Filibuster – the sincerest form of praise

In 1937, the budgetary estimates sitting of the Legislative Assembly featured some contentious issues relating to the disbursement of railway funds, as well as other matters relating to labour, construction and public instruction under the headings of ‘Loan, Trust and Special Funds’. The Opposition was anxious to attack the Forgan-Smith Government on the apparent mysterious appearance of these special funds. They did not get within cooee.

The method used to avoid such discussion was the somewhat cynical exploitation of the House’s time limit on debates, as allowed by Parliamentary Standing Orders. This practice is known as ’filibustering’.

The Attorney-General, David Gledson, put up a masterly effort on the works estimates when he described at great length the architectural beauty of his local Ipswich Courthouse. With grim, unsmiling humour, he outlined the repair of the piece of cedar panelling behind the judge’s chair in the main courtroom. While Gledson explained how this particular piece of cedar had been part of the original 1859 fitout and how the passage of time had given the panel such a magnificent patination, the Opposition members watched the clock tick away.

Gledson then extolled the virtues of this same red cedar panelling that had been taken down, piece by piece, repolished by hand and then put into the new courtroom, commenting that anyone who had been brought before the court and looked at the beautiful piece of timber would be determined to go straight for the rest of their days. Gledson then talked about boilers and their importance to the inspection of machinery and scaffolding and, quite literally, talked out the time allowed for debate.

The remaining budgetary estimates – including the contentious railways, labour and industry, and public instruction votes – were passed en bloc without debate.