Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

FRIDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 1902

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1402 Land Bill. I ASSEMBLY.l Questions.

FRIDAY, 28 NovEMBER, 1902.

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

PAPER.

The following paper, laid on the table, was ordered to be printed :-Seventeenth Report of the Registrar of Friendly SocietieB, Building Societies, and Trade Unions.

QUESTIONS. SALE OF SALTERN CREEK RESUMPTION.

Mr. KERR (Barcoo) asked the Secretary for Public Lands-

Is it a fact that instructions have been issued for a survey o! Saltern Creek resumption, with a view to offering the surveyed portion for sale shortly ?

The SECRETARY JWR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. W. B. H O'Connell, Musgrave) replied-

Instructions have been issued for the survey of part of the land recently resumed from Saltern Creek hold­ing into areas suitable for grHzing seiection or sale by auction. ~~hat action is to be taken has not yet been demded by the Cabinet.

GovERNMENT MEAT-TAGS.

Mr. KENNA (Bowen) asked the Secretary for Agrtculture-

l. What is the name of the firm that received the contract for the printing of the Government meat-tags?

2. What is the tot:tl amount paid to the contracting firm by the titock Department?

3. Were tenders called for the printing of these tags P 4. Could not this particular work be undertaken by

the Government Printing Office?

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE (Hon. D. H. Dalrymple, jJfackay) rel-'lied-

1. Watson, Ferguson, and eo. 2. For tags. £155 17s. 6d.; for labels, £<3 17s. 6d. 3. No. 4. The contract was a tentative one for a specified

number. It was desired to make our tags and labels facsimiles of those in use in America, and the above firm posse!'lsed the necessary machinery for the purpo8e, Tl:e Government Printer can undertake the work in future.

SEED WHEAT l<'OR FARli!ERS.

Mr. KATES (Gunningham) asked the Secre­tary for Agriculture-

Is it the intention of the department to assist onr agriculturists this coming season with seed wheat, on time payments, wherever needed for sowing purposes only?.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE replied-

Inquiries are being made, and the matter is under consideration.

Additional Sitting Day. [28 NovEMBER.] Land Bill. 1403

ADDITIONAL SITTING DAY.

The PREMIER (Hon. R. Philp, Tmvnsville) in moving-

That, unless otherwise ordered, the House will meet for despatch of business at 3 o'clock p.m. on ~fonday in each week, in addit-ion to the days already provided by Sessional Orders; and that Government business do take precedence of all other business on that day-

said: We are coming to a time of the session when, to do our business, we must sit every day in the week except Saturday. We have an important Bill now before us-the Land Bill­which has to go to the other House, and there are a number of small Bills on the list that I would like to get through. There are also the Estimates, and we have also the Loau Estimates and a Loan Bill, and it is just possible there may be some cliscussion on the Treasurer's Financial Statement. If we are to finish before 25th December, we certainly have no time to lose, and, in order to get through our business as quickly as possible, I propose to sit on Monday next and the two following Mondays. I do not know whether there are any more important measures to bring in-I certainly have none. Tbere may be one or two small Bills to bring in, but I have none. Certainly there will be no more important measures brought in. I think we have as many now nn the paper as we can digest pro­perly before Christmas. I was in C!opes that the Attorney"General would have brought in the Finance Bill befo~re this, but it is not here yet. fMr. KmsTON : Is that the Stamp Bill~] Yes. I certainly will not ask the House to come back after Christmas to discuss it if it can be avoided. I hope we shall be able to get through all our business without sitting up all night., and I certainly hope we shall finish all we now have on the paper before Christmas.

Mr. BROWNE (Croydon): I quite agree with the Premier that, if we are going to get through the business before Christmas, it is absolutely necessary that we should sit on Mondays. I am offering no objectio~n to that ; but this is a very fitting time for the Premier to let the House know exactly what business he intend' to get through before the session closes. Judging by the amount of busines,; on the paper, unless we sit both night and day, Sunday and every other day, it is almost impossible for us to get through it. [The SECRETARY ~'OR RAILWAYS : Talk ]Ass.] I don't know about talking less. I know that if hon. gentlAmen on the front Treasury benches did not talk •o much, and interject so much, we should get on very much hett.er with our busi­ness. If hon. me m hers will look at the business­paper, they will see that there are fifteen Bills on the pa{Jer. [The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Seven or eight of them will not take half­an-hour to dispose of.] I am not talking about how long it will hke to dispose of them ; but I say that the Chief Secretary should let us know what measures he really intends to go on with and try and get through. There are five Bills which have only bP.en initi­

" aterl-t hey are down for t.heir second readings. Then there' are three more which have not passed the committee stage yet, and there are seven Bills in which we have got to comider the amendments of the Legislative Council. Then the Local Government Bill is now before the Council, and it has to be returned to us, and their amendments will have to be considered. Then there were half-a-dozen important Bills promised in the Governor's Speech which have not yet been tabled. There is the Elections Bill, which has been promised session after session, and it is not yet tabled. Then Harbour Board Bills for Brisbane, Maryborough, and

"Cairns, promised session after session, have .not been introduced yet. Then a ::\fining on

Private Property Bill has also been prom­ised ; and I think there will be some dis­cussion on the Treasurer's Statement. Then, iu addition to the balance of the ordinary Estimates, we have to deal with the Supple­mentary, 'frust, and Loan Estimate•. In addi­tion to that, as the Premier says, there will be the Loan Bill and the Finance Bill. Altogether I think it wiil be impos;ible to get through such a list before Christmas unless we open our months, shut our eyes, and see what God will give us-unless we swallow everything that is placed before us without saying a word. The hon. gentleman should tell us what he really means to try and get through. I take it every hon. member would prefer not to come back after Christmas, but if that is necessary they v,ill come back. If the hon. gentleman will tell us this, we will have a better idea of what we will have to do during the next three weeks.

The PREMIER : With the permission of the House, I mav state that I should like to get through the whole of the business on the paper, but, of course, I cannot tell what the House will accept. In connection with the seven Bills which have been amended by the Council, I do not think that the consideration of the amend­ments should take more than an afternoon to dispose of. The Mining Act Amendment Bill, which deals with the drainage of mines in Queensland, is a very small Bill of two clauses, and it cannot be contentious. Then I do not see why the Dental Bill should not go through. It ha"• been before the House for several years. [Mr. BROW NE : Hon. members are •howing their teeth at that already.] If there is going to be any ~trong oppo­sition to the Gold Dealers Bill, I wrll not go on with it. I want the Land Bill and the Local Authorities Bill passed : they are the t,wo most important measures of this session. Then we hope to get a Bill to amflnd the Shops and Fac­tories Act through. The Treasury Bills Acts Amendment Bill is only formal-just to cover the Treasury bills issued for Tre"snry notes. Some southern papers have said that it is a Bill to borrow £2,000,000, but that is not so. Then the Attorney-General i' anxious to pass the W or km en's Compensation Bill, and if the House acts in a reasonable manner, I think thPre is no reason why it should not be passed. [Mr. KmsTON : If we accept it without discus­sion.] I am afraid that there will be a great deal of opposition to the Minini)' Companies Bill, but it being merely a perrmssive Bill, I hope it will be passed. If there is going to be any strong opposition to it, I cannot go on with it. [Mr. Du)ISFOI\D: Are you going to go on with the amendment of the Shops and Factories Act?] Yes. I hope it will be tabled next week. I do not. see whv all this business should not go through before Christmas. [Mr. BROW NE: You are very sanguine.]

QuestiOn put and passed.

LAND BILL.

RESUMPTION OF COMMITTEE.

