Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 20 May 1965

Senator AYLETT (Tasmania) . - I wish to commence what may be my last speech here by congratulating two new senators - Senator Webster and Senator Sim - on their maiden speeches. I do not doubt for a moment that my colleagues took particular notice of their potential. I am sure that the honorable senators will be an acquisition to the Government's ranks.

Usually when I rise to speak it is in the interests of justice for a section of the community. I shall refer to three subjects which I claim are vital in the interests of justice and the well being of Australian citizens. First I shall refer to aerodromes, secondly to payments to chiropractors as taxation deductions, and thirdly to the unorthodox tactics of barristers and solicitors, present company excluded.

I took particular notice of the recent statement on aerodromes by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty). He said that approximately £32 million is to be spent on aerodromes at Melbourne and Sydney. I wish to refer to the aerodromes at Canberra and Coolangatta which could aptly be described, because of the airport buildings, as two dog kennels. Canberra, as the National Capital, is visited by dignitaries from all parts of the world. Most of them receive their first impression of Canberra at the aerodrome. If a visitor from overseas arrives at the Canberra airport when Parliament has risen and the airport facilities are overcrowded, he does not receive a very good impression. The situation is similar at Coolangatta, which is the busiest, or one of the busiest, tourist aerodromes in Australia. It serves the Gold Coast, which possibly is the greatest tourist resort in Australia. The population of the City of Gold Coast is comparable with that of Canberra; it is greater than that of Launceston, where the Minister lives.

It is well known that every taxpayer in Australia pays into Consolidated Revenue for the support of aerodromes at the capital cities. Each taxpayer must pay into Consolidated Revenue his share towards the cost of aerodromes at capital cities. If I remember correctly, the Minister stated that the construction of a new aerodrome at Canberra will cost between £5 million and £6 million. When it is built, it will not be before time. The Minister for Civil Aviation has been very reticent about what is proposed for the Coolangatta aerodrome but he has given me a little information. In a private conversation with me the Minister said he did not know where the people of the Gold Coast got the idea that the Department would bring the Coolangatta aerodrome up to Electra standard. However, in answer to a question I asked upon notice the Minister stated -

The proposed development at Canberra is concerned with the terminal building and terminal area. The proposed development at Coolangatta is the lengthening of the runway to take aircraft such as the Electra and the domestic jets. 1 take it, therefore, that the airport will be developed to take Electra aircraft. But there was nothing in the Minister's reply about buildings at the Coolangatta airport. As taxpayers, we are helping to pay for the development of aerodromes throughout Australia. If they are not paying their way we have to meet the expense through taxation. I object strongly to the Government's policy in trying to force the Gold Coast City Council to take over the responsibility for the Coolangatta airport. The Gold Coast is a comparatively small part of the area served by the Coolangatta airport. The airport also serves the north eastern part of New South Wales and the south eastern districts of Queensland. Areas controlled by councils other than the Gold Coast City Council are equally served by Coolangatta airport.

As I have said, the Minister is reticent about this, but apparently he is trying to force responsibility for the Coolangatta airport onto the Gold Coast City Council. Every taxpayer on the Gold Coast pays into Consolidated Revenue, from which funds are found to build and maintain airports throughout Australia, including those in the capital cities. The people on the Gold Coast pay their share towards these costs. But if the Gold Coast City Council has to take over the Coolangatta airport and pay all the expenses connected with it, inevitably the time will arrive when the Gold Coast City Council will have to strike a special rate on its ratepayers. As a ratepayer and a taxpayer I strongly object to paying twice for the one aerodrome. This is unjust and completely out of balance. It is undemocratic.

I can only surmise, from what I can glean from aldermen and others on the Gold Coast who should know, that if the Government is successful in persuading or forcing the Gold Coast City Council to take over the airport the Council will be responsible for any extensions. The present terminal building can be described only as a dog kennel. Once we had fair seating accommodation there, but some official of the Department of Civil Aviation took away the seats and replaced them with half the seating accommodation that had been there before. Once when I was sick I had either to sit on the floor or fall down. I have seen sick women and crippled women in the same plight. These amenities in this dog kennel of a building at Coolangatta airport are still the same.

