Legislative Assembly Hansard 191818-12 [ASSE'-\IBLY.] Personal
E~'planat: ?11.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
THt;RSDAY, 29 .\c:Gusr, 1918
The SPEAKER (Hon. W. ::\IcCormack, Cairns) took the chair <J.t
half-past 3 o'clock.
QUESTIO::\S.
1Ir. CARTER (Port Curti.J) asked the Home Secretary-
" 1. Is the place called the ' Hai'pice,' Lytton road, in any way
subsidised by the G'uvernment?
" 2. If so, to what amount l " 3. How manv females are housed
there? • "4. \Vhat are the conditions govermng
the admission of inmates to the ' Hos pice'?
" 5. Are the sam8 conditions impooed with regard to th'"ir old age
or invalid pensions as are made in the case of inmate~ at Dunwich
?"
The HOME SECRETARY (Hon. J. Huxham, Bura,nda) replied
" 1. Yes. " 2. £150 per annum. " 3. Seventeen inmates, a
housekeeper,
and an attendant. " 4. 'rhe approval of Mrs. \Vienholt,
who is devoting her life and private means to the extent of upwards
of £5,000 in order to promote the welfare and happiness of the
inmates.
"5. No."
Mr. ROBERTS (East Toozcoomba) asked the Home Secrotarv-
" 1. \Vhat w~s the amount of expendi ture incurred for upkeep of
Brisbane General Hospital last financial year?
"2. \Vhr.t amount of this was paid by GovernmPnt?
" 3. \Vhat is the total amount paid by the Stt.te since this
i1ostitution was taken over by Government'!
" 4. \Vhat was the cost per patient per day last financial
year?"
The H0~1E SECRl1TARY replied- " 1. Home Department, £33,041
17s.
2d.; Works Department, £983 1s. 1d. Total, £34,024 18s. 3d.
" 2. Home Department, £25.-\02 16s. 6d. ; ·works Department, £983
15. ld. Total, £26,385 17s. 7 cl
"3. To end of 1917-18-Home De partment, £44.288 Os. 2d. ; \Yorks
De partment, £1,166 6s. 3d. Total, £45,454 6s. 5d.
" 4. Gross, 6s. 5. 68d. ; net, 5s. 0. 24d."
APPOINT:ME"T OF :\lR. AUSTIX THEODORE.
:Mr. BEBJfi::'\GTOX (Drayton) asked the Treasurer-
" 1. Under whos'i' Ministerial authoritv was Mr. Austin Theodore
appointe'd \Vorkers' Accommodation Inspector at
Cairns, and upon what date was he appointP:l'
"2. \Vhat experience has :\Ir. Theo- .dore had which fits him for
such an appointment?"
The 'fREAS"C"RER renlied- ,, 1. The appointr:1ent was made on
6th June last, on probation for six months. upon the recommendation
of the head of the depilrtment and the Public Sen-ice Board.
" 2. T:tc appointee is a returned wounded ;,oldier with " permanent
in jury. B:fore th0 reco•TIITPmdation was m~de, the Chief
Inspector of \Vorkers' Accommothtion satisfied i·,imself as to the
qualifications and fitness of the candidate for the
position."
GOYERX}!EXT ME)1BERS : Hear, he~~· !
SALE OF :MOcXT HUTTOX CATTLE. Mr. CORSER (Burnett), in the absence
of
Mr. Vowles, asked the Secretary for Public Lands-
" 1. Have the whole of the Mount Hutton cattle agreed to be sold by
the Government to J. :Morrissev and Sons been delivered? '
"2. If not, have any cattle other than Mount Hutton cattle been
delivered, or agreed to be delivered, to the said purchasers in
lieu thereof?
"3. Has any sum of money been paid or agreed to be paid to J.
Morrissey and Sons by the Government as damages, or in any other
respect in connection with the short deliwry of these st-ock?
"4. If so, what sum has been so paid? " 5. \Vhat' amount of
damageo'l was
claimed by J. Morrissey and SoRs in respect of short cleliyery, or
in any other respect?"
The SECRETARY FOR FCBLIC LANDS (Hon. J. H. Coyne, Warrcgo)
replied-
" 1. Xo. "2. See answer to Ko. 1. ".3. Ko. "4. See anstver to Ko 3.
"5. Nil."
PERSONAL EXPLA:NATIOX.
Mr. FRY (Eurilwtl: I crave the indul gPnce of the House while I
make a personal explanation.
The SPE~\KER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member
for Kurilpa be ~llowed to make a personal explanation?
Hoxm::RABLE 1'1Eo!BI:RS: Hear, hear! Mr. FRY: I thank the House for
giving
me this opportunity. It affects a :otatement made last night which
is a reflection on my self, and I have found it necessary to go
further afield to get the information to supply to this House. What
took place last night has got abroad, and I think it only just and
proper that I submit this evidence to the House-
" AUSTRALIAX :MILITARY FORCES, " 1st Military District.
" Headquarters, "Brisbane, 29th August, 1918.
" Major J. P. Fry,- " 1. In reply to representations made
by you to District Headquarters conc.ern ing inquiries made int{)
irregularities
[29 AB"GuST.] Supp:y. 1843
alleged to baye been committed by cer tain persons at
Rabaul-
" I was Assistant Adjutant-General, 2nd ::Vlilitary District, and
remember the inquiries referred to.
" I am pleased to say that you are not tlv~ Captain Fry referred to
in those inquiries.
" Your militarv record is a clean one, as shown by department
records,. and your appointment as temporary Bngade Major, 2nd
Brigade Area, ~:m your. re turn from service abroad Is, I thmk,
additional proof.
"A. P. LUSCmlfBE, Lieut.-Col., "A.A.G., 1st Military
District."
0PPOSITIOX l\lEo!BERS : Hear, hear ! :Mr. RIORDAX: He did not say
your mili
·tary record was not good.
PRINTING OF COUNCIL'S A::VIE~W MENTS IN BILLS.
Mr. MACAR'r::\EY (Toowong): I desire to refer to a matter connected
with the privileges of the members of the House. I ·refer to the
new system which is to be established of dealing with amendments of
another Chamber in Bills forwarded from .this Chamber. I have
received the first list of amendments under the new practice, and
it seems to me that the sy,tem will oo use considerublo
inconvenience to membeu of this House and it is also calculated to
create confusion. I believe that if the system is followed, not
only will it create the difficul .ties I have referred to, but in
all probability it ma.y lead to serious mistakes.
The SPEAKER : The system is already in operation in other
Parliaments.
Mr. MACARTNEY: That is so. In mak ing this statement, I am aware
that a mem ber of another place, as President, has taken part in
the arrangement, hut that Cham ber is not affected by it because
the legisla tion in the other Chamber is not handled in the sume
way as it is here. It is a matt-er particularly affecting this
Chamber, and I think it only right to call attention to it, and I
trust that on reconsideration the practice .that has worked so well
hitherto may be reYerted to.
The SPEAKER : I might explain to the hon. gentleman that last
night, in his .absence, I made a statement to the House that the
innoyation has been tried because it saves a considera.ble amount
of expense in printing and paper.
The TREAS1:RER: Hear, hear l The SPEAKER: I notice that in the
Com
monwealth Parliament and also in the New South \Vales Parliament a
similar system is adoptGd. I suggestud bst evening that it be given
a trial on one Bill and said that, if it ·were found unsatisfactory
and u'1work able, of course we would re\·ert to the old system. I
suggest to tho House that they giYe the system a trial on one Bill,
and if it is unworkable then we can reYert to the old system. I
might mention that the old s0 ,tem means the printing of 250 extra
Bills -not amendments-and 150 for the Legisla tive Council ; but,
even so, if it is found unworkable the hon. member may rest as
sured that the old system will be reverted to,
Mr. MACARTNEY: One mistake might cost more than the lot.
The TREASURER: We will look after that.
LOCAL \YORKS LOAXS ACTS .\l\1E~D ::1<IEXT BILL.
IxiTB.nox. On the motion of the TREASGRER, it
was formallv resoh·ed- ·' That the House will, at its next
sit
ting, resolye itself into a Committee of the whole to consider of
the desirableness of introducing a Bill to amend the law with
respect to the rate of iut-erest on future loam< bv the
Treasurer to local bodie5, and to· provide that the amount of any
instalment of repayment on ac count of any existing or future loan
shall bear interest if not paid at its due date."
I::\F ANT LIFE PROTEC'riON ACT A:.VIENDMENT BILL.
IxrTtATIO :-;. On the motion of the HOME SECRE
TARY (Hon. J. Huxham, Buranda), it was formally resolved-
" That the House will, at its next sit ting, resolve itself into a
Committee of the whole to consider of the desirableness of
introducing a Bill to transfer the powers and duties of. the
Commissioner of Police under the Infant Life Protec tion Act of
1905 to the Director, State Children Department."
SUPPLY. FINAXOIAL STATEMENT-RESUMPTION OF DEBATE.
(Jfr. Bertram, lffaree, in the chai1·.)
Question-That there be granted £300 for aide-dei-camp to His
Excellency the Go vernor-stated.
Mr. POLLOCK (Gregory): Judging by the nature of the criticism which
has been offered on the Financial Statement so far, I think the
Government can congratulate them,,eh·e' upon the weakness of the
case that has been . presented by members of the Opposition. I do
not intend to fteal gener allv with matters of finance. What I
par tic;Jlarlv want to deal with is the attitude of the
LiwislatiYe Council towards certain legislatign which ha-, been
in~tiated by this House and passed through this Chamber .
