Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 29 AUGUST 1901

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

562 Agricultural Lands, Etc., Bill. [ASSE:iYIBLY.J Questions.

THURSDAY, 29 AUGUST, 1901.

The SPEAKER (Hon. Arthur Morgan, Wcuwick) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

PETITIONS. LICENSING AOT-St:NDAY TRADL'!G.

The 'l'ltEASUllER (Hon. T. B. Cribb, Jps1vich} presented a petition from the Ho]Je of Ipswich Tent of the I. O.R., protesting against any alteration of the Licensing Act with regard to Sunday trading.

Petition received.

Mr. GIUMES (U• ley) ]Jresented a petition from certain persons, praying the House to adopt in the Licensing Act a certain provision, which they recite from the Imperial Act, with reference to the sale of intoxicants during prohibited hours.

Petition received.

QUESTIONS. PAHlENTS TO LIEUTENANT-COLONEL RICARDO.

Mr. LE SIN A ( Clermont} asked the Prernier-1. Is it a V. et that Colonel Ricarclo w-hile in Sout.h

Africa drew his salary as an officPl' of the Queensland Defence :Force, and was also paid while holding the position of Commissioner of J~jectments?

:::!. If so, what are the re:::;:pectiye amounts he re­ceived?

The PREMIER (Hon. R. Philp, Tmr:,sville) replied-

1. Lieutenant-Colonel Ricardo dre'v pay and allow­anct<s as officer in con1mand of the Iirst contingent while in South Afnca.

3. Amount drawn as officer in command of the first contingent from 19th October, 1S99, to 23rd February, 1901, \\'as £1,00~ 19s., to~ether \Vith a war gratuity of £16'.1. It is uuder:-tood that a bonus of £14Z l!ls. was received by I.ieutenant-Colonel Ricardo for acting as. Commit:sioner of }jjectments. Lieutenant-Colonel llica1·do will be asked to refund all allowances. ineluded in the £1,005 His., together with the bonus of £14~ lOs.

Com· o"' SEVENTH CONTINGENT. Mr. LEST~ A asked the Premier-1. \\~hat is the total cost np to date of sending away

the seventh contingent to :South Africa? 2. "'iYill Queenslan<t ha Ye to pa.y the whole amount?

The PREMIER replied-1. No seventh contingent has been sent to South

.A.frir:1: bnt se· cnty-tb·ee men have been despatehed to makr~ n;: the ~trengtll of the sixth contingent, at a cost of L lis.

2. Xo; the whole amount will be l'ecovered from the Imperial Govf-~rnment.

CrRCt:LATIOX OJT DR. MAXWELL's REPORT.

Mr. LESINA asked the Prernin-l. Is it trne that a sum of £100 or any other amount

has been paid to the Cat'1 le;· 1\cwsvaper Company for cireulating Dr. )IaxwLll'~ report on the suga1· iudustry ~

2 . ..Arc a.ny other papers being pa,id to circulate the report?

The PRE:!11IJ:oR replied-!. £60 will be }mid for distributing GO,OOO copies. 2. ~0.

Mr. LESINA: I desire to ask the Pr.-mier, without nutic;:,, \vhet.her he thiuks the vublica~ tion of Dr. Maxwell's report, and its circulation thnmgh the medmm of the Courier, will satisfy the :B'ederal Prdllier's dt'oire t<> have that report circulated as largely as par, •ible in Queensland ?

The PRE:i\HE R: I can't say what the Federal Premier thinb.

Jlilr. LESINA: \Veil, will the hon. gentler.1an place on the table of the House the letter of the Federal Premier asking him to circulate that report in Queensland ?

11iining Art Amendment Bill. [29 AuGusT.j State Sugar Refinery. 563

The PREMIER : I don't think there is any letter on the subject from the Federal Premier.

Mr. LESINA: Oh, yes! The PHE~UER: You had better give notice

of the question. Mr. LESINA: Very well, I will give notice

of the question for Tuesday.

ADVANCES 'l'O SETTLERS BILL.

::\Ir. KATES (Cunninglwm) asked the Secre­tary for Agriculture-

l.Yhen may we expect the introduction of the ALh itne, ., to Settlers Bill?

The SECRETARY FOR AGRTCGLTFHE (Hon. D. H. Dalrymple, lviackay) replied-

As soon as circumstances permit.

lYIOI:Nl' DEBATABLE RESDIPTIONS.

::Yir. BARTHOLOMEvV (Jiaryborouoh), in the absence of Mr. Kent, asked the Secretary for Public Lands-

1. Have the six portions of ~Iount Debntabl8 Re­sumption, 'vhich are offered for sale on the 13th September as grazing farms, been reported on by an agricultural expert ?-If so, by 'vhom, an11 will the Secretary for Public J,ands have i'neh report printed and laid on the table of tbe House?

2. ·wm the secretary for Public Laud~ eanse the six portions allnded to above be withdrawn from selection to enable further publicity being given, as the notice is considered too short to enable intending selectors to inspect?

The SECRRTARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. W. B. H. O'Connell, ~vinsgravc) replied-

1. No. 2. It is considered that snftlcient publicity has been

given. 'l'he proclamation was issuNl nL1rly six weeks previous to the f'l.atc of opening, ·md has been \\~en advertised. 'l'he land previous to ia&t year had been open for tf'n years without l'f'"mlt.

SEVE~TH CO::'{Til'IGEN1' TO SOUTH AFRICA.

On the motion of JI.Ir. LESIX A, it was formally resolved-

That there be laid on the table of the IIcuse the whole of the correspondence, telegram:--:, etc., between the Chief t>ecretary and the ]'ec1eral Premier, relative to the despatch of the Heventh contingent to South Africa.

TREASUHY BILLS BILL. THIRD READING.

On the motion of the TREASURER, this Bill was read a third time, passed, and ordered to be tran>mitted t" the Legislativ~ C<n-ncil for their concnrrence by message in the usual form.

STAMP ACT AMENDMENT BILL. THIHD READING.

On the motion of the TREASURB~R, this Bill was read a third time, passed, and ordered to be transmitted to the Legisl>1tive C<lllllcil for their concurrence by message in the l!'ual form.

MIKING ACT AMENDMEN'l' BILL. THIRD REAIJIN G.

On the motion of the SECRETARY FOR IYUNJ<:S (Hon. R. Philp, 'l'owns~:ille), this Dill was read a third titnP, paks d, and ordered to be transmitt"d to the Lt:gislative Council for their eoncurrcnce by message in the U·'·Ual form.

STATE SUGAR REJ<'INERY.

*Mr. GIVENS (Caims), in moving-That, in Yiew of the very large stuns of money ex­

pended by the ~tate in encouraging and establishing the sugar indu$try. aud the ~l'E"tt importance of that inous­try to the general prosperity of the State, this lionse is of opinion that it is urgently necessary to place the industry on a thoronghly sound and remuneratiYc lJnsls by establlshing a State central sngar refinety, to supple­ment the present central sugar mill .sy~tem, so as to secure to the snga.r t:Ctrmers every available fraction of profit from the pt•odnction of sugar in (L refined state-

said : In moving this motion I do so from a sincere desire to help these people who are engaged in the Rugar industry. Hon. rne1n bers on tbi.; side of the House have oft n been twitted ";th being opposed to the sugar industry, and wanting to kill it, but it is the policy of the members on this side of the House, especially the member,; belonging to the party with which I am associated, to m;•Jist every legitin1ate indu;;;try in every l··gitimate way. That has alway,, been the policy of members on this side of the Rouse, and I maintain, notwithstanding what has been said as to tbe danger the sugar industry at the present time is in, that if it is 1·ightly handled it will provP even rn(1re remunerative and will be capa:Jle of a [jreater amount of pro;:;perity in the future than it h:,s been in tbe past. I maintain that at no time in the history of the sugar industry was it as deserving of snpport aa at the present time. I make that statement notwithstanding the fact that I have 110 less a gentle1nan than the Premier again~t rne. In "Votes and ProL"edings" for the 23rd July of this year, page 2(), I find the following:-

Mr. Cowley, pnrsnant to notice, a~ked the Prime ::\linistcr, is it his intention to reintroduce the Sugar \'Vorks (iuarantec . .-\ .. et Amendment Bill without the prodsion to which exception has been taken by the Imperi~ll Government?

A tslret.-'l'he Government of th~ Commonwealth ·will, it is mHlerst,)od, introduce, ftt an early date, legislation affecting the supply of labour for the sngar industry. Until the nature of this legislation is knmvn. this Go­vernme!1t \Yili Bot be disposed to take any ,tcps that may cnrnmit the State t•> the expenditure required for the erection of any more sng-ar-mills.

I maintain that the previous Pxpenditure which thiii State hns incurred for the expre>s purpose of a~sist.ing the ~ngar industry wa:-:; incurred with the iclea and the avowed aim and object of enabling- that inrhJStry to be carried on by white labour; and the het that tbe supply of coloured Jahour for the industry i.s threatened by the Federal Parliament should make this Govern­n1ent rnore than ever anxious to a'-f'ist that industry ]y-cauoe it will have to be carried on by white labour, It ,hould be the policy of a white Government in a white State to as,ist white pr<lple instead of asr;isting to find work for coloure--1 lJeupJe. I propo.-~e to show, at the out­set, that thP sngar induc-;try can be very prnf:it- · a.bl~· carried on by whit._. rr1~:n, and tha.t therefore the Government t-r the State neea not be afraid to assist them even thong-h the supply of coloured labour i.> threat, ned by the Federal l'arlia­rnent. There are many W<>Y' in which they can assist the sugar induBtry mnch more effectually than by giving it an unlimited supr•ly of biack labour. And here I may 8H·Y I raise rny voice in protest again::-<t t:ho c:~ntiuual J'(-;ferences that have been made in this Parlia"'ent to the knnaka que,tion or to the coloured labour question. That mattr"r ha' henn voluntarily transferred by this Hou"e and by tbe 8tate to tile conllol of the :Federal P;irlianjent, and members are merelY !JUtting thE>ir foot a\!ainst <--1 s~.onH 'lit al! in attcn1p-i~ in~ to dhd with it in this Parlian1ent no\v; <tnd for that re>Json it is a waste of time to allnw it to continue to occupy our attention. The ,.,ugar industry can be '"s·istcd irr many ways. It can be assist<•d vety effectively by a protective tariff,

[AS,;;E?.fBLY.] State Si!gar Rqfiner.IJ.

and I am perfectly ,;a tisfied that the p•·ople of Australia will be willing to pay a little more for their suga~ when they knnw it is grown by white labour. Howner, that is a matter which i' in the hands of the :Federal Parliament. I believe they are prepared to deal with it in a gene­rous way, and I will not di•,cuss it further. There are other ways in which this Parliament can very tff8cbvel)~ assist the .sugar in.:lustry. One of those is by supplying the people who grow sugar vvith cheap land. At pn~sent they have to }Jay enorrrwus prices fnr their la.nd. I may >ay in passing that the principal effect of colourl'd labour i.n the fmgar industry has bePn rather to incrPase the pr:ice of land than to actually a cSiAt Sinall sugar-growers. If the nmt­ter ever r ·m1e;-; up for discw-•,ion in this House; I think 1 sb,.uld be able to proYe tbat contention very eh L1Jr1y. Another way of assisting the in­du<;:try i::; by '-:-upplying thl' ugar-grovv'el'M with cheap money. At pre~cmt they ha,·e to pay a very higL 1)rice for their land ; they have very little- c;pital, -1nd the_v ha\'8 to bol'row n~oney to engage in the industry, and pay an exorbitant pric for it, simply because banks and financial in~titutions--

Hon. A. S. OowLEY: \Vhat do you call a high price?

Mr. GIVERS: "From 8 to 12 per cunt. 1\lr. C ·,LLA!\ : \Vho pays that~ :Mr. GlVENS: I know some sugar-p;anters

personally vv}JO pELy very nParly that anwunt, and I know uthers who are un",ble to get it at alrnust any pric9. I 1naintain that while the State could pro-.:ide n1oney at 4~ or;) lJ8t' ct·nt. it shuuld do tJo, rather than con1pPl those rr18n tn pay :l per cent. more than they have a right to pay. Then the fanners might as:;:;ict thernselves by not going in for an exhau~tiv'.' b~'stmu of cropping·. 1t 1,, \Vell known to en::rybody ;,ybo ha::; "ny kno\v;edgu uf tho s,1gar industry that in son1e of the uldE ,c sugar-growing centres the land it'l DOW to a grL.tt extent exhau..;ted, rrh:tt has been another result of cheap labour. The growms have always rehed un chea.p hbour to help them rather than g·o in for modern methods of cultiYation. \V 1,eu the coloun-:U lahour que~tion i . ..:; settlt~d, the fanner-; will tnrn their attention to better n1ei.hods of cultivation, and in that Wcl:V will help them­selves. To con1e more particularly to the matter I h"ve now in hand, I m.•intnin th:',t the estab­lishment of a State central sugar refinery would help th,s farmer immensely. It would do con· sirlerably more fur him than an unlimited supply of cheap labour, and l lwp• to prove that by relbb!e fh;mes before l sit down. I would like to say in passing that the State has already some £500,000 invested in thE sugar industry, so th;,t evtn from a business point uf view the Government must take some step,c; to see that that 1noney \vill not run auy riHk o:f loss. A11d thP only way to do that effectively is to provide such a complete system as will enable the farmers to produce their sugar entirely by white labour. I stated at the outset that I thought I could show that sugar c,1n be grown profitably by white labour.

Mr. MACKI~TOSH: Did you ever try it? Mr. GIV.EKS: I have here the statement of

a 1nan who h(:l.s triE'd it. HeiR wdl known t~. rne and to the Premier too. I will give a summary of his conclusions, although in the paJ.et· 1 have in my hand he goee thoroughly into the rnatJ er and explains every proce~s of cultivation from the tin1e the ground is cleared until the cane i:-J actually taken off it.

Mr. Tnurm: Is he g-rowing sugar now? iVh. G I V .ENS : The man I speak of is Mr.

Thomas l\lackay, who hlls been a re··ident in the sugar-growing district of Cnirns for a long time.

Hon. A. 8. CowLEY: Is he there now? lVIr. TOLl\fiE: Is l1e growing sngar now? 1\Ir. G IVJ~NS: He owns ougar land now, hut

he is getting too old tn cultivate the [4 p.m.] land himself. He summarises the

matter in this way-CosT 01'' rrtOlJU('TIOX WUE.:'\ ~.\LL ''fHlTE J.JAHOl'lt TS

E:lll'L<JYED.

Cost nf enltiYating, say, 23 acres of plant-cane and 25 acres ratoons :-

Plant Cane.

To co::-t of t:wo ploughings, harrowing and rolling, at £1 10s. per n.crc

To cost of planting at £1 per acre Oultivi~ting and weeding at £2 10s. per acre

Hatou;~ cw·e. Ratoouing 25 acres at £1 per ac1·e

£ 8. d. :J7 10 0

2J 0 0 62 10 0

23 () 0

Total cost of 30 acres

ReturJ;s.

... 150 0 0

25 acres of plant eane producing 20 tons per acre at. say, n~. per ton 225 0 0

25 aeres ratoous vroduciug 16 tons per acre 180 0 0

Gross return Less cc-~t of production

-105 0 0 ... 150 0 0

255 0 0 Deduct for wt-_Lr and tear aud contingencies

10 per cent. 25 10 0

Net profit from 50 acres .. ... £229 10 0 The SECRETARY I<'OR AGRICCLTnm: How long

waR that fur? J\11r. GlVEl{S: :For one year only. ~~he l'R!1~:.\IIL\H: \Vlw cnt. his cane? :\Ir. GI\ E:\:::5: It was cut one year by white

labour. lie goes on to .say~ In taking ~d tons as an avera§!:c per aere for

phnt n ,u", n,ntl lH ton::> for rat ou cane, I think I have acloph:d a, 1air figure £o1· Quven~Jantl. I know plaees Yrhieh prndu·.--:c nParly c]r,uble that; bnt then there arc nth er pla(~t''- wht:re the land is so lutl10YPrishecl hy bad farllliug and cnutimwns croppm.; tlmt much le::;s i~ produced, e~lll~eially in a (lry ~eason. gut land that \Vill only gin· 7 or :-3 tons to the acre is not cane land. That gentle1nan is a practic -J r1ne fanner, and he <-t-,,;;ure'" 111e per'·lHHtl!y that the stat.1nent set ft,rth in the paper I have rf:'ul is i:t true statt'rnent of tbe aclnal results achieved. There is no theon:-~ing about what n1ight be done or \Yhat could be done. It i,, an actual 'ttttement; of what h~L;c; bee-n done, and \ hat the same gentlmnan is prepared to do ag-,dn.

Hon. A. S. CowL,;Y: \Yith white labour only? Mr. G 1 V E:\S : \Vi t h w bite labom only. H. m. A. S. CowL~;:y: He h'<S done it with

\Vhite Jabl)nr and t!n-tt i::; the cost? 1-lr. GIVEKS: Yes. The PHEliiiER: Has he given up sugar­

growing? Mr. GIVE)IS: No; I saw him about six

weeks ago in Sydney, and he told nJt· he was cmning b 1Ck to grow sngar in (lueensland again.

The PRK.\11ER: Hut he gave it. up. Mr. GIVEKS: He did temporarily. It must

be achniLted that he deals ;,vith no generalitiP.~, but he makes the plain staten,ent the~t from 50 acre:;; tlf ordinary cane land he can reap a net profit of £229 10.<. I fancy the Downs farmers would be very glad if they could secure from iiO :JCres a profit of £229 lOR.

.Mr. PAGE'!': \Vhr1t waR the cost of harve~ting? :\1 r. G 1 V l£)1S : .About ;3,;. Gel. or 4s. Mr. PAGET: It is not in the st;;ternent. Mr. G 1 V Et\S : X u, bPc;;use he put,c; down the

value uf the cane produced le's the cost of bar­ve.<ting and the price paid for planting and cultivating. Hon. nwmben.; ou the other side, and the Pre<s which represents them, are con­tinually telling us that the sugar iw.lustry is going to be killed. Members on this side want

State Sugar Rqfiner,y. [29 AUGUST,] State Sugar Refinery. 565

to preserve this valuable industry, aud they are not go;ng t•> allow a calamity of that kind to happen if they can help it. We are perfectly satisfied that the industry can be as·isted and maintained, and the obj;ct of my mution is to give the sugar-growers t:v<~ry ava;lable fraction of profit which can be got out of the industry. In that way only c:m the percons engaged in any indust1·y achieve the full re·.nlt.< of their l~bour, and it Hhoulcl be the business of this House to assist them to attain that end. :Now, we know there is no ,;pecial le:;-islation with regard to the labour C[Uestion in Sew South \Vales, and the sugar·grownrs in that colony ::tre a great deal better off in the way of a ta,riff than we are.

The PREMIER: £3 a ton.

Mr. UIVENS: Yes, about £3 a ton. \Ve have the advant<1.ge, however, of having a more productive climate for the growth of sugar. In this connection, perhaps i~ wonld be well if I quoted from a recogni"ed authority ou the statistics of Queensland- Mr. Coghlan, the New South \V a.les statistician. In hiM " SevEn Colonie' of Austral:.tsia," for the year 18U9·1DOO, he says-

'rhe total value of the s1 gar crop and the a vcrage return per acre in the :Slt!;aX-grmving colonie~ of Ans­trala~ia Will be found below for the yea.r :~::\mv ~onth \Vale", vnlne of cane gTO'Sl1, £R8,51H); avrra~e value per acre, £;j Hl~"<' 6d. Qnecnshmd, va.lue of cane grO\vn, £.329,500, average nllue per acre, £1 10s. Sd. In con­nection '>Vith thL~ prr--~pectM of this illlportant industry, the present dntif, levied on raw sug-al' arc wortllre­corUing. They al'e as follow :-Sew ~onth "\Yales. £:j per ton; Yietoria, £0 pet• ton: Queen :51 and, £3 per t()n; South Au~tralia, £:5 per ton; Xurtlwrn Territory. £3 per ton; Wc~tern J .. nstralia, free; Tasmania, £6 per ton; SewZea1and, £t I:Js.-.1<1. per ton.

Thus you see he makes his calculation on the totnJ value of the sugar, that iB the total price it produces, ::tnd that takes into conoide,·ation the enln.nced value owing to the £3 tariff. That being so, you will find that, even with the tariff given in, the value of thP production in N eV\t· South Wales is £;1 Hk Gd. per acre, and in QLJeensland £~ li\s. Rd., showing that the con. ditions are much better in Qneensbnd than in New South \Vales.

The PHE'Iflli:R : Does sugar-growing pay in New South Waleo?

Mr. GIYENS: I presume it does, or the men engaged in it would not c0ntinue to g1nw sugar.

The Pm:mER: \Vhat profit has been made during the last ten years?

Mr. FousYTH : The sugar.growers will go into dairying.

Mr. GIVENS: I dare say the)' will, if they find 1t pays them better to do so. But the point I wish to n1ake is that, even if sugar~growing does not pay in New South ·wales, that is no reason why it should not pa,y in Queensland, because the conditions are very much more favourable in Queensland than in New 8outh \Vales. 'rherefnre I have no sympathy \\'ith those people who say that the sugar industry is in danger in <.llleensland, bec:tuse I believe Queensland <'m compete most successfully with New South \Vales; and yet we do not find that in New South \Vales they are asking for speeial legislation for the purpose of providing special labour fnr this industry.

Mr. FORSY1'H: They are going ouu of the cultivation of sugar altogether.

Mr. GIVENS : They have not gone out of it so far, and I would ask what special legislation has been introdnc~d for tb~ purpose of supplying labonr? And wlnle on th1s subject I may refer to Dr. l\iaxwcll's report. ·what do vJe find there? Dr. l\1axwell takes the total coloured population in the sugar districts of :i'\ew South vVales, and he assumes that every one of them

js 'Vlorking in the sugar industry, which is a fallacious as'·nmption, and he compares those people with the total number of kanakas eng::tged in (~ueen,land, altogether ignoring the ±act that otht•r aliens besides kanakas are engaged in the sugar industry in Queensland. \Yhen we co·me to the discussion of Dr. :Uaxwell's report I am quite willing to further enlarge> upon that subject and sh.1w the fallacy of his "'rgument.

The PREMIEH : l<'or every one coloured man working at the industry in New South '\Vales there are two in Queensland.

Mr. CHVEXS : At all events Dr. Maxwell has taken an entirely fallacious foundation for hiH conclusions in that connection.

Mr. 'I'URLEY: He ho _. left out all the .Taps engaged in the indutitry in Queensland.

Mr. GIVENS: Now, it may hP asked has the State any business to interfere With private enterprise a8 applied to the sugar industry? But io it !Jot a legitimate thin" for tbe State to establish 1, sugar refinery for the benefit of its people? I do not think ::tny hon. gentleman on the opposite sid~, or in fact on any side, will at all disagree with th•• pn•.1.mble of the rnotion I have rnoved. That is to say, the sugar indnstry is of zreat irnportance to t.his State, and aiso the Scate has already invested money in connection with the industry, and I think that hon. members on both sides of the House will ageee that, having gone so fat·, the State should go into the business in this way and provide for its people a 1-)tate central re­finery, which will ensure to the growerB every a\ .1ilable fraction of profit. I contend that it is the duty of the Stccte to do the very best possible in the intere8t" of the people of the State, and to en,ure that they shall carry on the indusLry in which they are engaged under such conditi1•llS as vdll enable thmn to n1ake the utr-1ost pc>ssible out of it. I look Uf'On tbe Government of the conntry us just like the directors of a big company; and it is undoubtedly the duty of the directors of a big company to do every­thing which will rnake that compRny wore profitable, and t.hat will give the hc,t outlet for the prod ne'' of Jts shareholder~. If that be so, I contenrl that it is equally the duty of :Yiinisters entrusted with the govemment of the country to do everything pos·:ible to ensure to the shareholders-that is the citizens of the country-the most favoun>ble condithns, and to do everything to make those citizens as pros­perous and wealthy as possible. In this con­nectirm I would like to point out that we have already gone into business in a large way in Queensland. \Ve own a great n1any railways} which in other piace•' perhap,; would be regarded as an unwarrantable interference with private entetprise; We' own the post and telegraph offices, and we own several other things. \Ve ha Ye advanced money to the central sugar mills to the extent of £500,000, and I may say, in passin!;,f, that that has been an enorn1ou.~, advan­tage t~ the small grl)wers, as it has given thPm a larger ]ll'ice for their cane than they could poseibly hooYe receiYed from private. millowne:s. As a matter of fact, in the Cmrns diStnct to·rlay the people who are "'pplying the cen­tral mill are getting from b. to ls. Gd. per ton more for their c,me than the growers who are suppl~,ing the privately-owned mill. Having gone that length, w.· should have no hesitation in going fnrther. \Ve have gone half. way, why not go the v;hole way? \Ve have gone to the extent of enabling the sugar farmers to produce raw sugar, aJnri it L; only anothBr step to provide them with the mean .. to produce refilled sugar and place it on th8 market. I would like to quote, in this connection, to R~ow the desirability of the State interfering in thmgs of this kind, and undertaking enterprise·: of this

566 State Sugar Rifiaer,y. [ASSEMBLY.] State Sugar R~jiner,y.

nature, the opinion expressed by the Premier of New Zealand. Speo.king on the Address in Heply this year-page 91 of the New Zmcland HqnBard--I>.lr. Seddon nid-

'l'he land is there, anU our policy should be that men, women, and children should live on it; and that closer settlement is demandecl, and w,,; shoulcl mF ~t that demtLmt in a fair and e(1nitable mauner. 'l'llCn 1.ve should have to have Government steamers. It i~ plain to me-and it is all in thi~ Statement-it is as plain to me as noonday, that if we have~ to meet the re(lUire­ments of the 1}eople or the colony. and place the !Jl'O­dncer:s of the colony in a proper po~ition, we mut';t have ~teatners that will carry onr lJl'Oductti to the v1.rious port~ of the world. \re can afford to build or purchase steamers; and we c:tn get our money as elleaply as any shipbuilding company in the \VOrld. I say tlle~e ships can be manned and maintainecl by the colony C(lllally as 1vell as they ean by private enterprise; and if you cfl.rry yonr produce at the lowc...~t possible rates, aiding and as~i.sting your raihvays on the land, tbe result will be that yonr JH'odncer.s will be masters of the situation, in ,tead of'. a:-; at the present time, bdng !irst under the thun1hs of the shipping rings, andseconU!yiu the hands of the middlemen. Thou, there is no provision made at the present time for meeting the nece..:sities when our produce gets to London anfl the other markets ; and., as :r sa.W here last ~et'!sion, it wonld be money ,yell spent to l"tablisil {'ool stores at the Cape, and itvwould be a wise and judicious expell{liiure to meet the require­ments in the HI Other eountry and to have .\ e\'.'" Zealand produco put before the consumers of the old wm·ld on such terms and conditions as will ao justice to our prodncL'rs. Sir, I say it followt'! as a uatural consef1nence. \1-e have laid dmvn the foundation. "-o put people on the land. \Ve goivc facilities by roads and by railways. "\Ye g-ive the setEers cheap money. 1Ve do all that is possible to promote settlement and to increa'- ,~ the number of proclncd'S. Our exports for last year are a record for the colony. But I say, whilst you are doing all this, you must Jet yonr produeer~; have the benefit of their toil. You must allow the st~~te to pro1it by what you hav8 done at home, a.nd the only way you Cftll do that iH to break down these monopolies and see that your producers get justice abroad.

