Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Council

WEDNESDAY, 17 JULY 1918

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1010 Questions. [COlJNCIL.] Tr ages Bill.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

WEDNESDAY, 17 JULY, 1918.

The PRESIDENT (Hon. W. Hamilton) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

APPROPRIATION BILL, No. 1. ASSENT.

The PRESIDENT a.nnounced the receipt of a message from the Governor conveying His Excellency's assent to this Bill.

PAPER. Th~ following paper was laid on the table,

and <Jrdemd to be printed:-Regulation under the Sugar Cane Price.>

Act, 1915-1917.

Ql!ESTIO~S.

PUBLICATION Ob' PAMPHLET, "SOCIALISM IN OuR TIME."

HoN. F. T. BRENTNALL asked the Secretary for Mines-

" L Was the pamphlet intituled ' Socia.lism in our Time' an official StatB publication~

" 2. If not official, by whose authority was it printed at the Government Print­ing Office?

" 3. Also, if not official, how ca.me it to be iBsued with this inset-' With the compliments of Mr. T. J, Ryan, Pre­mier of Queensland ' ?

" 4. Who paid the cost of printing and circulating the pamphlet of 136 pages, and was the amount of both items paid into the public 'I'reasury?

" 5. How many copies were printed, and were they all circulated ' \Vith the compliments of the Premier of Queens­land'?

" 6. \Vas a copy of this historical docu­ment supplied to every member of both Houses of Parliament; if not, why were those not so favoured deprived of such important information?"

'I'he SECRE'I'ARY FOR MINES (Hon. A J. Jones) replied-

" 1. I do not know of any pamphlet entitled ' Socialism in our Time.'

" 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See answer to No. 1."

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES: That is quib­bling; that is unworthy of this House.

REFUSAL TO AsK QUESTIONS,

The PRESIDENT having called "Question No, 2," relating to sal&ry increases to State school teachers,

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES said: I prefer not to ask the question. If the Government are going to answer questions in the way the previous question was answered, I shall not ask it. (Hear, hear!)

The PRESIDENT having called " Question No. 3," relating to the constitutionality of the Popular Initiative and Referendum Bill,

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: I refuse to ask the question.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I will answer the hon. gentleman's question N!il. 2.

The PRESIDENT: There has be<>n no quu,tion asked,

LAND TAX ACT A11E:01Dl\IENT BILL.

THIRD READIXG.

On the motion of the SECRE'fARY FOR 11INES, the Bill was read a third time, passed, and ordered to be returned to the Assembly by message in the usual form.

WAGES BILL.

SECOND READING.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: This is a Bill to make better provision for th<> payment of wages due to workers, and for other incid{)ntal purposes. The Bill pro­Yides for the repe">l of the Acts mentioned in Schedule I., viz., thP Masters and Ser­Yants Act of 1861, the Wag-es Act of 1870, and the Wages Act. 1884. The Bill has been bdore the Council on a. previous occasion. I had the pleasure of introducing it last sessjon.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: We had the pleasure of amending it.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Hon. members did not have the pleasure of amend­ing it.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: We did amend it.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Prob­ably the Council had the pleasure of insert­ing some amendments in the Bill which were not acceptable to the other Chamber.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: We amended the Bill even if the other Chamber did not agree to our amendments,

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I am not going to argue on that point. Hon. members tried to amend it. I was about to say that the Bill is slightly different to the Bill introduced last session. Probably some of the amendments that were suggested here have been adopted in this BilL (Hear, hear !) That is a reason why the Bill should b9 passed. In my opinion it should have been passed some time ago, because it seeks to protect the wage• of working men and working women, which is a very laudable object. The Masters and Servants Act of 1861 is obsolete. The very date of it justi­fies me in saying that its provisions are obsolete,

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES : Some of them are.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Unfor­tunately the Bill does not abolish the wages system, but it seeks to abolish some of the grave defects of that system, and it will give better protection to the wage-earner gener­ally. The three Acts which it is sought to repeal might have been adapted to the circumstances of the times in the opinion of some peonle, though I do not think they were adapted even to the period when they were passed, They have now become obso­lete, Take the very title "Masters and Servants." We prefer to say "Employers and Employees."

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Would it not do if you reversed it and said "Servants .and Masters"? That is the position nowad~ys.

Wages Bill. [17 Jur.Y.] Wages Bill. lOll

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : In my opinion the title is humiliating.

Hon. E. W. H. FoWLES: It ought to be " Trades Hall and Politicians," instead of " Masters and Servants."

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The hon. member can get just as much argument about the Trades Hall as he wishes at the proper time and in the proper place.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Why should you say " Employer?" I would not use that word. Leave it out altogether, and just use the word "Employees."

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I am -expressing my individual opinion, and I think the words " Masters and Servants" are somewhat humiliating. They savour of "ycophancy. I do not care for the title "Leader," because "Leader" implies fol­lowers. I rather prefer that the hon. gentle­men should be called " Chairman of the Opposition" in this Chamber rather than " Leader of the Opposition."

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: There is no such thing here. We have no Opposition here.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: They are all leaders-all opponents to the pro­gressive ideas of this Government. How­<'Ver, the term " Masters and Servants " is out of date. The Bill provides for " Em­ployers and Employees." Under the existing law it is possible for a contract of service to be made which the master may terminate by a week's not1ce. Under this Bill the week's notice is to apply to both sides. The <Jmployee will have similar rights to the employer in that respect.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHOR~: So he has at present.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: No. Under the Masters and Servants Act the eervant must continue at his work for the full period under very severe threats and penal­ties.

Hon. A. GIBBON: That is no use. The SECRETARY FOR MINES : It is

no use, and that is what we are trying to amend.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: A week's notice on either side has always been ac­CE'pted.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The ex­isting Act does not provide for equal penal­ties upon the master and the servant in the <>vent of breaches of the provisions of the Act. Under thi' Bill the penalties are some­what equal. If the employer commits a breach of the Act, the penalties are much the same on him as upon the employee. The two main features of the Bill are the pro­tection of wages and the prohibition of the truck system. vV ages also are to be a first Dharge on moneys due to or in the hands of a contractor, and no assignment of such moneys shall have effect until wages have been paid. When the Bill was under dis­cussion in this Chamber on a previous occa­sion some objection was made to the pro­visions which proposed to eliminate payment by cheque. I would like to draw the atten­tion of hon. m~mbers now to clause 26 of the Bill. It is rather a long clause, but I propose to read part of it to illustrate my argument. It says-

" Nothing herein shall be constru&d to prevent or render invalid any contract for the payment, or any actual payment, to any worker of the whole or any part of his wages in a cheque, draft, or order

in writing for the payment of money to the bearer on demand, drawn on any person, company, or association carrying on the business of a banker in Queens­land, either generally or with any par­ticular persons or class of persons only, if the employer has notifi&d to the worker prior to or at the time of employment that payment by cheque, draft, or order in his case is the usual mode of pay­rnent.''

The clause further provide& that no such cheque shall be crossed, and that if wages are paid by a cheque, draft, or order, and the same is dishonoured, the worker shall be entitled to recover from his employer such reasonable damage as he has sustained in consequence of such dishonour.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: The existing law gives him that.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Yes; but this provision has to be inserted because we have provided in the Bill for payment by cheque under certain conditions. When the Bill was first introduced in the Assembly, it did not provide for payment by cheque, and I think we had a long discussion in Com­mittee upon that particular matter. But in very many case"• it would oo " hardship, not only to the employer but also to the em­ployee, if we insisted upon payment in actual cash.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: That was our conten­tion at the time.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I do not think the suggestion emanated from that side of the House.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: We did suggest it; we moved an amendment.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : I will not contradict the hon. gentleman, but I think this amendment was suggest-ed in the Assembly by some Government supporters, and prob<1bly by members on the other side of the House, and that hon. gentlemen hero adopted the suggestion.

Hon. P. .J. LEAHY : We clo not read the Assembly debates, as a matter of fact.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : I do, and if my memory serves me correctly that is what took place. Howeve;r, the Govern­ment have now agreed that in many cases it may cause hardship to both parties if we insist upon payment of wages in actual cash, and I think clause 26 will meet the difficulty that was raised in this Chamber on the pre­vious Bill. Very many men accept employ­ment in out of the way places from reput­able employers, whose cheque is as good as gold, as the saying is. and it may cause some loss to such workers if they have to be paid in money. I have in my mind the case of some State employees who are employed at some miles distance from a bank. I refer to the men who are employed by the Depart­ment of Mines in the State arsenic mines at Jibbinbar. There the paying officer would have to go along .a very lonely road with £300 or £400 in coin every pay day if he had to conform with the provisions of the Bill ·as it was originally introduced.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHOR~: You find it touches you personally.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I do not think this argument has ever been used <wywhere else.

Hon. T. M. HALL : Oh, yes, I used it before.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Not the argument with reference to the State

·Hon. A. J. Jones.]

1012 Wages Bill, [COUXCIL.] Wages Bill,

arsenic mine. The Treasurer is a reasonable man, and one who understands the indus­trial conditions of Queensland just as well as ·any other man in the State; he has given a good deal of thought to this Bill; Qnd h~ .has be!'n instru.mental in altering the pro­vlswns ot the measure in the direction I have indicated. It would also be an incon­venience to certQin employees who live in those out of the way places if it were in­sisted that they must be paid in cash. Such employees prefer to have the safety of a cheque. If a m<1n loses :£20 or :£30 in notes he must suffer the loss, but if he loses a cheque he can go to the nearest telephone and have pa.vrnent of the cheque stopped by the bank.· However, I think that provision in the Bill will meet the wishes of hon. gentlemen in this House.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: You have accepted the "uggestion to limit the pro­visions of the Arbitration Act, too, have you not?

Hon. T. M. HALL: I think you have accepted most of our amendments.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I do not think we have put in most of the amendments moved in this House. Indeed, I am sure we have not: but if we have, then that is all the more reason whv hon. mem­bers should support this Bill ancl allow it to go through the Committee stage by 6 o'clock.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN : You don't want much.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The other main feature of the Bill is the truck system. There may bCl some discussion on that matter in Committee. The truck system does exist in Queensland, though it is prob­ably not very rampant.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES: It is u great con­venience to the men sometimes.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I would refer hon. members to that part of the Bill dealing with the truck syst,m. It has not been altered very materially, but it will secure to the worker all the convenience.; that arc necessary. If a worker wishes to have an advance for the pnyment of a life insurance premium, or to invest money in certain directi'ons, or to provide necessurics in the case of sickness, such advance is per­mitted. The workmun may also receive tools to initiate his work, and may receive tobacco and the necessa rics of life. I do not think the chief objection to the clause last year was that we did not provide that th1' em­ployer shouM allow the worker certain n rticles in the way of tobacco, matches. and other things, to bn paid for from his earnings.

Hon. A. H. WHITTINGHAM: How does the worker pay for those articles?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He pays for articles obtained from his employer by money, but it is provided in the Bill, as hon. gentlemen will see, if they look at clause 20, that-

" The entire amount of the wages earned by or payable to any worker shall be actually pai·d to such worker in money, and not otherwise, at intervals of not more than one month if demanded : Provided that in case of the termination of the employment the entire amount of such wages shall be so paid within three days after snch termination if de­manded."

[Hon. A. J. Jones.

It is further provided by clause 24 that-" Except by agreement or industria!

award, no dcduction shall be made from a worker's wages for sharpening or repairing tools."

Clause 29 provides thai nothing in the Bill shall be construed to prejudice th'e following; contracts or transactions:-

" (a) vVhere an employer supplies or contracts to supply to any worker any medicine or medical attendance, or any fuel, n.aterials, tools, appliances, or im­plements to be by the worker employed in his trade, labou;·, or occupation;

"(b) Where an employer supplies or contracts to. supply any worker who has engaged with him with the necessary out­fit and means of support, and materials or toob requisite for commencing or con­tinuing his engagement, to any amount not exceeding in any case the amount of two months' wages to be earned by such worker in such engagement;

" (c) \Vher" an employer supplies ot· contracts to supply to any worker any hay, corn, or other provender to be con­sumP.d by any horse or other beast of burden cmploy(ld by the worker in his trade, labour, or occupation."

Rent of houses and tobacco or clothing sup­plird to an <)mp]oyee are also included in that provision. I think I have now referred to all the rr.atters mentioned when this Bill was previously before the House, and I pro­pose to def{lr any further remarks until we reach the Committee stage. I beg to move­That thG Bill be now read a second time.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I am sure 1hat we l<>arn with pleasure that the Minis­ter has adopted some of the amendments we brought forward last year. We endeavoured then, as far ns possible, to make this Bill a goo-d workable Bill in the interests of both th0 Pmployers and employees. \Vc recognised 1hat both eides have rights, and we wanted, if pO''Jiblc, to have thos<> rights specificall) defined and set out, so that there should be no difficulty in carrying out ordinary con­tracts nnd agreements between employer& and emplovccil. Prr nnallc, I should have liked to £Cc the whole of the statutes re­lating to the employment of wage-earners consoli-dated, because we have several ~\ct'l in existence besides those which are repealed by this Bill, mch as the Industrial Arbitra­tion Act, the \Vages Board Act, under which there arP still awards in existence, the \Vorkmon's Lien Act. and other Acts, which ought to be consolidated and brought under one hc;ading. \Ve have so many different statutes relating to employers and employees that it is vcrv difficult to reconcile them to one another :~nd work them in such a way that we can know where we stand. Thm·p are provisions in the Factories and Shops Act which r•,late to employers and em­ployees, and in several instances those pro­yjsions aro at v11rianC'e vdth the provisions in this Bill. The Minister had our ideas on this matter last year, and I was in hope'' that this year he would recognise the need and importance of consolidating all the statutes dealing with employers and em­ployees.

Hon. R. Su~nmR: It would take a very big Bill to do that.

HoN. A. G. C. HA W'I'HORN: That may be so, but still it would be better to get the-

Wages Bill. (17 JULY.] Valuation of Land Bill. 1013

whole of the laws relating to employers and employees consolidated in one Act. Great inconvenience has been caused in Queensland by the fact that there are different awards under the Commonwealth statute and under the Queensland Industrial Arbitration Act which are inconsistent in many points, so that. persons do not know exactly under .which award they are working. The practice of the Labour Department here is that if the Federal Act is more advantageous to the worker they will use that, but if the Inca! Act is more to the advantage of the workers, the ·department will insist upon that Act being carried out. That is an undesirable state of affairs. We should

know exactly where we are. [4 p.m.] People go to one Act and say,

" 'l'his is the legislation we have to carry out. As long as we are carrying out this particular .Act we know that we are doing the right thing." At the present time the employers are under considerable diffi­culty in the reading of these different Acts .. and they are frequently hauled to the court for committing offences which they had no idea they were committing ; and certainly they had no intention of infringing upon the law. I notice that the Minister hae adopted several of our amendments, more particularly that onu which enables wages to be paid by cheque. That particularly is a neceS<ary provision so far as the West ern and Northern portions of the country are concerned. It is quite a feasible thing that a man should be allowe•d to pay his em­ployees by cheque, prm·ided that, when he is C'ntering into the contract, he informs the employee that that is th'' system by which he is going to be paid. It is a great con­vcr,ience to both employer and employee. A man being paid off on a station with £50 or £100 hard cash in his pocket would find i·hat he would go a very short distance before h0 would be relieved of the lot; whereas, if hn has a cheque, he has a much better oppor­tunity of getting into civilisation with it. I am glad to see that the Minister has recog­ni,ed that that particular aspect of the J'osition will' weigh. and he finds that to be the C'ase jn connertion with his arsenlc mine at Stanthorpe. The truck system, I think wo all agr·~·e. c hould not be allowed furth.,r than is absolutely neccseary. The Govern­nwnt, in the Bill before us, have Iargeh· recognised thE~ directions in 'vhich it is advis­able to allow that truck system, so called, to be carried out--certain goods to be pro· vidcd for the men, rent to be deducted, tools of his trade to be supplied and necessar.\· advances made up to thE' extent of two rrconths' wages. I also see that the Minister has a·dopt0d the sugg. stion that he should <'ut out the provisions of the Industrial . \rbit,ation Act where thev were inconsistent \\·ith this Act. Under clause 47, subclause 13), ·he limits the IJrovi sions of that Act, or any award or agreement thereunder, so that i+ will not clash with this Act. The Bill ;., a ncc0smry one, there is no doubt about it .. VVhen we consider that the Masters and Ser· Yants Act goes back as far as 1861, .it is quite time some improvement was made. Possibly during the prog-res,; of the Bill through Com­mittee we shall have further amendments to suggest. and, seeing that the Minister is in a reasonable mood. probably he will agree to some of those amendmer1ts. The Bill that he has brought in is a considerable improve­ment upon th'1t with which we ha,(] to deal last year, and I see no reason why it should not pass the second reading, and-if the

::Yiinistcr is agreeable to meet us-the Bill should go out of this Chamber a much im­proved Bill. J hope the Minister will not lose sight of the fact that consoli·dated legis­lation on the point of the wages system is absolutely necessary in Queensland, and that before we come here next session he will try and have a consolidating measure submitted to this House.