Before .doing that, I want to say that to mE' it seems a very
regrettable thing that this debate and the Address in Reply debate,
and manv othec· opportunities which are gin'n members in this House
to talk, have been taken advantage of by c<;r~ain returned
soldier members of the Oppos1t10n to yell at members of this party:
" Go to the front !" and incidentally in eYery way to try and make
political capital out of the fact that they haYe been at the front,
or sm;newhere thereabouts. whilst members of this party have not
been. Kow, I haYe not been to the front and I do not think that I
am going. I 'am in no way thin-skinned or sen"i th-e about the
matter. My reaso':ls are my own and I think thev are suffiCient.
The law; of this country give me the right to please myself ~11 the
matter, and that I _am going to contmue to do. But I do obJect to
ex-swachbucklers coming into this Cham ber with, metaphorically,
spurs 6 inche'l lon"' on them, tearing up the carpets and telling
member', of this party they have to go to the front. I object to
their coming in here and telling us that we must form fours or
words to that effect. I refuse to form' fours, or do anything else,
at the ~om: mand of these three returned soLd1ersL
. Mr.Pollock.]
1844 Supply. [ASSEl\fBL Y.] Supply.
because I rea]i,l' that, whilst thos0 gentle men mav have held the
ranks of major, corporal," and ser;:5eant re· pectively in the
Australian Imperial Forces, as le~islators they are merely privates
the same as ~nyself.
Mr. CoLLIKS : Hear, hear ! :\lr. POLLOCK: I want that fact
recognised
by members on both sides of the House. I hope that that sort of
talk will be discontinued in this Chamber, and that men who are
sent hr·re bv the people of this State will att_end to the"
domestic legislation that is reqmred of them when thev are cent
here. If they want to go recrui'ting, the recruiting plat form is
alwavs open to them for the purpose of securing "recruits; but
members of t}1is Chamber I think, are >veil able to decide fo1·
them;elves all matters of this sort with out being invited to do
those things by members of the Opposition. who, after all, are only
trying to make political capital out of it. .
I did intend to refer to the atbtude of the Legislative Council iJ?
holding up t~e legislation which has . been pas,ed ?Y this House.
First of all, It has been said that we did not produce a surplus
during the past financial year. Everybody knows that this
Government could have produced that surplus had the l.'pper. House
allowed the taxation measures of this Government to go throu"h.
\Yhen that was not done, it stands to re~son that the Government
could not carry out its ]lromi&e or it') intPntion oE bringing
in a surplus. To date, ne-..y final_l cial Bills haYe been
intro·duced whiCh this House have on two occasions pas3ed. I refer
to the Income Tax Act Amendment Bill and the Land Tax Act Amendment
Bill. This House on t\YO ocr:asion~, has pa~,sed those Bill,, 'and
the Li>gislati,,-~ Council has on this occ;csion, I believe,
decided to allow those Bills to go through. But the Govern ment.
in bringing in its Financial State ment' for the forthcoming year,
laid it down that no surplus could be expected unless the reve;.ue
Bills of the GoYernment were allowed t0 go through both Houses of
Parli_ament. :Kow, the position to-day is that, while two of our
revenue Bills have been allowed to p:o through the r pp er House,
one Bill at kast hns been actually J•.ejectcd by the l!ppcr House
or ameudccl ~n such a way that its effect Will be lost 111 so far
as a survlus is COIWC'rned. I :·efer now to the Land Act Amcnclment
Bill-a Bill whiCh was introduced on three occ,sions h? the
Government in this Chamber and pa .. sed through this Houw, and on
the same number of occasions has been rcj ected by the Up]wr
Chamber. ='-iow, that Bill is distinctly a revenue Bill.
11r. HoDGE: A repudiation Bill, you mean. Mr. POLLOCK : P0rhaps I
will be able
to throw some more light on that question. That Bill proyides that
where an unfair restriction of 50 per cent. is placed on the amount
by which the rents of certain pas toral holdings may be raised,
that clanse ohoulcl be removed, and the Land Court should have the
rii;lht to raise that rent to whatever it thinks 'is a fair value,
having in mind the other conditions lai·d dom1 by the Act-as every
Land Court. of course, must. In my opinion, it will be necessary
for this Bill to go through before the Go vernment can even hope
to bring in any thing like a surplus. ::'\ow, the l:pper House
again have rejected that measure. They have rejected it on the same
ground on
[Mt·. Pollocl;.
which it was oppos0cl in this House by mem bers of the
Opposition-on the ground that it was repudiation. \'\ell, I havo
taken up the stand all alo;1g in this Chamber that it was
repudiation, ,-ith the qualification that there is nothing >nong
with repudiation of something that is fundamentally unsound and
unjust. Any breach of even a verbal agree ment, whether or not it
affects the les"ec, must necessarily be repudiation. But, any how,
repudiation is only a word. Repudia tion surely is not goinc- to
frighten those who are out to deal out justice to all sections of
the community ! I again take the stand that not only is this House
guilty of that npudiation of an injuFtice, but that the old Liberal
party v•ould also have been guilty of that same repudiation had the
"Cpper House allowed them to have their wav. In 1905 this proYision
protecting the big pas toral leases was gTafted into the Bill of
1905; and in 1910, ;,-hen the Land Acts wero being consoliclat0d by
the then Minister for Public Lands Dh. Denham), who was Premier in
the late Government, he f·ought to wipe out that iniquitous clause.
That was not done, not because the Legislath-e Assembly
objected-the Legislative Assembly did not object; at least, very
few members of it did-but the l!pper House objected, and when the
meamrc was again submitted to the Legislative Assembly }hey fell
into line with the "Cpper House news, probably on the principle
that it was better to get half the Act than no Act at all. ::'\ot
only was the Denham Government guilty-if we are guilty-of
repudiation, !Jut ~hey also were guilty of actually carrymg mto
effect a greater repudiation in land matters. I refer now to the
Land Act of 1902. Sub section (6) of section 18 of that Act
proYidecl that-
" Xo resumption shall be made under this ccctio,1 exc0pt upon the
recommen dation of the comt: and notwithstand ing anvthing
h<'reinbcfore contained. un less irl tha opinion of the court
it is ncce.s3ar;v in the public intC'rest 80 to do, no re'·nmptinn
shall he recomnYnded bJ· it which will h; Ye the effect of reducing
tl~e area of the holding to les;; than 40,000 acre.o."
:\ow, in the Land Ad Consolidation Act of 1910. that pro.-ision
"-as not re-enacted the provision that holdings could not be
decreased to less than an area of 40.000 acres. In other words. it
was repealed. The Land Act of 1910, subsection (1) of section 146,
states-
" \Vith re pect to pastoral holdings the leases "hereof are
gr8nttcl after the commencement of this Act. the rec.ump tions
following ma.'· be made, that is to say : If the term does not
exceed fifteen vears. land not exc(·cding in the aggre gate
'one-fourth of the area of the hold ing; if the term exceeds
fifteen ~·ears, during the first fifteen years land not exceeding
in the aggregate one-fourth of the area of the liolding, and during
the remainder of the term land not ex ceeding in the aggregate
one-fourth of the area compri2ed in the holding at the expiration
of the fifteenth vear, or, if no land has been so rt>ume'd
during the· first fifteen vears, then during the re mainder of the
term land not exceed ing in rho aggregate one-half of the area of
the holding."
'You will see that in the 1905 Act provision was made that no
holding could have its
Supply. (29 AUGUST.] Supply. 1845
~rea de,•reased to less than 40,000 acres. In the Land. Act of
1910, at any time after the first perwd of fifteen years the
depart ment, without any reference to the Land Court at all, could
decide that one-fourth Df each holding should be resumed. Now,
under the old Act, if a man had a hold ing of 50.000 acres, only
10,000 acres could be eut off it. Bnt under the present Act, if a
man has 40.000 acres, then one-fourth can be cut off, reducing it
to 30.000 acres. I am not saying it is unjust. I think it is quite
a just and hir thing, in every way. But. ncv<:>rtheless it is
repudiation on the old Act of 1905-repudiation of the interests of
the squatter. But that is neither here nor there. Mc>mbers of
the Opposition do not object to that. I do not object to
repudiation.
Mr. HODGE: To tearing up a " scrap of paper."
l\Ir. POLLOCK : The hon. member was in the House at that tin1e. and
he did not object.
Mr. HoDGE: I wa' not. The 'l'REASl:RER : Y C'·· he was.
Mr. I'OLLOCK: In 1910 you were m the House.
Mr. HODGE : You said 1905.
Mr. POLLOCK: Xo: in 1910 that pro vision was re-enacted. and the
hon. member allowed that provision to be repudiated \Yithout
raising his voirC' in protest. Xo¥l, this party has nen'r been
guilty of repudia tion of that Act-not to that extent. It has
never been guilty of the repudiation of the intf'rests of the
public. After all, th'' repudiation of an unjust claim of a few
]WO]llf' does not, lo me, have any particular significance; so long
as the thing is wrong, then I take it it is the logical thing to
re pudiate it, and make it right. Now, this Land Act. if it did go
through the Upper House. would mean that 1,220 pastoral hold ings
would be affected ; they would pro bably havP to pay a very much
greater 1·cnt; and the total area of those 1,220 hold ings is
209,820 square miles. The number of grazing selections affected
>vill be 1.650. and thf' total area of the grazing selections
would be 15,288,900 acres. These figures will bear analysing, when
we realise that most of the holder, of those big- pastoral lea,.es.
because of the protPction the~· enjoy by rE'ason of the fact that
the Land Court has not the power to increase their rental beyond 50
per cent. at each reappraisement-. are paying one-third as much as
they should be-and would be, if the Land Court had the power to
assess their rentals at what it considered to be a fair price.