It would please me infinitely if I could hear a similar st.-tement made by the leader of our Government. I would be the first to hail with delight such an intimation from the bon. gentle­man. ::\Ir. Seddon not only believe,: that it is a good thing to settle peopie on the land, but he also believes that it is a good thing to ensure that, when they are settled on the land, they shall be able to make a living, "nd to ensure that they ,hall bt' rescued from the h,·nds of the middl:'man. , AI! that I am attempting to do by tins rnot1on Is to rescue our sugar produeers from the hands of the middleman, "nd to enable them to put their product in a refined state on the markets of the Commonwealth, or on the markets of the 'Yor!d, if need be. J>.lr. Seddon, in the speech I ha,·e just quoted, eaid that they ca,nnot have that profit which they could otherwise expect unless they break down those monopolies. I believe it is "-bsolutely true that monopolies exJSt solely for the benefit of thmr shareholders. Now, do not let 1ne be InisunderRtood. I mn not blaming th<J mont'polies for that in any wav. It 1s thmr busmess to make the most theY can and they will fight very hard, I dare say, against any innovation which will deprive them of their profits; but we, as the Parliament of Queens· land, are not concerned with that. '\Ve have also to look out for the interests of our share· holders-who ,,,re the citi7;ens of the State-and to protect them in every possible way ; and I believe we can only make them really prosperous by ensuring the return to them of every avail· able fraction of profit from their produce. I believe that, having gone half-way, and arl­vanced the mo_ney to enable the sugar·growers to produce sugar m the raw state, we should go a step farther, and, by establishing a State refinery, prevent the bulk of the profits ;;oing into the pockets of a private monopoly. It cannot be gainsaid that the sugar prodncers of this colony

are practically in the hands of a monopuly; and it also cannot be gainsaid that tbat monopoly makes enormous profits. It may not be credited that for clettring the land, planting the cane, for keeping the ground cultivated, and running all the risk of bad seasons, bush fires, and every other risk that can be imagined, for cutting and harn--ting the cane, laying down the tram­ways for its convey .•. nce to the mills, and then crushing it and producing it in the raw state, and pr.cctically fit for u'e-it will hardly be credited, I say, the sugar-grower gets only 55~ per cent. of the total market value of the sugar, and that, for the mere prccess of refining it and putting it on the market, the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company grab 44~ per cent. It will hardly be credited that such an abominable result could accrue, or that the Government would sit coolly by and allow the people to groan under it ; but I think I shall be able to prove that that is the actual state of the case. I ha\'8 in my htwd the B1·is~ane Courier of :Friday, 1/th May, 1901, and on page G there is a letter which is a cop~- ot the offer made by the Colonial Sugar Refinery Com­pany to the central mills for the purchase of their crops for the current year. 'rhis is a por­tion of that letter, which I will read-

DK\.R SJn.,~The following are the terms upon which I am now able to advise yon that we are prepared to purchase your output of sugar during the coming season:-

1. £8 ver ton f.o.b., for 88 net titre sugar, plus an extra allowance of 7s. 6d. per ton, with the addition of lSs. in the £ of anv advance we may establish in our t:'iClling r;ttes of~\'o. l refined sugar over an average of £14 10s. 111 Sydney, 3lelbournc. Auckland, antl Adelaide, and £14· in Brisbane; or,

2. LD 5s. per ton f.o.b., for 88 net titre sugar, plus an extra allow:mee of 7s. 6d. per ton, irrespective of the prices we may obtam for our refined products in the variou~ centres enumerated above. That letter is signed "E. \V. Knox, general manager." Thus we see that when refined sugar is £14 10s. per ton in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Auckland, the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company only give the central mills £8 a ton for it.

The SECRETARY }'OR AGlliCuLTURE : A bonus also.

Mr. GIVEKS : They do not give them bonuses on those prices; it is only when t.he prices exceed £14 10s. a ton that they give a bonus, and then it is only a bonus of 18s. in the £, so that the Colonial Sugar Hefinery Company make a profit of 2s. in the £ on the increased profit which should go to the grower.

The l:'HEMIER: They gave £10 a ton last year. Mr. G IVE:NS : I am surprised at the Premier

not seeing that the figures I have quoted are correct. And even if they gave £10 a ton last year-it was only £!) 1\Js. in most cases-then Dr. 1'Ylaxwell is wrong in his report. But putting it at £10 a ton, in round figures, how much did the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company get for the refined sugar on the market.

The PRE1IIER: How much? Mr. GIVEN'S: When they gave the central

mills £2 per ton more than they agreed to pay­when the price was over £14 lOs. a ton-they must have received over that £2 themselves. I think the hon. gentleman can see that. The basis of their offer is 18s. for every £1 they receive over £14 10s. a ton. At the lower price the company makes an enormous profit and could afford to give the whole of the 20s. hack to the grower. When the price goes above £14 10s. a ton, the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company makes a further profit of 2s. in the £. I am quoting now from the figures of those who are opposed to me in this contention; I am giving their own facts ; and I hope that will satisfy them. To show that the Colonial Sugar Hefinery

Stcde Sugar Rfjinery. [29 AUGUST.] State Sngar Rfjinery. 567

Company makes even more than the percentage of profit I have sttttecl out of what t.hey receive for the refined sngar as their share, I will quote from page 12 of Dr. Maxwel!' .. report. I have stat· d that the company receive 441, per cent. of the total cost of the reiinetl sugar placed on the market, while the grower, who has to nmnufactur~ the sugar and supply it to the company m a raw state, and bas to do all the work, only gLt3 55~ v1 r cent. The'" are the figures for the last six y~ars :-

Yearc:. Value of "Raws." "Reflnec1s."

Value of DiffeTence.

~-- -----1----1

1S9.i 1896 l897 1898 1889 19UO

£ s. d. £ s. cl. £ 8. d. 9 9 s 16 s ot s 16 3c

. .. i 9 ~ 17 7 8 7 18 3-. R 18 16 6 H 7 7 81

8 ll 0-k- 15 8 8- () 9 7¥ ::: i f) -:t 10- 1.5 8 i; , G :1 9~-.. 1 9 19 0 16 4 5 ~ o 5

Average .. i£95_5_ £16 -3-7j£c 10 1-0-

I would like to make my acknowledgments to the hon. HH:mber for Brisbane North, Mr. Forrest, to whose courteey I am indebted for the pos,ession of this official copy. The 1Jalance-sheet state~ that the profits m3de for the htclf-year ending 31st March, 1901, aft.er

providing for intere~t and other [·1'30 p.m.] charges, amounted to £92,b015s. Sd.

Th~1t provides for interest on a con­siderable amount of debentures, which mu><t be regarded as profits. The <eompany had £9:!,000 available as profits, but that does not represent the total profits.

1\Ir. FoRSY1'H : The debenture interest must be paid.

J\Ir. GIVENS: YH, but the debenture interest was also earned out of the prolits of refining sugar .

An HOXOCRABL~ 1\1E1fllRR: That is capital. :\Ir. GIVl,N8: Nothing of the kind. If I

have £;),000 of my own and I borrow £5,000, and as a result of my operations I have to pay interest, on that £5,000, and at the saue time air, able to pay handsome dividends, thrit does not alter the fact that the interest I have to pay for

I think £6 5s. 5d. is altogether too large a J<ro- the money borrowed was made out of the profits. portion for the sugar producers to be deprived cf :\Ir. I<'oRSY'l'H: J'\o one denies that. for the mere refining of the sugar. It must be ::\1r. G IV:El';l:) : The hon. gentleman denied remembered that the grower not only has to that. cultimte the land, to grow, harvest, ·1.nd mill the l\Ir. FonsYTH: Ko; he did not. cane, but he has to produce the sugar in a raw :\1r. G IVE2'{S: It appears that hon. gentle-state-practically in a state almost fit for the men oppo,ite dn not like theFe facT'l; we have to market, and he then h>ts tc submit to a loss of take them to school to te:wh them. In addition £6 iis. 5d. for the mere refining of the sugar. I to the £9:1,000, the company h 1d available rn<'intain that it would be a wise and beneficial £91,633 lls. Sd., leaving av:tilable £1815,234 17s. policy on the part of the State to undertake to 4d.; and every farthing of the £;91,000 could en~ure that the producer should get the whole of be put down to profit The total amount thot av:>ilable profit. paid in dividends depenc1s very brg-ely on

lVfr. ,TACKSOX: R~fining mu"t cost something. the profits made; but, as I haY shown, ~lr. G IVEXS: I do not for a moment say the sum I ha,·e mentioned does not repre-

that the refining does not cost somethir,g-, but it sent the total profit m: de, bee mse the does not cost an~·thing like that. The Colonial interec,; paid on debentnreo also came out of Sngar Refinery Company get their sugar from prolits. I have contended all along, when the wharfs, whne they accept it f.o.b.-they get speaking on this ~ubject, that the amount men-it C~\rried for Ds. Gd. a ton to their several tinned does not represent the true profits of the refincrie;, And how much does it cost them to company, and I find that my contention is refine it? It ccst8 them nothing compared to the borne out by this balance-sheet. The total enormous profit they derive. It may be con- profits made· are very large, and the total divi-tended that sugar loses a good deal by the proce•cs den do paid are >tlso very larg-e, allwunting to of refining, that is, that a ton of sugar will not over £180,000 per annmn. This company hn.s ~,e ne,arl~ tt ton ofm~ugar when it is refin:ecl. properties in all the States, and has a)so nut LnaL lH not ~o. .Lne sugar they a.re pay1ng properties in Fiji and elsewhere; ,-,nd I nlain-thesc rates for is 88 net titre sugar, and in the tain that the value of all their propertiP' as refined s! ate it is never above 92 or !13, so there 1 shown in their b>Jolance-sheet is only a tic­is onl;· 2 or 3 per cent. lost in refining. titious value. It is just the same with the

The SECRR'£ARY POR AGHICULTURR: Four or 1 balance-sheet of a mining- company. It is quite five, according to those figures. 1 a cmnmon occurrence to under~va.lue properties

JI.Ir. GIVENS: That is only the pure't sngar · in this way. A mining conmany, in striking a -Ko. 1 sugar-that they get up to that high balance between profit and loss, pnts down the state. i-\.nd even the 2 or 3 per cent. lost in value of their propertv at a merely nominal refining is not all lost, because the bv-proclucts fignre, although it may be worth half ~ million. are worth a great de:;] of money too. But the It is just the same with the Colomal Sugar profits which are made from refining sugar are ltefinery Company. In th<·ir.ba.lance-sheet they not problematical at all. \Ve have the state- pm clown the value of their propertrcs at a ment of the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company nominalligure. 1foreover, the company added which carriu on what is practically' a monopoly to the vtelue of their prt>perty by bnying new of sugar rrrining in Australia, to go upon. propertie8, and no m1e can den:~"~ th..tt these new

lVlr. :FoRSYTH: There is :i\1illaf[uin. properties were bou;_~ht, not out of capite,], but :i\Ir. GIVKNi::l : :i\lillaquin is a very small ont of profits. Sonw years ag-o this company had

refinery. At its best it could only refine 600 de hen cures worth £500,000, and they gradl'ally ton.; a week. reduced these debentures out of pro{it~in

~Hr. :FoRsrrH : That is a big item. aclrlition to paying inter_ st on them-to £:lGD,OOO. Mr. GIVEXS: It is not a big item. But That shows that the company has p:11d off

when you have two comprtnies thev can very £:l31, 000 in regard to these d bentures-nearly easily form a combination, and I think that in half the amount of them. Every shilling of this matter the Colonial Sugar Refinery Corn- that was paid out of profits. Not only have pany is far too powerful for the small comneti- they added to the value d their properties, hut tion of IVIillaquin refinery to affect it verv much, they have also added to their capital by reclucing and J don't think it count" for very mnch. I their indebtedness to the extent of £231,000. hold in my hand a cnpy of the balance-sheet of \Ve "!so find, according to their b<tlance-sheet, the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company for the that they have a reserve fund of £100,000, and a present year, \Ssued on the 31st lVlarch, 1901, and reserve for the ef!ualisation of di videndti amounting

568 State Sugal' R~jillery. IASSEMBLY.J State Sugar Rtjinrr?J·

to £1()5,000. ·where did they g-et the money for the equalisation of dividends? Will anyone say it :va~ got out of capital ?

'l'heSJiCRETAl\Y FOH Pt:BLIO LANDS: Of CJurse it was.

1Ir. GIV_ET\~S: The hc.n. gent.lernan i::; like a big haby in discussing this matter. (I,;.ughter.) \v ill the bon. gentleman make the statement that the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company would go outside the law and P"Y dividends out of capital?

The SEORE'L\RY FOH PcnLIC LAND~ : \Vhy ask such 8., que ,t;ion?

The PRmnmH: Plenty of people pay dividends out of cauital.

Mr. GIVEKS: Then it is against the law, and they ought to be puni"hed. There is no doubt that the company incn• -sed the value of their propertie·; out of profit, and they provided funds of various kinds out of profit. \V e can r<ee ul! this in the balance·sheet, which will prove that my statements are correct. All this goes t~ show that the business of refining results In enormous profits.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICFL'l'URE : It all depends on how much brains is mixed up with it.

Mr. G IVEKS : The Mini··t•T practically ~tates that the Colonial Sug><r ltefinnn· Company, m order to mal;e vrofih out of the mdustry, grind into the sugar tb br_,jns of their unfortu­nate employ('"'· (Laughter.) \Vel!, I have not Inade any ~uch f{rave charge, and under the pre~ent conclitions I say that the Colonial Sugar Refinery Cornpany are entirely free from bl:nne in making whnt vrofits they can. I don't blame them for that at rrll, for it is the duty t>f the directors to do the best thing tht y can i"or their shareholders. But it i the businc,g of the State to do the R--tnle for its citizens. I think it is desir,-tble to reHcue the prodncers frotn the hnnds of the rniddL rnen-frorr1 tbe Inonopoli,,ts~-and I say that \vr should uot >.Ilow onr citizenR to be fleeced by the people in X ew Sout.h \V ales, bPcause rno~t nf thl.~~ con1panv's rnoL :·y goe1-i to X ew South \Vales. The Hecretary for ..--\!d;Ticulture contends that it require" a g-rut de ,tluf brains to n1arnage a gnnt bu:-.inesN like thi!-.5.

The~ SECRETARY I' OR AGRICCLTUHE : Yes, sue~ ce.">fully.

lVIr. G l.VEXS: There is !l') doubt of that. But has not_ the li-ove~n1nent of Queenslnnd got as much brams at thelr disposal as the Coloni"l Sl~~·ar l~,efinery Cornp&ny?

lhe SJWHE'l'AU't FOH AGRICFLTTJm~: I don't know that th.cv have.

Mr. GIVEKS: Tben it follows that they are incrnn petent. I al Tivayf.l like to cret an hone Jt opinion fron1 the Niini~ter for ~·-\.gr~ulture.

The SECRr:l'ARY FOH AGIUCCL'!'CRE: I will let your assertion go.

;\lr. GIVEKS : The shareholders in the Colonial Rug Lr R.efinery Company never intrr~ fere in ·che bnsinns at all. They have got hold of good managers, and they entrust their bnsi­nestl to their managerR.

An Ho"n<:JL1BLE ::'IIE"Blc":: JYit-. Knox is de 1d. JJir. G fY-ENS: The business will go on just

the -ame although be i- de,.d. 1'\o businePs or no GoYern1nent- depends <~n one m:tn. The conntry will get on just the ,·ltne although its g-reat men are all dead.

The SEO[(ET.\RY FUH AGRICCLTGI<E: \Ve beain at Ia.st to think von are rnortal. c

Mr. G l YENS : I do not pr. tend to be more thP~n a.n or(lin~ny every-dny n1urtal. I do not claun k be such re tin-pot g·od a" the Secretary for Agncultme. I think I have shown bcts--

1\Ir. ]'O!tHY'l'H : ! :;l.ir. G l VE);S : do not know what facts

wonld suit the hem. member for CarpentariB. I have quoted from the report of Dr. l\'Iaxwell

and from the balance-sheet of the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company. \Vhen it. comes to cornmis­sit>n agents I have no sympathy with them .. I want to rescue the sugal··producers fron1 cmnmis­sion agents and r.aiddle.11en generally.

]\Jr . .FoRSl'TH : ·who is going to sell the sugar? :\It'. G l V .ENS : There is no necessity to run

round the marh looking for peo!Jle to buy it. If you vut a first-class Rugar on the market, you will have anv amount of peoplte ready to buy it as long as you are willing to sell at a reasonable rate.

The Prm,nEH: All members of Parliament would buy and ,,dl "ugar then. (Laughter.) .

Mr. G IV .EKS: It is perfeci.ly :tstoundmg what a storm i, raiced on the other side when a pr• ·p >Sal of this. kind is made to rescue people from a monop,Jy, md to a'st1l'e them that they will have all the profits of their industry for them<elves. How differently the Premier of Kew z, dand epoke when he said it was the dutv of the State, not only to settle people on the ·land, but to do something more.

J'.Ir. }'oRSl'TH : \Vhy don't you include all indw~trit"'S?

~.Ir. GIVEXS: There is not a single business in the colony that I would not be prepared to sup­port in the same way. Hon. n1ember~ on tue other :::;ide h~Lve sa.id that we on this s1de \~'ant to refonn e1 Erything at once, but when ~come along wi(h :-!~ rno:lerate prolJoc~al to ass1:-;t one industry, I arn n1et by the inconsistent cry of the hon. n1e1nber for Uarpentaria, '' \Yh.v- d\)n't yon include all indu _;tries?"

Mr. :E'mmYTH: Anc! why not? :\Ir. GIVE;'\8: \V ell, to use a homely saying,

you must creep befnre you can w ;lk, and you rr1nst do one thing at a timf~. I rnust confess that I am doing one very foolish thing, ~.1d that is trying tn n1ake any itnpressio~ nn the hnn. lnerrJber for C:~qJ,~ntarla, who lS entrenched behind an ]mpregn::tble fortrc~s of ignorrtnce and p~:ejudice so that it is im}Jo~:;ible to assail him. I want to point out how this scheme will ben<;fit the ::mgar-gru\Vel.;; at the present time. I nwln­taln that of the £U 5s. :id. difference lJrt\veen the price of raw and refined .sug·ar which obtained last year in the markets of Australnsia, a very lar"e prt:Jportion is represented hy pndits which are~ collared by the Colonial Sugar Ilefin,·ry Com­P<>ny. I believe that fully one-half, i~1 fact mo~e than one·half, of t.hat dlil'erence m pnce Js lwa!l­abli to the Colonial Sngur I-tetinery Cornprtny for dist-ribution among their ~hareholder.'3 by way of profit. I am JWrfectly certain tbat more than.,£;{ a ton is available for them in that way. See what it would me.m for the sugar-farmers if they could get £3 a ton nwre for their sugar. }~ven if you put it down as low ae. £2 a ton more for their sugar, Ree v..hat that \'\"'ould rnean to the farrners. I think it will not be denied that the avetage prochwtion of ~mgar in Queensland is at l_east 1~ tons per acre. As a matter of fact, Dr. Maxwell, in his report, .says that last year the average was 1·5'1 tons per aci·e, which is slightly over l~ ton; to the acre, and we kuow that last vcar \vas not a;:, Jod year for the industry. At o\:,2 a ton clear pn;fit available to the sugar-grower that v·ould mean that sugar-growers w .mld get another £3 per acre for their sug-·tr ""'Op,, and lmainl•1in tlHtt £3 pPr acre, in addition to \vhat they ree::nve at the present time, would be infinitely better f,·r them than a.ny legislation allowing them alien coloured labour. I· am uerfectly satisfied tbat, if the State undertookthi.< beneficent system wbich I am no\v aclroc ,.tin£!, t!Je sugar indu~try would bt; one of the m<mt p;ofitaltle agricultural irdustries in the Scate, and tba~ it would a~sist largely in de­Ye}opinO" all our N ortbern co~st lands. and Hettle a large po[mlation on the soil. In di~cns~ingthisrnat­te" with the hon. member for North 1:\risbane a day or so ago he made the joeuhtr remark that in

State Sugwr Rifine!:IJ· [29 AUGUST.] State Sugar RifineJ'.Y· 569

adopting this proposition the GoYernment would be induced to buy out the 1'.lillaquin refinery. I am not advocating anything of the kind at all. If the Governrnent go in for. erecting a sugar refinery to be conducted by the State I hope they will not go in for any Siocond-hand plant, but that they will make up their minds tu have a ~ea! up-to-rlate plant. And according to the best mformation I ca.n get a real up-to-date plant which wonld refine from 800 to 1,000 tons of sur:ar per week would cost from .£200,000 to £2;)0,000. lt might be argned why Jhould the Govern:ment und~rtake snch an enorrnous expenditure as that? In reply I would reopect­fully "ubmit that the House has already under­taken expenditure qnit~ as larg-e for the purpose of settling pe•lple on the htnil. It has speut enor­mous sums of money in buying- back estatf'' for the purpose of settling people ;m the land, and I maintain that if the Government go in for the beneficent system which I am now advocating, it would result m an enormously increased settle­ment on the rich c'>ast buds from Bundaherg up to Cc~pe York. Therefore I advocate that if they are going in for a plant they should go in for a thoroughly up-to-elate plltnt. I do not want a r~finery to be pl,mtecl down in my electorate or m any other sugar electorate. If this system JS adopter! by the Government, as I hope it will be, I hold that they will have not only to refine the sugar, but aho to place it on the market and to place it on the market advanbgeomly 'they n1ust bave their refinery situated in the comlner­cial capital of the 8tate. l>\n· tlcat reason I think they should not touch the :\Iillaquin refinery or any other refinery, but that th<y slFmld establish a bran new up-to-date refinery in t,be cmnmer­cial capital, and go in for the bnoiness in a proper busine:-·j-like \vav.

The Pm<mmR : "Where is the commercial capital?