Question put and passed. The consideration of the Bill in Com­

mittee was made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

CHlLLAGOE AND ETHERIDGE RAILWAYS BILL.

:.\1ESSAGE FROM ARSEMBLY GRANTING LEAVE TO AssEMBLY MEMBERS TO GIVE EviDENCE BEFORE SElECT CmrMITTEE.

The PRESIDENT amiounced the receipt of the follow;ng message from the Legislative Assembly:-

" :Mr. Pr<Jsident,-" In answer to the message from the

Legislative Council. ·dated the 16th July, requesting leave for the Hon. E. G. Theodore and H. J. Ryan, Esquire. members uf the Legislative Assembly, to attend and be examined before a Select Committee of the Legislativ•' Council on the Cnillagoe and Etheridge Railwavs Bill, the Assembly acquaint the Councif that ·leave has been granted to their said members to attend and he examined by the s>tid committee, if they think fit.

W. MoCoRMAOK, "Speaker.

"Legi<;lative Assmnbly Chamber, " Brisbane, 16th July, 1918."

:MEATWORKS BILL.

FIRST READING.

On the motion of the SECRETARY FOR ::\IINES. this Bill, received by message from the Asc,E'mbly, was read .a first time.

The econd reading was made an Ord<'r of the Day for to-morrow.

Vc\LUATION OF LAND BILL.

SECOKD READIKG.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: This is a. Bill to make better provision for deter­lnining land values, and for fixing, .assessing, and determining in certain caP1 'S ratf''3, taxes, fees, contributions, loans, and compensation on the ba.sis of values so determined; and for purposes consequent thercon or incidental ther2to. This Bill originated at a Pre­miers' Conference held in l\'Ielbourne. I think it was cliscusse.l a.t two Premiers' Conferences, and all the States of the Com­monwealth have adopted thE' principle of the Bill. The Premiers, Treasurers, and others attending the conferences were un­animous regarding this proposal. New South \Vales, I understand, already has passed a measure dealing with land values, in accord­ance with the arrangement made at the Premiers' Conferences. Anybody who has had an:v experience in land matters must know that in this State the valuation of land is carried out in a very erratic manner, and the whole principle is wrong. The object of this Bill is to bring about uni­formity in land values, and also economy.

Hon. A. J. Jones.]

1014 Valuation of [COUNCIL.] Land Bill.

Why should a. person be taxed on an inflated land value? Land may be valued too high, and, therefore, it is an injustice.

Hon. G. S. CuRTIS: The owner has the right of appeal now.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He will have it under this Bill.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I think this Bill will do more than anything else to inflate land values.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: No, it will bring about a uniform valuation of land.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: That is a uniform inflation you mean, I suppose?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: No. a uniform value. Land, after all, has only one value, and that value should be used for all purposes. \Vhat is the b:1sis of valuation at the present time? Hon. gentl0men who have had any experience in land values must know that if a valuer is valuing for snc­cession and probate duty purpose,. the land is valued very low in order to evade tax­ation. If that land is valuBd for selling pur­poseo, or is valued with a view to borrow­ing money thereon, in some cases it is valued very high. The Hon. Mr. Curtis inter­jectBd that they have the right of appeal. He must know that the who!£ svstem of land valuation ·adopted by the local authori­ties is ab~olutely rotten-if I might use that expression in this Chamber.

Hon. G. S. CURTIS: I did not say so.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I say so. In his experience of land ma ttcrs the hon. gentleman must know that the system adopted in conneetion with the valuation of land at the present time under our present Act is not in any way a just system. Land needs to be valued for various purposes in this State-for F:ederal land tax, State land tax, local authonty purposes, the assessment of succession and probate dutv and prob­ably for private reasons. As' far as the Government are concerned, land has to be valued for those five purposes, and also for the purpose of borrowing money. vVe, there­fore, should have one valuation for all pur­poses. If we pass this Bill the Common­wealth Government, on the score of economv, are agreeable to accept for their purposes the valuations of the State valuers, and to pav for them. I think in very many matte1:s there should be more uniformitv between the State and the Commonwealth; especially in the matter of land valuation. The economy to be effected is apparent. Now. the Bill provides for a valuer-general to be appointed at a salary of £1,000 a year. He will establish a departmPnt which will he under his supervision. This does not mean a great expense, hecause it will do a way with a lot of the expense consequent on overlapping at the prt>sent time. The same number of valuers ma.y be appointed, or probably a lcs':er numher. On the score of economy it is wise to pass this Bill and appoint a valu~'r-gcmeral who will suncrvi'e the whole of the valuation of la.nrl in this State in future. How often have the various dr-part>·Jenb to send different valuers to the one district? For instance, the State bank has to sPnd ont valuers to value for pur· poses connected with its Act. The local authorities also have to appoint valuers.

Hon. R. SrMNER : And they are nearly all different in their valuations.

[Hon. A. J. Jones.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Yes, they are nearly all different. The Publi<; Curator also has a valuer for purposes of probate and succession duties, and also for obtaining the value of land on which loam may be applied for. 'There are too many departmental valuers. especially with respect to country lands. One office could do all the work. We have introduced this Bill on the score of economy.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: This is the first time I have heard you advocate econo1ny.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: It is never too late to mend. (Laughter.)

Hon. E. W. H. FowLEs: Does not the value of land change every day?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Kot every day. If the State expend public money in the construction of railways or c,ther public works, no doubt that expendi­tu"e enhanc<Js the value of land, and all that will be takP!l into consideration. The main feat.ure of the Bill is to have uniformity in land valu9s. I think there is no argument >tgainst th·e Bill when we know that at two Premiers' Conferences they have adopted thP principle, and that the Commonwealth Go­vernment are willing to aceept our valua­tions and pay for any valuations they require if 1·he Bill becomes law. There is a tendenn· in local authnrity valuations to keep the value of land down for some reason or other.

Hon. E. W. H FOWLES: It all depends on the rate. If it i; a low rate it is a high V<lluation.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: It does not depend or. the rate. If land has a eertai::1 value. it should be valued at that figure. and the ,.,+c determined according to the valuP It i• much better, in my opinion, to have a higher valuation and a lower ratn.

Hon. E. \V H FoWLES: That means higher land taxation.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES· It does not mean ,.,-,ore taxation. This is not a revenue-producing Bill

Hon. E. W. H FowLES: It will be Hon. P. J. LEAHY: That is the object of

the Bill, I thiHk. Hon. G. PAGE-IIANIFY: It means a 1!10n>

equitable distribution of taxation.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: In some cases it mav mean a reduction in t!1,:. value: hut whv ehould some people pay on a verv low val{w when it is known that then propertic;s hav~ hePn undervalued?

Hon. F.. W H FoWLES: The Comm1e sionor can ~eV<>.'lle if he thinks a property " undervf!lued.

The SECRET~ RY FOR MINES: If rhc Bill passes, local authorities will need to accept these valuations.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: It is forced on them.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Yes and quite right, too, that we should have FOJne control.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: I say it is quite wrong.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: P_rol:­ably the hon. member will argue that It IS quite wrong; but to my knowledge a

Valuation of (17 JULY.] Land Bill. 1015

mnn~r of men get on to the country ,hire councils for no other purpose than to keep the value of land down.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES : That is a pretty hot statement, isn't it? ·

The SE~RETARY FOR MINES: It has been admitted by country shire councillors. They do not want to devote their time to work they are ex;pected to perform gratis and. th<;Y must have some motive. That, motive IS to keep the value of land down.

H:m. _P. ·J: LEAHY: Have we the same m~bve m this Chamber? We do not get paid.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Hon. gentlemen must have some motive in coming here.

H_on. P. J. LEAHY: Can't we have a good motive?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Hon. gen~lemen may have a good motive. Their motive may be to keep the Government in check and y.>rever;t them passing financial measures whiCh will brmg In more revenue.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: That might be a very necessary thing to ·do.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I know. w-hat the hon. member's motive was m gomg to the Assembly.

Hon. P: .J. LEAHY: Perhaps you had the same mobve. We were there together.

The SECRETARY FOR MI;\;ES: And we were put out together.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: I think you went out before me.

~he SEqRETARY FOR MINES: I boheve I did: The Bill provides that. as soon as possi~le, the valuer-general shall cause a valuation to be made of the unim­proved and improved values of all lands other than Cro\yn lands, and of such Crown )ands >;ts he t~Ir,tks proper to value. That IS a Wise proVIsiOn. Clause 25 sots out for what purposes the valuations are to be used-

" _(1.) This. part shall apply to the fol­lowmg ratmg or taxing authorities enly:-

A local authority; The Metropolitan Water Supply and

Sewerage Board; . Th'l\ Registrar of Titles and his depu­

ties;

The Stamp Commissioners· The Commissioner of Tax~s:

Provided that the Governor in Council may .from !ime to time, by proclamation pnbhs~cd Irt t~e 'Gazette,' extend the ~merat10n ?f this part to any other rat­Ing or tax1ng authority.''

I think I have said sufficient to justify the passing of the Bill.

Hon. E. W. H. FoWLES: How often are the valuations to be revised? Clause 11 is about the only provision dealin'l" with that tha~ I can see. Surely, they will need to be rcvrs(\d once a ~:ear.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The Local Authorities Act requires a revaluation ever:: three years. Clause 11 of this Bill provides-

" (1.) A fresh valuation may be made by the valuer-general at any time with

respect to any parcel or part of any parcel of land, or the whole or any part of any district.

"Such fresh valuations shall be so made whenever necessary in order that the rolls shall, as nearly as may be, represent correct values and ownership of all the lands entered therein.

" (2.) Any owner may, by notice in or to the effect of the prescribed form and on payment of the prescribed fee, re­quire the valuer-general to make a fresh valuation of his land, and of his estate or interest therein; and in such case the roll shall, if necessary, be amended pur­suant to such fresh valuation."

Hon. E W. H. FowLES: Who is to decide when a general revision is necessary ?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The valuer-general, I take it; but I think that is a very wise provision, because, if land has depreciated in value, why wait three :v<lars? If it has risen in value, why should the State be deprived of a fresh valuation? Hon. members must know of many cases where land has become valuable by the con· struction of a railway or the expenditure of public money in other directions. Take a district like Kingaroy, where land was valued at 2s. 6d. an acre, and the people had great difficulty in making a living prior to the construction of a railway. The land was enhanced in value to a very considerable extent by the building of about 56 miles of rail" ay over flat country. That railway could be built in twelve months, and why wait three yearn or any other long period before making a fresh valuation of that par­ticular land?

Hon. G. S. CuRTIS : Railways do not always enhance the value of land.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Some­times, when they go through a piece of land, they may depreciate the value of that land, but that v~ry seldom happens. Usually a railway increases the value of land, especi­ally farm lands.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES: Does the unim­proved value include minerals underneath the surface?

'fhe SECRETARY FOR MINES: I think not. That would be very difficult to detf)rmine. I gave some attention t<> that question in connection with the previous Bill. It would be very difficult sometimes to determine the value of minerals in mineral freeholds or mineral leases.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES: Would you take the royalties as a basis?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I do no< know whether the royalties could be taken as a basis. It is a very difficult prob­lem, and I am not prepared to say what would be the vahw of mineral ]eases under this Bill. For instance, Mount Morgan at one time was valued at. 2s. 6d. an acre. But what would be "its value to-day, or its value immediately after the discovery was made? Usually the owners of mineral leases pay taxation in another way-in the way of income tax, according to the value of the minerals they take out of the ground. I believe the Bill will meet with the approval of hon. members opposite. It is a Bill that is badly needed in this State. I have had some experience in valuing land, and I

Hon. A. J. Jone,~.]

1016 Valuation of [COUNCIL.] Land Bill.

know something· about shire council valua­tions, and of the unjust way land has been valued in very many places.

Hon. R. SuMNER: The valuations are erratic.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES· Very erratic, indeed. I can quote from ~y own experience as a land valuer instances of what erratic valuations are made at times.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Were the erratic ones yours?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: No. I adjusted values in a certain city in this State, and I put the values on a just plane.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Were there many appeals?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Three days' appeal-a great many appeals. (L:mghter.) By very c,neful adjustment I rarsed the value of the lands in the city of Maryborough by £66,000 when I valued for the city. c~mnci'. a little oYer tour years ago. The orrgmal values were something over £300,000.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: \V ere you not defeated at the next. election?

'.rhe SECRETARY FOR MINES: No. I mad() my valuations just prior to the elec­tion before last. The last day of the appeal court was the day I opened my campaign and, to my surprise, I had a majority of 500:

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Of course, they were men who had no land.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: No. In valmng the land I did not take into co_nsidc":ation. the ownership of th'l land, nor wrll thrs B_rll. I do not think any just Yaluer consrders ownership in determining the value of land. I may give one case to show how erratic city council's values some­times are. One propertv in Marvborouo-h consisted of a 36-perch allotment the val~e of which was £36-£6 above th~ minimum value. Just opposite the allotment was a block of land containing 14 acres 3 roods 35 perches, which was diYided into 60 allot­ments, which were offered for sale at about £20 an allocment. The whole of that block was valued at £30-the minimum valuation -:-although the 36-perch allotment just oppo­srte was valued at £36. Of course, the owners of that block had no argument when they appealed.

Hon. G. S. CuRTIS: That is only an iso­lated case.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: There wore n1any ca-;e.:; in that city of such erratic valuation~. But I am not here to relate all my experiences as a valuer. The Hon. lYlr.

. Leahy made me admit. that I [4.30 p.m.] brought about a three days' ap-

peal court, but I can safely say tha~ I was able to pu~ up very good arguments to Justify my valuatwns, with the n"<ult that the court only cut down my valuations by about £5,000, out of a total of £66,000. However, I think I have said enough to (•onvince the Council that this Bill is worthy of. very 15rcat consideraion,, and I hope it wrll recPrve the same const-deration as the \Vages Bill has received. ·

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Is this a money Bill?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: No. \V e want to prevPnt some people from being taxed on inflated values, if possible.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN : You will allow m to amend this Bill then?