There ar<' 209,820 square miles on which only one third rental
is being paid. That applies only to pastoral leases. There are
grazing selection;;. and grazing selectors who can afford to pay at
least 1d. per acre more than they are paying at present, and the
actual area affected, of grazing selections, is 15.288,900 acres.
Anyone without being excPptionally good at arithmetic can easily
arrive at an estimate of ju't how much revenue is being lost to the
State because thn rpper House is imisting upon the pro tection of
those pastoralists and the grazing selectors who can afford to pav
more rent.
When the Kidston ·Government, [4 p.m.] of which Mr. Denham
was
Minister for Lands. a ttom pted to wipe out this iniquitous clause
that the National party now terms repudiation, or, in other words.
when the late Liberal party
desired to repudiate as this Labour party has done. the ranke<t
injustice that has ev~r existed in Queensland. Mr. Denham had this
to say on the matter-
" First of all there is the removal of the rent limit;tion, by
which the rent cannot be raised by more than 50 per cent. on
reassessment. That. did not appear in the .1?84 Act. It d~d not ap
pear in the ongmal _\et. to which I ha':e alreadv referred. It
first appeared m the amending Act of 1886. It was not
re-en<tcted in 1897, and. it was not .re enacted in 1902, the
Bill under whiCh most of the Crown lessees come; but, oddly enough,
it was, re-enacted if! 1905. and per se became mcorporated m the
1884, 1886, and 1902 Acts."
Which, of com:,e. was ret)udiation in itself. Further, he
smd-
" 'l'hereforE'. it was not until 1905 that the provision· of 1886
re limit of 50 per cent. on roassessments was re-enacte?. I want
hon. members to bear well 111 mind that it did not appear in the
1884 Act, that it was introduced into the 1886 Act in a time of
stress when a drought was prevailing."
That was the primary reason for its introduc tion. I-Ie goes on to
say-
" In the principal Act o~ 18_97 it was not rPincorporated. nor was
It mcorpor!'ted in the Act of 1902, which was specially designed as
a relief measure ; but, oddly enough. it finds its way once more on
the statute-book in 1905."
At that time there was not a big drought. That shows that that
provision of the Ac~ was originally introduced to safeguard the
ngh_ts of certain landholders when there was. a big drought
(·Kisting in Queensland, and It was re-enacted a.t a time when
there was not a drought in Queensland. Proba_bly the most
prosperous time, as I am remi:'-ded b3" the Minister for Lands.
that graziers enJoyed in Queensland was in 1905. Mr. Denham went on
to say-
" The tenure >Yas lengthened from fif teen to twenty-one years,
with a re::ssess ment every St'V!.'n year<', an.d It was If!
~he 1886 Act that the extraordma.ry pronswn_ a.ppears in which the
rent for the new period shall not exceed that of the pre cedino·
period by more than .50 per cent. That "'is the position in wh1ch
we find the tenures from 1869 till 1886. I wou_Jd further sav that
that 50 per cent. restnc tion is an ... unnecessary
restriction.,
He was " Hear heared" by the membe~s. on the then Government
benches. I!l givmg reasons at that time as to why this 50 P?r cent.
limit should be ra.ised and the big pastoralists compelled to pay
by the. court as much as any other landholder, which, of course,
they have a right to do, Mr. Denham said-
" The Barcaldine pastoral lease had been reassessed at £2 14s. 6d.
a square mile. Quite recently I was urged to resume that holding.
and I asked the shire council, which is composed. o! men
experienced in all matters pertammg to pastoral pursuits, what
~·ent could be obtained if resumed, havmg regard to the
improvements. and the reply came- 5~d. per acre. That wou.ld
amount. to £14 13s. 4d. per square mile, as agamst rent of £2 14s.
6d. now paid by the lesSf'<'S of Barcaldine Downs, and,
Mr. Pollock.]
1846 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Sup]Jly.
allowing that 50 per cent. limitation re mains in force, under
that increase of SO per cent. it means that the maximum rent on
their holding after the next reassess ment \vould be £4 1s. 9d.,
and yet we are told by pructical men it is worth £14 13,.
4d."
The reasons given by }Ir. Denham were, perhaps, the strongest
reasons that could have been given. Th0y are the reasons that are
now given by thi'l party for the reintro duction of that Bill, and
they are the reasono that I am going to deal with later on in an
argument as to whv we should endeavour to deal with a bo.dy which
is blocking this legislation. ::'\ow, Yl:r. Gunn, the hon. member
for Carnarvon, who was then sitting behind :Hr. Donham, said-
" This provi~ion will onlv refer to the grazing farmer·'· Those
inen took up their. farms on the distinct understand ing, or if
they did not do so at the time they afterwards understood when the
Act was amended, that their rents would not be raised more than 50
per cent. at any time of reappraisement. This Bill proposes to do
away with that condition. That is a dangerous proposal not that it
will make any difference to' the lessees, but that it savours of
repudiation."
You will see, therefore, that the hon. member for Cai·narvon was
only against it because it 2avoured of repudiation.
Mr. CORSER: That is \Yhv he i' against it to-day. ~
Mr. POLLOCK: I will tell you directly why he is against it now. He
went on to say-
" I do not remember anv case in which a grazing farmer or past'oral
lessee has had his rent increased by SO per cent. It really does
not matter twopence whether this r~rovision is in the Bill or not,
except that It savours of repudiation."
l\Ir. CoRSER : He says the same to-clay.
1\~r. ~OLLOCK: That needs a little expla nation m new of later
events. In 1910 he said it ~i<;J not n:atter twopence whether
that pronsion was m the Bill or whether it was out of it. \Yhv?
Because on his own admission he d_id n;t know of any pastoral
less,?es c;r grazmg farmers whose rents had b~en raised up to the
SO per cent. limit. \\hen the pastoral lessee or grazing farmer
~vas not made to pay up to a SO per cent. Increase at ea.ch
reappraisement it was not necessary to strike that provision out of
the Bill. He onlv objected to it because it savoured of
repudiation.
Mr. CoRSER : There is a different Govern-. ment to-clay.
Mr. POLLOCK : There is nothing in that argument. The Land Court is
an impartial body. The reason 'vhy the hon. member f?r .Carn!"rvon
voted against this SO per cent. hmit bemg aboli~he~l is simply
because to day the rents are bcmg raised above 50 per cent.
because the pastora.lists during the past few )~ears have made such
stupendous pr?fits, which have been quoted so often in this House
that it is not necessary for me to repeat them, that they. are able
to pay not only the 59 per cent. mcrease. but a great deal more m
many cases. The Land Court in the Hughencl~n and \Yinton districts
has recommended mcreases of 200 tc 300 pe.v cent.
[Mr. Pollor.k
on the rents that they are at present paying. That is why it
matters now, although it did not matter at that time. The hon.
membe1· for Carnarvon at that time did not object except to the
principle of repudiation.
::\lr. Gl'XX: That is the reason I object now. It is repudiation
all along the line.
Mr. POLLOCK: Onlv because it is repu diation. I hold a differ~nt
view. The "Cpper House objects to it, and its argument, taken at
its face value in respect to that objection, is that it does not
like repudiation. \Ve all know that in the "Cpper Housa there are
many men who a.re interested in big pastoral companies. They did
not, at the time Mr. Donham wanted to pa 'S that clause, offer any
great objection to the Bill going through, because up to that time
the rentals had not been raised beyond 50 per cent. They would not
have been hit by it, but they fore f<aw that it wa.s a
dangerous thing for the future, and they wiped it out. They see now
that if this Bill were passed they and the companies they represent
will have to pay, in many instances, three times the reJC~tal for
their country that they are now paymg. In short. I believe if this
Bill became law the revenue from it would be well ove1· £200,000. I
think that the estimate of thee Treasurer or of the 11inister for
Lands of £100.000 as the amount that would be raised by this Bill
is a very consen-ative one.
Mr. Guxx: "\.ncl Queensland would lose its. character.
Mr. POLLOCK: Queom,land would not lose its character. Queensland
will not lose it' character 6imply becau~e it taxes the man who can
afford to bear the burden of taxa tion, or simply because it taxes
men who have no rig·ht to have the privilege that is given to the
pastoralisb and to certain grazing .:~elector' to-day. Perhaps it
is as well to again assert that this G·overnment does not propose
to tax that money out of the people; it proposes to allow the Land
Court. without any rcetriction, to have the same right to fix the
p·ice that the pastoral lessee shall pay for his land as it has to
fix the rental of the grazing selectors. \Yhat is \\Tong with that?
If that is repudiation, well, I am prepared to take my share of it.
and 'I represent easily a bigger area of country than any man in
Queensland, and repre~,ent the biggest pastoral area as well, whore
the people understand this thing and where the people are
constant!~· seeking for land, and they welcome this. Naturally, the
men who will have to pay increased rents do not welcome it; but
whP,n do vested interests welcome anything which limits their
privileges?
Jl.h. GuxN: \Yhv do not the:y- take up th~ grazing farms opened at
Elizabeth Springs and Boulia?
Mr. POLLOCK: The reason for that is that there is a certain amount
of dry country in that area and it is expensive to find wah:r
there. I hope the hon. member for Carnarvon will pardon me, but I
have been over every inch of that country, and I know its
capabilities, and I say it is one of the driest areas in
Queensland.
Mr. Guxx: Look at the artesian water. They have a natural
spring.
::\:Tr. POLLOCK: There is no artesian water near Boulia, except
that artesian water which can be obtained by sinking 2,000, 3,000,
or 4,000 feet. The reason that the small
Supply. {29 AUGUST.] ~Supply. 1847
selector does not take up that country is simply bec,mse Jw cannot
afford to pay the cost of putting down a bore. That is only
natural. I would be prepared to take up some of that country myself
if I could afford io sink for water.
