Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 26 JUNE 1890

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Fede?"ation Confe?'ence Papers.

LEG-ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Thursday, 26 June, 1890.

Federal Conference Papers.-J.fessage from the Governor -Lien and Harbour '£rusts Bill. -Question.-Ad~ journment.- Formal :J.Ioti0ns.- :J.Iotion for Ad­journment-railway employCs insurance scheme­desecration of Rahhath at 'fown~villfL-OriiRr of Busint ,s.-Eight Hours Bill-first reading.-Decen­traJisation Bill-Factories and Shops Bill.-Decen­tralisation Bill-first reading.-Factories and Shops Bill-first reading.-Joint Committees.-Address in Reply-resumption of debate.-Adjournment.

The SPEAKRR took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock. FEDERATION . CONFERENCE PAPERS.

The PREMIER (Hon. B. D. Morehead) said: Mr. Speaker,-I beg to lay upon the table of the House the papers connected with the Federation

Motion fo'i' Adjou'i'nment. [26 JUNE.] Motion for Adjou1·nment. 57

Conference, and also the official record of the debates which took place, and move that the papers be printed. I may be allowed, in laying these papers upon the table, to say that I hope next week to be able to circulate amongst bon. members the official record of those proceedings and debates as published in New South Wales. They are in a much handier form than these papers-in a book form ; and I am in communication with the Government Printer of New South "\Vales to have a number of copies sent up eal'!y next week, so that hon. members may have them in a form which is more convenient than that which I now lay upon the table of the House.

Question put and passed.

MESSAGE FRO:i\1 THE GOVERNOR. LIEN AND HARBOUR TRUSTS BILLS.

The SPEAKER announced the receipt of a message from His Excellency the Governor, transmitting a Bill for better securing the pay­ment of wages and debts due to workmen and others ; also a Bill for the better regulation, management, and improvement of harbours, and for other purposes relating thereto.

On the motion of the COLONIAL SECRE­TARY (Hon. J. M. Macrossan), the message was ordered to be taken into consideration on Tuesday.

QUESTION. Mr. MACF ARLANE asked the Colonial

Secretary-1. Has it come to his knowledge that in Townsville on

Sunday last an exhibition, being a balloon ascent, took place, at which money 'vas taken at the gate, in spite of the protest of many of the inhabitants ?-if so,

2. \~as such information rec:dved in time to stop the exhibition ?

3. Does the Government intend to mal<e any inquiry into the matter?

The COLONIAL SECRETARY replied-1. Yes. 2. Yes; but the information afforded no grounds

upon 'vhich action could be taken. 3. Yes.

ADJOURNMENT. The PREMIER said: Mr. Speaker,-I beg

to move that the House, at i\s rising, adjourn until Tuesday next.

Question put and pa,sed.

FORMAL MOTIONS. The following formal motions were agreed

to:-By Mr. COWLEY-That there be laid upon the table of the House copy

of all correspondence with the Government of South Australia on the subject of reciprocity.

By Mr. HODGKINSON-That there be laid upon the table of the House copies

of all Correspondence relating to the substitution of wooden for steel sleepers on the Croydon and Norman­ton railway.

By Mr. HODGKINSON--That theTe be laid upon the table of the House copies

of all correspondence, indents, and documents of any kind relating to the supply of steel sleepers for the Normanton and Croydon raihvay during the past eighteen months.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT. RAILWAY E;~!PLOYEES INSURANCE SCHEME.­

DESECI\ATION 01<' SABBATH AT TOWNSVILLJ;;,

Mr. ANNEAR said : Mr. Speaker,-! shall put myself in order by moving the ailjournment of the House. I have a very important matter

to bring under the notice of the Govrrnment, and uniler the notice of hon. members of this House particularly. The question to which I refer is what the Commissioners are doing throughont the length and breadth of the colony to compel men in the Rail way Department to insure. Now I am one, I believe, of a good many hon. members, who never considered for a moment when the Railway,; Act was passing through this House that we should in any wav give power to the Commissioners to iosue a set of by-laws such as those "e now see before us. I consider it my iluty, and I believe every other hon. member does the same, to do all I can to assist the Commissioners in the performance of their duty. I shall not, and I am sure other hon. m em hers will not, say one unparliamentary word regarding the gentlemen who have been appointed to carry out the Rail ways Act of this colony ; bnt holding the position I do in this House as one of the many representatives of labour who sit on both sides of the House, I consider it to be my imperative duty to take this, the first reasonable opportunity, to bring this matter before the House and the country. I have read the Railways Act, and in my opinion it was never intended that it should be applied to the men employed on the railways of this colony in the way it has been by the Commis­sioners. The only provision I can find bearing on the subject is clause 54, which reads as follows:-

"No probationer's appointment shall be confirmed until he has effected, in some life insurance company carrying on business and having a permanent offiee in Q,ueensland, an insurance on his life providing for the payment of a sum of money at his death, Rhould it ocTmr before the age of retirement from the rail \V a r service; or, if he survive until that age, of a sum of 1noney or annuity on the date of such retirement.

"Such insurance shall be continued, and the amount thereot fixed and increased, from time to time, in the prescribed manner, and no policy of insurance so effected shall, during the time such person remains in the r~lilway service, be as.'lignable either at law or in equity."

There is, however, another clause under which the Commissioners have acted, and the result is a number of by-laws, concerning which it has been announced that "His Excellency the Governor, with the advice of thfl Executive Conncil, has been plenseil to approve of the followillg addi­tional by-laws made by the Queensland Railway Commissioners under the provisions of the Rail­w,cys Act." I would like to know if what the Commissioners are doing has the approval of the Minister. I did not think it necessary to inti­mate to the Minister for Railways that I was going to move the adjournment of the House this afternoon, because, as hon. members will have seen, several deputations leave waited on the hon. gentleman from time to time, and I am sure he has the matter at his finger ends.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH: The Government have approved of the by-laws.

Mr. ANNEAR: Yes; the Government have approved of the by-laws, and therefore I say the Minister is thoroughly conversant with all that has taken place in regard to this matter. Dnring my recent visit to Maryborough, and previously, I brought under the notice of the Minister the representations that had been made to me by my hon. colleague, and also by many of my con­stituents, and in doing so I furthm brought under his notice the remarks made by a member of one of the deputations which waited on my colleague in Maryhorongh. The man to whom I refer repre­sented that he was a member of two friendly societies. The Minister for Railwap informed me that a man in the employ of the depart­ment need only be a member of one society in order to be exempt from the operation of

58 Motion for Adjournment. [ASSEMBtY.] Motion for Adjournment.

the insurance by-ln,ws. After thn,t a depu­tation from the Hn,ilwn,y A'·c.ocin,tion in Bris­bane waited on the :Minister, and that de­putation informed the rail wav men through­out the len>(th and breadth- of the colony thn,t the hon. gentleman had ar;sured them that the compulsory part of the by-laws would not he brought into operation for <I period of at least three months. That information I conveyed to my friemls in :iYiarybor<,ugh, and they in writing to the Hail way Commissioners mentioned what I had told them. To my 'urprise, when in IVI ary­borough, I saw a letter from the Commiosioners in which it was stated that the Minister was unaware of having made any such statement to anyone in Brisbane or to me either. Now the hon. gentleman told me that the Act was very elastic. If it is elastic why are the men told by the qommissioners that they must comply with the msurance by-laws or leave the service? That is what the men are told. There are one or two points in connection with the matter to which I take strong exception. The first is that the men are compelled to insure. I do not see any difference between men employed by the Government and those employed by a private individual. I do not suppose the Government employ men in this colony who are not required to perform some work ; the employes do not receive their wages for nothing. The labourer at all times is worthy of his hire, and when he receives the amount due to him on pay day I say the money belongs to him, and he should have a free hand to do what he thinks proper with that money. Then there is another indignity connected with this insurance scheme, and in my opinion a great indignity. It is our pride, at any rate it is mine and often my boast, that we are living in a free country like Australia. '\V e are not living in ~espotic Hussia. The indignity I refer to Is that a man who has an allotment of land and a cottage is told that he must send his deeds to the Commissioners. vVhy, a man with his deeds in his hand is often able to make another purchase or use them advantageously in mauy other ways; hut when those deeds are lodged in the hands of the Commi"sioners they go from the proper holder, at any rate for a time. A life policy is also very useful to a man some­times in obtaining loans of money, but the Com­rniBsioneL' say to the men, "You n1ust send your life policies to us also!" vVl:ten the men in l\Iaryhorough told me that, I Eoaid to them, as I say to this House and the country, "You are living in a free country, under free institutions, do not subject. yourselves to such an ini,]uitons demand." I feel sure that we .can do without a good many ornaments in the Rmlwa.y Department, but we cannot do without running our railways, and I do not believe we have got blacklegs in this colony to fill the places of those mEn who are standing up for their just rights. Two of the Commissioners came from England, and I nresume they know all the rail­way systems in Great Britain, and how the men are treated there. I know that two railways­the Great Northern and the Great \Vestern con­joined-have a scheme of insurance under which the men have deducted from their wages one­half the amount of the premiums monthly, and the other half is paid by the railway company, which is considered by the men as a bonus and a stimulus tot be faithful performance of theirduties. ]'-; ow, there would be some reason for that in my opinion, but I shall show directly how these by· laws affect many of the men alreadv in the Railway Department. '\Vby, if these by-laws are enforced, we shall have to appoint relief committees in some of the towns to relieve some of these men in the same manner as we had to ap[Joint relief committees during the late dis·

astrous floods, and I am sure the generosity of the people will not he equally well displayed. I shall quote a few of the sums of money which the railway employes will have to pay under these by-laws, and havf\ deducted each month out of their pay. I take the wages on the basis that every man earns £100 a year, and I find that a man of thirty years of age has deducted from his wages £3 4s. sd: annually, which makes a sum of 3~ per cent. At forty years of age£G 2s. h> deducted, equal to G per cent. At fifty years of age £10 12s. 4d. is deducted, equal to lOJ, per cent. ; and at fifty-five years of age-and there are a good many men in this colony working on the railways who can do a good day's work, and are of that age-a sum of £22 5s. Sd. is deducted, equal to 22~ per cent. on £100. Those men are educating their children out of the wages they earn, and although we have a system of free edu­cation, still there are expenses to be in­curred in the purchase of books, slates, and other necessaries. Supposing, then, a man of fifty-five years of age works full time; for his twelve months work he receh es £77 14s. '1d. Now, how is it possible for any man working in this colony, and having a -vife and family, to bring up his children in the "ay in which we wish to see every man bring them up, on a less sum than £2 per week? I say the Commis­sinners will have to cry "halt." I have a great respect for the Minister for Railways. '\Ve all of us read the newspapers, and we notice the many deputations that wait on the Minister and the Commissionef8 from time to time. It is a most convenient sv,;tem for these gentlemen. The answer of the Commissioners to deputations is invariably," Gentlemen, we will refer the matter you have brought before us to the IVIinister," and the Minister in his bland, courteous, way says, "Gentlemen, I will refer your complaint to the Commissioners." Here is another phase of this matter : Take the case of flying gangs on rail­way Iineq. On a line of 150 miles, at least one flying gang is necessary. The gangers of these gangs naturally keep the men who are suitable to them, and if a man is not suitable he is sent about his business and another put in his place ; but under this new law every man who has been six months in the Railway Department must insure his life. Chainmen are in the same position ; so that if a man has been in the department six months and a day, he must insure. I am of opinion that this matter will never work. Several hon. members who are more conversant with the subject than I am will, I feel sure, tell this House this afternoon that the men employed on the railways through­out the colony are determined to resist the'e hy· laws to the verY utmost. I feel sure that in my district if they· are going to he enforced the men will walk out of the gate, and I will commend them for doing so. They are free men, and are not going to be treated in this manner. I say the Commissioners have not taken sufficient time to consider this question, and it will he very oppres­sive and unfair to those who will have to pay these different sums of money which I have referred to. I am sure this question will be well debated from both sides of the House. '\V e on this side do not claim all the credit of being the repre­sentatives of the working classes. I think each hon. member uses his best endeavours to represent the working classes throughout the length and breadth of Queensland. Such being the case I trust justice will be done. I have yet to learn that Parliament is not superior to the Rmlway Commissioners or the Minister.

Mr. BAHLOW: It used to be.

Mr. ANNEAR : It med to be, hut it seems that the way in which business is now conducted in this colony is that members have simply to

Motion for Adjournment. [26 JUNE.] Motion for Adjournment. 59

obey the summons in the Govermnent Gazette announcing the assembling of Parliament, vote the Estimates, and go about their business.

Mr. BARLO\V: I said so when the Railways Act was going through.

Mr. ANNEAR: I will not detain the House any longer, but beg to move that this Hou:Je do now adjourn.

The MINISTER J<'OR RAILWAYS (Hon. H. M. Nelson) said: Mr. Speaker,-I have lish,ned "·ith much interest to the hon. member who has brought this question before the House. I have informed him and tried to explain to him privately the nature of the by-laws which were approved of by the Governor in Council. I am sorry to say that I have not succeeded, but although I have not succeeded in convincing the hon. member for JYiaryborough I have succeeded in explaining the by-laws to every railway em­ploye with whom 1 have come in contact.

Mr. HYNE: Sinr.e when? Mr. ALAND : Explain to the House now,

please. The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS : I am

about to do so, without any interruption I hope. The representatives of the Railway Association -and I suppose we may take them as some gauge of the opinions of the men as a whole­have expressed themselves, not to-day or yester­day, or a week ago even, as thoroughly satisfied with the arrangements that have been made. Now, the question is one which I submit is of great interest. It is one which I have taken a great interest in myself, e;-en before I had any direct connection with the railways. Many a time and oft when I have been travelling on the railways and mixing with the employes-before even I was a member of Parliament-! have heard this matter discussed and had consulta­tions with the men on the subject. I know for a fact that the men themselves-all that I have come in contact with-have been desirous for years of establishing some scheme for making provision for them se! ves in their old age, or when it was necessary for them to retire from the ser­vice. They are always willing to lir,ten to advice on the subject, and at some stations they have actually succeeded in getting up benefit societies for the pllrpose, and alwaYs with my approval. \Yhile I have always been willing that the men should make those arrangements, I haYe con­stantly pc>inted out to them one great defect they have, and that is that their societietl, as a rule, were annual societies simply, and that at the end of every year after paying all claims the surplus contributions were always redistributed amongst the contributors. It so ha.ppens, I believe, that there has always been a surplus with them.

Mr. BARLOW: No! The MINISTER J!"OR RAILWAYS: On

most occasions I know that has been the case, and if there is not a surplus, an extra call is made to meet the claims. I have a! ways advised them that where there was a surplus it should be funded and capitalised to establish a capital fund, This 1natter has gone on for a long tin1e, and we had frequent discussions in the House upon it when the Railways Bill was going through, and last session also. It has seemed to be the unani­mous feeling that something ought to be done to establish such a fund. \V ell, the men were con· suited on the subject, and we were led to expect, as was advocated very strongly by many mem­bers on the other side, and by some on this, that some system of insur:mce would meet the case. Negotiations were entered into "ith several in­surance societies, and four of them went to the trouble of issuing special tables adapted to the circumstances of employes on the railway, and

to meet the requirements of railway employes in particubr. A by-law was then issued­the one the hon. member has referred to­and it contained a notice to the effect that these four societies had received the approval of the Commissioners, and it was understood that any railway employe who chose-because it was per­fectly optional-could insure his life with any one of those societies, and the Commissioners would see that the policies and premiams were properly paid. That was part of the bargain come to, I think, or I presume it was. In order tlnt the arrangement should be faithfully carried out, the policies should lie in the hands of the Commis­sioners, they being responsible to the compames for the pavrnent of the premiums as they became due. The next clause of the by-law to which attention has not been called provides for any case in which it might not be convenient for an employe to join one of the societies.

Mr. ANNEAR: But whom was the arrange­ment made with ?

The MINISTER :FOR RAILWAYS : What arrangement?

Mr. ANNEAR : The arrangement you re­ferred to a minute ago, about the men having a society of their own.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: I will come to that directly. The following clause of the by-law, as I say, provides that any employe who is of such an ttge as the hon. member re­ferred to, fifty years and upwards-and in. the case of whom it would be a great hardship to deduct from his wages such an amount as would be required to pay the premiums on a life insur­ance policy-might be exempted by the Commis­sioners from joining one of the societies.

Mr. GLASSEY: But be must satisfy the Commissioners that he has made ample provision previously.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: The by-law does not say so.

Mr. GL~\.SSEY: That is what the Commis­sioners said to deputations of the men.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: That was not represented to me.

Mr. GLASSEY: That is the informcction given to me.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS : Well, you see, I have nothing to go on. I h<we nothing" to t:1ckle if I get but v.tgue informations that, so far as I know, have no existence ;-what some man or other told hon. members of the House.

Mr. TOZER: There have been letters on the subject.

Mr. BARLO\V: I have one of those letters in my po~'3es.sion.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: I have nothing to do with the letters. I go by the by-law. Surely it is the by-law we are discussing, and not what some man may have said. I cannot deal now with some vague statement.

An HONOURABLE i\IE}!BER: \Vhat the Com­rnis~ioners said.

The MINISTER :FOR RAILWAYS: Surely the by-law is the by-law, and that is what we are speaking of! To go on, apparently there has been some apprehension amongst the employes that compulsion was to be used. That was brought under my notice, and immediately I was made aware of it, a circular was sent out to every officer on the railways cautioning suchofficerthat no coni pulsion was to be exercised, and no coer­cion in any way whatever.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH: Did you read the by-laws before they received the approval of the Government ?

