Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 8 DECEMBER 1909

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Metropolitan, Ete., Bill. ~8 DECEMBER.] Questions. 753

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

\VEDNESDAY, 8 DECEMBER, 1909.

Tjle RPEAKER (Hon. J. T. Bell, Dalby) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

PAPER.

The following paper, laid on the table, was ordered to be printed:-&port of the Director of Labour and Chief Inspector of Factories and Shops for the year ending on the 30th June, 1909.

QUESTIONS. SHED Accmil!ODATION AT GLENCSK SIDING.

Mr. RY AN (Barcoo) asked the Secretary for Railways-

!. Is it the intention of the Railway Department to provide shed accommodation for the storage of goods at Glenusk Siding, on the Jericho-Blackall Railway?

2. If so, when is the work likely to he carried out?

754 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Port Alma Railway Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS (Hon. W. T. Paget, JJiackay) replied-

1 ar;.cl 2. There has been no demand for a goods-£~hed at Glenusk, and there is very little traffic ex~ept wool, which is loaded direct into the railwav trucks. The matter will be l<,oked into, however. ~

MOUXT BAUPLE C}:NTRAL MILL. Mr. MANN (Cairns) asked the Treasurer-1. 1Yhat was the po>Hion financially of the Mount

Banple Central Mill at the termination of Dr. Max:well's engagement P

2. What is the position at the end o! this season's crushing under the new management:

The TREASURER (Hon. A. G. C. Haw· thorn, Enoggerct) replied-

1. l!,igures cannot be giYen at date of :l\Ir. :naxwell':j retirement from his position-i.e., 31st March, 1909. The accounts were made up to the 30th June, 1909. At that period the liabilities were £50,506 1s. ld. to the Trea­sury, and £t,l92 2s. lid. sundry other creditors, or a total of £51,698 4s. The aseets totalled £47,940 6s. 9d., including £1,558 12s. 9d. cash in trust and expenditure acconnts, et:~. Particulars will be found in the Auditor­General's report.

2. Figures for the present season cannot be given until after 30th June, 1910, for the rensons that the payments for maintenance, etc., to mill nvtehinery and tramlines, and all other off-season work, have to be met; the jelly sugars at present in tn.nks have to be fugalled and payment for them received; also the bonus from the Colonial Sugar Refining Company is not due for payment until June, 1910.

PRICE 01!' SUGAR, GIX GIN CENTRAL MILL. Mr. MANN asked the Treasurer--"\Yhat price did the Bureau of Central Sugar ~fills ask

from the Millaquin and Yengarie Sugar Company for the sugar manufar.tnred at Gin Gin Ccntrall\lill during the 1909 season;

The TREASLJRER replied-Bureau did not ask a price from :\iillaquin and

Yengarie Sugar Company for the raw sugar produced by G-in Gin !Iill during 1909 season, bnt acCf',pted an offer made by the ].:Ullaf1Uin Company in the following terms :-•:rhe price to be £9 lls. per ton in bond delivered at Millaqnin or at wharf for !:'hlpment, for a sugar analysing 9~ net titre, higher or lower strength to be paid for proportionately.

The Millaquin Company a1s!l agreed to pny on 15th July, 1910, an additional sum of JSs. per ton of 9~ net titre sugar for every 20s. that the duty-paid prires of the Col011ial Sugar Refining Company, Limited's Lt 1efined sugar may be raised above £19 per ton in Sydney, :Melbourne, and Brisbane between l~t July, 1909, and 1st July, l!llO, provided, however. th•t no additional payment shall be made in respect of any jelly sugars which would reduce the average strength of the crop below 93 net titre.

QuEENSLAND SoLDIERs' GRAYES IN SocTH Ah'RICA.

Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lockyer) asked the Chief Secretary-

l. Is he a ware that there is a.n organisation called "The Guild of fjoyal 1-Yomen of South Africa,,, Who have undertaken the work of the care and npl\eep of the graves, and the representation of the relatives, in connection with soldiers of t.he Empire who lost their lives in South Africa!'

2. Is he aware that all the Sta!P> of Australia, with the exception of Queensland, have contributed finan~ cially towards defraying the expeuse undertaken by the above guild in connection with the graves of those belonging to their respective States?

3. ·will he take such action as will remove the stigma resting upon Queen5<land for having failed to do what the other parts of the Empire have considered it a moral obligation to do P

The CHIEF SECRETARY (Hon. W. Kid-ston, Rockhnmpton) replied-

1. Yes. 2. No. 3 It is difficult to determine what action the Govern­

ment can take, but the matter will be coneidemd.

PORT ALMA RAILWAY "BILL. Cob!MITTEE-LEAVE TO INTRODUCE.

(Mr. W. D. Armst1·ong, Lockya, in the chazr.)

The CHAIRMAN : '.rhe question is-That it is desirable that a Bill be introduced to vali-­

date an agreement entered into between the Secretary for Railways, for and on behalf of the Government of Queensland, and the Rockhamplon Harbour Board, tor the construction of a branch line of railway from Port AJma, to a point on the main lh1e of railway fl•om Rock­hampton to Gladstone, and to authorise the construc­tion of the said railway, anil to make provision for certain luatters incidental thereto.

As many as are-of that opinion say" Aye."

Mr. RYLAND (Gyrnpie): Had the Minister no information to give to the Committee on this question? This was the stage on which this information should be given.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: I will give it to-morrow.

Mr. RYLAND : The information was gener­ally givm at the Committee stage, when the Bill was introduced. The Minister should give the Committee all the information about it now.

TheSECRETARYFORRAILWAYS: This was quite unusual. This was the first stage towards formally introducing the Bill. The fullest discu"sion woulrl take place on the second reading of the Bill. The Bill was brought for­ward f•,r the purpose of building a railway from Port Alma to Bajool Jnnction, on the North Coast Railway, which the Rockhampton Har­bour Board desired to practically guarantee. Hon. members would see the Bill on the table in a few minutes, anrl the fullest opportunity would be given to discuss it on the second read­ing.

Mr. RYLAND: When will the second reading ta.ke place?

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS ~ He hoped it would be taken to· morrow.

Mr. HARD ACRE (Leichhm·dt): He thought this was a very remarkable proceeding on the part of the Minister. It was a nice little trick for the purpose of trying to limit discussion of the matter.

The SECRETARY ~'OR RAILWAYS: Did you say "limit discu~sion "?

Mr. HARDAURE: Yes. The i:lECRETARY l'OR RAIL WAYS: K o, no ! And

it is not a trick either.

Mr. HARD ACRE : Hon. members could use their own expressions. At any rate, that was his view of it. There was nothing else but a trick behind the proposal altogether. The Min­ister and the Government knew that if they could manage to get the Bill through this stage, then on the second reading members would be limited to merely the one speech, whereas 011

this stage they conld speak more than once, if necessary.

The SECRETARY E'OR RAILWAYS: You have got the Committee stage of the Bill after the second reading, as welL

:Yir. HARD ACRE: But their speecheR then harl to. be confined to the particular clau<e w&ich they were discussing.

Mr. GRANT: Is it not just the same with any other Bill?

Mr. HA RDACRE : Besides that, on the second reading they would only be able to dis­cuss the principle of the Bill. The Committee objected to the action of the Minister in not giving them any information. This was the time when the whole discussion Bhould tak~

Port Alma [8 DECEMBER.] Railwa.y Bili. 755

place, and they should have the fullest opportu­nity of getting all the information they desired. And if they lHd not got the information they wanted, they could continue discussing the mat­ter until they did get it. Why ohould they let thiiil stage go by and pass on to the second read­ing without getting the fullest possible informa­tion on the subject? He wanted to know what was the character of this particular board whose guarantee the Government desired to accept for the railway. What kind of a board Wl<S it? 'Yhat was the solvency or otherwise of this particular institution? Did that board repre· sent the ratepayers and people of the district where the rail way was to be built? The Govern­ment had already lent a large sum of money to the board for the purpose of improving the river and harbour at Rockbampton. The loan was made by the Government to the board on the security of the asset• and revenue of that board. He remembered well when the amending .-\et of 1906 was introduced, that they were shown the revenue of the board at that time, and they were told that it was likely to increase in the future, and that the security was exceedingly good. The security offered, as a matter of fact, was not good at all, because at that time the board was scarcely paying bare expenses in connection with the improvement of the Rockhampton harbour. "

7 hat the Government propo<ed to do nnw was to take from the board a guarantee to cover the interest and working expenses of a railway, the coot of which they do not exactly know, and which would take away the revenue of the Rock· hampton Harbour Board.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: No, no

Mr. HARDACRE: It would takeaway from the harbou.r board the very revenue which was given as security for the loans amounting to about £300,000, which had already baen spent on that harbour. It would make scrap-iron of all the appliances and apparatus in connection with the harbour bon,rd in deepening and im­proving the Fitzroy River. It had been stated that it would not take away the revenue; but they had evidence, by petitions laid before them last session, that actually part of tht> agreement that the board bad entered into with the Com· missioner for Railways, was that the Rock­hampton Harbour Board would undertake to send as much of the traffic as they possibly could over the Port Alma Railway, rather than by the Fitz­roy River.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: They do not get any profit by sending the goods by the Fitz. roy River.

Mr. HARD ACRE: The Rockhampton Har­bour Board had agreed to undertake to divert as large an amount of the traffic as it possibly could to the Port Alma Railway, when con­structed. It would rob the Rockhampton Har­bour Board itself. Another reason urged for the railway was that it would do away with the necessity of the constantly recurring expense in dredging the Fitzroy Itiver, which meant that the river, to some extent, would be allowed to silc up, which would result in less revenue being received by the harbour board through harbour dues. In that way the security for the large sum of money already spent in improving and deepening the Fitzroy River would be thrown away.

Mr. Con>E: The board will become insolvent.

Mr. HARD ACRE: It would become insol­vent, ::;nd yet they were asked to accept their guarantee for interest on another railway, which would take away the revenue of the board.

Mr. CORSER: l::{ow will it take away the revenue from the board?

The PRE}IIER: It will not decrease it by one shilling.

Mr. HARD ACRE: It would divert the traffic from the ]'itzrov River.

Mr. OoRSER :"It does not make any difference -the port gets it ust the same.

Mr. HARD ACRE: It would take a large sum of money coming by way of revenue to the Rock­hampton Harbour Board nvw to cover the extra interest on the new expense incurred in the con­struction of the Port Alma Railway.

Mr. OoRSER: It will reduce them, because they will not have so much expense in the Fitzroy River.

Mr. HARD ACRE: It was quite possible that that might happen. But what would certainly happen if the railway were built, was that the large amount of expenditure already devoted to the improvement and deepening of the Fitzroy River would be wasted.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: What ab:>ut the river boats?

Mr. HARDAORE: Did the river boats require a depth of 18 feet at low tide?

The SECRETARY }'OR RAILWAYS : The boats go direco from Brisbane and Sydney to Rock­hampton.

Mr. HARDAORE: The railway would pre­vent them using the river. It would make Port Alma the port of landing of the coastal boats.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: For the oversea boats.

Mr. HARDACRE : Broadmount Harbour was amply sufficient and convenient for all large boats of the tramp kind, and large cargo boats which did not need to go in quickly or come out quickly •. It was argued that Bron,~monnt was inconvement for the coastal boats-It was more convenient for them to go up the Fitzroy River, but if the railway were constructed Port Alma would be the stopping place for the large coastal steamers. To that extent they would not need the l!'itzroy River at all. There were many things in connection with the line on which they wanted information. The Committee had just obtained the report-the missing report­with r·egard to the special board appointed to inquire into the desirability of constructing the Port Almo. Railway. They knew that the board was appointed under special instructions. The board consisted of Mr. Pagan, Chief Engineer for Railways; Mr. Cullen, Engineer for Har­bours and Rivers; and an impor.ted exper~ from South Australia. They were asked by the Premier to bless the proposal, and they turned round and cursed it. That was an absolutely impartial and unbiassed board. They got all the information they could get. They examined Broadmount and Port Alma, and whilst it was true thPy did not recommend that Broadmount bA retained as a deep-water port, they refused to recommend the construction of a railway to· Port Alma, and rather than recommend the construction of a railway to Port Alma, that particular board went out of the way to sug­gest a railway from Broadmount Harhour right across the mouth of the Fitzroy River to Port Alma, at a cost of something like £149,000. Everybody recognil!'ei at once that that pro­posal was absurd, and yet the board actually­recommended that rather than acquiesce in supporting the proposal to construct the rail­way from Bajool to Port Alma. The worst condemnation that be knew of was the recom­mendation to build a railway right across the mouth of the Fitzroy River to Port Alma •. 'Yhen.tbey hacl a special boMd recommending a thing of that kind in preference to the·

Mr. Hardacre.]

756 Port Alma [ASSEMBLY.] Railway Bill.

Poro Alma Railway, ic was time for the Commit­tee to pause before they agreed to oh is proposal. The whole proceedings in connection with the Port Alma Railway propo8al were of the most suspicious kind. The Rockhttmpton people were absolutely opposed to it; it was a most un­popular proposal so far as the Rockhamp­ton ratepayers and people generally were con­cerned, and it was known that in spite of their repeated protests against that particular railway proposal, it had been forced upon them by a small financial oligarchy of a few firms who were trying to ride roughshod over the people of Rockhampton for their own special interests. He did not know whether hon. members httd read the book published in America by Foster, called "Frenzied Finance." If so, they would remember that legislation was passed in all kinds of interests, by which means hundreds of thousands of people were ruined, and a few people made fortunes. The Port Alma Railway was going to seriously injure thousands of the Rockhampton people for the purpose of making the fortunes of a few other persons interested in this proposal.

'l'he SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : Y on are romancing.

Mr. HARD ACRE: He was not romancing at all. The proposal to construct a rail way to Port Alma was not for the purpose of providing a deep-water port for the Rockhampton district. They had an exceedingly good deep-water port at the present time in Broadmount. He admitted it was not a perfect port, but at the same time it was an exceedingly good one, and quite sufficient for present requirements and requirements for many ytars to come. As a matter of fact, large steamers and large sailing boats went into the port of Broadmount without the slightest diffi­culty. There was only 18 feet of water at low tide, but it must be remembered there was an exceedingly high tide there, which rose about 16 feet at its highest, and any boat of the largest type-even if drawing up to 28 feet-had only to wait, at the most, an hour or two, to take ad­vantage of the tide and g'"> into the port of Broad­mount without difficulty. The proposed railway was merely a section of the proposed direct rail­way from Port Alma vi<t Mount Morgan to the Dawson Coalfield. The Committee had already passed a railway from Mount Morgan to the Dawson Coalfield, and now they were asked to pass a railway from Bajool to Port Alma.

The CHAIRMAN : Order! I am very loth to interrupt the hon. member, but I think he is making a second-reading speech. He is entering into the question of rival routes. I have fol­lowed him very closely, and it does not appear to me that he is seeking information.

Mr. HARD ACRE : He was seeking informa­tion and giving a good deal of information. They were not limited to merely getting information­they were limited to the consideration as to whether it was advisable to build the railway.

The PREb!IER : Oh, happy House--Mr. HARDACRE : The Premier would be

very happy to get the rail way passed. Mr. MACARTNEY: You are doing your ca,use

more harm than good.

Mr. HARDACRE : How was the hon. member gomg to vote?

Mr. MACARTNEY : I am not going to be led away by you on it.

Mr. HARDACRE: He was giving informtt­tionon the matter, and if the hon. member liked to vote for the proposal, it was not his (Mr. Hardacre's) fault. There were some remarktble features about the matter, :First of all, the har-

[11lr. Hardacre.

hour board, whose guarantee they werA asked to accept, was a h,ubour board which had not the confidence of the people of Rockhampton. It was elected on the most limited franchise. :Five members were elected by the payers of dues, against the majority of the ratepayers of Rockhampton. The chairman of the board-and he was chairman at the time the guarantee was given-was Mr. Archer, and he was the chair­man of the Mount Morgan Company at the same time. Another tnember of the same family had a very large area of freehold property at the junction of this proposed railway from Bajool to Port Alma, and all along the proposed route­all the high ground where the township of Bajool would be built.

The PREMIER: The rail way runs throng h the property now.

Mr. HARD ACRE: 'l'hat was true, and if it was constructed from Bajool it would enormously enhance that property in value. They had on

the one hand the chairman of the [4 p.m.] Mount Morgan Company, or the

chairman of the Rockhampton Har­bour Board, ghing this guarantee, as represent­ing a board elected on a narrow, restricted fran­chise, against the wishes of the people expressed again and again during the elections for some yettrs past. Then it would not benefit Hock­hampton; it would chiefly benefit the Mount M organ Company and those behind tha,t com­pany interested in this railway. It woilld Le absolutely of no •en ice whatever until there was an interlinking connection between Bajool and Mount 1\Iorgan, and then, and only then, would iG be of use as a straight connection from Port Alma vi<~ Bajool to MountJ\Iurgan. Everyone who put the circumstances together would see th:tt there was a big financial pull behind this proposal. The Rockhampton Harbour Board was elected by 133 payers of due~, something like nine or ten financial institutions, many of them Melbourne firms. They had managed to get hold of the proxies of payers of dues, and with those votes had dominated the whole of the Rockhampton Harbour Board by getting five members representing the payers of dues, as against the thousands of ratepayers of Rockhampton and the adjacent local authori­ties, which had only got a minority on the board. For all theEe reasc>ns it was time for the Com­mittee to pause without guing any further. The people of Rockhampton should have an oppor­tunity of expressing an opinion. The other night the Premier had said those who were opposed to this railway were opposed to it because they were opposed to him; that he had improved every other harbour in Queensland, and now, because he wanted tu improve the shipping facilities for his own distric~, they were opposed to it. If there was any sincerity in that state­ment, the Premier should first of all give the Rockhttmpton people a chance to express their opinion upon it. In the meantime he permitted them to be g-agged ; he had got them tied hand and foot. 'While it might be true that they might protest, they h:td no adequate way of pru· testing by a fair franchise under which they could elect a harbour board that more fairly and trnly represented them.

The PREMIER : Do you say they are gagged ?