[Hon. A. J. Jones.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I do not think it is wise to amend any of these Bills-a Bill like this especially. There may be some slight amendments necessary in the Popular Initiative and Referendum Bill, which we shall shortly consider in Committee, but I do not think we should amend this Bill. The provi-sions of the mea­sure have been very carefully drafted, and hon. members will find a difficulty in making the Bill more perfect than it is at the present time. I understand from the Hon. Mr. Leahy that his motive in comiijg into this Chamber is to make Bills more perfect than they are when they are sent to us from the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: That is my main motive

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I' chnllenge the hon. gentleman to make this Bill more perfect than it is at the present time, if he believes in a uniform system of ,·aluation. I do not think I need explain the Bill clause by clause. Some reference is made to mining land in clause 39, and any further information I can give on that matter I shall be only too pleased to give when we go into Committee on the Bill. I move­That the Bill be now read a second time.

HoN. P J LEAHY: I listened to the Minister and I am sure we all listened to him with very great interest, particularly whe;, he told us about his own experiences as a land valuer I was hoping that he would tell us what basis of value he adopted, but he did not enlighten us upon that point. All the hon. gentleman told us was that he succ0edcd in raising the valuations of the city of Maryborough by £66.000, and that the men who own tho land were so pleased that they immediately afterwards returned him to Parliament.

The SECRETARY FOR MTNES: The landlords went round and raised th~ rents, and put the blame on me.

Hox. P J. LEAHY: There were not enough of ·them; if there had been, the hon. gentleman would have boon defeated. The hon. gentleman made a particular appeal to me to pass this Bill, and to improve it if this Hou"e can do so. There are some Bills capable of improvement, and there are other Bills which are so inherently bad that they are incapable of improvement, and I think this Bill is in the latter cht:·J. I opposed this Bill last vear, and I shall oppose it now. I shall encleo.vour to give the reasons for the attitude we took up with regard to the measure last year, and for the. attitude we are taking up now. The first thing we should ask is, what is the object of this Bill? The Bill is innocent enou~h until you look into it. and then you find. that it contains a lot of intricacies. Vi'e are entitled to ask what is the object of the Bill? It i, a Bill drawn up by a political party, and we wish to know what is the object in submitting the Bill to Parliament. We !<:now that anything wliich comes to us from the other Chamber we need to scrutinise very f'arefully, because nearly a!-' ays there are some hidden objects, liomo pitfalls to deceive the people, contained in the measures sent up to this House. I have come to the conclusion that the real object of this Bill is to inflate art;ficial1:· J.md vahws, and conseCJuently to very largely increase the total amount that will be paid to the Government under the Land Tax Act. 'I'he Minister told us that it is not a land taxation Dill, and, technically, it is not, but

Valuation · o.f (17 JULY.) Land Bill. 1017

"·bother that. will be the effect of the Bill or no~, that IS the effect which the Govern­ment mtend, or hope, will result from it.

The SECRET~RY FOR MINES : It originated at the Prem!Crs Conference.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: It may have origin­ated ~t the Premiers' Conference, bnt the Premwrs had not all the wisdom in the world, and probably this measure was sug­gested by .the Queensland Treasurer, and those Prem.10rs, not knowing the Treasurer as we do,, mnocently accepted the measure. ~ should hke to know what is the Minister's 1dea of the value of land.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : It has only one value.

.HoN. P. J. LEAHY: What is the basis o! that value?

T~e SECRETARY FOR MINES : It is the pro­ductive value.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Somebody has said th1_Lt the valu~ of a thing is the value it will br~n~. That IS one definition of value. The Mmis.te~ says that the productive value of land IS 1ts ,-alue. That, probably, is as near the mark as an.):'thmg else, but it is not the only factor which goes to make up land value.

The SECR~TARY FOR MINES : The basis of local authonty valuations is the selling value of the land.

. HoN. P. J .. ~EAHY: I do not think that IS so. The M~mster talked a good deal about local authontws, and made a very sweeping charge agamst them that thev are incom­petent, that the values they put on land are al~ogether wrong, and so on. I know some­thme; of local !'luthorities. I own some land m hve or s1x local al!thorib· districts and I knc w that every year "a numbe; of ra~epayers .appeal against the local authonty valuatwns, because they consider thev arc too lugh. Down at Coolangat!a and_ all over the .Place, t.here are appeal~ agamst the valuatwns whiCh are too high, an~ m very many cases the tribunal con­sistmg_ of a police magistrate, lowe;s the valuatiOn. If a system has been working for a number of_ y<:ars, as. the present system of local author1ty valuatiOn has been, and if t~at system has given reasonable satisfac­tiOn, then a Government who want to alter the syst~m should show that it is unsatis­factory. ·If +Jwy ean do so; at any rate, they ,houJ.d be able to show that they can devise some better ~"ste'!'· The main question we have to consider 1s whether the svstem pro­posed i": this Bill is a better system than the on.e w~1c~ has existed hitherto. I do not thmk It IS .. Local authorities generally err.­ploy men w1th a local knowledge of the dis­tnct; they get competent. men, and pay thf·m reasonable remuneratwn for their ser­vic~s. Valuation notices are sent out to the vanous ratepayers, and they are given an opportunity of appealing against the valua­tion. There are hundreds of appeals through­~mt Queensland every year. If, in the hear­mg of an appeal, it is shown that a sale of land has been made, it does not follow that the price\ rr•all~rrl ::~t f'a1o will be taken as a fair crit!"rion of the valu~ of the particular property m respect of whiCh the appeal is made. It may be taken as one of the factors in arriving at a correct valuation, but it is not the only factor. Supposing there is an area of 20,000 acres_in _the Gympie, Gayndah, or Maryborough district, and that a portion

of that area is sold at .£5 per acre, it would b' wrong to say that because a portion of the land has brought .£5 an acre the whole of the 20,000 acres is worth .£S per acre, because all the land may not be of similar quality. Moreover, another man in the vicinity of that area might be· prepared to take less than £5 an acre for similar land. The present system arrives at a fair value of the land as nearly as is possible, and it certainly is a much fairer and better ,system than the one proposed in the Bill. The Minister, as I have said, charges all the local authorities with incompetence, or worse. He says that men become members of local ~uthorities for the express purpose of keep­mg down the valuations. I do not think men secure seats on local bodies for that express purpose. Those men give a good deal of valuable time to local affairs, and they get nothing for their services. They are a very deserving body of men, and should not be libelled by the Minister or anyone else as being men who become members of local authorities for the express purpose of keeping down valuations.

The SECRETARY FOR Mn;'ES : I say some of them do; they have admitted it.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Some of them mav have admitted that, but I know that they ar,, generally animated by local patriotism.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundreL

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Was it not Dr. John­san who said that? I am glad that the Min­ister quotes somebody other than Ella \Vheeler Wilcox. I was speaking just now about the class of valuers appointed bv local authorities ill the present time, and r" ~tated that they appointed reliable men posses,ii~g local knowledge and experience. Suppo,ing this Bill ever became law, what "'ould hap­pen? \\'o should have an army of valuers going all over the country throughout th" length and breadth of Queensland. Those men would receive high rates of pay, and if we arc to judge of them by other appoint­ments which the Government have made, and from the admission made by the Minister last night. I think they woul·d all be men who hold the same views as the Government. The Minister last night laid down th.e extra­ordinary doctrine that the most capable men the Government could employ are men who sympathi·,e with the policy of the Govern· ment.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : I not only said it, but I meant it.

Hox. P. J. LEAHY: The hon. gentle­man oometime··· says things he does not mean. If this Bill became law, >ve should have hundreds and thousands of valuers appointed mainly because of their labour sympathies. That particular element does no't apply ut the present time to ,-aluations made by the persons appointed by local authorities. We have now un­biassed men, and with unbiassed men we are likelv to get fair valuation; but if the men 'who are appointed are servants of the Trades Hall, or servants of some outside or<'anisation which controls the Government, w/; shall get men whose first object will be to carry out the policy of the Government with regard to land. What is their policy with regard to land, and the people on the

lion. P. J. Leah~!.l

IOlS [COUNCIL.] Land Bill.

land? Whatever their intentions may be, their policy, judging from the Bills brought before us, is a policy injurious to the man on the land. The result is that almost every landowner in Queensland is an opponent of the present Government. Of course, I may be told that at the last election certain farmers voted for the Government, but that matter has already been referred to, and I will not touch upon it again. If this Bill is passed, the Government will send round their own political supporters to value land owned by their political opponents. Is it possible that any man having those pro· clivities can form a just valuation and be the most competent man? I say, No. Are all the loeal authorities of Queensland to be insulted by saying that they do not know their business? Almost without exception, every local authority in Queensland is against this Bill. Do those men know their busi­ness, or do they not ?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : If we judge by the conferences they hold, they are against everything that is progressive.

Ho~. P. J. LEAHY: The conference of local authorities is a15ainst it. Members have written mt· that they arc against it. Do th<"y knnw their own business, or do they not? h it not a reasonable thing to assumP that these men. who are intimately connected with the land, and practically ail of whom are lando,vnPr ~. know thE'jr own business better than t hi' Government, better than anv Labour nmnineo of this Governnu~nt who ts supposed to be tempecamentally fitted to carry out these valuation;;? The Bill is an absurditv. It is an inBult to the local authori­tiSB, and an insult to the intelligence of hon. members here to ask us to pass it.

'I'll" 2ECRET.\RY FOR l\1INES: Do you knmv that th" local nuthorities have absul'd valua· tions and an absurd sy,tem of valuation?

HoN. P. ,J. LEAHY: The ::VTinister says the loc::tl authorities have absurd valuation:; and an absurd s~ . .:;1c•n1 of valuation.

'l'he SECRET AllY FOR MINES: \Vho usually values? The clerk of the council.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Not alwavs. Even if it is the clerk who values, he p1·obably ie as competent as anybody else. The clerk always is a resident of the district and he has special knowlPd~o. He has no object in either raising value•·' or lowering them. In other cases it is not the clerk. Take the large shirt> of Caboo:ture. Last year thcT employ<>cl a man who was not the clerk, but who had a lmowkdgP- of the district, and thPy paid him a substantial sum for doing it. Whether he is or is not the clerk, generally speaking they get a. man who is competent. and who has a knowledge of values. If you have a competent man, and if he takes into account all the factors that will be noc0ssarv in ord~r to arrive at a fair valuation o"f land, usually that man can arrive at a better valuation and a more <:orrect a.nd fair valua~ tion than >omP man from Brisbane, Gympio, Maryborough. or Borne?ihf're e::e who mav be ·0llt into a district 500 milH awav and told to value the whole district. Ilow is that man comnt>tont "! Is it because ho is a man with GoYcrnm~~nt sympathi£'s? Does that give him a knowletlge of local condi­tions? Could he do as well a~ a local man with all his local knowledge?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : I did not say that only Gon>rnmcnt sympathiser;, have a knowledge of land values.

[Hon. P. J. Leahy.

Ho~. P. J. LEAHY: You said last night, and repe~tc-d to-day, that a man with Go­vernment sympathies was the man for thi~ Gov.Prnmen~.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I said he coul,f better :tdminister an Act pa> ed by this Governnwnt. because :1e would be in sym­pathy with it.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: This would be an Act passed by this Gm ernment, and, accord­ing to your own stah·mcnt, you would give the billc·ts to this class of man. Apparently, competency is a minor matter, and may be disregarded. Hemarks were made about the Premier,' Conference and New South Wah'< I have no kn0wledge that New South Wales has paS'·<>d a Bill similar to this. If th" :Minister defin;tely says so, I will accept his statement. [ am a pretty regular readet· of the " Sydney Morning Heral·d" and the Sydney "Daily Telegraph," and I have not seen anything in those papers saying tha~ they have pasc,ed a similar thing to this.

Hon. R. su~l~ER: It was passed two years ago. Ho~. P. J. LEAHY: They may have

passed '1 Bill. but I do not think it was quite similar to this. In any case, if New South \Vales has done it, is there any particular re::tson whv· we shou!d do it? Sometimes we give the !cad to the other States.

Hon. R SuMNER: We do in Labour legis­lation, anyhow.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: I was referring to sensible legislation and sensible actions. f remmnbcr sonw two or three years ago Wl~ gave .a lend, or struck a blow, which was fE·lt throughout A uetralia. I am just intro­ducing tha~ fol' the rurpe>il of comparison. I refer to the Bill to hand over to the Federal Government. under clause 15 of the Common· wealth Constitution Act, all the industrial powers. The Government rushed it through the Lower House. sm.pending the Standing Orders, and trit·d to do the same thing here. \Ye, in this Cbamb<>r. considNed that we would not hand over the de<tinies of Queens­lac-cl to anv bodv out,idc. \Ve threw out the Bill. It \\:a, t."iegraphed all over Australia that night. and every other State in Aus­tralia, with poeeibly en~ exception, followed suit. If we had paN•rl that Bill, possibly <·very .1tlwr StatP in Australia would have followed suit. If we had clone that, yo<I would not have had anv <\rbitration Court eitting in QnNmsland. " The whole of the aJ"llitration s.""t''m of Quecw,!and would hav0 been done awav with. In blocking- that, we faYe th,, lea.cl "to the rest of Australia. In the same way, if we throw out this Bill it may~I hope it will~induce all the othnr States that have not yet passed it to follow in our steps. That is another reason why we should ,-eject it.

The SECRET\RY FOR MINES: You must believe in uni:ormity of ]and values?

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: I sav that we have flS near an U[>proach to uniformity under the prP!;)f'nt sy.;:;h•In as we could have under any other system. "Cniformity may be '1

good thing-. or it may be a bad thing. You may hav" uniformity in goodPess, you may have uniformity in badne s. \Vhat we want to arrive at here, I take it, is a fair valuation. This uniform business is absurd. Supposing you have land of a particular class in Rockhampton. Supposing it is the usual forest country growing bloodwoo-d and

Val=twn of (17 JULY.] Land Bill. 1019>

that kind of thing. That land possibly may be worth £1 an acre. You may come across exactly the same class of country 100 miles away, and it might be worth £2 10s. an acre, or only 10s. You cannot have uniformity in values merely because the soil con<litions and that kind of thing are the same. What <ioes the Minister mean by uniformity?

'I'he SECRETARY FOR MINES: Uniformity ;n the system.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Have not we uni­formity now? How coul·d you have one uniform value for all purposes? Are the men who would be appointed under this Biil kss Iikclv to makP mistakes than the men now carrying out the valuations?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : A man pay" land tax on one value. That should be the value for all other purposes.

HoN. P J. LEAHY: Does this Bill lay down a basis of value?

Hon. E. ,V. H. FowLES: No.

HoN. P .• J. LEAHY: If it does not, how are you going to have uniformity.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Mr. Parnell tried to lay down a basis of value last night, with his amendment.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Will you accept the Hon. Mr. Parneil's amendment? I say that, whether uniformity is a good or a bad thing, you are not any more likely to get uniformity under this Bill than under the present system.

The SECRI~TARY FOR MINES: Have a uniform system, not a uniform value.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: You might get a uniform system and get a result that is not uniform. What appeals to me is to have a correct value of land. "What is the good of a'·uniform system that is very unfair an<l inequitable in its results? The only system worth anything is one which gives proper results. The system carri.;:d out bv the local authoritie«, whore they make the~r appoint­ments without. any political bias, is a system that is I ikely to be better than a system which enables a Government to giv(J-as is admitte-d-billets to their political supporters and to send them to all parts of Queensland without any knowledge, in order to make theRe uniform values. Under this Bill it would be possible to appoint the Hon. Mr. Page-Hanify to value the few bits of land I have. What kind of valuation would that be 1 I me that as an extreme case.

The SEC:RETARY FOR MINES: He would give you a fair value

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: As far as his know­ledge went, I suppose he would. A man might have very good intentions, and the results may be very bad. One of my great objections to this is that you woul<l not have competent men, and the work would not be done as well as it is done under the present system, because the present system is one which is free from political or party bias. 'The system under this Bill would b<> impregnated with the virus of politics. You could not ha vc fair play or impartiality under it.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Do you know any Labour man who was appointed under your Government-land valuers, or anyone else?