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS : Yes.

60 Motion for AdJournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Motion for AclJozwnment.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH: The very first says they shall do it.

The MINISTER :FOR RAILWAYS: That is modified by the uext.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRLFFITH: That does not modify it.

The ~IINISTER :FOR RAILIYAYS: Itake the by-laws as a whole, and I think it is m"dified. There never was any intention of compulsion. The seconrl clause of the by-laws provides tbat the first of the regulations should not apply to any employe who from old age-I do not know whether that would mean over fifty, tut I suppose it would-0r physical infirmity is unable to obtain a life policy with any of the companies approved by the Commissioners, or any employe whom the Commissioners may consider it desir­able to exempt from the regulations.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH: That means anybody who does not like it.

The MINISTEll FOR HAlLWAYS: The deputation of empJoyes that waited rm me num­bered some old hands with whom I am well acquainted, and they informed me that they were still hopeful of getting up a society of their own-a provident society of their own--and that they would greatly prefer doing that to insuring their live.< in a company. I told them I strongly approved of such a thing being done. That system had been encouraged for a long time. I asked them whether any great number of the men were of the same opinion, and they told me there was a large number of that O! . .inion. I asked them then how long it would take them to work up the scheme as they had been cun~idering it for so long. They replied that they could guarantee to have it in full working order in three months. In that case they were told the regulations would not be enforced during the time, and all that was required to be done was for each employe in sending in the returns sent out to them to state his intention of doing that or otherwise. That is nll the com­pulsion being exercised by me, and that any man can n1ake a grievance out of that is rnore than I can nnder:;tand. I think some mi··apprehen­sions have been formed on the subject by men at stations at some distance from Brisbane. Bnt I was assured a week or ten dttys ago by the representative of the employes association that notice had been sent by himself to every man in the service to that effect, and that the explana­tion given was entirely satisfactory. Since then I have heard nothing· from any of the men ; and, so far as I know, the v"riety of schemes approved are coming into practical operation. As for any compulsion, if any compulsion has been used or any coercion attempted by any officer of the :Railway Department, it oug·ht certainly to have been reported to the Commiosioners or to myself -first of all to the Commissioners. But I am assured by the Commissioners that no such corn plaint has reached them with regard to any officer attempting to coerce the men; and, putting that with what I have been assured by the representative of the employes association, I am really not able to understand what this great grievance is. I was very much grieved last night when the hon. member for Burke was speaking, and when he asserted that the railway employes were in a state of mutiny. That assertion did not annoy me; but what annoyPd me was to find such a remark received with applause.

Mr. HYNE: With surprise. The MINIS TEll :F'OR RAILWAYS: I said

"applause," and so does the report. You will find it in the Coi<rier. It certainly seemed as if hon, members on the other side had taken the first

opportunity-I can hardly believe it, but I can­not call it anything else-to stir up strife between the Commissioners and the men.

Mr. RYNE: Nothing of thP. kind. The J\1INISTE1~ I<'OH RAILWAYS: That

is how it appears to me. If any employe in the Hail way Department has a grievance, why does he nut represent it to the Commissioners? Why is it necessary to resort to the roundabout way of getting the assistance of a member of Parlia­ment who professes to be a labour candidate? Are not the men the servants of the Commis­sioners? And if any undue influence is exercised, or any compulsion or coercion attempted, surely they ought to complain first of all to the Com­missioners. I am not aware of the existence of any mutiny. The trains are r<mning with their usual regularity and punctuality, the traffic is increasing, and the men I meet every day do not look very mutinous. They are always on the best of terms with me; and, so. far as I am aware, now that the matter has been properly explained, they are perfectly satisfied.

The HoN. SIRS. W. GRH'FITH said: Mr. Speaker,-! rise for the purpose of commenting on the extraordinary manner in which the Minister for Hailways appeMs to conduct the business of his department. I do not like to use unkind words ; but one would think that he does not know a.nything of what is going on there. The Railway Commissioners are empowered by the Act to make by-laws subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. Of course, that means that the by-laws are first submitted to the Minister in charge of the department, who peruses them to see whether he can recommend them for approval. If he thinks so, he submits them to his colleagues for their collecthe recommendation to the Go­vernor. I have the by-laws, and the first one says t-

"All officers and other employts at present in the railway service shall forthwith insure their live.;; in the manum hereinafter provided in some insurance office approved by the Commissioners, and shall hold their appointments on the express condition that a deduction will be made from their sahrics or wages for the pay­meHt of the premiums on their policies to continue their life insurance." That is an absolute positive provision. Then the 17th by-law says:-

" r:l~hc provisions of t4e.-;e regulations shall not a-pply to anv female employe in the railway sm·vice, or to any emplOye who, frorn old nge or physical infirmity, is UlUtble to obtain a life policy from any of the insurance companies approved of by the Commi;sioners, or to any emplm·e whom the Commissioners m~ty consider it desirable to exempt therefrom."

The Minister for Hail ways asks us to believe that that means thaJ it does not apply to an employe who considers it desirable to exempt himself from it.

The MINISTER FOil RAILWAYS: No! The HoN. Sm S. W. GRH'FITH: The hon.

gentl~man does not seem to know what he has been saying.

The MINISTEH FOil RAILWAYS: What I said was that it was entirely optional for any employe to join any of those four societies.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIF:D'ITH: The hon. gentleman simply proves that I am correct in saying that he does not know what he was saying. He has repeated exactly what I said. The by-htw says that every emr~loye shall insure forthwith in somA approved soc1ety, and that he holds office on the express condition that a deduction shall be made from his wages; but the hon. member says the proviso that it shall not apply to any employe whom the Commissioners may consider it desirable to exempt, means that it shall not apply to any employe who considers

Motion for AdJournment. [26 JUNE.] Motion jo1• Adjournment. 61

it an undesirable by-law to apply to him. That is what he asks UB to believe the by-laws mean; hut of course they do not m<':1n any­thing of the kind. The only explanations that can be given are that the hon. gentleman did not read the hy-lav. d before he submitted them to his colleagues, or that he does not know what they mean now, or else that he does not like the difficulty he has got into, and wishes to get out of it hy saying that he does not intend to enforce them. I believe the first explanation of the three is the right one. It is very clear what the Commissioners mean-they have expres~ed their m<'-'tning in clear and intelligible English. Either the hem. gentleman nnderstood the by­law" or he did not. If he did, the Government are responsible; if not, then he was guilty of a very gross dereliction of duty, to use a mild ex­pression. It is of no use to say that the by-laws mean the very opposite of what they say. If they are intended to mean the opposite, the sooner they are altered so as to express what they mean the better.

Mr. GROOM said: Mr. Speaker,-\Vhen the Railways Bill was under consideration I drew attention to thi.s question, and I should like to remind the :Minister for Railways of the answer he gave in committee in reply to a distinct ques­tion I put to him-a question which I did not put to him without being reqnected by the very persons now complaining of what has been done. On the second reading of the Bill the hon. gentleman made use of these words:-

"r.f·hen the ~taff is ])rovided for further in this way: that every young man who enters the service vi'ill be compelled to insure tis life."

The hon. gentleman did not say "every employe at present in the service" ; ann he did not make it quite dear as he continued. Then he said:-

"I think that is a very good provision. At Dresent there is no provbion for the railway employ('s except in the case of two or three men who happen to be under the Civil Service Act. I do not think there arc more than three altogether. Their rig-hts, of course, are reserved by clause 68 As the mnplo~·es r:se in the ser­vice the Commissioners have power to alter the snm for which th(--y are insured. At fir8t sight that appeared to me to involve a grent deal of diflicu1ty, but I do not think after all that it 1vill do so. A man may, of course, get in bad health after being in the service, but that cannot be provided ag;linst. \?{e do not intend to ajopt any system of Government insurance, bnt to throw the 1vhole of theRe in.'::inrances upon private com­panies, and the employl's 'vill be compelled to insure their lives with some company doing business within the colony." When the Bill was in committee, and we came to the Gth subsection o[ clause 67, I asked the Minister for Railways this question, which, with his reply, is to he found at page 709 of the volume of Hanscwd for 1888 :-

"Mr. GRooM asked if the 6th subsection would apply to all rail way officials ?

"The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS said it would apply to all probationers-to nil who entered the service after the commencement of the Act-not to the present staff." Will the hon. gentlPman allow me to Ray that I h,we seen a memo. sent by one of the officers in his department telling the men that they must insure. I am sorry I did not get a copy of that document, but I will tell you why I did not. I said to the man who showed it to me, "If you give me that document you will he a marked man, therefore you had better not give it to me." And I venture to assert that if that employe had given me that document I very much doubt whether he would have been in the railway service at this moment.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Who would remove him?

Mr. GROOM: No doubt some one in the Railway Department. It is easy enough to make an excuse for getting rid of a political opponent.

In my own district political feeling has been exercised towards men who have been removed from the Rail way Department. I said further to the man who showed me the document, that I was perfectly sure that when the House met the que,tion would be brought up, and I am very glad the hon. member for Nlarybrmmgh, Mr. Annear, has brought it up this afternoon. It is a fact that the men are under the impression that they must insure or go nut of the department. Indeed, I saw in a newspaper of thio city, which is accepted as the Ministerial organ, a tclegr"m from Towns­ville which st"ted that a deputation had waited on the C0111mi:;;t::;ioner~ there, and were infonned by them that if they did not insure they would have to leo.ve the service.

The MINISTER :!<'OH RAILWAYS: That telegram wets not true.

::Yir. GHOO:\I : 1t has never been contradicted, anrl the railway employes believe it. That is the impres-;ion which these men have got in their n1inds now.

'fbe lVIINISTI<:R FOR RAILWAYS : I asked the Commissir·ners about it, and they told me there w:cs no truth in it whatever.

1\lr. GROOM: It i~ satisfactory to know that such a statement w.1s nut made. Still, it appeared in the public journals, and this is the fiLot official contradiction it has received. Returning to what I said before about its being dangerous for the n1an to have given me that document, I may mention that shortly after the late election at Toowoomha, at the request of certain person", a list of names was sent down to the Hailwav Department. I was informed that that fist was seen h:v the gentleman who occupied the position of Cmnmitlsioner, but who is not no\V tl1e Com­missioner, and that he had read it. What I complain of is that since the adjournment of the House certain arrangeTnent•,,, have been ruade by which the men on that list have been removeJ from their situations, the reason alle"ed being that it \Vas necet:sary to rnake some re-arrangement of the department. \Vhether it is right or not I do not know, hut it is a very strange thing that the persons who were removed were married men, many of them good mechanics.

The :MINISri<:R FOR RAILWAYS: I never saw any such document.

:Mr. GROOM: The hon. gentleman will allow me to say that I think my information is accurate. Possibly he knows something about it.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: No! Mr. GROO:\I: \Vill the hon. gentleman say

he lms never heard of such a document before? The l\IIKISTF.R JTOR RAILWAYS: I do. Mr. GEOO:\I: It is a very strange thing, for

I was told that one of the employes had told the hon. gentleman.

The MINISTER FOR HAILW AYS: If you can produce him, show him. Did he see it?

Mr. GROOM: He did not see it, but he was told, by one of the parties instrumental in pre­paring the document, the name' of all who were on it. I am speaking on behalf of men who have been good sen ants in the department, and it is a serious matter to them to be removed from posi­tions which they thought were permanent­steady men, who had made homes for themselves and become valuable colonists. \Vithout a word of warning these men have been suddenly re­moved, not for any misconduct on their part, as far as they are aware, but, as they honestly believe, on account of their political action dur­ing the late election. \Vhether that is so or not I cannot say. I hope it is not so. Surely a man's political opinions should have

62 Motion for Adjournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Motion for Adjournment.

nothing whatever to do with his obtaining employment in the railway or any other depart­ment of the public service. "With re"ard to compulsory insurance, I do not think the hon. gentleman has made it quite clear that tf.!e rail­way employes are satisfied that they are not called upon to insure their lives.

The MIXISTER FOR RAILWAYS : In a company.

Mr. GROOM: :Many of the employes--more honour to them for it-have joined friendly societie~, D.nd many have had the forethought to insure their livc's in life insurance companie-.. These men are now called upon to deposit their life policies with the Railway Commissioner-·. I am disposed to think t.hat in asking this the Commis­sioners are going almost bevond their powers. They ought not to ask these men to rlo anything of the kind. A ?ase in point was recently bronght under my notice. A man who was only getting 6s. 6d. a dav had been able to insure hJS life for £100. VVe 'know what 6s. Gel. a day is to a man with a wife and family to support. This man's family was unfortunately overtaken by sickness and death. He went to the agent of the society in which his life was insured and obtained an advance on the surrender value of his policy. This tided him over his difficulties, and in course of time he redeetned his policv. If that man's policy had been in the ·hands of the Commissioners, what an unfortunate position he would have been in. VVhy should the policies go into the hands of the Commis­sioners? As long as the Commissioners pay the premiums, why should not the men hold th'e policies themselves so a.o to be able to obtain an advance upon them, if in one of those ills to which all flesh is heir they are compelled to seek financial assistance ?

The POST:\IASTER-G1<~NERAL (Hon. C. Powers) : The Act would prevent it.

Mr. GROO:Yl: The Act does not touch this question at all. It is done under a by-law passed by the Executive, and it is at the option of the Minister for Hail ways whether it shall or shall not be enforced. VVhat I suggest is not inconsistent with the by-law, and certainly there is nothing in the Act to prevent it. The hon. gentleman must see that this should not apply to employes in the Go­vernment service. It has come upon these men by surprise. They never anticipated it. Therefore we can quite understand the friction which has occurred in connection with this matter. I am not prepared to go so far as the hon. member for Bnrke went last night and say that the railway employes are in a state of mutiny, but I !mow that there is a feeling of extreme dissatisfaction among them. Of course the hem. gentleman is not the person t0 whom they will make complaints, but when we see that rleputations have waited upon members of Parliament at Maryborough, Townsville, Ips­wich, Toowoomba, Gym pie, and I think the hon. member for Dalby has been requested to take some action in the matter, it is clear that there is very united action on the part of the men against thrs by-law. If I am informed correctly, a ballot was taken at all the principal places throughout the Railway Department on the question, and an overwhelming majority, some hundreds, pro­tested against the compulsory insurance required by this by-law. I think that is an emphatic protest on the pa.rt of the railway employes; and who are so able or corn petent to deal with cases of that kind rrs the men themselves? I have seen the list of payments that these men are called upon to make, and in many cases where the age has advanced above forty years the sum required to l'e paid would be undoubtedly oppressive, more particularly in view of the present high

cost of living. They are such that no man who has any regHrd for the feeling' of his wife and family should be called upon to pay. I think at the time these rules were prepared, the Com­missioners, having some knowledge of the poverty existing in the old country, on coming here looked upon Queensland as a sort of workman\; paradise, and thought they could impose any sum they liked upon them. But in that they made a grea,t mistake. I really think the hon. gentleman would do these men good serYice if he would reconsider the provisinns of that by­law. I do not think there is any disposition on the part of th@ railway men to be aggressive. All that they require is fair treatment in regard to this matter, and if that is granted, I am sure the cause of the complaint will be removed.