Mr. HARD ACRE : Yes. The Rockhampton Harbour Board franchise was without exception the worst franchise of any harbour board in Queensland. On theTownsville Harbour Board the majority of the representatives were elected by the ratepayers, and the minority by the payers of dues. In Rockhampton, on the other hand, the majority were elected by the payers of dues-a few in number-and' the minority were

Po1·t Alma (8 DECEMBER.] Railwa.?J Bill. 757

elected by the ratepayers. If the Premier had really the interests of his own people at heart, and desired to give them facilities which would be of benefit to them, he ought first to give them a fair franchise which would enable them to elect a harbour board whir.h would truly repre­sent them, and they might then reasonably accept the guarantee which was offered. There were many more things which he could say on this matter, but he had said enough to make members hesitate before they passed a single sl8ge of this proceeding to accept the guarantee of a board for a railway proposal which would injure the people of Hockhampton.

The PRE::\IIER: The hon. member for Leich­hardt told the Committee that this matter was brought forward in the interests of a number of people who werA at the back of this railway, when he knew that he himself in this matter was simply the agent of the manager of. the Bank of Australasia, and a few who had become cranks on the subject in Hockhampton.

Mr. HARDACRE: No, that is not true; I am the agent of no man.

The PRE:\1IER: He regretted to see-no, he was glad-they did not appoint a wiser agent to conduct this mattPr. He would not discuss the merits of the proposal at this stage ; the proper time to discuss it was on the second reading of the Bill. Ordinarily, when a railway was intro­duced into t~e House, it was introduced on a reoolution moved by the Minister for Railways, and the House referred that resolution to a Committee of the whole House, and that was all there was about it. In connection with this rail way it was considered desirable to first pass a Bill to validate an agreement hetwebll the CommisHioner for Railways and the harbour hoard who asked for the railway to be built. They must firet pMs a Bill to do that, and after they had passed the Bill through all its stages they came to the ordinary procedure when a railway was to be built by authority of the House, and the Minister· had to move a resolu­tion accordingly. So that instead of giving less time for discussion there was three or four times as much opportunity for discussion in regard to this particular railway a• there was ordinarily when a railway was introduced to the House.

l\Ir. MCRR.HY : Will you gua.rantee a full dis­cussion'!

The P RE::\IIER: Did he need to guarantee full discussion ?

Mr. MURPHY : Y on ha Ye got a nasty habit of putting on the gag. (Laughter.)

The PRE;I.1IER: Was there the slightest reawn for him to guarantee full discussion?

::\fr. BREsLIN : \V ill you guarantee no gag?

The PREMIER: \Vhat he had risen to say was this : Thev would have taken the second initial sta~e ,;f this Bill yest<>rday, but the report of the commission appointed to inquire into it. had bPen delayed in some way owing to the preparation of the lithograph, and it was not deewed desirable to present. a Bill, even for its first reading, until members had the report in their hands. He knew that members had only got the report this morning.

1\'Ir. BRESLIN: This afternoon.

The PREMIER: Yes, they had only got it now, and he did not think it was fair to expect members to enter into a discussion of the matter this afternoon. As a matter of fact, they could not do it with any great intelligence until they had time to go over the report and look into the matter themselves.

Mr. CoYNE: Does not that apply to all Bills?

The PREMIER : It applied to all Bills, and there was not usually discussion on the first read­ing of the Bill. The fullest discussion might take place, and could take place, on the second reading of the Bill. The hon. member who had just sat down said they had got to take the opportunity to-day, and that when the second reading of the Bill came al<•ng they would be confined to the principle of the Bill.

1\lr. HARDACllE : Hear, hear !

The PREMIER: That was all the oppor­tunity t.hey would have, and it was the same with any Bill. It was introduced and there were certain formal stages, then it came to the sGcond reading and then through Committee, when the fullest ~onsideration was given to the details­the separate clauses of the Bill-and then it came up on the third read.ing. And in this P!'r­ticular case there was a still further opportumty of discussing it when the actual proposal to build a rail way was laid on the table of the House. This Bill did not build any railway, and did not authorise any railway to be built. They might pass this Bill fifty tim~s, and t_he Commissioner would not have authority to bmld a yard of the railway. This was only to validate an aareement. He might point out to hon. members that if this was merely obstruction at work then he could not help it, and the House would have to suffer. But if it was an honesj; desire to discuss this matter on its merits, then he advised hon. members to look at the 1eport of the commission, and discuss the matter on its merits as fully as they desired on the second reading. Was that an unfair thing to ask the Committee to do?

Mr. RYLAND: It is not unfair to ask for information about it, is it? You are giving us some very interesting information now.

The PREMIER: The hon. member knew that he could get all the information he wanted. All he had to do was to go to the Minister for Railways. He wanted to assure hon. members that he was not going I o discuss the merits of the proposal this afternoon. He had heard the most outrageous statements made by the hon. member for Leichhardt.

1\Ir. HARDACRE : Quite true, though. The PREMIER : But he thought it was

better to let them go than to enter on a ge~eral discussion, which they would have over again on the second reading, and over again on t.he Com­mittee stag<e, and he supposed on the th1r~ r~ad­ing and have over again when the Mm1ster tabied the resolution for the building of the railway. Hon. members knew there was not a great deal of time remaining: t~is s.essim;, al!d while he did not want to hm1t d1scusswn m this matter, he thought it only wanted full and imp:wtial consideration. He asked hon. mem­bers whether it would facilitate the interests of the State or their own intere3ts to waste time over the initial stages of the Bill ; and he sug­gested to the hon. '!'ember for Gympi~ that he might get informatiOn from the Mmistor for Railways to-day and give it to the Home to­morrow. Discussion at this stage was only a waste of time that might be more profitably employed in considering the Railway l~stimates.

1\Ir. MAUARTNEY (Brisbane N01·th) thought the Premier was right in refusing to discuss the merits of the railwav on the present motion. The hon. member for Leichhardt took the ground that discussion on this motion could he wider than the discmsion on the second reading; but after listening to the hon. member he could only say that the hon. member said nothing that he would not be allowed to say on the second read­ing; therefore the hon. gentleman's argument in

Mr. Macartney.]

758 Port Alma [ASSEMBLY.] Railway Bill.

regard to initiating a discussion on this propo­Bition fell to the ground. It was a rule almost invariably recognised that motions preparatory to the introduction of Bills were practically passed without dhcus,ion; but in this case it appeared as if they were entering on an acrirnoni· ous discussion on the merits of the Bill. He thought it was a mistake that this discusgion should have been cnmmenc8d. Many members had emne doubts r.s to whether this railway should be approved, and they wished to get infor­mation in the usual way on the sectmd reading to enable thPm to arrive at a currect con­clusion ; but he would point out to the hon. member for Leichhardt that railways, as a rule, were not treated on the usual party lines, and that if this was to be made a bitter pnty fi'(ht, it might to some extent affect the position of hon. member~ supporting the Go,•ernment. He thought the bun. member would be wise if he would alloiV the matter to proceed in the usual way, and have a full discussion on the second reading of the Bill.

GOVERNMENT ME>JBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. LENNON (Herbc?'t) protested against the remarks of the Chief Secretary in stigmati•ing the action of the hon. member for Leichhardt as obstruction and those of the junior member for Brisbane North when he talked about making this a party question.

Mr. MACARTNEY: I did not advocate that at all.

Mr. LENNON: Tbe hon. member warned membel·s on tbis side against making it a party question. He wished to say that the attitude of the Labour party in regard to all rail ways ex­cept syndicate railways was not to make them party questions, but a syndicate railiVay would be opposed tooth and nail by that party on every po~sible occasion. As to whether the hon. member for Leichhardt was justified in enter­ing into a discussion at this stage, that was another matter. He \Vould reserve any remarks he might have to make until the second reading stage of the Bill.

Mr. P A YNE (.llfitchell) intended to oppose the railway at every stage. Even the concluding words of the Commissioner's report were sufficient to justify one in opposing the railway-he recom­mended it because the State was not going to lose anything by it. It had been stated that this was not !!Oing to have any effect on Central Queensland-that it was the Rockhampton Har­J:,our Board that would have to make no any loss. Roughly speaking, there would be £200,000 paid for passengers- and goods passing over the line every year, and they would be taxed on account of thiB railway. The tax would be put on by the harbour board. He had received private in­formation of a meeting of the PaBtoralists' A•ooci­ation, held at Longreach the other day, for the purpose of giving Central members Rome idea how to vote on this railway. There were thirty­six present, and the voting was even ; so that, as far as the Central di.trict was concerned, there was no very big interest taken in the construction of the line to Port Alma.

Mr. RYLAND pointed out that, as a rnle, when it was proposed to build railways they were introduced in Committee and discmsed, and there WM no more about them till they were passed.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: This is not a miliVay; this is a Bill.

Mr. RYLAND: As far as formal stages were ooncerned, the fact that a measure had to pass through all these stages conse~ved the ri..,ht of members to discuss it at every stage, and they ;vere not.going outside their rights in asking for mformatwn now. He was pleased the Premier

[ 1Jf r. 1Jf acartney.

had intimated that an opportunity would be given to discuss the second reading of the Bill another day. They had already got. some in· formation from the hon. member for Le1chhardt; and he wanteil some information aa to why a departure had been made from the principle of the Act of HJ06, which required the owners of land in the benefited area to make up any de­ficiency in connection with thP railway. In this case 1lwre was a guarantee by the Rock­hampton Harbour Board; but where was the harbour board going to finil the money ? It would come from increa>ed taxation on the goods en!ering the pmt; Rnd the nmn with the large family-those who consumed most goods­would have to bear the greater part of the tax. In connection with the name 0f the chairman of the harbour board, he noticed that the railway would go through lands owned by the Archer family to Port Alma. In his opinion any deficiency should be made up by a tax on the lands l:enefited by the construction of the rail­way. He was pleased with the information given by the Premier, and be was sure that the Committee were uleased at the information given by the hon. member for Leichhardt.

Mr. BRESLIX (Po?'t Cu1·tis): The Govern­ment and the ]V!inister for Rail ways were show­ing an unholy haste in the way the Bill was being rushed through. Ever since the report was tabh d in the House in connection with that railway, he had asked for a copy of it day after day, hut could not get it. It was only fair to members, when heavy expense was incurred in

getting such a report, that before they [4.30 p.m . .J sanctioned the enormous expendi­

ture which the building of the rail­way would entail they should know exactly how that money was going to be spent.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS : The report was published in the Pre,s last April.

Hon. B. B. FoRREST: \Vhy didn't we get the parliamentary report then?

Mr. BRESLIN : Memhers only received that report about an hour or half an hour before the Home met, and the secund reading is to take place to-morrow. They would probably have a late sitting that night, and· as they would have to attend to departmental business in the morning, what chance would members have of studying that Bill, the report, and the diagratn, and fully inform their minds on the subject. If the Go­vernment wished to allow members to thoroughly understand the subject, and if the :Minister for Railways was not afraid that the House would be likely to condemn the propoml after seeing the diagram, then why not postpone the second reading of the Bill till next week, so that n.em­bers could have a chance of looking into it.

:VIr. COYNE : Next year for -preference.

Mr. BRESL TN : Yes; next year for pre­ference. The Premier and the senior member for Rockhampton laid stress on the fact that it was to he made a party question, and said it was all through personal animosity to the Pre­mier, but the Premier and senior member for Rockhampton should reflect that prominent oc­cupants of the front Treasury bench when they were sitting in Opposition were alsn very bitter opponents of that railiVay. Possibly they would vote against the propoFal now, as it was not to be a party measure. But were those hon. mem­bers when in Opposition opposed to the 1ailway solely on account of personal animosity to the Premier? The objection to the Bill came from a solid united effort in the X orth. Everyone from the North would vote against the Bill, and surely they were animated by some other reason than personal animosity to the Premier There was also an objection to the Bill in Rockhamp-

Port Alma [8 DECEMBER.] Railwa,y Bill. 759

ton. Had they no other reason for objecting to it than personal animosity to the Premier? That matter of person"] animo>ity to the Premier had been worked to death. Members were supposed to have no opinion on those matter" at all. They were 8Upposed to have no sense of right or wrong, whether the railway would pay, whether it would be profitable to the State or to the Central Queensland districts. They were sup­posed to be anirru,ted only by personal animosity to the Premier. There was a public meeting held at Rockhampton on J:\Ionday night, and the Ouurie1· gave a brief report of it. The D<tily 11Iail gave a little more e'-tended report, and the Telegi'aph gave what was apparently the correct account of that meeting. That meeting was unanimously opposed to the pr0position of build­ing a railwny to Port Alma. The Living;;tone Shire Council wail opposed to the proposal, and carried a resolution to that effect.

The SECRETARY FO!\ RAILWAYS: That is on the north side of the river.

:\Ir. BllESLIN: The north side had as much ·right to have a Hay as the south side. The Clermont Town Council carried a resolution .opposed to the railway.

Mr. LESINA : By three to two. ::\Ir. BRESLIN : The Rockhampton Harbour

Board was only five to four in favour of it. {Laughter.) The correct thing would be to let the Bill stand over for at least a week, although he personally would sooner see it postponed for ~ year or more. Let them get time to get the Rockhampton Recol'tl down. (Go~ernment ~aughter.) The senior member for Rockhamp­ton could laugh, but it was a true expression of the feeling np there. The Record was just as truthful as the Rockhampton Bulletin. Lots of people said it was very much more so. Lots of people at election time preferred the Rec(J?•d to the Bulletin. The senior member for Rockhampton Janghed because he was a sort of intimate friend <>f the Bulletin's just at present. The hon. mem­ber for Mitchell quoted the result of the meeting which was held at Longreach. They were told that the \Vest was unanimously for the Port Aim a Railway, the people swore by it, that they called out for it, that they would go out of the country like the capital if they did not get it. The hon. member for ::Yiitchell showed the absurdity of that. A meeting was called at Longreach solely and simply to be the crowning stone of the Port Alma Railway. It was to be a wonderful meet­ing, the Chief Secretary was going to flourish it in the House, >tnd the Minister for Railways was going- to quote it. \Vhat happened at that meeting? After '111 the beating of drums, and their rousing up and gathering round and. mus­tering, they could only get enough to support it equal to the number of those who were against it.

The SECRE1'ARY FOR RAILWAYS: When did ·that happen?

Mr. BRESLIN: He understood that it was held a few days ago. The Bill should be held over until they got the Rockhampton papers and Tead the account of the meeting held on }fonday night, and they would know what wa" Rock-lnampton's opinion at the pre"ent jun.cture. He was not going into the details of the Bill. He was not going to refer to the mnd flats, the mangroves, the property, and the water supply at Port Alma. Let members have time to study the Bill and the diagram, so that they could ·make up their minds how they were going to vote on the question.

Mr. HARD A CRI~: The Premier stated that that was the wrong place to discu's the mntter, but he was not c.,rrect. This was the stage when the discussion of a proposal of tllat kind took

place. The motion was to consider the desirable­ness ofintroducing the Bill. H was nominnlly a Bill to enter into an agreement with the Rock­hampton Harbour Board, but virtu,,l!y it was a railway proposal, and they always discussed rail­way proposals in all their bearings when they went into Committee.

The SECRETARY l!'OR RAILWAYS: \Ve have not come to that yet, You will still have the oppor­tunity when we are discussing the plans.

1Ir. HAHDACRE : They had the Pittsworth to Millmerran R<tilway the othEr day, aml the discuRsion occupied thirty pages of HanSfWd.

The RECRETARY }'OR RAILWAYS: That is notJ this stage at all.

Mr. HARDACllE: Yes, it was at this very stage, and they occupied thirty pages of Hansard in diEcussing the proposal.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I would point out to the hon. member that the poRition he refers to in counectiun with the Pittsworth Rail­way has not been arrived at yet in connection with this railway.

Mr. HARD ACRE: H was his own business how he proceeded with tho3e matters, and he in­tended to have his rights protected. The pro­posal befm·e the Committee was virtually a railway proposal, although t.hey had no plans, sections, etc., placed on the table of the Honse.

The SECRETARY }'OR RAILWAYS: Yes, they have been placed on the table.

Mr. HARDACRE: They would not have to table them again.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: But you may discuss them later on.

1Ir. HARD ACRE: They were considering the desirableness of validating the agreement to construct this railway, and this was the correct time when the Minister should give all the information of which he was possessed. This railway was a contentiouH matter, and as they had a wider opportunity of discussing _it at this stage they should take ad vantage of 1t: As a result of his action, they had got a prorrnse from the Premier that, so far as he could assist them in the matter, they would have a full discussion, and they would not be restricted in their dis­cussion when they came to the second reading of the Bill. Seeing that they would have another opportunity for fuller discussion, he offered no further objection to the matter going through.

Question put and passed. The House resumed. The CHAIRMAN re­

ported that the Committee had come to a reso­lution.

The SJ<:CRETARY FOR RA1LWAYS: I move that the resolution be agreed to by the Home.

:\[r. HARDACRE: I just want to make one remark. A consiclerable amount of discussion took place in Committee on this matter, and sorr1e n1embers-myself, at any rate-are strong·ly oppoRed to accepting the guarantee, !:mt, on infor­mation beino- given by the Premier and other members of "the Committee, we allowed it to pass this stage formally, while at the same time we are opposed to the resolution. \Ve will have a full diwussion on the matter when we come to the second reading.

Question put and passed.

FIRHT READING. The Bill was read a first time, and the second

reading made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

Mr. Hardacre.]

760 Mining on [ASSEMBLY.] Private Land Bill.

MINING ON PRIVATE LAND BILL. COMMITTEE.

Clauses 1 and 2 pnt and passed. On clause 3-" Repeal of certain sections of

the principal Act"-

Mr. RYLAND: As he had pointed out on the second reading of the Bill, this was a very im. portant clan~e. It practically repealed all the clauses in the principal Act dealing with royalty on gold, and that would affect the revenue to the amount d an average of £6,000 or £7,000 a year. Chtuse GG of the principal Act, which it was proposed to repeal, read-

There shall be payable to Her 3Injesty in respect of all gold raised from any mine, held or leased under the provisions of this part of this Act, a roy:1lty of ls. per ounce

As an outcome of that section, the following­amounts had been received as royalty from the Mount 1Iorgan Company since the year 1893 :­year 1895-6, £6,098 Ss. 3d. ; 18Dfl-7, £8,236 14s. ; 1897-8, £8,40410•. ; 1898-9, £7,637 9s.; 1899·1900, £8,625 12s.; 1900-L, £7,992 ls. ; HJOl-2, £6,798 3s. ; 1902-3, £6,636 2s. ; 1903-4, £5,4.71 1·h.; 1904-5, £5,819 18s.; 190i5-6, £4,796 13s. 2d.; 1906-7, £4,389 1s. ; 1907-8, £3,426 Ss. ; 1908-9, £2,288 s,. That amounted to an a vernge of over £6,000 a year. Under the proposed clause that revenue would be practically wiped out. The Bill that was previously brought in by the hon. member for Ipswich, Mr. Blair, did not interfere in any way with that revennP. It was not necessary that that royalty should be aban­doned for the right to mine on privat,e property. The Mount 2\Iorgan Company surrendered their freehold and got a lease, and it was only fair that they should continue and observe that contract. Although they might amend Land Acts, or repeal different Land Acts, still all con­tracts and agreements entered into under the Act repealed had been observed by the Govern. ment and the purchaser, or whatever he might be called. Gold and si! ver were royal met;.ls, and had always been regarded as belonging to the Crown. The principle of ls. per oz. royalty did not in its incidence work out very well, because sometimes a mine might be very poor, and yet it might have to pay the royalty. The basis of the charge should be on the net profits, and the revenue received should go towards assisting prospecting and deep sinking, and other things. The Committee had bPtter let the clause go, and he then intended to move the insertion of the following new clause :-

Provided that such repeal shall not affect the liability to the payment of 1·oyalty under seetion sixty-six of the principal Act in respect of gold raised from any mine held or leased at the commencement of this Act under the provisions of Part YII. of the principal Act, and all such royalty shall continue to l)e payable.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES said he could not accept the amendment.