In this jet age no-one can tell what the requirements will be in ten years time along the Gold Coast, which is developing so quickly. On the basis of the developments that have taken place over the last ten years the City of Gold Coast will require airport facilities equal to those of any city of its size in Australia. We come back to this point: If the Coolangatta airport is to be developed, will the Commonwealth Government be responsible or will the Gold Coast City Council have to find the cash? The City Council would find the task impossible. It would have to go on the loan market to find the money. If it had to pay for the upkeep of the airport as well it would still have to go on the loan market, and to meet the resulting charges it would have to strike a special rate.

I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: What is the difference between the Launceston airport and the Coolangatta airport? I know that the Launceston airport is important, as it serves the City of Launceston and a large area around it. Millions of pounds have been spent on the Launceston airport and another million is to be spent. Is the Minister asking the Launceston City Council - Senator Turnbull is the Mayor of Launceston - to take over the Launceston airport? Of course he is not. Is the Government asking the city council of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane or any other place to take over the local airport? Of course not. Then why is the Minister trying to force the Gold Coast City Council to take over the Coolangatta airport which, if not very important today, will become important in the future?

Some say the Gold Coast City Council will get the landing fees. I know something about landing fees because I was a supporter of the Government which imposed them and we know that they were never paid. This proposal is not right, fair or just. Can the Minister refute this or has he put something different before the Gold Coast City Council? If he has put a proposition to the City Council and suggested that it can make money from it, why has he not put a similar proposition before the Launceston City Council or the civic authorities of Melbourne. Brisbane and Sydney? Why not let them take over their airports? If such a proposition is not payable or logical as applied to Sydney and Melbourne or any other place, why is it a logical proposition for the Gold Coast City Council to take over the Coolangatta airport? On the information I have now, I can see no justification for the Gold Coast City Council bending to the pressure that has been put on it by the Government. lt is said by prominent citizens on the Gold Coast that if they do not accept the Government's proposition no more money will be spent on the airport. I have told them that that is utter nonsense, lt would mean blackmailing the Gold Coast City Council. Personally I do not think this is the case. 1 think the people have the wrong slant on this matter. I do not think any government worth its salt would see an airport like the Coolangatta airport developed to its present stage and, when it needs further development, wipe it off because the City Council v/ould not take it over. If the City Council does take over the airport and run it, will the Department of Civil Aviation leave ils engineers and other qualified men there? The Gold Coast City Council has no engineers for this work. The engineers it has try to make water run uphill. When they find it will not run uphill they have to pull up the kerbs and put them down again. That is the extent of the knowledge of the Gold Coast City Council engineers. We would require a better service for an airport where aircraft are operating and lives arc at stake.

I ask the Government to treat the City of Gold Coast as it treats other cities throughout Australia and to give the same consideration to the ratepayers and taxpayers there as it does to the ratepayers and taxpayers in other parts of Australia. Unless the Minister can come forward with some logical proposition he should also expect the city councils and shire councils ali over Australia to take over local aerodromes. If it is fair for one it is fair for the other. There is not any doubt that there is a catch in this somewhere. Therefore, because I am suspicious of the catch, I wish to expose it and express my views on it before such a thing happens.

The next question with which 1 would like to deal in more detail again relates to a matter where taxpayers are hit because of the present legislation and because certain qualified men in this country cannot receive proper recognition from the present Government, and have never received this recognition from any past government, for the services they are rendering. I refer to the work of chiropractors. I do not think there is any doubt that their work is evident in the Senate because 1 think all honorable senators have seen me from time to time trying to get in and out of this chamber sometimes on one leg and sometimes hobbling on the other leg. I have writhed in pain in my seat for quite a few years. 1 went to members of the medical profession as late as last August and I paid them over £50 to try to find a way to ease my pain. The last information the medical profession could give me was that the pain would occur from time to time but that I would have to learn to live with it. The medical practitioners said that when the pain became more intense they could help to ease it. I was not satisfied with that diagnosis because once before my life had been given away by the medical profession and I was told that 1 was dying. I refused to die. I do not always agree with the medical profession and co-operate with the members of it especially when they leave me to die and I am not ready to die. I did not cooperate with them on this occasion although I generally do. T thought I would seek further advice.