Mr. BARLOW said: Mr. Speaker,-I did not intend to address the Houc,e this evening as I am far from well, but I cannot allow this question to pass without making a few observations upon it. I desire in the first place to beal'testimony to the courtesy and attention the Hon. the :Minister for ltailways a.nd the Chief Commissioner paid to my worthy colleague and myself when we waited upon him to discu•·s certain matters conceming this insurance. I wish to deal with the matter perfectly dispassionately. I do not want any r'broken heads or flan1ing houses" over the quf'3-tion, but simply to talk it over with the House and the country in a plain businesslike fashion. The first thing I shall approach is the legality of this by-law, which has never yet been tested. VVe are told that the 54th section of the Act requires a probationer to insnre his life. It must be a progressive insurance. The only authority that the Commissioners have for issuing this By-law No. 2 of 1890, is the Gth subsection of the 65th clause of the Act, which empowers them to make regulations "for regulating and determining the scale on which employe; in the various grades of the rail way service shall insure their lives." Now, to a layman that appears to be something like this: Giving power to the Municipal Council of Brisbane to make a regulation to apprehend any nnn found in the street wearing a black silk hat, it not having been stated that the wearing of that kind of hat is prohiLited. That appears to be about the foundation for it, and I shall be very glad to hear from some legal gentleman in the House whether there is any foundation what­ever in law for this By-law No. 2 of 1890, under which the Commissioners have acted. I believe I speak with considerable authority on the part of the employe.; .,, hen I say that all they want is to be let alone. They are very much in the position of the ancient who said all he wanted was to be let alone. I am satisfied that is their first aspiration. I believe, Sir, that the feeling of the country, and of all countries now, is very rnuch against g!·atuitouf3 pensions. By gratui­tous pensions I mean pensions not paid for in some wav by the recipient. The definition of a pension is an act of voluntary gTace on the part of the person who gives the pension, or that it is portion of the recipient's earnings which have not been received by hilh, but which have been kept back in the employer's pocket to make provision for the employe's old age. That is to say, that he has not been prrid the full value of his services during his working time, and, therefore, he gets a pension. I think I am authorised to say that the railway employes, as a body, are willing to renounce all claims upon the State for pensions, their sole decire being to be left alone. The Hon. the Minister for Railways struck the keynote of this matter ,.,,,hen he said that the men are the servants of the Railway Commissioners. That is the whole question. They are not now the servants of the public ; they are not the servants of this House, or of the Minister for Railways, who represents the people of this colony; but as he

Motion for Adjou1·nment. [26 JuNE.] JJ;Iotion for Adjourm~ent. 63

truly and properly said they are the servants of the Railway Commissioners, and because they are their servants they come to this House to complain of certain things which they have reason to find fault with. The hon. gentlemrm said the by-laws have been explained. \Veil, if they have been explained I really do not know who understood them. I do not think any member· of this House understood them, and I am quite sure that I have applied the utmost ability that Providence hr:ts given me to make 'them out, and I cannot underetand them. They r:tre compulsory, but there are so many loopholes of escape, so many approvals and sanctions and exemptions and extensions that it is really imJJOsoible to say what they do mean. The hon. gentleman says that the employes are satisfied. I do not think there is any hon. gentlemen sitting on that bench who is more de".irous of doing what is just and right in the case of those men than the hon. gentleman, but it is not likely that the employe, would go to him or to the Railway Commissioners and sav they were not satisfied. If he will rend tli'e Railu·ay TZrnes, a.~ no doubt he does, he will there find abundant evidence of di,Ratisfaction. That paper teems with evidence of dissatisfaction in regard to this matter. \Vhat the employes want is to form a Railway Society undel' the Companies Act, to be recognised by the Commis­sioners under the Act, and that all the young men in the service be brought under it. \V ill theJVIinister and the Commissioners absolutely suspend and postpone the operation of that by-law for three months from the date when the deput-,tion from the association waited upon him, which I think was the 5th of .Tune ? A large amount of dissatisfaction r:tnd unpleasantness and dis­quietude will be allayed if they will issue a proclamation to that effect. I feel sure that it would remove a great de·,tl of discontent. Before that date, the 5th June, my hon. colleague and myself waited upon the hon. gentleman, and he recci ved us with great courtesy and kinrlness, and we disctmsed the matter fully ; but Sir, we looked for some result of our visit. \Ve looked for something in the shape of a proclamation by which we could allay the feelings of our constituents, but nothing of the sort appeared. All that did appear was a statement that I wrote out with the approval of my hon. colleague, of which the hon. gentleman also approved, and we published it by favour of the local papers. 'fhat is the only security the employes got. But, Sir, the old employes do object to the inquisition made into their private affairs, and above all things they object-and there are no men of right feeling in the world who do not object to it-to being treated as paupers. They object to having to go to the world and say, "VvT e are so poor, and in such a state of abject ~overty that we cannot afford to pay this premium, and therefore we ask to be exempted." I was much pleased with the calcuhtions of the hon. member for JYiaryborough. which to a con­siderable extent forestalled what I have to say; but I have made out a statement of the premiums which these men would have to pay. I have taken them at haphazard from one of the H. E. 60 tables, which I got from an insurance office. Take the case of a man of thirty-three years of age-which is about the average age~ at 6s. Gd. a day, he earns £07 10s. per annum, working 300 days a year ; and to insure himself for .£100 he would have to pav a yearly premium of £3 13s. At 7s. Gd. a:day he would earn £112 10s., and he would have to ]Jay .£5 \Js. 6d. for .£150. I am now quoting from the scale of insurance prescribed by the by-law. At 10s. a-day he would earn £150 per annurr,, and he would pay a premium of £3 9s. Gd. for. a policy of £150. But mark the extraordinary

operation of the by-law. If he worked five days more than 300 days in the year he would then be brought under the operation of the £200 class, and he would very likely have to pay a premium of £7 Gs. l'\ ow, supposing a man at sixty years of age got these sums of £100, £150, or £200, as he would by the by-law, although £150 is a very comiderable sum of money, it is not sufficient to keep a man for the rest of his life, and it is not sufficient to buy him an annuity. The annuity which a man could bny might amount to about one-tenth of the amount he pay,,, so that at sixty years of age he would get an annuity of £15 or £20. It was put to me the other day by a railway employe, who said, " Mr. Barlow, that would keep us from Dunwich a little longer, but it would do no more." Such a sche1ne of insurance is entirely out of character to make a perma­nent provision for any n1an who has a wife, and perhaps a large family, dependent upon hin1. 1-\..gain, will the Governn1ent guaran­tee the sohency of the company if a man is compelled to insure in it? \Vi!! they endorse the policy and guarantee the solvency of the company? Some of the men are already in a very great state of tribulation, because to a certain extent thev have been forced to insure their lives. They have paid premiums, and now if they should have to go into the fund, of which I shall have to speak in a few minutes, that money will be lost to them, and they want some equitable way of getting out of that diffi­culty. The association scheme is this: I may mention that the Toowoomba society, as the hen. member very properly said, was in theformofa ton· tine societv-that is, it was broken up at the end of every year, and the balance, if any, carried forward. The experience of the Toowoomba society with regard to mortality has been that the rate is very low indeed-so low that I really can hardly believe it is a fact. The society contains from 500 to 1,500 men, and it is con­dncted upon the payment of 2s. Gd. a month, while the death rate was only 5 per 1,000, and the ]Jayments to the sick 11s. per head. The society paid its way until lately, when a levy of only Ss. was required to meet the debt upon it. The association has proposed a scheme which will certainly give very large benefits-namely, a doctor, a death fund to the member, his wife, and child, a superannuation allowance, and so on, and they propose to do all this out of a payment of 7s. Gel. a month, or 2''· Gd. fer each fund, and 2s. Gd. from the Commissioners, which they expect to get. I regret that this matter has come on so early in the se,<sion, as I have requested some friends of mine who are able actuaries to calculate and see if the scheme can be carried into effect. The argument of the rail­way employes is th>1t they are compelled to insure in these insurance offices, and that the loading and the commission so increase the pure premiums as to be out of all reason. I have here a copy of a letter addressed by the Hail way Commissioners to a per­son, in which, as the JYiinister for Railways said, perwns who wish to stand out of the scheme are requested to state the fact. That is all very reasonable, but there has been re:>lly no ofr.cial declaration or deliverance yet made to show that the By-law J'\o. 2 is suspended for a period of three months, ami under what circumstances exem1Jtion will be granted. The whole thing is a system of inquisition and of uncertainty, and I can assure the JYiinister for Hail ways that, while the best ad dce I can give to the railway em­ployes from my place in this Hm,s.e would be to exhaust every means to Pettle this difficulty before they resort to anything approaching mutiny, I can also say thr:tt there is in the railway service a feeling of deep and wide­spread dissatisfaction, alarm, uncertainty, and

64 Motion for> AdJournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Motion for> AdJournment.

discomfort, and I would earnestly beg the hon: gentleman to take counsel with the Commis­sioners, and positively suspend the by-law for three months from the 5th June last, or if they like from to-d>ty, the 26th of ,June. If they will do that they will restore a ~reat deal of con­fidence to the ernployes of the depal'tment, and it will enable the scheme t.o be properly matured and considered. I am sure a better class of men cannot be found in the colony, and they are earnestly desirous of working with the Commis­sioners. They are not desirous of having any undue pridleges or improper advantages con~ ferred upon them; but I believe they are anxious to give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. That many of them n.re overworked, and have longer hours than they ought to have for their money I know.

Mr. GLASSEY: They do the work, but they do not get the pay.

Mr. BARLOvV: The hon. member will allow me to say that they are desirous to give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. That is the spirit in which they desire to serve the Commis­sioner' ; but their pay in some cases is in­sufficient, and I am perfectly sure their hours are excessive. But there is a feeling of dis­comfort and alarm as to what is to he done, and I ask hon. n1embers to regard the deductions from their pay. vVhat a very serious deduction this is. vVe all know that in calcula­tions of the income' tax and that sort of thing small incomes are excepted, because it is felt that a deduction from a small income is a very much heavier penalty than the deduction from a large one; and I have no hesitation in saying tbat many of these men are totally unable to afford this deduction from their salaries. The matter has he en so ably handled by other hon. members that I shall now conclude by earnestly asking the Minister for Rail ways to consider the propriety of suspending this by-law, which, as far as I understand it-and it is also the opinion of some able lawyers-rests upon no sure foundation. It would be very unfortunate if a railway employe should take a case into court in order to test the validity of the by-law which causes such widespread discontent. I would ask the Minister for Hail ways to suspcnrl by procla­mation in the Uove1·wment Gazette the operation of the by-law, and so allay the widespread feeling of discontent and anxiety which exists at present.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS said: Mr. Speaker,--\Vith the permission of the House I would like to add a word or two to what I have already saicl. The by-law is practically sus­pended now, and I do not see that the nccn.sion requires that it should be repealed The repre­sentative of the employes' association assured me, and gave me a copy, in fact, of the circular he had sent round to all the employes belonging to the association, informing them of the result of the deputation the hon. member referred to. Subsequently to that it appeared there was some misapprehension, and another circular was sent round cautioning every officer in the employment of the H.t~il way Department against attempting· to use any threat or coercion or compulsion whn.t­ever in regard to any employe.

Mr. BARLOW: In regard to any individual insurance company?

The MI~ISTER FOH RAILWAYS: In regard to any insurance company-in regard, in fact, to the subject of the by-law, At the last interview I had with the a•,sociation's represen­tatives it was expbined that in the filling up in that circular of the column marked, "Other provisions, if any," they simply stated if they were desirous, or had an intention of joining the fund which is now being worked up by the employes' association. I think that meets the

case, at least I was assured by the association that that was entirely satisfactory, and that is now being done.

The Ho:-~. A. RUTLEDGE said : Mr. Speaker,-! was rather surprised to hear the hon. gentleman say a little while. ago that he was grieved at the applause w hrch followed the observation that fell from my friend, the hon. member for Burke, when he said last night in the course of his speech that the rail way servants were in a state of mutiny. I myself brought ibis matter under notice the other eveJ1ing ; and although I did not use the word" mutiny," I used a synonym for that word. The matter which is under discussion now was brought under my notice prominently only quite recently, during the course of my trip to the Northern districts of the colony.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS : When you mentioned the matter, you were not ap­plauded.

The HoN. A. RUTL:EDGE: I took the ap­plause that greeted the observation of my hem. friend, not to mean that there "as any sympathy with the spirit of mutiny, but simJ!ly as emp~asis­ing what the hon. gentleman sa1d. That _1s ~11. It was to show that every gentleman on th1s s1de was fully aware that what the hon. member for Burke said was in accordance with the facts. Now, I may say that hat! I been aware when I spoke the other evening that the proposal of the Commissioners had passed into the form of a by-law approvecl by the Governor in Council, I should have made some skonger observations than I made then. I was not aware that the matter had passed beyond the incipient stage; hut was under the impressio!' from the way in which the facts. were commumcated to me up North that there was a proposal macle by the Commissioners, and under the consideration of the Minister, and that the railways employes had been notified that such proposal had been laid before the Thfinister for hi>< consideration, and that the probability was that he would recom­mend it to his colleagues for approval by the Governor in Council. Now, the hon. gentleman has not attempted in any way to meet the objec­ti0nraised by those members who have spoken from this side of the House in condemnation of those by-laws. The hon. gentleman now says that to some extent it is optional with men in the railway service whether they will come under the yro­visions of the by-law or not. I say that there IS no option whatever. And what is more, in the by-laws there is no provision for rail­wav servants making n.rrangements among themselves for a system of insurance. As plainly as possible the by-law a.s it is states that there shall be an insurance effected by every man now in the service with some company_ carrying on business in Queensland. I say this shuts the door against any attempt on the part of ~he members of the Eailway Department to provide a sort of quasi insurance fund for themselves. Why should we he told that it is right the by-law should be accepted because the Commissioners do not_ intend to do this or do that to make the operation of it oppressive? I say we hn.ve no right whatever to tolerate the existence of a by-law which is capable of being made an instrument of oppression. I say that it is a cruel thing. I never saw these by-laws before this afternoon and I -say that it. is a cruel thing to make a p~ovision li'ke that contained in them. I wonder if this is also to be suspended, that an unfortunate man in receipt of £152 per annum is obliged to insure his life for £200, and pay a premum upon a policy for nearly £50 more than he can expect to re­ceive, or his representn.tives, at his death. Why is there all this anxiety about the railway

Motion for Adjournment. [26 JUNE.] Motion for AdJournment. 65

servants? I ascertained when the matter was brought under my notice by some railway servants in the North that theY were not actuated by any feeling hostile to the !Ylinister. They were actuated by a terror that something wa'l about to happen to them, the full effect of which neither the Minister nor the Commissioners could possibly be aware of. All our railwu,y serv<>nts are careful, sober men, and I think it is generally known that as a class, from the highest to the lowest, they are a sober, careful, and thrifty set of men ; and one conlll alrno"t count upon the fingers of one hand in any particular district the number of men who are not either insured to some small extent, or who do not belong to some benefit society at present. Now, these men argue in this way: "~Why should we be called upon to insure? s()trl8 of us are paying so much a week towards our benefit society, and why should we have to insure for the payment of a lump snm at death, when we may not btay in the railway service more than a certain nuru­ber of years? By accident we may be thrown out of our employment, and then we shall he obliged to go on paying the premiums when we are least able, or forfeit the benefits derivable."

Mr. BARLO\V: Or accept a paltry surrender value.

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE: Yes. Is it not better to allow those men to make their own providential arrangements? Numbers of them are connected with societies of a motit useful character, for which we have provided special legislation. There are now everywhere in the colony societies to meet the taste and dis­position of almost every grade of the public service, and the men make weekly payments to them, and derive substantial benefit from them. Men paying into these benefit societies are able to command the services of medical men for their families all the year round--a far more substantial benefit than tha;, their families should receive £150, or some other amount, when they die, which may be in twenty or thirty years. It is far better that these men should have the substnntial prf-sent benefit of medical attendance, and, in the r,'Lse of anything happening to them, of a weekly payment from their particular society, or, if their wife should c!ie, of a lump sum to enable them to tide over the difficulties of the situation-it is far better that they should have that, than that an oppn;;sive system like this should be instituted. The hon. gentleman c"n­not have given attention to the matter; that is the fault I find with him. I said the other night, that while I give the hon. gentleman credit for zeal and conscientiousness, he is lacking in some of those other qualitie; that are indispemable in the head of a large department. That is what we find fault with on the part of some members of the Government, and I think we have a right to find fault with it. And if the hon. gentleman says, "Oh, a cil'cular has been sent round, and the men are perfectly satisfied," all I can say is that they were not satisfied a fortnight ago, and never can be satisfied, and never ought to be satisfied while a by-law of that kind remains in existence. The sooner the hy.laws are repealed the better. I would not put it as an ad misericorrliam appeal to the hon. gentlema-n to suspend the by-laws-he cannot do that personally ; only the power which created the by-lawscan suspend or repeal them­but I say we have a right to ask that they should be repealed, and that the railway serva,nts, par­ticularly those who have made their own arrangements, and have been contributing towards those arrangements out of their slender income for many years, shall be allowed to do as they please in making provision for

1890-F

their families. I do not like this system of cJddling, which is sought to be introduced. -As long a,s the Government have a proper guarantee th:tt the men employed are men of the right character, that is, as to sobriety and honesty, I say the men ought to be allowed to make their o\Vn arrano-en1ents with regard to provision for the futme "just the same as any other class in the community. I do not think the Ministry intended the by-law to be oppressivn, but I condemn them for not having had a little more f01·esight and exercising a little more judgment before committing themselves to a scheme of this kind, and the sooner the obnoxious by-law is repealed the better. It is idle to say that the Commisswners will do nothing cruel; let us prevent the possibility of any oppressive opera­tion of this sort by preventing such a provision corning into existence at all.

The POST:\IASTER-GENERAL said: Mr. Speaker,-I think the action of the hon. senior member for !IIaryborough, in view of the in­formation he had and the statements that have been made by other hon. members, that discontent ;;till exists n,mong the railway em­ployes, is commendable, and that it will result in good in having elicited from the :Minister for Rail ways a statement as to what is the actual state of affairs regarding this matter of insurance, showing that a circular has been sent ronnel by the Railway Employes' Association indif',cting that they are satisfied with the arrangements which have been made. But we ought also, I think, to look back to what was done when the llail ways Bill was before the House. The intention of the Government at first in re­gard to the insurance of the railway employes was to deal only with those men who subsequently entered the service, and not with those then em­ployed. There has been a good deal of talk this afternoon about compulsory insurance, and several hon. members have stood up and stated that they object to it but I do not find that any objection was made to the clause when it was under con­sideration in committee. The clause stated that "No probationer's appointment shall be con­firmed until he has effected . . . an insurance on his life."

An HoNOURABLE MEMBER : That is not the question.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL: An hon. member opposite says, "That is not the ques­tion." That was the intention of the Govern­ment in introducing the Bill, but with the approval of the House it was afterwards pro· posed to extend the provisions to the railway employes then in the service.

Mr. BARLOW: Where is it shown in the Act?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL: I say it was the intention of the House, and I think the proposal had the strongest recommenda· tion of the hon. member for Bundanba, who represented himself as expressing the feeling of the men on the subject.

Mr. GLASSEY: No fear; I believe in a national insurance.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL: I will read what took place when the clause was under discussion :-

"Mr. }lAI .. anm said no doubt the principle of the clause was a very admirable one, and he hoped it would be extended to every portion of the Civil Service. There appeared, however, to be one defect in the claus~, ~nd that waR, that although an officer might insur~ 1_11s hfe, unless the premium was made a charge upon h1s Income he might neglect to make the necessa.ry -provi.sio~ to keep the policy alive, and so defeat the obJect 1n v1e'Y· He thought the premium should be a charge upon h1s salary, and be paid by the Treasury.