On clanse 13, as follows :-13. (1) Every lease shall he subject to the following

conditions, namely:-(i.i To take, within a specifierl time. such steps and

measures to destroy rabbits, dogs, and other vertnin as the court may from time to ti.nte direct, and to keep the holding free from vermin during the whole term to the satisfaction of the court;

(ii.) To destroy within a specified time such noxious weeds as the court. may from time to time direct;

1404 Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Land Bill.

(iii.) To furnish such returns or statements as the commissioner or other person appointed by the Governor in Council may frem time to time ret1uire coneerniug anj. stock, cost of improve­ments, working expenses, nr profits, or any other matter relative to tbe holding, or to any lands worked in conjunction with the holding ;

(iv .) Reservations in favour of the Crown of the unrestricted right to proclaim travelling stock. camping, or other reserves, and to resume any land for the purposes of roads or travelling stock, or camping, or other reserves;

(v.) Reservations in favour of the Crown of all minerals. metals, gems, precious stones, coal, and mineral oiis, together with all rights necessary for ingress, eg1·ess, search, and removal, and all incidental rights and powers; and

{vi.) Reseryations in favour of the Crown necessary or proper for giving effect to any Act or Regulation for the time being in force.

(2) In event of a breach of any of the foregoing conditions the lease shall, upon the recommendation of the court, be liable to forfeiture.

Mr. CAMERON (Brisbane North) moved the omission of paragraphs (i.), (ii.), and (iii.). These provisions were an importation from the vVestern Lands Act of New South Wales. The conditions in that State were absolutely different from what they were in Queensland, where they had all the necessary machinery, in the shape of rabbit hoards and marsupial boards, to deal with the matters referred to in the paragraphs mentioned. The effect of these provisions would really be to put the Crown tenants under two separate authorities, and he regarded them as unneces­sary, and calculated to do a great deal of mis­chief a.nd injustice.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. vV. B. H. O'Connell, 11!lusgmve) did not think the hon. member had given any good reason for omitting the provisions referred to. It was quite correct that at the present time the rabbit boards had authority under the Act to require the lessees of runs to exterminate rabbits. As the clause was drawn the matter was one with which the Land Court would deal, and they would exercise their power in cases where these vermin were not dealt with under any existing law. It was not at all likely that the court would put on any lessee any further liability than was imposed upon him already, but by this provision they would be enabled to force other lessees tn take action with regard to keeping down such vermin as might be objec­tionable. vVith regard to subsection (ii. ), it might be urged that local authorities had the power to deal with noxious weeds. But the law wa< not enforced, and it was only fair that the State tenants should be required to keep their holdings in as good a condition as they got them, and not allow them to be overrun with noxious weeds. It was not intended tn ask Crown tenants who happened to have holdings which were largely overgrown with prickly pear, which it would probably cost .£3, .£4, or £5 to extermmate, to destroy that pest, and he did not think the court would be unreasonable in their requirements with reference to the exter­rnination of noxious weeds. With regard to subsection (iii. ), the information there specified was asked for in order that the court might be in a position at the period of assessment to know what would be a reasonable rent to fix. Very often the court did not get that information now until they sat to determine the rent, and it was desirable that they should get it earlier. The information would be confidential, and would only bP med by the court in asse.<sing the rent of the run. He would have no objection to the amendment of which the hon. member had given notice with reference to tbe omission of the word "profits." Referring again tu the keeping down of noxious weeds, he might mention that

one or two Crown tenants had done this, and· they had told him that they had done it not from any patriotic motives, but bec,use it paid them, and he believed that the same thing might be done with profit in many instances. A man by spending a few pounds a year could keep down prickly pear on his holding, and thus benefit both himself and the State.

Mr. vV. HAMILTON (Grcgory): Whatever objection might be taken to the lst subclause, relating to the destruction of rabbits and dingoes,

none could be taken to any of the [4 p. m.] following ones. Similar conditions

appeared in the Acts of South Aus­tralia and New South \Vales, and if the Crown tenants in Queenshnd were to get a similarly increased length of tenure they should not object to similar covenants. It was objected that the furnishing of returns, provided in subclause (iii. ), was of an inquisitorial nature, but so was the Income Tax Act and many other of their Acts, and he did not see why the pastnralists should object to it on that account. vVith regard to rabbits, there was never greater danger of an invasion than at the present time. It was a fact that they were coming into the colony at the end of the vV estern border fence, and the rabbit boards there had no money to erect a fence to keep them out. Taken as a whole, he considered the clause a very good one, and one which would not be used to the di;advantage of the lessees.

Mr. STORY (Balonne) said the clause was one of the most important in the Bill. The matter of rabbits coming in at the Western borders might be put aside in a few words bv saying that it ought to be made a national question, etc., and that the State should find the money for combating the pest. Assessment was levied on the number of stock, and stock had decreased so much that the rabbit boards could not raise sufficient money for the purpose. There was a danger that the cost of rabbit destruction would be a worse evil to the pastoralists than the pest itself. With regard to noxious weeds, if the whole country were on an equality, so far as noxious weeds were concerned, every owner would have an equal objection and an equal reward. But from Bollon to the Western part of the colony there was no such thing as prickly pear, yet th8 holder;s would get the same reward, in the shape of an extension of lease, as those between Dalby and St. George, where there were hundreds of thousands of acres so thickly infested with it that a dog could not walk through. Some provision should be made to 8top the spread of this pest, but that a man should hold his country on the condition that he destroyed within a specified time such noxions weeds as the court mi<rht direct-that was going a great deal too far. [The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: I ha;·e given notice of an amendment with regard to the forfeiturA clause.] In the matter of clearing scrub, ringbarking, anrl so on, a man got an immediate return for his outlay, but the clearing of prickly pear had such a small effect on the carrying capacity of the country that for the difference it was not wort,h while doing it as remunerative work, and it was not worth while to do it in order to hold the country.

1\Ir. HARD ACRE (Leichhw·dt) suggested that the mover of the amendment, instead of moving the omission of the whole of the three paragraphs,

1 should deal with each paragraph separately. He would support the omission of paragraph (i. ), but he thought there might be something in the other two, and he c0uld not support the hon. member in his proposal to omit the three of them. With regard to paragraph (iii.), that information was all the more necessary since the appeal in the matter of Norley and Thargo-

Land Bill. [28 NovEMBER.] Land Bill. 14()5

mindah holdings, in which the final decision was such as would compel the court to take into consideration, in determining the rent, not merely the carrying capacity of a holding, but also the probable and actual amount of profits on the holding.

Mr. P. J. LEAHY (War·rego): Hie principal objection was to paragraph (i.). He did not know whether the hon. member for Gregory was aware that there were no marsupial boards or rabbit boards in New South Wales. He had no objection to the lessees being compelled to keep down rabbits and dingoes; but he thought the existing machinery was sufficient for the purpose. He thought paragraphs (ii.) and (iii.) might be agreed to with certain slight amendments.

Dr. GARDE (Maryborough) thought the sug­gestion of the hem. member for Leichhardt to take the paragraphs seriatim was a very good one. Personally, he thought the three of them should come out. Of course it was for the benefit of the pastoralists that the rabbits should be destroyed, but it was a question of funds. He objected altogether to the 2nd paragraph, and regarded the 3rd as perfectly unne~es·,ary. It would involve a lot of bookkeeping for the pur­pose of furnishing all the returns which were likely to be asked for, and he thought it had better be struck out altogether.

::\fr. KATES (Cur,c,ingharn): To eradicate prickly pear in some parts of the colony would be simply an impossibility, as it would cost £10 or £15 an acre, or even more, especially in such placPs as between Chinchilla and St. George. There were millions of acres there so infested with prickly pear that no lessee would take the land on condition of having to destroy the pest. The conseqnence would be that there would be no pastorallesBees there at all.