211r. GIVE0l"S: The commercial capital of this State, _[ take it, icl Brisbane. If a HUgar refinery is establbhed-ancl I hope I h~ve been able to convince hon. n1en1bers opposite tha.t it ought to be establislw::!-I think Brisbane is the right pla~e to establish it in, because, as I h;we sa_id before, in addition to refining ;,,ugar, it wrll be necess,cry tn put the sn,;ar on the market, cmcl ycu can only do tha.t to the be,,t advcntage by having th~ refinerv situ­ated in the commercial capital. I hope that thJs motion will be fully discussed-! have no desire to burke di,cussion upon it in any way-I hope it •.vill be fnlly discussed, and that we shall be able to get a definite ex­pression of opinion upon it. I hope we shall not be dragged a way by any side is me" nor by any amendments which will tend to emasculate the motion. I have mnved this motion in the very best; intere.;ts, as I conceive them to be, of the sugar-growers in this State. I thmk it will tend to enorrnouslv: increase the profits of those gentlemen if my icfea is adopted. It seems to me that that is incontrovertible because by its means the growers will not hav~ to be satisfied with small profits, but will be a:,sured of the whole of the profits of the industry. The very best system you e;an adupt in connec­tion with any industry is a system of this kind which will insure to the prorlucers every availabl~ fraction of profit. I desire to express my fullest sympathy with the r•eople who are eniac;ed in the ,;ugar industry. I know tlJat very ofteiJ they have a hard battle to fight against the difficulties which they have to encounter. :viany of them are people \o he, have taken up land at a very high rental, and we know that sometimes not only have they to pay high rentals, but they ha ,·e t.o conten•l ag3.inst bad seasons ; and not rmly that, many of them are poor people, and very often have to pay heavy sums for interest on the

money which they have had to borrow tn enable then1 to engage in the industry. }'or these reasons I hold that it is essential that no further burdens should he placed npon them, and that the difficulties under which they now labonr should be removed. I think that the burden of having- to pay aboUL 44 per cent. of the total value of the refined sugar into the hands of the middlemen, i-; a burden that they should not be asked to pay, and I believe the only people who can come to their rescue is the State. I hope that this motion will meet with a sympathetic reception. I shalllw prepared to give any further information that m"~· be required if it be in my posse.:=;sion. I thank h 11. ffil""lnbers for the court~ous way in which they h.we listened to me, and I hope tha.t before tL close of the ,es·.ion, when the motion shall h "e been fully di&cnssed, a symp ,tbetic HoJuse will accord to the sugar­growers the relief I am asking for them. I may state that the motion has the thorough approval of several fanner.s' association.-., in the sugar­growing districts, and at a later stage I shall be able to read a letter, conveying that approYal to the House. I may ,d.so add that the idea was discus .. ed at the last farmero' conference at Bun­daberg, and it was received with a great deal of favour there. l bope the hon. gentlemen oppo­site, who I dare say have the interests of the sugar-growers at heart in the san1e \\ ,ty as I have, will be sympathetic to this motion, and accord it a kind reception.

HoxouRABL>; l\IE;umms : Hear, hear! <, The PRE.YIIEK (Hon. R. I'hilp, Towm il/e): I am Yery gL,d indeed th11t the member for Cairns has ::truck one note which I think every member of this House will be in accord with. \V e all deeply sympathise with the sugar­growers, but we do not all ag-ree a; to the best method of assisting them. I think it wonld be madness on the part of this State at the present time to embark any further sums in the sugar indu;:,lry.

iYIEi\JBEHS on the G,lvernment side : Hear, her>r!

The PRF:~IIER: The membLr for Cairns coolly comes along and asks that we should snend .£250,000 to erect a sugar refinery in Bris­b~ane, capable of refining 1,060 tons of sugar per week. \Yhy, in a few years' time, it is just pos­sible we may have no sugar in Queensland to refine.

l\lr. HEm : Why? J\1r. LESI:\A : Becanse the niggers have to go. 'fhe PREMIER: During the last thirty or

thirty-fiye years we have been engaged in the production of suga.r, and during the whole of that time we have h>td members in the House holding opinions like the hon. member for Cairns, and like the hon. gentleman sitting now in the Senate, tbe late member for 0r orth Rockharnpton, J\Ir, Stewart, and we have also had members in this House holding other opinions. But during tbe whole of that time the sugar industry has been carried on with the assistance of coloured labonr almos~ entirely, though there be a few exceptions. I have known of a gentle­man inside this House, who is also a .i'IIinister of the Crown, who attempted to grow sugar on the Logan--a very te1nperate clirnate­without the assistance of coloured labour, and I think in the third season that hon. g<mtleman hud to give np his business. He Ltiled signally, and that has been the f'<perience of everyone who has tried to cultivate sugar without the assistance of a small percentage of coloured labour. The hon. member for Cairns it;stanced the case of l\.Ir. Thos .. Mackay. 1'\ow, I have known 2\Ir. l\.1ackay very well, and I do not think he would "'"-ert that he has cultivated sngar solely with white labour.

Mr. Grn;Ns: Yes.

570 State Sugar Rrjinn:y. [ASSEJYIBLY.]

The PRE:YHER : No ; ::\1r. Mackay leased most of his land to Chinamen. (Laughter.)

JVIr. GrvE~S: He never had a Chinaman on his land in his life.

The PHEMIER: Well, some time ago Mr. ::\Iack·v gave evidence before the

[5 p.m.] Sufiar Commission. He saYs he has 320 acre" of land at Cairns. He

was asked~ \Vhat labour do you employ? ~Iostl)' wl1itc men. ·what wages do yon pay them~ I han~ a man at £90

a year, au<l have to tind him. He is married. Uoes hi~ \vit'e tlo anything? Ye~; she eO•Jks and he

works on the fann. Have yon any other labonr bc-,i.de'l that~ Tes;

occasionally I have other labour. I have a ChinY.man now.

Altogether do you work your selection by \Vhite labour'-' .:\1ostly: sometimes I employ ~L Chinaman.

And the result ~') far ::-~atisties you? I am not per­fect!~· satisfiell, bnt still I consider it )Jayable.

* * As you are mvare, this eommbsion is appointed to

iind out if there is any way by which the sngm·industry and tro1leal agricnltnrt· generally can be as.sisted or encouraged. Can you 0tier us any suggestion \V hereby your agricultural pursuits can be imvroved? 'Yell, it could be improved if I could get reasonable laUour. The wnges I :un vayilig are higher than almost any other part of the world.

\.V hen yon say reasonalJle labour, do you mean white labour~ I could atfor(l to give a good number of white men £40 rL year and rations.

* * * Js any of your land cultivated by Chinese? Yes; the

Chinese have 20 acres of my land.

* Do you find the climate affect the health ot Yourself and other :f~uroputns at all? I have been in ::-lorthern QuePuslan<l for seyentcen years and nine years in Cairns. The climate is good. but I eannot do the same amount of work that I eoulcl in the ~outh, aud the men 1 employ cannot. Even the horses cannot do the same amount of work.

Have you any objection to tell us what the Chinmuen pay as rent for your land? The~r pay nmv £1 per aere per annum. hut I do not force them. J1 thev have a bad yrar 1 clo not prt ;;;s them. I consider ihat they (".lnnot make it pay the l'ent in my district.

* * I::. it good agricultural land [}Ir. ::\Iac1Glv's selec-

tion]~ It \vas the very best in the diStrict. I picked it ont nine years ago. I had pretty well the pick of the whole inlet.. fJ..'hcre js one thing against it. lt is strong land. and nothing will do bctl..:r thn_n sugm·.canc. l.Ve have very heavy rains at tim('l. \fe luul 00 inches in one week. Xothiug will stand that 0xccpt sugrtr-Cill1( .

If there was a central uull i.n this di~trirt would von then put your land under cultivation for sugar? tes; I wonlt.l commence and grow cane and sell it at 5s. a ton .. if I eould '·,011 it on the ground. I would very soon have all my laud under cane.

* 1Yhat labour have you now besidf"' thi.s 1narried couple? At the pre~ent time a Chinaman. rrhe -..veek before laRt I had a ploughman, and as soon as he left I got iu a Chinaman.

Mr. G!VENS: That was behre Mackay ever started to grow a stick of sugar. He had no experience at all at that time.

The PREMIER: If that i" not experience, I do not know what experience is. He talks about growing and selling cane at 5s. B ton. He could not grow it now at His. a ton. He has been growing cane ever since the J\Iulgrave mill was instituted; that is five yeare. Say that for one year he cut his cane with white labour, he must have cut it the other four by coloured labour. That is all that is asked for on this side of the House~that there must be coloured labour to cut the cane. Otherwise the cane would not be cut ; it would l>e left on the ground.

Mr. GrvENS : \Vhat are you going to do with coloured labour the other months of the year?

The PREMUDR: There is trashing, hoeing, and a great many other things to be done in the field. There are two or three hon. members on this

side of the House who are far better qualified to speak on this subject than I am, or even the hon. rnentber for CairnR~men who have had practical experience of it .. '\Vhat astonishes me is that if men can make £4 lls. per acre out of cane grow­ing, and if those who refine the sugar can make £6 a ton, why more people do not go into the business. 1\Ir. Mackay believes he has the finest piece of land in the Cairns district. I do not think that out of all his 320 acres he has ever netted £4 lls. per acre.

JVIr. G!VENS : He has done very well. The PREMIER: I belie,·e he has, but he has

clone it by means of coloured labour and the central mill; but if he had been limited to "Towing and cutting his cane with white labour, he would not have had anY cultivation to~ clay, and no one knows that bettei than the hon. member for Cn.irns him>elf. I hav" been in the Cairns district, and I assert that if the Caims district was entirely dependent on white labour to grow cane there would be no cane grnwn there at this day.

Mr. KERR: There are none but Chinamen there.

The PREJ\HER: There are a few white people there.

Mr. KEHR: You have to lift your hat to a Chinaman at Cairns.

The PltE:\1IER: I would not do it. Mr. KERH: I did not when I w.LS there. The PRE:YHER: I do not think it is quite so

bad as that. I can assure the House that Cairns depends, and has long depended, for its pros­perity on the industry of the Chinese.

JVIr. Grvg:-;s: It was better before there was ever a Ohina01an in it.

The PRK\IIER: Only last year a petition was presented to this House, signed by two of the hon. member's strongest supporters-:Yir. Boland was one; the name of the other I forget -in which thev stated that "Chinamen are the backbone of this district."

}Ir. Grv1ms: You are not fairly stating it. The PRE:\IIER: The late :\Ir. Chataway

presented the petition, and it can be easily got at. Those are the exact words, "that Chinamen are the backbone of this district." And the hem. member for Cairns c.mnot deny that those two rnen were his stron£{est supporter~ aC the last elec~ion, and hut for them I doubt whether he would now be in the Home. I am astonished at the hon. member backing clown on his suppor­ters. \Ve are asked lightly to vote £250,000 to assist the sugar industry. If it would assist the sugar industry, I think the House rnight care­fully consider the matter. But I meinte.in it would not assist the suv,ar industry. 'What the sugar industry vmnts at present is to be left alone-to mind their own business of growing cane. But we find that the Federal Legis­lature think they understand the business better than the unfortunate sugar-grower. They are going to do something, but we must wait till we see what that something is. If JVlr. Barton remains in power I believe he will bring in a protective tariff very likely of £3, £4, or £5 a ton. If, however, he should be defeaterl, very likely Mr. Reid "ill come in with a free trade tariff, and there will be no protection for sugar at all. And if there is no coloured labou; and no protec\ion I may safely say that very little sugar will be grown in Queensland. '\Ve are told that the central mills get about £10 a ton-to be more precise, £() lDs .. ~for the cane, and that the i:lugar Refinery Company gets £16 for their sugar, making people outside believe that there i" a profit of £() a ton on refining.

:\Ir. G!VE:->S : I said about £3. The PRE:YIIER: After one or two interjec­

tions the hon. men, ber brought down the profit

State Sugar Rr:finery. [29 AUGUST.] State Suqar Rr:finery. 571

to £3 a ton. At the present time one large com­pany has practiCally a monopoly of refining sugar in Australia, and I assert that they do not abuse that monopoly. They give a fair price for the raw sugar, and I believe they sell their sugar fairly cheaply. They do not take advantage of the full amount of duty in Queensland, and if they did they could sometimes ask £2 ot· £3 a ton more for their sugar.

:Mr. LESINA: Is it not wrong that a company should be able to do that?

:lYir. GrvENS: It is the canegrowers who suffer. The PREMIER: They are paying 10 per

cent. on £1,800,000 share capital, and they are employing £1,000,000 of debenture c· pi tal. :::lomethinR like £~1,000,000 are employed by that company in the gl'owing and refining of f:;Ugar.

:'llr. Grvm;s: The balance-sheet does not show that.

The PREMIER: ·what is their debenture capital?

.i\Ir. G!YEXS: £209,000. The PREi\liEH: Now, I know something

about the sugar plantations of Queensland, and I assert that the owners could not get anything like the amount they have spent upon them. At Macktty, the Herbert, and the Johnstone River the Colonial Sugar 1-tefinery Company have spent about £230,000 on each plantation. The com­pany bought the land, gave big price~ for it, and erected very costly sugar machinery. I do not think those places are now worth one-half of what they were. Inste;;.d of writing up the values of their properties the owners have to write them down every ye<r. Anyone who has any idea of machinery knows that you must write down the cost every year. Take the case of the :Yiillaquin Refinery. I believe that cost £GOO,OOO or £700,000. Is it worth one-half or one-third of that money to-day ? And so it is with the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company's properties i'!l man.y respects. And yet the mem­ber for Cau·ns hghtly talks about starting a refinery and getting a profit out of that refinery. \Vhy, as soon as we started competition would set in and the whole of the profits would gu.

Mr. G!VllNS: The consumer will benefit then. The PREJ\IIEH : And what about the Govern­

ment who find the m0ney to build the refinery"? Mr. GrYE:'-1S : They will derive a proti.t. The PR.lt;\IIER: I have a far better proposal

to make to this House, to the Federal Parlia­ment, and to Mr. Barton, the Federal Premier. He, I understand, ha' said that he knows all about sugar-growing. He has been at Bunditberg for one night, and had a very good time there, so I am told. He was there, and I believe he is prepand to put the industry on a sound baJis. \Veil, if he is going to do what his suvporters say he is going to do-prevent any more coloured labour coming into Australia, and put a big tariff on-I say that the people engaged in the sugar industry have a right to say to him, " You take over our properties, and work them in your own way." I think there are about £7,000,000 invested in the sugar industry in Queensland; ttnd if the Federal Premier comes here and ruthlessly says, "You must grow sugar as we think best," I say hand the places over to him. The Eederal Government can get every sugar estate in Queensland at less than cost price, and they can then start half-a-dozen refinerie,·-one in Brisbane, one in Sydney, one in Hoba1·t, one in :Melbourne, and one in Perth. :Mr. Barton c0uld then supply the whole of Australia with sugar, and work the industry to suit himself.

Mr. LEiliNA: \Vhat were the central mills established for?

'rhe PRI~MLER : To encourage the growth of sugar, and also that in course of time we might try to do with less coloured labour. I say the

starting of those mills has had that effect. The fir,t two mills were started by Sir Samuel Griffith with the object of showing that sugar could be grown by white labour, and what was the result? For the first four or five yl·ars the people honestly tried to grow their cane with white lalwur, and they failed, and it was only when they got permission to use black labour that they managed to make tbe mills a success. I am pleased to say that those two milis are a great f:luccess now. "\Vhen the Sugar \Vorlcs Guarantee Act was pas,ed, I do not think :::lir Thomas Mcilwraith anticipated that we would be able to entirely do without black labour. \Ve are gradually d'.>ing with les'l, because, ten years ago, when we only made 50,000 tons, we had more kanakas in (-2ueensland than we have to-day.

J\!Ir. GIYENS: 'l'hat shows that they are not necessary.

The P'REMIER : It shows that not so many are necessary .

.Mr. JACKSON: \Ve have more Japanese now. The PREJI,IIER ; Acc.mling to the census of

lSGJ, the coloured people numbered 5 per cent. of the population; hut at the last census the total number of Hindoos, Japanese, Chinamen, and kanakas was only 4"70 per cent. of the popu htion. That shows clearly enough that we have fewer coloured people in Queensland to-day, in proportion to the population, than we bad in 18()1.

Mr. LESINA : That is not the correct way of looking at it ; what is the total number of kanakas?

The PRK\IIER: At all events we were threatened some time ago that we would be flooded out by kanakas, but the fignres do not prove any such thing, because, as I have shown, they are a diminishmg quantity. However, I [till not gning into the coloured labour quest1on at the present stage. \Ve will have a further oppor>,unity of discus.;ing that, and I do not think it would be fair that we should d1scuss JHr. Barton's policy before we know what he intends doing. I certainly think we have no right to seriously entertain the notion of spend­ing £250,000 in ept.ablishing a State sugar refinery at the present time, and on behalf of the Government I sh ,Jl strenuously oppose it. The membe,r for Co.irns, I admit, sympathises with the sugar-growers, and his object in starting a refinery is in order that they may get better prices for their sugar. I do not believe that the sugar-growers \\ ould get ls. more for their sugar under such a system.

Mr. GrvENH: The central mills ensured them a better price.

The PHEJ\IIER: I do not think so. !\.Ir. GIYENS : They do now. The PREHIER: At the present time the

central mills are paid cash every month for their sugar. The Colonial Sugar Refinery Company which buys the sugar sends the bago to t~e mills, nuts the sug•u into them, and takes 1t away from each port at no expense to the mills for shipping. Instead of costing them 9s. Gd. a ton, as repre~ented, it costs them in sorne cases 18s. a ton to bring the sugar from the port of shipment.

Mr. GrYEXS: Not from the central millF, be­cause they have to put it free on board.

The PREMIER: Yes, from the central milk

Mr. GrvENS: It does not cost that at Cairns, anyhow.

The PREMIEH : Of course, Cairns is not the whole world. It costs 18s. per ton to take sugar from the Mosman 1-tiver to Bundaberg.

l\Ir. GrvENS: But that is to Millaquin, I be· lieve.

'l'he PREMIER : It does not make any differ­ence, as the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company

572 State Suga1' Rqjin£ry. [AbSEMBLY.]

have to pay just the same freight. I made inquiries the other day about the cost of raw sugar, and the cost of making refineG. sugar, and I found nothing like a profit of £3 a ton that the hon. member for Cairn' ta,lks about. If they make a profit of £1 or 30;. a ton it is about the extent of their profit. In the case of sug·ar from the J\ioeman River, the snhar cost £9 19s. a ton, accordi11g to the hon. rnetnber'.:~ figures; bags cost 5s. per ton-that is £10 4<.; the freight cost 18s. to Bundaberg-tbat is £11 2s.; and insu­rance costo something like 2s. pocr ton-tbat is £11 4s.; refining costs £2 per ton-tbat is £1:3 4s.; losses amount to about 5 per cent., and 5 ]Jer cent. on £10 amounts to 10.3.

Mr. KERR: But they have the by-products. Tbe PREMIER: That is £13 14s.; and for

this sugar the refinery is only netting £14 15s. I have that on the best. of authority. I do not think the Colonial Sugar Hefinery Company are doing very much better. I believe they are getting larger profits in New South \:Vales than they are in Queem,bnd ; hut, if it is such a good thing in New South \Vales, why do they not get some competition there?

Mr. GIVEKS: Because they have a monopoly. It is almost impossible for a private individual to compete with tbem.

The PRKiY1U;R : Or the State eithr·r. Wbv, they have familieR born and bred in their s~rvic8! Tbey bave the best sugar people in Australio, at their command) and no Govern1nent could get the P'lme 9ervice. BeRidt~, if the business uf buying and selling 'ugar wets cnnducted by the State, look at the enormous amonnt of bad debL the State wonld make that the company does not make.

Mr. KERT\ : You crmld supply Dunwich. The PltK\UER : It is appalling now wbat

the State undertakes ; but if W' undertook to refine ongar and sell it in the 1arket, we would make a rne&:J o£ it. During the present session 1N8 haVe Already had a big debate on our rail­ways. During last year we lo:·>t £()00,000 in the nlant~.),"ement of our rail·wayR : and if we started sugar refining there would be £100.000 or £200,000 more to add to that loss, and very soon the whole thing would collapse. I say we ·re nndertaking far more now than we ''ught to undertake. It i impo,,;ible for any set of men sitting on these Treasury benches to , 2rry on the whole business of C-tneen,land. ·

JYir. RYL Hill: You hav3 advice from thi" side. (Hear, hear! and laughter.)

The PREMIER: How._ ver, I really do not think the hon. member for Cairns is serious in bringing forward this motion.

:Mr. Grvgss: I was most serious. Mr. FORSYTH: It is only an electioneering

dodge. He knovH it. Mr. GIYENS: It is not an electioneering dodge. The PHKtvliER: I bardlv think tbe hon.

me1nber was serious) because" the hon. men1ber is not quite so foolish as he looks. He has lived in the Cairns district for a number of years, but he has never tackled sugar-growing. Not even this profit of £4 a ton tEmpted him, and I am cert>:tin he doeJ not put his money into sugar refining either.

Mr. LEsr.,-A: :Everybody in Cairns is not in the sugar line either. That is a eilly argument.

The PHEMIER : I believe that if the hon. member for Clermont could make a profit of £4 a ton out of sugar he would go in for it, but he knows the money is not in it. If it was, evervone in the colony would cultivate sugar. It "may have been made in an exceptional year. I have heard of a man making £10 per acre out of his cane in one yevr, but three or fmu·years afterwards he lost e,ll the money be had made. It iR not a fair thing to come here and quote the profits that are

made in one year. \Vbat profit does a man make extending over a series of ten or t'venty years? That would be a fair average to quote. I am cer­tain Rugar-grow(_rs have not betn rnaking as nruch money as the hon. member for Cairns would have us believe. \V e were told the otber day that some old Dane was cutting 12 tons of c:ane every day.

Jyfr. BARBER: No, no. Mr. }1c:\IARTEH: Ten tons. The PREMH~R: Well, 10 tom. I would

like to see a nnrnber of tbose old Danes in the colnny. If the hon. member for Bundaberg could guarantee to get a feiV thousands o.f them, tht>re would not be the slightest occasHHl for coloured labour; and, if JVIr. Barton would undertake to imnort 10,000 or 20,000 of them-· of course they would have to be able to write fiftv words in English before tbey could land­but if he got them and put them on the sugar plontations, \VB would have nu occa:;~on ~o emphy kanakas in Queensland. I have lJVed m North (,lueensland perhaps just as long as the bon. member for Cairns.

M:r. Grvgss: Hear, hear! It is a fine country, too.

The PREMIEH: Yes, it is a fine country, but I am of opinion that it will be a long time before we can do without the assistance of coloured labour in the cultivc<tiun and han esting of our cane crops. \V e may yet be able to get machinery to do it, but up to tbe pre,;ent we ha ,~e not in' ented tbat macbinery. If the :Federal Premier ie; a wbe man, he will allow things to go on as they are at present. He will not then be asked to find a cheque for £7,000,000 or £8,000,000; he will not be asked to establish refineri< s in Brisbane, Sydney, J\'felbourne, ),_delaide, and all those places, in order to assist the sugar indn•<try. He will allow an industry to continue, which has grown fr,,m very small beginnin5s, to assume, I mppose, the position of the large~t ogricultural industry in Qtwensland. He will allow that industry to still furtlJ;-r grow;. a!ld I believ·e th":t, in time, the Lrgest industry in Queensland wrll be the cultivation of sugar, if it is not checked in any way. I think that c·J.n be done without getting appreciably more coloured la:Cour m the colony tban have Jl0\1\", in }WOlJOrtlon to our population. do not believe that, at any time, the coloured j,opulation will r·xe;eed 5 per cent. of our white population. Wby, in New South \V a If', you will find more Hindoos than there are in C-.Jueensland ; you will find more Chinese in Victoria than tbHe are in Queensland, and also in South Australia. TheN orthern Territory of South Australia has been feeding us with Chinese for years past.

:Mr. HmD : Hear, hear ! The PREMIEH: How does the number of

Chine3e there compare with the nu m her of whites? I think there are 10 or 15 per cent. of whites and the rest are Chinbe. \Ve bear a great deal of talk about the whole of A~stralja must be "white." Then the people of V ICtona should look to their own doors first before coming here. I "m astonished at onr own federal members saying such things about their own colony. ::\othing f(rieved me more th!tn to read the report of the speech made by Senator Stewart in Melb~mne bst Sunday.

Ho.,-ot:HABLR IviEl>IBERS : Hear, hear ! The PREMIER : :For him to state that

kanakas \vere fed on bad meat, poisonouR tea, bad damper and everything else, was a slander on the people wbo employ kanakas.

]\;.fr. LESJNA : \Vhy, Dr. Ham says we are fed with poisonous hca.

Mr. Ma::\1ASTER: He used to employ a kanaka himself at one time.

State Sugar Rifinm·y. [2~1 AUGL'ST.] State Su.IJiU' Rqfinery. 573

The PREMIER: I understand that he used to employ one. I was as~onished at his making­such a staterncnt.

Mr. REID : You are only going by the news­paper report, and you know it is not always to be believed,

Mr. BARBER: There is a lot of truth in what he said.

The SP.EA.KEE : Order! The PREMIER : \Vel! I have seen as many

kanakas at work on plantations o.s the hon. member for Bundaberg, and I have not seen stinking n1eat and poisonou'3 tea supi:JEed to them.

iYir. BAlm En: I have seen snme. The PREM fER: As a matter of fact, kanakas

on sngar pla:~tations are better treated than \Vhite ruen, because the kanaka cannot fight for himself as tlw white 1nan can, and the law is very strict, while the inspection is al>o very strict. If anything like that happened, we would know of it veey quickly.

:\Ir. BARBEU: They manage to shuffle out of it.