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: The Government I belonged to <lid not believe in making valua·· tions in this way.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Did they make any appointments outside their own ranks?

HoN. P .. J. LEAHY: Yes, they did. I certainly have not heard that the present Government have gone outside their own ranks. I would net object to the dict~m laid down· by the Government to appomt their own supporters, if they were competent, and if they had the necessary knowledge. Before. I sit <:!own, I want to make some reference to the provisions of the Bill. I find that if this Bill is paose<l evory man will have to send in a valuation if he is the owner of land. Think for on(J moment of the number of returns a man has to make at the present time. If he ?wns £5,000 worth of land he has to send m a Federal land tax retu~n. If he earns an income of something over £10Q he has to make . a Federal income tax return. He has to send m a State land tax return and a State income tax return. On top of all that, he will hav.e to send in an additional return un<ler this Bill, because it is different from the pro­visions of the Land Tax Bill. There are some men now who have to put on men specially to do no other work except sen<l in these returns. If thP valuer-general were a good man and the Bill were at all workable, I suppose he would be worth The .salary of. a Cabinet Minister. The powers given to him are very large. There is too much of a tendency on the part of the Government eo give undue powers to people who, perhaps, may exercise them unfairly. There are. a number of clauses in the Bill, ail of whi?h will operate more or less harshly. . I will take one particular clause as showmg how the Government wants to keep all the powE)r in its own hands, neglecting this Chamber altogether. Under clause 51 they are ern­powered to make regulations. Then, if both Houses of Parliament sE>verally pass a reso­lution at any time within fifteen days, the reo-ulations may be disallowoo. I suppose th~y imagine they havq laid a .trap_ f~r ho~. members in this place ~y puttmg It _m this way. The plain rneanmg of that .Is th:tt unless both Houses pass the resolu!wn d!s­allowing the regulations, the re~ulat:ons :vrll stand. We have objected to this thmg trrne after time. and have put m further arnen?­ments. Still, it appears, the G'?vernrnent ':'Ill never learn wisdom, and this samE' tJ:nng comes up on every occasion. I am afraid I have occupied the time of the House to a g~Pater E>xtent than the Bill merits. I have onlv to sav, in conclusion, that I ca_nnot. s.::e any good 'in the Bill. I do not thmk 1~ Is necessary. I think _it wpl op~rate unfaul;r and harshlv. I thmk It Will ca:use addi­tional burdens not only upon the City people but upon that most important body of. me~, the producers in the country .. The thmg IS practically all ba;l :tnd ve~y little. g;ood. I think the sooner It IS sent mto ob!Ivwn, the better. [5 p.m.]

HoN. G. S CURTIS: I beg to move th<' adjournment of the debate.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I understood that we were going on with this Bill.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: We usually adjourn the <iebate on a Bill after your seoond'

Hon. A.. J. Jones.]

1020 Popular Initiative and [COUNCIL.] Referendum Bill.

a·eading speech. To-day we had one speech in addition. \Ve can go on with the Popular Initiative and Referendum Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I have no objection to the adjournment of the dcJbate, except that I think it is wise some­times to indicate to me what is desired, so that I may know what business to go on with.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: I assure you it was not done from any want of courtesy to you.

Question put and passed.

The resumption of the debate was made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

l'OPULAR INITIATIVE A~D REFEREN­DUM BILL.

CoMMITl'EE. (Hon. Tr. F. Taylor in the chair.)

On,clause 1-" Short title and comm.ence­JJtrnt -

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES: Clause 1 raised the whole question of the constitutional Yalidity of the Bill. One of the questions to have been asked the Minister that afternoon dealt with that question.

Hon. R. SUMNER: Why didn't you ask it?

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Because of the miserable subterfuge adopted by the Govern­ment with· regard to the first question asked by the Hon. Mr. Brentnall. He was sure that .ans\ver did not emanate form the :Minister but it was the most petty and mean subter: ~uge that could be conceived. It was quite m accordance with the usual practice in another place, but it was absolutelv out of place in a company of gentlemen."

Hon. R. su~!NER: The question was correctly answcr<Cd.

HoN. K W. H. FOWLES : The answer '·as such that it almost justified them in moving the adjournment of the Council to nJl attention to it. Under the circumstances it was reprehemible in the highest degree: H._, had. been in hopes at the beginning of th1s sesswn that t~e Government "ould give frank and uneqmvocal answers to honest docent questions. '

lion. R. SU11NER: The question should have g1ven the corroct title of the publication.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES : The answer could have been given in this form-

" Apparently, the question applies to the pamphlet entitled ' Socialism at \Vork.' If so, the answers are as follows:-"

H~n. R. SUMNER: There was a pamphlet published a long tmw ago called " Socialism in our Time.''

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES: But that was not s~nt out " With the compliments of the P;·emwr of Queensland." There was not the slightest doubt as to the pamphlet that was referred to, and on a sheer technicality the U?vernment refused to give information that nught very well have been given. The ques­hon arose as to cons~itutionality of the Bill, and he had been gomg to ask the Govern­ment whether they had taken the opinion of anyone ·">s to whether the measure was con­stitutional ?r not-not necessarily the opinion nf anyone m Queensland, but 'the opinion of a;won.e in Austra.lia or in the old country. l ractJCally, the B1ll proposed to abrogate th"

[Hon. A. J. Jones.

rights and duties of Parliament, and hand over the legislation of the country, away from Parliament, to a referendum. It was a question whether it was constitutional or not under the Constitution Act of 1867. If it was constitutional, the Council might just as well know what it was voting for. If it was not constitutional, what was the use of their voting on it? They were not simply voting in order to precipitate expensive litigation between the Crown and various bodies or individuals. The clause said-

" This Act may be cited as the Popular Initiative and Referendum Act of 1918."

Doubtless, it would be popular when the Council had inserted its amendments. Hon. members would see that the clause was really linked up with clause 20, which dealt with the enacting of proposed laws which had been pac.sed by a referendum. Subclause (2) read-

" The enacting provi,ion of every such law, when so assented to, shall be-

Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the consent of the poop le of Queensland, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-"

Tlwn it left out the words " and by thE' Parliament assembled," so that, if they passed the Bill, th0y would have two streams of laws on their statute-book, one passed by Parliament the other passed by referendum. Were thos~ laws to be of equal validity? How were the ones passed by referenda to be repealed, if they were ever repealed; or were they to lie as dead letters on th? statute-book?

Hon. 'l'. NEVITT : There Js nothing to preYent their being- repealed if necessary.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Repealed by what means?

Hon. G PAGE-HANIFY: By referenda.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Were they only to be repealed by means of other referenda? Supposing a law which was passed in haste by means of a referendum. and within twelve months the effect of that law was seen to be bad: deputations waited on the Premier; the Press were against it: there was not the slightest doubt but that the whole State was in favour of a repeal of that law--

Hon. G. PAGE-HANIFY: TherE' is provision for that at the end of clause 25.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: That said that it must be undone by another referendum.

Hon. W. H. DE~fAINE : Exactly. Would you agr0e to the Bible in State schools being undone !J,, Parliament? Of course, you wouldn't. '

HoN. E. vY. H. FOWLES: The proviso at the end of clause 25, to which the Hon. Mr. Page-Hanify referred-that the proposed law could onlv be repealed by another refuendum-gave the whole question away. In the ordinary course a law passed by a referendum would not contain such a pro­vision. Supposing that within twelve months the people found out that the law passed by a referendum was an utter failure and they wanted to repeal it, why should they put the whole State to the expense of a referendum when the will of the people was perfectly well known?

Hon. W. H. DEMAINE : Because the people want it.

Popular Initiative and [17 JULY.] Refere'l!<clum Bill. 1021

Ho::<i. E. W. H. FOWLES: The people did not want it. They wanted to be fed with common-sense legislation; not to be living on referenda.

Hon. G. PAGE-HANIFY: ·would you approve of abolishing the Council by legislation after referring the question once to the people"?

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Not so long as the Assembly lived. The Assembly would always need some check on it. A one-House Parliament was simply a sulky and a horse without any brake. Would the hon. member like to travel in a motor-car without a brake?

Hon. G. PAGE-HANIFY: ·would you approYe of the abolition of this Chamber being de­cided on by legislation rather than by a referendum?

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: He would answer the question in this way : Queensland was not the only State in the British Empire. and thev must be careful when thcv altered their c"Onstitution that they did "not pre­judic~ the rights of every other part of the Empue. (Hear, hear!) The hon. member believed tha.t he could pull down ono part of a building and leaYe the other part just as 1t was. He should know that, in pulling down one part of a building he was likelv to bring the rest of the building about hi's ears too. There were several Acts on th<> statute-book which applied to all parts of the British dominions excepting India and one or two other parts of the Empire which were expressly ;>xcluded from the operations of those Acts. Those .Ads dealt with alter­ations of the Constitution. If Queensland altered its Constitution, they would be put­ting a certain interpretation upon Acts of Parliament that applied not only to Queens­land, but to all the other parts of the Empire. Did ihis Bill abrogate in any way the Constitution Act of 1867 '! If it pur­p0rted to do that, then it was unconstitu­tional. In order to allow the measure to have all the operation it could have without causing the expense of litigation and with­out delaying its coming into force, he pro­pooed, purely as a safeguard for the Govern­ment and in order that the measure might have just what operation it validly could have. that there should be inserted an am<'ndment after clause 1 providing that thP whole of th<1 Bill should be subject to the provisions of the Constitution Act of 1867. OJ' any amending Act thereto. He would draw the attention of the Crown Law Officers. throuvh the 2\1inister for :Mines, to the Canadian ease of two years ago, which was taken from the highest court in Canada to the Privy Council, whcr<' it was pointed out that their Initiative and Referendum Act. in so far as it purported to annul tlw Sovereign in Council, was void. This Bill proposed to do the same thing.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: That was the Manitoba case?

Hol<i. E. W. H. FO\YLES: Yes, and it was a most illum'inating judgment. If the Crown Law Officers had thoroughly con­sidered that judgment. he was sure that they would have no objection to the new clause he suggested, or to alterating clause 20.

Hon. G. PAGE-HANIFY: You put in that same clause before.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Yes, and it was justified by the Manitoba decision.

Perhaps the Minister would tell them now whether the Government had taken eo>~.nsel's opinion with regard to the constitutionality of this Bill ?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He did not know whether he was justified in answering the question of the hon. member. but thought he should request the hon. gentle­man to give notice of the question again. ·

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: You might tell him that you would reply in due course.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: No: he had the answers to both the questions of which the hon. member had given l'lotice, and he thought those amwers were courteous, but the hon. member, through a little bit of pique, withdrew the questions.

Hon. E. \Y. H. Fowr,ES: No; that was a protest against the first answer you gave.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Th<' question aqked by the Hon. Mr. Brentnall was not in order. The hon. gentleman asked a question about a pamphlet on "Socialism in our Time," nnd it \vas quite • correct to say that the Government did not know of any 'ueh pamphlet.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Only the name was incorrect.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The Government knew of no pamphlet entitled "Socialism in our Time."

Hon. P. J. LEAliY: Do you know anything a.bout a pamphlet on "Socialism at \York," though they do not work as a rule?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Social­ism was at work now. However, he did not wish to be called to order for referring to that matter. If the Hon. Mr. Brentnall W'lntecl an answer to his question, he could Mk it again in a proper form. The Hon. ::\<ir. Fowle; had asked a question about tlw ('Onstitutionality of this Bill. On the 3rd October, 1916. the Hon. Mr. Fowles asked tlw representative of the Government-

" \Vith reference to the Popular Initia­tiYc and Referendum Bill-

1. Has the Government, in view of the provi·.ions of the Constitution Act of 1867, taken the opinion of the Crown Law Officers as to-(i.) Whether it is competent for Parliament to entertain or pass such Bill; (ii.) whether any previous petition or address to His :Uajesty is necessary; (iii.) whether the ~oncurrence of two-thirds of the mem­bers of the Council and of the Assem­bly, rP>'~IH'otively, is ll{'Cessary before the Bill, if passed in its present form, could be presented to the Governor ; (iv.) whether the proposed Bill, b;~· implication or otherwise, repeals all or any of the provisions of the Parliamen­tary Bills Referendum Act of 1008?

2. If so, will he be good enough to lay such opinion on the table of the Council?"

Tlw Secretary for Mines replied-" 1 and 2. The GovernmE<nt has taken

the advice of competent counsel on these matters, but it is not usual to place such opinions on the table of the House."

He could assure the hon. gentleman that the Government had taken the opinion of corn. potent counsel on that matter. With regard to the question<> of which the hon. gentleman had given notice that .afternoon, he had

Hon. A. J. Jf)nes.]

1022 Popular In·i~ative and [COUNCIL.] Referendum Bill.

intended to refer the hon. gentleman to the answers which he gave on the 3rd October, 1916.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: This is a public matter. Why not lay counsel's opinion on the table?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: They discussed this matter at great length last sesoion. The Hon. Mr. Hawthorn then raised the question as to whether the Initia­tive and Referendum Bill meant the cutting of the painter. The oame question was raised by the Hon. Mr. Thynne in his speech on this Bill the other day. He thought that the Hon Mr. Hawthorn was satisfied last session that the Bill in its prPsent form did not interfere with the representative of the Crown in Queensland. Hon. gentlemen had only to look at subclause (4) of clause 20, which said-

" Nothing in this Act chall be deemed to affect or ptejudice the provisions of the Constitution of Queensland relating to the reservation of Bills by the Go­vernor f~r I"iis Majesty's assent."

That was a complete answer to the Hon. Mr. Fowles's criticism on clause 1 of the Bill. He was sorry that the Hon. Mr. Thynne was not present this afternoon, be­cause that hon. gentleman endeavoured to convev to the Council, and through them to the people, that there was a desire to get this Bill passed because the Government wanted to cut adrift from His Majesty's representative in the State. He would draw the hon. g-entleman's attention to the pro­vision he had just quotDcl, as evidently the hon. gentleman had not read every clause of the Bill. No doubt, the object of the Hon. Mr. Fowles in moving a new clause to he inserted after clause 1 was to provide that it should not be competent to take a referen­dum on the abolition of the Council under this Bill.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES: You can do that under the existing Referendum Act.

Tho SECRETARY FOR MINES: The object of the hon. gentleman was to prevent the Government appealing to the people, if they so wished, on the question of the aboli­tion of the Council under this Bill.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: No; I want to warn you off dangerous ground; that is all.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: If the Government ha-d power now to take such a referendum. why not leave them that power in this Bill? The people had a right to say whether they should have one Legislative Chamber or two Legislative Chambers.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES: They have already said what they want in that respect.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: They might say something different if the matter was referred to them again. The Bill was an amendment of the Constitution Act, and all it did was to give the people power to initiate legislation and to take a referendum.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: Cooper's case was at;ainst you there, if this is an amendment of the Constitution.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The Manitoba case was not on all-fouro with this Bill.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES: It is pretty nearly, though.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : In that case they eliminated all reference to

[Hon . .A. J. Jonu.

the Crown. The Hon. Mr. Fowles talked about the Council being a brake on the Legislative Assembly, and asked members how thev would like to travel in a motor-car without· a brake. When members support­ing the Government said the Council was a clog on the whPels of progress, hon. gentle­men opposite objected. He was, therefore, glad that the Hon. Mr. Fowles now admitted that it was a brake.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES : A brake is not a clog.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: This was a brake on the wheels of progress.

Hon. T. M. HALL : The " Brake's Pro­gress," amongst other things.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: So lor,g- as the Government were going in the clirection of progress, what harm was there in their going quickly?