In making these remarks about the medical profession, I do not want to include members of the medical profession in Canberra because I have found in this city some of the highest qualified doctors I have known anywhere. I have every faith in them as far as their knowledge goes. But in coming to the subject of chiropractors, I am dealing with something entirely different again. It is a well known fact that members of the medical profession are not in love with chiropractors and do not work hand in hand with them. I can receive deductions from my taxation for the fees that I paid to members of the medical profession to try to put me on my feet so that I could make a speech whether honorable senators liked it or not. Some honorable senators might like this speech; others might not. However, I cannot receive any tax deduction for fees that I pay to the very men who have put me back on my feet and relieved me of years and years of suffering and, indeed, untold pain. I do not think that is quite fair. The position is that if members of the medical profession treat me I can receive a tax deduction in respect of their fee, but I cannot receive a deduction in respect of payments I make to chiropractors for treatment.

Chiropractors are doing a great job throughout Australia for the general public. But chiropractors are like members of the medical profession. Some are very good, and some are not so good. The reason why some chiropractors are not so good is that there is nowhere in Australia where they can be trained. I suppose the reason why some members of the medical profession in Australia are not so good is that they are not keen to keep themselves up to date and to put their minds to their work. However, what some members of the medical profession have to say about chiropractors might apply to some of the members of the medical profession themselves much more aptly than it could apply to chiropractors. The chiropractor is at a definite disadvantage with respect to some medical practitioners.

Senator Dittmer - Is the honorable senator speaking of trained chiropractors?

Senator AYLETT - Members of the medical profession can bury their mistakes. A chiropractor can never bury his mistake. While a doctor can do so, a chiropractor cannot bury his mistake.

Senator Dittmer - What about doctors like myself who do not make mistakes and so do not have to bury their mistakes?

Senator AYLETT - Present company excluded.

A royal commission was set up in Western Australia in the latter part of 1959 or the early part of i960 to inquire into the provisions of the Natural Therapists Bill, which related to chiropractors. That royal commission took a great deal of evidence and went into great detail regarding this subject. I have the report of the royal commission here. It may be worth while for some honorable senators to hear sections of this report. The royal commission consisted of the Honorable J. T. Tonkin, Dr.

G.   G. Henn, Mr. W. A. Manning, Mr. J. J. Brady and the proposer of the motion for the appointment of this commission, Mr.

H.   N. Guthrie. The royal commission took extensive evidence. There are pages and pages of it. The first thing that the royal commission had to establish was the definition. of "chiropractic". The definition given was - " Chiropractic " means the system of palpating and adjusting the articulations of the human spinal column by hand only, for the relief of nerve pressure.

Let me say wilh all respect to the medical profession, that I have been totally paralysed, with the exception of my head, for some considerable time and have lain in bed that way. But no medical officer ever tried to find out whether there was anything wrong with my spine or any trouble with the joints of my spine that might have caused a cutting off of the nervous system resulting in my paralysis. I agree that a lumbar puncture was taken to see whether I had any diseased fluid in my spine. But I was clear there. Nevertheless, no medical officer tried to see whether anything else was displaced in my spine. Therefore, my trouble could have been caused through a displacement in my spine. It could have been caused by other things. However, I have recovered from my complaint gradually, although I was never completely over it until quite recently. The royal commission, in its report, stated what it found in connection with chiropractors. At page 12 I find the following passage in regard to chiropractors -

The evidence quite clearly discloses that to a considerable extent the types of injuries and ailments which are treated by chiropractors are also treated by orthopae lie surgeons and physiotherapists working together. It is the conclusion of the Commission, however, that it would be wrong to assume that an orthopaedic surgeon solely undertakes all the types of treatment and manipulation undertaken by a chiropractor.

Therefore, orthopaedic surgeons, other medical men and physiotherapists do not undertake these other treatments which are left to the chiropractor. The opportunity is left for the chiropractor to come in and to do the job which is left by the medical profession.