The SPEAKER: Order! The PREMIER : \Yho manage to shuffle out

of it? :Mr. BAHBER: The kanaka employers. The :PRK\IIElc: \Yell, I do not know. I

have 1netJ a. great number of kanaka employers, and I have fou11d them just as humane as the me m b "rs of t.his l-louse.

:'!Ir. B,\RBEH: 'I'he small kanaka employers get sat on, but the big one. m:tnage to get off.

The I'HEl\IiER: There is only one law in the cOlony for rich and poor alike.

:\lr. LE~lNA: You have about 125 diffet :nt ways of applying it. TheSPEAKt~R: Order! The PJtE.\IIER: I c~n a"sure the Home t'> .t

I have :-'leen !JlentY of kanakf; \Vho look h·:>ttet' fed chan the hou. mmnber for Clermont· -lnen with much finer phy.>ique thau he has. .·\f; "" rnatter c1f fact, if you go on thP pbntations, y11U

will find the kanaka" well fed and happy, and more like children tlMn growu-up people. \Ve have bad a lot ,,f people fr,nn the "outhem co1o­nie~ going to the plantLttinns lately, and when they have been asked to give their opinion, what have they said? Tnat obey were astonished to see the kanaka so well treated.

!\lr. LJCSINA: \Vhy, one in eight died on Fairyu1ead plantation last year, according to the report laid on the table.

The PHE.YIIER: I remember when white men undertook to build a tramway from lYlourilyan Harbour to the ,J ohllstone Hiver about one-third of them died. The T•nvnsvilie hospital ·, as full of th~·.e men. They came down janndicerl-like, and, after all, the contractor had to get Chinamen to tin ish the line. If white men went into the tropics, as kanakas cnn1e h{'re, the deltth cate among them would b~ heavier than the kanaka death rate in Queensland. On the whole, we are told that the death.rate

is less in Queensland than it is in [5'30 p.m.] their own country. \Vhen Captain

Cook went to the Sandwich Islands he found 400,000 natives th•·w3. How many are there to-day? About 25,000 or 30,000. And there was no recruiting in those islands.

Mr. JACKHON: It must have been only a guess on Captain Cook's part.

The PRK:YIIER: I don't think so-he was there several times-in fact, he was killed there. Look at Fiji, too, Look at the number of kanakas there. Far more die there than in Queensland. This is a question that might occupy the House the whole session, if every member speaks on it; but I hope that will not

be done. I hope that m.,n who know something of the questioa will S[Jeak, and that we shall get a vote; but I think at the pre~'ent tirne \ve should not be justified in putting any more money into mills under the i::lugar ·works Guarantee Act, or into a central retinerv for ttw refining of ~ugar. ~

M";l\IBERS on the Government side: Hear, hear!

1\lr. LESINA (Clcrnwnt): It i.-: the desire of th•o h''"· member fur C<1ims that this matter should Le discur~ed a,; widdy as possible and not trt ·1,:,-:.J a~ nwtions have been habitually treated on "::'fntr:-od .y afternoons. In the past we have h .cl , 1n(\tl(\n mo\·ed hv ;., member on thi,..:; t-dde in

of five or tGn 1ninutes on a rrhur·Jrlay Lt·tt tbe propo.':'itlon has b~0n stcmewallrd

by U1-:::m:wr~ un the other side. So gross has this cl ~~pl y b· ':unJt' th.:u:. some men1ben~ on the other Stl, ha,vt• rtc ived the nickname of" lH8lJ1bcr8

fur ; he cftz_',t';!O,)n," The:y l'em::1in silent excPpt on 'fliur::;·in..y utternoons when :;;ome pr(JlJO~ition e1nanates fnm.1 s~~me member on this side with the view of b1-:ngin~· abont an alteration of the condi­tio:It-: nuder wlnl'i1 the rnen and women of Qneen:S­lan.i labour iur r .eir livdihnnd, and then they talk learn<. dly a:; hng- "' the Standing Orders will perrnit thezn in {;_·, ler to pren:~nt the lJi18 t:.·e of such legislation. If we d,,~:;ire to prevent .s .ve:~t­ing in auy occup:ttim: and a menl1JPr introduces a n1otion f(J,. that purp.•se 1nerr1bers on the other side get up and di~ ~Llss it at length in order to prevent any cleci,ion being corn· to-in order that swc·dtmg may c .. ntimw. Though tney are never heard at any other time thee· are a] ways ready to spe ~k nn Thur lLy dt.ernoon, and that is r~ther a r;ig .. ifica'lt fact which the pnblic ;:;honld iav to their rnind~. I'he Premier oointed out in re1;ly to an in erj~~ction rnade by d1e hqn. rnemlwr for Bnn(lahe-rg, that tbere i~ nnty one la\v in Queen~iand for the rich "~nd the poor. I aclrnit that there is only one lav,r for the rich <1nd the poor, bn ~ th hon. membce· ap[Jtar to forget th •,t there are 12~ wnys of adniin­isteri,·g that law. _,:-\nd if there is any body in the S- 5l.te who arhninh~ter the la·w in their n'i->-'n iutertl'>~S it i::. t.he RUg<-tr-pJanters. l have no doubt tbnt hdore the sessiou is ended the PrenllPr n1ay ask us to exprcs~ an npiuion on the black bbour question as an instructinn to the 11-,ederal ParliarHent, and \VB shall thPII have an oppPrtunit.y of di~-- cu~>·in'7': the Dlt~tiun fr('nl tbe standpoint I have just indicatr d. The hon. gentleman was interviewed the other d:ty by a rPprc>•:entative of the :J.'cley1Ytph wit.h re,,;pect to lVir. Barton's proposition for placing a thnt;; lirnit to the en•ployment of kanak<<s. In the c:ourse of the interview, which the p >per pointed out was condneted with considerable warmth and earnest­ness on tht• pnrt of the hon. gentlenmn, the Premier s .. id there "onld he no use making any provision under tbe Sugar VVorks Guarantee Act for further extensions of that sys1em because of ::VIr. Barton's projected legislation. The Tele­graph took bim to task in a very exct->llr--·nt artic:e, and I shall trouhlc the H"use with one or two quotati"us. 'rhe Tclcwaph says-

ThP logic of this reasoning is not quite clear. \Yhen the Acts referred to were tirst cou~idend. the one splendid argument in their favour w 1S that, by ~low but elJ.uitable means in building up this systPm, they would ultimately rctnove t-he ltC('essity altogether for kanaka labour. Small cane fanners tound thenJsdves at a srriom• handicap :1gamst the large CllltJlO.i ers of kanakas. The\· fonnd that thr mill was able to diCtRte tcrmH as to all eond.itions surrounding tr:eir iudustry. The central mill SJ :-tem was deYbed specially to meet the ('Xigencies 0f that condition of thing~ By estab­lishing these mills, it \Vas intended to save the small fctrmer the cost of crn;,hing cane and nfi ning su~ar. The st~ttiug up of the central depbt was on some­thing approaching a co-operative s) :s em, and there tle small canegrower wonld be armed with e4.ual advantages in the way of facilities for treating his

574 State Sugw· Rr:flnery. [ASSEMBLY.] State SugaT Rqfinery.

product, as the wealthiest and largest canegrower -in the cou11tr::. The gradual extinction of the kanaka was intended to be an ineYitable corollary of all this rrhc plea before was that becam~e of the grieYous conditions under which thry were forced to sell their cane to the large millowne<:, the small ca.nr-."4'rowers could not afford to employ ordinary labour. Yfhite labour was too dear, even if' the much-argued and still much-a•·guablc que~­tion of relhtbleness did not enter into t.hc matter. There was considerable show of reason in tbe conten­tion, though nmv it :·ppears to be utterlY obseured that such a plea placel the \V hole of this co~ntentious qnt ·~­tion upon a purely economic basis, a.nd that is the basis upon \\'hi eh the TelP~:, Ni)Jh has always insisted.

Further on it says-It is impossible to bring oneself t.o beheve that the

present Premier has forgo tt.cn the original purpose of that system. He might as well be accused of having forgotten his own name; because from tbe character of the constituency ·which he reprt,ents, this matter is continually beiug drummed into hiH ~~ ~.r. '~.rhy he should expre'"s himself as yesterday be did is therCfore one of those iuexplicable things iu which even the wisest find themselves at a. loss.

And the article winds ''P by saying-His utterance of yesterday entil'ely gives ;he pro­

kanaka c::tse away. because it implies that the central mill sy<;;tern is not a grAdual extinguisher, bnt an en­couvager of tbis pm·ticular chtsR of lrtbour. This may be correct. but ten years ago the subject was not understood i.n that way. The nuth appears to be that having got the central mill system, which was to dis­pense witl1 kanaka labour, the latter still is desired. The Premier's argument goes much further t.han that. It goes to the ,:xtent of saying that the central mill system cannot TE'nder kanaka labour nnnece.;:1,ary. His argument is that the central mi.ll system so far fails to provide for the exclusive employment of white labour that it will be of no use to keep it on those terms.

I would like here to use an illustration which occurs to my minrl in this connection, and which justifies the attitude taken up by the hon. member f,,r Cairns in proposing to establish a central sugar refinery operated by t!Je State in the inter· stsof the growers and the interests of 1 he sugar industry in QueensLud. Take the mining industry as an illuotration. The miner goes down into the bowels of the earth and brings up the ore from various depths. It is then taken to the mill and crushed. It is then turned into fine golrl-it is minted-made into sovereigns. The Coloni"l Sugar Refinery Company occnpies a somewhat analogous position to the mint. There is first the sugar~gTo\ver, thH man engaged directly in contact with the soil in the growing of cane. Then you have th•j central mill established by the Gnvernment to assist the small men against the exactions of the big owners in the rast who crush the cane. Then you have the mint-the refinery-run bv one huge monopoly known as the Colonial Sugar Refinery Con1pany, n'hose opPrations extend throughout the whole of Australia and as far as Fiji: An examination of the la't bal •nee-sheet of the Colonial Sugar Hefinery Com~1any hrin~s me to the inevitable conclusion that the employment of white labonr is possible and c,m be profitable in the growing of sugar. [ find in the Rullcti" of 18th 1\fay, 1!!01, under the head of the "\Vild Cat" column, the following part.iculars with regard to the L1st, balar,ce-she--t uf the Colonial Sngar Refinery Company. It is thP balance­sheet for the six months up to the 31Rt :Yiarch, 1D01, so that it is the latest balance-sheet issued by the companv. In the course of this stat"­ment. pf the very pro . .-perous conditions undf'r w hi eh tbe companc· has been carrying on oper '­tions for the past t-ix rnontrs, there ha pathetic wail about the fast-fleeting kanaka--thi;; unfor­tunate coloured brother, who appears to be doomed by the united voice of federated Aus­tralia to ultimate extinction within a very short time. They took the opportunity of uttering­this pathetic wail over their rapidly disappearing coloured brother, out of whose labour they had coined such enormous dividends in the past.

The Bnlletin g-oes on to say-and the House will eee from this what financial position the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company are in-

Profits. Dh·idends. I rrotal Reserves.

)iarch. 1897 85~80 10', .. o ~ 8~£100 t--:~.12G September, 1897 ___ Sl,:307 JO, , ~ 8o,100 118 333 ~larcb, l89B 85,728 85.100 -118:961 September. 1898 85.~08 s:uoo 419.2fi9 :March, 1899 85.5t-18 85.100 410.737 September. 1899 85,81H 1 85,1CO 420,476 )larch, l900 89,4H , 89,255 420,6% September, 1900 89,:JS9 ! 89,34~ 420,680

You will see that the profits were going up all the time-~larch. 1901 I 93,608 10° 0 =:~~~- ! 420.~~

And yet this is the company that is going to he ruined by the disappearance of coloured men from the industry.

Hon. E. B. FoRHEST : \V as all that money made in Quoensland?

Mr. LESIN A: No, it was made by the com­pany. The B"llctin very pertinently remarks, and the hon. member who represents the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company in Queensland will, no doubt, feel very edified with this paragt·aph-

It may be assumed from the intem•e regularity with which the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company shows enough profit to pay its 10 per cent. dividend, with just .:<nflicient surplus to give a graceful irregularity to the row of fignre:o:, tlmt there are occasional surpluses whieh are c:nrie(l to an inner reserve, and \V bleb don:t appear in the Yisiblc profits. The visible reserve con­sist~ of reserve fnnd £100,000, reserve for equalisation of dividendR £Hi5.000. gnarantee and inl'urance fund £6:!..053, and undivided profit .-i:91,6fl8. rrhe manage­ment speaks R vel';\" dolorous lament about ho'v the abolition of the kanaka and the AF-iatic in Qnl·em;land will involve the st,1ppage of ~gricnltural \YOrk alo11g n, eoHst line of 700 nnlPs-the \Yhite man it is evidently implied bP in~ incapable of agricultnre·-:-md how a b1g "Ichabod'' will be written all along Queensland's hollow-sounding ~hore, and about thP ruin that will fOllmv. Then the Bulletin incidentally adds-

On the evidence it certainly looks, however, as if it would take a good deal to ruin the Colonial Sugar Refinery Compai1y. That is by the abolition of our black broth< r, after that rate of progress. Nw.v, the Premier said that the Colonial Sngar Refinery Company had invested a lot of money in properties in various )Jarts of Queensland, and that they have had to write something off the value of these properties every yc,,r. J s that quotation not a capable reply to the statfment of the !-.on. gentleman that this C< mpany has lost on some of its l""l•erties? It h"s not lo<t generally, anrl I think that the internal evidence­reading between the iines of this b<Liance-sheet -goes to prove thnt tbe men engaged in the sugar industry can ernpldy white labour Ruccess~ fully if they pay r!ecent w ·g-es. The Premier alw Raid that there w ts no likelihood nf the Stote being- able to Rncce,sfully manage a refinery. No doubt the present Government could not do this, for they have made a mess in the management of the r:1ilway" and the Treasury; they have managed to get a deficit uf over £500,000. They have made '' mess d managing the PtoRerpine Central Sugar Mill and one or two other mills­thev have made snch "mess of all these matters tha-t there is very little doubt that the majority of this House will readily acknowledge that the present Gnvernn,ent are not ca]•ab],, of properly conduc i ing the husine.~s of a central State sugar refinery. Bnt it <wes not follow tbat any other future Government cannot manage this busi­ness successfully. I "ill go further, and

State Sugar• Rrjinery. [29 AuGcsT.] Loral Autlzority 1humca,y8. 575

"ay that the present Government-if they are kept up to the mark by the members of the Opposition exercising their proper functions by carefully scrutinising and criticising their actions in the management of every department in the State, and with the profits that the CiJlonial Sugar llefinery made in 1901-they will be able to properly manage such an institution. I believe it is an open secret that the Government wish the public to believe that the State control of all institutions such as this is a failure. And they do this deliberately. They desire to induce the public to believe that State management is a wrong principle, and that the best thing to do is-commencing with railways, and going right through the whole gamut-to hand all these institmions to private syndica,tes. Not that the private syndicates, who have tried to manage son1e of our financial inr:;titutions are competent to do so, for we all remember the bank smashes here and throughout Australia a few years ago. l~uite recently the \Vorks Department took over the management of two central sugar mills and started to work them in accordance with the provisions of the Act, but through either neglect or reckless extravagance the State Inanagement of these jnstitutions has been a failure. I have already set forth that the Gcn7 ernment are discouragi11g the extensions of the functiuns of the Sc::cte by trying to induce the public to believe that every State institutinn we have i,; badly managed, so must be a failure under Government administration. I find in connection with the Prm0rpine Mill that during the first six months there was a prospect of the business of this miH being an ultimate success, but suddenly that view has been altered. The financial as<ist:mce that has been J•romised tc- the farmers has been refused, and wages and current debts h ·.ve been allowed to get in arrears for several months. \Ve also find that the rolling­stock on our railways has been aliowed to fail into such a state of disrevdr that the department was really only able to do half the work they could otherwise do, and cnnsequ~-"ntly a J'Jt of this year's one will be delayed before harve,ting, and next ye~r the necessary cnlti vatinn will be thrown back too late. That i' what has taken place since the G-overnment has taken over these in-;titntlor.s.

Mr. PMlET : \Vhere do you get your f>tcts? Mr. L:~<;SI=" A: I am giving the facts which

ha-ve be::::n discus~eJ in newspapers, and are now being discl1 ,,·,ed in this House. I make the sng­gesr.iun that there ,;hould be a searching inquiry iuto t'1e rnanage1nent of ce.JtraJ rnills, and not until this is done will this public business be rnanag. d satisfactorily. I woulrl like to say that as far'"' the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company are concerned they have vmy litt,le to grumble about. A syiltem of central mills has been established in c1rder to assist farmers, and those men have got cheap kanaka hhour ; the Government h11Ve engaged experts to promote and advance sugar culture ; Custmns dntie'"' have been imposed on for,-'ign rmg~"r-but all these thing> have left the farmers in the same position ail they wer8 before, \Vlw reaps the bonefit of >tll this? The Colonial SGgar Refinery Conlpa.ny. They bqueeze t.he growers, and the grower' squeeze the labourers underneath, and they cannot employ white labour because they know that white men will nor stand that sort of tf1ing. The Coloni:.l Sug"'r llefinery Company rob them, and they have to rob black labour. That is the reason v: by they cannot go in for white labour. If the growers give good w <ges that will mean that thev will want a better price for their c.cnr, and the public will have to pay more for their sugar or the Colonial Sugar Refinery Comp~ny will have to be content with 5 per eent. instead of 10

per cent. dividends. I believe the s1me argu­ment will apply to the goldmining i ndnstry. If, for instance, in the minting or retming of gold it was possible to exploit the .. wners of mines as the Colonial Sugar Refinery Company exploit the growers of cane. then the owners of mines would have to employ black labour. But the mining industry, because it is free from ;;uch exactions, is able to pay 10s. a day to miners on Charters Towers, and the owner>b of crushing mills also reap a profit and pay dividends. Let us look at the matter from a cold commercial standpoint, which hon. members nptJosite most appreciate-they are not swayed by sentiment except in war time, or at election times, or at federation time. There is no sentiment about them when they ace dealing with pounds, shillings, and pence. The only time they were carried off by a wave of enthusiasm was at the time of the federal election, and they have repented of that up to the present, becanRe in going in for :< United Austmlia, for or:e f.Jeople one destiny, they will hnve to Rubmit to the abolition of their beloved kanaka. Looking at the matter from a cold commercial point of view, I find that (,lueensland produces nearly 130,000 tons of sugar per annum. Almost the whole of this goes to the Colonial Sugar Hcfi nery Company at a price averaging about £10 a ton, which refines and sells it at an average of abont £20 per ton. They keep the cost of their refining operations a close secret, but hints and bits leaking out here and there place the figure at about £3 10s, a ton. Thus they reap on the sugar they refine a profit of £6 10s. a ton. If I arn wrong, the company or some h,m. momber who may be in possession of the inforrnation can correct 111e. At £6 10s. a ton profit it would appear that £845,000 a year is coined by the refiners out of the Queensland sugar output, and the dividends p:1id go a long way towards IJl'fJVing th~3 correctness of this asqumption. It is estimated that an up-to-date refinery to treat the whole of the Queensland crop of cane could L.: erected for £250,000. This sum the Government could borrow at 3~ per cent. It is asserted that such a mill would reline sugar and place it on the market at a refining cost of £2 a ton. Now, reckon : If the State refinery got half the crop to refine-namely, 65,000 tons, with a profic of £7 10s. a ton, it would mea.u £487,500, and this, less iuterest on capital at 3~ per ceat-£8,750-and 5 per cent. sinking fuud for depreciation or renewal of plant, etc.-­£24,375-ieaves a net protit of £454,375 to be divided between the State and the canegrowers through the medium d the State mills. That is a. practic·•l attPmpt to place the matter in the form of figures, and I think the Government could hone,tly undertake to establish a central sugar refinery, which would enable tbe cane­growers to employ white labourers and to divide that large amount of money, which at pr,•sent goes to absentee and re,ident shareholders, a.nwng the persons \V ho sweat and toil in under· taking the risk of growing mgar in Queensland. I sb,dl s~y no more, but 1 tru.st this motion will be adopted by the House, and that the Govern­ment will act upon it without any delay.

Mr. PAGET (JJJackay) : I beg tu move the acljonrurnent of the debate.

Question put and passed ; and rEsumption of the debate made an Order of the IJa,v for Thurs-day, 3rd October, ·

LOC::AL AUTHORITY TRAMWAYS.

Mr. GIVEJ\'S (Cairns), in moving that there be laid on the table of the House a return showing-

1. The local authorities, or boards, to ·:rhieh money has been loaned by the Government for tramway con­struction.

576 Pastoral Iluldin,qs,Etc.,Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] .A[;ricuTtu.·al Lands, Etc., Bill.

2. The total amount loaned for that purpose to each authority, or board. re~pe(~tively.

:3. f_l'he total length of tramway constrm~ted, and under construetion, by each authority, or lJoaxd, respectiv ·'~ly.

.J.. The estimated eo.st of con~truetion of each tram­way, ref<pectivcly. at the time the loans were applied for b~· the rcspe0tive authorities or boards.

5. 'rhe total cost of each ot the tramways completed. or or such portions of them as are comyleted, respec­tively.

6. The toted arronnL of arrears, if any, of interest and redemption dne to the Government on account of such loans by each local authority, or board, re::;pec­tively~

said : I move this motion at the request of a number of ratepayer::; in cPrtain di \'isions. I have rtcciv _d letters fron1 1 -ttepayers in the Herbert Rh·er divi,ion and in the ,fohnstone River divit-~ion~ who desire t.o obtain this infr,r­mation regarding the tranllines which have been constructed in their particular divi~ion.-;. I have no nlteriot· objt·ct in rno\ing the rnotion, :111d arn utterly at a loss to undc>r.,tund why it was callecl ":'\ot fnrmal." The Cairns Divisional Board hns one of these tramways, and publishes very full infonna.tion e\·ery yc .. u respPcting its working; and a' the House hr,s granted large sums of money for the purpose of building the tramways mentioned in the n1ntion, I thlnk we are entitled to the fu!lc,t infnrmation on the subject.

(~ne ,tion put and pas· ed.

lVIORTGAGES ON RESU::\iED PROPERTIES.

Mr. LESI::-.IA (Ciermnnt), in moving-1. Th:~~·, th"rP he laid upon tllc table of the House a

eompletc Tet urn of tbe mortgages on propcrt"tps n·snrllect by the Gnvcrnment \Vithin a. period of five years cnde<l 30th ,June, 1 mn.

2. Al~o slto'ivi11g the tmmes of the mortgRgees, la} amour~t of mort,~age, and d-'1 aecrncd mtrrest--so,id: I find that at this stage it j,; almnstimpnssible for 111e to give <.u:y reasons, although I have a nunll}er of thHu, in favonr of thi-.), m0til)n. I do not knuw \V by it \vas c.llh·d "Nj •t fonT1al '' by the _ .. :\ttf~rney-General. Howc-'ver, und·T the cir~ cumst.mc>·s, I shall content my oelf with formally n1oving tbu rrwtion.

At 7 n'c:ock the House, in a.cco1'dance 1cith the Se::;sional Order, ]Yroccedcd 1J.:ith Got'ernme<tt busineiis.

MEMBER SWORN.

:\fr. John 1S" ewell, member for the electoral district of "\Voothakata, took tbe oath of allegiance.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT.

The SPEAKER announcetl that he had received the Auditor-General's report on the puhlic ,,ccounts of the State for the financial year ending 30th June, and the paper wa,; ordered to be printed.

SPECIAL SALES OF LAND BILL. FIHS1' llEADI:;<G,

The House, in committee, having affirmed the desirableness of introducing this Bill, it was introduced, read a firot time, and the second reading made an Order of the Day for Tuesday next.

PASTORAL HOLDINGS NEW LEASES BILL.

FIRST READING.

The House, in committee, having affirmed the desirableness of introducing this Bill, it was in­troduced, read a first time, and the second read· ing made an Order of the Day for Tue•day next.

ELECTIONS BILL. IN COJ\DllTTEE.

The HOME S.ECRETAHY (Hon. J. :F. G. :B"~nxton, Carnarvon) moved-

That it is desirable to introduce n Bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to parliamentary elections.

Mr. BROWNE (C1·oydon): He would like to draw the attention of the .M.inister to a matter '<hich several members had spoken to him about. The .Mi11ioter had just moved that it was desir­abk to introduce this Biil, ar.d be (Mr. Browne) observed that one of the afternoon papers had published a statement that the Bill would be laid on the table of the Home that afternoon, and had given fully a column of n.atter containing- the provisions of the n1easure. He had no objt-ction, nor had any other hon. member on that side, to th\J.t; but t:,e Bill ought certainly to have been laid on the table of the Hou,e so that bun. mem­bers 1nigbt have the snrne chance of getting inforruati1•n as to its contents as the Pre~s.