66 Motion fo~ Adjournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Motion for Adjournment.

re ·rhe l\fr?HSTER FOR RAILWAYS said be did not think the. hon. gentleman could have read the clause. It said, 'Surh ins,urance shall be continued, and the amount thereof fixed and inereased from time to time.'

"The Hon. SirS. \V ... GRIF:I!'ITII: Suppose it is uot.

"The ::lfiNIST.ER FOR RAIL'iVA YS said he supposed in that case the commissioners had the right to dismiss the man from the service, as he had broken the condi­tions of service."

I want to draw attention to the next. sentence particularly-

" He might mention that he had been trying to elaborate a scheme for extending the same provision to all the men at present in the serYice, but owing to want of time he had not been able to get it ready h1 time. He thought it could he done by a Bill, and he hoped to have it ready after the recess.

")'[1·. GL.ASSEY said he happened to possess some material in connection with the railway emplo\'('s, owing to some action they had taken in that direr-tion about four years ago, and he should he only too glad to hand over that material to the 1finister for Railways to enable him to carry out his intentions."

That is the intention expressed by the Minieter just before to " extend the provision to all men p,t present in the service." But the h(m. member went even further, and said:-

"He had been about to rise to inquire how that clause would affect the present cmploy('s, and he was pleased that the Minister for Railways was going to deal with the question."

No memher objected to the proposed extension of the provision to the men then in the service. J\!Ir. Buckland also spoke on the subject, hut simply said-

" He would like to call attention to one thing. Although a probationer might be in every other respect eligible, it was possible that his life would not be accepted by any insurance office. 1Vhat, then, would be the posit,ion of the probationer, as he certainly could not comply with the provisions of that clause? He might be eligible in every other respect."

The Colonial Secretary interjected "except that he is not eligihle," and the House did not support the hon. member for Bulimba. The whole principle of compulsory insurance, the payments to be made by the Treasury, was approved by the House, and no member raised a dissentient voice. The hon. member for Bundanba, J\Ir. Glassey, spoke again as follows :-

"There was just one 110int they might consider before they paf!sed that clause, with reference to the solvency of any company which might insure a man's life. "'Who would guarantee that the company \Vas solvent? He would much prefer-and he knew he exprPssed the feelings of a large number of men employed in the rail­way and other departments- that the Government would decide in that matter."

The Railway Commissioners had decided that matter, and had approved of four societies. The hon. member went on:-

"It was just possible that those men might insure in some company, and some financial difficulty might overtake that company, and it might beeome insolvent, and the men's insurance was gone. He wished to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to that matter in order that he might try and arrive at some conclusion, so that no hard<;;hip would arise to the employCs."

I have read those extracts to show that when it was stated that it was proposed to extend the provisions respecting insurance to the employes then in the service, uo member of the House raised a dissentient voice; that it was the opinion of the Ministerfor Railways, as he stated to-day, the opinion of the Commissioners, and the opinion of the Ministry, that the system of insurance should be extended to the whole service. And is it not the general opinion that some system of insurance will be acceptable to the men? Is that not the opinion of the president of the Railway Employes' Association, who was most active in his endeavour to negotiate with

one company on behalf of the men to effect that insurance. And he did, on behalf of the association, approve of one society, which was advertised. 'rherefore, the Ministry be­lieved that they were actually carrying out the wishes of the men in approving of a system of insurance which should apply to the men at present in the service as well as to probationers to whom it was at first only intended to apply. That is how the matter stands, and I am glad that attention has been drawn to it. When I was in Maryborough lately some railway em­ployes called upon me and put cases before me similar to those referrecl to by the hon. member for J\!Iaryborough, where men getting Gs. Gd. a day would have to pay about 12~ per cent. of their Ntrnings to effect an insurance on their lives, which of course they could not afford to do. It would be a perfect impossibility for them to do it, and the line has been drawn by the Minister fnr Railways in stating to the House that they were to be allowed to submit a scheme which would suit the requirements of the service and the men themselves. Hon. members know that the promise of the Minister for Railways will be carried out: The Commis­sioners are not going to override the l\1inister for Railways in a declaration made in this House. Therefore, I say that those who are now talking about compulsory insurance were misled. The men do not want this insurance. I believe a majority of the present ernployes do not wish to have this insurance forced on them. Those who are working for the men havP stated that, and I am pleased to hear that those who are represent­ing the men have e'<pressed themselves as satisfied with the action of the Minister for Railways in deferring this matter.

Mr. ALAND said: J\!Ir. Speaker,--I wish to say a few words on this matter because I was waited upon with my colleague by some of the railway employes with reference to thi~ very vexed question. If the hon. gentleman who spoke last had confined himself to his first few remarks he would really have placed the matter fairly before the House. \Ve contend that future employes shrmld be compelled to insure, but not those who are at present in the service. We had the assurance jf the Minister for Railways when the Bill was under discussion some two years ago that the insurance would not apply to those employes of the department then in the service, but that it would apply to those who were to be engaged in the service afterwards. To that I, for one, raise no objection, because any young man entering the railway service knows the amount of salary he will receive and the conditions of employment, and it is for him to say whether he will join the service or not. Now, the hon. member for Ipswich, Mr. Barlow, has said that what the railway employes want is to be left alone. I think that really is the whole gh;t of the matter. As far as I understand, they do not want to be cumpelled to do anything, whether it be to insure their lives or join any fund or society which may be g-ot up for their particular benefit. They want to have the same right as we all have of joining a society or leaving it alone. J\!Iy colleague made mention of a matter that perhaps I ought to say something ahout, although I may not go so far as he does, and say that any dismissals have taken place in the Rail way Department through political action on the part of the employes; but I know this, and I am sure if the Minister for Railways makes inquiries he will find that it is true, that shortly after the last general election he was supplied with a list of names of persons in the rail way employment at Toowoomba who made them­se! ves rather busy at the time of the election, and action was asked to be taken. Those men were

MoUon for Adjournment. [26 JuNE.] Motion for .A.dJmtrnment. 67

not dismissed at the time, but it is a fact that one or two have been dismissed since. I will not say it is in consequence of that.

Mr. CAMP BELL : Only one. Mr. ALAND : I will not say it was in con­

sequence of that, but it is tbe fact that one employS was dismiRsed who was giving good service to the department, and who is doing a great deal better, I am glad to say, for himself now, as many men do after they leave the Government service. I take exception to certain remarks made by the :Minister for Railways. He implied that we as members of Parliament had no right to listen to these com­phtints brought to us by the railway employe' Now, the railway employe.; are the constituents

.of nearly every member of this House, and to whom should they go unless they come to ns and tell us of any grievances which they may suppose they are suffering under? They con1e resl;'ectfully ~o us, and we resj:ectfully bring the1r complamts before the House, and so long as I am a member of the House I shall continue to listAn to their complaints, and make their grievances known.

Mr. CAMPBELL said: Mr. Speaker,-After what has fallen from both the senior ancl junior members for Toowoomba, I feel it my duty to try and put them right. It would be ·a very great pity indeed if a report got abroarl that the Commissioners can discharge men for political purposes. I know that in the particular instances named it is incorrect.

Mr. ALAND : The first part of what I said was not incorrect.

Mr. CAMP BELL: Yes ; it is. The two men referred to were blacksmiths. Thev were in the maintenance department, under JVIr. Cro,s. 'When the Commissioners decided to do away with that department they selected such men as they required, and drafted them into other departm.ent~, and those they did not require were dlSmlssed. It turned out that these two blacksmiths were two of the disrnissPd men, and they made a great fuss about it. One of them in particuhtr interviewed both the junior and senior members for 'foowoomba and myself. I told them I did not believe it possible that political influence could sway the department, and that that kind of thing had been wiped out. To prove that, the man who made so much [uss, could have got work within six days in the department, and the other man who did not talk so much, accepted employ­ment in the traffic branch within a week. Is that not proof positive that there was no ill-feel­ing to,Yards thoRe n1en? It is a groRs injnstjce to say there was. It is a disgrace to hon. members to insist upon sa.ying that that was political work. If it goes abroad that the Commissioners are at the beck and call of the Minister, all confi· dence will be lost in them. If the Commissioners are influenced in that way by this Ministry they will be by the next, because they have not bt'en here long enough to have political views of their own. It is not the first time that this statement has been made by the senior member for Too­woomba; and if he had taken the trouble to inquire into the matter, as I did, he would have found that he was mistaken.

Mr. HYNE said: Mr. Speaker,-I wish to deal as lightly as pt,o·;ible with the Hailway Commissioners in the few remarks I have to

. make, but I take great exception to the insinuation of the Minister for Railways that members on this side are inciting the rail way employes to mutiny. The remark was un­kind, uncalled for, and ungenerous, coming as it did from a Minister of the Crown.

When I am at home I have enough to do to attend to my own business, but I can afford to spare a little time to hear the grievances of a number of men like these railway employes. I was deputationised by these men upon the grievance of this insurance scheme, and to show the House I did not seek it I will read an extract from the ::\1aryborough paper, showing that the colleague of the Minister for Rail ways, the Postmaster-General, was aJ,;o deputationised on the same subject, and if we on this side are :1.gitators inciting theRe men to mutiny and rebellion, the Postmaster-General stands accused of the same charge. I will jnst read the para­graph referring to the deputations to show there is no ground for the accuscction of the Minister for Railways. I am really surprised that he should have made it, and it shows emphatically that he does not know what is going on in the department. To show further how little interest he takes in it, he is absent from the Chamber now while the affairs of his department are being discussed. This is from the JV[cw·y­&orouyh Ch1·onicle of 7th June-

" On rrhursday afternoon a deputation from the Rail­way Emp1oycs· Association waited on the Ho11. Charles Po,vers and stntert to him their objections to the cmn­pnlsory insurance proposals of the Railway Commis­sioners. 3:Ir. Powers, in reply, said he had given this matter his consideration and they had his entire sympathy."

And the Hon. 'Minister for Rail ways has stated in his place that he heard nothing of it. That was on the 6th June, and now it is the 2Gth June.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL: The Min­ister for Railways did not say that he had heard nothing of it.

Mr. HYNE : I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; he will see by to-morrow's Hcmsard that the hon. gentleman did say so. After saying that the men had his entire sympathy, the paragraph explained further, that the Post­master-General said :-

"He would do what he conld. IIe pointed out that the method of insurance proposed involved the pay­ment of higher l)J'Cminms in most cases than the old snperannnation scheme. ~Ir. Ilyne, :\I.L.A., has carried out his pro miR-es to the deputation that w·aited on him on _;)fonday night."

I will tell the House what those promises were, and hem. members can then judge for themselves whether what I said tended to incite the men to rebellion. I sail! I would wire to my col­league, who was in Brisbane, to ask him to wait upon the :Yiinister and get that gentleman to stay the compulsory clauses for insurance, and I also told them I would wire to the Commissioners resj:·ectfuUy suggesting that the regulations should be held over until Parliament met. That w,1s my action, and I received these men as it was my duty to do. As the hon. member for Toowoomba has said, it is the duty of every parliamentary representative to receive the grievances of these men, because most men who are acquainted with the ways of business and the world know, that if a man takes a prominent part in laying a grievance before the head of a department he is a marked man. I there­fore say it is the right of these men to peti­tion and interview members of Parliament, just as it is the right of any British subject to petition Her :Niajesty in respect of a grievance he cannot otherwise get redressed. The Minister for Rail­ways pooh-poohed the idea that these men were on the verge of mutiny, and I give this quotation from the same paragraph-

" Thus has been averted what had threatened to be­come a serious strike. The firm attitude of the ::\'Iary­borough railway employCs, and their determination to stand by tile Brisbane men, had not a little to do with bringing the matter to a head."

68 Motion for Adjou1'nment. [ASSEMBLY.] Motion for Adjournment.

I think after what I have read, this side of the House should be relieved of the accusation of inciting the men to rebellion, an accusation which I resent as unjust and uncalled for. I advised the men to be conciliatory, that better counsels would prevail, and they should not think of striking, because I detest a strike. It is the Minister we look to to guide the hands of the Commissioners, who fire ~trangers here. The Postmaster-General said just now that the Com­missioners should not override the :Minister, and I was pleased to hear him say so. The Minister for Hail ways said no compulsion was being used. I left Maryborough this day week, and compul­sion was used the day before. The day before I left the policy o~ a certain railway official, insured in the Australian Mutual Provident Society, was demanded. I ad vi sed that man not to surrender his policy, but to send his receipt for the pay­ment of his last premium to show that it had been paid, and if that did not give satisfaction to surrender nothing else until Parliament met. That is the advice I gave that gentleman; because such a regulation would destroy the feel­ing of morality and manliness of any man-to be asked to surrender the deeds of his allotment or his life policy. If the Minister takes the trouble to call for all the correspondence on the sub­ject he will find myBtatements are correct. I com­mend these men for the stand they have taken, and I am certain the compulsory insurance clauses will not be enforced ; and I am certain the Minist~T for Railways has not the power to enforce the surrender of life policies. In making out this insurance proposal the framers of it lost sight of the fact that the great majority of these men are day workmen. Just now they may have full days, but there are many days in the year when these men will not make full pay. I know one of the employes at Maryborough who has been in the hospital for six weeks, and his name does not appear on the pay-sheet at all. If that man was to have the weekly payments stopped out of his next pay, what would be left for the support of his wife and family?

The MINISTER IWR RAILWAYS : What is he?

Mr. HYNJi~: A labourer in the yards. Mr. GLASSEY: If he had a salary of £400

a year he would not have been taken off the pay­sheet at all.

Mr. HYNE : That is a matter that escaped the observation of the Commissioners and Minister in framing the by-law. That man would have to pay 4s. 2~d. per week to receive £100 at the age of sixty, or payable at his death, and that would be 16s. 9d. per month. Look what that would be to stop out of that man's month's pay. It is impossible to carry out those instructions, and I feel certain the proposal will not bear scrutiny. Here is a document which I doubt very much whether the :Minister has seen, and it is signed for the Commissioners. I will read it to hon. members:-

"Referring to By-law So. 2 of 1890, made by the Queensland Railwa~' Commibsioners, and published in the Government Gu:el/e of Saturday, 19th April, 1890, which by-law deals with the life assurance of employ~s on the endowment principle, the following is a list of the rates proposed to be charged monthly by the dif­ferent approved offices for each £100 assured. with profits, and payable at the age of sixty, or sooner in case of death."

Then follow the monthly amounts which an em­ploye would have to pay to any of three different offices. The Postmaster-General said that great stre•s was laid last SE>;sion on the superiority of life insurance over superannuation; but if he turns upHansard he will find tha.t when I advocated life insurance I was referring to a system of national insurance, which it would take a far abler head than mine to devise, I would like to see every

man in the colony insured; but to compel a man to insure by stopping money from his monthly pay is morally degrading. Men who work honestly for their wages ought to be allowed to do as they like with their own. The Minister for Railways says that the employes have expressed them­se! ves as satisfied ; but that is news to me. First of all the employes accopted a scheme under the provisions of which they were willing to come. That scheme was submitted to the Commis­sioners and approved by them ; it was then sub­mitted to the Minister, who also approved of it ; then it was submitted to the Government, and they approved of it.

The MINISTER FOil K\ILWAYS: Iam not aware of it.

Mr. HY:i'\E : Such is the ease, nevertheluss. \Vhy was not that scheme allowed to be adopted?

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: The hon. memher is wrong. That is the very thing we want to get.

Mr. HYNE : In connection with this ques­tion of insurance, there must be a motive for putting such a drastic measure in force. I sup· pose it is intended to prevent appeals to Parlia­ment in cases of accident or destitute circum­stances. \Vill the hem. gentleman tell me how many such applications have been made by employ?s of the Railway DeJ>artment during the existence of the colony, and how many per­sons have received compensation? Very few indeed-snrcely worth quarrelling about. I presume the motive is to compel men to make provision for themselves and their little ones ; but the man of whom I have already spoken told me that the money that would be deducted from hie pay woul<l be of greater benefit to him now to clothe and educate his children. And what will £100 do for a man at the age of sixty? As one hon. member said, it would keep a man out of Dunwich for another month and that is about all. I was very pleased to hear the Postmaster-General say that the Commissioners were not going to override the Minister, and I hope the Mmister for Railways will take that to heart. That brings me to a little transaction in connection with the Ci vi! Service on which the guiding hand of the Premier qhould be brought to bear, an appoint­ment having been made quite contrary to the spirit of the Civil Service .\.et. The 27th clause of that Act contains this provision :-

"When a vacancy occurs in any department of the service, and it appears to the Board necessary to fill such vacancy, it shall be filled by the promotion of an officer of either the same class or that immediately below it."

A vacancy occurred in the Customs Depart­ment at JI.'Iaryborough by the retirement of Mr. 'faylor, the sub-collector. The gentleman who holds the next position has been eighteen years in the service, and there is not a more trustworthy, re;pected, or zealous officer in the whole of the Civil Service. Under him, again, there are several young gentlemen who are well worthy of promotion. But the Com­misilioners, in filling the vacancy, appointed an outsider who previ0usly had nothing to do with the department. I am referring to a gentle­man I never saw that I am aware of-Mr. Hassall-and I hope he will not take what I say as being offensive to him. I am simply referring to the case, not to the individual. Is not that appointment contrary to the spirit of the clause I have read? Did we not understand when we passed it that it meant that the next in rank would receive the appointment when a vacancy occurred?

The COLONIAL TREASURER (Hon. J. Donaldson): lYlr. Burn is not next in rank,

Motion fo1' Adjou1'nment. [26 JUNE.] Motion for AdJournment. 69

Mr. HYNE : He is next in rank in that office, vVhat encouragement is there 'for officers in the Civil Service when a stranger is put over the head of a gentleman like Mr. Burn who has been in the service for eighteen years?'