I find that the royal commission also reported -

There was considerable evidence that a large number of the public does avail itself of the services of chiropractors for spinal injuries and complaints; and it seemed reasonably clear that, in the main, the public received satisfactory results from such services. It is significant that the Medical Board has never seen fit to prosecute a chiropractor who purely practices the art of chiropractic.

The report states that there was only one case of a chiropractor having been reported by a medical man, and that there was no prosecution in that case. The royal commission also found that at no time did the medical profession complain about the work of chiropractors. The report states, on the other hand, that chiropractors are not in accord with the medical profession except in rare occasions. It is only on rare occasions that a medical man will suggest that a patient see a chiropractor.

I contend that when a medical man suggests that a patient should see a chiropractor the patient should be able to claim the fees paid to the chiropractor as deductions from income tax. The report of the royal commission states -

There was evidence on one of the Board's files of a complaint against one chiropractor; and the complaint was made by a legally qualified medical practitioner. But it referred to treatment beyond the normal scope of chiropractic. It is noteworthy, however, that the Board does not appear to have followed the matter up.

The royal commission had other interesting comments to make in support of chiropractors. For instance, it said -

On the evidence given to the Commission it would appear that harm, likely to be suffered by the patients from the activities of chiropractors, is comparatively slight. However, it must be observed (as will appear later in this report) that there are two classes of chiropractors practising in Western Australia.

That is a point which I wish to emphasise. It is probably correct to say that there are two classes of chiropractors practising in all States of Australia. The report continued -

In this particular chapter the Commission is only dealing with the reasonably qualified chiropractors and not with persons (who may have little or no training) who assert that they are qualified to practice the art of chiropractic.

There is no place in Australia where a person may be trained as a chiropractor. At no university is there a professor who is qualified to teach the skill or the art of chiropractic. If there were, members of the medical profession would be able to acquire a full knowledge of the subject and there would be no necessity to have chiropractors. But if the medical profession is not prepared to go ins the details of this matter there is wide cope for chiropractors to endeavour to help people suffering from certain disabilities. There are in Australia chiropractors who have gone to the United States of America at their own expense and taken a course in chiropractic. I may say that the United States is the nearest country to Australia where such a course may be taken. Those who have gone there and have returned to Australia have been repaid tenfold, not only financially but also by the gratitude that has been expressed by the patients they have treated.

In Australia, the health laws vary from State to State. It is difficult for a chiropractor to manipulate joints into place if he is not certain of the location of the displacement. In some States chiropractors are not allowed to take X-ray pictures. They must rely on guesswork or their fingers to locate the site of the dislocation, and therefore the patient is likely to suffer. A chiropractor with very little or no experience certainly could knock a patient about, and probably his treatment would be harmful. There are some chiropractors who are in this category, but there are also others who have a great knowledge of their work.

In New South Wales chiropractors are allowed to take X-rays, but that is not so in Queensland. The chiropractors in that State must rely on guesswork if they have no magic in their fingers. If chiropractors were permitted to take X-ray pictures that would help considerably in their work. I was fortunate enough to go to a good chiropractor. He said, " I want to take an X-ray before I touch you." After he took the X-ray he was able to show me what was wrong and what the correct position of the bones should be. He went to work on me and that is why I am able to make this speech today. Had I not gone to the chiropractor I would not now be capable either physically or mentally of standing here and making this speech. Therefore, I have a lot for which to thank chiropractors.

Something needs to be done in Australia to provide an opportunity for persons to train as chiropractors. We also need to sift the chaff from the oats, as it were, because there are good chiropractors and there are others who are not so good, just as there are good medical practitioners and not s° good ones. The chiropractors who are not as good as they might be should be sorted out. lt is not possible to remove medical practitioners who are not good because they have their degrees, but chiropractors have no such degrees to fall back on. There are in Australia hundreds of thousands of people suffering from displaced joints who do not know that they could be cured by chiropractors. If you go to the surgery of a well known chiropractor, Mr. President, you find people waiting there from the time that the surgery opens in the morning until it closes at night. I doubt whether you would find a patient who did not speak in the highest terms of the results that the chiropractor had been able to achieve in his case.