The HO:\IE SECRETAf:Y said he was responsible fnr it, and must take the blanre. He fully cuncnrred in the objection t.used by the hon. m em bu-. It wrs usn l, as hon. members knew, sometimes to gi"e inforn1a,tion to tl~e Press under se•al of Collfidencco in order that therr comrnents rnight Le forthcoming as Hoon as pos­sible. That "a.s a courte,y accorded to the Prer<s which had seldom been abused. On that occa:.;ion l1e was under the iwpre:-;sinn for the moment, when a'ked for a copy of the Bill by the representative of the newsp3per in question, that it would b(, a fnrrual matter and dealt with at half-past 3. It did not occnr to him until after they had got through the fonn;ll busir.ess that he was wron,; in that impresoi' n. The Bill was given to th<J Press on the di,tinct under­standin~ that it was not to appear until after the House had met, and in the stcond editiun of the paper.

?.lr .. TEXKINSON: It appears in an edition dated 3 o'clock.

The HO::\IE Sl<~CRETARY understood it woulr! not ap,,ear until after the Hon.<e had met. To a lap:-0e of merrwry \Vjth regard to the conr.:-e of busine:-R with n:Jerence to fonnal rrwtions he rmut j;lead guilty.

Questwn put and pa,sed. The House resumed. The resolution was reported and agreei! to.

FIRS'!' READING.

The RO-:\'IE SECRET \RY presented the Bill, and moved that it be read a first time.

Question put and passed. The second reading of the Bill was made an

Order of the Day for Tuesday next.

AGRICULTURAL LANDS P"C"RCHASE ACTS Al\fENDJ\IENT BfLL.

REsUMPTION m' CmBrrTTEE.

Question-That the following new clause, moved by Mr. Jenkinson, stand part of the Bill:-

section 5 of the Raid Act is repf''Llr>d, and the follow­ing sPction iR inserted in lieu thereof:

If the Ij;md Court so recommends. and it appears to the Govemor in Council to be desinLble that the land offerPd "'honld be aequirccl under the provisions of this Act, tlle :\1inister, on behalf of tlle Government. may make n contract provisionally 'vith tht· owner for it:· acquisition b;v surrender, subject to the ratificatior. of such contract by Parliament; and for the purpose of obtaining snch ratHication there shall be laid before l)oth Houses of Parliament copies of the following documents:-

(ul The offer of the owner; (b) T!1e report or the Land Court thereon;

Agricultural Lands Purchase L29 AuGusT.] Acts Amendment Bill. 5'77

(C') Plans showing the loc·llity and area of each block of land proposed to be llurehased;

(cl! All reports obtainc(l by the )£iuL~ter as to tl1e quality, nature, and valne of the lands vro~ po,.,<:l to be purchased;

(e) The valuation for taxation punJoSC'<: rrs shown by the books of the T.~ocal Authorities; and

(f) The contract. A re ... olution for the ratification of such contract

shall be submitted to eac;h Hou~e of Parliament, and uvon the adoption thereof by both Houses the said con­tract ~hall be ratified:

Provided that no such ~ontract shall impose any liability upon the Government Ltuless or until the same has been ratified by PcLrliamcnt under the provisions of this >.et. -otated

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. \V. B. H. O'C"nnell, }ifusgmve): I,ast night, when the hon. member for \Vide Bay rnuveU the aineudtnent, be quoted hirn as having supported a similar clauBe last session, and in doing so put him in rather a difficult position. The hon. member fonrot to mention one little item which was in the Biil of last year which, at at any rate to his n.ind, m11de a very considerable difference t'J it. The present Act, as hon. mem· bers were aware, limited the amount of money which the Government could spend in any one year to £100,000. In the Bill of last year the Government aRked the permisoio:1 of Parliament to eliminate altogether the limit to which they could buy estates. Instead of £100,000 worth of land yearly they could have bought £1,000,000 worth if they felt so inclined had the Bill of last year gone through.

}Ir. JEXKIXSOX: You did not leoy much stress on that last session.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: The hon. member clicl not lay any streso on it in his speech. He wished parcicuL~rly to call the attention of thfl public to the fact that if they had a~ked this session to eliminate the limit which they had from Parliament there would have been ''great deal. more weight in the hon. 1nernber's argnn1ent.

Mr. ,JENKIXSON: It has quite enough weight as it is.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: He could underiltrmd that anything the hon. member proposed had an enormous amount of weight-enough to upset the balance of the lUHvc-:>rse.

Mr. LESINA: It may upset the balance of the Government.

The SECRETARY :FOR PUBLIC LANDS: The hon. member for Clermont would no doubt like to sea the balance of the Governmen: upset, but up to the present, with all his ingenuity, he had been unable to do it. \Vhat he wanted to point out was, that it v.. ould undoubtedly be a very proper thing, if they were going to ask full liberty to buy "'ny amount of land irrespecti V8

of the cost, to ask for the sanction of Parlia­ment. But in the Bill now under consideration they did not propose to do anything of the sort. \Vhat they did propose was, if they found that the limit of £100,000 cramped their wish to repurchase estates for closer settle­ment, to try and get those estates put under offer in exactly the same way as was pro­posed last session, to submit those offers to the House, and to ask the House to grant them a fulier liberty to purchase the estates. He believed that that idea would, to a certain extent, meet with the approval of the Committee, and that the majority of the Committee recog­nised the fact that the repurchase of those estates, in spite of all that had be?n said about the enormous quantity of good land which the Government had at its disposal, was a good thing in order to make room for the ever-

1901-20

increasing population; and the Government asked the House to '""<nction the principle of spending rnore rno11ey on thf• repurchase nf estates than the statute allowed at the present time. If the argum6nt that had been advanced by hon. mem­bers opposite-chat because the Crown bad a hrge area of land available it should purchase no rnore estates-wJ.rs a good argument, then it should have been an ab"'lute bar to the passage of the original Act. The Crown had always had a large area of good and fairly good land at its disposal. l'llention was made last night of the fact that, as f.tr as the Degilbo lands were con­cerned, the Lands Department should not wait until imch time as the land W<tS absolutely in possession of the Crown before throwing it open. As a matter of fact, surveyors were actually on the ground now ; the surYey \Vas almost com~ plete, and the hnd would be available at the very first opportunity that the hw allowed .. Certain members of the Chamber of Commerce· at JHaryhorough seemed to imag·ine that the Government could throw the land open to selection while it was under lease to pastoral tenants-that while it was occupied and being paid for by one class of tenantil the Lands Department could take it away and allow other persons to take it up. Of course that was an ab­solute absurdity. The Government were bound by their c ntracts with the Crown tenants, and they had unfortunately been accused of not carrying out their contracts by people who did not understand the generous way in which the Crown had always construed its contracts with its tenants. As far as he could discover-and he had been through the history of a gr..-.t many cases that had come before the Department of Lands-he had never found anything but the mflst generous treatment accorded to the tenants of the Crown. It would be a very great disaster if the Crown in any shape or form attempted in any way to take P''ssession of land befnre the law allowed it to do so.

Mr. HARDAURE: You have always the power of resumption.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Yes; but they had always to pay for it unlef'l the statute allowed them to take it with­out compenoation, and the Government were not prepared to pay compemation for land when they knew that by waiting a little while they could get it without cumpeusation. He did not think the country would feel at all pleased with the administration of the Lands Department if they were to run into a lawsuit, and incur very great expense by resuming land when there was no necessity for doing so, and when by waiting a few years they could get it for nothing. That was the position he had taken up all through the piece. He did not wish to construe the land laws in any other than a strictly bir manner. They were getting the land at Degilho as fairly as it was possible to get it, and it would be available on the 1st J anu><ry if they wanted to throw it open. It would be surveyed and ready for use on that date. He thought no one could jtlstly complain of the action uf the Government in regard to that matter. Now, to come back to the question of psrliamentary ratification. The hon. member for \Vide Bay had moved an amendment pro­viding for the ratification of all contracts for the repurchase of land. He wished to say that he rlid not go back on the position which he took up last session with re,;;-ard to the desire which he had then and which lie had now--thatno purchase of land should be made which the Minister, or the Government of which he was 9, member, had the slightest hesitation in allowing any member nf the ::ommunity to kriow all about before it was absolutely consummated.

578 Agl'icultzwa1 Lands PuJ'clwse [ASSEJUBLY.J Acts Amendment Bill.

Mr .• TENKINSON: You went further Iasc session and advocated its ratification by Pal'iiament. Do you not adhere to that?

'l'he SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: He quite agr;;ed that he did so, and the hon. member wou,d find out that he did so and there seemed to him then and now a very g:JOd reason for domg so. From the very outset every time th;ct matter was brought up in the House abuse was hurled at the Government · all sorts of <lisgraceful motives were hurled at them. They were. accused of buymg estates, not because it was lil the iEterests of the public to do so but bee >Use it w."' in the intereot of some indivi'dual. They were told that they had friends who hed in­vested in these estates who wanted to be relieved of bad investment'. They were told they bad" supporter who had urged them to repurchase an estate, and that 1f they did not do so he would go against th~m. They had, unfortunately, dead men brought m to the debate, and their characters assailed. Their names even were brought up, and they were not a)lowecl t" re:nain quietly in their graves. He sa1d no", as he said then, that if they could clear tbe atmosphere-if they could free this House from the accnsr.tions that were continually being hurled against the Govern­ment-it would be infinitely better if Parliament were asked to ratify the repurchase of those estates.

Mr. ,TENKINSON: vV,,uld not the amendment have that effect?

The SECH.ETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS ilid not think it would.

;\1r. Bow1IAN : \Vhy did you support it last year?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : He had bad more experience since last year. He had had experience of the de bat" of the present 'ession and be did not think anything the Govern­ment could possibly do in that House would 'relieve them of the imputations to which he bad ,referred. If hnn. members opposite could not \hurl those insinuations at the Government in one way they would in another. But that was beside the question altogether. 'l'hey asked, for good an~ sufficient reasons last S3ssion, because they believed in the repurchase of tho&e estates, that they shonld have the limit which was placed upon the amount which they could expend in repurchasin!( land taken away alto~Bther and they should be given a. free hand. In considera­tion of that thee· ofhred or sup;geeteci to P,ulir.­ment that thee' "hould submit the purchase of those estr.tes to the House. He thought tiwy had foug·bt that matter as f»r as they pos­sibly could until the end of the last se,ssion. The Government dirl not propose to risk lo,ing the ad vantage they had g ,ined, hy having the Bill passed in its present form, by including a clause which might endanger its ulLimate passage but if thev found, as he hoped they would, that they were able to purchase estate< the pur­chr.se money for which exceede<l the £100,000 limit, they propose to bring down a measnre givinl' authority for the purchase of those estr.tes anrl voting the money, for their purchase. He believed in doing that they would meet all the necessities of the case. The Government could not see their way, under the circumstances, to accept the amendment.

Mr. JENKINSON: I am sorry for that. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS:

He could quite sympathise witb the hon. member in his grief, but he could not see his way to fall ,in with his views on the question.

Mr. JENKINSON: No; they are yonr views. The SECRE'l'ARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS:

They had lived some few months since they were his views, and it 'was possible that even on , <that side their views might 11lter. At any rate,

the Govemment did not think it advisable to risk the loE,J of the principles already agreed

to in the Bill. It was ad vis"ble [7·30 p.m.] that those proposals should become

lr.w, and that they should seek in a different way to attain the object aimed at by the amendment. They proposed to introduce a measure, if the Goverument got certain estates placed under offer, c.nd ask Parliament to sanction the purchase nf those estates.

Mr. EROWNB (Croydon) : The hon. gentle­man had made a very nice speech, but the only reason that he really gave for his conversion frotn the views entertained bv him last sest:;ion wr.s that be w:ts air. id of oppc·ition in another phce. There was a good deal said about th<J Go­vernment shuffling out of their re ,pon,ibility if they accepted the principle of ratificr.tion of con­tracts by Parliament ; but what were they doing but shuffling ont of their responsibility to that Chamber by letting themselves be flouted by hon. gentlemen in another place? The hon. gent.leman had given no reason for opposing the amendment. The arguments used by the bon. gentleman last session in support of the very '"me proposal, which were read by the hon. member for \Vide Bay last night, were 'ery much stronger than the argu­ment~ he had just giYen utterance to againRt the amendment. A grPat deal had been said abr,rut impntatirms and abuse, but it was pretty nearly time that that sort of thing was stopped. Any man who had read Hcmsard knew that before there was any Labour party in Parliament at all, when the two great chiefs, as they were nlled-,l\Icllwraith and Griffith-were opposing one another, harder r.nd more bitter thin go "ere s;cid, and worse insults were flung acro···> the floor of the House, than since he had been a member.

Tl,e SECHETARY FOR PGBLIC LA:-ms: Kever, never!

Mr. BRO\Vl\E: They had not got so far yet as to call one another thieves, and practically try to put one anutber into gaol. They had a lot to say about imputa' IOns, but that w.1sonly making a farce of the thing, because be "as quite cer­tain the hnn. gentleman did not beiieve in it hinlSelf. His experience was that iu that re,,pect Queensland was better than any of the other colonies ; and certainly during the 1ast nine years the tone of tb<J House, so far as insults and in1putations \Vere concerned, had been better than it was before the advent of the Labour perty. The hem. gentleman stated thar, in lieu of this amendment, if the Government felt in­clined to spend more than the £100,000 which they were authorised to open<{ they were going to be good enough to aek the House for the ''xtm amnnnt. But wbether the amount was £100,000 or £"'nO,OOO the principle was the same. The very start of pe<r liamen tary government in Grf at Britain was represe~lt::tivL~ uf the people being sent to keep control of the parliamentary purse strings, a.nd chat was the main object of Parliament here ; and whenever Padirunent loosened its grip on the pur.se strings, and banded the control of the Tin" ·need to any Government, they were doing a wrong to the people of the colony. No large sum of money ohould be· left for any Mini.~try to handle as t.hey liked, and it was for that reason that he w:1s supporting the amend­ment. HA wm;:. suppor+-,ing it for another rea~on, too-that he thought it was a. very bad precedent for any Government to establish, more especially a powerful Government like they had, to ask the representatives of the peo1Jle to knnck under to the norr1inee1nmnbers in the other House every time they felt inclined to have a go at them. This principle was almost unanimously supported by the Committeelast,ession, and the Government ought to insist on trying to get it through. The hon. gentleman told them to-night that he believed as strongly as ever in the principle; and the only

Agricultural Lands Purchase [:29 AUGUST.] Acts Amendment Bill. 579

way the imputations that he spoke about could be stopped, was by giving hon. members all the in­formation possible, and letting the country know all about it-and there was not the slightest doubtJ but that any fair and reasowtble pnrchaoe would be agreed to by at lea,t five-sixths of the House. He certainly could hardly underst>tnd the Minister backing down in the w.ty he had done, and he intended to supvort the amendment moved by the hon. member for \Vide Rty.

Mr. LESINA ( Clcnnont) sttid he felt incapable of exprtssing the feeling which arose in his mind when the Secretary for Lands took back all he had to say in support of this principle twelve short months ago. On carefully going through the speeche.q by the Secretary for Lands, the Premier, and other members on the other side who spoke in favour of the principle, it would be seen what a remarkable change h.td been brought about by the whirligig of time. Was it not ·extraordinary that a Government with a solid majority behind them, after inserting a certain principle in a Bill, and after that principle had been rejected in another place, should, instead of stiffening ~heir backs and insisting on the principle being carried out, simply back down after twelve months? But even if Ministers backed down he could not understand members behind them backing clown also. He could understand

.a Cabinet, after due consideration, determining that they would not fight for a pcuticular prin­ciple any longer after a measure containing that principle had been mutilated in another place. But he could not understand members sitting behind them, who were free and independent, seeing eye to eye with Minist0rs in that re.,pect ..

Mr. BARTHOL03IEIV : Are you free and inde­pendent?

Mr. LESINA: He was not free and indepen­dent to change the dews he held twelve months ago ; he was free, if he did change them, to leave his party. Hon. members sitting opposite had twitted members sitting on his side with being bound to a party and having no freFOdom. \Vhat became of the alleged indeper <lence of the party of politicians sitting behind the Govemment when the Government change<! their opinion and every member of the party changed too ?

Mr. BARTHOL03IE\Y : \Vhat about your change in regard to tram" ctys?

::\Ir. LESINA: \Vhat was the inducement for the hon. member for JYLnyborough, Mr. Bartholomew, to change his opinion on this vital principle? No one on the Oppo;ition side had changed his opinion with regttrd to mining tram­wavs. The Government last year believed that the ratificntion of contracts for the purchase of the'e estates should be in the hands of Parlia­ment; the other Chamber mutilated the Bill, and declined to accept the principle; the Bill was discharged from the paper ; and the Government, after considering the rnatter twelve months, determined that they would not press for the principle. They were not game to fight the other Chamber on this particular prin­ciple. They represented the people ; they were responsible to the people for the expenditure of the money; and they were elected by the people. The other Chamber, which largely con­sisted of members not directly responsible to the people, mutilated the Bill-excised the prin­ciple~-and the Government changwl their atti­tude with regard to the principle. And, because the Government changed their opinion, everv member sitting on that side changed his opinion also. If they had nut changed their opinions with the Government, would they have the courage to vote for the amendment? He would refer to a few of those members who voted in favour of the principle last year. No doubt, their constituents made a note of the fact that they voted in favour of the

principle of the c .. mtracts being ratified by Par­liament; and if they voted against the principle to~nigbt their constitne:n ts would want to knovv the reason. Muyhap th<•y "anted to get into the happy position of being able when in une place to justify their vote of last year in favour of the principle Jnd in another place to point to a later numher of Hanwrd and say the:v voted against the principle-a sort of ::\Jr. ]'acing·both·ways­a sort of ,Janus· head in politics," hich hon. mem­bers on the other side ought to be able to c~rry with ea'e by this time. In yesterday's 1'elegraph there appeared a good reason in favour of the principle for wbich they were contending, and he would like to quote it-~o Parliament would authorise the Commissioner for

Railways to build a railwaY unless ti1·st informed where ~the railway was to bl~l1uilt. But here is a Bill authorising the :J.linister for Lands to buy estates of which, officially, at present, nothing is known to Parliament.

The SECRETAHY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : That is not the case. Parliament has already authorised the Government to hue estates up to £100,000.

JI.Ir. LE SIN A : He would first finish the quotation, and de:1l with that afterward,~-

It is assumed tlw .. t the :J.liui4er \Vill faithfully perform his duty ; will buy only suitable land ; will pay only a reasonable price for it ; and "·ill s;'ll it to the -.;;-er.v best advantage possible. But that h:; not the point. He could tlO all that, and would have to do it, if Parliameht were first informed what priyate estates he proposes to buy. One questions if the present plan is constitutional. It i~ asking Parliament to lay aside very solemn duties, or tu impose them upon a ~Iinister, who, in a certain sense, is not responsiblP to Parliament for what may be done. Buying and r~;,elling thc:5e land~ is a species of agency, and Parliamtnt should keep a very keen eye on it. Anotlwr thing is that undertllese measures 1nay be l_Jl.uehased estates tbat are in trouble. It is generally understood that this proposal to buy dairying land will eoYer purchases of that sort. Perhaps they can be got cheaper than they could be got if they were not in trouble. In connection with this particular Bill there was no iist of estates which the Go·, ernment pro· posed to purchase; and in pttssing the Bill with­out the amendment they would be handing nver to the J'viinister the power to spend public money-practically handing him a signed blank · chAque for him to fill in.

The SEOHETAHY J<'OR PcBLIO LAllDS : He had a blank cheque all last year and never used it.

Mr. LESINA: He had a blank cheque, and the result had been the purchase of estates like the Seaforth E,tate, which the hon. gentleman would arlmit, nfter the light thr,nvn on the tranoaction, was an estate that should not have been purchased at the prier given.

'l'he SECRETARY FOR PcBLIC LA:-ms : Hon. membmo have blamed me for not buymg one of the Ty.<on propertie,;.

J'vlr. LESINA: As the hrm. member cannot give sati>faction in the matter, would it not be bett8l· for Parliament to take the re,ponsibility? Here were the names of son,r_ of the hon. men> hers who iast ye>Lr, when the matter was put plainly before them, supported the Government in division in favour of this pe~rticular principle. The pre--ent Premier, the gentleman who now represents the Government in the Upper Oham­ber-J\1:r. J\Iurray, the present j'ylinister Jor Lands, and J'viessrs. Da wson, J enkinson, :Vlac­donald-Paterson, Stewart, Browne, Fisher, Reid, Kerr, Bown1an, Higgs, Jacksun, Gla~sev, Hardacre, Ryland, Lesina, Groom, Bell, Stephens, Givens, Forrest, Kates, Fitzgerald, Plunkett, \V, Thorn, Aunear, Dibley, McDon­nell, Turley, Maxwell, Kidston, \Y, Hamil­ton, Petrie, Campbell, Moore, and Bridges. Then several other memhers were absent. The "Noes" were J\1essrs. Cowley, Leahy, Keogh, Hanran, Mackintosh, Armstrong, J. Hamilton, and Story. If a division took }'lace on the

580 1-lgricnltural Lands Purrlwse [ASSE:\1BLY.] Acts Amendment Bill.

matter to-night, those gentlemen who voted with the "Noes" would be consistent if they voted against the principle now, but if the hon. mem­bers who voted for this principle last session were right in so doing, they would be equally righo in ,·oting for the amendment of the hon. member for Wide Bay, which was almost word for word the principle that was introduced in the Bill last session. On the other hand, if they were wrong in voting for that principle last yeo,r, they would be wrong in votingfor it now. It seemed to him that this wo,s o, too serious matter to lightly set aside; it was one of the most indecent exalnp1es of jJOlitic:.tl somersaulting that the House has witnessed for m3.ny a long year. The Govern­ment came down with a Bill involving the passage of a certain vital principle dealing with certain contracts made by people outside, under the provisions of the Act, and the principle had been rejected in another pla~e. It wa," very stntnge how hem. members on the other side could change their opinions on such a matter. The Minister who opoke on behalf of the Government last year thought the principle was a good one, and he (Mr. Lesina} cot1ld not understand how it was possible for members on the other 'ide to now 6tultify themselvee by voting against that principle. He would take one example -the hon. the junior member for JHaryborongh, JYir. Annear, voted for the principle last year, believing it to be a good one, having been largely influenced by the eloquent speeches of the Minister for Lands and the Premier, who were both in f,wour of the principle. The Minister for Lands had admitted that the principle was still right, btrt, owing to certain exigencie; ha dng arisen, the principle hrtd not been included in the present m~asure. If it had been right to vote for the principle last year, it would be just as right for hon. members to vote for it to-night, and any member on the other side who had voted for the princit•le last year and did not vote for it to-night would stultify himself. If thev did that, they would be simply piaying ducks and drab u with political principles; and if the members of the House went on in that way, and gave no c msider,tion to e'}nity, members would not be doinr; their duty to their const.ituents. He trusted the amendment pro­posed by the hem. member fLr \Vide Bay would be carried, because he thoroughly believed in the principle, and he thought it was a very correct way to embody it in the Bill. He saw no objection to it last year, and he trusted that the good sense of hon. members would induce them to see that it was included in the present Bill, so that wise supervision could be exercised over these con­tracts, and that there would be no such suspicion over these matters as there had been in the past.

J\:Ir. BARTHOLO~IEW (.L1faryuo1'0ugh) rose to correct the hon. member for Clermont because he omitted to sav that he (Mr. Bartholomew) was amongst the ·'Noes." If the hon. member looked up Hansard he would see that the "Noes" were Messrs. Story, Cnrtis, J. Hamilton, Cowley, Stephenson, T. B. Cribb, Bridges, Hanran, and Bartholomew.

Mr. JENKINSON: That was on the rejection of the Council's amendment--that was not on the main principle.

Mr. BARTHOLOMEW : He said he voted for the Council's amendment.

Mr. REID : \Vhat about the original amend­ment?

Mr. BARTHOLOMEW : On that occ<1sion he said he had much pleasure in upholding the amendment made by the Council, and then he went on to show why he upheld the Council's amendment. In the Act of 189-1 there was power for the Minister to spend £100,000 on the repurchase of lands, and that principle still re-

mained on the statute-book, but anything over­that amount the ::\Iinister had to refer to the House for ratification, which he thought would be enough safeguard in future, as it had been in the past. Therefore, he would vote against the amendment.

lVIr. REID (Enoggera): The '}Uestion before the Committee was a very important one for the Chamber to decide upon. He thought the Minister had got out of the difficulty very well, as he had chosen the lec"ler of two evils, by giving way to the Council. The Government, last session, were to be greatly blamed for tamely submitting to the dictation of the Cnunci! in interfering with a measure which had been almost unanimously passed by the Assembly, especially as the Bill had been intro­duced by the Government. If the Bill had been introduced by a private member, and the feeling had been in favonr of it, as it was when the Government introduced it, he did not think the case would have been so strong. The Government, with their majority, talked about stability and strength and so forth, when introducing this clause into the Bill last sessicn, and now they backed down, becduse a few members m the nominee Chamber objected to· the principle, and that showed a great deal of weakness on the r•art of the Government. The principle was jn <t repeated again in the clause proposed by the hon. n•ember br \Vide Bay, and it seemed to him that the question really was: whether the nominee Chamber wns going to over­ride the legislation which has been almost unanimously passed by the people's representa­tives in the 1\"sembly. H.e personally objected to snch interference.