Mr. TOLYJ:IE (Drayton and Toowoomba) insisted strongly on the retention of the main provisions of the clause. There was a strong probability of the prickly pear pest becoming a much greater evil unless it was kept in check, and it was only right that the State should protect its lands as much as possible, so that when the time came it could hand them over in a fair state to other tenants. He agreed with the hon. member for Leichhardt that it would be advisable to take the subsections one at a time, as there was not the same objection to the removal of subsection (i.) as subsection (ii.) They should give the court some credit for common sense in administering the law. They were not likely to call upon the lessee to absolutely clear land that was at present overrun with noxious weeds, and which would cost a large sum of money to clear. They should, however, insist that noxious weeds should not be allowed to increase to any extent.

Mr. COOPER (Mitchell) objected to the first three subsections. In regard to dogs and rabbits, it m11st be remembered that owing to the drought thet·e had been a tremendous influx of wild dogs into districts where they had been practically exterminated. In the townships also there were hordes of mongrels which had been driven oub of the towns to find food, and they were a perfect pest in the settled districts of the \V est. It would be very unfair to expect leaseholders to exterminate them, as they were far more cunning and more difficult to exterminate than the native dogs. In regard to subsection (ii. ), the divisional boards were very much to blame for the spread of noxious weeds, and he ventured to say that patches of Bathurst burr could be found in Brisbane at the present time. In regard to subsection (iii.), there were plenty of competent persons to give evi?ence on the subjects referred to without reqmrmg elaborate returns to be furnished by the lessees.

Ho~. E. B. FORREST (Brisbane North): They ought to have some indication from the Govern­

ment as to the nature of the amend­[4·30 p.m.] ment referred to by the Secretary for

Lands. If the hon. gentleman in­tended to impose upon lessees the duty of prevent­ing prickly pear ;;etting a hold on clean country, every hon. member would support him; but, if he intended to make the lessees destroy the prickly pear and other noxious weeds at present on their holdings, no capitalist in any part of the world would do it. He would like to know what the returns to be furnished under para­graph (iii.) were required for? Sufficient infor­mation would, no doubt, be given next year under the Income Tax Act, and that information could be utilised if the Government wanted it. Whether it was the exact information asked for in that clause or not, people would have to give a great deal more information than they cared to give. In that connection, he wished to draw attention to the information that Dr. Maxwell gave in his report, which had just heen received, about every planter in (~ueensland. It was perfectly correct that such information should be supplied to the department, but the idea of publishing- it in Dr. Maxwell's report was monstrous. [Honourable members: Hear, hear!] [Hon. A. S. COWLEY: A gross breach of faith.] If the same use was made of the information supplied under this clause it would be a most improper thing. He believed that those three paragraphs should be got rid of.

:Yir. HAWTHORN (Enoggera): It was a pity that the three paragraphs were not taken seria­tim, as it would simplify matters a great deal.

Mr. CAMERON : In deference to the ex­pressed wish of members on both sides, and particularly of the hon. member for Leichhardt, for whose opinion he had great respect, he asked permission to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. :Yir. CAMERON then moved the omission of

paragraph (i). The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS:

Possibly those paragraphs might be omitted. [Hononrable members : Hear, hear!] It would be possible to get all they wanted by an amend­ment of the Rabbit Boards Act of 1896. At the same time, he mnst point out that the Rabbit Boards Act did not apply to all portions of the colony, and there was a possibility of the rabbits spreading into districts where the Act did not apply.

Mr. DUNSFORD (Charters Tower·s): The pastoralists had secured all they wanted in the shape of an extension of tenure, and now they demanded relief in another direction. In New South \Vales, under the Western Lands Act, lessees were required, not only to keep their hold­ings clear of noxious weeds, but to cultivate shrubs and plants, so that they were perfectly jus­tified in asking the pastoral lessees to do the same in Queensland. In the interests of the pastoral industry, and also in the interests of those lessees who were doing their best to keep their land clear of vermin and noxious weeds, they ought to have some such provision. The Secretary for Lands ought to show a little backbone, and stick to his Bill. The Governme11t were backing down merely because one or two members, who were pastoralists' agents, were inclined to bounce the Minister out of some of the main provisions of the Bill.

Mr. HAWTHORN : The local authorities had full power to insist on lands being cleared and kept clear of vermin and noxious weeds; and the rabbit boards had also power to deal with vermin, and he thought that the pastoral­ists had quite enough to do to deal with those authorities, and pay the assessments, without having to deal with anyone else.

1406 Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.J Land Bill.

Mr. W. HAMILTON: As far as the indivi­dual lessees were concerned, they had quite enough to do already in the way of paying asse~~­ments, which were very heavy. He believed it would be a good thing to allow the subclause to stand as it was. Dogs were increasing every year in great numbers, in spite of what the mar­supial boards were doing. Some marsupial boards looked upon dingoes as valuable, because they kept down marsupials; sn while some boards kept these dogs down, neighbouring boards did not, and on many cattle runs the lessees would not allow people to go on their runs for the purpose of poisoning dingoes. Under the Act of last year marsupial boards had the power to grant permits to people to go on runs and poison dingoes, but many boards were rductant to grant them. The question was a very important one.

AmendmAnt (Mr. Cameron's) agreed to. Mr. CAMERON moved the omission of sub­

section (ii.) The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS:

There were thousands of acres at present which were covered with this pest, and the clause was exactly the same as the clause in the Western Lands Act of New South Wales. In New South 'V ales the commissioners were trusted not to do an unfair thing iu this connection ; and why should not the authorities in Queensland be so trusted? He did not think it was likely that any unreasonable action would be taken. He was inclined to accept the amendment of the hon. member for North Brisbane to prefix the subsection with the words " To take such reasonable steps and measuree," as an alternative to the omission of the subsection.

Mr. KENT (Burnett) thought these noxious weeds should be cleared off land, and that the other pests should be destroyed as far as possible. But it should be made a national matter, because w bile pastoral lessees had to keep these pests down, grazing farmers harl not., with the result that they spread in all directions. ·

Mr. HA \VTHORN thought the lessee should be compelled to do his beRt to keep down noxious weeds, but that the provision would be improved by the substitution of the word "reasonably" for the words "from time to time." As to making the destruction of prickly pear a national· ques­tion, he did not aee why Brisbane should pay to keep down the prickly pear in, say, the Burnett district.

HoN. A. S. COWLEY (Herbert) suggested that tbe better way of amending the paragraph would be to omit the words "destroy witbin a specified time," with the view of inserting" pre­vent the spread of." He made that suggeetinn because he understood that the object of the Government was not to compel pastoralle"sees to eradicate noxious weeds already growing on their holdings but to prevent the spread of such weeds.

Mr. CAMERON did not wish to prolong the discussion, and as the Minister had intimated his willingness to accept the other amendment of which he had given notice, he would, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw the amendment now under consideration. At the same time he might say that he did not see any fairness in compelling pastoral lessees to keep down noxious weeds on their holdings when those pests were allowed to grow on Govern­ment reserves and roads.

Amendment (Mr. Cameron's), by leave, with­drawn.

Mr. CAMERON moved that the paragraph be amended by prefixing thereto the words, "To take such r&asonable steps and measures."

Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lockyer) thought the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Herbert was infinitely better than the amend­ment now proposed. If adopted the paragraph would read, " To prevent the spread of such

noxious weeds as the court may from time to· time direct." He hoped the hon. member for North Brisbane would withdraw his amendment in favour of that suggested by the hon. member for Herbert.