I am not alone in speaking highly of the work of chiropractors. The royal commission in Western Australia also did so in its findings. The Commissioner of Public Health in Western Australia referred to them in very favourable terms. Therefore, it is not necessary to rely only on my word. The royal commission in Western Australia has examined every possible avenue to evaluate the work of chiropractors. The results of their investigations show that this work is of great benefit to the general public. They are of the opinion that chiropractors should be registered. They point to the lack of facilities in Australia for training in this field. Chiropractors are not permitted to advertise in the newspapers. In fact, their channels for advertising are restricted. For the most part they must rely on recommendations passed by one patient to another. Surely, since it is legal for a man to practise as a chiropractor and to operate on patients with his hands, it is reasonable to suggest that the Government should allow the patients to deduct from their income tax the fees paid to the chiropractors. After all, the work of the chiropractors is saving the Government a considerable amount of money. Probably I would still have lived for another 10 or 20 years and could have continued to draw expensive drugs from the chemists' shops and the Government would have paid for them. I could have continued going to the doctors from time to time and could have gone into hospital. I could have drawn on the hospital and medical benefit funds and again the Government would have had to pay. Thousands of people in Australia are doing that. It is costing the Government millions of pounds.

These gentlemen to whom I have referred and who are properly qualified could save the Government millions of pounds, but the Government will not allow a patient to deduct the miserable few pounds that he spends on treatment to make him well. I can see no justice in the Government's attitude. Any one of us could be placed in the position of having to pay doctors hundreds of pounds and of having to go into hospital for 1 3 weeks, and the Government would have to pay a subsidy. But still, I repeat, the Government will not allow a patient to deduct any fees he pays to a chiropractor. Many people are saved the expense of going to doctors and into hospital as a result of the treatment of chiropractors, yet chiropractors are not recognised by the Government for taxation purposes. The Government is quite wrong in not allowing their fees to be deducted for taxation purposes.

The Government is wrong, moreover, in not making available in Australia facilities for medical practitioners who so desire to gain a knowledge of this form of treatment or for prospective chiropractors to obtain proper training just as they can in America. Even if it cost a few hundreds of thousands of pounds - it would cost that - to bring out qualified men from America or other parts of the world and to establish them in universities or elsewhere to train others, the Government would be saved millions of pounds in the long run. Moreover, afflicted members of the general public would be provided with relief from untold suffering. Sufferers of arthritis go to medical practitioners and are told: " There is nothing more we can do at this stage. We will ease the pain when you come back to us." Now when I am resting I do not suffer any pain. Previously I was suffering untold pain, and probably I would be suffering unbearable pain today if it were not for the treatment I have received from chiropractors. In all fairness and justice the Government should recognise the fact that in Australia there are such people who are saving it hundreds of thousands of pounds and that, if there were sufficient of these people to meet the needs of the community, it would be saved millions of pounds. Much more relief could be afforded to those who suffer if the Government were to do something on the lines I have suggested.

To do what I have suggested would serve another purpose at the same time; it would sort out the chaff from the oats amongst the chiropractors who are already practising. Quite frankly, some are not qualified to practise. I went to one who definitely was not qualified to practise. Another gentleman to whom I went - Mr. O. J. Martin of Martin Place in Sydney - is doing a great job. He is the man who brought me back to health and put me on my feet. From the time he opens his surgery in the morning until he closes at night there is a string of people waiting for treatment. Any one of those people could tell of the great benefit he has derived from his treatment. I believe that I have made out a good case for the deduction of chiropractors' fees for taxation purposes. Those fees are not liable to deduction at the present time. When I say that they are not liable, I am using the words of the Treasurer in his reply to a question that I asked him.