Hon. P. J. LEAIIY: Supposing the progress is in the oppooite direction?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He was sorry to hear hon. gentlemen in that Cham­ber advoooting the "go-slow " policy.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: You might do like the Ga-derene swine.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He thouo-ht hon. gentlemen must be satisfied that

0

the Bill was constitutional, as clause 20 showed very clearly that there was no attempt to eliminate the ':epresentative . ®f His Majesty in regard to h1s power to g1ve assent to Bills.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: He took it the object of the amendment was to prevent many. of the wild revolutionary characters outs1de who wer~ supporting the Government, and some of whom eventually would get into

that Chamber, from carrying out [5.30 p.m.] their designs. Did the hon.

members think they were going to permit those men ~o pull down the P!llars of society, and brmg the w~ole fabriC of

civilisation tumbling around the1r ears, merely because the Hon. Mr. Demaine and his friends wanted it? The Hon. Mr. Fowles was a moderately progressive man, and t_he cl':'use which he had suggested was one whwh m1gJ;lt be expected to come from him. He. d1d not know very much about the Mamto_ba decision. With reference to what the Mm­ister had told them about the Government consulting lawy.;:rs that was not an answer to the Hon. Mr.' Fowles's question. He asked whether they consulted the Crown Law Officers and the Minister said they con­sulted 'competent lawyers. They did not know whether it was the Crown Law Officers or somebody else who were consulted. In any case supposing they did consult any­body and he said a particular thing, they were' not bound to accept that particular thing.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : You could not get a better authority than our own Attorney­Gen!)ral.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: The Minister did not say it was the opinion of the Att-orney­General.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: That would be his opinion, or he would not have allowed it to be in tho Bill.

Hon. W. R. CRAMPTON : You consullled a prominent counsel last year in conneetion with the constitution of this House, and it wa; upset.

Popular Initiativ"" a~cd (17 JULY.] Reje1·endum B-ill. 1023

HoN. P .• J. LEAHY: 'There were certain people outside who did not want to be sub­jected to the tender m~rcies of one Chamber dominated by those hon. gentlemen. They a<>sisted to set the law in motion. He could tell the hon. gentleman that the case had not gone against the Council at all. The remarks made by the Privy Council showed clearly that they were not in any way shut out from going to them if they were attacked. They pronounced no opinion as to whether the High Court was right or wrong.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES : There was an in­vitation to come again.

Hox. P. J. LEAHY: As showing the im­portance of the case, they said that not only should the Council be represented, but that every one of the British dominions' repr~sen­tatives should be there. The amendment was in entire harmony with the views of the Privy Council.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Do you think the present Attorney-General would allow this Bill to be introduced if its constitution­ality could be questioned?

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: They did not submit their political consciences to the Attorney­General. They had to judg<; for themselves. They were free agents.

HoN. T. NEVITT: If he understood the anwndment, it meant to put a double set of hobbles on the people of Queensland. The Bill meant an 0xtension of the franchis<' to the people.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES : They have got it already.

HoN. T. NEVITT: In one direction they had. They had not got it in this direction. It was an extension of the franchise; th~y had the- privilege of initiating legislation under certain conditions. Hon. gentlemen on the opposite side were continually telling them th9y were prepared to trust the people. The amendment, if he understood it cor­r<>ctly, was to put another set of hobbles on the people, or to keep on them the hobbles which they had already, instead of relieving them. Hon. gentlemen wanted to know whether, in the event of any question becom­ing law by the referendum, and at a future period the people were pronounced in their opinions, it would be possible to repPa! that per referendum or per the ordinary method through the two Chambers. His view was that, if the people were so pronounced in their opinions, legislation being useless, they would take no objection to the two Chambers passing a law in the ordinary course of events, and rep~aling it.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES : It would not be legaL That is what I am asking for.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : The will of the people should never be altered except by the peopl<>.

HoN. T. NEVITT: The hon. gentleman gave a supposititious case. If clause 25 covered that case, it would go by the board. The hon. gentleman alluded to the Manitoba case. He did not profess to have the legal knowledge of the hon. gentleman, but his reading of that case was that it had no application whatever, because, in that case, the Provint•e of Manitoba wanted to do away with the King's representative. But the Province of Manitoba did not select the

King's representative. The Federal Consti­tution of Canada appointed the King's re­presentative, and, therefore, they were trying to legi"late in a direction in which their Constitution did not give them the power to legielatc. For that reason the oase was not on all-fours with this one.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: He did not say it was; h·• said it was not quite. There is an analogy.

HoN. T. NEVITT: He failed to see it. He was not able to penetrate through <>uoh a thick bi·ick wall as was the hon. gentle­man. He could not see where the analogy ca1ne in.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLEI:l : Rf)ad not merely the ·decision, but the judgments of the judge&. They bear just on this Bill

HoN. T. NEVITT: Then, again, why should not the people have an opportunity of pronouncing again as to whether that Chamber should exist or otherwise? Why should they pr<Jvent them?

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: They are not prevented under the exi,ting law.

HoN. T. NEVITT: If that amendment were passed it would prevent them under that Bill. If what the hon. gentl~man said "as correct-that they had the power under the Parliamentary Bilh Referendum Act of 1908-'.', hat harm would it do to insert it in that Bill? They were not extending the powers, according to the hon. gentleman's argument.

Hon. T. M. HALL: They will be declared illegal, so you are only bringing about ex­pense.

HoN. T. NEVITT: They had the assur­ance of the Minister that the opinion of the be't counsel in the State had been taken. H0 stated that it was not illegal in any '-hapP or form, but was in conformity with thP Constitution. If the amendment were earric·d it was purely and simply putting a clo.~ upon progress. Apparently that was what hon. gentlemen wanted.

The CHAIRMAN : I would like to point out that the question before the Committee is clause 1, not any proposed amendment. I would like to have that question disposed of before the discussion proc~ed<>.

Clause 1 put and passed.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES moved the in­sertion of the following new clause to follow clause 1:-

" This Act is subject to the provisions of the Constitution Act of 1867; the Con­stitution Amendments Acts of 1871, 1890, 1896, 1908, and 1909; the Parliamentary Bills Referendum Act of 1908: and the Legislative Assembly Act of 1867, and any amendments thereof; and shall not be deemed in any manner to repeal. alter, or amend any of the provisions of such Acts or to give any authority to repeal, alter, or amend any of such Acts."

The Hon. Mr. Nevitt was adopting the posi­tion of the man who had a horse and a foal, and ,,-ho made one big door for the horse to go out of and a little door for the foal to go out of.

Hon. W. H. DEMAINE: It was a cat and a kitten. (Laughter.) That is an old chest: nut.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES : There was really no need for that. If the people had the opportunity of taking a referendum on

Hon. E. W. H. Fowles.]

1024 Popular Initiative and (C01JNCIL.] Referendum Bil

the abolition of the Upper House-and they had, beoause they had done it-there was no necessity to make any further provision.

Hon. G. PAGE-HANIFY: There is no initia­tive about it.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: The Govern­ment of the day could always supply that.

Hon. T. NEVITT: The Bill will. HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: There was no

objection at all to the Government of the day having a referendum on any matter whatever, without any Act of Parliament whatever.

Hon. T. NEVITT: They cannot initiate it­that is the point.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: No; but the Government of the day professed to be in touch with the wishes of the people, or a majority of the wishes of the people. If they cared to take a referendum on any­thing, they could do it and put it down to unforeseen expenditure. If they were doubt­ful as to what the people wanted on any question, they could take a referendum and then pass a Bill through both Houses. That Bill was really superfluous, and was not ne0ded. ·

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: It is only intended to blind the public.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: If the Premier was so blind-or blindfolded, whichever it was-as not to know what the will of the people was; supposing he honestly did not know what the wish of the majority of the people was on any question, he could ask them by moans of a referendum, and could find out in a fortnight what the majority of the people wished. If the Government found out what the wish of the people was, they could pass a Bill in twenty-four hours. He moved the amendment in the intere,ts of the Bill, in order that it might be legal.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Some reference had been made to the opinion he quoted in rnply to the Hon. Mr. Fowle;'s question. Hon. gentlemen would admit­although some unfair reference had been made to the matter-that thev had an Attorney­General in Queensland 'who was second to none, probably, in Australia, in matters of that kind. The point he wished to make was that the Attorney-General, who also was Premier of the State, would not allow a Bill to come before that Chamber in that form if it were not constitutional. They admitted that the Bill meant an amendment of the Constitution. Were hon. gentlemen sincere in their remarks when thev endeavoured to test the constitutionality of. that Bill? vVere they sincere, knowing the opinion of the Attorney-General, who, they knew, would be incapable of allowing a Bill to come before that House if it meant what they said it meant?

Hon. G. S. CuRTIS: He may be wrong. It is better to make sure.

The SFAJRETARY FOR MINES: Why should they make those riasty references to such a high. such a good, authority as the present Attorney"Gencral? . Hon. P. J. LEAHY: How could we do it? We did not know who gave the opinion.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He did not say' it was the Attorney-General's opinion in that case

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: You said the Attorney-General.

[Hon. E. W. H. Fowles.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Apart from that opinion-it might be that of some­one else, as far as he knew-the Attornev­General would take some interest in the Biil being Premier of the State. It had bee~ under d~scussion, and that very question had been rmsed on the previous occasion. With all his knowledge of constitutional questions th_e Premier would not attempt to allow ,;, Bill to come before that House if it were unconstitutional.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: We do not take thinge on trust here.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Greater respect ought to be paid to the opinion of the Attorney-General than hon. members opposite paid in their references to him just now.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: We did not know it wa.s _the Attorney-Gener.al who had given the· op1n1on.

Hon. G. S. CuRTIS: You seem to think he is infallible.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: H& did not think any man was infallible; but they must all admit that the Attorney­General's opinion on constitutional questions was worth something. That was admitted even by those who differe-d with him politi­cally. There was nothing in the argument that the Dill was unconstitutional.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: If there is any doubt, we he.d better play safety.

HoN. G. PAGE-HANIFY hoped that the clause was not going to be adopted. It a.ppeared to him as if it was one of those things that was to be insert.ed owing to the timidity of hon. members on the other side. Thev seemed alwavs to be in a chronic state of fear with respect to everything the Go­vernment submitted.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Is there not som0 reason for it?

Hox. G. PAGE-HANIFY: The hon. mem­ber told him the other day that he trusted the people more than he (Mr. Pe.ge-Hanify) did..

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: It is quite true.

HoN. G. PAGE-HANIFY: If that were so, why could he not go the whole way and allow the people to amend the Constitution on their own initiative if thm· wished? They should have the right to do' so.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Will you give them the recall? I am prepared to vote for it.

HoN. G. PAGE-HANIFY: He was quite prepared to discuss the recall in the proper place, and he would be able to show the hon. gentlPman just how the recall would operate. But that was not the question under consideration. The question now before them was whether, in giving that Bill to the people, they were going to trust the people all the way, or tie a string t<J them.

'fhe SECRETARY FOR MINES: Will you apply the recall to this Chamber?

Hon. T. M. HALL : Yes.

HoN. G. P AG E-HANIFY: The people at present had no power of initiation. They might desire to place certain laws on the statute-book, but they had no power of initia­tion. That Chamber had not the right of initiation. Desirable as it might be at times to submit measures to the people under the Parliamentary Bills Referendum Act, unless the Government chose to take the initiative,

Popular Initiative ancl [17 JULY.] Referendum Bill. 1025

no one else could do so. He wanted to see .a position under which the people, or any considerable body of people who were con· cerned in any particular matter, could test where the maj')rity lav in regard to that matter-whether it w·as a constitutional matter or not. He thought the t.ime had arrived when the people of Queensland should have that privilege. The idea of government by the people was a good deal in vogue in the United States of America. He would just reacl the following quotation bearing upon that:-

" They are modern methods made necessary by change-d modern conditions, but they are based directly upon the oJ.d American doctrine of the people's right to self-government. The Massa· chusetts Constitution of 1780, the first Constitution in the world to be adopted .by a vote of the people, contains in its famous Bill of Rights this declaration-

VU. Government is constituted for t:hc common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honour. or priv:1te interest of any one man, family, or class of men. There· fore, the people alone have an incon· testable, inalienable, and in-defeasible right to institute government; an-d to reform, alte1·, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, or happiness require it:"

On those grounds they should not fetter the people.

Hon. I'. ,J. LEAHY: This Bill fetters the people. lt will not give them the recall, and it also fetters them in regard to finance.

HoN. G P AGE-HAKIFY: The Bill would not fetter the people at all. He clid not know just what would be the effect of the clause, but he could see it was very far­reaching. He realise·d that it was going to mean a great deal more than that the people could not initiate a movement for the aboli­tion of the Council, which had been sug­gested as one reason. Vi'hat he feared was that if they carried the clause when it went to the other Chamber it would mean, per­bap~.. the loss of the Bill.

Hon. T. M. HALL: That is exactly what they want.

Hor .. P. J. LEAHY: We -do not want that.

HoN. G. PAGE-HANIFY: He did not want that. He was exceedingly anxious to see th,e Bill placed on the statute-book. As to whether the Bill was constitutional or not, sure'ry the responsibility of that rested with the Government. and not with that Chamber. If ·~ Bill was sent up to them, and they pasHed it in all good faith, and it turned out to be ultra vires of the Constitution, those who sent it there were responsible.

Ho·n. T. M. HALL: We have to pay for it. Hon. P. J. LEAHY: That is an absurd thing

to sa~:. HoN. G. PAGE-HANIFY: He hoped the

clamJe was going to be negatived or with­draVI-711. He would rather see it withdrawn.

Hc)N. E. W. H. FOWLES : He would sug­gest to the Government that on a matter like that it would be an easy thing to get the opinion of two counsel of recognised stan-ding upon constitutional law.

'Hon. W. H. DEMAINE : And then you might get the opinion of a third, and the whole of them woul-d be different.

1918-3 s

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: The opmwns would be paid for out of the State revenue, and such opinions ought to be available to every citizen of Queensland. The proper thing would be for the C}overnment to lay such opinions on the table of both Houses of Parliament, and say, "We have the opinion· of X; it is in ou1· favour. We have the opinion of Y; it is against us. We have the opinion of Z; it is in our favour. We prefer to rely upon the opinions of X an-d Z. Here are the opinions."

Hon. R. Sm.c!NER: The people's verdict is. better than the lot of them.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Surely not upon constitutional matters?

Question-'rhat the new clause to follow clause 1 (Mr. l'owlcs's atnenclment) be in­serted-put; and the Committee divided:­

CoNTEl\"TS, 12.

Hon. G. S. Curtis Hon. P. ,J. Leahy B. Fahey C. F. Marks KW. H. Fowles A. H. Parnell A. Gibson E. ,J. ~tevens T. M. Hall H. Turner A. G. C. Hawthorn A.' H. Whittingham

Telle1': Hon. P. J. Leahy.

~ OT~CONTENTS, 8. Hon. W. R. Crampton Hon. L. McDonald

W. H. Demaine T. );evitt A. ,J. .Tones G. Iuge-Hanify H. C. J ones I\. Sumner

'l'~ller: Hon. T . .'levitt

PlslRS.

Contents-iiir. Thynne, Mr. C. Campbell, Mr. Cowlishaw, and Mr. Moreton.

~ot~Contents-:ll(r. Courtice, Mr. Purnell, Mr. Tiiordan, and Mr. Llewelyn.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 2 a.ncl 3 put and passed.

On clause 4-" l'mycr of peti';ion"-HoN. P. J. LEAHY moY~d th<tt, after

line 29, there be imerted the following pa.ra­graph:-

" The te1·m 'proposecl law' includes the recall of any elected member of the L0gislative Asse'mbly, and the vacating of office by any Minister of the Crown."