Mr. CAMEROK: The Minister had signified hi> willingness to accept his amendment, and before withdrawing it he should like to know if the hon. gentleman would accept the amend­ment of the hon. member for Herbert.

Mr. HARDAORE was rather in favour of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Herbert, but would like to see both adopted. The paragraph would then read "To take such reasonable steps and measures to prevent the spread of such noxious weeds as the court may from time to time direct."

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS said he was willing to accept the suggested amendment.

Amendment (Mr. Cameron's) agreed to. HoN. A. S. COWLEY moved the omission of

the words "destroy within a specified time,"' with a view of inserting the words " prevent the spread of."

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS thought it would be sufficient to omit the word " destrov," and that the words "within a specified time" should be retained.

Mr. HARD ACRE was inclined to agree with the :Ylinister that the words " within a specified

time" should be retained. It would [5 p.m.] surely be an advantage to the lessee

to know that the court wanted the work done within twelve or eighteen months or two years, as the case might be, and the pro­vision that the instructions must be reasonable was a sufficient protection.

l\Ir. AIREY (Flinders): The words suggested by the Minister were superfluous; they simply meant that instructions were to be issued and reissued ; and it would be better to pass the amendment as it stood.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: The question was not of sufficient imvortance to· waste time over. He wighed to impress on the Committee that thA Bill was urgent, and that time was a matter of great moment. He had accepter! the amendment simply because it was better to do so than to waste time discussing it.

Amendment (Hon. A. S. Cowley's) agreed to. Mr. CAMERON moved the omission of sub­

section (iii.). The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS

hoped the hon. member would not press his amendment. The information required would be treated as confidential, and it was necessary to enable the court to come to a proper decision as to reassessment. In the past information had been asked for and not supplied. It was asked for in the first instance and not supplied ' and it was asked for at the Land Appeal Court and they had not got it with them. He thought the paragraph ought to remain in the Bill.

Mr. KENT thought the paragraph ought to come out. They were told that it was to be con­fidential information. If it was confidential, how could anyone tell whether it was reliable or not?

Mr. FOX (Normanby) supposed the informa­tion waa wanted so that it might be handed oYer to the Land Court. 'Vith regard to profits, a man might improve his country, and if he had to tell what his profits were he mightJ be taxed on his own capital. He had no objection personally to the information being required if it was to be used fairly, but when the Government employed a barrister against the pastoralists in the Land Court he did not see why the pastoralists should be called upon to supply the other side with powder and shot. The provision might be abused, and he thought it ought to be withdrawn.

Land Bill. [28 NovEMBER.] Land Bill. 1407

* HoN. A. S. COWLEY thought the paragraph should be deleted. If it were not struck out it might be amended by providing that the lessee should be called upon to furni"h such returns or statements as the court might from time to time require, leaving out "profits." Nothing was said about losses. [The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : There is no need to ask for them. They will always supply statements regarding bad years, but we cannot get returns of a good year.] If they failed to give evidence that was wanted it would be very much to their own detr1ment. If the pastoral lessee was to be required to disclose his profits, the same thing should apply to the grazing farn;er and to everyone else who paid rent tu the Crown. He had known special leases issued in Queensland where men bad made hun­dreds per annum with very little expenditure. Why not call upon them- why single out the pastoral lessee? [The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Because in this Bill we are dealing speci><lly with the pastoral lessee.] He did not think there was much to be gained by retaining the paragraph. If the lessees would not supply the information the court wanted, the court would draw their own conclusions.

Mr. FOX resented the statement of the Minister that the lessees would not supply infor­mation for which they had been asked. [The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : I only instanced a particular case.] He thought the case would be met by leaving out the word "profits;" but he did not see that the Minister had made out a case for the retention of the paragraph.

Mr. AlREY thought the Minister had made out a substantial case for retaining the para­graph. If they had not abundant and correct data, he did not see how they could know what was suitable for the pastoralist. If it was right that persons should give details concerning their incomes for income tax purposes, it was right that the information asked for in the subsection should be given. He was quite prepared to apply the same principle to the grazing farmer. The pastoralists had been complaining that the public did not understand their position. If that was so, it was simply because the public had not sufficient data. A just assessment of rent would depend largely upon the information at the disposal of the court.

Mr. COOPER did not understand why the grazing farmer should be brought under the clause. He paid four or six times the amount of rent that the pastoral lessee did, and, if so, he could not make more profits. It was perfectly unnecessary, therefore, to bring him under the clause.

Mr. HARDAORE : It seemed to him very necessary that the subsection should remain in. One of the questions that must be taken into con· sideration in determining the rent was the amount of profits. The subclause also dealt with the cost of improvements. They had already deter· mined that the amount of compensation for improvements should be determined by the court, and they must know before they gave compensation what the improvements had cost. It was quite reasonable to call upon the pastoral tenant to say what the cost of improvements had been.

Mr. P. J. LEAHY did not think the sub· clause specially necessary, but with a compara· tively slight amendment it might be made satis­factory. It was only right that the court should have a considerable amount of information, and they would still get it if the words "commis­sioner or other person" were omitted, and "court" substituted. Then, again, it would make the provision more satisfactory if the word "profits" were omitted. The information was, at all events, only such as should be acquired by the court, and not by the commissioner.

Mr. J. HAMILTON (Cook) thought that in addition to the word " profits" the words, " or any other matter relative to the holding," should be struek out, ,otherwise they might be taken to include profits. With regard to profits having to be declared in the case of mining, that applied only to mining companies and not to individuals.

Mr. BROWNE (Croydon): What the hon. member for Cook said was perfectly true so far as the dividend tax was concerned, but every battery-owner and claim or lease manager had to give details of the stone raised and crushed, how many ounces it went to the ton, and a pile of other information, every three months.

Mr. TOLMIE : The object of the subclause was to enable the Land Court to properly assess the rent. He should prefer it to stand a~ intro­duced, but he would offer no factious opposition to the word "profits" being eliminated.

Mr. FORSYTH (Carpentaria): If they were going to have such an amouut of discussion on

every subclause, they would not be [5'30 p.m.] finished with the Bill by next June.

The only objection hon. members , seemed to have to the paragraph was the inclu­sion of "profits," and they might eliminate that word, and allow the rest of the paragraph to stand. They wanted all the information they could get to arrive at the proper rental.

Mr. W. HAMILTON : When members on that side took some time the other night in dis­cussing one of the most vital clauses in the Bill they were accused by one Minister of stone· walling; but it seemed to him that the president of the Pastoralists' Association was now stone­walling his own Bill on a very minor point. Any information that was given to the department would be treated as strictly confidential, and he thought the Cruwn had a right to get all the information they could about Crown lands. The hon. member for Brisbane North had been clamouring for years for similar legislation to that in force in New South Wales and Victoria, and now that he was getting a more hberal measure than those in force in the other States he was not satisfied.

Mr. CAMERON hoped the hon. member for Gregory would restrict himself to facts. The Bill was very necessary in the interests of the State, and he was doing his best to make it a better Bill. Surely the hon. member did not wish him to swallow the whole Bill, because he was not going to do it. Wherever he thought it was possible to improve the Bill he was going to attempt to have it amended. He did not want to waste time, and, in view of the discussion that had taken place, he was prepared to with· draw his motion for the omission of the para­graph, with a view to amending it.

Amendment (il'h Cameron's), by leave, with· drawn.

Mr. OAMERON then moved the omission of; the words "commissioner or other person appointed by the Governor in Council" in lines 12 and 13, with the view of inserting the word "Minister." If that was accepted, he intended to follow it up by moving the omission of the words "or profits, or other matter."