Mr. BROWNE: Especially when dealing with a matter of money.

Mr. REID: He did not believe in the othe1· Chamber interfering with the unanimous decision of this Chamber. It had always been held in all Parliaments that the representatives of the people had the controlling power with regard to the ex­penditure of the money, and yet the Government willingly stated, as had already been pointed out, that the],' thonght it wise to save themselves from a great deal of abuse and from the many insinuations and misrepresentations that had been made in public and in the Ch",n:ber with regard to certain transactions that had taken place. They wished to shift the responsibility off their shoulders, and they had asked the Parliament to take the responsibility. Some of the members in the other Chamber said that it was interfering with the power of the Executive. The whole thing came to this : whether it was best that money sl;ould be expended on the authority of the Executive, or whether the ex­penditure should be first ratified by Parliament? \Vas it meant that the Executive could not be trusted to deal with contracts concerning the repurchase of estates ? He did not wish to rehash all that had been said about the Seaforth Estate, the Fitzroy Estate, and other

estates, but he thought that in order [8 p.m.] to place the Government above

suspicion it was desirable that the responsibility of ratifying contracts for the re­purchase of land should rest with Parliament. If that policy had been adopted in the past it was just possible that a lower price would have been paid for some of the estates pur­chased. Many of those estates had been settled on, and some of them successfully, but the ques­tion as far as the country was concerned was, would the tenants be in a position to pay their instalments regularly? Already they had heard a crv in that Cham'ber that the burden was as much as the selectors could bear. Some of the estates had been purchased at too high a figure, and that resnlted in such a heavy responsibility

AgricultuJ•a1 Lands Purchase [~9 AUGUST.] .Arts Amendment Bill. 581

being imposed on the selectors of the land from the jump as ne trly strangled them. There were members in that House who had a lifelong experience of land, and 110ssessed an expert's knowledge on the subject, especially in connec­tion with the districts in which the GoYernment had been repurchasing land. If contracts were submitted to Parliament for ratification they would have the knowledge of those members to guide them, and also the official information furnished by officers of the Lands Department, and the House would probably be able to come to a better decision than the I,and Court or the Executive. He was not in favour of extending the power of the Executive. Par­liament w:ts ruled too much by the Executive, which often by regulations upset what was intended by the legislature. The Council in rpfusing the provision now before the Com­mittee were interfering with the decision of the representative Chamber, and he very stron<?ly objected to that. :Members from agricultural constituencies and from other parts of the colony were sent there by the direct vote of the people, but the members of the Lpper House were ,imply n"minees of the Govern­ment, and when that Chamber interfered with any provision n'pecting the expenditure of money they were going beyond their functions. The Government should uphold the action of the representative Chamber, and again insert th"t provision in the Bill. He was sorry that the Government, and, as far as he knew,' the mem­bers on the other side who voted for it last year, were going against it on t.he present occa,.ion. He did not think it was assuming too much to say th"t those rr:embers were going to back down, possibly because they were afraid of fighting the Council on the question ; but he held that they should look after the interest·_. of the Assembly. The Co::tncil in interfering with the expressed will of that House were going beyond their province, and he was really astonished at the Government backing down in the matter. He trusted that members on the Government side of the House would regarrl the matter as something more than a party question. It was not a ques­tion as to whether the Government were going to rule, but as to whether that Chamber was going to rule as ar<ainst the Upper House. \Nhen the other Chamber interfered with a matter of that sort without giving better reasons than were given for their action last year, he thought that hon. members should vote for the amendment, and uphold the rights and libertie·, .of the Assembly as ag&inst a borlv of nominees who represented nobody but thei'nselves. The Minister himself was of the opinion that it would be better for Parliament to take the responsibility of ratifying those contracts, and the only reason he gave for backing down from that position was that the Council refused the provision last year, and would \·ery likely do so this session. He (Mr. Reid) thought they should test the Council, as it was quite possible that that Chamber would back down. If, how­ever, the Council knew that the Assembly were going to back down, they could not be blamed for taking all the power they could possibly geL The Government, through the Secretary for Lands, had given the whole show awJy, but there was no reason why members supporting the Government should do the same thing. He supposed, however, that it wa; the oe1me old yarn that the Government supporters had got ; they had to sit quiet, or go outside in case someone gave them a rub and then when the division hell r.tng come 'in and vote with their party. \Vhat a position for intelli­gent m~mbers to occupy-to state that they believe m a certain provision, and then vote against it. Hon. members talked about the

signing of pledges, and the tyranny of the Trades Hall; but that was nothing compared with the tyranny which the fr-ont Treasury bench exer­ciRed over their followers. (Governmentlaughter.) They could not find any memher of the Labour party who had gone b .• ck on his principles in that n1anner. They could not accuse any member of that party of !Javin:; f·>:pressed himself in favour of a principle, and then having come in and Yoted against it. It was all very well for them to talk to the gallery and the public ,,bont the tyre,nny of the Trades Hall, but it was nothing to the tyranny that the Government whip exercised over members on the other side. If they were told to vote they bad to vote, no n12~tter what their own opinions might be. Take the hon. member for Nundah. He knew that that hon. member was fa,·ourable to the principle of the amendment, yet he would have to vote as he w&s told.

The CHAIRMAN : Order! The hon. mem­ber is not confining himself to the amendment. \Vhen an ctmendment iR moved in committee, members must speak to it.

Mr. REID : In spraking to the amendment he thought he was entitled to give illustrations and exantples to show hon. members opposite that they should vote in favour of it. He maintained tha.t this was' a vital principle in the Bill, and that tyranny was being exercised over hon. members on the other side to make them vote against the amendment, and he was only pointing out the position in which they were placed.

The CHAIRMAX: Order ! I do not think the illustration given by the hon. member is relevant to tbe question before the Committee.

Me. RJ~ID : \V ell, he would not waste the time of the Chamber by giving- a definition of what an illustr.' tion was. He knew it did not matter what they defined, what they said, or what they proved, because the hon. members on the other side would vote as they were told to. How hon. members who voted for this amend­ment ]o•;t y• Ll' were going to justify to their constituents their attitlule on thi'-, occasion he did not know. Ht- would vote for the amend­ment, and he would do so because he believed in upholding t~ls Chamber as the Chmnbe1·, Ps­pecially when money was at shke. He asked hon. members to break thrr>ugh the cordon that surrounded them, and vote according to their conv-ictions.

Mr. STORY (Brtlonnc): He thought the Council never justified its existence more truly than it did last year when it threw out the Bill which contained an amendment similar tn the one moved by the hon. member for \Vide Bay. He (Mr. Story) spoke .md voted against this principle on the previous occasion, and his con­victions were just as strong now as they were then. He could quite understand that the J'.1inister had come to the conclusiron that no land would be purchased under any consideration what­ever if the contract had to be submitted to Parlia­ment. The most mischievous thing that could possibly be done would be to compel everytransac· tion of this kind to come before Parliament for ratification. He could quite understand that such a thing might be suggested in the case of a board of directors, but to suggest that these transactions should be brought before Parliament would be to propose something which would be quite un­workable. It had been proved by years of ex­perience that the Go.-ernment had bought es­tates well and judiciously. Last year the Lake Clarendon Estate was placed under the category of mistakes, but now pretty well every acre of that had been sold, and the men who had settled upon the estate were more than satisfied with

582 Agricultural Lunrls Purchase [ASSE:;1113LY.] Acts Amendment Bill.

their bargains. The only mi,take that the Go­vernrrH:mt had e,~er L\}l'11 held responRible for wa::; the purch>tse of the Seaforth Estate, and he 1

would ~ay nothing· o,bout that. ' l\Ir. REm : There was the Fitzroy Park Es­

tate, too. Mr. STORY : The Government had done

good v.,•ork, 1,nd they b,t ::1 ~ettlEd a large ntunber of people on the JanJ, and he conld well undE>rR stC\nd that., having thnught the matter over, they wanted to keep the power in their own hands, and not to put it in che hands of ParEa­lnent.

l\Ir .• JEXKIX~OX: The Mini,ter says the prin­ciple~ is jn~t as good this year as it wa.s last, so that be ha::.: not changed.

Mr. S'l'ORY: He hncied that the Minister had ch-tnged. He himself was of opinion that if a very large surn of rYtoney w,_:;;;; involved over and above what the Uon,rnment were allowed to spend, it would be nece,s:~ry fol' them to come to Petrliacnent and ask for its consent to the extra expenditure; but tbo,t could happen v ry seldom, and they could avoid it by keeping within the limit. At any rate, it had been proved that the Government were worthy of being trusted with the public funds for the pur­chase of estates, and he thoug·bt it would be very unwise for them to let that power go out of their hands, more especially as he did not believe that any purchases would be made und_::r the con­ditions of this amendment.

:Yir. FORSYTH (C'"'Pent"''ia): The hon. mernber for I1~noggera \vanted to n1ake out that

' the members on the Government side of the House were gagged, and dared not for their very lives vote agaiEst anythir:g that the Government proposed. That might be the \,ay the Labour party acted, but it was not what the members on the Government side did.

:\Ir. HARDAORE: \Ye never act in that wav. J\Ir. :FORSYTH: As a matter of fact the hon.

members on that side did act in that way. He would tell thoEe hon. members that he was going to vvte against the Go\'ernment in connection with this matter. He spoh in fav<mr of this principle last year, and be would have liked the Government to have stuck to their guns, and have forced the Council to carry uut what they considered the be::t thing in connection with the Bill. This was a vital urincivle of the Bill la"t ye .. r, and he could easily understand that the Government had not introduced it on this occa­sion because they wanted the Bill to pass, so that the p ople who wantPd rhirying land could get it. They had probably concluded that if they retained a chnue like this in the mcg,sure it would not be passed by the Upper House. At any rate, he presumed that that was the re"·.son why the :Mini, ter hac! omitted it. The hon. men,J:.er for Enoggem told them that the Labour party conld not do such a thing.

:\Ir. REm : I said they would not. 1Ir. FOESYTH: He remembered an instC\•,ce

that . occurred in the House not so very long ago, when the R1,il" ay \Vorks Commission Bill was before the Houee. The leader of the Labour party then distinctly st1,ted, and he was backed up by the members of his party, that if th~e (C)overnment introduced works as well as rcdl­ways he would vote for it. \Vhat was the result? Anyone looking up Ha.1sanl will find that that was what Mr. lla w·;on distinctly sbted. vVhat was the result? As soon as the Labour party found that five or six members on this side were going to vote against the Government, and that the Government was likely to he defeated, they simply said: "Let us swallow our prin­ciples; all we want is to chuck the Government out.''

.'Ur. REm : And they did chuck the Govern­ment out.

Mr. FOHSYTH: He admitted that. The I.~abour party \Vere cnn8tantly saying they never voted ~1gainf)t their principles, yet there '-\as an absolute fad that on tlmt occasion they voted agaimt a resolution of the principle of which they had expressed themseh-es entirely in favour. Some of the Labour !llembers - he need not mention n ;.mes-had told him they were in favour of it. 'rhey swallowed their principles on that occ'"ion in order to defeat the Govern­mm1t. As he had said, he was entirely in f•wour of the proposed amendment. He was in favour of it last year, and was exceedingly sorry the l}l.inister had not seen his way to introduce it in the present Bill. There had been nnv~b contention and acri1nonious di."cns"' sion in connection with some of the repurchased estate,, particularly Fitzroy Park and Sea­forth. But the sale o£ the .Fitzrny Park Estate was very strongly forced upon the Government by the · hon. member for RocklDmpton, who belonged to the Labour party. That only showed that when it suited their own ends for political purposes they were prepared to vote against their own principles. If this clause was not nnt into the Bill there would be more acri­monious dehate;.; on future repurchases. It would be contended that information was hehl back, or that they did not take due pre­caution to see that the land was all right. \Vh<} was to be the hest judge as to whether the land was good or not? The Government woul.d be guided by their exuert", who would ascertam on the spot :whether the l9,nd war' really suitable for the purpose for which it was bought. Could the aggregate body of members on both sides get more information than the Government would have at their disposal? The duty of the experts was to inspect the land, and see that it was all it was represented to be. The Government brought in the clause last ye-,r, and it was knocked out by the Council. He presumed they had not reintroduced it because they thought it was likely to meet the same fate again. They had done that rather than jeopardise the Bill. That, at all events, was his belief. Xo doubt, mistakes had been made in the past, ancl probably mistakes would be made in the future, even if every contract had to come before the House for ratifica­tion. But it would have the good effect, as he bad said, of preventing an enorn1ous w~tste of time in heated debate, leading to nothing. He hoped the question would be argued out fairly. So far as he \\ae conc:Jrned, he was not gagged. He was a 'Ort of free lance on that side of the House. He should support the clause, and he hoped the .Minister, after the discussion that had taken ple.ce, would reconsider the question and have the clause inserted.

Mr. KEHR (Bareoo) said he was sorry the Minister could uot see his way to accept the amenduwnt. The hem. member for Carpen­taria had tried to gain a little cheap glory by sayi:1g that he was in favour of the clanse, but that hem. member had paired, so that his vote would be of no account either for or against it. The hon. member for Balonne ,,,id it was no com­pliment to the hon. member who introduced the amendment. If it was no compliment to him it vas no compliment to the Government, who last year introduce:l the very same clause into their Bill.

Mr. STORY: I did not say it was no compli­ment to him.

Mr. KERR : The hon. member for Balr>nne was ·opp:Jsecl to the clause last s<soion, and he was going to ,-ote against it now. He said everY contract, if brought before Parliament for ratih­cation, would b~ pulled about by memherR who knew nothing about it. The hon. member himself gave an illustration of that the other night when

Agrir:u1t11ral Lands p-,rchase [29 AUGUST.] Acts Amendment Bill. 583

he described the dolefnl state of the country out West, country belon~ing tn the Crown. If the hon. member crie<l down the public estate in that w._ty~ no private owner whn had an f-'4tate to sdl would snhmit it to P :rlil.ment. ·with regard to the :E'itzroy Park «~state, the hon. member for Carpentrtria asserted the.t the reason why the Government repurchased that estate was owing to the influence of the hon. member for Rockha~npton, who wa~ in favour of it. The hon. member m;,st think they were a lot of simpletons, for he must know that the Fitzroy P:uk :E.-:ta\e was hmght from the brother of a n1ember of the C Lllinet, the hrJn. gentlernan ·who now led in the Upper HonsP, and t'nt the offi­cers of the Land Bo:.rd reported it to be very poor country. If that contract had been sub­mitted to Parliament for rat.iiication-with the knowledge which so mo,ny men had of that par­ticubr countrY-it would neYer have been pur­cha,ed. lt was purcba"ed because the seller was a brotber of a tlinistC'r of th · Crown.

The SECRETARY FOR PtcBLIC LAXDS: The mem­bers for_;~,nckhan1pton '-trongly supported it.

Mr. KERR: ·what had been the result' \Vas it not convincing enough to any

[8·30 p.m.] hon. member? Not an acre of that lend was taken up when it WR,S

orjginally thrown open, anrl slnce then the only portions taken up have been under the nncondi­tional pro\'i~ions. If they crmld not get pur­chaser.~ for thme estates after they had been repurchased, 'vhat --,as the use of d :aling in thern at all? The Minister knew very -,,ell that the balance of that e'tate was .-,11 extremely poor country. ~.Ir. ::VIahon had reported upon it for the Go\·ern1nent. He ought to know j:t~1od agri­cultural land wlh~n he fl.R\V it, and his report was n1ost dmnnin·:,;. Now, if a provi~ion .uch a~ that proposed by the hon. member for \Yide Bay had been in the Act, such • purcha ~e a"; the l<'itzroy Estate could never have been 1r.ade. He had much pleasnre in supporting the mnendrnent.

Hr. HARDACRE (Leichlw.rdt): He had alwa~~8 been a believer in the syBtenl nf repnrchxs­ing agricultural land~, n,nd he believed it had rlone a great deal of g-ood, both di.re0t!y and indirectly. It was becan"e he b '!Jewel m thR system tbat he had "!ways advocated the r:,titicution of con­tracts for ~epurch~\,e by 1_)arlicnnent. It was not onlv the members of th>tt Chamber who hurled ace~1sations against the (;.overnment, but ahm a large hod~· of people out -ide that Chamber.

~Ir. GrvEXf;: Tht->ir o·vn ne\v~pap'2r nr~£ans. Mr. HAltDACRl~: Yes, it was they who

rabed suspicions 1vith regared tn the achniniR­tration of the Act. lf thev were to have the Act continued, it was abool~1t,]y nec-·mary that thq should allay suspicion;; which had arioen out8ide, and the only \vay in which to dn that was to have the co01tracU ratified by Parliament. He could nnclerstand memb• r.s iike the hon. rnember for Balonne, who wn,s opposed to the reJmrcluFe of agricultuml lands, who was opposed to settlement, and who believed tlmt every n.cre of Crown land shnnld be alienated; and DJS.(J the nwmhPr for :1\laryborough, who had no land to be repurchased i11 his dir-;trict, v:here there c•:os plenty of Crown land, and who did not wnnt n1on y ~pent on the Darling I)own~, opposing the amendrnent in order thr1t the pre::-;ent systern rnight continue. ::\1 othinv \V._1.S rnore sure to kill the systern of rep~rchase than to allow it to "'o on ao it had done since 1884. Almo~t every snsi<•n since he had be8n a n1ernber there had }Jeen a clarnour a,,:ainst S{1n1e purchase made und<'r the Act. In -189i5 there was a, tremenOous c1arnour against tbe repur­chtlose nf the Cliiton l:J~tate, while the Cmuier devoted l.~ader after leader to the way in which tho Act had been abu"ed. Then they had the clatnours against the repurchase of thv Fitzroy,

the Lake Clarendon, and the Seaforth :Estates, and they were likely to have those scandalR ;;tnd acclisations brought forward every year unless they adopteo safeguards for placing the "-dminis­tration of the Act above suspicion. Something had been said about the amu1dment being utterly nn workable. Jf it was unworkable, if no lands would be pnrchnHd under that system, ho\V w~s it tha,t lands were ]Jnrcha~ed in the other colonies under pl'ecisPly the ~ anle condi­tions as were proposPd here ? ~')uch a provision was in fm.·ce in New Zealand notwithstanding what the hrm. member for :\Iaryborough said; it wa& in force for the purch<1se of vvorlnnen's hon1es in South AuRtrnli \; and it was put in tf e New South '1Vales Olo~er Settlement Bill, although it was withdrawn later on. But in New South \Yale,s at the present time the Government had introduced o, Bill providing fur closer land settJen1ent, in which the same provision was inserted, and it was supported by the leading new,;pe,pers of the colony. He had an extract from the Sydney TeiC!f'"aph with regard to the Bill wl ich war; no\\. glling through the New South \Vales Parliament. It said-

One of the most vital needs of an Act of Pnrlia.ment~ \Yarrantmg the expend it nre of ::mch a snm ~l~ £300,000 per ammm in the pnreha:se of private land:-; is that it :-::llon1,.t ha Ye very eareful provbion agalnst the umking of bacl bargains on behalf ol the puhlie taX} 1 ~tyer.

That was with regard to the ra~ificati• •n of con­tracts by Parliament. The only r· csrm the :\Iinister hed given was that he propo>ed to attain the same object in a different way---that wa;, he proposed that if the amount expended was over the statutory limit of £100,000 tben he would come clown with a Bill to provide th>1t the extra exrenditnre sbonld be put before Parlia­rn8nt. \Vflat a 1nere empty pron1ise that WR.s. How did thev know that there would be more th'"n £100,000 worth of land purchased iu one year? He did not think it was likely to occur.

The SECRETARY FOR PtcBLIC LANDS : The Gowrie }~state \Vnuld wipe it our in one act.

:\Ir. HAlUlACRE : In £100,000? The SECltETAHY FOR Pt:BLlC L.\XDS : Yes, an cl

ne<-'trly half as Innch again. ~F'elton would have done so, too.

Mr. HAHDACRE: In any ca,e, the Govern­ment never had spent more than £100,000 in one ye·:r.

Tbe SRURETARY FOH Pt:BLIU LANDS : They could no'"o

:vir. HARDc\.CRE: They conld nor,; no, they ha·i never reached the limit even. It was not ljk·Jy that·, they \V(>uld go beyond tha,t lhnit now, and thereftlre U1e argument of the l\Iini~Jter that he wonld attain thP object in son1e other way wa~ simply a mere state1nent in or9er to obtain votes in rupport of the Ile:csure as It stood. In tha.t ::-e:-· .. sit'U they v.erc in a different positio~ entirfl!y to wha~ th8V were in la~t se,sion. Last st ..,,,ion they \Ver' vBry bus.: dnring- the whole of the 88 :.sion cJLcust:iing- oth,::r UlatterB, and they only considered thB_Agricnltnral Land~ J{n;chase Act Am"ndment Bill towards the dose 01 tne ses­Rion. r:rhe Co'lncil'13 <1mend1nents v.·ere returLed in the Yeryclosin~ 1noment.s nf t1u:.session when there \'\',18 nntin1e to ~.;nnsidcr thern aEd f'-encl thern back. On thi1'i occasion theY \vere considering the n1~:ttcr f'"'rly in the se1'1sion, the Bill would go up to the other Cbamb0r, there would be plenty of time to consider it, and if the Council objected to itK p1·ovisirn1s, they would re~eive it ~o..ck in mnple tin1e to giYe it con.;ideratlon 'Yhen 1t can1e· before then1 again. ?\ow.. the Govern1nent, instc_·ad of giving t.be oth' r Uhan1ber a cha,nce to senrl the Bill back, had C(iven way; they had hau~ed clown tne flag befor; a sing-le shot hari been fired. And even if the 1\Iinister had cbangeJ his mind t.i.~1ce t;velve n1o?thR _ago, bow· did he know but thll.t tne Council m1ght have.

584 Agricultural Lands Purclwse [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Amendment Bill.

changed itq mind al<o? The Minister was actually giving way before there w'"' any real necessity, and he (Mr. Hardacre) thought he oug·ht to stick to his principles, at least so far as to send the Dill containing the proposed new clause to t~e other Chamber, and it would be quite time to withdraw from the position they had taken up when the other Chamber sent it b'"ck to them and refused to accept that clmwe, ThE'""t were anticjpating what 1night never hrcppen, and were acting the part of cow.crds in the matter, not being willing even to give volce to their own opinions, simply because something which might never happen was anticipated. He felt very s• rongly on the matter that sooner or later the system of ratification would have to be adopted in order to allay the s•1spicions of mem­bers inside the Chamber and of general taxpayers outside.

The SECRETARY FOR PUDLICLANDS: During the debate it had been stated that the Fitzroy Park Estat• had been purchased at the instig,ttion of the pre,ent Secretary for Public Instruction, Mr. 1\lurray.

Mr. KliRR: Not at ·his instigation-that he was the brother of the venom·.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLICLAKDS: He would like to read two q ~totations from the parliamentary bib!e·-Hansard-to Bbow what was ,;aid on the subject by Senator Stewart and ilhe hon. memberfor Rockhampton, Mr. Kidston -two of the co!le&gues of the hon. m em bcr who had made the "tatement to which he referred. \Vhen Thlr. Stewart w'" speaking, the hon. mem­ber for Clermont interjected: "\Vhat about the Fitzroy Park Estate?" 1\Ir. Stewart said on p·1ge 1278 of Hunsard for 1899-

'l'hat wa~ tlle eleanf:.,,t of all the transactions. E,·erY acre of that land vms \YOl'th ~ns. of any man':?. money. V

{Lttught<or.) Then on the :mme page the hon. member for Rockhampton, 1\Ir. Kidston, said-

Mention of the Ji'itzroy Estate reminded him of the contrast between the cmHlnet of the member 1or Lockyer and. that of the Secretary for Railwf>y~. \Vhile the Fitzroy l<:state wn.s the pro~pcrty of tlH~ :Jrini.-.ter's brother, and the bon. gentleman wa5; no doubt de~irou::. of :-:ceing· the GoYcrnment purchase it, Yet while a flr-'lJUtfttinn interviewed one of llis coll":::t~n€s he had the gr:tce to remain outside, and took no pHblie J!art in attempting t•J inHnence tlw Government.. He bad the grace to respect his position.

There wns the testimony of two of the collea,;ues of hrm. members on the <'ther side as to the good taste displayed by the present Secretarv for Public In,~•ruction, and there was also the, testi­n1ony of Sen:1tor Stewa.rt•, whose opinion ought to be valued by hon. me m ben opposite, that the tr;tnsactlon was an aL-::.:Jlntely clvan one, and th~t the Government had not done an improper thmg, and had not bought the estate because it was the property of the brother of a Minister. "With reference t? the leading article which ap­peared ye terday m on" of the Brisbane dailies with regard to giving the Government a fre~ hand, to which the hnn. memher for Clermont ha•1 referred, he wi<hed to say that the Dill did not propose to give the GoVernlnent anv nwre freedom than it had at the present time. "'It did not propuRe to givA then1 a single po\ver wbich they had nnt nu"\.v g-ot.

_Mr. BRO\I'XE .: Oh, yes, it does. It proposes to g1ve them the r1ght to purchase dairying land;;.