This was essentially a democratic a.mcnd­m<'nt. It appealed to hon. members on that side of the Chamber, and he hoped it would also appeal to hon. members opposite. It might be said to be the very coping stone of the edifice of democracy. It would give members opposite an opportunity of proving that they trusted the people, and believed in democracy ; it would give them an oppor­tunity of showing their faith in democracy, not by mere words, but by actions. Neither this Bill, nor any other demo<lratic Bill, would be complete without some such provi·sion as that contained in the amendment. They had been told from time to time how successful the referendum was in Switzerland, and he understood that in most of the cantons of Switzerland, if not in alL they had the recall. The Committee also knew, from speeches made by hon. members during the past week, that the principle of the recall was in oneration in many of the American Sta.tes. If the Government or a party came into power on the crest of some popular wave, through misrepresentation or some other cause, the people, when they resumed their normal con­ditions of mind and found out the mistake they

Hon. P. J. Leahy.]

1026 Popular Initiative and [COUNCIL.] Referendum Bill.

had made, would, if this recall were not in­serted in the Bill, be power less for three years, and the administration of the country would be in the hands of people who had lost their confidence. \Vas that a demo­cratic thing? All that the amendment pro­posed to do was to allow the sober, second thoughts of the people to prevail anrl become effective. He believed in trusting the people, and he contended that if they were going to trust the people it was not good enough to trust them only partly ; they must trust them compll'tely. There was no partial trust of the people about him. In saying that h" trusted the people, he believed he spoke for all the members on that side of the House.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: The people trust JIS,

HoN. P. J. LEAin:: He wHs just coming to that. Had not members of the Council reason to ~rust the people? \Vas it not fr:~sh in the mmds of hon. gentlemen that last :May twelve months the Government, con­sidering that they had the confidence of the people, submitted to the people a referen­dum for the abolition of the Council? And did not the Minister know that he (Mr. Leahy) won a new hat on that subject?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: And I paid for it.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: The question went to the people, and what di.d the people do? When the facts were put before the people, they, by the most overwhelming ,vote that was ever given to any party in Australia, endorsed the action of the Council, and he ventured to say, with the grl'atest confidence, that if a similar question were again submitted to the people, the people would give the sa.me verdict, and probably give it by an increased majority. Every day since the present Go­vernment came into power, the people were becoming more anrl more impressed with the necessity of having a live democratic, but not socialist, Chamber like the Council, to act as a brake on the headlong course that would be followed by the Government if no brake existed. The Council had good reason to trust the people, and the people had good reason to trust the Council. If the .amendment were passed, the people would have power not only to recall the whole of the members of the Ministry, but any individual member of the Ministry or any other elected member of Parliament. Was not that a proper thing? He supposed there were members in the Assembly to-day that the people would be glad to recall if they had the opportunity, and that there were also Ministers they would be glad to recall, but the Secretary for Mines was not one of them. And why should not the people have the power of recall? If a Minister was administering his department badly and losing a good deal of money, why should he be left there without the )Wople having an opportunity of deciding whether they would rebtin him or not? On a previous occasion he had quoted an extract from the "Standard," which quoted it from a Labour pape1· clown South, showing the attempts that were being made by outside organisa­tions to control the Government and the Parliament. No doubt, those attempts were pa~tly successful, and, apparently, they were gomg to be more successful as time went -on. \Vas it not much better that the Govern­ment should be controlled by the whole of the people, instead of having them con-

tHan. P. J. Leaky.

trolled by those outside organisations? In those outside organisations it was generally men of the extreme type-if the Hon. Mr. Demaine were present he would say men of his type-who were in control. The men who had the most influence with such organisations were, as the poet said-

" 11en loud against all forms of power, Unfurnished brows, t-empestuous

tongues, Expecting all things in an hour,

Braos mouths and iron lungs!' It was to save the Government and members of Parliament from the domination of men like that that he proposed to give the right of recall to their masters-the whole of the people. The amendment offered a golden opportunity to members opposite, who pro­fe·,~ed to be democratic, to put their pro­fe<sDd faith to the test. If they supported the amendment, which was moved in the sincere hope that it might be carried, then they would have <'stablished some claim to be genuine democrats. On the other hand, if they rej ccted the amendment, all their pro­testations of democracv would not deceive the public. "

HoN. G. PAGE-HAKIFY: When he spoke en the second reading of the Bill, the Hon. :Mr. Leahy, or some other hon. gentleman, interjected something about the recall, and he told them that he thought the recall wa< something that was quite foreign to this Bill, something that could not be bracketed

on the system pr0posed in the l7.30 p.m.] Bill. When this ridiculous

amendment wa~ br::mght forward, he was doubtful whether he was net listening to Lewis Cal'l'oll's " Mad Hatter," because that was a sort of amendment that the " Mad Hatter" would seek to bracket on an Initia­tive and Referendum Bill. He could not believe that the Hon. Mr. Leahy was ·Jm·iotH in his proposal, m· tbat mPmbers opp.:Joite would support him in putting the amen::l­ment into the Bill. A similar clause wa" put in the Bill last "·'sion, with the object of killing the Bill. Raading over the amend­ments circulated, he fp]t that hon. gentlemen were not dcsi rous o£ killing the Bill. bnt wanted to put through what they beEeved woul·d be a fair, workable m"amro. (Hear hear!) That clause could not possibl~· have the slightest chance of being accept0d in tiFl other Chamber.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Why not? Hon. T. M. HALL: They want to savn their

own skins, I suppose. HoN. G. P AGE'-:EL\.NIFY: 'I'hat was a

matter of policy altogether. Had the prin­ciple of the recall oi lDgislators been ever considered .seriously in Queensland by any politiDal party? Was ii. a matter that was ever before the electors? He had been 1 nov­ing in circles where more advanced ideas in lec:islation were discussed and consir1ered, a;d he had never Leard that mattecr .dis­cussDd soriously at all anywhere.

Hon. E. IV. H. FoWLES: It is vers· com­mon in the United States of America. That is where you get the referendum from.

HoN. G'. PAGE-HANIFY: That might be. Because they adopted in the initiative and referendum .sornething which existed in the United States, it was not essential that that Chamber should bracket on to that policy something which was entirely foreign to it'.

Hon. 'I'. M. HALL : That is a very funny argument.

Popular Initiaticc and [17 JULY.] Referendum Bill. 1027

HoN. G. P AGE-HA~IFY: It might be. Ile maint.ained that the Goyernment were responsible to the electors, and it was not for that Chamber to alter that policy and do something in the way of a now feature altogether in connection with measures which came there; unle>1 it was done to try and l<i:I a measure altogether, when he could understand it. He did not believe ~ha.t it wa~ being done with that intention thiq, tinw. Il e could not believe it was ser ions, and he was hopeful that the amendment would he withdrawn. Supposing the electors had the right of recall, what would be the result? Such a system would always go in favour of whichever party happened to be the dominant political party. The electors were diYi·ded broadly into two camps-Labour and National-but in between there was a great floating vote which neither could count as <>nhrclv its own, but which each tried to :attract' at times of eledions, and which had no very definite opinions of its own. Politi­~ians knew that it was that unattached vot<> that meant th0 winning or losing of elections. lf they had the recall, there wowld not be the slighte"t difficulty in unseating a good many men \Yho were representing the :!'\ational party to-day, because they wern in the minority, and were likely to remain in the minority, without any particular in­fluence for three years. Their opponent~ were in the majority and were likely to remain in the majority, with all the power that control meant, tor three years. He had taken out some figures regar.ding four {'kctorates, from the returns which had been Bubmitted to them with reference to the last elections. Those electorat<>s had been won from Labour in the metropolitan area. In Bulimba th<>re were 11,362 on the roll. Mr. Barnes secured 5,018, Mr. :YlcMinn 4,649. ::\fr. Marconi 122, and there were eighty-four informo.l vot<:'3. So that Mr. Barnes had an excess of onlv 265 of thn yotes that went into thP ballot-box-that was, counting infor­mal and all.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: Counting all the informal votes agaimt him'?

HoN. G. P AGE-HANIFY: Yes. They were possible 1·otes to work with when they came to the recall. In Kurilpa there were 6.650 on the roll. Major Fry secured 2,619, Mr. Hartley 2,745, and there were fifty-six informal. Of the Yotes that went into the ballot-box the winning candidate received an excess of only eighteen. In Oxley there were 8,492 on the roll. Mr. Elphinstone r(•ceived 3,841, Mr. J ones 3,511, and there were thirty-four informal; so that there the winning candidate received an excess of 296. Iu Windsor there were 9,914 on the roll. 1\fr. Taylor rece·ived 4,373, Mr. McPhail 4.281, and the informal votes numberefl thirty-four; so there was an excess of only fifty-eight. What did that mean? Suppos­ing the d'Jfeated candidate wished to unseat the gentleman who had been returned, did they think there would be any difficulty in any of those electorates in getting a petition and a poll? Did they think there would be any difficult.v then, in converting the very small number thev would have to convert to the view that it would be an advantage to the electorate that they should have a representative who sat on the Government side, with all the advantages which that brought to an electorate? He had not the ,,lightest doubt that they could unseat all four of those gentlemen quite easily. It would be a very unju,;t and a very improper

thing to do, and the r<''ult would be that there would be an uncertainty all the time. They would never know exactly where they were. He W!ts quite sure it would always go in favour of the dominant party in politics, and would tend to weaken the Opposition until it was ahnOl't out of exis­tence. He was sure the Hon. :Mr. Leahy did not want any such scheme us that.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES : That could cut both ways.

HoN. G, P AGE-HAJ'\IFY: The Hon. Mr. Fowles knew something about human nature, and it was much more likely to go in the way he had suggested. What chance would they have in any electorate of putting out the man who was representing the Govern­ment now? Thev knew how much that counted for. If electors knew before they went to the poll which party was going to win, there was a very big percentage of them-not the strong party men-who would always vote to be with the winning crowd.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: Not a bit of it. Hox. G. PAGE-HANIFY: He was quite

satisfied that that was how it would operate. He would be very sorry to see such a system bracketed on to their system in Queensland.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES : You cannot buy electors as you suggest.

HoN. G. PAGE-HANIFY: Not only that, but it would be entirely unworkable. The Hon. 1\Ir. Leahy had given no argument in favour of it, and he could not conceive of any sane argument which any hon. gentle­man supporting it could produce. He hoped it would not be pressed to a division, be­cause it would only tend to makEJ that hon­ourable Chamber look ridiculous.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: The whole trend of the argument from the Government. eide had been ·to trust the people. This referEJn­dum had been imported from the United States of America and Switzerland. Over there, democracy had gone perhaps to its furthest limit, and 'they had taken the desperate step, as s'?me t]lought, of i'!-olud­ing the recall in then· legislative machmery.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : There was more need f01· it there than there is in Australia.

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES: There was muola more need for it, certainly, in America, according to all accounts; they had Tam­many judges and. Taml!'-any politician~,. ":nd it was a very sw1ft kmfe for any pohtw1an who ran amok amongst Iiis own constitu(Jnts, or who so alfronted the public sense of honour and decency as to need to be re­called. He could quite see there were dif­ficulties in the way of the amendment, but that was no re-ason why they should not face them. He knew !hat in America they had the recall in the smaller States, where they could easily reach the consoi(lnce of the people and cciuid get the will of the people very quickly, and recall an obstreperous or corrupt judge. In fact, they could recall the Governor of the State.

Hon. G. PAGE-HANIFY: There they elect all their officials; it is a different thing.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Exactly-for four years, probably. It certainly would be a little out of place to put the whole of Queensland, with its 400,000 electors, to th.e cMt of an election merely to recall one poli­tician who was not worth while thinking about. H would not be utilised in oases like

Hon. E. W. H. Fowles.]

1028 Popula,. In·itiative and [COUNCIL.] Referendum Bill.

that. The real value of the recall was in !ts sal':ltary influence over politicians, who, 1mmedtately they were returned to Parlia­ment, lost ~1_1 _sense of responsibility. The average polrtlman who was returned to Par­liament practically took up the attitude to his constituents, " You were the masters on election day; I am the master for the next three _years until I come before you for re­Qlection." The chief merit and source of strength of the Council was in the fact that it had not to descend to base truckling and ha,d not to bend its ear to catch the latest whisper of any newspaper. They in that Chamber could do their duty without fear or favour. Th~y were m~m~ers, not merely for one const1~uency-workmg -the parish P':lmp all the time-but for all Queensland w1th an eye upon the four points of the compae-•. Supposing the Treasurer of a State was playing ducks and drakeo with the finances, and had th<;: recal! in front of his eye, what would be the obvious result? The Premier would say to him, " There is that recall in front of you. ,Just tighten up the finances a little bit. We cannot drift to leeward as we ar'l doing, year after year." That Treasurer, with the fear of the recall before his eyes, would ha vo a surplus at the end of the next financial vear. They ought to considQr the possibilitie; which ex'isted in their own Parliament for flouting the con· stituent·s. The other House had ·the oppor­tunity to p!'olong its own life.

Hon. R. BEDFORD : You cannot prolong your life here. ·

HoN. E. \V. H. FOWLES: What was to prevent the Assembly pa>sing a measure saying that this Parliament was to exist for seven years instead of three?

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: And increasing their salaries.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: That would be done, he understood, as a matter of course. There was nothing to prevent the other House prolonging its life for seven years but, if the recall were put in, that would act as an effective check. Supposing, bv some nation_al disast_er, the Council were );ut out of actwn for SIX months, and the Legislati Ye Ass:"mbly were allowed to go unchecked upon thmr own way and do anvthing thev liked the first thing they would do would be -t~ continue themselves in office for seven vears probably at a salary of £500 a year. If th~ recall were in the Constitution, they would not dare to do it. That le-gislation would not be used against any individual. When the Bill to abolish Mr. Macartney was introduced in anotjl8r place, t~e whole country turned away sJCk at the 1dea of such a colossal affront to legislative dPcencv. No Bill w_Ol;ld he brought t_o abolish any single in­dtv!dual, and he d1d not think th<J people would use the referendum to recall any individual

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Do you mean the recall of the whole of the Government?

HoN. E. W. H. FO\VLES: CollectivelY or singly. On general principles there was a good deal to be said for the amendment.

Hon. G. PAGE-HANIFY: Why don't you introduce a Bill for the recall?

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Thifl was the place where it should be introduced; it was a corollary to the initiative and referendum. r-:re was surprised to find the slightest objec­tiOn to the recall from hon. members opposite. 'l'he burden of their song was, '' Why not

[Hon. E. W. H. Fowles.

trust the people?" and at the very first hurdle they baulked.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: They propose to take away the Royal prerogative.

Hon. R. BEDFORD : If King George talked to this House or any other House, he would be counted out in two seconds. ~

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: The hon. member had better be careful lest the King should begin to talk to him. The recall had been used in America. It had failed in some States; but it was essentially democratic, and he felt sure the people of Queensland would not use it tyrannically against any individual.

HoN. G. S. CURTIS: When speaking on the encond reading of ti1e Bill the previous y<'ar, he had expressed his hos_tility to i~, because it was absolutely hostile to then· s0 ,,tem of representative government. If the initiative and referendum were grafted on to th·oir Constitution, it would lead to the degradation of Parliament and their prtsent system of gov0rnment. For that reason it would be highly disadvantageous to the people of Queensland if the Bill were passed. On that occasion he quotecl from Professor Bn·ce's work on "The American Common­weCtlth," in which he disapproved of the principle, and said that the representatives of the people might be more or less ignorant, but thev would not be so ignorant as the Jkop}e \~oting en rnasse. Another writer on the W·Jrking of the rderendum in the United Stat.cs of AmPrinc said that the system had prove.i a failure in that country, and that the ol1ly cccasions upon which the people "'"Hid hkc the trouble to vote was at elec­tions for Parliament, when the personal ele­ment came into con•·idcration. \Vhen abstract questions were placed before them in which they had no p:uticular interest, only a very small proportion of the electors took the trouble to recor-d their votes.