The COLONIAL TREASURER :You would pnt him over the heads of other officers.

Mr. HYNE : It is a most extraordinarv thing that a stranger from another departmeri't should be put over the heads of officers of the department in which a vacancy occurs.

The COLONIAL TREASUHER: The whole of the Civil Service is treated as one.

Mr. HODGKINSON: Under the domination of one man.

Mr. HYNE : ~\t a time when every effort shonl_d be _made to cut down expenses, here is a case m wh1eh the expense of an office is increased by £500 when £50 would have been sufficient. All that was necessary was to get a lad for £50 a year, and promote the existing officers another step. The clause dealing with promotions is one of the most important clauses in the Act, and the House, I am sure, would like to sec it carried out in.the spirit in which it was passed. I hope the thmg has not gone too for, and that this appointment will be considered.

The PREMIER : It will not be re-considered. Mr. HYNE: If the hon. gentleman gives me

such a fiat denial as that, if other hon. members are of my opinion, he will find that there is something like federation in the air when the Bstimates come on. There will be some fun when the Estimates come on if this Act is not admini,tered in accordance with the expressed wish of Parliament. I felt grieved at the unjust accusation of the Minister for Railways-and it perhaps made me speak a little more harshly than I should otherwise have done-that we were inciting these railway employes to rebellion because we applauded the remark of the hon. member for Burke last night. I emphasise that again to· day; the statement w"'s perfectly cor­rect that the llailwDy Department is in a state of mutiny. I bring forward this question without any animosity either to the Commissioners or to the Government. I suppose the appointment lies with the Premier, but I do not think it is exactly in accordance with the spirit of the Civil Service Act. ·

The PREMIER sa:id: Mr. Speaker,-With regard to what has Just fallen from the hon. member as to the recent appointments recom­mended by the Civil Service Board- more especially the appointment of a sub-collector of Customs, at MaryLorough-and approved of Ly the Government, I may say that that recommen­dation was dnly considered by me in the first instance, and by the Cabinet afterwards. I consider that the appointment made was fully in accord with the Civil Service Act; and it will be ~he means of effecting a very considerable savmg to the State. I join issue at once with the hnn. member in his contention that all promotions in the Civil Service are to be filled up in the department in which the vacancy occurs. That is to say, that if a vacancy occurs in the Customs Department it must necessarily be filled up by the appointment ?fa Customs officer. As far as possible it was m tended by the Act that the Civil Service should be worked as a whole. As to this particular appointment, I consider it a remarkably good one, and the consequent appointments on the 1·ernoval of Mr. Hassall, as recommended by the Civil Service Board, are not only good, but will effect a saving to the State amounting to between .£800 and £1,000 a year. I may mention that Mr. Hassall's salary is not £500, but £450.

Mr. HYNE : I wish it to be understood that I do not question Mr. Hassall's ability.

Mr. ADAMS said : Mr. Speaker,-Shortly before I left Bundaber~ a circular was sent to all the railway employes there intimating that they must all insure their lives. That was con­sidered a great hardship hy them, and they came to me and asked permiRsion to wait upon me and my colleague on the subject. \Ve fixed a certain hour to receive the deputation, bnt before the hour arrived we found that a telegram had been received from the Minister for Rail· ways, stating that three months' grace had been given for the purpose of enabling the employes to formulate some scheme of their own. vVe were notified of that by the em· ploy~s themselves. The discussion here to-day will no doubt do some good in the guidance of the Commissioners in establishing such arbitrary by· laws. I consider it very arbitrary that an em­ploye should be compelled to lodge his life policy in the hands of the Commissioners. He ought to retain it in his own possession, for he may at any time be called upon to use it for the benefit of himself or of his family. One remark of the hon. member for l'vlaryborough, l'vir. Hyne, seemed to me rather ungenerous to the Minister for !{ail­ways. I listened very attentively to the speech of that hon. gentleman, and I never heard him use the word attributed to him, and I am certain it will not be found in HnnscoYl to-morrow. 'What the hon. gentleman did say was that he was surprised at the plaudits from the other side when the statement was made by the hon. mem­ber for Burke that the railway employes were almost in a state of mutiny. I do not think the employes were ever in a state of mutiny. I give credit to them for trying to stick up for their rights, and I sav that the by-laws that have been framed by the CommiS;'·ioners want some altera· tion. But it is an impossibility for any man, or any body of men, to please every body ; and this debate, and the discussions that have taken place among therailwayempluyes, willdo avast amount of good, and no doubt induce the Commissioners to modify their· demands. Men receiving small salaries ought to belong to some benefit society, and in my electomte many of these employes are members of benefit societies, where not only is'' certain sum paid on the death of husband or wife, but where they have medicine and medical attendance free to thernsel ves and their families in case of illness. vVhen men are in societies like these-men who have to exist on an almost nmninal sum, not n1ore on an average than £2 a week-they will find it particularly hard, when they come to the age of fifty or fifty­five, to live cornfortaLly when so much of their salary is taken away from them. I see another hon. member almost on tiptoe wish· ing to address the House, so I shall not prolong the debate. I considered it my duty to say these few words, and I trnst that what has been said here to-day, and the discus· sion among the railway employes themselves, will have a beneficial effect.

Mr. JESSOP said: Mr. Speaker,-I think it my duty to say a few words on this question. I;ike se-:eral other hon. members, a deputa­twn warted upon me a short time ago and asked me to request the Minister or the Corn· missioners to delay putting the by-laws in force until after the House had met, so that steps might be taken to induce the Minister or the Commissioners to make some alterations in them. They put their l'·tse very plainly·, that they do not believe in the proposed system of insurance. They are under the impression that the system nf insurance should be one of their own, and I believe that if they were allowed to establish a system something like that connected with the

'/0 Motion for AdJournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Motian for AdJournment.

Oddfellows ann other friendly societies they would be a great deal better off than under the scheme propoaed. A great many of these men receive only small wages, and the amount they are called upon to pay for insurance is looked upon as a great hardohip. They have not made a great disturbance about the matter, as some hon. members seem to think they have, but have gone to work in a very mild way. They simply ask to have their case considered, and have sent in no demands. I may say that they held a meeting on the question, and while there were only twenty-five in favour of the proposed system of insurance there were 108 against it. I think that is quite sufficient to show that the members of the Railway Employes' Association do not believe in the proposed scheme. I aho wish to tell the House that this reign of terror which the hon. member for Toowoomba, Mr. Groom, has described does not exist. I am quite positive that it is a myth existing in his own mind. The gentlemen who formed the deputation that waited upon me asked me to represent their views to the Minister for llailways. I asked if I might use their names, and they said by all means. They were not afraid of any consequences that might arise from their taking part in proceedings for the benefit of themselves anrl their fellow­tvorkmen. I mention this particularly, because when any member stands np in this House and says a reign of terror exists in a certain class, it means, perhaps, something more than we have any iden of, and I do not think it should go forth uncontradicted. I have here all the particulars of the objections raised by these men, and what they want; they cover about four pages of paper, and bear the signatures of the secretary, the chairman of the meeting, and the committee.

An HoNOURABLE MEMBER : Give the names. Mr. JESSOP : I shall not occupy the time of

the House by doing so. I am going to band the papers to the Minister for Rail ways. It was understood that I should do so. Now, if this reign of terror existed, as stated by the h(m. member for Toowoomba, l\fr. Groom, bow is it that these men are prepared to let the Minister and the Railway Commissioners know that they are taking part in this agitation ? The munes are here for any hon. member to see, and I think it is very unfair for any hon. member to state that a reign of terror of that kind is in existence. I am quite in touch with the railway employes with regard to this insurance matter. I feel sure that if they could establish a scheme something like a benefit society, under which they would get medical attendance when sick and receive sick or accident pay, and under which the widow would receive a sum of monev, say, £100, on the death of her husband, it would be very much better than the scheme proposed.

Mr. PAUL said: Mr. Speaker,-After the discussion that has taken place there remains very little to be said on the subject, but I feel it my duty to offer a few remarks upon it. I should like, in the first plac<>, to read a letter from the bon. secretary of the Bogantungan branch of the Queensland Railway Employes' Association, addressed to myself "-S a member of this House. It is dated 18th June, and says:-

"DEAR SIR,

H In recognition of your expressed sympathy (when interviewed at Emerald, and public utteTances at other places) W"ith the raihvay men in their l'esist­ances against the obnoxious compulsory assurance scheme now on the lapis, I have the honour by direc. tion to address you on this subject, but believe it is needless for me to go into detail in the matter, flnther than to state that through the courtesy of the :3-linister for Railways it has been held in abeyance for the period of three months. In this time we are to get up a scheme which will not bear so heavily on the old men, and be in every way more suitable for our requirements.

\)>""e are certain that by your own observations you will concur that the railwav men in general are not the improvident class that -some would fain maKe believe, but, instead. are quite nble and most willing to make all necessary provision, bnt certainly object to the humiliating position of partial serfdom.

"It is the strongly expressed opinion of this branch that the compul·~ory assurance clauses in the Railway Act of ~888 could 'vith impunity be abolishr1L

"To this end I have to earnestly solieit you to kindly use your influence, and, more practically. your vote when it comes before the House.

"By kindly giving this your favourable attention you will confer a favour on us as railway men, 1nany of whom are your supporters.

"I have the honour to be, Sir, "Yours respectfully,

HA. POOLE,

"Hon. secretary."

I think the tone of that letter is 2 very nice one. H shows that there is no mutinous feeling among the railway ernployes, at any rate on the Central line. I recently went from one end of that line to the other, about 300 miles, and all the men I met there spoke in a bminess-like, practiral way on this question. They pointed out, for insLance, that if a m>tn has to give up his policy to the Cornmi>,<ioners, and any opportunity for favourable investment presents itself which be might be able to take ad vantage of by getting an advance upon his policy, he would not be able to do so. That is where they think it acts harshly upon them. If they have any deeds, they have to hand them over to the Commissioners also, so that they are precluded from obtaining an advance upon them and of increasing their store. I do trust that bon. members will believe that the railway employes generally are very desirous of acting in a proper manner; and while on this subject I should like to direct the attention of the Minister for llailways to the desira­bility of having married men along the line placed in locftlities where there are ~chools, and let f>ingle men be sent to other places. Another matter brought under my notice is that lengthsmen stationed along the line generally build themselves a very comfortable bumpy and make a little garden, and when the necessities of the service require their rewoval to another place they have t<J build again. That is rather barrl, and I think it is only fair that when men are shifted about like this the Govemment should erect cottages for the locomotive men, as was done by the htm. member for Townsville, JYir. Macrossan, for the lengtbsmen on the Central line. I may also mention that I have received a telegram to the effect that 556 men on the Central line beg me to endeavour to get the by.law relating to compuhory insurance re­scinded, and to oppose any scheme for the com­puls<>ry insurance of the present staff, or the disposal of any part of their wages for that purpose. I am certain, Sir, that the explanation given by the IVIinister for Railways will give every satisfaction.

At 7 o'clock, The SPEAKER said : Before the resumption

of the business this evening, I desire to call the attention of the House to a matter which I con­sider of some impurtance with regard to the discussion initiated this evening. The Seosional Order which was pabSed yesterday when read ~Jone, implies that the practice usually followed on Thursday evenings of calling on the Govern­ment businesq when the House met at 7 o'clock, will be continued this evening; but bon. members mutit take into consideration that a motion for adjournment supersedes all other business.

'rhe HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFJHTH: Hear, hear!

Motion ]or Adjournment. [26 jUNE.] Motion for Adjournment. 7i

The SPEAKER : I think, under the circum­etancec:, the Home will agree with me that I propose to follow the proper course when I express the opinion that the discussion upon the motion for adjournment, which was carried on until 6 o'clock, shall be continued until its con­clusion, and that after it is concluded, the Govern­ment business will be gone on with. I think it desirable to mention the matter to the House, because it is important that a question like this, which has arisen for the first time, should be understand.

The PREMIER said: Mr. Speaker,-! think there can be no doubt as to the propriety of your decision. A motion for adjournment super­sedes everything.

Mr. GLASSEY sakl: Mr. Speaker,-Before entering into a discussion upon the compulsory insurance scheme which the Railway Commis­sioners have proposed, and which r' suppose is thoroughly approved of by the Government, I desire to say a few words in reply to some observa­tions made by the Postmaster-General with regard to the action I took when the Railway' Bill was before the House in 1888. I then said that I entirely favoured an insurance scheme, and that I had some materials in rny possession which had been compiled by the rail way employes some few years ago with re;;ard to a scheme of their own, which they were then promulgating with a view of having it endorsed by the existing Rail­way Commissioner and the Government of the day, and that I was anxious to place those materials in the hands of the Minister for his consideration. I learned, on communicating with the Minister personally, that he himself was supplied with similar materials, hence the ones in my posses­sion were of no use to him. And now with regard to my approval of an insurance scheme. I entirely and heartily concur in a national insur­ance scheme, which would embrace all classes of workers throughout the length and breadth of the country in which we live. Nor woulcl I con­fine the insurance to person" employed in the Government service, but I should like to see such a scheme established as would embrace every person, as by so doing some provision would be made to prevent the toiler, as is usually the case after an active life, from making his way to some charitable institution, or depending upon the charity of friencls. As the hon. member for Maryborough, Mr. Hyne, said, while I approve of and should like to see such a scheme carried out, I fear, Mr. Speaker, and you will agree with me, and I think most hon. members will agree with me, that I have not the capacity for promulgating and submitting such a scheme for the consideration of the country. But if the time should come when such a scheme be pro­pounded and >mbmitted for the consideration of this colony, and if I should be a resident in it, then I shall give such a scheme all the c\lllsidera­tion which it deserves, and if it is founderl on proper and just lines, I shall support it. Such a scheme has been promulgated and pro­pounded and enforced in Germany so as to prevent persons under the circumstances I have mentioned making their way to the charitable institutions of the country in such large num hers as they had hitherto clone ; and when I tell you I have had some little experiencA in the administration of the poor law in the old country, as I have already mentioned, I may add that I spent no more painful time of my life than when I occupied that position. The nnmber of applications which I ha a from persons who were no longer able to work, and no longer able to follow the orclinary avocations of life with a view to rnaking their own means of subsistence, and who had to apply to persons like myself for a ticket to find their way to the charitable

institutions with which I was connected, known in the old country as workhouses, was immense. That is a most deplorable position for a person to be placed in, and I should like the time to come, as I hope it will come some day, when such institutions will not be required in the way they are established to-clay, but will be established on a proper basis, and on more independent lines, and when the manhood or womanhood of the nation shall not be sunk and humiliated as it is to-day hy seeking relief from such institutions. These, Mr. Speaker, are my reasons for saying that I would support a national insurance scheme; but I certainly would not support a compulsory insurance scheme such as the one that the railway employes in this colony are asked to accept. And permit me to rmy further, that when the clause bearing upon this subject was before the House, I thought it was understood by many members-certainly it was understood by myself-that if such a scheme were propounded, not fur the persons coming into the rail way service, because they had already been met by another provision, but for those now in the service, the Government should in the first instance subsidise a fund of that kind, say, £1 or 10s. for every £1 subscribed by the workmen. The Government have not paid the great bnlk of thoee in the service the wages which many of us think they are entitled to, and which are now entirely inadequate to meet the ordinary requirements of their inclividnal house­holds. If that had been done, I think very little opposition would have been shown by the railway employ8s to the scheme, certainly not the oppo­sition which there is to the scheme now brought forward. The Minister for Railwavs stated in the course of his remarks that the railway employes generally were perfectly satisfied with the understanding which had been arrived at between him and the deputation that waited upon him with reference to this matter. I believe that the employes generally were per­fectly content to abide by that decision if it had been carried out in the spirit in which it was made, rtnd I do not wbh to imply in mak­ing these remarks that the Minister has, in any sense disturbed the arrangement he made with the deputation in the early part of this month ; but observations have been made this afternoon by vari"us members on both sides of the House, showing that action has been taken by the officials, I presume in accordance with the wishes and instructions of the Railway Commis· sioners, which was not carrying out that under­standing in the spirit in which it was expected it would be carried out. Reference has been made to n telegram which appeared in the newspapers early thi'" month respecting a deputation of rail­way employes who waited upon the Railway Commissioners at Townsville, and it now trans­ph·es that that telegram is inaccurate. I am glad that it is inaccurate, because it carried on the face of it a dictation on the part of the Com­missioners which would not be submitted to by men holding the opinions which ought to prevail in a democratic country like Queensland. How­ever, after the explanation given by the Minister that the Rail way Commissioners did not say, as was alleged, that the men were obliged either to insure or leave the service, I think we may take it for granted that the telegram is incorrect. But what has been clisclosecl by this discussion? One thing I think is perfectly clear, and that is that there are divided councils in this matter. There seems to be an internal conflict ;roing on between the Minister andthe Railway Commissioners as to whether this insurance scheme is to be forced upon the employes or not. The Minister, I feel sure, does not desire compulsory insurance on the lines proposed by the Commissioners; but I think that most persons who read in to-morrow's