Mr. LESISA : Why?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: It was absolutely ridiculous to discriminate in connec­tion with one or two leases which were paying royalty at the preeent time. If the principle of royalty was a good one in one or two instances, then royalty should be paid in every instance. If i•. was a principle that no royalty should be paid, then no royalty should be demanded from any company which, at the present time, hap· pened to be paying royalty under the provisions of the principal Act.

Mr. COYNE : Did not those companies under· take to pay royalty ?

The SEURETARY FOR l\UNJ<;S: It was not a question of undertaking to pay royalty. It was simply that the law required, under certain

[111r. Ryland.

conditions, that royalty should he paid, and royalty had been so paid. Another reason why he was opposed to royalty being charged was this : The Crown did not demand royalty for gold won on Crown lands, and when extending the principle to permit persons to mine for gold on freehold land, why should they require royalty to be paid for the gold which was under that land? Hon. members must recollect that a dividend had to be paid to the Crown on the profits made out of the gold .that was won .• :rhe Crown required that certam labour condthons had to be performed, and would have to be per: formed if the proposed Bill became law, andi the Government consirlered that that was sufficient tribute to be paid by those who mined on private land or on Crown la.nd. That was the whole position. The total amount of royalty received during- the past year only amOLmted to about £2,000.

Mr. RrMNIJ : £6,000. The SECRETARY FOR MINES : The

revenue from royalty was approximately £2,00(); under the sections of the principal Act, whteh it w~s proposed to repeal. He could not under­stand the po"ition taken up by ban. members who proposed to discriminate in this way and say that royalty was a proper principle.as applied to t\to companies who had been carrymg ant all the conditions required by the Mining Act and mining regulations, but it was not a proper principle as regards any other company or any other r·erson w ha desired to mine for gold under other conditions.

Mr. COYNE: You want to prevent them carry· ing out the conditions.

The SECRETARY J!'OR MINES: That wa& not the question at all. Did ban. members ad. vacate that a royalty should he paid ? Tf they advocated the payment of royalty as a proper principle, then they must make the payment of royalty general. For all these mining tene~ents the same kind of rent would have to be patd as was now paid on goldfields, the same labour con­ditions would have to be performed, and if it was. a proper condition to do away with royalties, then there must be no discrimination at all.

Mr. CoYNE : Is the rent paid in the case of freehold?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : In the· case of freehold, for the mining tenement which. would be granted, the same payment would have to be made as was now paid for land which was.

leased by the Crown to those per­[5 p. m.] sons who were operating and mining·

upon it. To say that it was a proper principle to do away '1\ith the royalty, but that in connection with this one company it was not a proper principle, was ridiculous.

Mr. LESINA : No, it is not a proposition to do· away with royalty on gold. •

The SECRETARY J!'OR MINES : It was simplv one way or the other. If the hnn. member said that royalty should be paid, he (Mr. Appel) was prepared to consider that .proposition,. although he did not think it was a proper one. He must oppose the addition to the clause.

Mr. HARDACRE agreed that there should he a royalty on all land leased, as well as free­hold, and on new freehold land as well as old freehold. The principle of royalty was a proper thing, recause it was a charge-a payment of rent. It was !Jractic1~lly what we 'did with our Crown lands-we charged the pastoralists some­thing for permission to use our natural reconrces.

The SECRETARY 1!'01\ MINES : I have pointed out that the same amount of revenue wi!I have to be paid as is now paid under our Mining Act.

Mining on [8 DECEMBER.] Private Land Bill. 761

Mr. HARD ACRE believed in the principle of a, royalty instead of a mere nominal sum of £1 an acrE'.

Mr. Mt:LCAHY : Do you call £1 an acre a nominal sum?

Mr. HARD ACRE: He did. After all, it depended on the value of the particular area worked. It would be too much for a small mine, and it would be ridiculous on valuable ground· like the Mount Morgan lease. If they were not intending to propose a royalty, there was logical ground for urging that the species of royalty obtained in the past should now be partly fore­gone in the case of some of the companies which paid it. The principal company concerned was really Mount Morgan. He had nothing to say against Mount lHorgan as a comp,.ny : he be­lieved it was a fairly liberal company. But in this particular case it would be most unreason­able for the Crown to make them a gift of the royalty which they agreed to pay, and which they actually came to Parliament and sought to enter into, in return for the valuable concession which they obtained from the Crown. He did not know whether the Minister was aware of the circumstances.

The SECUETARY FOU MIKEH : I kuow thP whole of the circumstances, but we are simply dealing with the law as it is.

Mr. HARDACRE : The company ought to be kept to the bargain.

The SECUETAUY FOR MINES : The Act says nothing of the nature of a bargain. It "imply requires certain things to be done under certain conditions.

Mr. HARDACRE: It was suddenly dis­covered that the principal part of Mount :M organ, where the most valuable ore would be contained and worked, was freehold, and the gold really belonged to the Crown. The Mount Morgan Company was winning gold which be­longed to the Crown, without the Crown's con­sent-practically doing an illegal act. At the time they had no right whatever to the gold which was taken from that freehold. Therefore, in order to stop it, and also having discovered that under another Act. it was possible for another company to come and jump the mine by digging 70 feet deep outside and into the free­hold p(>rtion and scooping out the cont<mts, they came to the Government and were allowed to

·surrender the freehold and obtain a leasehold ovpr it : and in return for that concession they offered to pay a royalty. \Vhy should we now make a gift of that royalty?

The SECUETAUY FOR MINES : \V e are carrying out the principle that we do not propose to charge royalty. · Mr. HARDACRE: They were going to offer greater facilities to others in Queensland to mine on freehold.

The SECJ\ETAUY FOR MINES : And we are going to give a present of the royalty to all of them.

Mr. HARDACRE : Whatever they were going to do in the future with regard to freehold, he did not think they should make a gift to those who bad already entered iuto a contract. He asked the Minister whether the Mount Morgan Company had approached th!'l Govern­ment asking to be let off paying this royalty?

The SECRE'rAnY FOR MINES : Certainly not.

Mr. HARDACRE: Was it not time to con­sider letting them off when they asked to be let off?

The SECUETAUY FOU n.fiNEs : Because we are carrying out a principle that no royalty should

be charged, that the rent to be paid and the labour conditions to be carried out is a sufficient tax.

Mr. HARD ACRE: If the Crown offered to give 640 acres of freehold for nothing to-morrow to the selector, would the Minister say, "\Va ought by right to give back the amount of pur· chase money that was given to us in the past, because we are carrying out a principle~"

The SECRETAUY POU MINJi;S: Provided that by paying so much per annum per acre per year, and the employment of so many men working on that area, it would be a very good proposition.

Mr. HARDAGRE : They ought to consider the future, not the past.

The SECRETAUY ~'OU 1fiNES: The hon. member wants to consider the past; that is what he has been considering.

Mr. HARDAGRE: They might offer all kinds of inducements to people to work freehold property; but the company were jVorking the property willingly on the terms which were made. They would not get the Mount 1\lorgan freehold worked any better by letting them off the royalty. They might get other freehold pro­perty worked better by charging no royalty, and that might be an inducement; hut they could gpt no return from Mount :!Vforgan for the concessiOn they were giving to them.

Mr. MULCAHY (Cip1npie) could not see eye to eye with the bon. member for Leichhardt. He was opposed to royalty being charged. The hon. member for Olermont was perfectly right when he said he believed in royalty. In other words, he believed in chatging every miner in the State a royalty on every ounce or penny­weight of gold he extracted from the ground.

Mr. LESINA: You're a lhLr. The CHAIRMAN: Order! 'Ihe hon. mem­

ber must withdraw the statement. Mr. LESIN A: As it was distinctly unparlia­

mentary he did, but he used the expression in a deep sense or apprehension of what the hon. member intended tu do. He wanted !o get it into Ha.nsard and before the couutry that he (Mr. Lesina) wanted to tax every ounce of gold a miner got. It was a cowardly insinuation.

The CHAIRMAN: Order ! The hon. member must not transgress in this manner; I must pre­serve order.

Mt·. MULCAHY: If he had taken up the hon. member wrongly, he was very pleased to. hear that he was not unfavourable. He said, as. far as he could gather, by way of interjection, that he believed in royalty.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I must ask the hon. member for Gympie not to answer interjec­tions, or I must take the sense of the Committee as to stopping all interjections. They are unpar­liamentary and wrong in every sense, and I ask hon. members not to reply to interjections.

Mr. MULCAHY was quite ple11sed to heat' that, because he was inclined to think that the interjecti m of the hon. member for Clermont was decidedly out of order. (Laughter.) He was opposed on principle to charging royalty, and they were now making a r:tdical alteration-a bio- change which they had been looking for for m:ny years-to allow the miner 1o go on private· property and prospect for gold and other mmerals. Believin" in that, and to be consistent, be was not o-oin" to ~nake any exception of Mount Morgan or ~ny "other company. That was his principal reason for taking a different view to the hon. member for Leichhardt and his colleaguE', l\ir. Ryland, in this matter. He believe it was a right thing t,, do away with the royalty altogether.

Mr. Mulcahy.]

762 .1\iining on [ASSEMBLY.] Private Land Bill.

There had been a good deal made of the fact that Mount Morgan had paid the State a good deal of money. Thfy could well nfford to do so. When they got a le< se from the Crown, he be­lieved it was for twenty-one years, and ic had five or six vears to run. \VhetJ the lease expired they would have to gtt a new lease, ani! when they made application for a new lease this con­dition as to the royalty would not come in at all. The hon. member for Leichhardtma le the state­ment that £1 an acre was a nominal amount for the Crown to re"eive. If anyone could tell him when taking up a lea-e whether it was going to be rich or poor he would be very much obliged. A mine might pay well for a year or two, and then one might have to put in a great deal more than he had taken out. He considered that a 1·ental of £1 a year was too much altogether tak­ing it bv and large. He could cite cases where companies had had !eases for thirty years, and after paying £30 an acre, if they did not pay rent at a certain time of the year, it went back to the Crown. In the case of a grazing farm or grazing homestead, after a man paid the Crown £2 or £3 an acre he had the fee-simple. He hoped the rent would be reduced.

JYir. HAllDACllE : In all cases?

Mr. JI.!IULCAHY : In all cases-he could not discriminate. In 1,000 leases there might not be one :\Ionnt M organ. The amount of the royalty Mount Morgan would pay this year would amount to about £1,600, and he understood that the greater part of the mine where they were getting the gold that was paying the royalty was practically worked out. He challenged any mining man to say he believed the payment of a royalty should be made general; and if they were going to charge one nnd not charge another, they were not going on proper lines. Holding that view be would vote against the nmendment.

::\Ir. LESINA: The whole question was, whether in a case like this it was wise to discrimi­nate. He believed in taxing unearned increment, and he believed the unearned increment of a mine might be got at by taxing unimproved land values; but to tax the product of the miner's labour was another matter--whether it was that <>f one miner or a dozen, or a big corporation. In this C'tse, as it was not proposed to tax the many thousands of pounds worth of gold won by indi­viduals and small companies, but only to' apply it to the Day Dawn at Charters Towers and the Mount Morgan Company, that ap]Jeared to him to be an excellent reason for opposing the amend­ment. The hon. member for Leichhardt argued that, by making another agreement with the Mount Morgan Company, and not having a condition as to the payment of royalty-if the company would be so foolish as to agree to it­the Government would lose a certain amount.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Approximately £2,000.

Mr. LESINA: The country would probably !'ain that amount indirectly by discoveries made m consequence of the Bill becoming law. He was not prepared to take the stand that the product of labour should be taxed, and thongh the tax of 3d. per ounce of gold, imposed in Xew z,,,,hnd to provide for cases of accident and sickness amongdt miners might be justifiable, he would rather have a tax on land values, which was a plank in the Labour platform. J\fount Morgan was a monopoly in one sense, but not in the sense that it prevented others from working another Mount Morgan in the district if one should happen to be discovered. It was different from a tramway monopoly, which excluded the competition of any other company that might he prepared to run a tram­way in t.he same locality. He was opposed to

[Jfr. Mulcahy.

any tax on the product of labour, and he was also opposed to any discrimination in charging a royalty, and be was prepared to take the stand of voting against the amendment.

Ho:-;. R. PHILP {Townst•ille) said there was no special agreement with ::\Iount Morgan about the paymfnt of a royaltv. At one time it was thought that people w,n1ld be justified in work­ing their own freeholds and getting tbe g'•ld out; but when the Day Dawn Block and \Vyndham Company encroached on the Church of Eng-land Syndicate land >tt Charters 'l'owers, and was supposed to have taken out £3,600 worth of gold, it was proved in court that this amount of gold had been taken out, and the judge held that the gold belonged to the Crown. The judge said that the land to the reef was privaw property, aed the reef and below the reef was Crown property. The Government of the

day, of which he was a member, L5.30 p.m.] re~ei:'ed the money which hart bee_n

pa1dmto court, bnt they handed It back to the freehold from which the g-old was taken out. They then discovered that the free­holder had no right to it, and they passed a Bill enabling anyone who had a freehold to surrender his freehold and take up a mining lease, subject to a royalty of ls. an ounce. The Mount Mor­gan Company came under that agreement., took up a lease under the new conditions, and since paid a royalty ofls. an ounce. Now the Govern­ment were bringing in a Bill to enable persons to mine on private property, and they were not asking any royalty from anyone. How. co~1l? they ask royalty from one company or one mdiVI­dual and not another? They must treat all alike. They must either have royalty for all or none. He did not think that the people of (.jueensland wanted to pay royalty on gold. The Govern­ment wisely brought in a Bill saying that no royalty would be cha:ged and all would be treateil alike, whether 1t was the Mount l\Iorgan Company or any other company. At the present time thR Mount Morgan Company were the only company worth speaking of who were paying royalty on gold in Queensland. l\Iount M organ came under that, with certain other people, but now that they were dealing with a mining on freehold they must have one law for all. He was sure that Mr. Ryland would not like the miners of Gym pie to have to pay royalty.

Mr. RYLAND : I would rather they had to pay a royalty on net profits.

HoN. R. PHILP: The hon. member for. Gympie would not want to pay lease rent or royaltv either. At the present time they had to pay £1 an acre for the privilege of mining.

Mr. RYLAND : It is too much.

HoN. R. PHILP : He admitted that it was too much in some case•, but that was the law, and untii the law was altered, they must pa.y £1 an acre. Some land was not worth a farthing an acre so far as minerals were concerned, and they had to pay £1 for it just the same. He hoped the hon. member for Gym pie would see the wisdom of withdrawing his amendment.

Mr. HARDACRE : '!.'he ::Yiinister and the senior member for Townsvllle wnnted to treat all compames alike.

Hon. IL PHILP: Treat all miners alike. Mr. HARDACRE : It was not the miners

who paid the royalty. In order to be consistent those hon. gentlemen should propose to wipe out the royalty on coal as well as gold. They bad to pay 6d. per ton royalty on coal.

The SECRETARY l!'Oll MINES: No, 6d. per acre. Mr. HARDACRE : If they were going to

adopt the principle of doing away with royalty,

Mining on [8 DECEMBER.] Pri1Jate Land Bill. 763

-they should do away with it all round. If it ·was :vrong in one case it was wrong in other cases, and rt wus wrong to charge royalty on coul.

The SECI\ETARY FOR l\Inms : There is no royalty on coal.

Mr. HARD ACRE : Yes, there was a royalty of 3rl. per ton as well as the fid. per acre. Royalty was merely charging a rent in propor­tion to the value of the mineral resource'l. 'l.'hat wa~ exactly the same principle they adop>ed in their Crown land e. They assessed the ':tine of their Crown land and charged rent on it. For the best of their lands they charged " higher rent than for the poorest land, and it was right that they should do so. Take the mineral land, were they to charge as much for the poorest mineral resources as the valuable lands. That ·was what they did now. Thev charged £l an acre for the most barren lode or: reef a company ()ould work, and if it scarcely paid expenses it was all the same, while if it contained the rich· .est mineral deposits in Queensland they did not charge a single penny more. \Vas that a fair way of charging? If Broken Hill were in

·Queensland, they would not be able to charge a penny more.

The S!lCRETARY ~·oR ::\IINES: \Ve get it out of • the dividend tax.

::\Ir. HARDACRB: He admitted that there ··was something to be said in favour of that. They should charge a royalty according to the profit­ableness of the ~old won, or, rather, according ~o the l?rofitableness of winning the gold, just as

· 4t was m New Zealand and the Transvaal. The senior member for Gympie seemed to think that because he was a miner no one knew anything

. about mining law except himself. The 'frans­vaal was one of the greatest mineral countries in the world, and only a year or two a~o they

. adopted a g,eneral principle of royalty in the Transvaal. The royalty there was a progressive <me, with exemptions on a certain amount of gold per month, and that wa. wiae. In a work ·nn "Southern Rhodesia," this was what it said in regard to an ordinance on royalty-

The_ amended ordinance was, as the directors said, an c experimental one, and in spite of the opinion which

the Chamber~ of Mines professed to hold,. was a great -step forward 111 the progress of tbe mining industry.