The SECRETARY J!'OR PUBLIC LANDS had no objection to the amendment so long as the Minister had power to use the information in a reasonable way in the administration of his department. It would be confidential as far as possible, but the Minister should be at liberty to use it when necegsary.

Mr. JACKSON (Kmnedy) suggested that the word "court" should be substituted for the word " Minister" to make it uniform with the rest of the clause. [Mr. CAMERON: I have no objection to that.]

1408 Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Land Bill.

The SECRETARY l!'O R PUBLIC LAl'iDS: The substitution of " court'' for " Minister" would not carry out the object for which the paragraph was intended. It might be neces,ary to put the information in as evidence, and, if it was given to the court, the court could not use it. It must be given to the department, and they could judge whether it was necessary to bring it under the notice of the court.

Amendment (iWr. Cameron's) agreed to. Mr. CAMERON moved the omission of the

words "or profits' on line 15. Mr. ,J ACKSON : Section 64 of the principal

Act laid down the method by which the court should determine the rent, but there was nothing said about profits. There was, therefore, no necessity to retain " profits" in the clause."

The SJ<;CRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS pointed out that profits varied according to management, and he did not think they should be taken as a guide when making assessments.

HoN. A. S. COWLEY thought that the words " any other matter" would include profits.

Mr. HARDACRE did not think that the omission of the word "profits" would mean much, but they should make this clause the same as the provision in the principal Act.

:Mr. AIREY also thought there was not much to be gained by striking out "profits."

Mr. W. HA:\IIL1'0N was of the same opinion.

Amendment put and negatived. Mr. CAMERON moved the addition of the

following words to paragraph (iii.)-All such returns and statements :;hall be treated as

strictly confidential, and ~hall not be divulged or made use of except for the purposes of this Act.

He thought that amendment would commend iLself to hon. members on both sides.

Mr. KERR wanted to make sure that that would not prevent the information being given to the Land Court-that the Minister could supply that information to the court. [JI.Ir. CA1IERoN: That is so.]

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: He had no objection to the amendment, so long­as it was understood that the Minister could place the information before the Land Court.

Amendment (iWr. Cameron's) agreed to. Mr. CAMERON moved the insertion of

"subject to the approval of the court," on line 19, after" right."

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: He could not accept the amendment. If it was carried, the paragraph would be of no use.

Amendment put and negatived. Mr. BJiO\VNE moved the insertion of "or

gold or mineral" after the word "camping," on line 21. The hon. member for Clermont had intended to move this amendment, but unfortu­nately he was not present. He understood that thfl Minister would accept it.

The SECRETARY l!'OR PUBLIC LANDS had no objection to the amendment. He thought it was necessary to have power to make such reE~erves.

HoN. A. S. CO\VLEY: If these words were inserted it would be necessary to insert the words" subject to the approval of the court," as proposed by the hon. member for North Bris­bane. The Minister stated that the object was to make provision for starving stock in times of stress and drought. He thought the making of gold or mineral field reserves should be subject to the approval of the court.

The PREMIER pointed out that a goldfield must be discovered before it was proclaimed, and, as the Government had to pay compensa-

tion for resumptions no injury would be done to the lessees. At the present t1me the area of proclaimed goldfields was 22,000,000 acres, and the area of proclaimed mineral fields was 29,000,000 acres, making a total of 51,000,000 acres. The total number of gold miners employed during 1901 was 9,438, and the total number of miners other than gold was 3,914, which gave a grand total of 13,352, so that there was an average area of 4,,!76 acres per miner. Those figures showed that the miner had not been neglected. With regard to the amend­ment, the Minister would not proclaim gold­field reserves unle>s he was satisfied that there were sufficient people there to justify him in doing so, because the Government would have to pay compensation for the resumption.

Mr. BROWNE did not want a false impres­sion to get abroad that on gold and mineral fields there was an average area of 4,476 acres to each miner. Tht: fact was that more than two­thirds of the total areu of gold and mineral fields were under pastoral lease or occupation license at the present time, so that the millions of acres mentioned by the Premier were not in the hands of the mining industry. [The PRE1IIER: They are under the control of the Mines Depart­ment.]

Mr. BURROWS (Charte?·s Towers): The re­marks of the Premier were entirely misleading, because they referred only to the miners in the State, and did not take into consideration the large population which was supported by the miners. There were over 4, 000 miners at Charters Towers, and they kept up a population of 2G,OOO.

Mr. JACKSON could not see that there was any concession in the amendment, because under the Goldfields Act pastoral leases were Crown lands, and the Crown had the unre­stricted ri;:;ht to proclaim goldfields on such lands. He should like to know whether under the subsection the Government could proclaim goldfield reserves without the pastoralists being entitled to compensation. [The PREMIER: No.] The hon. member for Croydon was not correct in stating that the hon. member for Clermont wished to insert a similar amendment in a previous clause. \Vhat the hon. member for Clermont wanted was that when the Land Uourt was clnssifying runs on goldfields or runs surrounding goldfields they should take into special consideration the requirements of mining settlement. This amendment was another matter altogether. What the miners and other residents on goldfields which were partly held under the right of depastnring desired, was that they should have the right to run their stock on the land without ,!anger of their being impounded by the pastoral lessee. This was not the proper place to insert a pro­vision dealing with the matter, or he would move an amendment in that direction.

At two minutes to 6 o'clock, The CHAIRMAN said: I call upon the hon.

member for South Brisbane to relieve me in the chair.

:\Ir. STEPHENS thereupon took the chair ac­cordingly.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS suggested that the amendment should read" gold­field or mineral field reserves."

Mr. BROWNEaccepted the suggestion. When speaking on this matter on a previous occasion, he stated that he thought the amendment was hardly necessary, but he understood that the hon. member for Kennedy, in the long speech which he made the other night, argued that the Government had no power to proclaim such reserves. That was the reason why he proposed the amendment.

Land Bill. [28 NOVEMBER.] Land Bill. 1409

Mr. DD"NS:E'ORD: The insertion of the words would make the matter dnublv sure. He noticed

that in the New South ·wales \Vest· [7 p.m.] ern Lands Act provision was made

for the resumption of land for mining townships and other public purposes.

HoN. A. S. CO\VLEY: The words were entirely unnece'>sary, and if inserted they would probably be struck out in another place on the ground that provision was already made for the object in view under the existing law.

Mr. MAXW.ELL (Burkc): The hon. member for Gregory touched the ri~ht spot the other night when he said that althou~h a man was allowed to go into those places and prospect for minerals he was not allowed to take his horses there with­out payment. '\Vhat was the good of a man going prospecting without two or three horses to carry his tools and rations? That was what was wanted in the clause more than anything else.

Amendment (lli"r. Browne's) agreed to. Mr. CAMERO~ moved to add to the para­

graph the words "but with compensation for the improvements on any lands so taken away or resumed."

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Later on in the Bill it was provided that with regard to any hmd resumed for public f.JUrposes the lessee was entitled to compensation for improvements. He did not see any necessity for the words, nor was there any great objection to them if the hon. member wanted them to appear there as a statement of fact that compensation for improvements was recognised.

Amendment (J.fr. Cmneron's) agreed to. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS

moved the omission of subsection (ii.) with the view of inserting-

If the court is satisfied that the lessee has for a period of sixty days faileU to comply with anJ of the requirements prescribed b:'" either of the paragraphs (i.) or (ii.) hereof, the court shall giYe a certifieate to that effect, and thereupon the 3-Iinister may authorise any person, with or without assistants, to enter upon the holding and take all such measure~ and do all such things as appear to him to be expedient for the purpose of corn plying with such requirements; and any person so authorised may enter and remain upon the holding with or without assistants, and may take any such measures and do any such things as aforesaid during such period as may appear to him to be necessary for such purpose.