The SJ~CRETAEY :FOR PUBLIC LANDS· It did not propose t~; give then1 nny n10re prnver than they hncl at the present time. ·what it did prop~se to do wes to remove a doubt which existed in the minds of the memben of tlw Land Court with reference to the 1lleaning of the definition of "agricultural land"; hnt it did not propose to gj '"e the Government power to buy one rennyworth more !an:! than they could now purchase. ·

i\Ir. HARDACRE: It is a stronger definition. The SHCRETAEY FOE PUBLIC LANDS:

It was not a stronger definicion. It was simply setting at rest a doubt whieh had been felt by the members of the Land Court.

The CHAIRMAK: Order ! The hon. gentle­n1an is no\V digres~iug. and is n1a.king a second­reading speech on the Jlill.

The SECllETARY FOR PFBLIC LANDS regretted that he was out of order; but he was simply commenting on a remark that had been made ]Jreviously. and P''inting out that there was a misconception as to the powers proposed to be given to the Government by the Bill.

Mr. GI\ El'\S (Cairns): The argument of the Secretary for La nos was entirely beside the ques­tion. The object of the lvm. men1berfor \V id•' Bay in moving his aw_f'ndn1ent was to provide a safe· guard against the country mttking bad bargains, and the .Fitzroy Pa1,k Est'1.te was referred to by the hon. member for Darcoo as an example of a bad bargain. There could he no gainsaying the fact that that was a h-d bargain, anci it did. nnt matter what Senator Stewarr or the hon. member for Rockbampton said about it. The fact re­mained that the country had made a bad bargain, and it showed the nece,sity there was for devising sorn" means whereby the cuuntry conld be safe­guarded against suet: bad bargains being madP in future. He did not ftccuse the Secretary for Pnblic Instruction or anyone else of having engineered that pnrcha<e, But even the Secretary for Lands could not deny that the bargain was not a good one, to put it mildly, and, "if the barg?.in was not a good one, then the cuntentitm of the hon. membee for Barcoo held good. If the con­tract had had to he first ratified by l'arJimnent it would not havB been entereci into so lightly, because there \vere n1e1nbers 'vhn, fnnn their own persond information, would have been able tn show that the b•11gain w::ts likely to be a bad one. The Secretary for Lands said that the Bi!l gave hin1 no nwre pov.?er than he bad under the originn.l .tlct. That \vao:; true to a Yery gre3t extent, bec:.cuse, ftithongh it enlarged the defini­tion of agricultural lands to enable hin1 to pur­chase dairying land.-:--

The CHAIK\IAX : Order! ~lr. GIVB;\S: They knew that the Govem­

ment had purchased both kinds of land under the old Act. Althou?;h the Dill mi((ht not enbrge the powers of the GoYermnent, the connt~·y was at present Hnffering fro1n n1istak~s which were made under the old Act, and m amenrling the Act it was desirable that they should obviatP or 1ninirniRe the chance of making similar mistakes in the future. If it was not dr, )jrable to insert these ~afegua.rds, why did the Government propose to include them in the Dill introduced last ses -10n? The Secretary for Lands himself was an ftrdent advo­calethen of the principle which he said now should not be insert~d in tlte Dill, and, when the other H' use returned the Bill, emphatically declined to accept that proposal, thR hon. mrm ber rejected the Dill rather than see it paesed vithont the amend­ment which he valued so highly. It wa:, \"ery curious that the hon. member had changed his attitude since la·,,t session. l-Ie regrEtte l very much that he had. done so, becauee :Ministers, as well as all other members, sbuulfl be jealous of the rights >lllcl privileges of that House. They were certainly the re<J,onsible portion of the Parlimnent of Queensland, but they would sin1ply reduce tberr1sel ve~l to the po~itic:D: of record in~ angels,. and n;erely record tltL deci~Ions of the D ppcr House, rf they were to cave m to them on every possible occasion. As the hon. member for Leichhardt had very truly observed, as some time had elapsed since the matter was last before the otl,er Honse, they might have come to the conclusion that they bad made a

Agri<·u1tural Lands Purchase [29 AuGusr.] Acts AmenrLwnt Bill. 585

mistake, and might not be so ready to sacrifice the Bill this year if it was sent to them in the same form as the Bill of last year. He for one was thoroughly in accord with the principle that any contract involving the expenditure of Yery large sums of money should not b2 entered into by any Government without the authority of that House, which should have the control of public expenditure, and which was the only authorised body in that State for gr~·nting money f(•r public purposes. The Telegraph newspaper, commenting· on this matter, yery truly observed tha,t no Parlia­ment would grant power to the Gm·emment to build un:opecified rail ways. As a matter of fact, there was one occasion when a :\Iinistry met. with such strong opposition that they dropped a pro­posal that money should be granted for building unspecified rail way". If th · power to build an unspecified railway would be an undesirable power he contended that it would be equally undesirable to give a ~Iinister power to purchase an unepecified estate, which rnjght 1nYolve Wil

large an amount of money as the building of an unspecified railway. The J\Iinister for Lands had admitted that on more than one occaswn very grave mistakes had been committed under the Act, and he believed that if this principle had been inserted in the vrincipal Act those mistakes would n''''er have occurred, or would not, at any rate, have occurred to the same extent. He bad been accused of wanting i to kill the Bill, but hon. members could see from Hansard that be was a warm supporter of the Bill last year, and he was thoroughly in accord with the principle of buying lmck land for the purpose of close settlement. He belieYed that all big eotates should be burst up-he was opposed to monopoly---and he thoug-ht the Government were adopting a right course in bnying them bo.ck, hut he did not believe in alluwing- the Government cc free hand in the matter. He believed that the system of buying back land could only be beneficial when thP intereots of the taxpayer" and thCJse of future selEctors were mfegnarrlecl; and the working of the Act in the past did not show that 1 he interests of either hacl been safeg-u•rded. The Minister hari repeatedly s•id thac there would be a check on the 1\Iinister, inasmuch as he was responsible to the Hnuse, but every tirne a trand­action had been criticised in that Chamber the Minister had in,mediatelv ;;heltered himsPlf behind the Land Board. If the Minister could be made really responsible, and they could he sure that hon. members wonld thrr>w aside all {Jonsiderationsof party in dealingwith these trans­actions, it would be all rig-ht, but they knew that such an ideal state of affairs was impossible. They knew very well that the hon. gentleman's colleagues would all 'l,tick to him, and that the party behind would all stick to him, no matter how much some of them might condemn his action privately. Therefnre the JI.Iinister was simply begging the questinrr when he said he would be respnnsible to Parliament. He also said there would be the safeg-nard that the House would have the voting of the money.

The S!i:CRETAilY FOil PcnLIC LA:s-ns : Not so far 9S £100,000 is concerned.

Mr. GIVERS: They would have the right to purchase .£100,000 worth of land in one year at any r<>.te.

The SECilETAilY FOil Punr.IC hums: The statute gives that power.

Mr. GIVENS: The amendment sought to limit that power in a ver:v desirable direction. Without the amendment, p,,r]hment would ha,·e no power over the expendit,re. The Govern­ment would have a signed blank cheque to the extent of £100,000, and Parliament would ha' e no power over any individual purchase, no

matter how they might disapprov~ of that par­ticular purchase. It we.s not wBe to put that power int0 the hands of the ~Iinister.

'J'he SECRETARY FOR PcBLIC LA~ms: The Minister was blamed for not using- it last year in the purchase of the Felton Estate.

Mr. GIVERS said he did not blame him for one.

The SECHEI'ARY FOR PFBLIC LAsns: Some of your col!eagueR did.

Mr. G n ENS : If anyon'l blamed the hon. gentleman it was probably Rome members on his own side, but they had not moved a vote of want of coniirlence in consequence. He believed that if thev ac~ed inside according to the way they expre~sed themsel ve" outside the Cbamher, there would often he m<>~ ion of want of confidence, but be believed the, \\·ere not game to move it.

Mr. J. HAMILTOS : 'l'hey are not politically handcuffed.

Mr. GIV:B~XS: 'I'll y were handcuffed by the financial institutions, who ordereJ them how they were to vote. There had been examples of that.

Mr. BHIDGES: Not any more than your side. 1\lr. G IV Kt\S : He wa" not handcuffed by

anyone in the matter of voting. Hon. members of the Labour party were expreesing totally different opinions on this Bill. The leader of the party utid he was opposed to the principle of the Government buying- l>ack lr,nds ; he (1\lr. Givens), being a free member of a free party, had a right to say that he was in favour of the principle, and he had said so.

The ::;ECHETAHY FOR PUBLIC LAKDS: You are both oppo,;ing- the Government. ln that you are con~i~tent.

i\1r. BRO\\'KE: And the members opposite are always snpporting the Go\·ernment. They ~,re con~·i-stRnt, too.

J\lr. GIYENS: There had been too mnch expenditure of public money not authorised by the Houee.

The ::;EcHETAHY FOH PcnLrc LASDS: This expenditure is authorised.

Mr. GIY.EXS: It was not authorised. \Vhat thev \Vanted to do vvas to insert :;;nch a provision in the Bill as would give the House a right which they ought to posses,-that was, to have pr,wer over the public purse and ···lY how the money sboulcl be expended.

The SEOHEl'.~RY FOUPFBLIC LANDS :The House has Kaid how the money should b~; expended.

;\Ir. GIVEXS would like to know what they were discussing if they had not the ri(l'ht to s~y what limitations should guide the Mrmster m the ex]Jenditure of public money.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAKDS: You have the rig-ht t.o amend the Act. .

Mr. GIVENS: They were trying to amend rt. If each estate had to be purchased with the con­

sent of Parliament, or eYen if the [0 p. m. J money had to be voted for the pur-

chase of each sepamte estate before it was purchased, then the House would have some control over expenditure. But nothing of the kind had be()n proposed by the 1\Iini,ter. He would like to ask what had transpired since the House considered the mo.tter last year to cause the Minister to alter the opinions he so emphatically expressed then? . :r'he _Principle which members on the OpposrtJon stde were contending for was Yolu:Jtarily introduced by the Minister for Lands last year, and he made out a very strong case in favour of it--indeed he was so strongly in favour of it that he refused to accept the Council's amendment on tbe matter, after they had thrown this principle out, and had returned the Bill in a mutilatec! form, The .:\linister eYen ROt up and mover! that the whole mat;ter be dropped, and that that Order of the Day be discharged from the business-paper.

586 A,qricultural Lunds Pu1·clwse [ASSEJ\IBLY.]

He thought the :\Iinister should also t,l,e the House into his confidence) and st.ate \vbat safe­guards he proposed to put in pl;;ce of the cafe. guarrl that had been dropped, or did he prorJOse to ]Jut in any safe:;uQrd at all? If thf principle was a good one last year, it was et good one now, and he was altogether opposed to dropping this vital principl·~' out of the Bill at the bidding of hnn. gentlemen in another place, \vho were not res1Jonsible to anybody but then1eelvc-:;. ...<\s members of th., As,embly they were there to safeguard the interests ,,f the taxpayers of the whole community, and he contended that they should not allow an:.· part of their right,, or responsibilit-ies, or privileges to be fi]c;led from them, and he wonld strenuously uphold tbo. · rights, privileges, and n.sponsibilir.ies. The hon. gentlenlfm who occupied the front Trt-,t'-~Ury bench, wh{) were the cnstodians of those ricYhts and privileges, and who were ~upposed to g~ide the House and the de"tinies of the State, should be the first to Htand up '"nd defend thnH rights and privileges. They should not ,,ubmit to any such dict<1ti0n fron1 ano~her lJlace frn~ one single mon1ent. It aptn:lared to hin1 that an entirely new era had dawned, and tha!i it wa~ _likely they were going to lo~e every titt.le of d1gnity the House po'-ses,sed, bec,.me certain proposals of this Chamber did not find favour in another place. He was not concerned a bont that. He was concerned as tn whether their proposals were right or wrong-whetlhr they were for the best interests of the people i!f the whole State. 'When be was cunvinced of tha,t, it did not rnattor to him i1ow n1nch any otherincli­vidual or body of individuals, whether part of the legislature or not, fonght againRt these1)rinciples. He would never go back on what, he believed to be good nrinciples one inch. lf the Bill vvas to be rejected on acconnt of this principle being inserted in it, he would 'ooner lose the Hill altogethPr than that this House should be shorn of what little dignity and responsihilityit po,,sessed. Those were Ins re&'lons for ,;trenuously support­ing the amendment moved by the hon. member for \Yide Bay. He believe·! that if this clau,'e were inserted in the Bill it would tend to make the 1neasure nwre workable and infinitely rnore satis­factory to the people of the St><te. Believing that the repurchase of good agricultural and good dairying lends was advis""ble and necessary he would like to sef' the present measure made ~ good one. The amendment movPd bv the hon. memb:r for \Vide B"y was vitdly nec~S<ary and essent1al for the success of the Act-for the succ-,ss of the repurch[tSE' nfl ~tnds-··a.nd fnr tbat reason he would enthusiastically support the amendment, which he hoped would be carried.

Mr. TURXER (Roc1Jwmpton North) had vc:ry 1nuch pleasure in , upporting the an1endrnent, and in endorsing many of the ramarkil which haj fallen from the bon. member who had just sat down. He regretted that the necessity had arisen for the repnrchase of land br agricultural and dairying ]Jurpooes. He thonght tlwJ, neces­sity had arisen owing to the actions (>f Govern­ments in earlier days whicli had led to the aggregation of large estates.

The CHAIRMA:'\: : Order !

Mr. TURKER quite agreed that estcttcs should be purchased, but he thought that these purchases shonld be extended over the various parts of the colony, and not made in one small portion ot the State.

The CHAIR:\IAX: Order !

Mr. TURNER : He thonght that in the expenditure of large surns of money, whether in the repurchase of estates or not, it w~s very wrong that hon. memoers of the Assembly should not be allowed to have any say on the

matter. He trnsted that all future transaction&· of this kind would be submitted to the House for ratificati0n.

:\lr. PLL":\'KETT (AU,at) nsked the Minister if there was any minimum fixed with regard to the areas to be repurchased? He nnderstood tha~ 3~.000 acres wa>, considered the minimum. liis reison for asking that wns t.hat at one thne he 'vas vert_'" anxious that :::orr1e estates in his electorate slionld be repurchased.

The SECRETARY FOil PUBLIC LA::\'DS : Xo minimum was fixed by the ~l.ct. That was purely a rnatter of administration.

Mr. PLUNKET'I': Seven yearB "go he had Inoved a similar an1endrnent, and he "\\ .:ts going to support the amendment before the Committee. At the same time be sympathised with the Yiinister in the position in which he v :ls placed. Last see· ion this -::~me principle was in the Bill, and he wo' sorcy to see that it had beAn deleted from the measut·c. If it was right for it to hctve been in the Bill last year, he thought it should be included in the measure before the Committee. The reason for it not beimr in the pre·ent Bill was, no doubt, because if it \Vas in the n~easur~, and the Bill w.cs sent to nnotber place w1th th1s principle in it, it ,,, as thou"ht that it would be thrown ont. The 1najority against the principle in another place \vas only slight, and was not sufficient to wrcrrant the c!eleti01c of the principle. A good deal had been said about t-he neces~i_ty of buyin;, dairying bncl, but he did not thmk large sums should be expended for that purpose when they had millions of acres of Crown Lmds in the settled districts which might shortly be made available. Dairying· was very much a matter of locality, and--

The CHAIR:'I1AN: Order! I would remind the hon. me1nher th,ot when there is an amend­n1ent or a new clause before the Connl~ittee rne1nbers 1nust spe.1 k to that arnendn1ent or new clause. The hon. trlt~mber is now referring to the proviRions of the Bill.

Mr. PLU:c\KETT: Perhaps be was a little out of order, but he wished to leacl up to the reason why he contended that the new clause should be ~dopted before launching out into a large expenditure of money for the repurchase of lands. Last yv:,r the Hon.;;-, by a very large :majority~ on t\VO OCC'·lsions aJfil"rrled the principle of ratification by J::>arlimnent< The ;::)ecretary for Public Lo.nds then spoke strongly in favonr of it, and this evening the hon. gentleman had admitted t!Jat he was still in favonr of the prin· ciple. _._~number of 1nmnbers on the other side also supported it last ,;ession. 1\lr. Kates, the hon. m8mber for Cunningham, said-

The only :nnenc1ment. he thu.n;ht desirable -..vas ille ratification by Pa,rliameu: of any E: .;tates lllll"Chased by the Governmeut ..

The Premier said-They r,mld not haYe too mnch daylight on thcE-.e

matters, and if tllc lm~iuc"~'i went throng 1. fir~t the Laud Court, ~ccoml the Executive, and thil·d the l)arlia­ment, he ditl not think many mistakes could be n.ade in the buying of lancl. Personally he (Mr. Plunkett) should b. ve liked to have seen tb .• t provision included in dJe orig-inal Act, and he thought they should stand on their dignitr and Bhow that they were not going to be dictated to by the other Chamber. He had a very high opinion of the position of the ~-\.s-,embly. Its members were sent there by the electors to cay how public money sbonld be spent, and they had no right to bow down in humble submission to the Upper House. If this cla•me were inserted in the 13ill, no one conld say that it wonld not be accc,pted by the Council this ses,;ion. The members uf that Chamber were responsible to the pnblic, thongh.

A,r,rri,·ultural Lands Purchase [29 AUGUST.] Acts Amcndnnnt Bill. 587

not to the >a me extent as members of the Assem­bly; and he held that they should 0odopt the pro­posed provJSwn,Oondsee how it would be received by the CounciL He would support it most strenu· oushr.

l\lr. FOX (1\'(n·nwni,!J) : During the course of the debate to-night it had been conveyed to his mind that the Governrr.ent c msidered the prin­ciple ernbodie~ in the amendrne;rt a good one on a former oceaswn, and under tho';'e circumstances he hiled to see "hy they should alter their opinion on the subject. ln a previous debate the Secretary for Agriculture told them that the repurchase of eertain estates w .ts due to the reports made by <Jt!icial expert.., and that the i Governn1ent .had no other course to pursue than · to act on then· reports. That showed that some other safeguard was req nired with re~ arC! to these repurchases ; and although he was strongly in favo~r of the J\linistry nnking these purchases and takmg the responsibility of them, >.till after the experience they had had in the past, he was ?bhf(ed to Gay that he thought the proposal made m the amendment was necessary, and he would be disposed to advise the :'o.Iinister" in char"e of the Bill to accept the amendment. The ho~, gentle­man supported it himself on a former occasion, and from the discussion tl,at had taken place thi~ ~vening, it was very clear that a large maJont_l' nf hon. members were in fayour of the insertion of the proposed new clause. And as the 8ecretary for Public Lands and the Premier had supported it on a former occasion, h

1e thought they Ehould accept it on that ground i

a1.one. The SECRETARY FOH PUBLIC LMmS : Last

session we a>ked for a free hand to buy as much land .1s wc wanted, and not to be restricted to the expenditure of £100,000 per annum.

:Mr. FOX : Did he underotand the hon. gentleman to say that before that there was no limit?

The SECRETARY FOil PcBLIO LANDS: J'\o. But th~ Bill introduced last yeLw took aw ty the limrt of £100,000 altogdher. The Ministrv were given power to buy £1 000 000 worth of land if they chose, as long a's th~ pnrchRse was first approved by Parliament, There was absolutely no limit in that BilL

Mr. FOX: He thought the )\linistry might accept the amendment. On their own showing the Government had acted on the reports fur­nished to them by their officers, and he thought it would be Letter to have a further safeguard.

The SEUHET.\HY FOH l'UBLIO Iu\XDS : Under this Bill we will get a report from three members of the Land Court, whmr1s b•_ fore only one member of the board had to rup wt.

Mr. :FOX: That some-.vhat altered the case, and he should reconsider the question. (Oppo· sition laughter.) He had not been able to attend the Honse regularly during the past week, and he wished to do right to his own side as well as by the other side, and if members on his side could show him tha; they harl provided any ou.fe­gnard whrch the other side had not pointed out, he h<td a perfect right to exercise his own judg­ment in the matter, and he should do so.

HONOl-RABLE l\iE}JBEHS : Hear, hear ! Jlilr. BRIDGES (Nundah): He could not

allow the question to go through--:Mr, KERR: \Vithont recanting. Mr. BRIDGES : He would not ask the hem.

member for Barcoo whAther he should recant or not. He had known the case of a member on the ochPr side who, after speaking, walked out rather than vo~e. He (Mr. Bridgee) was not in the habrt of dmng that. He generally made it his business to be in the House.

Mr .• JENKrxsox: You voted both way< last time on the same question. ·

:r'.Ir. BlUDGES: The hon. member for \Vide Bay said that he voted both ways last time. He did vote and he did not vote. (Laughter.) It was niece for hon. members to have a good laugh, and he supposed they got as good a laugh when he spoke as from any body else. He was never in favour of thi:-; amendn1ent, and if hon. lnern­bers ' ould look up the debates at the time this Bill •· as goin,·· through last year they would see that one or two members on his side thought fit to w.tote "" great deal of time in opposieg this clause, so that when it went to a di vbioa, it was sin1ply J, fa.rce to vote on it. He \YJ.R annoyed at 1:~ernbers stonewa1ling the Bill­he never approved of stonewalling on his side or on anv other side~and he did not even er ss the Chun1ber to v<Jte. Then, the amendment last ~essiun wa0 not the sanw a;mendment as that 110\V

before them. The wording of the amendment ndght be the sarne, but it was not an a1nend1nent of a Bi11 in thA r:ame ,vav as it Vl:lH an alnend­ment of a Bill last sF•'sion. They were then giving the GovernnL:nt power to Lmy as much land as they wished. The Government could buy t.s many estates as they liked, and pos­sibly them might have been some excuse, under those circtnnstances, for saying that the contract should be ratified by the House .. So far as he could see, the main reason for the introduction of thi.q Bill was that they might gi,-e the proper interpretation of v.rhat was n1eant by "agricultural land.'' Last year a very important deputation waited upon the Premier, and asked him to bring in an amendment of the A·,ricultural Lands Purchase Act, the reason given being that the L"'nd Board had said that the Government C()n!C! not buy dairying land under that Act, The Premier promised that he would bring in a Bill; this was the Bill that he uromised, and anyone who looked at it would Hee that that was the main feature of it. The l\Iinister in charge of the Bill had, however, introduced a further safeguard by making· three members of the Land Board report on estates propmced to be purchased mstead uf one. That virat; a very good proviso, and in his opinion any member~even if he voted for the amendment last year~ would be justified in 'oting for the Bill ac; it stood, because it was not the same as the Bill which was introduced last year. S<_eing thflt they had debated the matter so long, h& thought they might finish it to-night.

J\Ir. ,TEXKIXSOX: \Ve dicl not take up half· an­hour last night,

:\Ir. BltiDGES: They dehated it so much, at any rate, tt at some of the Jiapers which were very much quoted in the House, said the Governn1ent \vere in a tight place, and ,,._1\V fit to adjourn, and indicated that they thought the Committee ought to have been prepared for a vote.

1\Ir. Buowx"' : There was no debate, The Minister for LandB moved the adjournment after the hon. member for \Vide Bay had spoken.

::\Ir. BRIDGI~S: He did not wish to '''aste any time or to stonewalL He did not think any hon. member who Yoted for the principle of the amendment last time "as bound to vote for it now, because the Bill was quite a different one.

:Ur. LESI.i'~A: It was not advisahle, nnder the ext.raol'dinary circun1stance') that had arisen i11 connection with this particular amendment, that the explanation of the hem. member who had just resnmed his seat should be allowed to pass without some slight comment. The hon. member for Kundah, on one or two occasions since he had become an .1ctive politician, h•,d developed remarkable versatility as a political contortioniet. On this occ;,sion he had shown an amount of versatility in voting on both sides of the question that he (:Mr. Lesina) did not

588 Agricultural Lands PuTclwse [ASSE.YI:BLY.] Arts Amendment Bill.

envy him the possession of. It was in evidenc~ that he had voted on two sides on this question in one week, and now he would vote on the third side if there wos one. He found in looking in Hansa1·d, vol. lxxxvi., p. 2158, that in the division list on the particular clause that they were now discuRsing, the nan1e of "I\Ir. Bridges" appeared as voting· in favour of the principlP which the hon. member for \Vide Bay now sought to introduce. When the Bill was returned from the Upper

House, and the Minister in charge [9·30 p.m.] of it moved that the Council'.~

amendment be disagreed to, the hon. member voted with the "Koes." He first voted for the principle of the clause, and then he voted against it. How the h,·n. member could manage to take up two such diametrically op­posite opinions he could not undersLand. There was always one thing they could predicate of the hon. member. He was always to be found, except in that particular instance--

The CHURMAN : Order~ The hon. mem­ber must addre"s his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. L:ESINA: The bon. member reminded him very much of Sir ,T oseph Porter, in " Pina­fore .. "

The CH_URMAN: Order! I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment.

:Mr. LESIN A : HA would do so. and let the resemblance to that deceased gentleman go by the board. It was evident the hon. member

Always Yott·1 at his party's call And never thought of thinking for himself at all.