:M:any held the ground and shephe1ded it; but ~he!! they were comp_elled to pay a royalty, then 1t pard them to work rt effectively. 'fhey made a discrimination in some cases, and there was no harm in doing it here. There was no harm in letting off those companies which got a conces­sion in the price paid. With regard to the senior member for Townsville saying that the Govern­ment did not make a bargain with the Mount ~'!:organ Company, although there was nothing in the statute saying that there was a bargain yet it was admitted that the Mount Morcran Com­pany was negotiating with the Gover~1ment to bring in that Bill.

Hon. R. PHILP: You are quite wrong. Mr. HARDACRE: That was admitted in the

discussion which took place in the House. Hon. R. PHILP : I brought in the Bill <tnd I

never admitted it. The SECRETARY FOR MI!"'ES : 'There is no men­

tion of any individual company in the Bill. Mr. HARD A ORE: Of course not. The proof

of the thing was that only two comuani~,; took advantage of it-the Mount Morga1~ Company and the Day Dawn Block and ·wyndham. They were both concerned in the Bill for speci!ic pur­poses.

Mr. ORA WFO RD (Fitzroy): He found him­self under the misfortune of being unable to agree with the juni<>r mernberfor Gym pie in the

suggestion he had put before the Committee. He was opposed totally to the continuance of royalties, and the time had arrived when they should abolish them. He could not be accused of n1aking a conc~"''ision in any shape or fonn to the :Mount JIIIorgan Company, beem1se the remis­sion of the royalties, so far as their amount was concerned, wouid not njean a great concession to that compv,ny or any other company. The pay­ment of royalty was in some measure an element in the cost of production, and if they abolished it, they did so much towards the encouragement of the production of gold. In Mount I>Iorgan parcicularly the production of gold was becoming every ye~r more costly. Itcostmoreevery year to raise every ton of ore that had to be treated, and he did not t.hink that the remission of the royalty would in any \NY ewell the dividenrle of that company, or would be regard::d by them as a very great conce•sion. The Go,·ernment had obtained a large revenue from JYiount l\1organ in the past, but if they wished to level up taxation there were other means of making this and other companies contribute theirfair share, or what he con.idP.recl a fair share, towards the revenue of the country. He was not going into any techni­cal details; but he was opposed to royalties, and would vote against the amendment.

Mr. THEODORE (Woothakctta) was certainly in favour of the amendment. They should not give any concesoion whatever to the Jl,.fount Morgan Company. It was admitted that a bargain was made with the Mount Morgan Company some years ago.

Hon. R. PHILP: No, no ! Mr. THEODORE: It was admitted in the

discussion, as was pointed out by the hon. mem­ber for Leichhardt.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: That is not so . Hon. R. PHILP: I never admitted it. Mr. THEODORI: : It might not have been

mentioned in the Bill, but was admitted in dis­cussion. He was not in favour of any company being relieved of payments at the expense of other branches of the industry. \Vhen they asked for more money for the prospecting vote, and more money for deep sinking, the Treasurer told them that there was not sufficient revenue from the industry. Yet he proposed to knock off the payments of the company that could best afford to pay them. Royalty was being paid by :\fount Morgan, and should continue to be paid. He thought that royalty should be paid on the profits with certain exemptions.

Hon. R. PHILP: Five per cent. dividend tax is a royalty.

Mr. THEODORE : If they wished to develop the industry they could do it in that direction. If they had a heavy royalty on the profits, with certain exemptions, the royalty to go to a fund to be used for the purpose of developing the dis­tricts, it would be better than wiping out royal­ties altogether, and it would be a good principle to uphold. · * Mr. RYLAND was Rurprised at the attitude taken up by hon. members in regard to the pro­posal. At the present time the miners had to pay £1 an acre rent, no matter whether it was good or bad. That was 3- most unjuot tax, and it would be far better to have a principle of royalt.y on the net profits, and do away with the rent altogether, except in the cases where exemption had been granted, when some rent should be charged by way of a fine. It was an injustice to charge £1 an acre rent to persons who spent their capital in opening up the country. They could not work the land until that £1 an acre had been paid. That was a far worse prin­ciple than the principle of ;,aying royalty on the

Mr. Ryland.]

764 Mining on [ASSEMBLY.] Private Land Bill.

gold won. The royalty was not paid until the gold had been got out of the ground. There was also another tax in having to pay 5s. for a miner'" right. That was a great injustice. In the pastoral and other industries they could go on the land without paying lis. That charge should be done a, way with.

Hon. R. PHIJ.P: The pastoralists have to pay rent-the miner only pays 5s.

Mr. RYLA~D: Demanding a first charge for permission to work was resisted by the miners of Ballamt. They had to pay practically £1 10s. a month before they were allowed to mine for gold. They were quite prepared to pay a royalty on the gold won. When the Royal Commission was appointed some years ago in connection with the mining industry he (Mr. Ryland) gave evidence on that commission, and advocated a reduction of rents for all mineral lands, especially in connection with g"ldmining, and, in place of the rent, have a royalty on the net proceeds. The State must get some revenue from the various industries, and it was just a question as to which was the best method. A royalty on the net proceeds was far better than the big rents now charged. The Secretary for Mines had stated that they wanted to charge rent on the usual mining leases, and also char,:e a royalty. 'rhat was not necessary at all. He was quite prepared, and other mining members were <!Uite prepared, to do away with the rent. There should not be two charges. There should be a nominal eharge of ls. per acre, or ld. per acre, or even the usual peppercorn rent. The charge for rent should not be f,,r the purpose of raising revenue. Land that had practically not yielded a pennyworth of gold, although thousands of pounds had been expended on it, and there was no return-still the Government came alnng and charged £1 an acre for that land. Where was the justice in that charge?

Mr. MACART~l~Y rose to a point of order. \Vas the hon. member in order in discussing a principle entirely outside the scope of the clause?

The CHAiltMAN: The hon. member is digressing, but it has occurred to me that, when I do catch his eye, he does not pay the slightest attention to me. (Laughter.) I hope the hon. member will confine his remarks to the question before the Committee.

Mr. RYLAND : The Secretary for Mines gave as an objection to the prop,>sal that the Government already received a revenue by way of rents. He (Mr. Ryland) was explaining thab it would be far better to have a royalty and no rent.

The CHAIR::YIAN: The hon. member has already explained that.

Hon. R. PHILP : He has tried to explain it. (Laughter.)

Mr. RYLAND : He would like the Secretary for Mines to give an assurance that some change would be made in the near future in regard to the charge for rent. It was a great injustice, and they should not repeal the section of the Act dealing with royalty unless they were to get the revenue in some other way.

Mr. MULCAHY: The question of substitut­ing a charge in the way of royalty in lien of rent was not before the Committee. He regretted he could not a'gree with his colleague on that matter. He was totally opposed to a royalty on gold, knowing that the mining industry was already sufficiently taxed. He did not want to discriminate-he did not know the Mount Mor­gan Company or any other company in the busi­ness at all. He was going on the general prin­ciple, and he was quite sure that if mining mem-

[ilfr. Ryland.

hers, generally, consulted their constituents they would not come to the Chamber and ad vacate that a toyalty should be paid on gold. * Mr. MULLAX hoped that the suggested amendment would not be accepted. The Go· vernment had shown very little disposition to help the mining industry, and he was inclined ta think that the proposed amendment would handi­cap the industry. The amendment suggested did not affect the principle at all.

The CHAIRMAN : That is not before the Committee.

Mr. MULLAN : The question before thE>, Committee was the repeal of clause--

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The question before the Committee is t!t;tt clause 3 stand part, of the Bill.

Mr. MULLA~: Clause 3 of the Bill read­Sections fifty-eight to sixty-one, inclusive, and &ixty­

three to seventy, inclusive, of the principal Aet are­repealed. The hon. member for Gympie was opposed to the repeal of one of those sectiom, and he ( Mr, Mullan) felt inclined to favour the repeal. The, principle of a royalty was a most iniquitous one as it Rtood under the present Act, because although a man might win a fairly large '}uantity of gold, there might be a loss on the year's. transactions, and yet that man, under the Act, had to pay ld. per oz. on all the gold won. If the amendment suggested by the hon. member were accepted, it would be found almost unworkable,, because in Charters Towers many of the leases would include private land and Crown land, and if they had to pay royalty, special surveys would have to be made, and the thing would be so expensive that it would be unworkable. The suggested amendment would not cover the case the hon. member had in v1ew at all. He was opposed to the general principle of royalty on gross yield, and if a royalty were retained at all, it should be on the net profits, and not upon the quantity of gold won, as at present. He would support the clause as it stood.

Question put and passed. On clause 4-" Consequential amendments"-,

Mr. RYLAND : They had done away with the royalty now, and he moved that the amend­ment 'he sugge~ted be inserted as a proviso ta clause 3. All contracts entered into under the clause they had repealed should be observed.

The CHAIR~IAN: Order! The hon. mem· ber now proposes to put in a proviso to clause 3. Clause 3 has been passed as a part of the Bill, and a proviso cannot be added to it.

The SEORETAltY FOR MINES had an amendment to insert after line 19, page 2. It was a new definition of "improved land."

On Mr. RYLAND rising to speak, The CHAIRMAN : Order, order! The

Secretary for Mines. Mr. RYLAND : I have an am<Cndment before

the Committee. The CHAIRMAN: I tnled that the amend·

mentis out of order. Mr. RYLAND: No, no!

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! Will the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member

moved to insert a proviso to clause [7 p.m.] 3. I pointed out that the proviso

could not be added to clause 3, as clause 3 had been passed. I then called clause 4, and the question now before the Committee is "that clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mining on [8 DECEMBER.] Private Land Bill. 765

Mr. RYLA::"/D moved that the fnllowing new -clause be inserted after clause 3 :-

Provicled that such repeal shall not affect the liability to the payntent of royalty under section sixty-six or the principal Ace in respect of gold raised from any mine held or leased at the commencement of this Act under the provisions or Part VII. of the principal Act, and all ~uch royalty shall continue to be payable.

The CHAIRMAN: 'l'he question is that clause 4 stand psrt of the Bill--

Mr. RYLAND said he would move his new clause in another part of the Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES moved the insertion, after line 10; of-

" Improved land "-The site or curtilage or any build­ing, or any garden, lawn, yard, nursery for trees, orchard, vineyard, cultivated field (not being mere pasture land), -sports ground, recreation ground, rifie range, re~m·voir, natural or artifieial storage or accumulation of water, -spring, dam, bore, artesian well, ·cemetery, burial-place, or place of worship, or any land on which a railway, tramway, bridge, or culvert is constructed, or any land

, 11sed for stRoking or storing or depositing mining ma­terial, or mining requisites, or residues, muHock, slag, tailings, or mining ctebr!s.

Mr. THEODORE: This amendment was an :improvement on the terms placed in thA Bill,

but still it was rather vague. He [7 p.m.] thought the word "curtilage," which

was open to a pretty wide interpre­tation, wouid Le better left out of the definition.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : It means the surroundings.

Mr. THEODORE: The definition of cur­tilage, as given by "\Vebster, was" yard, garden, <enelosure, or field near or belonging to a messuage." That definition would exclude from the operations of the Bill land surrounding a house-a field surrounding a house-and he took it that the :Yiinister did not waut to exclude that.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : It does not de­prive the miner.

:Ylr. THEODORE: In the Bill there was .actually no term ''improved land," but there was in a clause in one of the hon. gentleman's amendments. He took it that this amendment would apply to that.

The SECRETARY FOR :YIINES: The hon. mem­ber will see that.

Mr. THEODORE: Therdfore, improved land in this case would he land which would be exempt undPr certain <'~nditions. He thoughtJ that "yard" should also be left out of the dause. "\Vebster gave a pretty wide definition of "yard" ; it would mean a cattle or a horse yard, and perhaps the hon. gentleman did not want to exempt large areas used for fields, cattle yards, and so on. A couple of weeks ago a few mining memb,rs waited on the hon. gentleman and suggested some improvements, which he h%d embodied in these amendments. They were all fairly goocl amendments, and would be acceptable to those who knew the wide applica­tion the Act would have.

Amendment (Mr. Appel's) agreed to. :.VIr. HARDACRE proposed to make an

amendment in the definition of "mineral" as distinguished from gold. He had sent a copy of the Bill to the mining association at Sapphire, and they asked him to suggest th·tt corundum should be imerted along with the amendment. Sapphire was already included, but while all sapphires were corundums, all corundums were not sapphires.

The SECRE'rARY FOR MINF.S: Then it will come under the definition of "other precious stones."

Mr. HARD ACRE : There were lower grade sapphires, machine stones and others, which might not come under the term " sapphire" or

"precious stones," but they would come under the term "corundum." He moved the insertion after •· sapphires," on line 24, of "corundum."

Amendment agreed to ; and clause, as amencled, put and paesed.

Mr. O'SULLIV AN (Kennedy) 111oved the insertion on page 3, clause 4, after line 2:3, of-

Where any freehold land which is express-ly excluded from the foregoing definition of private land has not been 1nined for any minerals during a period commenc­ing on the first day of :1\iarch. one thousand nine hun­dred and five, and ending on the first dny of Marcht on~e thousand nine huP-dred and fifteen, then from and after such first day of March, one thousnBd nine hun­dred and fifteen, such land shall for all the purposes of this Act become private land.

Mr. MACARTNEY asked whether the pro­posed new clau,e was in order, seeing that it was in conflict with the clause just paseed.

The CHAIRMAN: I must say that if the amendment had been in my hands eal'lier I would not have pu~ it to the Committee as a new clause, because, in my opinion, it conflicts with clause 3. I would like to hear the opinion of hon. members on the point of relevance of the amendment. I may point out that it is difficult for the Chairman to say, on the spur of the moment, whether an amendment just handed to hirr. is in order or not.

'l'he SECRETARY FOR lYIIN:ES contended that the amendment was not in order. Under the previous clause they exclucled certain lands, in which certain minerals had been granted, to those who held the freehold. This clause proposed to deal with the minerals in those lands which had been excluded by the previous clause.

Mr. O'SULLIV AN could not agree with that view. He went to the Parliamentary Drafts­man, who told him the best place io put the amendment in.

The PREMIER : If the hon. member had moved his amendment as a proviso to clause 4, it would have been in order, being a modification of that clause; but the Committee having adopted clause 4, they could not now adopt a clause nullifying or modifying clause 4. If the Chair­man accepted this amendment, there would he no finality in putting clauses through in Com­mittee. They might decide to recorr.mit the Bill for the purpose of considering this amend­ment, but that was another matter.

Mr. LENNON : It was no uncommon thing to find a clause in an Act of Parliament com­mencing "Notwithstanding anything herein­before contained," and so on; consequently he considered that the amendment must be allowed. If it could not be got in now, it might be got in by recommitting the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN : Having heard the opinion of hon. members, I still think the amendment is out of order, and I cannot put it to the Com­mittee, because the amendment proposes to deal with a law which we decided when we passed clause 3 should be repealed. I suggest to the hon. member that he moves the proviso either on the recommittal of the Bill or at the report stage.

Mr. Mr;LI,AN rose to speak to the point of order. The CHAIRMAN : The hon. member cannot

speak on that question. I have already ruled that the amendment cannot be put.

The PREMIER asked if he might be per­mitted to say--

OPPOSITION ME~IBERS: No, no! The PRE:YIIER: Then he would sit down.

(Laughter.) Clauses 5 and 6 put and pagsflP. On clanse7-" Private lands may be exempted

by proc'amation"-

Hon. W. K£dston.]

766 j',iinin,q on [ASSEMBLY.] Private Land Bill.

Mr. THEODORE asked what land would come under the operation of the clause.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : This was a clause that was always contained in similar Acts, the purpose being that, under certain con­ditions, the Governor in Council may, by pro­clamation, exempt from the operation of the Act certain lands. He would give an instance. The Enoggera water reserve and its catchment area were contained within a smailmineral field, and the similar clause in the original Act was in­tended for the purpose of exempting that area from the operation of mining.

Mr. MULCAHY said he brought this matter under the notice of the Minister at the con­ference a. week or so ago, when several of his colleagues did not take the same view of the matter as he did. Notwithstanding the fact that it was in thP original Act, it was placing Yery great powe~ in the hands of the Minister, because he might exempt any land under this clause without giving any reason. He would like to have it provided that it should be neces­sary to give reasons.

Mr. MULLAN thought the clause was un­necessary, because power was given in clause 10 to exempt improved land, and under that reservoi" could be exempted.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: That is, only the actual reservoir ; it does not deal with the catchment area..

Mr. ::YIULLAN: The catchment would be an enormous area to exempt. Surely

[1.30 p.m.] the Minister did not intend to exempt the whole of a watershed?

The SECI\ETARY FOR MINES: Yes, for public purposes.

Mr. MULLAN: It was giving great powers to exempt the whole watershed.

The SECRETARY FOR :\fiNES: It is necessary in cases of water supply for public purposes.

Mr. MULLAN : \Vould the catchment area be affected by any mining tenement?

The SECRETARY ~'OR MINES: 0£ course it would.

Mr. LE8INA : Supposing there was a mining camp there, and no provision for sanitation

Mr. MULLAN : 'rhat would be a different thing altogether. He thought that clause 7 was unnecessary, as it was provided for under clause 10.

Mr. LES IN A thought that clause 7 was a necessary pro,·ision. lt was URed in all Acts of Parliament. Regulations were drafted on all those Acts, and the Governor in Council would issue a proclamation exempting any specified piece of land from the operation of the J'.Iining Acts. The exemptiom would only be on the conditions laid dnwn in the regulations, and a person would have to make a good case before any action would be taken. He c .uld not under­stand the Governor in Council exempting large areas of land, knowing that the matter would be discussed in Parliament, and they could bring the Minister to book for it. In every Act a similar provision occurred, and he never knew the Governor in Council to take action in a matter that was di,ap!Jroved of in a discussion in the House. There was no danger in the clause at all, and the Minister had given g•JOd reasons why it should be retained.

Mr. MULLAN : The danger of the clause was that a Minister might be in power who might be actuatihl by political bias. Althou"h he did not say he believed such a thing wot,;[d happen, it might happen. The Minister might

[M-r. Theodo-re.

exempt from the provisions of the Act a certain .. block of freehold until it was an opportune time· for a political friend to take advantage of it.

The SECRETARY ~'OR MINES: That Minister would not remain very long.

Mr. 1\IULLAN: Hemightnotwant to remain. any longer. It might be of such value that it would suit him to get out. He might be in collusion with the owner of the land.

The SECRE'rARY FOH MINES : Then the Minis­ter's colleagues must be in collusion with him, because it said the Governor in Council had t<> make the exemption.