All expenses incur::.·ed in the exercise of the foregoing powers shall be a debt due from the lessee to the Crown, and shall be recoverable accordingly.

HoN. A. S. COWLEY pointed out that the amendment would have to be altered now that paragraph (i.) had been omitted.

Amendment, omitting suhsection (2), agreed to. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS

moved the insertion of the words he had read, with an alteration, omitting "(ii.) "

Mr. OAMERON moved that the amendment be amended by inserting after "has," in the 1st line, the words "wilfully and without reaeonable excuse."

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: If the hon. member was anxious that the Bill should go through, he should not move the addition of words which were not absolutely necessary. If this was a penal offence there might be something in the amendment, but it was simply a case of failing to carry out a contract. If amendmmts were proposed on everything put before the Com­mittee, there was no possible hope of getting the Bill through in time to go to the other Chamber and get it back before ChriBtmas. He rlid not intend to call attention to this matter again, because it must be evident to everv hon. mem­ber that, considering the number of contentions matters in the Bill, to go in for alteration in the wording as the hon. member for ~orth

1902-4s

Brisbane was doing would lead to minor matters being discussed at such length as to monopolise the whole of the time.

Mr. CAMERON: This was not a minor matter, and the hon. gentleman did not yet know to what extent he proposed to amend the clause. He looked upon this as one of the most vital clauses in the Bill. The Minister should not reproach him with wasting time. He was not obstructing in any way, but was simply doing what he considered his duty in trying to improve the measure.

Amendment (l}.fr. Camcron's) put and nega­tived.

:VIr. CAMERO:N proposed on line 2, after the word " days," the insertion of the words " after written notice has been given to the lessee and registered mortgagee, if any, of the holding-, call­mg for compliance with the requirements herein­after mentioned."

Amendment put and negatived. Mr. CAMERON moved the following amend­

ment to follow the word "thereupon," on line 4, "subject to the further approval of the court, composed of three members acting together, the Minister may, after notification in the Ga,ette, declare the land to be forfeited ; but 'uch for· feiture may be at any time thereafter waived by the Minister upon such terms and conditions as he may think fit."

Mr. HARDACRE pointed out that in con­sequence of previous ""mendments which had been m<>de in the clause it would require further verbal amendmPnts, otherwise it would be non­sensical.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS had not read the amendment which the hon. member for North Brisbane proposed to insert, but in any case he preferred the clause as it stood. It was quite clear that it gave the court power, if it thought that the land was not being kept in such condition as it should be kept, to send out persons to put it in a proper condition. He thought that was a very necessary power to have, Ho~. A. S. COWLEY explained that as they

had amended one of the subsections to read, "prevent the spread of," instead of "to destroy" noxious weeds, there was no sense in the amend­ment. If the Minister wonld study the amend­ment of the hon. member for North Brisbane it might expedite matters.

[7•30 p.m.] Amendment (11-h. Cameron's) put and nega­

tived. Question-That the words proposed to be

inserted be so inserted (111">·. O'Connell's arnend­ment)-put ; and the Committee divided :-

AYJ<:s, 47. Mr. Airey

, Armstrong Barber

, Bridges Browne Burrows

, Cowap T. B. Cribb

, Dalrymple , Dibley

Dunsford Forrest

, Forsyth Fox

,, Foxton Dr. Garde :lir. J. Hamilton

W. Hamilton Hanran Ha-tdacre Hawthorn Jackson Kates Kenna

Mr. Kerr Kids ton

, Lamont , Lindley , Lyons , l\Iacartney , :Mackintosh

Jlartin ,, ::M:axwell , ::\:1cl\1aster , Mulcahy , Xorman , O'Connell ,, Paget

Petrie , Philp

Sir A. Rutledge ;>lr. Ryland

, Stodart , story , Tolmie ,, Turner

Woods

Tellers: Mr. Hawthorn and 11r. Tolmie.

1410 Land Bill. [ASSE~fBLY.] Land Bill.

Nm'"· 6. Mr. Cameron Mr. Kent

, Cooper , P. J. Leahy ,. Cowley Moore Tellers: Mr. Kent and Mr. P. J. Le~thy.

PAIRS.

Ayes-Mr. Camp bell and Mr. Denham. Noes-Mr. Summerville and }lr. Blair. Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 13, as amended, put and passed. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS

moved the following new clause to follow clause 13:-

Every lease of a holding the surrendered lease whereof was extended under the Pastoral Leases Extensions Acts, 1892 to 1900, shall be subject to a covenant that. the holding shall be kept continuously enclosed 'vith a fence of such character as to pre,'ent the passage of rabbits.

New clause put and passed. Clause 14 agreed to, with a consequential

amendment. On clause 15-"Power to grant leases of Crown

lands"-Mr. J ACKSON, in the absence of the hon.

member for Albert, moved, on his behalf, the insertion of the following words on line 12, after the word "lands":-

Other than lands held under occupation license, and situated within the limits described in the first schedule to this Act. He was sorry that the hon. member was not present to move this amendment. His object was, he understood, to prevent the leasing of lands held under occupation license in the scheduled area.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS pointed out that the hon. member for Albert had given notice of an amended schedule. [Mr. J ACKSON : That won't affect this question.] It would if the new schedule was carried. He did not think that much land held under occupation license in the scheduled area would he likely to be leased by the Crown, but some portions might be leased for a shorn period. [Honourable mem­bers: Hear, hear !] It would be better to allow the Governor in Council and the court discretion in the matter.

Mr. J ACKSOX: The Minister apparently objected to this amendment because he thought that the Governor in Council ought to have a discretionary power in the matter. He thought that hon. members who objected to re-leasing lands in the scheduled area should not object to a small amendment of this sort. He did not think the Crown would lose anything if these lands were kept under occupation license. If power was given to the :Minister to lease the land, it was quite possible that with even a careful Minister some of the land within the scheduled area now held under occupation license might be leased for five, ten, fifteen, or even forty-two years; and it was to prevent any mistake of that sort that the hon. member for Albert wished to have this amendment inserted. There was no doubt that all the land in the scheduled area would be wanted within a few years for close settlement, and as this amendment was unques­tionably in the interests of close settlement he thought it should be accepted at once by the Committee.

Mr. HARD ACRE : As the clause stood the IIIinister would have power to issue new leases in any part of the State. It had been recognised that Parliament alone should have the power to give new leases of pastoral areas and to prescribe the conditions and terms under which such leases should he granted. On the second reading of the Bill the Minister had stated that one of the objects of this clause was to give power to issne new leases in a particular part of Queens-

land where land had never been leased before­that w>ts to say, in the Gulf country chiefly. But this clause gave him power not only to issue leases in the' Gulf country, but also to lease over again all the resumed areas, and country held under occupation license. [Mr. HAWTHORN : On the recommendation of the Land Court.] That recommendation was no doubt a valuable restriction ; but still this was too large a power to give the Minister. In the Bill brought forward last year it was proposed that the Minister should have power to throw into the new leases which were to be issued the resumed areas of the run, and members ou the Opposition side ultimately secured the omission of that provision. This clause would enable the IIIinister to do exactly what was objected to last year. If no restriction was proposed in the clause, he should certainly vote for the amend­ment, and subsequently move a further amend· ment.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS did not know that there was any great objection

to the amendment, and he withdrew [8 p.m,] his objection to it. [Mr. KENT: If

the scheduled area is altered later on it will be a very big matter.] He wonld not agree to altering the schedule, but accepted the amendment as it applied to the scheduled area as now described in the Bill.