:\1r. GUNN: Have not the Government got an Act which provides for
bore trusts?
Mr. POLLOCK : The country is so dry that it requires a ycry large
area to enable a persm~ t_o make a living, and the trust bore
prmciple only applies in thooe cases ''here three or four or more
selectors are able to receive water from the one trust bore and
where the areas are so largP it will b~ readily understood that it
would require a tremendous pressure of water in order to supply
threc or four selectors. The hon. member for Carnarvon is a
squatter, and he should understand these things better than I
do.
J\:lr. Qusx: If it was not for Labour legis lation, 1 wonld be out
there taking np some of that country r,ow.
:\!Jr. POLLOC:K: We have no objection to the hon. member going out
and taking up that country, so long as he utilises it
propHly.
:'IIr. Gu:m: Then I would be called a profiteer.
Mr. POLLOCK : The hon. member is that drea?Y· . The. action of the
Upper House In re] ectmg this Bill, as well as many other measures
that have been passed by this C!Jam_ber, to me savoLus of
repudiation in Its highest form, because, after all most of these
Bills W8re rejected by the 'upper House durmg the last Parliament.
Since t~ten we have g~me to the country, and prac hc_ally every
Bill that the lJ pp er House has reJected was made a prominent
feature of the Premier's policy speech; and, although we. ha_ve
come back with the strength of forty-eight members to twenty-four
the upper House is still insisting on it~ ·atti tude of holding up
l!lgislation that we werel sent here to pass. The position is
intoler able, and th~re must be some way of putting an end to It.
The people of Queensland cannot be expected to return men to Par
liament after Parliament to carrv their legis lation and then have
it arrest~d by a few men who were ·appointed to the Upper House
long before I, and thousands of other electors, were born. They
have no right there, in my opinion; no right in accordance with
common sense; and I sav that these men, at any rate, have no right
to hold up the legislation that the people have asked for less than
eight months ago. There must l1e some way out of this difficultv.
If the "l)1pe~ House insists, as it has done, on the r~J ectwn of
one Bill-insi 'ts on the rejection ot others, then the course of
this Govern ment is perfectly plain, in order to carry out the
work entrusted to it by the people. I say that the Government-I am
pleased that the Premier has already made the announcement-should
go to the Governor and ask him ~or some appointments, so that there
will be m the Upper House a maj oritv of _men_rbers who are
prepared to pass the legislatiOn that the people are asking for. I
think it is a moderate request-that the people should be allowed to
rule themselves; and I hope that the Premier-when he said he is_
going to take drastic steps, or when h~ hil_lted at such-is going
to go in that d1rectwn for the purpue of wiping out this
difficulty oPce an cl for all. (Hear hear )) The mere fact of this
House stating that the Upper House has no right to amend money
Bills does not seem to vet us much further. \V 8 seem CO be
continually in trouble. with the 'Cpper House. They are orrogatmg
to themseh·es a right the" ·do not possess-thJ.t .common \'lense
suggests th_ey ~hall not PO?Sc~s, and that every con ehtutwnal
authorrty I haye been able to read also suggests that they do not
possess.
:Ylr. G. P. BARKES: The idea 'is to wipe them out altogether.
Mr.· POLLOCK: 'I'he idea at pre3ent in my mind is to enable the
legislation the people de'iire to be carried out-that is the iclea
I have in my mind, and the only 'idea. The people of Queensland
have ah·eadv decided on the question of the abolition of the Upper
House; I am not talkin"' of that matter now. "
::VIr. G. P. BARXES: On the retention of the 'Cpper House.
)Hr. POLLOCK: On the retention of the Upper House. Perhaps it was
under dif ferent circumstances ; I am not going too far on that
matter. All I want to sav is that ~he matter in my mind at the
present time IS the necessity of doing what we were sent here to
do, in spit~ of the opposition of the Upper House. (Hear, hear!)
·while I have not personally altered my views on the abolition ,
of_ the Upper House, I say that the public mterest must be
paramount to every man :-vho believes. in _rule by the people; that
m the public mterests we s)wuld be aJlowed to carry out the
legisla tion they desire, and failing being allowed to ca_rry that
out, we should take such steps a' >nil secure the passage of
those measures. \Ve r!mst w:ipe ou~-temporarily, at any rate, If
we' do nothmg more-whatever ob >i:ruction is in the way. (Hear,
hear !) And the question of appointing sufficient members to the
Upper House to enable the elected House to carry out this
legislation is by no me·<tns a new one. It is a recognised
principl<'. You can go back as far· as 1832 whf'n ~ position
something similar to thi~ a_rose m the Hou'e of Comm·ons. At that
tune Lord Grcv was leader of the Govern ment which pa;sed the
Reform Bill through tlw House of Commons.
Mr. G. P. BARXES: That was nearly 100 years ago.
Mr. POLLOCK : Perhaps so; but evi dently members of the Upper
House have something to learn from the oecurrences of 100 ye.ars
ago. But at that time Lord Gre;;'s Governmqnt pa,·'ied a Reform
Bill. The House of Lords rejected that Bill. Lord Grey appealed to
the King for suffi c-ient new peers to enable him to carry his
Reform Bill through both Houses of Par liament. Thf) King refused
the requMt. Earl Grey immediately resigned, and the Duke of
\Yellin!\ton endeavoured to carry on the affairs of Government. He
failed. The King then sent for Earl Grey, and asked him to again
form a Ministry. Earl Grey absolutely refused to make any attempt
to form a Ministry unless the King gave him one guarantee, and that
guarantee w.as that ,ufficiqnt members should he placed in the
House of Lords to enable him to carry his legislation
through--
An OPPOSITION MEMBER: Is that what the Labour Government proposes
to do?
Mr. Pollock.]
1848 Supp~y. [ASSEMBLY.] Supply.
Mr. POLLOCK: I am hoping that some thing of the sort will happen.
This time the King consented; he said he would under take that if
Lord Grey could not get the Reform Bill through the House of Lords,
then h\e would give him •,sufficient new peers to make a majority
in favour of that Bill. However, the House of Lords did not
per;o;ist in the rejection of the Reform Bill.- 'I'hey merely
absented themselves from the House, and the Bill went through. But
it does not alter the fact that the King at that t·ime was
pr(lpared to allow Earl Grev to put sufficient peers in the House
of Lords to enable the people's will to be conformed to-to allow
that which had been approved by the people ~o actually beco_me law.
The same set of Circumstances ex1sts in Queensland to-day. Not only
is there that precedent. Ther'e ,is the preeedf'llt which has been
set in New Zealand-a pre cedent so late as 1892. Todd, who is pro
bablv one of the best constitutional authori ties 'on the;o;e
matters, says, on page 821-
" Pending the result nf a general election held in that colony, in
the fall of 1890, the Atkinson Ministry recom mended the
appointment of eleven mem bers to the Upper House, whose num
bers, it appears. are not defined under the Constitution."
I-Ion. members will notice that their posi tion there is similar
to ours-that the num ber of members who can be appointed to the·
1:pper House is not defined or limited by the Constitution. Now, it
go~s on to sav-
. " The Governor declined to sanction this increas;o, but consented
-to the crea tion of the Speaker and six Councillors, an
alt0rnative that was ultimatelv ac cepted.- Thes<'
appointments, the Gover nor afterwards explained, were made more
with the object of strengthening the character of the Upper House
than for party purposes.
" It transpired that the ministry, by the election returns. were
actuallv in the minority before the appointments were made; and
statem~nts having ap peared in the public Press to that effect,
protests were addre~sed to the Governor bv over fortv members of
the> House of Representatives and others, ~gainst his accepting
the advice of ~1inisters no longer possessing the confidence of the
people.
" On th~ other hand, the Governor. in accepting ;,linist£lrial
advice, justified his course to the Colonial Secretarv on the
ground that he did 'not think 'it is seriously maintained, in the
face of the constnnt practice in England for de fc»ted ~linisters
to advis.; Her 1\fajcsty to create peers. that there has been anv
thing unconstitutional in my action; but so far as I can gather
there is a strong feeling in the colom that the practice which
obtains in England of making Ministerial appointments before
vacating office is not one which ::'\ew Ze;dand Ministers should be
encouraged to follow.' "
No"> the position 'there was altogcthel' different to the
position here. The New :0ealand Government made those appoint
ments of Councillors ju6t before thev vacated officc-aft<'r it
was found they we~e in the minority in the House. The posifion here
is different. To-day this Go,·ernment is backed with a majority of
forty-eight to twenty-four,
[1llr. Pollock.
and we ask immediately after having received the people's
assent-or, at least, I ask that something shall be done to ap
point sufficient new members to the Upper House to enable us to
carry out th<;) legisla tion we were sent here to carry out.
Surely that is a more reasonable request than wa<> the
recmest of the -:-.rew Zealand Government which ·was acceded to. -
" Todd " further says-
" After the elections, and before Par liament met. the Atkinson
Administra tion resigned, and th<J new Ministry, of which Mr.
Ballance was Premier. suc ceeded to office. In February, 1892, the
Ballance Ministry submitted to the Go vernor eighteen names for
appointment to the Legislative Council, claiming that of this
number thev >vere entitled to make seven appointments to
counter balance those granted to their prede ce·,ors. the rest to
fill vacanci(!s and allow for a few creations.
" The Governor, the Earl of Onslow, declined to adopt this advice,
and de sired that the question might be de ferred for the
consideration of his suc cessor, the Earl of Glasgow, whose
appointment had been announced. as his sta v i11 the colonv would
not enable him t~ sec the eJ1d of consequenceA which R p~rsistent
refusal to accept the advice of Ministers would entail.''