Mr. MU.RPHY : I do not think there is any danger in it.

Clause i put and passed. Clause 8 put and passed. On clause 9-" Mining tenements"-Mr. RYLAND moved a new clause, as fol­

lows:-X at withstanding anything otherwise contfiined in

subsection one of section three of this Act, the liability to the payment of royalty under section sixty-E=ix of the­principal Act in respect of gold rah•ed from any mina­held or leased at the commencemfnt of this Act under­the provisions of Part VII. of the principal Act, and alt such royalty shall continue to be payable.

Mr. MACARTNEY rose to a point of order,. \Vas the hon. member for Gym pie in order in propo>ing an amendment in clause 3 which they had already repealed? The section the hon. member referred to was actually one of the· sections which they had repealed.

The CHAIRi\'IAN: The point of order is obvious to every member of the Committee. \Ve have already enacted clause 3 of this Bill, which repeals sections 58 to 61 and sections 63 t~ 'iO of the principal Act. I therefore rule the amendment out of order. Once you repeal a section of an Act of Parliament you cannot add anything to that section.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES moved that the clause be amended by the addition of the following :-

(2,, Subject to the ~lining .Aets, the whole or part of. two or more pq,rc<''s of private l&nd which adjoin each other may be included in one mining tenement under this Art.

(3.) Subject to the :\lining Acts, private land, together with Crown land or land which is a reserve, or is held as a residence area or business area, or as a lease or special lease granted under section one hundred and eighty-eight o! the Land Act, 1897, as amended by sec­tion twenty-one o! the Land Acts Amendment Aet of 1905, or under any similar provision of any prior or other Crown Lands Act. may be included in one mining tenement, provided that the wllole of the land so in­cluded is one block. The amendment provided that two or more parcels of private land, or Crnwn land, or a re­serve might be included as a mining tenement provided it was all one block.

Amendment agreed to ; and clause 9, as. amended, put and passed.

On clause 10-" Exemption of certain private lands"-

The SECRETARY FOR MINES moved that clause 10 be withdrawn and the following in­serted in lieu thereof-

So mining tenement shall be granted or registered ill> respect or private land if such land is-

(i.) Improved land; or (ii.) 0! less extent thfm half an acre within the­

limits of any city 01· town or township; or (iii.) Within one hundred and fifty yards or other

less distance to be decided by the warden's court, but not in any case less than fifty yards laterally, from any improved land;

unless in each of the above-mentioned cases-(a) The consent in writing of every owner of the land

iu question hns been first. obtained; or

Minin_q on [8 DECEMBER.] Private Land Bill. 767

{lJ} Such grant or registration is limited to such depth from the lowest part of the surface of the land as the warden's court may in any case decide;

Provided that where private land is being mined and the warden's court determines that the whole of or a specified part of such privattJ land is or is likely to be required for the purpose of the mining O:p\"rations in connection with the mine on the land, no other mining tenement, except such as may be applied for by the owner of such mine, shall be grH.ntrd or registered in respect of such private land or specified part thereof, as the case may be.

Mr. MULLAN noticed that in the amend· ment the consent in writing of every owner of land ban to be obtained. \V as there any appeal from that owner's refusal to the warden\; court? An owner of lnnd might, out of pure cussedness, refuse to give his .consent in writing, and the warden might be given the chance to decide whether it was fair or not.

TheSECRET'ARYFORMIKES: Th<sewere the exemption~. If the owner of exampLed land gave his consent in writing, then the warden could register it as a mining tenement.

l\fr. HARD ACRE: The objections that he had to the clause originally were met somewhat by the Minister's amendment with regard to the distance. It first provided that burial place, place of worship, etc., had to be 150 yardsawav, but the amendment reduced the distance to 50 yards latfmlly from any improvPd land, and it was granted with the express permission of the warden. At the same time, the amendment restricted it ~omewhat by specifying the char­acter of the improvement•.

The SECRETARY ~·on MINES ; That does not affect the ground beneath the surface. It only affects the mining tenement on the surface.

Mr. HARDACRE: While it was very desir· able to limit it on goldfields where shafts were put down, it seemed to him that the necessity did not arise on alluvial fields.

The SECRETARY ~'OR MINES : Provision is made where it is alluvial to resume the whole of the surface.

Mr. HARD ACRE: When speaking of alluvhl fields he was not merely spe:tking of alluvial goldfields. He had in his mind, especially, sap· ph ire fields, where the mining was not done at any depth at all ; in fact, it was surface mining, and a person would not he allowed to take up that land because somebody near by had a lawn.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : It has been free· hold. The freeholder has a few rights under this Bill.

Mr. HARDACRE : Did that mean freehold land? It would not be freehold on sapphire country.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: It refers to free· holds.

Amendment (Mr. Appel's) agreed to. Clause 11 put and passed. On clause 12-"Permit to enter"

'.rhe SECRETARY FOR MINES moved that the words, "A permit may he issued so as to include any number of persons not exceeding five" be inserted after the word "land," on line 29.

Amendment agreed to. Mr. LESIN A: As he read the clause, every

prospector or other miner who was not covered with a miner's right had to deposit £1.

Mr. MuLCAHY :' It was only deposited and would be returned.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

On clause 13--" Applications"-Mr. THEODORE: There were a number of

terms in the clause, such as "yard," "garden," "orchard," or" cultivated field." As explained before, the terms were altogether too vague, and he suggested that they be amended. The, Committee had already disagreed to the term "culLivated field," as it was open to such a wide definition. For instance, when a few of the­mining members waited on the Minister, the matter was put before him, and he was of the opinion that the definition meant any field in which a rotation of crop' were grown. Hon, members coneidered the dEfinitwn was still wirier, and Urabb gave as a definition of '' c~<lti­vation," "Any prccess under which the pro­ducts of the earth ar"l brought to maturity." That was a very wide term, and might include any pasture land.

The SECRETAHY FOR MINES was quite' willing to amend subclause (2) by deleting all the words after the word "any" on line 11, with the view of inserting the words "improved lands."

Mr. MULCAHY: That will bring the clause into, line with the other.

Amendment agreed to; and clause, as amended, put and passed.

Clause 14 put and passed.

On clause 15-" Rights of owners and their as::.igns "--

Mr. WINSTANLEY moved the insertion of the following subclause to follow subclause (2) :-

(3.) In any case where any parcel of private land is so small in area or is so situttted that any gold or other mineral under the land cannot be profitably worked or won from the surface of the land or otherwise than. from some neighbouring land, the ownf r of such pri~ vate laud may, at any time. before the first day of :!\larch, one thousand nine hundred snd eleven, in lieu or acquiring a mining tenement consisting of such land. upon a plaint in that behalf, ha\'e the value of the gold or other mineral under or supposed to be under the­land assessed by the wa.rden'8 court. Notice of snclt plaint shall be published as prescribed, and upon thP. he::tring tbereofthe owner, and all other persons clain> ing to be interested as holders of neighbouring mining tenements from which such gold or other mineral could be profitably worked or won, shall be entitled to 1Je heard and to examine and cross-examine witne:::ses.

The warden's court shall asse8s the value of such gold or mineral, and thereafter any person who acquires. a mining tenement comprising such private lantl shall not be entitled to mine tor such gold or mineral until he has paid to the warden on behalf of tbe owner ol the private land the amount of such assessment.

And the warden shall PRY ovm: to such owner the said amount after deducting such sum on account of the eosts and expen~es of the proceedings as tho warden's court shall 1ix.

On the second reading of the Bill he had pointed out the necessity for some such amendment as this. As bon. members were aware, there were freeholds peculiar to Charters Tower•, and the amendment would have no application to any other portion of the State. \Vhile it was a well­known fact that gold was a roy"l metal which belonged to the Owwn, it "ag also jnst as well known that in times gone by the Crown had waived its right. :B'reeholds had been granted on Ch.rters Towers, and while people had been led to think that though they had practically no l"ight to the gold, they had a right to the lan<i and no one could go on that land and take the gold from them. For that reason people bad come to regard, in practice, that they had some right to the mineral under the land. It had been stated that those freeholders had been blocking legiti­mate mining. It was a well-known fact that somA years ago those free holders were practically pro· hihited from combining and mining on their own freeholr!s, so that, instead of them really blocking legitimate mining, they had been prevented from

Mr. Winstanley.]_

?68 Mining on [ASSE.MBLY.] Private Land Bill.

mining themselves. If the Bill were passed as it was, those small freeholders would be pre­vented from joining with their neighbours, and would 'imply have this gold taken frnm them, and given to a mining- company. Had the principle been inserted in the Bill that w:~s proposed by the junior member for Gympie­that the Crown should receive a royalty-no exception could have been taken. Under the Bill, the large freeholders, who were really blocking legitimate mining, had all been ex­empted from the provisions of the Bill, and were still able to retain their freeholds without any conditions whatever, and it onlv seemed a fair thing that the small freeholder, who held a quarter of an acre or half an acre, should he entitled to the s une privileges under the Bill. There was not a great number of them, perhaps twenty or thirty altogether.

Mr. COTTELL : Why is that lease held more in Charters Towers than anywhere else.

Mr. WI::'oiSTANLEY: It had no npplication anywhere el,e. There was no other

[8 p.m.] goldfield where the same set of con-ditions existed. The amendment

was only a smnll one, and the Minister himself had practically promised that he would accept it.

Mr. COTTELL did not think a good enough case had been made out in connection with the matter. It seemed to him a very peculiar a-tti­tude for the Labc>nr members for Charters Towers to take up when they wished to have a mining on private property Bill, but they wanted it in order to mine in somebody else's back yard, and not in theirs. He saw no special circumsbance; why freehold land in Charters Towers ;hould be exempt from the l'rovisions of the Act any more than any other place.

~Ir. MuLLAN: \Ve are not exempting any particular company. .

Mr. COTTELL: Xo; but the hon, member wanted somebody who wished to mine freehold to pay the full value of it.

Mr. RYLAND: There is another case some­where else.

::\Ir. COTTI<JLL: This proposition, emanating from a member of the Labour party, seemed to be very peculiar indeed. \Vhy should these fret'· holders be paid for the gold any more than any other freehold er? How was the warden to assess the gold which he could not see ?

Mr. MuLLAN: On the basis of other land sold.

Mr. COTTELL understood the Minister was going to accept this, bnt he should call for a division on it, as he wanted more information before he could vote for it.'

Mr. GRA~T (Rockham)"ton): It did ~eem rather curious that a member of the Labour party should bring in such an amendment as this. These people bought this private land years ago for a mere nominal sum in some cnses. He wns not objecting to the amendment, but only point­ing out that the junior member for Charters 'rowers was trying to l'afeguard the unearned in­crement belonging to the owners of freehold htnd in Charters •rowers. He understood that one nf the reserves mentioned there was bought for .£5,000, and there had been nearly .£100,000 ~pent on it, and nothing had been got for it. How was the warden going to '~ssess the value of the l.tnd when he <lid not know what gold there was below it? The only price that could be put upon the land w;ts what others would pay for it.

HoN. R PHI LP said that this wa~ peculiar to Charters Towers only. In the olden times leases had been given of streets to certain com­panies, and the freehold on the north side of the

[.ilfr. Winstanley.

street had been excepted from the lease, and arrangements were made to buy the freeholders ont. ·In some cases they did, and in some cases they did not. At the present time there were not many allotments, and a man had to make arrangements with the companies. In many ca8es the company had given him shares for the allotment-sometimes more than it was worth, and somet.imes le~s than it was worth. All that the amendment sought was that the value of the ttl!otments be assessed by the warden, and not by the company. It would not be an easy matter to assess it, but he thought it was fair t•1 both parties. The court had decided that the owners of these nllotments had no right to the mineral; but at Charters Towers the ownerH had a right, and he thought this would suit the c<Jmpanies and that no injustice would be done.

:::\fr. LESINA: The hon. senior member for Rockhampton and the hon. member for Too­wong both expressed their astonishment that an amendment of this description should be framed by a member of the Labour party. Certain people had mining tenements at Charters Towers which they had not been able hJ utilise.

Hon. R. l'HILP : Sometimes by purchase. Mr. GRANT: The land is only valuable by the

work done round about it-not by the work done by themselves.

Mr. LESIXA: There was a certain amount ot truth in that. It was only by developmental work that the value of these allotments would apprecinte, and where gold did exist the people had a right to it. If they were going to take the gold away from t.hese people for the benefit of the whole of the Stnte, he would Yote for that proposition; but if it went to the people sur­rounding, who had done a lot of developmental work to get the gold on unfair terms from these freeholders, he would say, give these small men their rights. The thing was to give these men certain right~ which the freeholders had got to the men who would do the developmental work they could not do themselves. He proposed to vote for the amendment for these reasons.

Mr. HARD ACRE said he should Yote for the amendment, which proposed to give small free­holders a right which they dtd not possess before, for the purpose of making the big mining companies contribute to them for permitting them to work on their allotments.

Tho PREMIER: For taking gold that belongs to the State.

Mr. HnA:~D : Which the State should mine themselves. (Laughter.)

Mr. HARDACRI<J : He objected to the prin­ciple, but at the same time if the State was not going to get any direct benefit to its revenue for permitting the big mining companies to go on the land and mine there, it was practically trans­ferring the gold fron1 thnse who had the freehold now to some other companies who got it without payment to the Crown. The Crown ought to get a roynlty for giving the concession-they ought to take the unearned increment.

Mr. MULLAN: It would be impossible for a man to get anybody to help him to sink a shaft on one of these half-acre blocks at a cnst of .£12,000 with the possibility of getting gold be­low, and the alternative was to make a gift of these sm;,ll areas to the companies in the vicinity. Regarding the unearned increment, if the Crown wished to take the unearned increment, he would support an amendment to thau effect ; but see ing that the Crown was going to forego thiq right, it was only fair that there should be some equitable distribution of whatever nnearned in­crement existed between the small owner and the company. As far back as 1894 even, the Go-

1!£inin,q on ~8 DECEMBER.] Private Land Bill. 769

vermnen& believed that the freeholder owned the !!old on his land, as was shown in the case of the Church Land Syndicate. He intended to sup­port the amendment.

The PRE.YIIER: No matter how this 'lues· tion wa,; setcled, the Sta&e was not going to get anything out of it. It waR simply a question whether they were going to take the side of the big boodler or the little boodler. (Laughter.) The small man was going to reap where he never sowed. It was not the man with the surface rights of half an acre who made the gold avail­able; it wa" the man, or the company, that sunk .a shaf& at >t cost of £12,000 who made the gold getatable. The only thing he could see in favour of the amendment was that the members fur Charters 'rowers were protecting tt,e rights of property-owners. (Hear, hear ! and laughter.) It was astonishing how the opinions of members were influenced by the interests of their consti­tuents. All Governments h:.d respected similar claims in reg-ard to mineral in other cases. They had assumed that the owner of the freehold had a preferential claim, and there was no reason whv the solitary half-acre man should be treated rlifferently. If they had heen dealing with the matter by itself, he wonld have said it was in the interest of the State to give the preference to the mineowner who had made the gold getat­able. The one claim of the small freeholder was that hundreds who also held frdeholds had been granted the right to mine >tnd take possession of the gold underneath the surface; and the only reason why he would vote for the amendment was that it would put the half-Bcre freeholder on the same footing as other freeholders. On the whole, he would rather support the amendment.

Mr. RYLAND would oppose the amendment. He contended that the Government should stick to their rights and work the mines themselves.

The SECRETARY FOR ~IINES: After hearing the sense of the Committee, he was pre­pared to accept the amendment.

Amendment (1111', Winstanlep's) agreed to.

Mr. HARDACRE noticed that it was pro­posed to give priority to the owner of a mining tenement.

The SIWRETARY FOR 1\IINES : The clause provided that those who had entered into an agreement with free holders to mine upon their freeholds, if they made application before the 1st September, 1910, they would have priority over all others, including the owner of the freehold.

Mr. HARDACRE: In the first part of the clanse the freeholder was given priority.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The freeholder had a limited tim'3 within which he might make application for a mining tenement, after which he lost the right.

Mr. HARDACRE protested against free­holders being allowed a prior right, and in so doing he was expressing the opinion held by the majority of the miners on the sapphire fields in his electorate.

Clause 15, as amended, pnt and passed. On clause 16-" Right to mine, etC'. "-

'lhe SECRETARY FOR MI:Nl<~S moved the insertion of the words "\VardP.n'~ court" in

lieu of the word "Minister" in [8.30 p.m.] line 21, and a similar amendment

in linE' 32. Amendment agreed to; and clause, as amended,

pnt and passed. Clanses 17 and 18 pnt and passed. On clause 19-" Measure of compensation "-

1909-3 B

The i:iECRET ARY FOR MINES moved that lines 16 to 2-l be omitted, and the following inserted in lieu ther8of :-

1. The compensation to be made under this Act ~hall be compcnsat10n ror-

d .) Deprivation of the posse~sion of the surface or of any part of i.he surface ; and

(ii.J Damag-e to the surface or auy part thereof, and to any improvements thereon, which may nri~e from the earryin!! on of mining • operations thereon or thereunder; and

dii.) Severance of the land from other lnml of the owner or occupier; and

(iv.~ Surface rights of way; and (v .1 All consequential damages.

Amendment agreed to; and clause, as amended, put and passed.

Clause 20 put and p1sserl.

Jir. OOTTELL moved the insertion of the following new clause:--

1\,.here any freehold land which i~ expres:;;ly excluded from the foregoing- definition of pt·ivat.e land a~ defined in section --:1< is sold by a local a11.t hority for arre:n·s of rates pursuant to the Local Anthoritie::.; A<•t of 1902, or any Act amending or in suhstitntion for that Act, then from and ufter such sale, and notwithstanding an.r­thing in this Act contained, such land sh:tll for all the purposes o[ this Act become private land.

The amendment would to a certain extent meet­the wishes of some members on the Opposition side of the House who wished to have excluded from the operations of the Act lands held under the :Mineral L~ases Act of 1872, and others. It would savour too much of confiscation if they permitted those lands to come under this Act, bnt where lands were sold for the recovery of rates the Crown was in no way under any obli­gation to the new purchaser, not having sold the mineral rights, and he thonght that such lands should come within the provisions of this Act. (Hear, hear!) He knew seveml classes of land which had been alienated under thb 1\Iineral Leases Act of 1872, which since then had been sold by Lhe local ttuthnrities for arrears of rates, and sold at their prttirie ,·alue of a few shillings an acre. Such lands should be suhject to this Act.