Amendment (.Ll£1·. Jackson's) agreed to. I\Ir. HARDACRE moved to add to the

amendment just agreed to the words "or other lands heretofore or hereafter to be resumed from any holding under any Act." That might seem a very wide amendment, but he helrl strongly that they ought to keep all resumed areas for close settlement. If his amendment was not adopted in its entirety it might be modified to apply to areas which were to be resumed in the future. Though hardly probable, it was not impossible that a Minister might give a lease of land that had been resumed by order of the court; it should not be in his power to do so.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS did not see any necessity for the amendment. \Vith the court to recommend, and with a Minister responsible to Parliament, the adminis­tration of the lands of the colony was sufficiently safeguarded. Ko Minister would propose to lease for any period land that was really likely to be wanted for settlement. The more they tied the hands of the Minister the less likely he was to be able to make the lands of the colony profitable ; that had been one of the troubles iu the past. The difficulty had always been to give such a title as would allow people to im­prove. It might Le possible, but he could not imagine the court and the Minister conspiring to give a lease, for any lengthy period, of land likely to be wanted for close settlement, and it was just as unlikely that they would resume land from one person for the purpose of leasing it to somebody else. \Vhat could be the object of it? ·when there was a l\linister responsible to Parliament, and a court secure in its position, if they wonld not keep the Lands Department straight he did not know what would.

Mr. W. HA::\fiLTON was in sympathy with the object sought to be attained by the Minister -namely, to get what was now abandoned country occupied. The way a lot of that country came to be unoccupied was this: A person took up a block of land which commanded all the water, and in that way was able to command ten times the area of country which he took up. He understood that the Minister wanted to be able to say to the monopolist that, if he put up a block of country which included his occupation license, with a lot of abandoned country round it, and that person liked to take a lease of the whole, he would get priority. [The SECRETARY

Land Bill. [28 NoVEMBER.] Land Bill. 1411

FOR PUBLIC LANDS: That is so.] He thought that was a good thing. At the same time, he did not think it was right to give leases for resumed areas; he thought occupation license or grazing right was good enough tenure for them.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: He did not think the Committee need be afraid of any harm being done in this matter. As some hon. member had said, the Minister who would wilfully re-lease land required for settle­ment, would have a bad time in Parliament, and would deserve it.

Mr. KIDS TON (Rockhampton): \Vhat was the idea of resuming land from holdings for the pur­pose of re-leasing it? [The 8ECRE1'ARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Nobody will do that.] His opinion was that land should not be resumed at all from the present holdings unless for the purp0se of putting it to better use. He would rather see the Minister have the power to lease than to see the land lying idle, but it should not be resum­able until it was wanted.

The PREMIER: Under the Act of 1884 it was compulsory to resume, and the department had a Jot of land on its hands. Some was occupied under grazing right, and some under occupation license, and for some of it the departmer.t got nothing at all. There was a great deal of land in the Gulf country which the department could only rent under occupation license, and the Minister wanted power to re-le~tse that l<>nd. The Committee could easily put in a provision that none of the resumed areas should be re-leased until they had been open to selection for two or three years. There were millions of acres of good cattle land now being re-leased from year to year, whereas if a person could get a decent lease he would be prepared to pay a decent rent and make improvements.

Mr. HARD ACRE : That was exactly the position they came to in last year's Bill, and though it was not all he would like to get, still he thought it was a pretty good safeguard. On the whole he thought such a provision would work out well, and he was willing to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. PL UNKE TT (Albm·t): \Vhat the Premier said might be all right as far as the Gulf country was concerned, but his suggestion would also apply to the country along the coast in the settled dis­tricts. [The PREMIER: In some cases.] He thought it a very dangerous thing to allow that to be done. The amendment of the hon. member for Leichhardt provided much greater safe­guards. There was any amount of splendid land in that part of tbe colony which had been marked on the map in blue, and the whole of the rent received from that country did not exceed £20,000 a year. Most of it had been under occu[Jation license, and it would be very wrong to allow it to be leased.

The PREMIER: The lands on the coast fit for agriculture were scrub lands, and they had never been leased to anybody, but were still in the hands of the Crown. North of Cooktown, he did not think any land was in occupation except by blackfellows. In the Gulf count.ry there was a lot of excellent eattle country, which at present nobody would take up because they could only get it under occupation license.

Mr. PLUNKETT was referring to land that would be wanted for grazing purposes from Cairns to the scheduled area. That was a first­class piece of country which it would be a very great mistake to leaoe. There was a lot of fattening country in the area to which he referred which was very suitable for grazing pur­poses. If the Minister would make the provi­sion that the land north of Cairns might be leased after having remained open for selection

for a·certain time, he would not object so much, but it would be a fatal mistake for Parliament to do now what it refused to do seven years ago.

Mr. JACKSON agreed with everything that had been said by the hon. member for A.lbert. He strongly supported the contention that the lands along the coast should not be re-leased. The hon. member for Leichhardt, by his amend· ment, proposed to prevent the Government from re-leasing any of the resumed areas, but the Premier hdd made a proposal that if these resumed areas were not selected within three years the Government should have the right of re-leasing them. He was sorry the hon. member. for Leichhardt had accepted the compromise, which would work out rather hardly upon the occupation licensees of resumed areas on the goldfields reserves. If those areas were offered for selection they would probably not be taken up if cattle country. If it was sheep country, and had not been applied for within three years after having been thrown open, it was a fair thing to assume that it was not wanted, and it would be quite right to re-lease it. But the country on the goldfields reserves was

cattle country, and it would not pay [8'30 p.m.] grazing farmers to take it up unless

near settlement, so that it was a mere farce opening it to selection for two or three years. None of it would be applied for, and the man who had the right of depasturing would get a lease from the Goyernment. At present the residents on goldfields had some pro­tection so far as occupation licenses were con­cerned, because if the owners of those licenses interfered unduly with the stock of the residents of the goldfields, the Secretary for Lands had power tu cancel the licenses. The position would be entirely altered if those people got leases, because the Government would have to pay com­pensation if they resumed the land. [:Ylr. HARD· ACRE : \V e have amended the Bill in that respect so that they will only get compensation for im­provements.] He was not aware that such an amendment had been made. It was a very good amendment, and in view of the fact that it had been made, he would not press his objection.

The PREMIER: Not a single acre nu a gold­fields reserve could be reserved without the con­sent of the Mines Department. [Hon. A. S. CowLEY: And that consent is never given.] It had only been given in one or two cases of occupa­tion licens~·s. Unless the warden assured the Mines Department that the land was not re· quired, that department did not consent to the Lands Department granting a lease.

l\Ir. HARl>ACRE: There was a good deal in what the ban. member for Kennedy said about goldfields, but it was limited by the practice of the administration, which referred everything to the Mines Department. His amendment was not all he would. like to get, but it represented the determination they had come to last year, after a great deal of discussion. Adopting the suggestion of the Secretary for Lands, he wished to amend his amendment by adding the following words : "unless such lands have been proclaimed open for selection for a period of two years."

Mr. PL UNKETT : Even in its amended form the amendment did not cover what he wished to secure. Between Gladsto:rie and Port Douglas the coastal lands comprised some first-class land suitable for agriculture or dairying, and other people should be given a chance within the next two or three years to select some of it.

The PREMIER : All the land between Bowen and Cook town that was worth selecting had been selected. There was a good deal of "crub land there, but nobody could get a lease for it, as it was agricultural land. If the hon. member thought he could get a nice bit of land for fattening purposes he was mistaken, unless he

1412 Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Land Bill.

was prepared to fall the scrub and put the land under grass ; but all the forest land was taken up years ago, and what was not worth selecting was held under occupation license.

Mr. PLUNKETT: It was true that a good deal of that la,nd had been ;elected, but there were thousands of acres on the other side of the range which were suitable for fattening cattle, and it would be vary unwise to lease any of that land for even a short period.