72 Motion for AdJournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Motion for AdJournment.

Hansard the regulations which have been issued by the Commiesioners will at once conclude that it is there distinctly stated that if the men do not insure-then something else will follow, and that they hold their appointments t ntirely on the condition that they accept those reg-ulations. It seems to me, as far as I can g~cther, that there are divided councils between the J\Iinister and the Commissioners, very like the divided coun­cils which prevailed between the English and French generals during the Crimean war. I was a lump of a lad at the time, and I remember per­fectly well the difficulties and disasters which arose in consequence of the divided councils which prevailed among the generals of the English and French armies in that war. And it seems to me, if the statement made by the hon. gentleman is to be relied on as to the instructions which he gave, or at all events the understanding he arrived at with the deputation in the early part of this month, that compulsory insurance should not be enforced, that there are other hands and beads at work in addition to the Minister's, as 1ne1nos. have appearecl in variouR parts of the colony saying that this scheme shall be carried out. The whole thing thus comes to this-is the colony to relinf[uisb the system under which employes in the public service hitherto appealed to the Minister of the Department when any difficulty arose in the service? There was a fair understanding when the Rail­ways Bill was going through Parliament that any such grievances as we have now under consideration would be duly cc.msidered by this House, and I think that the hon. member for Maryborough, Mr. Annear, who initiated this dis­cussion, has not gone beyond his province in asking the Minister in the presence of the representatives of the people what line of action he proposes to take, and whether he is prepared and is in a position to enforce the arrangement he made with the deputation earlv this month. It is a fair thing to ask the hon. gentleman whether the instructions of the Railway Com­missioners to their subordinates are to be carried into effect. I have seen telegrams within the past week from different parts of the colony-one was from Ravenswood, I think-asking the acting f<ecretary of the Railway Employes' Association how they were to act, as a memo. had arrived stating that the men were obliged either to insure or leave the strvica, or words to that effect. The same kind ,,f thing has taken place at Mackay, and also within this last week at Brisbane. At all event.s, if the language was not f[uite so strong as this, that they must insure their lives or leave the servicB, the men were considerably harassed because they had not complied with the instructions issued by the Commissioners. If these things are going on, it simply comes to this-that in consequence of divided councils a conflict be­tween the Commissioners and the men may ensue. I wish to say at once that when my hon. friend, the member for Burke, was ><ddress­ing the House last night and alleged, and alleged truly, that the whole of the railway employes were in a state of revolt, no member on this side of the House cheered the sentiment with the view of crm,ting, or attempting- to create, the impending conflict to which the hon. member alluded. All that was intended was an endorsement of the correctnc.ss of the statement, and there is not a single member on this side of the House but would deplore the occurrence of such a conflict. And I am confident that the men themselves do not desire anything of the sort, but would rather prefer to make any reasonable sacrifice subject b the preserva­tion of their manhood. But it must be distinctly borne in mind that if a conflict does ensue, the blame will rest entirely

with the Commissioners for giving instruc· tions to their subordinates to carry out wishes and desires not in harmony with those of the Minister. I fear that the Railway Commis­sioners in (~ueensland are going to be very much the same as the Commissioners in some other colonies. I have in my possession just now some newsvapers from New Zealand and South Aus­tralia showing that in those colonies, or in New Zealand, at all events, the Commis­sionel~s were a few days ago within measurable distance of a conflict with the men. And, Sir, we do not wonder at it. Those gentle­men were brought here to conduct the railway service of the country on commercial principles. \V e were told last night by the Colonial Trea­surer that five years ago the railways were pay­ing upwards of £:! per ce,.t., that last year they paid 28s., and this year they are going to pay about 25s. Well, 11:r. S]Jeaker, where does this commercial arra11gement come in? We make every allowance for the disastrous floods, which must have curtailed the traffic and lessened to a large extent the profits made, but where, in the name of all that is good and wonderful, is this commercial action and genius displayed with rezard to the working of the lines? Before I sit down I will show a bit of this commercial arrangement in regard to the wag-es paid to some of the railway employes, and I think you will agre•J with me that if these men have to insure, their wages will have to be considerably increased in order that they may pay their premiums every ye:cr. I think it will astonish hon. members when they bear what these gentle­men are going to pay the employes of the colony of Queensland, and I think my friend the hon. member for 1\Iary borough, Mr. Ann ear, will agree that this shows that if in this so-called free country freedom ic' to be purchased at the expense of working for 28. 3d. Jler day, then I must confess that social freedom is extremely cheap. Not only are the wages of the perwns coming into the service g·oing to be curtailed, but the wages of some of the present employes are going to be considerably reduced. I hold in my hand a memo. issued from the tmffic manager's depart­ment, and dated 2nd June of this year. It says:-

" The \\ttent.ion of the staff is called to the 42nd section of the by-laws as follmvE>-·with re?::trd to Sunday pay, the exact time of duty \Vill be pnid for at the rate of CO per cent. more than the rate for week per day. l~xtra pay wHlnot be allowed to men on the night shift nnlPss they are on duty every night of the week. Guar l..s and porters having to spend Sundays away from home \Yi\l be allowed half a day's pay therefor, provided the:.· a1·c not flo-ing woTk, bnt in case t1wy are required to "\vork. pay at the rate of the above will be allowed. It will be nece~t:,ary for stationmaster8 to snbmit at once to their superintenclents ·a list of Sunday duties to be provided for in the pay-sheets, and anything over and above will luLYe to be specially approved by the superin~ tendent before it can be included in the pay-sheet.

"(Signed) J. F. THALLO=", "Traffic l\1anager."

Now, I think, when the Railways Bill was going through Parliament there was a distinct promise given by the Minister, and I am not f[Uite clear that it is net embodied in the Act itself, that all the privileges and emoluments then enjoyed by the railway employes would not be interfered with, and there is also a resolution in the records of the Home, snlm,itted by the present Minister for Mines, to the effect thatrailwayemployesengaged on Sundays were to receive 10s. for that day. Here, however, in that memo. which I have read, it is distinctly laid down that when guards and porters are called away from their homes on Sunday they are to get half-a-day's pay, and that stationmasters who are bound to attend to passing trains are only to be paid for the actual time they are on duty. Supposing two trains are passing in the day, which require the station-

Motion fo'/' AdJou'/'nment. [26 JuNE.] Motion Jor AdJott'l'nment. 73

master's attenda.nce for half an hour each time, are we to infer that that man is only to be paid for an hour's work, or at the rate of about ls. 3d. or ls. 6d. per day? Surely these are not the commercial lines on which the railways of Queensland are to be worked ! I think that this House, when the Estimates come to be con­sidered, will take a different view of matt<?rs, and will ascertain if it be not possible to find funds in another direction to pay those men actually engaged in the way I have mentioned, by means of making substantial reductions in the wages of some persons who are too highly paid and are not overburdened with work. I hold in my hand another document which I re­ceived from a young man a few days ago in one of the railway carriages-a young man, certainly very much heavier than I am and with almost as much hair on his face. He is only twenty years of age, and weighs about twelve stone_ He has been four years in the Engineer's Department, and he is drawing the handsome sum of 4s. 6d. a day. I may mention another person in my own electorate. He is twenty -one years of age, he has been two years in the service, and he is drawing the handsome salary of 25s. per week. Then I have another, three years in the service, eighteen years of age, and getting 20s. per week. I have two others, young men eighteen and nine­teen years of age, getting 20s. per week. Then we come to the wages proposed to be given by the Commissioners to persons entering the ser­vice, and what is to be given to lads entering as apprentices to some of the trades under the locomotive branch. \V e find by the 69th regula­tion, published in the Gazette for the 19th April, that:-

"Lads from fourteen to sixteen years of age, certificates of which must be produced, will be taken into the work­shops as required, to learn the several trades connected therewith. They must be of good constitution, and be able to read and write with facility, and acquainted with arithmetic as far as the compound rules; they will not be bound as apprentices:., but will be allowed to resign, and will be liable to dismissal for misconduct in the same wa.v as the men, and be subject to the same rules and regulations, but they will not be out of their apprenticeship until the age of t\venty-one years.'' The 70th regulation says :-

" 'rhe remuneration for the apprentices 'vill be as follows:-

1st period, or up to 16 yeal'S

Southern. in­cluding l\lary­borough, Bun­daberg, and

Rockhampton s. d.

Northern, in­cluding mac­kuy and all

R.::tilways north thereof

s. d.

of age, per day 0 3 2nd period, up to 17 years

of age, per day 2 0 3rd period, up to 18 years

of age, per day 2 3 0 4th pel'iod, up to 19 years

of age, per day 4 3 5th period, up to 20 years

of age, per day 4 5 6 6th period, up to 21 yea1·s

of age, per day 6 0 7 0 "At the end of their term of service apprentices 'vill,

if their services are reqnired, be paid wages propor­tionate to the value thereof, provided al"ways that they are competent workmen and their general ~on duct has been satisfactory.'' Those are the wages proposed to be paid by these Commissioners, who were going to run the railway lines of this colony upon commercial principles. It seems to me that one of their first principles of profit is to get people into the service at the lowest possible rates at which they can be procured. If lads can be secured at those rates, it must be patent to every member of this House that there must be an enormous number of boys seeking employment in the service.

Mr. BARLOW : So there are.

Mr. GLASSEY: The hon. member for Ips­wich says there are, and I hope within a few clays to ask this House to call for a return showing the number of children of school age along the lines of railway where no school accommodation is provided. I intend also to ask for a return of the number of children ready for work, but who can find no employment in consequence of the peculiarity of their situation. I come now to the cleaners, and the lmve.,t wages paid at ]Jresent tu this class of workers is Gs. per day for ten or twelve hours work. I direct the attention of hon. members to the rate of wages proposed to be paid to these young men by the Commissioners. Regulation 72 says :-

"Only youths between sixteen and nineteen years of age, certificates of which must be produced, will be eligible for appointment as cleaners, and must be employed to assist workmen in the running sheds and workshops until they have ob't:'lined a good knowledge of the mechanism of a locomotive engine. Every youth must undergo a medical examination, and produce a certificate from the authorised medical officer to U1e effect that he is free from bodily or mental infirmity, possesses good e~"esight and hearing, and is notaffiictcd with colour blindness either by day or night; he must also produce satisfactory testimonials of character, be able to read and write with facility, and be ac(1uainted 1-vith arithmetic as far as the compound l'ules."

The next regulation provides for the rate of wage,, and for the first year the rate is to be 2s. 3d. on the Southern and 2s. Gd. on the Northern lines. There is a distinct and sub­stantial reduction in the wages paid for this class of work at the pre~ent time, because, as I have just said, 6s. per day is the lowest amount paid for this work at present. It would appear that we are to have a lot of lads doing this work at 2s. 3d. per day in the Southern and 2s. 6d. per day in the Northern part of the colony. This is the list :-

" The ratt>'J of wages payable to cleaners will be as follow:-

Southern. J!r.,..orthern. 8. d. s. d.

1st year, per day 2 3 2 6 2nd 3 0 3 6 3rd 3 9 4 6 4th 4 6 5 6 5th,, 58 68 6th and after, per day 6 0 7 0 "

What a wonderful climb it is ! Six years in the service, entering at nineteen years of age, before a man earns the sum of 6s. a day-the lowest sum at present paid for the work! Yet the Government of the day are professing to be the real working man's friends, and when they were coming into power the country was told that they were the "l'\ ational party/' that we were going to have a big loaf, and goodness knows what was not going to be done, and here they propose that men may work up to five-and-twenty years of age before they get Gs. per day. Supposing these arrangements are carried into effect, what does it mean so far as the greater portion of the people are con­cerned? It simply means that lads outside Brisbane and the chief centres of population will be entirely precluded from entering into this class of work should theY desire to do so, because the sum they will be paid will be quite inadeCJ.uate to meet the payments they will have to make for lodging and nmin­tenance. It will confine this work to lads in Brisbane, Ipswich, Touwonmba, Rockhampton, and a few other places in the colony, and fathers of families in other places will be precluded from sending their boys to this class of work, because they will not be able to pay for their mainte­nance and lodging ; whereas, if reasonable races of wages were paid, they could place the lads with relations and friends, and could put them to this class of work. Then we go on and we find these men may be

74 Motion for Adjournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Motion for Adjournment.

appointea as firemen if there is a vacancy, and may go on to the sixth class of engine drivers. How long, think you, would it be before a lad entering the service as a cleaner at nineteen years of age could, in the ordinary course of promotion, reach the first class, and only then if vacancies or:currecl? He would lie about thirty-nine years of age, a'l it would take him about twenty years before he would actually reach the top branch of the trade he was engaged in, or could hope to get the highest wages. Are these the commercial lines on which the House was led to understand the railways would be worked? I venture to ;;ay that had we anticipated the framing of such regulations, and snch a system of compulsory insurance, the Railways Bill would have met with a very different fate. I am satisfied that, notwith­standing the long tenure of office provided by the Railways Act for the Railway Com­mis•ioners-seven years-unless the persons engaged on our railways are fairly and honestly treated-fairly paid for Sunday labour, and only made to work for a reasonable number of hours-there is sufficient public spirit in Queensland to deal with the matter. I do not wish to say a disparaging word of the Commissioners, because they are not here to defend themselves; and it is not because the regulations are framed by the Commissioners that I object to them. The regulations have been endorsed by the Government, and I would ask the Minister for Railwavs whether he is eatisfied that this is fair· remunera­tion to offer for the class of work I have men­tioned, and whether it is bir that a man twenty­two years of age, who has been two years in the department as a porter, should receive the paltry sum of 25s. a week ? \V e may infer, however, from the method in which the railways are to be worked, that the state of the finances has something to do with the rate of remuneration, and we may probably look forward to the time when the Treasury will be replenished and the miserable rates of wages I have mentioned will be increased. If the matter is not then t.aken in hand by the Government, no doubt son'e private member will feel it his duty to bring the subject forward, and there will doubtless be sufficient hon. members found to endorse a proposal for increased remuneration. I protest against this wretched pay for men holding re,,ponsible, and in 1nanycases dangeronspm;jtions. I admit, however, that to wme extent, it is in keeping with the action taken by the Commissioners in the other colonies, so far as we know. One of the causes of complaint in New Ze,tland, which nearly led to a general strike on the whole of the lines, was the employ­ment of such n, large number of boys who were edging the men out, becaus8 they could be got at a cheaper rate. Here we have the sftme element introduced ; in South Australia objection is taken to the same thing ; in New South Wales, the Com1nissioners are hy no n1eans gi dng sati.s­fa~tion to the public, and certainly not to the employes; and in Victoria, where Mr. Speight was held in such high estimation for some time as a man who considered thoroughly the condition of the men under him, that Commissioner is not so popular as be wassorneyears ago, in consequence of this continual pressure, caused by working the lines on commercial principle~. Jf "commercial principles" mean starvation of the great hody of the people who work the railways, and tremendous salaries for those holding high appointments, it is time there was a revision of the commercial code, and a redistribution-! am glad the leader of the Opposition i' present-a redistribntion of the wealth produced by the people of the country. 1 wonder whether that gentleman will say that it is a fair distribution when one man gets £10 a day, another gets the wretched sum uf 2s. 3d., and

another the sum of 25s. a week? I do not say that the men are alike in point of ability; hut I do say that the difference is too great. \Vhere is the great difference between some of the men receiving the wretched pay to which I have allnded and a snbordinate Commissioner with £1,500 a year who never had a single hour's tmining in his work?

Mr. LITTLE : It is cowardly to attack a man behind his back.

Mr. GLASSEY: All I desire is to draw a comparison between the two men, and I say that the difference in pay is most unreasonable. I say, further, that if the colony were polled to­morrow the people would agree that a con­siderable increase should be given in the instances of insufficient remuneration I have pointed out, and a considerable reduction made in some of the high salaries I have men­tioned. As for attacking any person in his absence, such a sugge3tion is not in accordance with fact, so far as I am concerned. I say there is no man in the colony, whatever his ability may be, who c.ught to receive a salary of £3,000 a year, and I am only sorry that some of us had not more parliamentary experience when the Railways Bill was under consideration, because it would then have received far more criticism in this direction. I consider that the Chief Commis­sioner and the subordinate Commissioners are enormously overpaid, and that many other persons in the Railway Department are also overpaid. But the fact that I wish to emphasise is that the wages set forth in these regulations which are sanctinned by the Government are out of all proportion to the work which these men have to do. There are many other matters in connection with these regulations which require attention. For instance, the allowance for extra cost of living to engine drivers and firemen employed out in the West is ls. a day, whereas the allowance to cleaners and labourers in the same part of the colony is 6d. a day. Does not the man who cleans waggons eat as much as the man who drive' an engine? Does not a navvy who works with his pick and shovel on the railway line deserve as mnch in consequence of the extra cost of living as those other people ? Are these a part of the commer­cial principles laid down by the gentlemen work­ing our railways? \Ve find the same disparity when we come to deal with the Estimates every year; aud I shall criticise these things and pro­test against them as long as they continue. Under these regulations, so far as the extra cost of living is concerned, each person should be treated alike. \V e find the same thing all through the regulations. For instance, cottages !Ire provided for a certain portion of the railway employes, but they are not genera_lly yJrovided for the lengthsmen. That questiOn has already been raised this evening by the hon. member for Leichhardt, and he was of the oame opinion that I am, that cottages should be provided for these men. When I was at JYiaclmy a case came under my observation where a lengthsman had been removed three times in four years. That man had a wife and four children, anrl at each removal he had to build a cottage, and only twice did he get any remuneration for his cottage when he was leav­ing the place. Several cases have also come under my notice where railway men have had to spend £20 or £25 in erecting a cottage, >'nd when they had to remove to another section of the line they could not find a buyer for them, and were obliged to leave things behind them. Is it fair and reasonable that some consideration should not be given to these men by the Com­l;nissioners in framing their regulations? Is it reasonable or right that persons placed in the

Motion foP Arljour1zment. [26 JUNE.] Motion .fo1• AdJournment.

position of the Mackay lengthsman should be compelled to make the sacrifices he has done during the last four years? That man had no sooner erected his cottage than he was removed, at much inconvenience and loss on each occasion. These things may appear trivial matters to some persons, but they are of the fir"t and greatest importance to the persons placed in that po·,ition. With regard to the question of insurance, I think the proposal now under the con­sideration of the employes, and which will shortly be submitted to the Comrnii·''ioners and the Minister for Rail ways fr>r approval, will re­move any objections that have been hitherto entertained by the men. They are now devising a scheme of their own by which provision will be made in the event of sickness and inability to work, also medical attendance for themselves and their wives and families, and provision in the event of the death of any of their wives or children; and if any of themse1ves happen to die their familie,; will be to some extent provided for. The present scheme which has been submitted for the approval of the men makes no provision except the sum they may happen to be insured for in the e\-ent of the persons dying, or in the event of their reaching the age of sixty-which is not by any means likely in many cases, more especially if they have to provide the necessaries of life, to make reasonable provision against sickness, and to find their own medical comforts and other things out of the miserable wages they are paid, and the poverty wages proposed to be given to those entering the service under the regulations I have mentioned.