There is one other matter which, in the interests of the general public, I should like to mention. I refer to the roguery, thieving and robbery that is practised by some members of the legal profession, particularly in Queensland. I could name these people, and I can prove my case. If honorable senators liked to bear with me, I could name them; but I shall not do so because somebody might have me called before the bar of the Senate. I could even present a prima facie case of conspiracy amongst them to defraud their clients. I know that that is a very grave statement to make. Nevertheless, I speak in the interests of justice. Some members of the legal profession set themselves out openly to rob their clients. I have noted some objections to the showing of the Ned Kelly film. I think it would be a great thing if it were taken up to Queensland and shown. It would show certain members of the legal profession in Queensland what a gentleman Ned Kelly was compared with them. That is a statement of fact.

If honorable senators want me to name these men, I will name them. I do not include all members of the legal profession, because some are most outstanding and achieve what they set out to achieve. I know of one honorable senator who is most outstanding in this sphere. He sits on the Government side. I am positive that if he went into a court and conducted a case, everything he had would be put into it. He would not deliberately give the wrong advice and thieve. When asked to put in a defence he would not put up a brummy defence or put up no defence at all. He would not deliberately tell a client that he had a good case for £1,000 damages and finish up, after he had won on a highly technical point, by not claiming damages. That happened in one case. The judge asked: " What damages are you claiming? " The lawyer said: " None ". The judge then awarded some of the costs against the plaintiff. Instead of getting, say, £1,000 in damages he got a bill for about £300. I know of another case where the wrong advice was given. A brummy defence was put in purposely to enable a case for costs to be worked up. Ned Kelly would be a gentleman beside a man who did that sort of thing.

Let me give the Senate another illustration of this sort of thing. Thi's case involves the mere transfer of a property. The purchaser wanted his solicitor to handle the business for him and the sellers wanted their solicitor to watch their interests. The purchaser agreed to pay all expenses. The purchaser's solicitor did everything; he paid the stamp duty, did all the transferring and passed over the cheque. All that the other side did was to get the transfer signed. When the purchaser received the account, including the transfer fee, stamp duty and so on, it amounted to something in the vicinity of £25 or £26, and when the bill for the watching brief on behalf of the sellers was received it was for a similar amount. This man asked the other side's solicitor to itemise his account. He did so, and put it up to £50-odd. The purchaser did not like this and went to see the vendors about the high fee of the solicitor they had engaged to watch their interests, but found that the vendors had also received a bill, which was for 17 guineas. The purchaser then asked the sellers to give him a receipt in full for the payment of the solicitor who had watched their interests. They agreed and, on receiving a cheque from the purchaser, gave him a receipt for 17 guineas. The legal firm is still waiting for its £50-odd. If that sort of thing is not daylight robbery I do not know what is. I could give the names of the parties concerned in this case, lt is nothing less than daylight robbery to charge both parties for the same work - get 17 guineas from the sellers for watching their interests and at the same time try to get £50-odd from the purchaser for watching the same interests. What is the difference between robbing someone in that way and robbing him at gunpoint?

Senator Wright - Has the honorable senator referred the matter to the disciplinary committee of the Law Society of Queensland?

Senator AYLETT - I asked a solicitor what would happen should those concerned write to the Secretary of the Law Society and he said that it would not make any difference. They are all in it.

Senator Wright - That is just silly.

Senator AYLETT - I am sorry, Senator, but that was the reply.

Senator Hannaford - Was the honorable senator personally concerned in any of these transactions?

Senator AYLETT - If I could not speak from experience I would not speak at all. When I speak from experience I am sure of my facts and I am prepared to back them up at any stage. Senator Hannaford asked whether I was concerned in this matter.

Senator Hannaford - I said " personally ".

Senator AYLETT - Yes, I was personally concerned and that is why I am so sure of my facts. When lawyers look for suckers they sometimes find them. When you trust and engage a legal man you expect him to give you his honest opinion and to watch your interests. You do not expect him to set out to rob you of every penny and produce no results. That, in plain fact, is what some members of the legal profession in Queensland are doing. I could name them.

Senator Henty - I am not asking for any names.

