer of this easement so that the children attending this large school will not be
inconvenienced by this drainage nuisance
any longer?
The PRESIDENT: On behalf of the members
of the staff of this House and myself, I wish
to reciprocate the good wishes expressed by
the Attorney-General and Colonel the Hon.
H. J. R. Clayton. ·I extend to them and to
all bon. members and their families good
wishes for the festive season, and I thank
Mr. HEFFRON: I know that a drainage
bon. members for their co-operation in the job has to be done at this school, and
year that has now passed. My task has that some negotiations have been proceedbeen rendered comparatively easy during ing over an easement. However, I did not
that time through the assistance that all bon. .know that the department was responsible
members have freely afforded me and by for holding up the matter. If this is all
the manner in which they have conducted that is in the way, I shall have the matter
themselves in this House. I am sure that remedied immediately so that the drainage
people who have visited both the Legislative work can be done.
Assembly and the Legislative Council would
SCHOOL SYLLABUSES
prefer to abolish the Assembly rather than
Mr. DARBY: I ask the Premier and
the Council.
Minister for Education whether, despite
Motion agreed to.
the growing importance of the nations to
our near north, for the past generation
House adjourned at 11.51 p.m.
no greater emphasis ha~ been placed in
until 8th March, 1960.

mrgt.!ilattur Qtnuuril - parliament of new south wales

Transcription

Similar documents

UNP HYMN - University of Northern Philippines

Print Details - North Point Yacht Sales

HON Has Lead Role In Extreme Makeover: Home Edition

c - The National Archives

VIEW Ordinance No. 069-05

Tampines Town Council`s Audited Financial Statements, Auditors

putting you face-to-face with today

Tampines Town Council`s Audited Financial Statements, Auditors

Sembawang Town Council`s Audited Financial Statements, Auditors