Mr. LITTLE said: Mr. Speaker,-I have listened very attentively to the hem. member for Bnndanba, and he must be very self-contradic­tory. He has told us that when he left England he was a guardian of the poor, and last session, when the immigration vote was before us, he told us thftt he arrived in the colony six or seven years ago with eight children, and £20 in his pocket to start life. I remarked on that occasion that he had achieved a very high position. But I forgot one thing, and that was the Judas kiss. ..When the London dock labourers' strike was on, the hon. me m her gave them with his left hand two guineas to help them in their dire distress, and struck them on the jaw with his right hanrl by opposing the immigration vote. I do not suppose the hem. member ever worked on railway in his life, although I guarantee he never robbed a man of a day's work in his life. He is supposed to repre­sent working men, but I dare say that no man has ever entered this Assembly who has done so much harm to the class he is supposed to repre­sent as the hon. member for Bundanba. I am a working man myself, and that is my conviction. \Vhat has he done? He receives pay from the State, the same as I do, and he has made a trade, a commerce, of his political position to create difficulty and dissension between the employers of the colony and the working men. To-night he has detained us two hours and a quarter. He says he is a coal miner ; I am a gold miner. I will guarantee that there is not a man in this House who ever saw the hon. member for Bundanba earn a day's wages by the sweat of his brow. He trotted round once with the postmaster's bag, and caused dissension there. He has camed what dis­sension there is, and it wr•s a bad day for the colony, and for the class I belong to, when they placed their entire confidence in him. But after telling us that he was guardian of the poorhouse at home, and came here to better his position-and I think he has achieved a very high position-he turns round immediately and opposes the right of men of his class to come here. It is simply selfishness, because he is afraid that they are better men than himself. I

will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what he tried to do last session on the division on the immigration vote. He and his friend the hon. member for Boomerang­for Enoggera-tried to put a barrier across the Atlantic ocean ; but, Sir, they could not do it. ThP intelligence of the collective wisdom of the colony would not let them, He laid down a certain line; he stood with his Gatling gun in one hand and his vote in the other, and he said to his former companions and the companions of his wife and children that they were not to cross the line ; that they were to go back­back to their cold northern climate; back to their poverty and narrow miserable dwellings. " Go back " he said· "I shall not allow you to land h~re; this ls the land of my ad,op­tion; I have surrendered all sympathy with the old world." That is exactly the effect of the vote of the hon. member for Bundanba. Let him g-o back to his coal mines. I may have put it in a rough manner, but that is what I gleaned from his remarks on the immi­gration vote. I said then, and I say now, that the very best friends to immigrants are the old Australians, the , pioneers or native-born Australians. \Ve take them in hand, and show them how to make their way in the colony. \Vhat would Australia be but for immigration? And here is this gen­tleman receiving £300 a year from the country and £300 more from his labour unions for his agitation, when all he got in England was 4s. a day.

Mr. G LASSEY : I wish that last remark of yours was a fact.

Mr. PLUNKETTsaid: Mr. Speaker,-I shall not detain the House long in the remarks I have to make. I think the thanks of the House and the country are due to the hon. member for l\/[ary­borough, Mr. An near, for bringing this matter forward. Ihavelistened attentively tot he speeches delivered by the various speakers, and I think all impartial men can have no other opinion than that the compulsory insurance ,>f the lives of railway employes is as unpopular a scheme as could be proposed. I was not very much in love with the Civil Service Act when it was passed, and I have very strong objections to this com­pulsory insurance scheme under the Railways Act. I have spoken to a good many railway ernployes in my electorate, and the general consensus of opinion is that they would rather be let alone and have nothing to do with compulsory insurance, which they regard as a great hardship. It would appear as if the Government or the Cornmis­sionees think thev are not able to take care of themselves. I de; not think that is a wise thing, and it is certainly very unpopular. The Minister for Railways has told us that the by-law has been suspended for three months, but if he t><kes my advice, after what he has heard to-night, he will repeal it altogether. I am snre that the sooner he does so the better it will be for the whole of the railway men of the colony.

Mr. MORGAN said: Mr. Speaker,-I think the hon. member for Maryborough, Mr. Annear, in moving the adjournment, has a great deal to answer for, and I am sorry to say that he does not appear to at all repent it. As one of the members who received a deputation on this subject, it will not be out of place if I say a few words respecting it. I was a,ked to listen to the objections of the \Varwick branch of the Railway Employes' Association against the pro­posed compulsory insurance scheme as formulated by the Commissioners. Those objections have been stated here frequently to-night, and I am not going to repeat them. The fact that the Minister has agreed to suspend the operation of the objectionable by-law for three months is suffi­cient proof that he is impressed with the reason·

76 Motion for AdJournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Motion for AdJourmnent.

ableness of the objections raised to the scheme. I hope, however, that the Minister will go a little further and give the Hou;e some assurance that the compulsory scheme will not be enforced. If he does that, I think the debate might be allowed to close. There is no doubt whatever that the proposed scheme will inflict great hard­ship and injustice on many of the men. It is an interference with their rights and an injustice that I do not think Parlimnent, with all its powers is justified in c,ubjecting any body of me~ to. I think, Mr. Speaker, it has been shown that the benefits to be derived from the membership of even an ordinary friendlv society are preferctble to those arising from the ]Jroposed compulsory scheme. But it is quite possible that a scheme more beneficial to the men than that they have foreshadowed might be formulated. In speaking to the men "ho waited upon me, I said that I should be very glad to asoist passin" a scheme through Parliament provided it wa~ based on a foundation that would stand the test of actuarial investigation. I think there ought to be some :'nrt of a guarantee that any scheme accepterl by the Ministry will ?e a soun.d one, and not one which, after being m operatwn for twelve months or two years is found to be hopelessly in sol vent, and useless for the purpose for which it was formed. I think the :Minister for Railways sees now as clearly as any of us the objections to the proposed ;,cheme. He has said that the by-law will not be enforced for three months, and if in the meantime the men fail to submit an alternative scheme which will meet the views of himself and the Commis­sioners, I think he e,nd his colleagues should help them to perfect a scheme which will meet the views of Parliament, so as to !Lake some provision for men on leaving the service.

Mr. :B'OXTON said : Mr. Speaker,-I should not have risen to prolong the debate had it not been for some remarks that fell from the Hon. the Postmaster-General at an earlier period of the evening. Before dealing with that, however Ithink it is due not olllytomyselfbut also to every member on this side of tlie House to refer to the remarks of the Hon. the Minister for Railwavs with reference to what he called the applan;e which greeted the hon. member for Burke last night hen he stated that the railway ernployes were in a otate of mutiny. I understood the hon. gentleman to impute to this side of the House that they were encouraging the railway employe,. in mutinous conduct. Now, Sir, nothing was further from my mind than tlmt when I applauded the remarks of the hem. member for Burke · nor, I am quite sure, could anything have bee~ further from the thoughts vf any other hon. member on this side who did the same. _\ll that we wished. to do was, as has been already stateo, to e!Yl!JhaslSe the fact that we beheved the state­ment of the hon. member for Burke wac, sub­stantially correct, or, at all events, that if it had not been for the JJartial concession which has been made to meet the desires and aspirations of the railway employ~s there would have been a mutiny in the Railway Department which was brewing ; and unless that concession had been made I am confident, from facts which have come to r_ny know ledge, that there would have been a strrke throughout the length and breadth of the land in the Railway Department. That, and no desire at all to encourage anything in the shape of mutinous conduct or a strike, which everybody would deplore, was the reason which prompted every member on this side to appland the remark of the hon. member for Burke. The Postmaster-General quoted from Hansard to show that it was the intention of this Houqe when the Railways Bill was going through, that the compulsory clauses regaroing insurance should apply not only to the probationers, and

the men newly appointed under the Act, but also to those who were holding offices at the time the Act came into force. But what are hi;; quotations? Simply expressions of opinion by certain hon. mem­bers. I forget who they were, but I accept the statement as correct. What does that mean? Is any hon. member to suppose, because he does not take exception in a speech to any statement made in this House, that he thereby gives in his adherence to the statement or to the views expressed therein? Certainly not. As has been pointed out, there was nothing in the Bill which ccclled for any such repudiation on the part of anyone. The 54th section refers purely to pro­bationers. They certainly can and ought to be brought under the compulsory insurance clauses, and, as has been pointed ant by the hon. m em berfor Ipswich, Mr. Barlow, the only peg upon which this by-law can be hung is the power given in one of the other clauses to the Commiesioners to make by­laws in reference to the terms upon which the employes in the department shall insure their lives. Now, taking those two clauses only together, it wpuld appear that the first section which I have referred to governed the one which referred to the by-laws; but, on turning to the interpreting clause of the Act, the word "officer" or "employe" is interpreted to be "any person holding any office whatsoever under the Railways Act," so that probably the Commissioners are per­fectly within their legal rights in making that by­law, and it is not therefore ult1·n vins. That, I think, is the state of the law with regard to the matter. But when we come to consider the question as to whether that by-law ought to stand it is an­other matter altogether, and the statement of the Minister for Railways that he has suspended the by-law for three months plainly shows that he has his doubts now, whatever opinion he may have entertained formerly, as to the justice of the by-law. I consider it almost akin to repudia­tinn. The men who are in the senice at the present time, and who were in the service when the Act was passed, were under a specific con­tract, and neither the Crown nor the Com­missioners-to whom the Crown has handed over its functions iu this matter-are at liberty to violate that contract without incurring the imputation that they are repudiating the pre-exist­ing agreement. Reference has been made to the fact that the president of the Railway Employes' A"sociation had himself adopted this scheme-, it was said that he did so on behctlf of the whole of the railway employes by making endeavours to secure certain advantages to the railway employes should that scheme be brought into effect. I rleny that. So far as my knowledge goes-and I think I know about as much of it as almost any hon. member of this House-nothing of the sort has ever occurred. \Vhat did occur was this: When it was intimated by the Com­missioners that a certain scheme would be put forward, and that compulsory insurance was to be initiated, the president of the Railway ,Emplnyes' Association, in his c:~pacity as such, and, I believe, with the sanction of the Commissioners, endeavoured to obtain certain concessions which, if that scheme were to be carried into effect, would, in his opinion at all events, have been of great advantage to the railway employes. But that is a very different thing to his adopting the scheme, and certctinly a very different thing from the whole of the railway employe" agreeing to it. He simply endeavoured to make the best of a scheme which, so far as they were aware, was to be forced upon them.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL: Does, he not believe in it still?

Mr. FOXTON : I am not aware whether he does or not. I think it is possible he may, and I go this far with him-if the whole of the railway

Motion for AdJournment. [26 JUNE.] Motion for AdJournment. 77

employes should voluntarily come under such a scheme it would be the grandest thing in the world for them, did their circumstances per­mit of it. But their circumstances do not permit of it, and it would be the harshest injustice to many of them if they were compelled to come under it. The Minister for Railways must be convinced by the dis­cussion which has bken place to-night-and I refer not only to the speeches made on this side, but to the speeches emanating from gentlemen sitting behiird him-that the feeling of the House, and I am sure of the country, is that this scheme ought not to go any further, so far as it relates to the employes who were in the Hail way Depart­ment at the time the Rttilways Act was passed. And I would ask whether it is not a reasonable request to make, that having admitted as much as he has done by his action in suspencling the by-law, and having regard also to the fact that if this by-law is repealecl altogether it will materially assist the promulgation and formula­tion of other schemes, which it is proposed to sub.stitute in pl:lce of it, that the by-law should be repealed, and if necessary when those other projects have fallen through-if they should do so-then to re-enact either this or some other by-law which will be more acceptable, and which has been more fully considered than this evidently has been? The onus of repealing this by-law does not rest, as hon. members and a very large secti~n of the public may imagine, with the Commissioners, but upon the hon. gentlemen who occupy the Treasury bench, and with them alone under the 41st section of the Act. The Commissioners, with the sanction of the Executive Council, may enact by-laws, but it is the Executive Council, and they only, who have the power to repeal them; and I s~y that under the circumstances, and having in view the debate which has taken place to­night, and the expre,sion of opinion, I certainly think the hon. gentleman would be doing a graceful thing, as well as an act of justice, if he repe:i1led the by-law at once.

Mr. TOZER said : Mr. Speaker,-It is rather early in the session to make a long speech to one's constituents, but, at the same time, I have made a promise distinctly that I would speak freely in regard to this matter, and I must keep that promise, as we have not yet got a proruise from the Minister for Railways that he will not enforce this obnoxious regulation. It is contrary to the promise he made when the Bill was before the House, and it is also contrary to the expressed opinions, not nnly of the Premier of this colony but also of the Postmaster-General. This principle of life insumnce has been forced upon the railway employes in the service. If I can prove that, I trust the Government will not enforce insurance upon the present employes. Before I do so I must take exception to a remark that anyhon. member of this House has been guilty of conduct unbecoming of the position of a member of Parliament by acceding to a request which was made some time ago to many of us to entertain the complaint,, of certain Civil servants in our respective districts. The reason they came to us was that they very seldom have an opportunity of seeing a Minister of the Crown there. A Minister of the Crown is a rara avis in terns. I like to see them, and I would be perfectly satisfied if a Minister would come a little oltener, as members for certain districts would be saved an infinity of trouble and a lot of time. The Postmaster:General expressed the opinion that Ministers ought to visit portions of the colony and inform themselves in respect of them, and I hope we shall very soon have the pleasure of welcoming him in the district I repre­sent. I am sure that no persons will be more welcomed in the Wide Bay and Central districts

than himself and the Colonial Treasurer. I have recently rPceived a deputation of railway servants at Gym pie upon this very question. They had previously interviewed the members for Gym pie, and I will tell you exactly what to,Jk place. I think the Railway Commissioners made one hurried visit to our district, and that was before they published this particular regulation. There has been no opportunity of communicating, except by letter, with either the Commissioners or a l'vlinister of the Crown. Thev are cle·;irous of acting in concert with all tbeir t"ellow railway employes in thi' matter, "'nd when they inter­viewed the two members for Gympie those gentlemen expressed their opinions ]Jlainly to the employes. Shortly afterwards a number of men, who also resided in the vicinity of Gympie, but not in my district, called upon me and asked me whether it was in accordance with my ideas of what WiJ,S right in the matter, and told me the Commi"sioners had called upon them to inenre their lives in the manner shown by notice to them. I took upon myself at the time the trouble to look np the cliscus,;ion, anJ I informed them then, as I now inform the House, that the Railways Bill introduced into this House was no doubt done very hurriedly. It was pretty well copied from the Victorian Act, and the Victorian Act is based upon the Vic­torian system as ap]Jlicable to the whole Civil Service of that colony, whereby everybody in that colony is bound to insnre his life. No doubt that was how the principle c,'1.me into this particular Act. \Vhen the Railways Bill was in committee severalmembersof the House asked the Minister for Railways whether he contem)•lated applying the principle of compulsory insurance to persons who were then in the Ci vi! Service, and he replied, as reported in Hansn1'd, that he intended to formulate some scheme as applicable to persons in the rail way servi<;e. Upon that statement the House was perfectly content. Next Yl'ar when we met we went into the prin­ciple of life im'm"'nce as applicable to the whole Chi! Service of the colony in a very much more extended and deliber·ate manner; and it was in consequence of the discussion that took place upon that occasion that I advised the railway employes when they came to see me, quietly to write a letter to the department, urging their objections, which objections they could only repeat as having been urged in this House by many members against life assurance. I was one of those who very strongly opposed the principle when the Civil Service Bili was before the House ; but I did not oppose it as strongly as the Premier, and knowing that fact I advised the rail way employp,•. to wait until Par!iamen t met, and then if nobody el,,.e precipitated a discussion upon the question, I promised at any rate to bring the subject matter of their complaint before the House by a substantive resolution, in which I would move that it io not desirable to apply the compulsory insurance to the present railway staff in this colony. That was the promise I made to them, and in part fulfil­ment of that promise I will just now quote a few remarks rmtde upon this question by the Premier himself. I do not apprehend that there is much difference between the ques­tion of providing for a rail way man when he arrives at the age of sixty years, and that of pro­viding for any other member of the Civil Service. I cannot see the distinction myself, and, therefore, if the Government were of opinion that life insurance is not the proper system to apply, I trust that the Minister for Railways may be in­duced before we leave this Chamber to-night to give us an assurance that the principle of com­pulsory insurance will not be enforced upon the present Civil Service of this colony. If he does that he will give great satisfaction. There is no

78 Motion for Adjournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Motion for Adjournment.

desire whatever on the part of any member of this Houoe to embarrass the Government i~ any way in connection with this par­tiCular matter. I know that very few appli­cations have ever been made to the Railway Department for compensation on account of injuries or death in the service in this colony. I know of one particular instance at Gympie, and that instnnce was brought before me promi­nently by the deputation which waited upon me a few clays ago. Those men said, " \Vhy are the .Raiiway Department so anxious now to make us pay this amount compulsorily, when in all the accidents that have occurred in our districts they have positively refused any claim ~pon the department for injuries received 1" I mstanced the case of Mr. Crichton, of Gym pie. He was cleaning C'arriages, and in the perforn1-ance of his work he got under a wheel, and one of the officials blew a whistle. Of course the man under the carriage never heard it, and the engine was forced upon him and he was beheaded. His head was taken clean off. I saw the whole thing myself, so I know the circumstances. Application was made to the department for compensation by the widow.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS : How long ago?