This is rather a long quot'ltion from "Todd," but in view of the
peculiar po,ition, I hope th0 House will bear with me while I read
it. It goes on-
" Accordingly, on the arrival .o~ the new Governor, in ,June, 1892.
Jl.im1sters lost no tirne in ad·dsing an increase to the rpper
House, this time of twelve members. on th.; grot~nd that the GC!
v<'rnment was in an unbearable posi tion in the Legislative
Council, where thev had but four or five supporters, and ' that no
Government can carry on the bminess of the Houee satisfactorily
when in one Chamber they exist only on ~ur.t.'er~n1ce.'
" The GoYernor declined to appoint this number. fearing that in so
doing he would be running the risk of making the Lcg-isbth·e
Council a mere echo of the other HousP, and thns destroy its
independence: but he consentNl to an incrf'ase of eig-ht members.
This con cession did not meet the requirements of :'.1inisters.
who continued to press their claims for twelve appointments. whilo
the Governor. equally firm. ob iectcd to that number; and in so
doing he was. in acrorcl with the Yic'ws entertained bv his
predecessor, who had embodied the '<trr.e in a confidential
memorandum for the information of hiB 'u" ,,e-.:sor.
" Finally. :Ministers, in a memoran dum dah·d August 5, 1892.
appealed to the Coloni:ol Secretarv on the difference existin:;:
between them and the Gover nor. After setting forth the facts of
the case, thev iustified their action in ha vinJ:; remained -in
office, though their a·dYic<; had not been acc0pted by his
Excellency, as follows :-
" ' Ministers would point out that the Parliament is in session,
and they are answerable to the House of Representa ti,·es for the
advice tendered to his Excellency. It has been alleged that
Supply. [29 AUGUST,) Supply, 1849
they ought to have resigned when their advice was declined, but
th<;ly relied on the constitutional practice as expressed in "
Todd's Parliamentar:v Government in the British Colonies,'' p. 590
(old edition), which is as follows:-" They woul-d be 1reaponsible
~or the advice they gave, but could not strictly be h0ld
accountable for their advice not ha ,·ing prevailed; for if it be
the right rrnd duty :1f the Governor to act in any case contrary to
the advice of his Min isters. they cannot be held responsible for
his action. and should not feel themselv<•s justified in
retiring from the Administration." '
" In a dPspa tch addressed to the Go vernor, dated September 26,
18\'2, the Colonial Secretary, the Marquess of Ripon, rQp!ied that,
while fully appre ciating the difficulties surrounding the caee,
he had no hesitation in advising the acceptance of Ministerial
advice on the question at issuP, adding:-
" ' \\"hen questions of a constitutional character are involved it
is especially, I conceive, the right of the Governor fu.!ly to
discuss with his },1inisten the desirability of an:v particular
course that may be pressed upon him fo1' his adop tion. He should
franklv state the ob jections, if any, which· may occur to him;
but if. aft~t full discussion, Minis ters determine to press upon
him the a'hice which they have already tendered, the Governor
should, as a general rule. and when Imperial int<crests are not
affected, accept that advice, bearing in mind that the
responsibility rests with the :.\Iinisters, who are answerable to
the Legislature and, in the last resort. to the counb;y.' "
Kow. there is a clear statement: that the edyice of J:\Iinir,ters
on a matter of this sort where thny have difficulties with the
upper Hous<' shall be accepted by the Governor. unleS' J mpPrial
interests ar~ affected. I hold that this Government will be
justified in U'iking for snffit :lent :numbers :in tho l:pper
House, not to ,,swamp it, but to get sufficient men thC>re to
enable us to carrv out cur legislation. (Hear, hear !) I say that
knowing that in this case the upper Honse have exceeded in everc-
wav the responsibility that rests upon them to see that fair
government is < arried out in this Stat0. Kow, with regard to
the l'\ew Zea land nblegmm, or, perhaps I should say an extract
from a cablegram, directed from the Sccretarv of State for the
Colonies to the Govemo;. of Wellington, New Zealand, and dated 26th
Septemb<:r, 1892 ·, this should b.:> of prrrticular interest.
It stntes-
" I have carefully considered your deepatch, and appreriate the
diffirulties of your position; but I have no hesita tion in
ach-ising acceptance of your re sponsible adviserO)'
advice."
This i. pretty clew and definite, and the l'\ew 7,caland Government
were not being treated in such a shabby fashion as is the present
Government by the T~pper House. \Ve have also a precedent ·which
was sent from the Serretary of State for the Colonies to Governor
Normanby, in 1876. It is as follmn :-
"~dy Lord,
" Downing street, " 6th February, 1876.
" I have to acknowledge your Lordship's despatch, Xo. 90, of 27th
Xovember.
enclosing a. corre,pondence with the chief Minister of your
GoYernment re specting the appointment of extra mem bers to serve
in the Legislative Council.
"Her :Majesty's Government, 'as your Gr,tce will see from former
correspon dence, do not interfere with the Colonial Government in
regard to the appoint- ment of Councillors. ·
"I have, &c., "KDrBERLEY."
Now, that is an additional prooi that, after all, the -difficulties
previously encountered by Governments with the Legislative Council
in this State, or in any other State of the dominions, so far as I
have been able to gather, have never been in any way as great as
the difficulties this Government ar(l en countering from the upper
House of Queens land. They have never been as great. If the
authoritic'' agre<; that those dominions have the right to
appoint councillors, or, in other words, that the Governor should
take the
advice of his responsible Minis [4.30 p.rn.] ters situated
therein, then, if this · Government ask the Govenwr of
Queensland for sufficient members here he should have no hesitation
in granting a suf ficient number tu enable us to do our work. Now,
not only have those two authorities been in favour of the principle
that I am advocating this afternoon, but Dicey, the great
constitutional authority-probably one of the greatest in the
British Dominions says, on page 451 of the seventh edition of "The
Law of the Constitution"-
" How does it happen that the peers could at one time arrest
legislation in a way which now would be generally held to involve a
distinct breach of comtitu tional authority?
"The answer to this and like inquirieB is that the one essential
principle of the Constitution is obedience by all persons to the
deliberately expressed will of the House of Commons in the first
instance, and ultimateh· to the will of the nation as expressed
"through Parliament. The conventional code of political morality is
merelY a hodv of political maxims meant to sec'ure resj)ect for
this principle."
Here we have it that the ver:v first principle in constitutional
government 'is that the will of the people shall prevail and oyery
other principle is merely, in his words, " a body of political
maxims meant to secure r0spect for the one great governing
principle of rule by thf' people." Not only have I. th~t authority,
but I haYe further authc;r!ty m Dicey, on page 349 of t~1e ~ou,1;th
ed1t10n of "The Law of the Consbtutwn -
" If there is a difference of opinion between the House of Lords
and the House of Commons, the House of Lords should at some point
not definitely fi;«ed give way, n.nd should the peers n~t ylCld and
the House of Commons contm~te to enjoy the confidence of the
country, 1t ~e comes the dutv of the Crown or of 1ts responsible
advisers to create, or threa!en to create, enough new peers to
overr1de the opposition of the House of Lords, and thus restore
harmony between the two branches of the Legislature."
Now there is a definite opinion given on the position as it exists
to-day in Queensland bv the foremost authority-! -should sa~ the
foremost authority, I think-on constitutwnal
Jfr. Pollock.]
1850 Supply. [ASSE:\IBLY.] Supply.
matters in the British dominions. He ~ays that should the House of
Commons contmue to enjoy the confidence of the countrv and the
Lords not yield, or, in other words, should the Legislative
Assembly continue to enjoy the confidence of the country and the
Legis lative Council not yield, then it becomes the duty of the
Crown or its reqponsible advisers to create, or threaten to create,
sufficient new peers or councillors to carry out the will of the
people. That, again, 1 think, is addi tional proof that this
Government would be on sound grounds if they approached the
Governor to ask for an increase in the mem ber•·.hip of the
Legislative Council. A further opinion was given by Lord Knutsford
in a despatch of 11th April, 1891, to the New Zealand Government,
in which he stated-
" ·with regard to the appointments to the Legislative Council
recommended by the late Government, I am of opinion that, in
accepting the advice tendered to you by your lordship's responsible
Minis terF, under the circumstances described in your despatche·",
you acted strictly in accordance with the Constitution of the
colony, but I do not desire to be under stood to offer any opinion
upon the action of your Ministers in tendering such advice.''
There is an intimation from the Secretary of State for the Colonies
in which he stated definitely that the Goveruor was quite right in
accepting th<· advice of his responsible a?visers, even ~hough
those responsible ad VISers were gomg out of power and had been
defPated as a Government. But we have just been elected as a
Government, and nr~ being flouted by a nominee body. He sa1d he
approved of the Governor's decision althougJ:. he could not approve
altogether of the advtce tendered to the Governor by his
Ministers-which means in effect that whether the advice of the
Ministers be good or bad the duty of the Governor is to accept it.
Now, I am not going to be one-sided in this matter. I have another
authority here Keith-a noted authority who disagrees with the
views I hold and with the views of those constitutional authorities
I hav~ quoted also hold. I am going to quote him to show that I am
going to carry on an unbiassed dis cw;sion this afternoon. In
1·eferring to the Philp-Kidston reign of government, he says, on
page 586 of volume 2 of " Responsible Government in the
Colonies"-
" Mr. Kidston's alliance with the Labour party was unsteady, and it
be canle necessary to consider a coalition with ~lr. Philp's
followers. Th<> result was seen in the passing at the end of
the session in a very inconspicuous 1nanne1· which escaped the
notice of Labour m em-· hers of an appropriation to make good the
smns expended during the period of Mr. Philp's Ministry and the
adoption of :m Act, No. 16, providing for a refer endum in case of
difference of opinion between the two Houses, in place of swamping
the Council. On the other hand, the Council showed its change of
spirit by accepting the legislation of the Ministry without further
demur, and in particular it passed the Bill for the re ferendum,
though bv a narrow majoritv. and in 1910 it accepted in substance .
a vcrv elaborate Government programme. The relations of the Houses
mav thus hc said to hE' settled on a new· basis; no doubt it is
still legally open to the
[Mr. Pollock.