The SECRJ<JTARY FOR :iYIINES could not accP.pt the amendment. 'rhe same objection applied to that as applied to the amendment of the hon. mernberfor Kennedy. 1t was practi­cally interfering with the definition which the Committee had already ptts8ecl as the definition of improved land.

On clause 21--" Application of general pro­vision10J"-

The SECRETARY FOR Mll\'ES moved that the clauRe bB amended by the in~ertion of thP. following, after line 56-

)Ioreover, a mining tenement other than a gold~ mining lease or mineral lease or claim shall only be registered, granted, and held in respect of private land under the following conditions:-~

la! Such tenement shall be occupied and used solely in connection with a goldminiug lea8e or mineral lease or claim situated. on such private land; and

tb,~ 'I he private land shall exceed one thousand two hundred and eighty acres in area.

:\Ir. LESINA asked why the private land was fixed at 1,280 acres in arett?

The SECRETARY FOR Mil\'ES: The clause dealt with residbntial and homestPad Breas, and they were not to be- granted unless

. t.he area nf h nd c>n ~vhich they were a pp lied f.,r exceeded the area mentioned in the clause.

Mr. RYLA::\fD asked if it was not too large an area? It wonld be all right if ther<e was only

Mr. Ryland.]

Mining on [ASSEMBLY.] Private Land Hill,

the one freehold, but there might be a number of freeho!tls adjoinin~t, and there would be no Crown lands available within miles.

The SRoREl'ARY FOR l\lr~ms : This only rpfers to residence and homestead ·areas outside a mining tenemfnt.

Amendment agreed to; and clause, as amended, put and paesed.

Clause f2 put and passed. The House re,umed. The CH.~IRMAX reported

the Bill with amendments. The SECRETARY FOR MIKES: I beg to

move that the Bill be now taken into considera­tion.

Mr. RYLAND, in moving the insertion after clause 3 of the clause he had previously en­deavoured to get inserted in Committee, said : The object of the clanse is to nreserve the rights already belonging to the Crown as regards royalty. Certain mining companies have sur­rendered their freeholds and taken the land up under mining lease, and the royalty should be reserved to the Crown.

:Mr. HARDACRE: I am strongly in favour of retaining the royalty which has been paid to the Government by the Mount M organ Company and the D~tv D"wn Company. I do not wish to detain the Hon"e by a long discussion. \V e are

·practically making a gift of something like £7,000 a year to the two companies mentioned.

The SECRETARY FOR MrNEK : That is not so. Mr. HARD ACRE : On an average. The SEOUETARY FOR MINES : No. The pay.

ment this year will be about £2,000. Mr. HARDACRB: That is only because of

the temporary depres•ion in mining. The SECitETARY FOR MINES : It is gradually

decrea•iog. Mr. HARD ACRE: Even if it is only £2,000,

it is not a fair thing to the State to make tho•e very rich companies a gift of that amount? H we were to ask for £2,000 for the purpose of pay­ing men Ss. a day on railway w• rb, we would have the Government up in arms. They would argue for a week to prevent that extra amount being paid to the men.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: For the reasons mentioned thi< afternoon, I cannot accept the amend1r.ent. I think the Committee has decided that the royalty was either to be abolished or it was to be general.

Mr. GRANT: 'There is more than one corn· pany con~erned in the royalty. I ha,·e been told to-nil(ht there is a c Jmpany at Charters Towers, that it cost them £10 per oz. to get the gold, and under this amendment tbe.y wouli:l have to pay another ls. per oz. to the Go­vernment. These people are paying ont of their own pockets to develop the mine, And have not struck the reef. It is not even £2,000 th~tt the one company is paying. I am told it is only about £l,flOO, and it is gradually decreasing.

Mr. LESIN A : This amendment was moved at an earlier stage of the sitting and was not re­ceived with favour by the Committee. The point made by the hon. member for Rockhamp­ton, :Mr. Grant, i• an important one, and justi­fies the position of those member. who are in­clinerl to the view that a royalty is a tax on industry. That the Government are likely to lose revenue by the abolition of the royalty is a matter for the consideration uf the 'l'reasurer. If the Government cannot afford to lose that money, th~<n they c'1n impose ta'Xation to make up the difference. " Mr. MULLAN: I am opposed to the amend· ment becanse it is not of general application, but

,[111r. Ryland.

will apply only to a bout two mines in the State. There is also this objection t" the amendment : that to c"llect royalty on the gros• yield of a mine wonld bA iniquitous. Fo>r instonce, there may be two mines yielding 20,000 oz. a year each; one may be ahle to declare dividends equal to half the value of those 20,000 oz., while th8' other may sustain a loss on the working of the mine, and yet the mine which sustains a loss would have to pay £1,000 royalty just the same as the mine which makes, perhaps, £30,000 or £40,000 profit. The amendment would operate, very harshly in its incidence. Ag~tin, the' amend­ment would be practically unworkable in a place like Charters Towers, where in the same lease· there would be several parcels nf land liable to pay royalty, and several exempt from royalty. The result in such a case would be that the owner of those lea•es would require to have, special snrveys made at enormous expense in order to determine on what particular ore royalty would have to be paid. I hold that the mining indnstry ie not getting anything like a Jail' deal from the Government at the present t1me, and this amendment would mean a further handicap on the industry.

Mr. MULCAHY : I am going to oppose this amendment, and in opposing it I have not got Mount 1\forgan specially in my mind. We are dealirog with :t general princtple in the pro­position than has been submitted. The Govern­ment are not asking for a royalty in a g<>neral way, ~nd I cannot see my way to pick ont any particnlar mine which shoulr! pay this royalty. As the senior member for Charters Towers has said, the mining industry in this State is already bufficiently handicapped, and this amendment would impose an additional tax on it. Per­sonally, f am totally opposed to a rovalty in a!ly shape or form, believing that the mining industry is burdened heavily enough at the present time,. but if a royalty is imposed it should apply all round.

(~uestion--That the words proposed to be· inserted (Mr. Ryland's amendment) be so imertedi -put; and the House divided:-

AY>:s. 14. Mr. Alien Mr. Land

, Breslin ,. Lennon .. Coyne , :Manu ,. Ferricks ., May , Hamilton ., ::llurpby , , Hardacre , Ryland , Hunter, J. M. Tbeodore Tellus: Mr. Ryland and Mr. Tbeodore.

Xo};s, 36. ~'l:r. Appel :lrr. Keogb

, , Barber Kids ton ,. :Barnes, G. P. Lesina , Barnes, W. H. , ~iacartney

" ~~~~~1~rd " ii~~f~~~y Brennan McLachlan

, Brid~es O'Snllivan , Cor~ er , , Paget

Cottell Petrie Ora.wford " Philp

.~ Cribb Roberts u l1'orsyth Somerset

Grant , Stodart ,, Grayson Walker ,, Gunn , 1Vhite

Hawthorn Wienbolt , Hunter, D. , Winstanley Te/le's: Mr. Boucbard and ::I'Ir. McLachlan.

PAIRS.

Ayes-l\:1:r. Blair, 3Ir. Foley, J\fr. Bowman, 3ir. Ryan .. )1r. Douglas, ::lir. Collins, l\Ir. Payne, and :Mr. Xevitt.

Noes-Mr. Tolmie, Mr. Hodge, Mr. Rankin, Mr~ Denham, Mr. Thorn, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Forrest, and Mr. J. Allan.

Resolved in the negative.

~Wining, Etc., Bill. [8 DECEMBER.l Companies, Etr.., Bill. 771

Original que•tion put.

J:\Ir. THEO DORE : I suggested to the J:\Iinister when we were in Committee that he should ~ccept an amendment to omit ~{curtilage" in clause 4, but he omitted to give an answer.

\'\Then some of the mining members [9 p.m.] waited upon the hem. gentleman

not long ago, we wished to know the definit.ion of "improved land," so that it would be distinctly understood what was exempted from the operations of the Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: In reply to the question of the hon. member, I am not prepared to accept any amendment to that effect. Curtilage undoubtedly has no other me~ning than toe land surronnding the site of a building, and the word "yard " is to the same effect.

Mr. THEODORE: Webster gives a wider defi­nition. He says "a field surrounding a house."

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: We have got a definition of "field," which means a culti­vater1 tield, and if this curtilage or yard is cultivated, then it comes within tbe exemptions.

Mr. THEOIJORE: It will be best to leave it out.

TheSEORETARYFORMINES: I do not see any object to b9 gained. Hon. members seem to forget that this does not debar ruining under this improved laud-it is only a question where the shaft by which the metal is got out below the surface shall be sunk. I cannot see my way to accept the amendment, and I hope the bon. member will not press it. I have endeavoured to meet members in every way.

* Mr. O'SULLIV AN: I wi•h to amend clause 4 by the addition, after line 23, of-

l'rhere any freehold land which is expregsly excluded fro.m the foregoing definition of private land has not been mined for any minerals during the p~riod com­mencing on the first day of \fare h. 1915, and ending on the first day of March. 1915, then from and after such first day of Cl!arch, 1915, such land shall for all the pur­poses of this Act become private land. \Ve find that from 45,000 to50,000 acres of mineral lands have be~n alienated in the past on very easy terms, and where those lands have not been applied to the purposes of mining this amend­ment would bring them under the jurisdiction of this Act and compel those who hold these lands idle to work them in the interests of the State and of the nlining industry. Tnese lands were aliPnated under the Act of 1860 at £1 per acre, which was practically just two years' rental for the leasehold. No doubt when th<:<e lands were alienated under that Act the interests of mining were not taken into considerat.ion, otherwise they would not have been alienated on such easy terms. Ag1tin, in the 18li8 Act the conditions were practically the samfl-£1 per acre-and they were alienated in blocks of G40 acres and not less than 40 acre3. Under the Mineral Lands Act of 1872 there was undoubtedly a better deal in the interests of the State; they had to pay £110•. per acrE' for the purchase of these lands •nd show that they had spent £1 per acre in developmont work. There are acres and acres of this land unused, and we think that by giving them up until1915 to work t.bese lands it will be a fair thing for the State, and will assist in developing the mining industry, which jusG now is not very bri>l;:, unfor­tunately. Hon. members may say it will be breaking a contract, but what the Crown has alienated they can by Act of Parliament resume. It was not in the best interests of tbe State that the•e lands were aliena,ted, and those in authority at the time could not have bad the future pros­perity of the State very much in view when they allowed these hnds to be alienated under snch easy conditions. I therefore hope the Secretary for Mines will accept the amendment. Should

the hon. gentleman think it necessary to put in a provision to compensate these owner>, I would be willing to meet him. I trust t•hat. the House, in the best interests of the StaLe, will accept the amend men~~

The SPEAKER: The hon. member proposes to make a further amendment iu clause 4, page 3, after line 23. I am bound to say my impression is that this i,, an amendment that ought to be a clause bv itself. It does not come in conveniently as ·an amendment to the interpretation clause; and I regret to say that I do not feC'l justified in putting it to the House.

Mr. O'SULLJV AN: Can I leave out the word "provided,'' and move it as a new clause?

The SPEAKER: The hon. member cannot move a new clause at this stage.

Question-·-That the Bill be taken into con­sideration-put and passed; and the third reading of the Bill made an Order of the Day for to-morrow,

COl\IP ANIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

SECOND READING.

·The TREASURl<JR: This is a Bill to amend the Companies Acts in three or four particu­lars. principally in compelling the registration of debentures, in reducing the fees payable on the registration of companies, and arranging for the removal of the names of companies not carrying ou business under the Act. The chief feature of the Bill is the registration of debentures. A debenture has been stated by many judge3 in the old country ,to be rathe'r hard to define; and the nearest definition I have been able to find is as follows:-

A debenture is an neknowledgment of indebtedness by a rompany, under seal, and being one of a series ranking pari fH1138U, b~r which the comp~~n.v agrees t(} repRy thP- lender or holder for tlle tirPe being of the security the amount of the loan at some future date, with interest until payment. and charges with the payment thPreof the company's undertaking and assets by way of fioating security. At the present. time in Queensland there is no necessity to register debentures. Hon. mem­bers will probably be a ware that under th<' Companies Act a limited company is mad<> up by incorporating a number of individuals who are allowed to trade as a company with­out incurring the general unlimited liability a.n ordinary trader incurs in carrying on his business. The liability of the company, as the word expre<·ses it, is limited to the amount of the value of the shares. A trader carrying on an ordinary business, and givin~ a charge or· security over his assets, stock-in-trade, and chattels, is compelled under the Bills of Sale .Act of 1891 to register that security; but that. Act expressly exempts the registration of de­bentures that are made by a company. The result has been that a company which is in possession of stock-in-trade, of which it is appa­rentlv the owner. is able to obtain credit from persons willing to do business with them, and who are induced to give them credit from the fact that thev do not know of anv char!;e or· encumbTance ·upon the stock·in-trade. Legis· lation was introduced in England in thi» direction in the year 19{)0, and in the year 1908 the Companies Conso-lidation Act was brought in, and ,ome of its clauses are being enacted iu this Bill. But, before that Consolidation Act was drawn up, a commit>ee was appointed to draw up recommendations, and, for tho· benefit of the House, it might be as well fnl

Hon. A. G. C. Ilawthurn.J

772 Compan1~es Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

me to read a. few extracts from the report of that committee. It is called the " Report of the Compa.ny Law Amendment Committee," a.nd they sa.t in 1905 in Engla.nd. On pa.ge 12 they say, w1th respect to the protection of unsecured creditors--

Limited companies, it is hardlv necessa.rv to sav en­jo,v no immunity from insolvency, and. whim a uly{ited company become" insolvent. its unsecured creditors un­doubtedly often su~tain heavy losses. But such losses -whether the result of misconduct or misfortune on the insolvent's part-are incident to all dealina-s with tra~ers, whether in~orporated or unincorporated. The Leglf-llature cannot msure against such losses.

Then they go on further to say-All_ the Legislatur~ can ~o. ii'. to give those who may

be I~unded. to deH;l w1th a hm1ted company a fa.ir oppor­t~nlty of 1nformmg themselves what is the constitu­tw~ of the c~mpany, what is thP, amount of its sub­scribed _and pa1d-up ~apital. whn are the persons bound to fnrmsh that capital, and how far t.hJi.t capital has been mortgaged or charged, and tbis the Acts do.

Then, on page 13, i& is said fur&her with respect to unsecured cred!&Or'l-

)fortgageR and charg-e~. a11d especially ftoa.tinO' cha!}~es, are another alleged g-rievance of unsecured credito!s-, Such creditors, it is said, are unable to asc~rta1n now ft:u: the a~sets are mortg11ged or charged OWI~g to defeets In both schemes of registration under sectiOn 43 o~ the Companies Act, 1862, and sectjon 14 of the Compames Act, 1900.

Further on, on p>tge 15, the report goes on- • Cases of inso_lvency sometimes occur, and then the

unsecured creditors very commonly find that the\· are postponed to creditors having floating charges, whether re~ently created Ot" not, and that the assets are insuf­fiCient. to ~eet such _char~te~. There are, too, some cases 1n wh1ch n. floa.tmg charge is framed and utilised for the purpose or entra.pping unsecured creditors, as w?-ere the holder of a floating charge is in close touch '~Ith the compn:ny and deliberately watches the posi­tiOn, and then, 1l any unsecured creditor seeks to en­force :~ayment, promptly applies for the appointment of a receiver. Several cases of thiH kind have come before the conrts. and in particular Mr. Justice Bueklev in the L~ndon Pressed Hinge Company. Limited 11905), 1 Ch. o76. drew attentwn to the cases of this kind. It would be very de•arnble to stop such fraudulent con­duct, but we think it would be a mistake to do any­t~ing which would. in order to preclude the compara­tively small number of fraudulent schemes, detrimen­tally .affect the. grPat body of the honest companies carrymg on busmess in the United Kingdom.

':!;here a.r~ a. considerable number of quota­ti~':s whiCh I could rea.d from this report wmch would all go to show the necessity for such an Act being pa.ssed. •

?vir. ::\IULLAN: Ta.ke it a.s rea.d.

The TREAS1:JRER: V erv well I will take it as rea.d. I think that wiia.t I J1a.ve read is sufficient to give the House a.n idea. of wha.t the position ':'as in E!1gla.;ud. On the report <>f tha.t c<;>mmittee leg1slahon was brought in to co;usohdate the whole of the Companies Ac~s m 1908. Sev<>ra.l provisions of the Bill whiCh we are now bringing in, which a.re copied from the Enghsh Act, were brought in m consequence of that report of tha.t corn· mittee. The experience in Queensla.nd ha.s been somewha.t similar, although proba.bly not on such grea.t lines a.s in Engla.nd. A trader getting into debt as a.n individual floats his busi'!ess int? a. compa.ny, with the a.id of five <:11 s1x rela.hves, to ena.ble him to get the suffic.Ient number to get the seven signa.tories reqUJred by the Act. He ta.kes the greatest number of sha.res him.-elf, a.nd, after the com­pany ha.s been floate(l a.nd registered, a. resolu­tion is pa.ssed giving him a. debenture. Under that he becomes a. secured creditor. He carries cm the business. and eventua.lly the company is una.ble to meet. its lia.bilities a.nd it is wound-up. The la.rgest shareholder, who is a.lso the debenture-holder, takes all the

[Hon. A. G. G. Hawthorn.

a.sssts. and the unsecured creditors go without a.nything. Now, this Bill insists on publicitY m ~espect to debentures given by a. compa.n~~. a.s IS done now under the Bills of Sa.le Act in respect to the individual trader who has w ::egister his mortgages under tha.t Act. 'l'hat 1s the main fea.ture of the debenture portion of this Bill, and there is a. furt.her provision giving the right w inspect all registers of mortga.ges of a. company. At present that right of inspectoon is restricted to members of the company and creditors. \Ye propose in thi~ new Act to give anyone the right t·o impect the regi:;tms on pa.yment of a. fee of 2s. 6d. Another feature of the Bill is tha.t we are reducing the fees for the registration of a. company. At the present time under the Sta.mp "~et it is providE'd tha.t a. compa.ny sha.ll pay for registration in tJueemla.nd at tho rate of 1s. for £100 of the ca.pital of the corn· pany or part of £100. Tha.t has proved to be a. hardship in different ways, pa.rticularly with foreign companies. Foreign companies in llueensland are any compa.nies tha.t a.re not British, a.ud British companies a.re defined a.s any companies tha.t are not {/ueensla.nd com­paniP8, the foreign coinpani£-s being, as I say, any compa.nies outside Queensland that, are not British companies. A company with a ca.pita.l of £1,600,000 has for ~ome time wish<'d to rt>gister in Queen~land, but a"' it would cost tha.t company £800 to do so undf'r the present law, the compa.ny has declined to register. \Ve propose by the amendment we are introducing in this Act tha.t 6Uch a. com­pany ma.y be a.ble to register in (~ueensland for £50. '

.'vir. RYLAND: It that the Swiss company? The TREASURER: That is one company.