Mr. TOZER : In the year 1883. The de­partment refused to allow compensation, and the case wa"' brought before this House by the hon. member for Gympie, Mr. Meiior; but t.he claim was refused. Now, that case is pro­minently in the minds of the railway employes in our district, and there never has arisen a necessity for calling forth the principle of com­pulsory insurance as applicable to the railway service of the colony. I will draw attention to the opinion of this House as expressed from both sides upon the question of compulsory in­surance during· the discussion which took place upon the Civil Service Bill last year. 'fhe Pre­mier said:-

"The question must also be asked. were the Civil servants in favour of the scheme of the hon. IHember for Tomvong "-

That was the scheme to apply compulsory insurance to the Civil Service-" or were they in favour of the scheme as proposed in the Bill?

"The Hon. Sir S. \'f. GRIFFITH: I should s~y, de­cidedly they are in favour of this scheme.

"The PrrB:;unm.: Unquestionably." Then he goes on to refer to it again at the end of his speech, when he said:-

,, 'l'he other thing was that insurance was better than the system proposed. He l~lr. ~lorehead) thought the Committee would agree \vith him that if any good was to be done to the present CiYil Service the principle of insurance 1nust go to the wall." Then the Minister for Public Instruction said:-

"He thought it was artmitted by hon members on both sides of the Committee, that as officers of the Civil SerYicc were servants of the Government, some­thing shonld be done for them either in the way of insurance or of a superannuation fund.

"Mr. Tozl<;R: Ko! "Jir. PowERs said he thought that was admitted by

the majol'ity of the Committee. When he first looked at the scheme proposed in the Bill he was satisfied in his own mind that insurance was the better scheme, but he was now of opinion that a superannuation fund was preferable; that was taking into considera­tion the fact that Civil servants were officers of the Government, and that hon. members did not wish to thrmv ofr the liability of the Government to look after their servants. His reason for preferring the super­annuation fund was, that if they forced persons in the Civil Service to pay for an insurai'Ce policy, they could only force them to do so while they were in the Govern­ment service. . . . . .He was perfectly satisfied that the Government were right in preferring super­annuation to insurance, and for the reasons he had given he should oppose the scheme proposed by the lwn. mem­ber for ToO\vong."

There is no doubt that the insurance ide:1 got into the Railways Bill through the haste-the necessary haste, I may say-with which that Bill had to go through the House in the first session after the formation of the Ministry. The whole system was taken from the life insurance scheme in force in Victoria. The Premier himself pointed out reasons against including that system in the Civil Servic;; Bill.

The PREMIER: The hon. member must rememher that the railway employes were opposed to the superannuation scheme, and were excluded from the provisions of the Bill at their own request.

Mr. TOZER: 'The railway employes were opposed to the superannuation scheme, and so was I, but they were not opposed to any system by which they should make provision for their old age. Neither was I. I suggested that we should adopt the scheme in force inN ew Zealand, whereby public servants are required to pay out of their earnings a certain sum, which they receive on retirement from the service. That, I believed, was better than the scheme snb­mitted by the Government. What the railway employes object to is this compulsory in­surance ; they say that nothing has occurred in the service showing that there is any necessity for the Government to compel them to make provisions for their old age in the way pro­posed. There are many persons in the railway service whose work is not likely to extend to the time when they will be sixty years of age. I can assure the Minister for Railways that, although I was one of the hon. members who last evening en­dorsed the statement of the hon. member for Burke in reference to the employes of the Rail­way Department being in mutiny, I would not at all sympathise with the railway employes or any other persons if they should unduly go out on strike, hut I simply endorsed, from my own knowledge of the absolde state of mutiny of the employes in my district against that particular rnle, the correctness of the observa­tion of the hon. member. I have been shown telegrams on the subject from Ravenswood, Charters Towers, and Brisbane, and have been informed by the persons who waited upon me that there have been communications with the other colonies with reference to this question, so strongly do the men feel on the matter. There­fore, last evening I felt bound to endorse the fact that there was intense dissatisfaction among the employes on this question of compulsory life insurance. What will the Government get by forcing on employes the regulations about insur­ance? They will gain nothing but dissatisfaction. If a man comes to me in my district and makes certain statements to me and I do not agree with him, I tell him so at once; but if he satisfies me that his request is based on reason, I tell him I will support it in this House. Many persons tell me that they have insured their lives for a certain sum, payable at death, and that they have been paying premiums for a number of years. Now they are called upon by the department to abolish that insurance, and make it an endowment in­surance payable at sixty years of age. There is no doubt that there is very great difficulty in a man doing that who receives only .£100 a year; and the man I refer to at Gympie, who was the leader of the deputation, was drawing a salary at that time of .£100 per annnm. I believe he has insured his life for the benefit of his family for £500, payttble at death. How is that man to change his life insurance for an endowment policy? As I read the hy-laws, it is absolutely necessary for every person in the railway service of the colony to insure his life. I do not blame the Railway Commissioners for bringing under the notice of the Government the necessity for

Motion for Adjournment. [26 JUNE.] Motion fo1' AdJournment. 79

making provision under the Act. I blame the Act. It makes it compulsory, ~o far as railway probationers are concerned, that they shall insure, and, in another clause, it is provided that the Railway Commis~ioners shall make by-laws in reference to the insurance of all per­sons in the service of the Rail way Department. Therefore, when those gentlemen waited upon me at Gympie I did not blame the Commis­sioners, and say that they had done wrong. I apprehend that if the Commissioners had known of the promise made by the Minister in Parlia­ment, to the effect that he would formnbte some scheme applicable to persons at present in the service, or had the Minister remem­bered that )Jromise last year when the Civil Service Bill was going through, he would have informed us what he proposed to do with regard to the railway employes, and this scheme would not have been sanctioned. I have nothing more to add to the observations which I made to the deputation r>n thnt occasion. I express the opinion, and I know it is the opinion of the two members for Gympie, that the principle of compulsory insurance as notified to the railway employes is most objection­able, and in our opinion detrimental also to the service. If the Minister does not see his way, upon this motion for adjournment, to give a promise to the House that he will not enforce that scheme, I assure him that, before the session is over, some member of the House-if no one else does it I shall do it myself -will table a resolution to the effect that the House is of opinion that it is not advisable, in the intereots of the Rail way Devartment and of the colony, to enforce this system of compulsory in­surance on the present ernployes of the Railway Department.

Mr. MACF ARLANE said: Mr. Speaker,­! do not rise with the object of making a long speech, but I may say that I agree with most of what has been said this evening, and more par­ticularly with what has been said by my hon. colleag-ue. Before I go any further, I wish to ask the Minister for Railways a question, which I hope he will answer. The question is this-Is it a fact that at the present moment a circular has been issued by the Minister for Railways, or the Commissioners, to the various em­ployes of the Railway Department stating that the by-law relating to compulsory insurance will not be made ap)Jlicable to the present employes, but will only apply to probationers?

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: I do not know of any instruction to that effect.

Mr. MACFARLANE : I have been informed that one of the employes has received such tt circular notifying that compulsory insurance will not be required in the case of old employes, but only in the case of prohationero. If that is so, then this discussion might have terminated at an earlier veriod. There is another question I want to ask the Minister. I am informed that a board, consisting of four officials of the railway service, has been appointed to try rail­way men for default of duty. In the 60th clause of the Railway Act provision is made that appeal shall be made to the Commissioners, or failing that, they may appoint some one to hear the appeal. It seems they have appointed four of the rail way officers, and I believe that is one of the worst appointments they could have made. If you appoint a permanent board to try appeals from the workmen, you can only appoint the heads of departments. One sympathises with the other, and although the one from whose department the appeal comes may not sit, yet the other three will sympathise with him. They act on the old vrinciple of "You claw me ;1nd I claw you,"

and I think it would have been better to have had the avpeal direct to the Commissioners themselves. I will not take up any more time in discussing this matter as the hour is late, bnt I will take advantage of the motion for adjournment to make a few remarko on the replies I received this afternoon from the Colonial Secretary to th€ questions I put touching the Townsville scandal. I am quite satisfied with the replieo to questions 1 and 3, but I am not satisfied at all with the revly given to No. 2. Question No. 2 reads thus: "Was such in­formation received in time to stop the exhibi­tion? "-that is, the balloon ascent; and the reply to that was, "Yes ; it was received in time, but the information was not definite enough to be acted upon." \V ell, that doecJ not seem satisfactory to me. If the information was received in time to stop that exhibition, then I maintain it was recei vecl in time to stop it. If the telegram was received, and it was not plain or definite enough, it wruld have been perfectly easy for the l'viinister, if he had been anxious to do so, to h<1ve given notke that the exhibition was to be stopped. \V ell, it was not done. Why not? To me it seems not only a disgrace to the town in which it took place-the town represented by the Colonial Secretary himself­but it is a disgrace to the whole colony. By allowing an exhibition of that sort to take place on Sunday, the good name of Queens­land will he spoken of abroad in a very unpleasant manner, but when we find that one of the chief officers of the Defence Force, lYiajor Des V oeux bent down on his knees with a posy of flowers in his hand, with his eyes turned up towards the goddess of the balloon ascent, why, I look upon that as a species of idolatry-downright idolatry. I am sure I don't know what his relations will think about it.

Mr. GRiiYlES: What will his wife think about it?

Mr. MACF ATILANE: I am sure I don't know, but it might mcuse an action for divorce. That being the case, I hope the matter will be further inquired into. I think the Ministry ought to know the mind of this House on the matter, so that those officers concerned may receive the reprimand which they de,erve, and such a one as will be a warning to them that they cannot act against the laws of God and the laws of man and offend high heaven and public opinion. I be­lieve the Chief Secretary would never have allowed such an exhibition to take place had he known the nature of it. \Vhen we think that the hand of the Defence Force was called out, anu that the otf.cers of the Defence Force, clad in their uniform, together with the men, attended the exhibition to increase its attractions, I c!'n only say that such conduct was not beeommg such officers as Colonel Ji'rench and Major Des Vamx. I am glad to know that it was not with the sanc­tion of the Ministrv that such an exhibition took place on the 'Sabbath Day, and I am perfectly sure it would not be with the sanction of Her Majesty the Queen. I read the other day that a bandsman in Her Majesty's household had been dismissed by the bandmaster because he refused to play on the Sabbath. That story came to the ears of Her Majesty the Queen, and she not only reinstated the h.tndsman hut gave him an increased salary. If Her Maje~ty would disapprove of the dismissal of a bandsman because he would not desecrate the Sabbath, I am sur~ Queensland Ministers ought also to dis­approve of this action, and give such a reprimand to those officers as they will remember. I thought it well to mention this matter, as we are not likely to go on discussing the Address in Reply, and I know that several members think quite as warmly on this subject as I do. The

80 Eigkt Hours Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Addreso' in Reply.

country expects that some notice should be taken of this affair by the House. I hope it will be further discussed, to show these gentlemen that we at least do not approve of their action in deo'•'ccrating the Sabbath Day as they have done.

The PRE:\IIIER said: Mr. Speaker,-With the permission of the House I would like to say a word or two with regard to this, more especially in view of a statement which appeared in the Courier. I have no special reason to believe that they will state anything accurately that regards myself, and therefore it is not an exceptional complaint which I make with regard to a state­ment in this morning's paper. In a sub-leader of the Courier it is stated that I was in p(\)sses­sion of a telegram on Saturctay upon which if I had chosen I could have stopped the balloon ascent which took place s0mewhere near Townsville. \Veil, I was in possession of no telegram, and I never heard :>nything about the matter until I read the reference to it in Monday morning·'s CmL?·icr·, and then I was doubtful about it, as I often am about what appears in that paper. However, that was the first information I got, and the statement to which I have referred was altogether inaccurate and misleading so far as I am concerned. I am not sure that, even if I had been in possession of the information, the law would have allowed of the prevention of the ascent ; at the same time I perfectly share the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Ipswich, and if the information in my possession now is correct, the affair reflects credit on nobody. 'fhe Colonial Secretary has to-night given a'surance that an inquiry will be held into the matter, and I give the assurance that, so far as the Defence Force is concerned, a very searching inquiry shall be made to find out how true, or otherwise, is the story, which at the present time bears a very unpleasant aspect.

Mr. ANNEAR said: Mr. Speaker,-With the consent of the House, I beg to withdraw the motion.

Motion for adjournment, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDER OF BUSINESS. The SPEAKER said : In compliance with the

Sessional Order, the House will now proceed to Government business.

On the Order of the Day being read for the consideration in committee of the message of date 25th June, from His Excellency the Governor, transmitting the following Bills : (1) Decentralisation Bill; (2) Factories and Shops Bill,

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said : Mr. Speaker,-I beg to move the postponement of Government Business-Orders of the Day-until after the consideration of General Business­Order of the Day.

Question put and passed.

EIGHT HOURS BILL. The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITHsaid: Mr.

Speaker,-! cle.sire to express my thanks to the Government for their courtesy in giving me an opportunity of introducing this Bill this evening, after Government business had been called on. I beg to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering the desirableness of intro­ducing a Bill to define the proper duration of a day's labour.

Question put and passed. On the motion of the HoN. SIR S. W.

GRIFFITH, the House in committee affirmed the desirableness of introducing a Bill to define the proper duration of a day's labour.

The House resumed ; the CHAIRMAN reported the resolution, and the report was adopted.

FIRST READING. The Bill was presented, and, on the motion of

the HoN. SIR S. W. GRIB'EITH, was read a first time, and the second reading made an Order of the Day for Thursday next.

DECENTRALISATION BILL.- FAC­TORIES AND SHOPS BILL.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said : Mr. Speaker,-I beg- to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the \Vhole to con­sider the message from His Excellency.

Question put and passed. The COLONIAL SECRETARY moved that

it is desirable that the following Bills be intro­duced :-A Bill to make provision for dividing the colony into cli,tricts for financial purposes, and for the keeping of separate accounts of the general and local revenue and expenditure of the colony, and for the expenditure. within the several districts of the revenue rmsed therem, and for the constitution of grand committees of revenue and expenditure within the several dis­tricts ; and a Bill for the supervision and regula­tion of factories and workrooms, and for the limitation of the hours of working in shops, and other purposes.

Questicm put and passed. The House resumed ; the CHAIRMAN reported

the re,olution, and the report was adopted.

DECENTRALISATION BILL. FIRST READING.

On the motion of the COLONIAL SECRE­TARY, this Bill was read a first time, and the second reading made an Order of the Day for Tuesday next.

IrACTORIES AND SHOPS BILL. FIRST READING.

On the motion of the COLONIAL SECRE­TARY, this Bill was read a first time, and the second reading made an Order of the Day for Tuesday next.

JOINT COMMITTEES. Upon the message from the Legislative Council

of the previous day being read by the Clerk, The PREMIER said: Mr. Speake1·,-I beg to

move-1. rrhat the following members of the House be

appointed members of the Joint Library Committee­namely, the Hon. the Speaker, Mr. Tozer, and Mr. Cowley.

2. That the following memhers of the House be appointed members of the Joint Committee for the man:1gemcnt of the Refreshment Rooms-namely, the Hon. the Speaker, l\1r. Annear, and ::\1r. Murphy.

3. That the following members of the House be appointed members of the Joint Committee for the management and superintendence of the Parliamentary, Buildings-namely, the Hon. the Speaker, l\ir. Agnew and Mr. Smyth.

4. Tha.t these appointments be communicated to the Legislative Council bv message in the usual form, in reply to their message of date the 25th instant.

Question put and passed.

ADDRESS IN REPLY.

REScMPTION OF DEBATE. On the Order of the Day-Re9umption of

adjourned debate on Mr. Callan's motion, "That the Address in Reply to the Opening Speech of His Excellency the Governor, as read by the Clerk, be now adopted by the House ''-being read,

Death of Mr. Jordan. [1 JULY.]

Mr. MORGAN ~aid: Mr. Speaker,-As the night is pretty well advanced, I would ask the Chief Secretary to consent to the adjournment of the debate on the Address in ~Reply, and that I may be allowed to speak when the matter again comes on for discu!:lsion.

The PREMIER said: Mr. Speaker,--I do not wish to press on the debate at this rather advanced hour; and I do not think there is any intention on the part of any hon. member to enforce the strict letter of the law with regard to the hem. member's right to speak. I therefore move that this Order of the Day be postponed until Tuesday next.

Question put and passed.

ADJOURNMENT. The PREMIER said: Mr. Speaker,-I move

that this House do now adjourn. Question put and passed. The House adjourned at seYenteen minutes

past 9 o'clock.

Death qf M1•. Jordan. 81