Go.-ernment <lf the day to ask the Governor to swamp the
Council, but H1ch a course would hardly be approved in yiew of the
new position as provided in the Referendum Act."
:\'ow, while Keith says that a new po~ition has arisen, and that
although the .Gover!l ment would still be ·within thei1: Tights .m
approaching the Governor, tins Parha mentarv Bills Referendum Act
would meet the diificultv perhaps better than swamp ing the
CoLincil, as . it is termed. I \\:ant to sa, that cond1hons that
have ansen between the LabouT party and the Legis lative Council
sincP Keith wrote that matter-which »·as immediately after the
carr:,-ing of that Parliamentary Bills Referendum Act-such as he
could not have had any idea would arise. He could never have known,
for instance-nor could anv man have foreseen-that after the people
had returned this party to power by. an overwhelming majority to
carry out lcglsla tion, it would he necessary to appeal .to the
people on the number of Bills .on wluch we would have to appeal to
them 1f we wanted to have our programme carried into effect. He
could nm-er have had any ide'.' that such a state of affairs would
arise 1n Queens land. For instance, the Land Act Amendment Bill
(Xo. 2) has been rejected by the "Upper House the Popular
Initiative and Refer endun{ Bill has been rejected. The Local
Authorities Act Amendment Bill was re jected last session, and I
.suppose. if th.e Legislative Council ~an cm;tmu<; the.1r b~lh
cos<' attitud0 they w11l agam reJect 1t. _I'he Mcatworks Bill
was rejected last . ses~wn, and probably will be again'" dealt W!th
m. a similar manner. The State Enterpnses B11l will probabh- also
be rejected. The 'Wages Bill has been mutilated to such an extent
that it is practically of no use at all.. There ha~ been a
.disallowance of regulatwns by the Upper House. .TheTe has been
fricti.on re"'ardino· monev B1lls-a matter on whJCh th~ grea1est
coi1stitutional .aut.ho;·it!es hold that we cannot go wrong m
1111•1Stl!1g that the 'Gpper House has not the nght to amend.
Ke>ith, I say. could never h>tve had any j.dea that this
Government would be up against such a stonewall as the U PJ?er
House has put up against us. vY!nlst thev have been prepared to
pass hvo of our' important taxation Bills, t~ey have inter fered
with other revenue Bllls, and they threaten to destroy our general
legi~lation in such a way as to rr.ake the carrymg on of government
by this party merely a far~e. :'\either Keith nor anv other
authonty ~ould have given an effective opini?n vchen he was not
brought face to face w1th these things that have later oc~urre? ..
Suppose that we were to adont th1s prmc1ple, and bv moans of the
Pa'rliamentary Bills Re ferendum Act go as often as we <:ould
~o thE> country. and ask the people to g1ve the1r consent
to'Bills twice rejected by the ppper HousP ! The rt'ferenrlurn on
the queshon of the abolition of the Upper House cost some thing in
the neighbourhood of . £15,0.00. Here are seven Bills already this
sesswn which we would have to take to the country bv that method.
and it would mean an ex p'Pnditurc of £105,000. That is a
con,en-a tive estimate. Surelv there must be some way of over·
riding ·such strenuous objec tions by the Upper House, such
unwarrant able interference by the 'Gpper House, other than by
spending £105.000 every yea~. !hat is surely not a way which any
conshtuhonal
Supply. [29 AuGUST.] Supply. 1851
authority woulll arrree to as being just or fair. Then the otl1er
way must lie in the direction of putting sufficient membeTs in the
Upper House to enable us to carry our measures.
I hope the GoveTnment will takE• this matter into consideration,
and that the PTemier will move, and the paTty with whom I am
associated will stand behind him, in an effort to get a majority in
that Upper I-Ious_e. It is hardly likelv that we should be agam
expected to appeal to the country in order to carry out our
legislation, when we have just come from the country. (Hear,
hear.!) !1, is not as if we had been three years 111
office and were just going out-we have just come into office. We
are fresh from the country, with a mandate from the people, and I
con,ider that there is no authority in the world which can prevent
this Go vernment from using its right to carry out that which it
has been sent here to do.
Apart from all constitutional anthoril ies I want to speak a word
or two of common sense-that it is not a fair thing, in my opinion,
that men who have long ago ceased to move with the times, who are
far too old in manv instances-as are some members of the "Cpper
House-to take an activ,_, and intelligent interest in wha.t is
going on-it is far too much to expect of any reasonable being that
this Parliament of men, sent here by the country to do definite
work, should have its legislation interfered with hy an old body of
men of that kind, should have that work preventf'd and at the same
time the progress of the people hindere-d. I do want to say in
conclusion that the posi tion is absolutely absuTd from every
point of view. \V e stand to-·day in the position ':'f men who have
been sent heTe to do certam work, with a body appointed to see that
we do not do it. Could anything be more absurd than that? It is
placing the people practicalb' in the same position as the manager
of a business firm-and, after all, the carrying on of this country
should be a business matter for the people of the State-in the
position of a manager who appoints an overseer to carrv out certain
work at £300 a year, and then · appoints another overseer for life
at no salary at all to see that he does not carry it out. If
anything could be more absurd than the position into which
Qneensland has driftNl I would like to have it explained to me I
hope the Government will take this matter up, and immediately
approach the Governor with a view to removing the obstructio!1 that
has too long existed.
GOVERNMENT MFMBERS: Hear, hear ! Mr. SWAY NE (M irani) : I think we
have
good reason for disappointment in manv cases . in comwction with
the Statement now being discussed. First of all, comparing- it
with previous Statements of the kind, it is most meagre, most
scant. As you know, in pre vious Statements we have had
particulars of our bill' primary industries. comparisons of the
mining production, and' so on, with regard to the agricultural and
pastoral in dustries, and all those other industries on which we
depend for our prosperity. This time they arc all lacking. None is
mentioned, except the sug-ar industry, and that hail a Yery short
notice. Practically the whole of the Statement, except so far as
figures are concerned, on the broad featm·c' of expendi ture and
revenue. is mainlv confined to these State enterprises: After ail,
thev have not a YCry intimate bearing Ul10n OUr prosperity
-upon those big industries on which we ha vu to depend ~for our
financial position. _\.s regards the financial position itself,
hon. members opposite have been, as it were, almost un:cnimoU'··
\Ye have heard all sorts of panegyrics on the Treasurer-that he was
the beet Treasurer W'l have ever had, and so on. At the same time,
I am plea'•ed t<il say there a1·e one or h\ o of them who
entertain doubts as to whether all is well. Of course•, we know it
is not, and something must be done to encourage production. This
continual policv of taxation, taxing those few who are "posse"sed
of enterprise and energy, if that i~ the policy th';' Govern ment
depend upon for their financ1al success thct State will come to
disaster. As regards this matter of taxation, it see111,s, judging
by the utterances made it1 connection with it. to be a labour of
love-not of necessity so much-to hon. members opposite. ~\nyone who
saves his monev and becomes liable b taxation i"' an objectionable
individual one who has acquired his property by dis honest means,
and it is quite a laudable work to takE' it from him. That means
that an individual who has money locks it up and it becomes of no
benefit to o.nyone. 0•.1 the other hand, we know his money goes
again into use in the development of our resources. As a rule,
those who are singled out for taxation in Quec,nsland are the men
who have distinguished themselves over their fellows by their
superior industry and enter prise. The~ have a little more energy,
and, therefore, thcv haw• to boar the whole bur den. Thev do not
con;plain as Tegards any burden in1posed on them for war purposes,
but if thev have also to finance the schemes of the UO\:ernment it
will not act as an incen tive towards that enterprise which has
done so much towards opening up our State, and that incentive will
be taken away, and we shall find as time goes on a, less display of
those qualities. Their funds are used for opening up our resources,
and for the development of our different ~ines, agri cultural
lands, and so on, and If you take the whole of that money away by
means of taxation, they have not got it to lay out upon such works,
and the whole com munitv suffers. I know it is urged that taxation
is the only resort the Government have to raise revenue, and we
have been challenged over and over again to suggest another remedy.
As far as C'conomy goes, I know that the hands of the Government
are rather tied but I think before I sit down I can 11oint ot;t, at
any rate, one direction in which we can make the money go much
further than it does, and that is the same as raising our income if
we do more with it. But before· touching on that point I would
likte to draw attention to the opinions on finance held by our
opponents before last election and point out how their practice
compar~' with that thev then professed. I have hf're a l<'aflet
that was published at the " V\T orker " office just before la,t
elec tion, and it is headed, " How your money goes," and " J_ust a
fe;v- si,~ple lessons . on a very mvstenous subJect. In spealnng
about 'the ·deficits it uses this homely illus tration-
" If the breadwinner earns £3 per week and spends £4 per week, he
is OR the way to insolvency."
In three years Queensland ha;s got into t!:e same position as the
breadwmner would 1f he transacted his affairs on similar lines.
During the three years that this Govern ment has been in office
there have been
Mr. Swayne.]