Hon. R. BEDFORD: You don't believe in adult suffrage.

Hox. G. S. CURTIS: He was opposed to it, because it placed the ignorant and inPffi­cient upon the same footing and gave them the same politieal reward as the educated and officic>nt. He was opposed to it because it wrts ineqLlitablc. He knew the Hon. Mr. Bedford had not much respect for John Stnart Mill.

Hon. R. BEDFORD : I have no respect for John Stuart Mill or anvbodv who is dead­except Shakespeare, and-not Queen Vic­toria.

Ho:-:r. G. S CURTIS: John Stuart Mill was ono of the 'friends of La bout· when Labour had vel7 few friends in England, especially in the House of Commons. He condemned an ungraduated suffrage, but believed in ·a graduated suffrage

Hon. R. BEDFORD: 1900 yours ago in Jeru­salem manhood suffrage was turned down.

HoN. G. S. CURTIS: John Rtuart Mill was in favour of female suffrage at a time when there were very few in favour of it. He was in favour of every man and woman having a vote, but he was 'in favour of giving more than one vote to those who, by educa­tion ana otherwise, showed themselves pos­sessed of a larger amount of intelligence than the aym·age elector.

HoN. G. PAGE-HANIFY: He rose to a point· of order. Was the hon. member in order in discussing the franchise under cover of the amcndmf'nt?

Popular Initiative and [17 JULY.] Referendum Bill. 1029

The CHAIRMAN : Will the hon. gentle­man be kind enough to confine his remarks to the question before the Committee, which is the recall.

HoN. Ci. S CURTIS: Although he was opposed to the initiative and referendum being engrafted on their Constitution, if that were going to be done, he thought the amendment would be an improvement to the Rill. If they professed to trust the people, they should trust them fully. Another reason why it would be most inadvisable to pass the Bill was that the great majority of the people in Queensland lived in the large centres of population, and the referendum would throw more power into the hands of those people, to the great detriment of the people living in the country districts. Hobbes, the great English philosopher, from whom Rousseau got many of his ideas, said that where the suffrage was wide political power was broken up into small fragments, and the man who could succeed in drawing together the largest number of those fragments would rule the country.

Hon. R. BEDFORD: What the devil has this to do with the Bill?

Hm.r. P. J. LEAHY: He rose to a point of order. Was the hon. member in order in intenupting- the Hon. Mr. Curtis by the remark he had just made-he did not wish t,) repeat it?

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. gentleman not to interrupt.

HoN. G. S. CURTIS : If they passed the Bill, they WOl!ld have a number of dema­gogues and agitators going about the country making use of the machinery supplied by that measure, and, in all probabilitv, by their agitation, they would succeed 'in carrying some very extraordinary proposals. A second Chamber was required for the pro­tection of the minority. A g-reat deal had been said about the will of the people, but RousS("n.u, the great French philosopher, pointed out that the will of the people was generally ascertained at general elections, but that the general will of the people. abstracted from all sclfi.,h motivee, was a totally different thing, and that it would be an impossibility to ascertain the will of the people abstracted from all selfish motives and political con­sideration. He was opposed to the Bill.

HoN. T. NEVIT'r: Ho could not help being a111use·d at the Hon. Mr. Leahy's moving the amendment. particularly when he empha­sised it as being a democratic proposal. It was democratic, but how did the amendment square with the hon. member's action about an hour previously in refusing to place the power in the hands of the people to say whetlwr the Council should continue to exist <Jl' not?

Hon. P. .J. LEAHY : I did nothing of the kind.

HoN. T. ::\IEVITT: The hon. member prevented the people expressing an opinion Dn that subject. by voting for the new clause proposed by the Hon. Mr. Fowles.

Hon. P . .J. LEAHY: They have the power to vote on that question under another Act ·of Parliament.

HoN. T. NEVITT: The Bill was an Initiative and Referendum Bill, and not a Recall Bill. He had not a great deal of -objection to the recall. He .admitted that in

many instances in America it had [8 p.m.] had the opposite effect to what

its promoters had anticipated. 'The Bill introduced a new principle in

democratic go\·ernmcnt in Queen,land. The Government were proceeding on the principle of one step at a time. There was no neces­sity at the present time to introduce the recall, but, when the Bill had been in opera­tion for a year or two, or perhaps longer, if it were then found that there was a necessity for the recall, by all means introduce it. He should like to quote to the Committee an ex­tract from the work of Sir F. 0. Adams and 0. D. Cunning ham on "'The Swi~s Confedera­tion." Speaking of the referendum, they said-

" Extreme measures, whether ra,dical or reactionary, have no chance whatever of being accepted by the people, who, while in a manner fulfilling the functions of a second Chamber, have infinitelv more weight th~n. any such body usually possesses, even If It be thoroughly repre­sentative and chosen by universal sufi'­rage."

On the subject of the initiative, they said-" It is au institution still in its in­

fancy and requiring development. Those who belong to the above olass have no special desire for the forms which would principally be used against what they deem to be their interests, whilst those in a lower sphere are not yet sufficiently well organised to make effective use of their right to initiate legislation."

The inference from that was that they must educate the people as to the full value of the initiative and referendum, and if experience showed that the recall would be an advan­tage they could then a,dd the recall to this legislation. Did the hon. member who moved the amendment mean that an appeal should be made to the constituents repre;ented by an individual member or to the whole of the constituencies?

Hon. P. ,J. LEAHY: If the hon. member thinks the amendment is not clear enough, and that it does not apply to a particular electorate, I am willing to accept an amend­ment to confine it to the voters in the elec­tomte whose member it is proposed to recall.

Hox. T. NEVITT: The willingness of the hon. member to amend his amendment showed that he did not consider it was per­fect, und that it had not received sufficient consideration. Again, he would ask. what did the hon. member mean by the recall of a ::\'Iinister of the Crown'!

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: 'Those who elect may recall.

·I-I ox. T: NEVITT: It appeared to him that the amendment was ill-digested and absolutelv uaworkable, and for that reason he must 'oppose it.

Hox. P. J. LEAHY: He thought the amendment was verv clear. It simply said that the people wh,;' sent a man to Parlia­ment should have the right to take him out of Parliament, but if the amendment was not perfectly clear, and the Hon. Mr. Nevitt desirod to have it made clear, he should be happv to accommodate the hon. gentleman­that \vas. if he was a supporter of ~ho prin­ciple. He resented very keenly the mnuendo of the Hon. Mr. Nevitt as to his sincerity in moving the ftmendment. He was p~rfectly sincere in the matter, and held that If they were to pass a demo-cratic measure the amendment should logically and consistently form part of that measure. If an hon. mem­ber did not support the amendment, then he would lose his right to bo called a democrat.

Hon. P. J. Leahy.]

1030 Popular Initiative and [COUNCIL.] Referendum Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He thought they should treat the Bill a little more seriously than they had been doing. How much longer were they going to hear the pet phrase about trusting the people to the fullest possible extent? Thev had heard a great deal that. afternoon from the Hon. Mr. Fowles and the Hon. Mr. Leahy about trusting the people, and he would ask those hon. gentlemen how far they had trusted the people in the past? They were not prepared to trust the people by extending the fran­chise to women. It was the present Labour party who extended the franchise to the women of Queensland. The Hon. Mr. Curtis said that he believed in plural voting. How could an hon. nwmber trust the people if he advocated such an unholy principle as plural voting? In his opinion, the amendment wus ar. impertinent one, for this reason: that the Council proposed to give the people power to recall an elected member of the Legisla­tive Assembly or a Minister of the Crown, but would not allow the Bill to apply tD the Council.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: The people have power to abolish the Council under the Parliamen­tary Bills Referendum Act.

The SECRETARY FOR MI:;\!ES: What right had that Committee to make a pro­posal dealing with the recall of members of the popular Chamber? In all fairness, the hon. gentleman should have so drafted his amendment as to give the people power to recall individual members of the Council or to abolish the whole Council. The amend­me-nts had onlv been circulated that after­noon, and he head not had an opportunity of going through them until the dinner hour.

Hon. E. IV. H. FowLEB: Thev have all been discussed before, and WC ha\-e ]eft OUt quite a nu111bcr of them.

The SECRETARY FOR ::'>fiNES: The objectiona,ble feature of this matter was that members opposite refused to allow the Dill to apply to the Council, and then pro­posed that it should contain a provision giving the people the right to recall a mem­ber nf the Legislative A· sembly. As a mat­ter of fact, he thought the amendment was out of order.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: \Vhy should it be out of order? It is not an amendment of anv other Act. It is an amendment of this BilL

The SECRETARY FOR J\1I::'.rES: The amendment was wmethin!\' for€'ign to the principle of the Bill. However, after the arguments of the Hon. Mr. Page-Hanify, which were excellcntlv marshalled and con­vincingly put, he thot!ght it was -quite clear that the recall as proposed in the amend­ment might act very harshly in the case of some minorities. While they had majority rule in Queensland, the party with which he was associated stood also for the rights of minorities. He thought majorities had rights.

Hon. P .. J. LEAHY: You do not show that in your action9.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: If the hon. gentlema-n thought that that amend­went meant trusting the people to the fullest possible extent, he could not possibly agree with him. It gave the )Wople an additional po\vcr that was not intended under the Bill.

Hon. G. S. CFRTIS: ·what protection would a minority have under the initiative a.nd rcferendmn ?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Because a small percentage of the people might ask

[Hon. A. J. Jones.

for legislation. Minorities always set out to convince the majority. He remembered reading a very able article-he thought it was by Robert Blatchford-in which it was a,sked, " Why should the intelligent minority be ruled by the ignorant majority?" Al­though the title was, probably, not demo­cra-tic, there "as a good deal of sense in the argument. A minority under that Bill might ask for legislation and set themselves out to convince the majority, when the Dill was submitted to them, that it would be wise to vote their wav. The Government were not afraid of being recalled, nor was any individual member in the Assembly on either side.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: \Vhy do you oppose the amendment, then?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He opposed it because it was inconsistent, be­cause they were shielding themselves behind an appointment for life and would not extend the same privilege to the elected repre­sentatives of the people.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: The people can aoo1ish u' under the Parliamentary Bills Referen­dum Act of 1908, if they wish.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Why should they not give the people an oppor­tunity, under this amendment, to use the. power of r••call to an individual member of that Chamber? Evidently the hon. gentle­men wanted to kill the B.ill.

HoN. R. SLJJYI:;\JER asked for the ruling­of the Chairman as to whether the amend­ment was in order. The Bill dealt with direct legislation, and the amendment had nothing whate;·er to do with legislation. He thought it was out<ide the scope of the Bill. The recall was an ultra-radical proposal. \Vhv it had come from the members on the other side of the House he could not under­stand. It practically was recognising that the people had supreme pmver of recall over everyone. The advocates of the recall all over the world intended that it should apply to everv civil servant, every officer of the­Crown. · 1\lcmbcrs in that Chamber wanted to confine it to the members of the Assembly, and of the Government.

Hon. E. W. II. FowLES: Tha,t is onls­where they are elected to office.

HoN. R. Sl'MXER: Where it had been attempted to put it into operation that had been the idc•a-recognising the ,<upreme­powcr of the people over all its servant,, just as was held by every Pmployer. Every­one in tlw emplo:-· of the Crown. should be liable to be recalled bv the vmce of the people. That might be- a subject for legis­lation somf' time in the future, but even tht~ nlf!n on hi.F side were not yet prepared to go that advancc>d step.

The C'HAIRI\.IAN: The hon. gentleman has asked me for m> ruling as to whether this amendment is ir! order or not. The title of the Dill is pretty comprehensive. It is a Bill to amend the Constitution of Queensland by providing for legislation permitting of the repeal or l'ej ection of laws <;r. p;-opo,ed ],nn by means of the Popular Imtlatlve and Referendum. and for purposes consequent thereon or ·incidental thereto. That gives rather a wide seope to this mea,sure. \Vhet~er· this amendment is strictly in accordance With that scope or not may be open to question; but I know from my own reading that in other Bills of a similar nature which are·

Popular Init,iative and [17 JULY.) Refrrendum Bill. 1031

in existBnce this particular clause is also part of the Bill.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: And it was in this Bill last year.

The CHAIRMAN: Under those circum­stances I must rulB that the amendment is in order.

Amendment agreed to. HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES moved the

deletion of the followin~ words on lines 40 to 48:- " '

"Or (b) Any proposed law whether set out in detail or not, which' appropriates revpnue or moneys:

" But a. propo.;ed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or monevs by. reason only of its containing: or r"e­qmring provisions for the appropriation of finps or othe:· J;ecuniary pennJties, or for the appropnatwn of fees for licenses or fees or payments for services under the proposed law."

The proposal of the Government was to tak~ away from the people anv chance of \·otmg Upon the quc,,tion of money.

Hon. W. H. DEMAI::-iE: Take ;,way from the peo:1le any chance of voting at all· that IS what you would like. '

HoN. K W. H. FOWLES: It was a re­marl~able thing that the Government should put m that Bill a clam-' which denied to the people the chance of expressing themselve·' upon th_c questi?n of money. There were two m am . qm•,bons of money before anv Gow;rnment.. One was the upkeep of the annual servweq of the Government· and th!' other was in State enterprises, 'which ImgJ:t . mop up a quarter of a million, half a m1lhon, or perhaps two or three millions 'l'hey ]'lroposed to accept the Government;~ suggestwn that all Appropriation Bills shoulrl bo free from interference by referendum. The Govc>rnment mmt be carried on from ye!'r _to ye_ar, and must have their Appro­pl'latwn Bills. It would be a little out of P,l_ace to all_ow the annual Appropriation Bill-unless It was altogether outra~eous­to be interfere-d with by rcferendu~; but :vhen It c.1nw. to the Government dipping mto thr conwhdated revenue -and spending, pe_rJ::aps, threc-9-uarters of a million on a uun!ng enterpnsc, half a million on catth.• sta twns, and-as they grew in national life-­perh1!ps t_wo or three millions on another en­terpri~e,_ It was another matter. He believed the L:mte-d States of America was buying up a!l the_ telephone-', and railways, at a cost runnmg mto almost countless millions of dollars, ·when it came to the Government launchmg out upon enterprises which meant. tlw expenditure_ of a large amount of capital from the pubhc purs0. that was the time when the people should be taken into the confidE'Il<:e of rho Government and should bt> allowed to say whether they would or would not spen-d that amount of money. Why shou],d n':'y _Gove_rnmrmt, returned by a nat·­row maJ_Ol'Jty,_ Immediately be given the chunce of playmg duck' and drakes with all the loan ~oney, and borrowing all the money trwy pos"bly could so that consols would be depressed to about £68? A local authority w!'s only alJowed to run the rates up to 6d. Why should the Government have unlimited power for. th1:ee yNtrs to plunge any State m to practical ms'?lven~y? . The people shoulrl h_ave a chance ot_ saymg m regard to ques­tions of extraordmary expenditure, whether they w_ould or would not approve of that expenditure.

Hon G. PAGE-HANIFY: 'I'his clause does not affect that.

Hon P. J. LEAHY: He is deleting the J·estriction which the Bill places upon the vublic in certain matters.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: They agreed with subsection (a) of su bclause (3).

Hon. G. PAGE--HANIFY: The next portion merely means that the people cannot involve the Government.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Oh, no. Sup­posing the Government brought in some wild-cat scheme to spend £2,000,000, the only check that the people coul-d have woul-d be immediately to get up a referendum and have a proposed law submitted to the peopl<' that thn propmal for wasting £2,000,000 should not be carried.

Hon. R. BEm'ORD : Supposing the Govern­ment introduced a Bill to spend £2,000,000 on steel works without calling in Fowles as an expert?