In ::\'ew South Wales and the other Sta.tes the costs of registra.tion of foreign compa.nies are small indeed. Even when we reduce our fee to £50. ours will be much larger tha.n the rates charged by tho other States. We con­sider that it is a. fa.ir thing to reduce the cha.rge, beca.use it will induce companies who do not register in Queensland, simply because of the prohibitive fees charged, to come in and register and get on a. proper footing and ena.ble us to get some increased revenue from them. (Hear, hea.r !) Another proposal which vce make under this Bill is to allow foreign com­panies that the Governor in Council a.pproves of to hold la.nd. At the present time a. foreign compa.ny is not able to hold land in Queens· land. A British company can hold la.nd in Queensland after registra.tion, but foreign compa.nies, under no circumstances, can do so. It is proposed to remove that embargo a.nd give the Governor in Council power, on -being satisfied that the case is a. proper one, t.o allow a. foreign company registered here to hold land. We ma.ke the la.nd liable for the debts of thP compa.ny in Queensla.nd. Another propo,.al which we make in the Bill is for the protection of executDrs and a.dministrators. A registered sha.reholder of a. company, which is in course of being wound up, remains liable for his sha.re of the unpa.id capital for twelve months a.fter he has transferred his sha.res to some­body else. It sometimes ha.ppens that the executor of a. deceased shareholder is unable to distribute an estate because he must retain sufficient a.ssets to meet this call if it is made. The last part of the Bill proposes to give the Registrar pow<•r to wipf' off th<:> register aJlY companies that have not been carrying on business for a considera.ble time. The com­paJ!y will be called upon to show whether they a.re still ca.rrying on business, a.nd they will be given a certain time within which to satisfy

Companies Ads [8 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 773

the Registrar that they are doing so. At pre­sent there is a certain amount of difficulty in the way. We pr_opose to alter that and give power tD the Registrar to clear off the register any_ company that has not bee,Q. carrying on bus;ness for a certain time. That will keep the register clean and 111 order. and it ·will enable another cDmpany, if it desired, tD use the name {Jf a company that is struck off. These three last. matters are largely routine matters. The ma111 item of the Bill is the registration of ?ebent';n'es. W ": t~ink t~at ":hen a company IS tradmg here It r.s a fair thmg that anyone dealing with them should know exactly how they stand. If the company holds a aeben­ture, this Bill s'!'ys that the:' shall register it, and th~t. Will g:Ive the public information or ~~e po~Itlt;m whwh the company is actually in. ~ne J:3Ill I~ a short one. I do not thmk that It IS likely to meet with any opposition in the House, and it is one which I can fa.irlv ask the House to pass, because all the proposals are reasonable ones, and are likely to tend to-

ards the benefit of the community and for the progress of business generally. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. LE::\'NOX: This Bill. I think, will be very much better dealt with in Committee than on the second reading Although there

may be some clauses that might [9.30 p.m.] be discussed now-in fact the

. . whole thing might be discus;ed-I thmk It will be wiser perhaps to leave over the discussion for the Committee stau-e. The Bill m the first instance, will prevent secret bill~ ?f ~~le, or r~ther . .u-iving a tra.nsfer to one mdividual which will give him priority over all o!her creditors, and leave the other credi­tors 111 th_e lurch. That is the primary object of the Bill .. and I have no objection to the &eeond readm,2". Some of the clauses mig-ht very properly be amended. I shall not delay the House any long-er, but will defer an:v re­m~rks I have to make regarding it to the Com­nntkm stage.

The TREASURER: With the permission of the House, I wo?ld like to say one thing. I may probably, 111 Con;mittee, sug-gest an amendment whe~eby foreign companies having debentur~s o_utside need not . keep a register here. \\e. will m'!'ke. thmgs lrghtN for them, but we Will do It 111 such a way that the mterests of the public will be protected.

~ :\~r. :\lACAR'l'NEY: The hon. gentleman m mtroducing the Bill, did not dwell ver~ much on the evils the Bill is aimed at. I n;rust say that I know a debenture is prac­trcally on the same footing as a bill of sale and probably it ought to receive the sarn~ treatment. At the same time, I am not aware that there are so many cases of fraud perpe­trated by the giving of debentures. The hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill has not g-iven an instance to warrant the introduction of a Bill that is going to be a pretty harsh cne so far as the registration of the affairs ,, companies are concerned. The Bill o-oes a >ery_ long_ way, and. requires a great deal of consideratiOn. I tlunk, on the introduction of me":sures of this sort,. we should receive as much mformation as it IS po:-sible to give in 1·egard to the evils at which the Bill is aimed. It is quite possible, as stated by the hon. rr'~mber, th.at a man _may form a company with the assrstance of his relative.'< or friends-­makes a sale of the business to the companv for a consideration which involves the bulk ,;f the shares, and perhaps a debentur<:> also, and when the time of tro\1bk ari,_,., h<' is able to

step in under his debentures and seize the assets of the company, and let the other credi­tors do without. It is quite possible.

The TREASURER: It has been done.

Mr. MACARTNEY: We have not had, so far as I know, any concrete case stated in which such a thing was done. I understand there was one case in Brisbane where a man who formed a company with his sons did something of the sort, but what the actual result of that case was I never heard.

The TREASURER: The Mount Chalmers case.

Mr. MACARTNEY: The Mount Chalmers case is also known to me. A foreign deben­ture-holder stepped in and took possession, and the only creditors who were paid were the preferential claims for labour.

Mr. J1YLAND: They were not paid. Mr. MACARTNEY: They were paid. We

fought that matter out years ago. But the ordinary trade creditor was not paid; and although that go<''· to show that perhaps there is a necessity for legislation of this sort, I am inclined to think that all this legislation goes too far. Much of it is nec0ssary on account of the slack methods by which busi­nt•ss is carried on. Take the instance of a traveller for a concern seeking for business. His only concern is to get orders. He has to compete with another man to get them, and he does not care to ask the delicate question which is involved in ascertaining the man's financial position. The result is he takes the order, and trusts to the laws of the State to protect him.

Mr. LENNON: How can he ascertn.in? Mr. MACARTNEY: H<> can put a direct

question if he likes. Mr. LENNON: And he would get his answer.

Mr. MACARTNEY: However, business men seem to think that prevention is better than cure. and they think this Bill will tend towards prevention in a degree. Perhaps it will. While this Bill will catch a great many companies that are perhaps in the position the hon. gentleman states, it will impose a great many hardships on many companies not in that position, and it imposes particu­larly a considerable amount of hardship on foreign companies.

Mr. LENNON: It is practically an absentee tax.

Mr. MACARTNEY: When they come here they are hardly absentees. However, the position is this: We ought not to do anything that will !hamper or prevent companies coming to Queensland. The Bill recognises that. ina,much as th<> Government proposal will reduce the stamp duty. Owing to the num­ber of disadvantag-es companies have to suffer from, there is a tendency to avoid registering in Queensland. As the hon. gentleman says, the amount of stamp duty has in one case kept a very large concern from registering in Queensland. I know that is so. I also know, having had much of the initial work con­nected with the registration of companies in Queensland, that inquiries are made from time to time by big concE'rns. looking for an opening to invest their capital: as to what are the requirements and conditions in Queens· land in referE'nce to the registration and obligations of the company, and the host of details that have to be supplied m response tc> these inquiries would really surprise hof!­members if they saw them. and the result I& very often that the conditions imposed on

Mr. Macartney.]

774 Companies .Acts [ASSEMBLY.] .Amendment Bill.

companies prevent their coming here at all. That question is a serious one. I am not quite so sure that the reduction in the amount of duty-the fixing of a maximum-is going to be such a good thing after all, because it has its disadvantages as well as its advantages. We know companie8 would be formed with a very large capita,! by people for speculative purposes, and under this Bill it is just as easy for them to form a company w1th £1,000,000 capital as it would be to form a company with £50,000, and no doubt advantage of that will be taken, and to that extent it may prove dis­advantageous. On the other hand, in the cases which the hon. gentleman has men­

-tioned it is clearly an advantage to have a maximum, inasmuch as it will help to induce those companies to come !<ere and employ their capital. 'fh"is Bill is _!roing to be very strict in its operations so far ·as companies are concerned. They have not only to register the bills of sale or debentures, so to speak, in the wa:y ~escribecl _in the Bill but_ they will have, Wlthm a eertam periOd, to register all the transactions of the past. The hon. gentleman told us that this Bill has particular reference to the registration of debentures, but I would ,point out that a company has to register not only debentures but particulars of all ,',ther securities. The' hon. gentleman has referred to one amendment affecting foreign com­panies which he proposes to introduce, and I am very glad to hear of his intention in that respect, becau3e the Bill is particularly harsh on foreign companies. But there are other amendments which it will bo necessary to make before this Bill can be considered a reasonable one.

Mr. LENNON: Don't you believe in the full light of publicity being given to the transac­tions of companies?

Mr. MACARTNEY: I have no objection to publicity being given to the transactions of companies, but when one finds that in this measure conditions are imposed upon com­panies which are not imposed upon private persons or private partnerships, one is in­clined to think that things are being carried too far. If those provisions are necessary in the case of companies, thev are also necessary in the case of pri,ate partnerships. The con­ditions imposed by this Bill will mean a big additional expense to companies, and that means increased prices to the consumer of the commoditi~s dealt in by those companies, a matter whwh is too often overlooked in this House. A private person who gives a bill of oale over his ab."ets must register that bill of sale, or stock mortgage, or lien on crops, and when he has done that the necessity for further registration disappears. But a com­pany must register their debentures, their mortgagE',,, and all their obligations--past, present, and future. A company going to a bank· for a temporary overdraft for, 'lay, a week, has got to register that trawsaction within thirty days, though it is probable that when the thirty days are up the temporary overdraft will have been paid off. That is perfectly absurd. I do not wish to labour the matter. The Bill has been proposed very s1mply by the Treasurer, and has been re­eeivf'd very simply by the other side of the House, but it is really a very stringent mea­sure, and requires a great deal more considera­tion than it appears to be likely to receive. Th<' best way to deal with the Bill would bP to defer it until we get the consolidation Act. which has been in existence in England since 1908. Our company laws rPquire considerable

[ 3£ r . • 'ti acartney.

amendment, and this measure is only patch· work. I hope the hon. gentleman will in any case introduce further amendments to miti­gate many of the inconveniences which will be caused by the Bill as it stands,

.Mr. J. J\1. ·HuNTER (Jiaranoa): I int,end to support the second rea.ding of this Bill. At the same time I regret that there is so much patchwork in connection with our com­pany legislaiion. The proposal in tlns mea­sure to insist upon the re~istration of deben­tures is a.imed at a very serious trouble which exists at the pre,<mt time. The hon. member for Brisbane :\" orth told us that no concrete case had been stated by the 'l're1tsurer to show the neces,itv for the Bill. I do not think there would be ;cry much difficulty in find­incr more than one ea"' if hon. members took th~ trouble to look for them. I Temember a case'which happened in 1\Iaryboroug·h a few years ago, in which a mill over which a <;ie­benture was held purcha&ed a large quantity of wheat from se],cctors and farmers, and when the time to pay for that whea.t came demands were made for payment and cheques issued to meet those demands. But the chequ~'· were nevPr met, and when proce"-l­ings were taken the dt>benturc-holder stepped in and seized all the security on the place, including- the wheat which had just been bought from farmers on the Downs and else­where. This Bill will put an end to that sort of thing. I see no reason why the holder of a. d~benture should not he compelled tc registm that debenture for the protection of the general trading public. With rr•gard to the Bill itself, I believe it will be b~tter to deal with it in Committee than to discuss 1t at this stage. I agree' with the junior mem­ber for Brisbane North that it requires amend­ment in several particulars. as the meaR,ure is verv severe in some respect;;. At the same time ·it is essential that great care should be take~ to provide against big forei?n co_m­panies opening offices here, and trad~ng with a verv indifferent reputation and w1th very poor 'capital. This Bill should h!'ve. b<;en brought in to prevent that over-capitahsati<:n of companie::; which is not uncon1ID0n 111 Queensland. I am plea,ed to see the Bill in­troduced, but hope that it will be amended in Committee.

::\Ir. CORSER (Jfaryborough): I am very pleased indeed to see this Bill in_iroduced. It is a measure that has been ag1tated .for by Chambers of Commerce throughout (lueens­land for some considerable time past, and for very good reasons. The case mentioned by the hon. member who has just sat clown was a v~r:v serious. one-·~ a case in w hi eh farmers 1n the \0Vide Ba,y and Burnett districts suffered materiallv owing to the absence from the statute-b;ok of a measure of this kind. Thf' Queensland Bills of Sale Act of 1891 excluded the reg·istration of debentures of joint stock companies and on account of thal both traders and farm;rs have suffered considerably. \Ye have to consider not only the merchant who sends his traveller oUL, as the hon. m<:>mber for Brisbane North ;;aid, to g-et orders. and .d?"'l not take sufficient care to find out the position of his customer, but those cases in which cvery­thincr is believed to be straight and above boar'd, where a company has got credit, and no one, not even the company's banker, hf!-o any cognisance of debentures having been ls"<Jed, or' whether they have any liabilities ag~mst them or not. That liability Is not ascertamed until the company liquidates, and then it is found that the holders of debentures take the whole of the assets, and the unfortunate un-

Complmies Acts [8 DECEMBER.] Amendment BtU. 775

-secured creditors ~·et practically nothing. I am pleased to see that the Bill intends to put -the debenture-holders on all-fours with the man who obtains money under a bill of sale. I remember when the registration of bills of "ale was made compulsory some years ago. The same arguments were then used that have been used to-night by the junior memb<>r for Brisbane North. There was the same talk about exposure of business transactions. and .it was said _that it was going to ruin trade,

. and everythmg of that kind; but it has been one of the greatest bh:>,sings to trade in {~ueensland to havo compubory registration of bills of sale within thirty days. I understood the hon. member to say that there was no

'iurther inquisition in connection with bills of sale. but bills of sale have to be re-registered <lvery three years, so that we can see how the

·transactions in connection with a man's busi­ness have been going 011 during those thre<e years. I hop<> sincerely that no amendment will be made in Committee that will take away the

-great advantages which the Bill proposes to confer on the trading communitv. Clause 13 io also a good clause. to enable am·bodv to inspect instrurn<mt-- As a mercantil;, man. I do not for a moment want to criticise anything

·that a leg·al memb{n· says in connection with these things, but I mu3t say that clause 3 seems to provide that there shall be no inqui­sition in connection with mortga!Ses on land, as the hon. member for Brisbane North would have us believe. The clause sa vs-

Provided that, s.a\·e as hereinafter expr~ssly men­tioned, this part of this Act shnll not extend or apply to

·.any mortgage so fn.r as it includes land.

The TREASURER: Mort.gages hove to be regis­·tered already. You don't want double registra­·tion.

Mr. CORSER: There is no fault to be found with the Bill because mortgages have to be registered now, and we can ascertain how much money has been obtained by way of mortgage on a propt>rtv, so that the inclusion -of that provision does· not make matters one bit the worse or one bit the better.· Clause 22

·is also a very good one. I have in my mind a. British company which is trading in Bris­bane and the North. They wished to regist<'r some little while ago in order that they might buy properties in Queen street, but they found it would cost them £1,000 to do so, becanse their capital is £2,000.000. I know allother for~ign company -yith a capital ?f £6,000,000, whwh cannot register because It would cost them no 1.-•.,g than £3,00.0. It appears to me that the revenue has suffered, because thooo companies would have regi,tered if the fee hac! beC'n only £50, as proposed in the Bill.

·Then the p<'nalty of £50 for non-registration Js a very fair provision. Some con1panie.s with large debenture.< might think it worth their while, if there were not a. heavy penalty, to leave th{~ir debenture securities unregistered. to the. detriment of their ordinarv creditors. I shall 'upport the Bill almost in 'its entiretv in Committee. · * :\Ir. BOL'CHARD: There is no doubt that this is a Bill which has becm a"ked for bv the eomrnercial people of Queensland; b1;t I Tenture t-o ~ay that its nrovi~ions. !"O far as r~<;ards registration of debentures. go further than was really intendC'd. Compani<'s may bp stated to be creature; of statute. Originally t-hey w.ere formed for the purj)ose of giving· protectwn to tho~e p<>rsons who w<>re em­barked in very large concerns in the old

·(}()unt.ry. In the event of misfortune overtak-ing them. the whole fortunes of the partners would be lost. It was thought that it would

be only a fair thi~g-, where men had perhaps £200,000 or £300,UOO invested in a. business and some g-rave misfortune occurred, that they should not have their fortunes altogether shattered. Therefore, the Companies Act was passed, and the liability of persons wa.o limited to the amount they had put mto the COJ?l­pany either in paid-up ca.pdal m- unpa.ul capital in r<>spect of shares whwh they had taken up. But I venture to say that 1t was never intended at the time the Act was passed that the prnvisi<ms of the Act should be abused in the way they ha.ve LPen of recent years. If auyi.Jody were to- take the trou~le to look up the statistics of companies reg-Is­tered in Oueensland during th<> last ten vear,, he ,;ould be rather astonished to see the la.rge uumber of trading- companieo that ha.ve bt)en formed, and a very considerable nuntber may be said to be ono-man com­panies. The hon. member for Brisbane ::'>!orth stated certain circumstaBces unckr which these one-man companies had be·en formed. I suppose tha.t anybody who is engaged in busi .. ness, wheth<>r commercial or legal1 kno~s that persons very frequently form thmr busmesses into companies for the sole purpo:-e of gett~ng protection, and ill some instanc0s of.,deludml' the people with whom they arc' clomg busi­ness. _-\._t the. :--a.me time, it n1ust 110t. be for­gotten that in ,eeking to renwdy the evil which has crept in we do not create a burden on companies abroad which would be corn-. pelled under the op~rations of this Bill to register their debenture~. Cl<>arly ~t was never intended, where theoe compames are financially strou;;-, that they ohould be bur­dened as this Bill will burden them. In the case of what may be tt>rmed family companies. or one-man compa.nH~s, \Vhere the business has been sold to the company for a large number of share,, and there are no assets or no otl1er capital in the concern other than the assets which have been transferred to it upon registration and in c~msid0ra;tiop of the shares which have been 1swed, 1t 1s only ri"ht that some such provision should be mad~ for the protection of the public. The; hon. member for :\laryborough stated that this Bill is on all-fours with the- Bills of Sale

Act., so far as it compels the regis­[10 p.rn.] tration of debentures. hut that is

not so. It goes pven further than the Bills of Sale Act, inasmuch as a. bill of sale only requires to be rcgistPred ill Queens­la.nd so far as regards the a,cseb of a person in l)ueensland, but under the operation of t~is Bill the company will be bound to reg1st<>r 1ts debentures, although they have no assets whatever in l~uecnsla.nd. All the a.sseh tn'fY he abroad, but they will be cornpl'lled, und<;r the operation of this Bill, to reg1ster. so 1t 1s quite clear that this Bill goes furthe-r than the Bills of Sale Act.