1852 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Supply.
two acknowledged deficits, and really 1916 also was a deficit.
because it was onlv bv juggling with the figure, that they sho,ved
;, surplus of £35,000. Reallv, as pointed out by the
Auditor-General; there was a deficit. Roughly speaking, during this
short time they have had deficits amounting to £7GO,OOO, and thev
increased taxation during that time by £500.000, so that the
taxation and the deficit together come to something like
£1,200,000. Then we hear what they have to say about previous
Administrations on this point. Thev made their case out largely on
what thev st\·led the actions of their predecessors. They. go on to
say here-
"" " vVould yo,, be ··urpris,or! to know that the deficit of the
Liberal Governments since Queensland was made a sc>parate
col.ony-that is. from 1859 to 1914, have amounted to £4.219,708;
and that the much-talked-of surplnsc>s have onlv amounted to
£2,600.843? Of this sm: plus, the Morgan Labour Government wa··
responsible for one-half. That means a total deficit of
£1,618,865."
That is a period of fifty-five years. Yet thev, 111 the verY short
time of three years, got behind to' the extent of some thing like
£1.200,000, and if thev remain in office for another three
vears-and I sup pose they will be there for another three vears-at
any rate, I do not think they will b~ there any longer-I think
there is very great cause for apprehension as to what the state of
the countrv will be. That was their opinion before the'la't
election. and I leave it to the electors to comparp that with
tl~eir actions since th?Y have been in office. \\ e know they
obtamed office larg-ely on false pretence->. and that is one of
the false pretence,, by which they gulled the electors to put them
where they are. In regard to production. there . is no getting away
from the fact that IS It on]:,- by production we can finance the
liabilitie" we are IIow in -curring. As far as the Commonwealth
lonn liabilitieo are concerned, I heard other mLmb0rs calculate
that it would be so~nething over £500.000,000 at t-he termin at;wn
of the war, but I no!ice other figures by Sir Joscph Carruthers
give a much higher figure than that. Other figures make the loan
liability, including the war liabilitv, as over £700,000.000 at
th•· cmd of the win. With, a big yearly liability for interest on
that amount we will have to do a great de:J.l more rhan we are
doing, and the State is not increasing its production as it should
with the natural resources we have at our disposal. Comparing our
countrv with other -countries, comparing ourselvE's ":ith Canada, I
find that Canacl1 in 1012 exported to the extent of £70.000.000,
and in 1917 five ycoars after, it exported to the val~1e of
£317,000,000. Comparing Australia with that we make a poor show in
that regard. I find that the imports for the first eiglvt months of
1914-15 were £44,830.000. The nE'xt vear they had in_creasE'd to
£51.000.000, but, after all, that IS only a paltry increase of
£7,000.000 and prices for products had in -creased, and on the
other hand our im ports w_Ne largely increasing. Takin15 our
productiOn as a whole, I find that Aus tralia's production in 1914
as compared with 1913 fell off by 'Omething like £9,000.000. In the
face of that, unlPss a grr"t change indeed occurs in rc~·ard to the
policv of our Government, what is the use of hon. members
~xpressing any hope that we arc going
[Mr. Stvayne.
to increase our production to cover our liabilities. In connection
with State enter prises there is a general apprehension on the
part of those who have given attention to these matters, that under
Government control they are not going to he successful. I heard the
hon. member for Mackav last night contending that State enterprise
\vould always succeed better than private enter prise, but we know
from experience that wherever it has been tried it has been a
failure. I think that one of the rea>ons beromC's evident when
we notice the recep tion with which anything like criticism as
regards those employed in these under t"-kings is met in this
House. I have noticed it several tim.es, and anvone who travels the
country knows we are not getting the same efficiC'ncy from those
employed by the State as obtained some years ago. \Ve know the
Commissioner for Railwavs commented o;1 it, and it is a matter of
great moment to the ;Jroducers of this State, because work is made
more co,tly, and in the case of the rail ways it means, for the
future, higher freight charges and higher fares, and yet anyone
"·ha mentions it is twitted with hostile interjections. and an
endeavour is made to howl him down. I remember some vcars ago that
the late member for Rose- 1mod, Mr. Stevens. speaking of the
Ipswich workshops em,ployet'"· said they were, on the whole. a very
fine body of men there, but that the general impression amongst
those who visited the works and those who were acquainted with
them. \\"as that there were some men thPre who were not doing all
they might. It was quite a legitimate opinion to express, and it
was the dut~· of those who represent th~ taxpayers to draw
attention to these matters if they thought there was any fault. and
yet his life was 'lJmost thre" tcned. and he was told what would
hapi;Cn to him. ii he. went 1war the place again, although he
distinctly referred onlv to a few of the men. I notice just
recimtlv" the hon. member for Oxlev read a letter from a
correspondent in ·Cairns pointing out something which, if it was
true, \vas an undoubted C;J.se. of malingering, and I think hon.
memhers should make in quiries regarding it, and condemn it if
there is anv reason to believe that such a thing exists: I remember
the howl of execration that went up the moment he opened his m.outh
on the snbjPct. He read a letter from a correspondent whose name he
ob viouslv could not giYe. At the same time,
• therE' "as a demand for the name [5 p.m.] in euch a tone that
boded very
ill for the writer of that letter if it wem giYen. I may say he
gave the name of the writer of another letter, because I suppc'·:e
in that instance the writer was safe. It comes to this: that
apparently on these Government jobs anything of thG kind can take
place. and the moment anyone opens his n~outh, in the interests .of
the general pubhc, hon. members opposite _de m.and the name for
the oake of persecntmg them afterwards. Anyone who watched hon.
members opposite could very well calculate what their fate y,·onld
be if those names werP given. In reading throug-h the report . of
the late Commissioner for Railways, I nohce that in dealing with
this subject, he makes use of thE'se words-
" In matters relating to employment I contend that the' State
should set an example as the model employer; at the same time State
emplovees should prove by mterest and energy in their work
Supply. [29 AUGUST.] Supply. 1853
that State cnterr.rise is the success they claim it to be. It is
understood that the unions consider it their dutv to see that a man
gets what he earns. · I maintain, therefore, that it is the duty
also of the ·unions to see that a man earns \vhat he gets. There
should be .sincerity on the part of the uniom in this
respect.
"Much might be ·done in this direction by extending the
co-operative system which has b'?en in operation' for some time in
connection with the moulders' work in Ipswich shops, and of which
they thoroughly approv-e. For instance, thoro is nothing to
pre.-cnt the men at the v'lrious goods ·depots, workshops,
engine-sheds, carria.ge-sheds, 1naintenance and rajhvay
c0nstruction works, etc., forming themselves into co-operative
group, much to their own advantage and to the benefit of the
department ; tendering for the work under a butty gang s~'tem. This
would mean payment by rc;;nlts, and would give men a chance to
U•·<' their brains as \Yell as their museles, and would, in my
opinion, to a great extent reduce political influence and
domineering unionism, and make the men theit· own masters except,
of course, so far as the supervision of the department of the
co-operative work is concerned, and I trust some of the staff will
deci·de on trying it."
Anyone who goes round the country and secs how the work on
Government \Yorks is carried out knows that the Commission<.:r
is perfectly righr.
Mr. F. A. CoOPER: He was the most expensive Con1n1b;Jioner
Queensland eyer had.
:'\lr. SWAYKE': This is the first \Ye have ev-er heard of it. I
think it is a fair qUC'otion to ask : Is not this getting rid of
the Com missioner iust now, when he has still vears of good work
in front of him, owing to his outspoken r< marks on this
subject? \Ye know Queensland is hard up for money at the present
time, and one of the ways of econo1uisi ng is to get a. fair day's
work for a fair d1.y's pay. \Ye ha\e been challenged oYer and OYer
again to n1ake suggestions as to how economv can be effected. I
notice•d the other day that, in connection with one of our railways
under construction, sleepers· "·ere being obtained by contract at
the rate of £16 per 100 blocks, and the man getting them \Yas very
well satisfied, and was making a good thing out of it. How ever,
it was decided to adopt the day-labour system, and the cost of
those sleeper blocks imme.diately went up to £30 per 100. That
iacrease in tho price of sleeper blocks \1 ould ' make a
considerable addition to the cost of a mile of ra.ilwav. The matter
I have men tioned is closely 'bound up with our financial
position, and I do think that that is one way of securing greater
economy without cutting down wages at all, and it is our duty, at
such " time as this, in the interects of the tax payer, to
practise economy in every direction.
Various suggestions have been made as to how we could increase
production. As an old hand on the land-I have been working on the
land all my life-I say two things stand out prominently in this
connection. One is an efficient means of transport, and the other
is good roads and railway com munication. \Vhat do we find? Of
course, we know the Government are not altogether to blame for the
falling off in the number
of miles of railway that hav-e been opened recently; but, c1t th0
same time, if they have not money for eYerything, I think thev
should have concentrated their loan exp-~nditurc on raih,·ay
construction instead of establishing hotels and State enterprises.
A': .any rate. they could very well have left ov-er those thing'
until money was morG> plentiful. I know at the present time, for
the want of a short railwav which was v-ir tually P':omised to
them-{ am referring to the Owen's Creek Railwav-that a number (If
farmers have been practically ruined. That railwav \YOtd-cl onlv
c<cot between £30,000 and '£40.000, and 'there are many things
on "·hich that amount of loan money has been spent which were not
nearly '·O
importnnt as that railway. Another thing that deters men from
embarking in produc tion to the extent they otherwise would is the
quec,tion of farm labour. '\Ye cannot get away from the fact that
no -farmer is likely to be of material benefit to the countrv
unlees he employs, from time to time, labour to heln him. Yet, how
do we find he is treatE:•d? Look, for instance, at what i«
occurring round Inn;sfail at the present time? The sugar-workers
there have an award at the present time, but tllf'y will not abilh~
b:v it. The IllE.'11 v~·0rc earning, under l.lw award ratf'S, from
£11s. to £112s. a dav, but a strike has taken place and a demm1cl.
hts bcBn made for a minimum wage of £1 5s. " .clav. Regardless of
what amount o;· cane is ci.1t, they ure asking for £1 5s. a cl.av.