Senator AYLETT - If you want to call me before the Bar of the Senate to prove my statement I can prove it. Therefore I speak in all sincerity, because I hate to see people openly and deliberately robbed. I think the Ned Kelly film should be shown in Queensland to show some of these people there who call themselves gentlemen what a gentleman Ned Kelly was when compared with them. I have raised this matter in the hope that the Law Society of Queensland will read my remarks. If it does not like them I will be happy to meet members of that society and give them the details.

Anyone who wanted to break this ring in Queensland - the position may be the same in other States - would have to pay about £1,000 down to engage a barrister to try to break the ring. You have either to put up with this treatment or engage a barrister, at a cost of about £1,000, to plead your case in Queensland. That is how members of the legal fraternity have the position sewn up in Queensland and they know it is sewn up in that manner. When a lawyer's bill is received and the taxing officer takes £150 off it, does not that prove that the lawyer was trying to rob the client of that sum? What is the difference between taking money out of a till - for which one would face a criminal charge - and taking money in this manner? That is what some members of the legal fraternity in Queensland are doing. If a person thinks he is being being robbed by a solicitor it costs another £50 to get justice and, in addition, he may have to pay the expenses of the man who is trying to rob him when that man comes to watch his interests before the taxing officer. The expense builds up and to save perhaps £150 by having an account taxed may cost the client another £50. The party overcharging may not have to pay his expenses and the judge may order the party whose account was overcharged to pay the expense involved. That is open daylight robbery of the worst degree by men whom people should be able to look up to and upon whom the general public have to rely. It would not be so bad if people did not have to rely on men of this nature. Men are as crooked as a corkscrew when they do things like that, but it is what is done by some members of the legal fraternity in Queensland.

I am pleased to say that I did not find this so in other States. The first thing some members of the legal fraternity in Queensland do is to see how much they can tack on to their accounts, and they are not the slightest bit interested in whether they win, lose or draw the case. If you get an adverse decision in a case and want to appeal, to whom are you to appeal? If you appeal and the other side has nothing you are only involving yourself in further costs and may have to pay another £1,000 in costs. If people open their mouths about what is going on and name the persons concerned they may be sued for libel. If I spoke outside this chamber and named the people to whom I have referred I would be sued for libel straight away, but if I named them here I could not be sued. However, I have spared them that, although they are as crooked as corkscrews.

Senator Benn - Why does not the honorable senator name them?

Senator AYLETT - If the legal fraternity asks me to do so I will name them. This time they have struck someone who has never been afraid to speak in the interests of justice to the public. I was elected for that purpose and in the whole 27 years I have been here I have not been ashamed to go on fighting in the interests of justice. There may be some members of the legal fraternity listening to my speech - people who have influence with the legal fraternity in Queensland - who might try to do something to end the untold suffering and robbery imposed on the general public by some members - I do not say all of them - of the legal fraternity.

This will be the last time that I shall speak in the Senate unless somebody takes me up on what I have said, in which case I shall reply, because I still have some trump cards up my sleeve; I have never believed in producing all of them at once. Before departing after 27 years in the Senate, I should like to express my sincere thanks to the President, particularly for his tolerance towards me during my sickness and at various other times. I express my thanks also to the Clerk of the Senate and all of his staff for their assistance. I thank the cleaners, the attendants, the refreshment room staff, the staff at the bar, and all other members of the staff of the House, who have always been very helpful and courteous to me. I have had the greatest of courtesy from everyone, from the cleaners to the President. They have all been very helpful and I am greatly indebted to them.

I should also like to thank my colleagues for carrying me on their backs during one or two periods when I was very sick. I am grateful for the consideration that has been given to me by Government supporters.

I should like to express special thanks to two senators. One is my leader, Senator McKenna, and the other is the former Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Sir William Spooner. I shall never forget the courtesy shown to me by Sir William Spooner, especially on one occasion. He helped me considerably when I badly needed it. I think it was his courtesy and assistance that enabled me to stop a malicious, foul barrage that was being hurled against me at that time. I shall always be indebted to him for that. I thank my own colleagues for their assistance and good fellowship. I thank Government supporters for their courtesy and good fellowship. I leave a Senate with debaters of very high quality on both sides, who will be of benefit to the country. I shall watch the future progress of the Senate with great interest.

Suggest corrections