Mr. LENNON; If the assets are all abroad, the registration of its debentures would be sti!J more necessary.

:Mr. BOL'CHARD; I do not think so; be­cause, as pointed out already by previous speakers, foreign companies may 11ot have any creditors here at all. They have !l'ot creditors abroad; they may be s1mply domg business here whereby they become creditors of the people within the State,. and b? so:und institutions. I know of financml mst1tutwns which have issued debentures in the old country, and whose debentures may be re­garded as gilt-edged securities. There are no liabilities whatever in Queensland, yet under t.he operation of this Bill in its present form they would he compelled to register those

. Mr. Bouchard.]

776 Companies Acts [ASSEMBLY.] .Amendment Bill.

debentures here. That is not the mischief which this Bill is designed to remedy. Let us deal with the mischief that has called for this measure, but do not let us drag in these companies when there is no occasion to do it. Give a1! pr{Jtection that is necessary to the trading public in Queensland-! am with everv hon. member in that respect-but do not let us make the measure too burdensome, and insist upmi registration when such neces­sity exists theref{Jr.

:Mr. LENXON: Is it possible to conceive of any co1npauy trading w hi eh ha~ no credit<Jrs here?

Mr. BOFCHARD: I say they may have creditors abroad, but not in Queensland. We need not trouble ourselves with creditDrs a.broad.

.Ylr. LENNON: No local creditors? ~fr. BO'CCHARD: I have already pointed

out an instance where companies abroad have issued debentures. and these debentures are regarded as gilt-edged securities.

Mr. LEN WN: It is perfectly inconceivable that companiE's trading here cannot have creditors here.

C\Ir. BOFCHARD: They may have debts of an infinitesimal amount. There is no doubt that the provisions in the Bills of Sale Act exempting debentures of public companies from registration i;. the reason that these one-ma11 companies ha.ve ~pruug up 1n recent years. If there had not been that provision. I am of opinion that there would not be that number. It is nwing to the fact that they may pledge the who!<> of their a~sets ''it.hout registration and without a.ny publicity. 'Cndt•r ·section 42 of our Companies "~et of 18£3, only a. creditor or a shareholder could inspect the register of mortgages of the company kept under that Act, but tha.t provision was found inadequate for t\vo rea;-;on::;, one of which wa:-:. that a person proposing to lend monev, or to give credit tu a 0{1mpany, had no n1Cans of a.sc<-r~ taining· wha.t the financial po,ition of the compa.ny was. There have been instance, alreadv cited where even the directors of a company hav•3 held a. debenture over the whole of the a·.seb {Jf tha.t company. I know several i11stances where that has hap­pened. They have formed the concern into a company, issued a debenture to themselves, and they have simply collared the whole of the assets. That is what thi.s Bill should pro­vide against, but do not let us go too far. Another important feature of the Bill is the reduction in stamp duty on the registration of companies. I think that that is a step in the right direction. There is no doubt that the State has lost a con>iderable sum in the past from the non-registration of companies. I received a cable from America asking me what the registration of a company with a capital of £2,000,000 sterling would cost, and I cabled back what the duty would b<). They said the cost was prohibitive, and that they would not bother about registering. Further than that, a foreign company, unless registered here, is not capab!0 of holding land, but there is a way of getting over the difficulty. I know com­panies who are the beneficial {Jwners of pro· perty here. Th0y simply have the land trans· £erred to ono of the trustPe companies, which holds the land for them. I will support the second reading {Jf the Bill, but when it gets into Committee. I reserve th<' right of support­ing some amendment;..

Mr. RY_\N (Banoo): I have J!1Uch pleasurP in supporting the second reading of this Bill,

[ilfr. Bouchard.

and I am thoroughly in accord wi~h t~E'J' principles contained in it. I have hstened with much interest to the speeches whch have been delivered by the junior member for North Brisbane and the junior me!'lber f~)l" oouth Brisbane with regard to ce~tam detatls that will be dealt with in Committee, and. I shall be very pleased to hear what tJ:;mr amendments are when . the . proper tlll!e. arrives, but as to the mam obJect of t~e. BtU I do not think there can be any two opm~ons. :"fo private individual can ca;rry on busmess and limit his liability; he is hable to the l~st shilling he may possess; whereas compames have the privil.eg~ of ~ein!\" a.b!": to carr:y o.n business and hmit thetr habihtles. That IS·

only a comparatively recent development .m the law. As the hon. member for South Bns· bane remarked, companies are the creatnr~s of statute: thev are enabled to carry on busmess without malcing their members liable to the· full extent.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: There are· no-liability companies.

Mr. RY AN : There are no-liability comp~n!es' also, bnt the only ground on which compam':s were ever allowed by statute to carry on busi· ness and limit tht'ir li<tbility was that there­should be publicity. A private indiddual has not got to J.mblish to the world what. amou_nt of money he possesses before he starts m _l:n:smess,. but companies, in order to have the ~rtvtlege ~>f limiting their liability, are bonn? to gwe cert~m information under the Compames Ac:s wh~ch· will enable the public who are dealing with. them to know exactly what their capital !s, and what the liability of the shareholders IS. In the case of bills of sale priv:tte individuals. have to give publicity, whereas joint stock com­panies can g-ive debenture•, which bave almost the same effect as bills of sale, and are able to keep them secret. The fact th•t j<;int stoc!< companie> were able to give these floatmg secun­ties without registration led to those one-man companies being formed. Individuals found that by getting in a certain number of members who· would perhaps hold only one share each th~y could register as a joint.stock c~mpany, and ga~n the ad vant.a~e of whtt\ Is practiCally~ se?ret brll of saie. The main object of the Btll Is to do awav with that and l think that it is a very lauci'ah!e object indeed. I cannot agr:e, however, that the provisions are moff• strmgent than those in the Bills of Sale Act., though they !'lay be in some particulars. By clause 3, If a morto-•ge is not registered, it is void against the liquidat<Jr or any creditor of thP. cm;npany. ~he· pruvi,ion in the Bills of Sale· Act _Is m on; s~ru:~­gent, because it is absolutely v01d until t.t rs registered. There are also eome. other se<;twns not so stringent. Section 19, for mstancP, IS J?Ot as stringent as the provision with regard ~o brlls of s~tle under the Insolvency Act. I thmk; we· are bound to listen attenti vel.v tu any sugg:estrons. in reo-ard to details from gentlemen wtth t~e­wide ~xperience nf the junior member for Bn"­bane i\ orth, and if it appears that there. are burdens too heavy placed on these compames I would not support such a. provision when a proposed amendment would meet the justice of the case.

Mr. G. P. BARXES (Warwick): Lik<> other speakers, I would like to say that th~ object of the Bill is one in which we must heartily concu_r, but I am inclined to differ to a large extent m regard to the general incidence of ~ome of the clauses. I particuhuly refer to the disadvantage that is going to accrue to this Stat.e as a resul~ of imposing conditions regarding foreign compames .. The statement has been made that it would be·

Companies Act, Etc., Bill. [8 DECEMBER.] Constitution Ad, Etc., Bill. 777

in:possible for foreign companies to trade here Without having li~tbilities, yet we know it is an absolute fact that there are many large com­panies trading in Queensland who have no liabilities.

Mr. \VHITE: Are they registered in Queens­land?

Mr. G~ P. BARNES : They are not. I refer to such firms as Rylands and Co., Limited.

Mr. LENNON : Are they not liable for wages and rent? -

l\Ir. G. P. BARNES : I was not referrino- to i':'tinitesimal things of that kind. \Ve have" no nght_ to impose barriers in connection with com­merCial trading. Nothing done in that way helps to develop the resources of our country. The more business we can bring to our shore• the ?lore it is to the ad vantage of the cmn: mumty.

Mr. ,J. :\I. HcNTER: They come here to make a profit. . Mr. G. P. BARNES: They do; and I sup­

pose other people who occupy positions in the financial world are in business for the same pur­pose.

Mr. J. M. HUNTER : \Vhy not pay for it? Mr. G. P. BARNES: I suppose they do.

T_hey are employers of labour and in that direction they add their quota t~ the revenue of the country. It is for us to encourage outside traders to come to our shores.

1\Ir. LEXNON : Would you rather have outside traders than local traders ?

_:Mr. G. P. BARNES : No ; but we require all. \\ e are constantly requiring new capital in orde_r to d~velop what we have, even if it is foreign capital. And hon. members who have been parties to the introduction of new railways must know th:-t thos~ railways will be built by means of foreign capital. \Ve have no objection on tha~ score; n.or should we have any objection to capital offermg from outside to develop in some particular direction the resources of the country. I take very particular exception to clau~e 13. Some hon. members have professed considerabl:' sympathy in connection with that clame, but ;t seems to me that it goes altogether too far. It Is altogether extreme in its incidenc~. It says-Th~. copies. of instruments creating any mortgage

requtnn? registration under this Part of this Act with the Registrar, nnd the register of mortgages kept in pursuance of thr: _last preceding se<>tion, shall be open at all reasonable tHnes to the inspection of any creditor or member of the ?ompa~y without fee; and shall also be open to the mspect10r.1 of any other person on P_ayment of such fee, not exceeding two shillinrrs and Six pence. ~

That seems to be a monstrous privilege to allow to. any mar: who may come and demand ~he particulars With regard to things that mav In no way concern him, and mav be a cmi-stant source of annoyance. •

:\!r. Wn~TE: He m.ay be intending to do bu-.m<Oss with the company.

:'l!r. G. P. BARNES: It does not follow If he legiti_mately wishes to get information: he can get rt; by other means. One may have an. :'nemy who wishes to exercise the same prtv1lege.

:\Ir. CoRSER: Suppose they are not regis­tered in ~2ueensland.

:'IIr. G. P. BARNES: The information co•Ild not be secured if they were not registered in Queensland. 'rhen to go back again to clause '!'· the hardship m connection with this is that it me&ns a very considerable dislocation of the businesses of many people. I maintain that the time for registration. which according to

this must take place within six months after the commencement of this Act. i< altogether too short. It may be considered desirable for compani<>s to make. oth<>r financial arrang<'­ments, and it is not th<> easi<>st thing in the world in connection with our cornpanie~, t·O make financial arrangements at once. Six months after the paesing of the Act is too short, and in Cornmitt<>e I will sugg<>st that the time b<> extended to twelve month,;.

:\Ir. LENKON: Look at the amount of villainv that could be perpetrat<'d in that tiro<>. ·

:\lr. G. P. BARNES: 'rhc leader of the Opposition is a suspicious man. vVhilst I am prepared ({) admit that a great deal of villainy has been done. and while I know we could quote instances in which considerablf' injustice has been <:bone to many people, still two \vrongs do not make a right. I am as desirous as a.nyone in this Chamber of seeing our commercial life purified, but in doing so it is not necessary to inflict hardship on the stable companies in Queensland.

:\lr. LENNON: Y on must remember that " gold must be tried by fire."

.:\Ir. G. P. BAR:\ES: :'l!y fri<>nd. the deputy leader ,,f the Opposition, must a.lso have be<>n tried by fire. hence hi, ~<>Iwrou·' notion' about matters of this kind. Question~-That the Bill be now read a

second time-put and passed.

COKSTITGTlON ACT AMENDME:I'.'T BILL.

SECOND READING.

The PRI<:::\HER: This is a short Bill which proposes to make two alterations in the law. In moving the second reading, I do not antici­pate that there will be a very long discussion, or that we Ehali have to apply the closure. It provide, two things. At the present time members' salaries are paid from the day on which the writ of his election is returnable until he ceases to be a member. That has been a considerable hardship to many mem­bern in recent years, when we have had an un­usually large number of elections. The result is that the return of the writ is always some weeks-two, thrtJe, or four weeks-after poll­ing day, for which time a member receives ·no payment, although he is elected on the polling day. At the end of his term, when .Parliament is dissolved, a member loses his salary for perhaps two or three months. So that, while it is understood by our consti­tuents that each member receives £300 a year, members have found in practice-of recent years, at least--that they have been a good bit short of £300 a year. It is. therefore, desir­able to amend the Act so a" to make provision f01: the salary of a member to begin on the day of his election, and continue until the day appointed in the writ for the taking of the poll for the election of his successor. It is provided that in the case of a vacancy arising from any cause other than a dissolu­tion of Parliament, the amounts shall be pay­able to the retiring member only until he ceases to be a member of this House. I may put it this way: It assures that a member's salary will commence from polling day and continue to polling day, subject to the provi­sions contained in this amending Bill. There is another amendment here which is con­tained in clause 2. It provides that the leader of the Opposition. instead of receiving £300 a year, shall be entitled to payment at the rate

Hon. W. Kirlstnn.]

:778 Constitution Act, Etc., Bill. [COUNCIL.] Paper.

of £500 a year. These two things are the .purpose of the Bill. As hon. members know, I have been considering this for some time. :\1embers of the House have interviewed me, .and pressed upon me to get this amendment through this session, as they felt the incon­venience and hardship of the law as it stands, more particularly in recent years, when we .are having elections very often. I think that it is qnite a fair thing, because our consti­tuents understand that we are getting £300 a yf'ar, and this will only provide for members getting £300 a year. It will provide for a member being paid at the rate of £300 a year from the date of his election to the day his successor is elected. That is quite fair. The alteration in the law to give the leader of the Opposition an additional £200 is also a per­fectly fair thing. I expect that the House will now accept it without very much discus­sion. I move the second reading of the Bill. * Mr. MULLAN: There is one point in con· nection with this Bil: which I would like to mention, as nobody ehe seEms disposed to ~peak {)nit.

Mr. D. HcNTER: Don't stonewall it. Mr. :\IULLAN: The Bill proposes to pay

'from the day of election. Possibly it has been overlooked by the Government that

.[10.30 p.m.] after every diesolution a certain number of members decide not to

·seek re-election. The PREli!IER: Xot from the day of election

but from the day mentioned in the writ. Mr. MULLAN : Quite so, but members may

not seek re-election. The PREMIER: The date is named in the writ

all the same. Mr. MULLAN : If a member does not wish

to seek re-election there is no reason why he should be paid after the day of dissolution.

HoN. R. PHILP: I thoroughly approve of the principle of the Bill. I think the leader of the Opposition ought to be pa.id at least £500 a year. :From mv own experience, I think he is the hardest worked man in the House beyond the Premier. I do not think £500 a year is too much to givA him. I also think that members should be P"id from the day of election, but I do not think it ought to apply to this House. In Committee I shall probably move an amend· ment making it apply to th" next HouHe. \Vhen we were returned t•> this House we knew when our pay commenced, and we may be charged, as members of thP l<'ederal House were, with increasing their own salaries. They were> charged with voting £200 a year for themselve3, When we were returned to this Home we knew when our salary commenced, and I think we should make this part of the Bill apply to the next Parliament. The leader of the Opposition ought to be paid now. * Mr. MACARTNRY: I intP!Hl to support the second reading of the Bill, hut I want it under. stood that in voting for thR second reading I am not voting for nu increase in our salaries. I quite agree with the Premier, that this i~ only assuring to hon. members as far as possible the £300 a yeRr, which it is supposed they already' receive. It is 'tnite clear there is a period at ·every election time when members go without their salary, and it is that fact that has givRn rise to the whip of di,solution we have heard so much about. It is recognised that we ought not to h<tVP a dis•olntion when a dissolu­tion is not necessary. \Vhen them is" party in power prepared to carry on the bueiness of the country, we do not want a dissolution, but there .are times when it is not reasonable that members,

[Hon. W. Kidston.

either on this side of the House or on the otl er side, should be threatened with dissolution, and consequent stoppage of salary. There is no doubt when members know that a dissolution means a stoppage of their salaries, the know­ledge must tend to affect their freedom of action. I Lhink this is a beneficial proposal in that par­ticular direction. As the h<•n. member for Townsville has suggested, this should not apply to members of the present Parliament. I would like to mention that in 18nG the ealaries of members were increased from £150 to £300 a year, and section 6 of that Act provides-

This provision shall apply to the present Assembly.

I think in view of that precedent, we are not going very much out of the way in agreeing to the application of this proposal to the present Assembly. Hear, hear!

Mr. GUNN: I think if we intend to increase our salaries--

HoNOGRABLE MEMBERS : \V e are not increasing the salaries.

Mr. GUNN: It means the same thing. HoxoURABLJ;; IVIEMBERS : No, no ! Mr. GFXN: It means about £18 to each

member, and "eventy,two trmPs eighteen means that it will cost the country nearly £1,300. We have not heen getting £300 a year, and we knew that before we went to the electors.

Mr. MURPHY: \Ye interviewed the Premier last year.

:::1-Ir. GUXX: I was not one of those who interviewed the Premier last year.

Mr. LENNON: \Vill you take it if it ie voted? Mr. G'UXN: Ko; I will not take it if it is

voted. (Laughter.) It is my intention to opr:ose the Bill, and if it is carried I will leave my £18 in the Treasury.

The TREASURER : All right, I will take it• (Laughter.)

Mr. GUNN: I think if we want this £18, we ought to have advocated it when we were before the electors. There are plenty of things that want redressing before this amendment of the Uomtitntion. Hon. members talk about the lengthsmen-they ought to get their wages in­creased-and I dare say many of them do. I think we ought to see to that before we pay £18 to ourselVES, I intend to oppose the Bill.

Mr. LJ;;NNON : \Vhy don't you speak in that strain when we are discussing railway matters?

Question-That the Bill be now read a second time-put and passed.

The committal of the Bill was made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

The House adjourned at twenty-five minutes to 11 •>'clock.