ThP farmers, of course. are stand ing out agaiHBt the demand, as
they know it would mean ruin to them. They also know that if the,·
''cc0ded to the demand, it would then he u~ecl as a len·r to
squeeze further concessions out of them later on, also th<e
abolition of piecework: because, when ewrything is conceded in this
way, it is afterwards need in the Arbitration Court as a fonndution
for e\en greater concessions. The point is thi : "\re the farmers
going to ('r·ntinnc g-rov,~ing ::·ugur-cane and take all the risks
inyoln'd in growing these crops, if thev arc compelled to submit to
trtcatment c.f that kind? I saw by to-day's paper that the picketB
are out, and gang-s ,,-hich were perfectly willing to go on working
aro being pulled out and prevented from carrying out the contracts
that they entered into. This .sort of thine; is largeh' retarding
production. I am alluding- to this stJ·ike because it has a large
bearii1g nnon the whole qnestion of production; and that is what.
in many in stances, pr~ vents people putting- the acreage undf'l'
crops that they otherwise would. I further sav that this Government
in their legislation chavc largely exposed the farmers to that kind
of thing. It. is generally ad mitted that where arbitration exists
there should be no strikes. I have heard hon. nwmbers o]mosite
express that oninion. That is a nerv fair claim to make. 'I'hat was
one of the iitrong arguments used in favour of that
legislation-that if any grievance exists there is a court to which
the men can refer. I would point out tha.t it is not onlv a ques
tion of the loss to the farmers themselves and to the workers, but
thE're is also the loss to thE' community as a whole. I would point
out that under the Industrial Peace Act of the, Denham Gm·ernment
that strike would not have occurred.
The hon. member for Lockver made refer· ence to the war, which has
such a great bearing upon our prospects at the present time, and I
would like to refer here to a.
Mr. Swayne.l
1834 Supply. [ASSK\1BLY.] Supply.
statement made by the speaker who has just resumed his seat. That
hon. member charged this side with trying to make pol_iti {;al
capital out of the ":ar. and w1th bemg responsible for opprobnous
terms, and. so on and yet he himself, while deprecatmg co~duct of
that kind, mlled three members ·on this side "swashbucklers."
i\1r. CARTER : A common term. Mr. SW AYNE: Yes; but it ill becomes
any
hon. member who is deprecating any allu sion to such a thing at
all to use the word "swashbuckler." After all, who are these men to
whom he applied that term? Two o£ them did their duty in Gallipoli.
Two <Jf them are entitled to the term "Anzac," :and the hon.
member for Kuri!pa-I might say the hon. and gallant member for
'Kurilpa -offered his services to his country at the beginning of
the war .. He att_ained the rank <Jf major, and :"as
mcapamtated_ through sickness. After h1s recovery he agam offered
himself for foreign service. Those are the men whom the hon. member
for Gregory called "swashbucklers." Then there is another matter to
which I would like to refer. That is-I was going to say the
dastardly attack, but I will withdraw that if it is objectionable
if the hon. member will apologise-to the dastardlv attack that was
ma,de on the hon. member· for Kurilpa last night.
An OPPOSITION MEMBER : It was done <1eliberately, and GoYernment
interjections.
Mr. SWAYNE: 'l'he whole thing was what they call a "frame up." The
hon. member for Kurilpa had made some rather scathing criticisms of
the Premier and his connection with a person who has since been
found out to be a traitor, and who ha<1 been in communication
with the enemy, Germany, :and also to the telegram that was sent,
and so on. The hon. member criticised the send ing of that
telegram, and then apparently in revenge, we had the hon. member
_for South Brisbane getting up an<1 producmg Federal "Hansard,"
and gh·ing an account Dr a courtmartial over thefts from German
prisoners at Rabaul, and trying deliberately to c,>st the odium
of the disgrace on the hon. member for Kurilpa. All the time that
that was going on, hon. members opposite were crying out: "Yes, and
that is the man who has just criticised the Premier."
:y{r. FREE: Have you got proof that it is not?
}lr. SWAY~E: That shows that it was done in revenge. Luckily. the
hon. an.c] gallant member was in his seat at the time, and he
called out : " Do vou mean me? " but he did not get any reply. It
now turns out that the whole thing referred to some boclv
else.
::\fr. FREE: Ko proof of it yet. Mr. SWA YKE: If the person who
made
those statements "as a man. he would apologise after hearing the
explanation which was given.
GoYEm;;uEXT interjections. The CHAIR""IAX : Order ! Order ! Mr.
SWAYNE: Those hon. members say
things here under privilege which they would not say outside. I say
it is a dastardly and <'owardly charge to hurl at a man because
he attempted to disagree with the Chief Secretary.
Mr. FREE: I will ha Ye all inquiries made and state the
resl.\lt.
Mr. SW AYNE: And then will you apologise?
[Mr. Swayne.
}fr. FREE: When I find that the man accused is innocent.
Mr. SWAY::\'E: I sav that hon. members should be more careful, and
I hope they "ill be more careful in the future before making such
charges.
:l\Ir. FREE: I neYer believe a blackleg's word.
HoN. \V. H. BARNES: I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. member
for South B~is bane in or'der in making the inference wh10h I
understand referred to the member for Kurilpa, when he said he
would not believe a blackleg's words?
Mr. FREE: Ko, I did not. The CHAIRMAN : I did not hear the
remark. Mr. SW AYNE: I was referring to the
hon. member for Loekyer, who raise.(! ~ mo~t important question,
and whether we 1n th1s House are competent to discuss it ?r not
with such information as we have 111 our possession, I think is
worthy of CoD;sidera tion. Before going any further ~egardmg the
items which I wish to deal w1th, I would like to say a few words on
t_his matter. Quoting from "Hansard," I. not10e that the hon.
member for Lockyer sa1d- .
"I consider it would be a calam1ty that all would deplore if
Germany was beaten in the way which hon. members opposite
infer."
Surelv he does not want Germany to come out o'f this struggle under
the same . system of government, and on the same hnes as existed
there before the war ! All hon. mem bers must realise that it is
not a war between nations-not a war between Britain and Ger manv ·
it is a war between systems-between milita~-y clespotism and
constitutional clemo cracy. \Vitness the countries arrayed_. on
one side and those arraved on the other. Take France. Take the'
'United States of America, take Britain, and compare. them: with
desnotic Austria and barbarous Turkey. If bv ail:v chance
militarism comes out of this <stru~o-!e with anv show of any
advan tage, the~"mi!itarism Is justified in existence, and
militarism we shall have. It has been contended over and over again
by those men that democracy in time of war cannot stand against
militarism, ·and we have. to sh?~ that democrac,· can stand agamst
mllr tarism. As st~re as the sun rises, if by chance Germany comes
out of this war and 1·emains under the rule of the Hohenzollerns
and the particular system they stand for, we shall have war again.
As it is, in any case, I suppose unles, human nature is altered, we
shall haye war again, but I hope, and I .think all concerned with
me hope also. that, at any 1·ate, tllQse "ho brow:;i1t about this
war will receive such a nunishnwnt that we shall have no more wai·
for 100 years at lea~t.
A GOVERXYENT ME~IBER : Do you believe that?
Mr. SW A YNE: Yes, I ·do. We can sup press militarism, we shall be
w!thm;t war ao·ain and it is onlv bY suppressmg 1t that w~ sl{all
be free from 'wars. Now, talking about negotiation, what grounds
have we at the present time to negotiate on? U nfor tunately,
according to the " Courier" yester day, we still have 140 miles to
capture before we oust Germany from France and Belgium. Now,
reading the history c:;f Ger manv vou will find that from the time
of the El~ctor Frooerick right back to 16~8, in which year I think
he ascended the throne-
[29 Aucn;:n.] 1855
that h0 originated a dynasty which has bc·c·n -0110 (·onsta11t arra
,. of a.o-gression and di 1 1lo lllatic bad faith right th;;ough.
\Y c are r\cny coming down to Frederick the Great. \Ye know how the
war witll Austria \':aB brourrl.t .about-the war of Austrian
succession· .;'nd the o~ject was terrir.ory. They thet~ got
pos,esswn. Then, agam, eommg on to 1756, w!1cn_ there was a war for
the conquest of .Srlesia. Then there were the wars with Den~nark,
Austria, and France. all for ter_ntory. For hundreds of years their
obJect ~as been territory. They fought for territory and got
territory. Aftflr the seven years' war, as showing· how little a
lP,,.;on counts to that power. I have here a book written by J.
Ellis 'Barker entitled "Th<:' Founda~ions of Germany"-I am just
?howm!l" how ltttle can avail unless a change m therr system of
governmenf is brourrht .about, unless it ends in their becominrr
s~tb ject to constitutional demo0ratic g~vern men_t. That is the
grea~ victory that we are hopmg for, and that IS that Prussia will
em~rge from this struggle under some consti tutwr,tal ~orm of
government in which the people wrll have a say as to whether war B
to be declared or not. Hon. members ~m the other sidE! m~tst
acknowledge that that I? a worthy obJeCtive. Now, showing how httle
lessons co':'nt with this power, I find on page 49 of thts book
that during the seven :years' war Prussia's population had dimin
Ished by 500,000, and a considerable amount of the then small
population had been pillaged and ransacked by so manv armies that
thev had bee