The CH AIRMAN : The hon. gentleman is getting very persowil in his remarks. I now must request him to keep a little quieter than he has been doing, and not interject "" often. He is inteuupting the business of lhe House.

HoN. E. W. H. FO\VLES:. His amend­ment would leave it to the people to say whether they would ul' would not approve of any expenditure proposed by the Govern· ment.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The Bill went .as far as it was wise, in the interests of good government, to go. While it might be unpopular to oppose such an

amendment, he thought it was [8.30 p.m.] wise to do so. Hon. members

must know that it was unwise to carry the amendment, for the reason that the financial administration of the State must be in the hands of a few people, such as Parliament. It would be very unwise to place the financial administration of the State in the hands of the whole of the people, who could not possibly understand the financial position. That was one of the reasons why the Bill contained that restriction. The Bill would tend to educate the people to a higher standard on political questions general~y, hut he thought it his duty to say that he did not think it wise to give the people such a power at the present time.

Hon. T. J. O'SHEA: Should not a Govern­ment be judged by its finances?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Largely. but a man had to be in politics for some time before he was able to grasp intricate finan­cial problems and other intricate p~oblerns. He never pretended to know ev:erythmg, !'nd he admitted he was some considerable time in Parliament before he was able to grasp a o-ood many of the problems which came up fo; settlement. He was not one of those wJ:o thought that, because a man had been m Parliament for a year or two, he knew every­thing. The longer they were in Parlian;ent the more theY were convinced of how little they rea1ly knew. If those who might be designated profcssiona_l politicians had to admit that it was difficult to understan-d financial problems, how could they expect the average elector to give a_n intelligent v?te on manv Bills and financial schemes WhiCh were dealt with by Parliament? He hoped thf' amendment would not be accepted.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: The financial ques­tions that might be submitted to the people,

IJ,,n_ r . .J. l.rah!l j

1032 Popular Initiative and [COUNCIL.J RejeTendum Bill.

if the amendment were carried, would be very simple questions, much simpler than many complicated Bills which were likely to be submitted to them, and which hll!d no reference whatever to finance. To explain himself, he might mention a few things which could be submitted to the people if the amendment were carried. Take the Chilla­goe Railway proposal. That was a very simple thing for the people . to understand.

· 'I'he people could also vote on extra taxation by means of an income tax or any other tax. They might not understand all the details, but they would know roughly what the pro­posals amounted to. Then, surely, the people could give an intelligent vote upon new railwavs. Yet, without the amendment, the people" would have no vote upon such ques­tions at all. He quite agreed with reference to the inadvisability of submitting intricate legislation to the people, but that was not an argument against the amendment. If it was an argument at all, it was an argument against the whole Bill.

Hon. R. BEDFORD: You want to make the Bill ridiculous.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: He did not. If there was an honest desire on the part of the Government to have the Bill, there was noth­ing in the amendment that they should object to. *HoN. G PAGE-HANIFY: It seemed to him that the amendment would have ihe very opposite effect of what was intended. He was very much afraid that some of the amendments wer<' not seriously meant, but were meant to serve another purpose. It would bf' much more honourable if hon. member;; opposite hud voted the Bill out on the second reading, instead of trying to make amendments which they knew would not be accepted in the other Chamber, and killing the Bill in that way. The Bill made a dis­tinction between the Acts passed by Parlia­ment which the people might demand the right to vote on and proposed laws which they might petition on. This clause referred to proposed laws, an·d the clause provided that the people could not propose a law which was going to involve the country in a lot of expense.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES : Why not? HoN. G. PAGE-HANIFY: At that stage

it might not be wise to allow it. He had complete confi~cnce in the people, but in such matters 1t was well to go a little cautiously. One thing that had been verv popular with a large section of the people fo~· a long time was that the State should own and control its own line of steamers. If the amendment were passed. it would be com­petent for those people to agitate and try to bring a majority of t'Qe people to vote for the expenditure of an immense sum of money in setting up a line of State steamers. Hon. members opposite did not believe in StatP enterprises. Why, then, take the power of initiation in such matters out of the hands of the representatives of the people and throw it down to the people themselves? Ho hoped the time would come when the people would be able to be trusted with the power to initiate that sort of thing wisely. It seemed to him that the amendment was really a "frame up," and that it was really no use arguing upon any amendment, because hon. members on the othel' side were pre­pared to vote without argument at all. What had been done already was enough to kill the Bill. He hop&d it would not kill

[llnn. P. J.Leahy.

the Bill, hut he was afraid it would, because he knew th0re was a pretty strong feeling with regard to it somewhere else. Hon. members on the other side prof<>ssed to be willing to truct the people, but they had taken it out of the power of the people to deal with that nominee Chamber. They had put in an utterly unworkable clause, pur­)Jorting to amount to a recall of legis­lators. The Minister properly termed it an impertinence on the part of a Chamber of nominees-ban. gentlemen who oould not be recalled.

Hon. T. M. HALL: Yes, they can. HoN. G. P AGE-HANIFY: They could not

be recalled, the same as others, by the people who appointed them. It was quite obvious, and it would be obvious to tlw pcopl~e, that. if the Bill were lost, the blame was on that Chamber, and that its amend­ments had be0n inserted for that purpose, and for no other purpose. He hoped that th0 Hon. Mr. Fowles would withdraw the amendment.

Amendment agreed to. f'lause 4, as amended, put and pasesd. Clause 5-" Petitions, by 1vhom signed"-

put and passed. On clause 6-" Submi3sion of proposed

petition to )J,finister, and action thereon "­HoN. P. J. LEAHY rr.oved that the word

"will" on line 5 be omitted with a view to ins0rting the word "does."

HoN. T. J. O'SHEA: Why not say "corn­plies " instead of " does comply "?

HON. P. J. LEAHY: He would accept the suggestion of the Hon. Mr. O'Shea. and with the permission of the Committee would withdraw his amendment, and then move it in the amended form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. HoN. P. J. LEAHY moved that the words

" will pomplv" be omitted with a view to inserting the word "comply."

Amendment agreed to. Clause 6, as arr.ended, put and passed. Clauses 7 and 8 put and passed. On clause 9-" ])uty of returning officer."

and "Duty of }lfinister "-HoN. P. J. LEAHY moved that the word

" Minister" on line 2 be omitted, with a view to inserting the words " Principal Electoral Registrar appointed under the Elections Acts for the time being." The object of the amendment was that they might have a man to carry out the provisions of the Bill who would not be a politician. and who would not be influenced by political bias or political motive. He made no charge against any gentleman who might occupy the position of Minister, but he thought it was better that the hea·d of the Electoral Department should do this work.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He wa' opposed to the ,amendrr.ent, and he thought the word " Minister " was the correct term to use in that case. The MinistPr was the person responsible for the Parrying u--t of the measure, and it would seriously inter­fere with the principle of the rnca;nre if they imposed that duty upon the Principal ElPctoral Registrar.

Hon. E. W. H. FoWLES: The Principal Electoral Registrar would have to do the work in any case.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Yes, but it was not necessary to adopt the amend­ment and transfer the duty of the Minister

Popular Initiat:~·e and [17 JULY.] Referendum Bill. 1033

to the Principal Electoral Registrar. Under the Local Authorities Act the Minister must satis_fy himself that a. petition had been duly recmved, and all this clause provided was that the Minister should be satisfied that a petition was in order before he issued his certificate.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: In the case you men­tion under the Local Authorities Act the matter is entirely non-political, but this is a political matter.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He re­Deived an important petition when he was .acting as Home Secretary, but he did not scrutinise every name on that petition, nor would the Minister do that in the case of petitions received under the BilL The Prin­cipal _Electoral Registrar would, naturally, take m hand the duty of verifying the names on the petition, and he would do that in this case as the officer responsible under the Minister.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: The Bills which would be submitted under this measure would have a political bearing and a political com­plexion, while the matter mentioned by the Minister was entirely non-political, so that the two cases were not sirr.ilar. There was nothing in the administration of the Local Authorities Act that was of a political char­acter, but the matters to be dealt with under this Bill were essentially political in char­acter. He had no ·doubt that the present ::\1inister would give as fair a deal as any­body, but that gentleman would not always be in office, and he did not want this re9pon­sibility to devolve upon any person who might become Minister.

HoN. G. PAGE-HANIFY: He did not see why an officer who was subordinate to the :Minister should be ma:de responsible for the matters mentioned in the clause. If a ::Yiinister ventured to do what hon. gentlemen seemed to suggest he might do, and hung up a petition which he knew was in order, he could be got at, as he was responsible to the people. But how were they to deal with th•o Princil>al Electoral Registrar if he did not do what they considered was the correct thing?·

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: You might apply to the court for an injunction.

Hox. G. P AGE-HANIFY: That could be done in the case of the Minister. He thought it would be an improper thing to take this responsibility away from the Minister and pass it on to the Principal Electoral RegiB· trar, and he hoped that the amendment would not be carried.

Amendn.ent (M•·. Leahy's) agreed to.

Hox. P. J. LEAHY moved that the word "=\1inlster" on line 8 be omitted, with a ,-iew tn in,erting the words " Principal Elec­toral Registrar appointed under the Elec­tions Acts for the time being."

Amendment agreed to.

lioN. A. H. P ARNELL moved -that after the word "shall " on line 10 there be in­'erted the words "if so satisfied."

Amendment agreed to.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES moved the omis­sion of the \vord " conclusive" on line 12, with ,~ view to inserting the words "prima facre.

Amendment agreed to.

Ho~. A. H. P ARNELL moved the addition after linD 21, of the words-

" (4.) Any elect<J: _may sen.rch a!S':inst and ,·erify all petrtwns, copy petitiOns, dec)arations, "a,r;d marked rolls, and make C•>ptes thereor.

The ratepayers had the same rights in respect of books, rolls, and documents.

The SECRI~TARY FOR MINES said he did not propose to accept the amendment. 'l'here was no ekctions tribunal provided in the Local Authorities' Act. The power asked

for was not granted in the other [9 p.m.] Acts. Could the Hon. Mr. Leahy

or the Hon. Mr. Parnell tell him that they had that power to search in the Home Secretary's Office and inspect all the documents under the Local Authorities' Act?

Hon. P. J. LEAJIY: We do not say it is exactly the same.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Where did they get the power to search all docu· ments in the Home Secretary's office?

Hon. A H. PARNELL: I am not asking for that under this clause.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The hon. gentleman says the ratepayers had power under the Local Authorities' Act.

Hon. P, ,J. LEAHY: To do certain things,

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: It would be a dangDrous thing to allow a search such as that asked for. They had had an instancG of it. The Home Secretary granted a certain section of the people permission to take copiPs and scrutinise petitions. They knew what it led to. The power was abused. It would be a very dangerous thing. ·

Hon. A. H. PAR~ELL: In what way was th0 power abused?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : He knew some people were victimised.

Hon. G PAGE-HA:>;IFY: Hear, hear! There "·as u se~ies of black list'.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Their living ''as interfered with because people got information that they had signed a certain petition. They were blacklisted. He did not think it was the intention of the Council to do that.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Could not there be some secrecy clause?

Tlw SECRETARY FOR MINES: He could assure hon. gentlemen, with the know­ledge he !Jooses·ed, that it would lead to vcrv serious abuse. He did not think they sho:Uld accept the amendment, for that reason. He did not mean to say that the Hon. i\lr. Parnell moved the amendment with a view to opening the door for any abuse. As a matter of fact, he thought he was one of the last men •vho would do such a thing.

Hon. E. W. H. FoWLES : This was to put tht> searchlight on faked petitions.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The Hon. Mr Parnell had not had experience in the Ho~e SecrE'tary's e>ffice. If he had, he would hold the opinion which he held.

Ho~. G. PAGE-HANIFY: It was quite likelv that what the hon. gentleman wanted to get was provided by section 16. He hoped there would be no· specific clause such as the hon. gentleman proposed, beca~se he had knowledge of the fact that, owmg to the petitions having been thrown open to

Hon. G. Page-Hanify.]

1034 Adjournment. [ ASSElVIBL Y.] Paper.

inspection. in the Home Secretary's Office during the last local option contests, a very considerable number of people were seriou,ly victimised. It led to the making of black lists, which were being used up to to-day against the people who, from conscientious motives, took up an attitude against the particular trade. It was a common thing with that particular trade to always victi­mise. He had been told by an hon. member of that Chamber the other day that, owing to the attitude he had taken up in that Chamber when the friends of liquor were strong, he was the loser of several hundreds of pounds' worth of busineso in a few days. Surely thee· could trust their public officials and Ministers to decide as to those sort of matters. There was always the ordinary safeguard of law if there was anything su&piciou', If they had a clause such as that" it might catHl endless confusion, and it would help the big monopoly traffics to victimise those who were opposing their interests,

Hox. A H. PARNELL: He would not move an amendment to try and convey a wrong meaning to that House. He pressed that amendment last year and put it to a vote, and he thought he was justiiied in doing it, because he considered that anv petition sent along should have the light of day thrown on it. When any petition came along to a local body, signed by a number of men, every ratepayer had the right to see it and to ;;ee who signed it. If the Minister could point out to him any other clause where his olY.iection would be met, with the consent of the House he would withdraw the amendment, but not otherwise.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He thought it would be quite sufficient if an amendment were inserted compelling thos•' who were oh~ninin;t signatures for any

petition to endoree each sheet of the petition. So many people had made the statement that they had oi<incd a certain petition thinking it was something else, and then the sheeto were all pasted together. He did not think there was much in that argument, but he thouc;ht 'omething should be done in that direction, However, if hon. gentlemen wanted to give furth0r consideration to the amendment the.v could report progress.

HONOURABLE MnrBims : Hear, hear!

The Council resumed. The CHAIRMA::<f reported progress. ,_nd the Committee obtained leave to sit again to-morrow.

ADJOURNMENT.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I be~S to move-That the Council do now adjourn. The business to-morrow will be the further consideration in Committee of the Popular Initiative and Refere"c!um Bill, the resump· tion of the "econd rending debate on the Valuation of Land Bill, the second reading of the Land Ad Amendment Bill, ~o. 2, and the Committee ,tage of the Wages Bill. though I do not think we will reach the Wages Bill.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Do you want to sit after tea to-mcrrow?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : If we get through a reasonable amount of business, I am not anxious to sit after tea. ·

HoN. E. W H. FOWLES: I woul·d likr> to ask the Minister \Yhether he proposes to

[Hon. G. Page-Hanify.

sit any night <luring next week? I under­stand it is Reel Cross "eek in Brisbane, and quite a number of pageants and special demonstrations are to be held.

Hon. P. J. LEAIIY: You will be away every night?

Ho:->r. E'. W. H. FO\VLES: A large num­ber of lava! members wish to be present at those fun"ctions and support the Red Cross, and next week will be a good week in which to dispense with evening sittings. It is unusual for the Council to have evening sit£ings. as we have had right from the com­rncncemcnt of the ··ession. I would also like to know whether the Government intend to adjourn for a fortnight or a week at Exhibi­tion time?

The t\ECRETARY FOR MINES: If a number of hon. members wish to take part in anv functions in connection with the Red Cross" or any other patriotic movement, I ohall be only too willing to meet their wishe;; and adjourn m 6 o'clock each evening next week. (Hear, hear!) As to adjourning over Exhibition we'Ck, it will depend on the state of the bmincss-paper, but I should think we mig-ht make enough prt;gress, if hon. members "re reasonable, to ad] ourn fo ,. Exhibition wc•k. I am glad the hon. gentle­man has intimated hiR wish at this earlv stage, l>ecausc it will give mo an opp01:­tunitv of regulating the busineo-"l so that we shall" not have to sit after 6 o'clock next. wePk. (Hear, hear !)

Question put and paesed,

The Council adjourned at twenty minutes past 9 o'clock p.m.