The hon. member for Balonn,, in the course of the discus,ion, pointed out, as he bad done to­night, that he did not think, if the amendment was accepted, owners of gocJd estates would sub­mit their estates if any delay took piace in ratifying the contract. In opposition to that, he would quote what the Premier said-

Before an estate could he pnt before the House the Govf'rnment would have pm·ehhsecl it snbjer~t t.o the ratification of Parliament. Thee· would not bring all the e"tat€·1 offered to them before the House. Thev wonld submit a certain nnmber of estate·, to the Land Court, and the Land C'1nrt might :111prove of twenty, and the Government might only purchase two or three. f':Ubjeet to tlle purchase being afterwards ratified by Parliament. \Vhat did they brin,g Estimates l1Elforc the House first for: \Vlw should Parliament be asked to control every shillil1g-that \Vas spent in the colony~ He was a~tonished at the hon. member for IIerbe1·t arguing that the Gm·ernment ::;:honld c '\:Crcise much more authority than they did. Every lflail contract vms subject Lo ratilication by Parliameut, and if Parliament did not ratify such a contr:wt it. eould be eanrellcU. Evety t·ailwa~r propose<l by the Government was not a party question. The Governm_c.It cert·tinlY took the responsibility of RUbmitting· the lines to Parliament. but Parliament might vote au:ainst them. That was said in support 0f th0 principle of the ratification of contracts for the repurchase of estates by Parliament, the inference being that it would b<; a valuable ,afeguard, insomuch as it would prevent the country being led into the expenditure of money on bad bargains like the Seaforth Estate. In August last year a depu­tation, headed by the hon. member 'for J\!Ioreton, waited on the Minister asking him to introduce an amending Bill, and the Minister prorni"·ed to lntrod nee that ,, ery principle. Those hon. mem­bers who voted for it last year had no right to turn round and vote against it this year. :No reason hod been given why they should depart from their attitude of Ja.t year. Therefore anv position they t,lOk up now must be the result of whim, or w~ip, or party loyalt3-. \Vas that change of attrtude due to party loyalty or from a conviction forced nn their nlinds bv a serious consideration of the principle? '

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. mem­ber !s not speaking to the amendment. He is makmg personal attacks upon hon. members

opposite. The hon. rr:ember must be aware that there is an amendment before the Committee, and that members must confine their remarks to that amendment.

'Mr. LESil\ A: It was a reYelation t0 him thr,t he had been making person:1l attacks on hon. members on the other side. However, he would accept the position that he had been mak­ing personal attack>'. He had a word to say as to the attitude of Ministers to the amendment. The Minister for Lands had certainly been pre­sent all night and had courteously replied to his opponents, but be had given no reasons for the apparent change in his opinions. OLber :Ministers who both spoke nnd voted for the clanse last year had not sai<l a word. The Premier, who certainly owed the Chamber some kind of explanation,'had not opoken. That was humiliat­ing to the Chamber, to the Government, and to the partv that sat behind him. The least they could ex[JPct from the head of the Government was a certain amount of courtesy, particularly when there· was a change in the Government policy of a vital nature.

The CHAI:RJI.IAN : Order ! The matter be­fore the Committee is not the attitude of the Government. The question is that the proposed new clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ll<~SINA: Your ruling on that point is more remarkable for its ingenuity than for its appoeiteness. Hon. members on the other side have discussed the attitude of bon. members on that side. One of them entered into a long dis­cu' ;ion on the purchase of the :b'itzroy Park Estate, and W·'' not called to order once.

The CHAIRMAN: Order ! The hun. mem· ber must not reflect on the Chair.

::\Ir. LESINA: He had no desire to come in conflict with the Chair; still, there were limits to human endnrance. He was trying to point ant the inconsistency of :Minister" and members who la"t year vot<·d one W"-Y and this year were going to vote anoLher way. The mere pa"sage of tin1e did not change right into wrong or wrong into right. To faee both ways, as .:\Iinisters and their ::-upporters were doing, \Vas to n1ake thetn­selves ridiculo,;s in the eyes of the Chamber and of the public; it was stultifying the House. It was utterly impossible that legislation dealing with prineiples of th,,t kind, with such far­reaching effects, could have any lasting benefit so long as Ministers were willing to play battle­dare and shuttlecock with principles. It was unfortunate that such criticism should be neces­sary; it would not be ner<,,ary in any other Chamber throughout Australia except in that Chamber, where the :Ylinistry were backed up by a following perfectly willing to do anything at their bidding so long as they were abl<" to hold office.

Mr. HARDACRE: Some hon. member said during th0 discussion that he had given the master reconsideration because the :Minister said that they had introduced a safegnard in the pro­vision which compelled the report now to be by the three members of the board, instead of as formerly only by one. 'V ell, that was not a new provision at all.

The SECRETARY >'OR PUBMC LAl':DS : That is an absolutely new provision.

Mr. HARDACHE : Absolutely nothing of the kind.

The SECRETARY POR PUBLIC LANDS : You prove that it is not.

Mr. HA:RDACRE : He certainly would. The Act had been in force since 1S94, and under the Agricultural L"nds Purchase _'\.et of 1894 and 1897 the stipulation in the Act was that " .'.ny such offer shall be refern i to the Land Board for their report upon the following matters." Then the Land Court gave the report, and the Government could purchase. Now, the

Agricultural Lands Purchase [29 AUGUST.] Acts Amendment Bill. 589

Land Board, before the Amending Act of 1897, Bill. He should have thought that the Minister was the board which must report oitting as three would have received the amendment with open members. arms, and that the hon. member for \Vide Bay

J\Ir. JE:>KINEON: A:1d did report. would have been invited on to the "Lucinda" The SECRETARY FOR Pt:BLTC LANDS: You and have been given a State picnic. The clause

know very well that t;,ere was only one member appeared to him to be an absolute protection to who ever reported on estates, aud that was l\!Ir. the Government. Whatever insinuations might Hume. have been hurled at them in the past, none could

1Ir. HARD ACRE : Yes; in the case of the be hurled ~t them in the future if the amendment Seaforth E~tnte. were accepted. He wa~, of course, a new rnern-

The SECitETARY FOR Pt:m.rc LANDS: AI ways. ber, but he bad been astonished at the charges of Mr. HARDACRE: He did not know what conupti·m which had been hurled against the

was done. He only knew what was provided bv Government in connection with the repurchase the Act. H., knew in the case of the Seaforth of es,ates. It had been a·,serted time after Estate l\!Ir. Hume reported. time that ,;everal estates had been purchased

JYir. BowllJAN : Against all the other officer·'·· at three nr four times their value. Those Mr. HAltDACHE: What he did know was statements harl been supported by clippings

that the safe· ward compelling the report to be fmrn the Press. It had also been alleged that by three members of the board was in the Act of the necessity for the amendment was proved 1894, and was operative until the Act of W!J7 was by the fad that the Government had bought pa,"ed. land which con:;isted, not of agricultural lalld,

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: You but of stony ridgf"·; and one ban. member sug-know very well that one member of the Land gested, as an excuse for the Go, ernruent having Court a! wavs did the work of the Land Court. bought that land, that it would be suitable for

Mr. HARDACEE: Not before 18!J7. suburban allotments in the dim and distanb Tbe SECRETARY FOH Pt:BLIU LANDS: Yes. future. Of course it was not his int8ntion to Mr. RARDACRE: Nothing of the kind. 1 discuss whether the Government had bought The SECHETARY J<'OR Punuc LANDS : You those allotments or not. He was not accusing

read the clause. them of anything like that ; but he wished to :VIr. RARDACRE : The Land Court was draw the attention of the Government to the

composed of three members, and it was only fact that, notwithstanding that they might when they came to 1807 that it was said that, have a very high opinion of their own morality, owing to the difficulty of getting three members certain people outside might not have the to sit together-on account of the delay and in ,,~me idea. He could assure hon. gentlemen order to provicle more celerity-they should :dluw opposite that the people outside that Committee one member of the board to report >tnd act as did not altogether regard them as angels, or three together. look u1Jon them as infallible. He had he,ud

The SECRETARY FOR Pt:BLIC LANDS : There certain people say that they had made certain were only two members of tbe Land Court unJer mistakes. He might even go so far aR to say the 18-'4 Act-not three. that he had heard peoplP say that the Govern-

Mr. HAEDACRE : In 1894 he knew that it ment had perp<''rated jobbery and been guilty was reduced to two members, but it was or1ly of corruption. It was therefore advisable, if temporary, and then they m •de it three by the i such ,;landerous alle:;-ations could be prevented 1o97 _-\et. So the safeguard which the hon. ' by the insertion of certain provisionB in Bills gentleman said was a new safeguard, was put in like that now under consideration, that such in 1.S!H, and unde1 that safeg-nard a large number provisions should be in,c,erted in order to put a of purchases were made. He thought the J<'itzroy : stop to such a deplorable btate of affairs. lt Estate was purchased early in 18\.17- or 18~)8. • would be a very good thing if the Government

The SECHE'l'ARY FOR PuBLIC LANDS : How agreed to accept the amendment, especially many members of the court reported on it? as it had been stated that certain purchases

Mr. HARDACRE : He did not know. That were made because the land was the property was a detail of the administration. of certain rehttions of members of the Go-

The SECRETARY l<'Ol\ PuBLIC LANDS : This vernment, That was a sort of thing that amendment makes it compulsory that three they should be only too wilhng to escape. It members of the Land Court shall mport. was aho said by hon. members that the

1Ir. HARD ACRE: So did the original Act. Government had any amount of Crown lands The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LA:-ms: I ask you available; and if, in the face of that, they pre-

how many reported in that case? fer red to buy land, then it w'aS only reasonable Mr. HAEDACRE: The Fitzroy Estate was to expect that their actions would be called in

purchased in 1897 or 1898-after the amending question in the future as they had been in the Act was passed. And Glengallan, Clifton, and past. The duty of the Government ought to be Headington Hill were bought under the original l to prevent any slur being cast upon Parliament, safeguard that the report was to be the report of otherwise the capitalistic people, whom they the whole board. So that if they had such a i raved so much about, would have no confidence safeguard previously, and wrong purchases were in them and would keep awcty from them. If made, why were th"y not likely to have wrong the Government accepted such amendments as purchases made again? that now before them, their actions wonld be

The SECRETARY l<'OR PUBLIC LANDS : How above suspicion, and there would not be the many members reported under the 1894 Act? same amount of distrust. The amendment re-

Mr. HAEDAORE: Originally three. Then solved itself into a question as to whether the temporarily it came down to two, and in 18fJ7 Government preferred to be regarded-amongst they made it possible that one member of the outsiders, of course-as honourable men, or as Land Court might report instead of the whole a gang of thieves and boodlers. board. The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. BTJRRO\VS ( Cha1·ters Tolve1'S): He had Mr. BURRUWS was not saying- that they not previously spoken on the Bill, not feeling were thieves and boocllers, but that the question himself an authority on land matters, but the presented itself in that light, because those question had now narrowed itself down to one opinion• would get into people's minds, whether clause, which h~d nothing to do with land. 1 they were true or not; and it was not possible, He was totally at a loss to understand the by any stretch of political generosity, for people reason why the Government should so strenuously to regard as honourable men the members of a object to the inclusion of the amendment in the Government which had acted the part of robbers

590 Agricultural Lands Purchase [ASSE~IBI,Y.J Ads Amendment Bill.

or thieves of the public Treasury- as some asserted. He wa" not saying that. He would not p;_n.y it for a n1oment.

Mr. ANNEAR : You would not put it in the Eagle even?

Mr. BURRnWS : He had mentioned quota­tions having been read frmn !Japers-not frorn what was c"Jled the reptile Pre>,<, but quotatium from some of the capiLclistic PreAS-which had in this matter supported the arguments of hon. mem­bers on that side. They must all admit that people were influenced by what they heard, read, and saw, and that being the ca,e, it would be wmth the while of the Government to recon­sider the matter. He had been impressed by some members of his party of the nunv noble qualities posse>sed by member> opposii>, par­ticularly Ministers of the Crown; but, notwith­standing the favourable impression that bad been given to him of the estimable qualities possessed by those h<m. gentlemen, the statements he had heard during the debate had somewhat shaken his opinion. If that was the effect upon a mem­ber of that Committee, who had the benefit of coming in close cont <Ct with members of the Government, what might'not happen to people outside who had not had the benefit of that intimacy? They knew that any action that reflected discredit upon Parliament reflected dis­credit upon every member of it. It had been stated by members opposite tbat the party on his side of the Comrnitte were responsible for the deficit--

The UHAIRMAK : Order !

Mr. BURRO\VS : And it would be said, of course, that his party were r8."rwnsible for the actions of the Government. Therefore enry member of the Committee had a right to expect that the Government would pay some attention to tlw matter in order to prevent any slur being cast upon members of Parliament Lecause they happened to do certain things which people out­side did not agree with. The Government should be particularly ready to accept the amendment ac~ it had been moved by the hon. membPr for ·wide Bay, who had con,,istently voted with the Government a!! through the Dill. The Govern­ment conld not theref<•re arcuse him of having any desire to wreck the Bill or to do it a.n injury, He bad been actuated by the purest of motives. The hon. member had moved hiR amendment with the object of pr<>tecting the Government from those viciou, onslaughts tbat had been made against them, and he hoped they would look at the amendment in that light and accept it. 1'\o ruQ,tter how strong members of the Go­vermnent might be mentally, they knew that insinuations of that kind affected them. They knew that the Premier had b:1d to take a trip to South Africa on account of the worries connected with his official position.

The CHAIRI'IIAK : Order ! Mr. BURRO\VS: If a provision of that kind

was not inserted in the Bill, he might have to take a trip ronnel the world next

[10 p. m.] year after other transactions. He was speaking with a de<ire to help

the Government, and to prevent any of these slanderous statements or charges of corruption being made !1gainst them.

The SECRETARY FOH PcBLIO LANDS : Y on have said that a dozen time>;.

Mr. BURROWS : The hon. gentleman did not seem to realise it, and he wanted to impress it on him. It had been said that the Land Court had misled innocent men,bers on the olher side -that the innocence of the hon. gentlemen op­posite had been taken ad vantage of, and they had been induced to pay prices large:y in exceso of the value of the land. If an amendment like

the one before tbR Committee were inserted, it wo,ld prevent anything of the kind occurring again.

The SECRETARY 1WR PUBLIC LAXDS wished to point out that the 11th section of the Act of 1884 provided for the constitution of a Land Board of two members, and that was the constitution of the court until the Act of 1897 was passed, when it was provided that there should be a Land Court consisting of three members. And it was also provided, under the 22nd section, that the powers and duties of the L»nd Court, except in certain cases, might be exercised and performed, by one or more mem­bers thereof. That was the law at the present time, and would remain the law unless this Bill was pa osed. This Bill would give an extra protection in connection with the purchase of estates, inasmuch as it required a report from the whole court upon any estate before it was purchased, inotcad of allowing the report to be made by one member, as in the case of Lake Clarendon and Seaforth. \Vhat he said to the hon. member for Normanby was, that this amending Bill instituted a safeguard by making it CC'moulsory that the three members of the Land Court should report.

:Mr. HARDACRE : It was not a new safe­guard at all. Exactly the same provision was in force from 189-i to 1il97, except that it was a Land Board of two members instead of three. Before 1897 the board had to report as a whole instead of a report being made by a single mem­ber. And if there were abnses under the old system, what additional safeguard had they that those abuses were not going to occur again? The hon. gentleman's argument was not one which should make the hon. member for N ormanby give the matter his reconsideration.

'rhe SECRETAHY FOR PcBLIC LANDS: Y on have not got a report by the whole of the court now.

Mr. HARDACRE : They had it up till the year 18\J7. But in addition to having the report of the whole court they w.cnted the additional safeguard of having the contract ratified by Par­liament. Another thing, they did not know that members in another place wonld throw out a pro­vision of this kind this year, and there was no reason why the amendment "houlo not be accepted by the Government. Last yea.r they were in a different position, because the Bil came b"ck from another pla.ce when there was no time to give the matter consideration, and they had tn either accept the amendment or lose the Bill. Now, however, there was time to con­sider the m >tter, and if it happened that the amendment was rejected in anmher place they could then consider whether they would insist on the amendment or not. There were three reawns given in another place for their action in connection with the Bill last year. They in­sisted nn the omission of clause 5, and their amendments in clause (j, first, because the pro­posed repeal of section 5 of the Agricultural Lands Purchase Act would remove two im­portant conditions for the exercise of the powers conferred by the Act ; second. because the pro­posed amendment re'luiring the ratification of Parliament would impede the operation of the Ac~; and third, because tht• entering into and completion of such contracts would come more properly within tbe sphere of J~xecutive than of parliamentary function. They ha.d, therefore, three objections.

Mr. J E:\KINSON : Tw" of them are likely. to exist nuw.

Mr. HARDACRE : Only two of them are likely to arise now. Seeing that those were the only objections then, it was quite possible that the other Chamber might have altered their

A,qricultural Lands Purclwse [29 AUGUST.] Acts Amendment Bill. 591

minds and allow the pro viRion to go through. In any ease, members of the Asoem bly did not take the responsibility for the opinions of members in another place. If the principle was a good one, it should be inserted in the Bill, and members of the Assembly should take the responsibility. He hoped the Minister would ,ee the advis­ability of the principle being inserted in the Bill, 1n order to make the repurchase of estates a success.

Mr. 11ACARTNEY (Tonwonq): It seemed to him that the hon. member for Leichhardt had some difficulty in reconciling the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Xormanby. The hon. member had tried to make it appear that the hon. member for Normanby had changed his opinions, but evidently a slight misunderstand­ing had arisen. The hon. member for Leich­hardt h.td endeavoured to show than the law that existed previouslY was not in c·mformity with the law proposed· by the present meiesure, and the Minister had explained that the same law existed at the time referred to as existed now. The question was whether the safeguard in the Bill now before the Committee was in the Bill submitted to the House last year.

The SECRETARY l<'OR PuBLIC LA!iDS : It was.

Mr. l\IACAR'rNEY: He understood from the hon. member for Normanby that there was an additional provision in the Bill before th3 Committee which was not in the Bill of last year.

The SECRETARY li'OR P'L'BLIC LANDS: There was a safeguard in this Bill that was not in the Bill of last year. Last vear the.re was unlimited power of purcha e pven. It was proposed to repeal clau'e G of the Act, w hi eh limited the purchasing power to the extent of £100,000 per annum. That would remain in the Bill now before the Committee.

Mr. JEKKINSON (Wide Bap): He had }jstened ve1·y attentively to every Inember \Vho had spoken on this matter, and although it was his own amendment he had listened without bias. He was quite open to conviction, if it had been proved that bis amendment was not a desirable one. But that had not been done. li'urthermore, when the hon. member for 1\ormanby gave a reason why he could not "'PPOrt the amendment, an iuterjection was made by the ::VIinister for Land : which was nut altogether correct. He did not know the nature of tbe personal explan<t­tion made on the croes-benchcs between the two membero, but the hon. member for Normanby had been told by iuterjectinns that there were extra safeguards in the Bill they were then discm,sing without his amendment. That was not a fact.

The SECRETARY FOH PcBLlO LA:>ms; It is a fact.

::VIr. JENKIJ'\SON: For thesirrq)]e reason that lands to be repurchased slwuld he reported on by the three members of the Land Court, and the »mendment w ts in the Bill of last year.

The SECRETARY <'OR PVBLIC LANDS; It did not become law.

Mr. ,JKN'KINSOJ'\ : He was quite aware of that. Ti1e amendment he now propo.,ed was submitted to the House last year, and the Premier, the ::VIinister for Land", the Minister for Agriculture-nearly every hon. member on the Government side who then epoke on the matter made their speeches on the principle of the submission of th9 repurchases to P»rliament. Not only that, but the Minister for Lands, when the Bill came back from another Chamber last

. year, got up and said-He maintained that this principle--

that was the principle of his (l\Ir. J enkinson's) alilenciment, which was then proposed by the :i\1inister himself--was the most vital clause in the Bil:. and it was tlwroughi.:· in acc:ordauce with the spirit of legislation here and elsewhere.

He wished to point out that the bon. member for X ormanby bad been, although not wilfully, misled by the :.Iinistcr for Lands in stating that there were other safeguards in the Bill without the proposed amendment which were not in the Bill 0f last session. 'rhat was not in accord­ance with facts, as had been subsequently ad­mitted by the Minister himself, in replying to the ban. member for Toowong. It had also been stated that there was an omission in this Bill, inasmuch as last year there was no limit on the amount of money to be spent in the purchase of estates. But no stre,,s was laid on thJt point last year, and the Premier, the Secretary for Lands, and other hon. members on the Gm·ernment side s»id it was absolutely neces1ary, in the interests of the public, that "'ll proposals should be submitted to Parliament for ratification. They admitted that there had been abuses in the past, and the Government desired to getaway with the innuendoe' which had been thrown on them by members of the House, by newspapers, and by people throughont the length and breadth of the colony. The Minister in charge of the Bill said that he had not changed his Yiews-that he still believed in the principle of the amendment, the same as when he fathered it--only nine months ago. That ;c·as a most peculiar position for a JYlinister, let alone a member, to take up. He asked the .Minister if the objection to this amendment was not because it had emanated from the Opposition side of the House? The hon. gentle­lnan gazed into vacancy, and rnade no reply. If the hon. gentleman and his colleagues believed in the principle of the new clauae, how were they to regard the "ttitude of the Government? \Vas it their intention to go down to posterity as a " yes-no" Go,·ernment? That was tbe attitude which they had taken up that evening in contr,,distinction to their attitude of last session. He wa; sorry the Premier had not taken that interest in the debate which its im­port.ance warranted, and that the bon. gentleman ha i very seldom been in the Chamber during the diecussion either that evening or the previous evening.

l\lr. S'!'EPHRNSO!'.' : He is a wise man. J\lr. ,JENKI:'\SON: The hon. member for

Ipswich \vas entitled to his own opinion in re~,,rcl to that, but it was not in accordance with hi,; view of the matter. The Premier stated on the 20th of December last year that "The Council insiRted on their amPndnlents, but we (the Government) cannot accept them." If they could not accept the am<'ndment of the Council then, what change had since come over the spirit of their drc vn that they wonlcl not support the same provieion on the present occa­sion? 'l'he Secretary for Land,; bad stated that he did not desire to imperil the passage of the Bill in another Chamber by inserting that new clause. He (Mr .• Tenkinson) anticipated that objection when moving the amendment the previous evening, and pointed out that they had no right to consider what might happen else­where. They wete a Chamber clothed with responsibility, and what might h oppen outside should not guide their actions in the slightest. " lYiay" sa-id that-

-Each House, as a constituent part of Parliament exercises its own privileges independently of the other.

That being so, why did tbe hon. gentleman desire to raise up that "Aunt Sally" at the present moment? It would be quite time enough to meet

592 A uditoJ'- General's Report. [COUXCIL.]

the difficulty when it happened. If they as a Legis­lative .Asoembly made mistakes, they had to justify their actions to their constituent,, hut hon. gentlemen in another place were not under the same penalties. Members of the Assembly should not consider what members in another place were likely to do, but should act indepen­dently, in n,ccordance with the dict:1tcs of their own conscienceo. As a last appeal he would ask the J\IiniRLer to reconsider his position, after the nice, intelligent speech delivered by the hon. mem­ber for Carpentaria, who wa.s a, shining light in the House, wlw had helped the Governme,lt on many occasions, and who would nut attempt to mislead the Government. That hon. member had spoken words of wisdom, and if the Govern­ment would only take them to hear~ they would never regret it, for it would bring them back to their <Jriginal attitude, and help them when they went before their constituents.

Question-That the proposed new clause (1lf1·. Jenkinson) stand part of the Bill-put; ancl the Committee divided:- ·

}fr. Aire,· Harber

, Bo·wlwtn BrO\Yne Burrows

, DilJley Dunsford

, }'itzgerald Givens \'r. Hamilton

, Hardacre

::\Ir. J ackson , . • Tenkinson

Kerr Lesina }Jaxwell }!cDu mell Plnnkett Re:ct Rvland Tlu.:.1er

Tellers: }Ir. Bowman ancl :!:Ir. Hardacre.

Xo_E~, 2-±. ::Yir. An near , Bartholomew , Bridges

Callan

:Jir. :Jinrkintnsh :Hc"''Iaster Xewell O'Conueli

, Cameron , Paget , Campbell , Philp , T. B. Cribb , Rutledge

Foxton , Stephcuson J. Hamilton Stodart Ham-an Storv

)J Keogh G. TilOrri , :J.Iacartney Tooth

Tellers: J.ir. Paget and :.\1:r. '3tephenson.

P.AillS:

A.yP<s~::\Icssrs. Forsyth, 'l'urley, and Fogarty. Xoes-}lessrs. J. C. Cribb, Fon·est, and Tolmie. Question resolved in the negative. The House resumed ; and the CHAIIniAN re­

!JOrted the Bill with amendments. The report was adopted, and the third reading was made an Order of the Day for Tuesday next.

The House adjourned at thirty-fiye minutes past 10 o'clock.

Clti~f' Justi::e's Salary Bill.