Mr. HARD ACRE thought that the boundary of the scheduled area should be altered. At present the scheduled area did not take in some land which ought to be included in it, and it took in land which ought not to be included in it. It would be better to deal with this question when they came to the schedule. The pro­bability of the land referred to by the hon. mem­berfor Albert being leased would be restricted by the provision that it had to be open for selection for two years.

Amendment (Mr. Ha1·dacrc's) agreed to. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS

moved the insertion of the words " but shall not in any case exceed forty-two years," after the word "mentioned," on line 16.

Mr. HARD ACRE thought that if this amend­ment was carried it would prevent him discuss­ing a previous part of the section, where he might wish to move an amendment. He thought the limit of forty-two years was necessary, but something else was also necessary, for the lowest term that could be given was ten years. He would prefer to see the land that was going to be leased subject to the same classification, and leased on the same terms as had already been provided for in a previous clause.

Amendment agreed to. Mr. HARD ACRE: It was provided ori­

ginally that they could take a one-fourth re­sumption during the present unexpired period and a one-fourth resumption during the extended time. Later on it was provided that they could take a one-fourth re.sumption of any lease during forty-two years. He hoped the Minister would take into consideration the possible necessity for a greater power of resumption than was provided for under section 18.

Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 16-" Existing registered mortgages and

charges"-put and passed. J.Vlr. vV. HAMILTON moved the insertion of

the following new clause to follow clause 16 :-X at withstanding anything in this Act to the contrary,

no notice of election under this Act with respect to any holtling subject to any mortgage or transfer byway of mortgage shall be of any binding effect unless and until a common agreement has been arrived at between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, and approved by a decision of the court, as to any adjustment or other­wise of the mortgage debt, and as to the terms and con­ditions to be entered into by such mortgagor and mort­gagee in re~pect of such debt; and for the purposes of this section the court shall be entitled to inspect, or cause to be inspected, all or any books of accounts, mortgages, deeds, securities, transfers, agreements, or anv documents or instruments relating to the said mOrtgage debt or the se~urity tberefor.

The acceptance of a lease under this part o! this Act shall have the effect of discharging the mortgage debt in connection with such lease or othe1· security worked in conjunction with the holding subject to the mort­gage to the extent determined upon in the common agreement referred to, and the mortgages and other instruments by which the repayment of the debt is secured shall have endorsed thereon the particulars of such agreement, and all the parties thereto shall be bound by such agreement. Last year he read the report of the New South Wales Royal Commi,.sion, which travelled through all the Statee and took evidence prior to the introduction of the Act of 1901 in the Parlia­ment of that State, and he found that they stated

that the Government would be doing an injustice to the lessee who had mortgaged his holding in the interest of a financial institution if they gave an extended lease without protecting the mort­gagor. A provision affording such protection was inserted in the New South vVales Act, and he was informed that it was working very well. Last week he had a letter from a gentleman in his district informing him that a certain financial insti­tution in Brisbane had closed down on one grazing farmer, and that five others had received orders to pay up immediately. This gentleman requested him to try to get a provision of the sort he now proposed inserted in this Bill. Previous to receiving this letter he had made up his mind to endeavour to get the provision incorporated in the Bill. He had conversations on the subject with several pastoral lessees and one or two gentlemen mixed up with financial institutions, and they said that the provision was a very good one. The New 8outh \Vales Royal Commission recommended that-

In the case of mortgaged holdings, a condition of the extension should be that t.here should be such a \Vriting down of the mortgage debt as, in the opinion of the representative of the State, is. fair and equitable. . . 1VP. feel tbat if an extension of the lease were given without this accompanying condition, the benefit accruing from the State's concession might be entirely diverted from the nwrtgag-or to the mortgagee . . . This would men.n au enhancement of the value of the mortgagee's security, which might, without perhaps expos.ing the mortgagee to any charge of harshness, be promptly realised llpon. . . . \Ve are sure that if that wm·e the final result of remedial leg1slation it would not be generally regarded as satisfactory.

vVhat applied to pastoralists in the western part of New South Wales applied also to the pas­toralists in the Western part of Queensland, and he supposed pretty well all over Queensland at the present time. Some managero of leading financial institutions in ::"i ew South vVales gave evidence on the subject before the commission, and they recognised the fairness of the proposal to protect lessees whose holdings were mort­gaged. ::\Ir. T. A. Dibbs, general manager of the CommPrcial Banking Company of Sydney ; Mr. T. Kidd, manager of the Australian Mort­gage, Land, and Finance Company, Limited, Sydney ; and lVIr. L~wis Kiddle, managing director and inspector of stations for the Austra­lasian Mortgage and Agency Company, Limite•:l, of Melbourne, gave evidence to the effect that financial institutions would assist pastoralists in the way suggested by the commission. Several other managers of financial institutions who were examined also recognised the justice and propriety of the proposal. The commission pointed out that if these extensions of leases were given without protectmg the mortgagor in the way proposed, they would assist the mort­gagee and offer him an inducement to foreclose. The Minister for Lands in New South vV ales in­serteda provigion in theW estern Lands .~et which protected the mortgagor against the mortgagee. While clause 16oftheBill protected the mortgagee -which was only a fair thing-the power of

financial institutions required a [9 p.m.] curb on them at times. Their object

in giving extended tenures was not to assist mortgage institutiuns, but to give the original lessee a chance to recover himself. There was nothing unfair in the provision. It only asked that there should be an agreement between the mortgagee, the mortgagor, and the court as to what was a fair thing. It would give the mortgagor a chance ot working out his own salvation. He had expected to see a clause to the same effect in the Bill, and was disappointed when he found it had no place there.

Mr. CAMERON: The proposed clause would be a source of injustice, and he should oppose it strongly.

Land Bill. [28 NovEMBER.] Land Bill. 1413

Mr. W. HAMILTOK saw no injustice in it, nor did the Government or the financial institu­tion' in New South \Vales. Their object was not to help the financial institutions, hut to see that th~ people who wanted help should get it.

Mr. BRO\VNE intended to support the amend­ment. \Vhen speaking on the second reading he alluded to the subject. \Vhen he spoke about the pastoral lessees being mortgaged be WaR met by interjections from the other side to the effect that pastoral les,ees were not mortgaged; that they could not give a mortgage, hut only a transfer. A summary of the Bill was telegraphed to the London Times, and in its issue of 3rd October that paper said-and he would ask hon. members who denied that pastoral lessees were mortgaged to listen to it-

Practically every out-back station is now mortgaged to a bank m· a loan company, and those companies have lost hundreds of thousands of pounds in financing the graziers. Year after year goes by, and wool failf'l to realise enongh to pay current expenses and reduce the debt. The losses of sheep in the last few years have run into millions. 'rhe graziers are beeoming as a class little more than managers for the banks and loan com­panies, who hold securities of all the stations.

That was what the London Times-the "Thun­derer"--said. There was a clause in the Bill which protected the mortgagee, and the object of the hon. member for Gregory was to protect the mortgagor. They all recognised that the country could not get on without capital, but they wanted fair conditions. One of the pioneer squatters mentioned to him that if the Bill gave all these conce,sions without some protection, the pioneer holders would be crushed out of existence, and new men would come in. He agreed that the mortgagees should have some protection to enable them to recoup themselves. At the same time, he believed the unfortunate mortgagor should have some protection against the mortgagee, so that the Bill, which had been introduced as a relief to the \Vestern squatters, should not wipe them out in favour of the finan­cial inst.itutions.

Mr. KIDSTON: Had the :Minister nothing to say on the proposed amendment?

The SECRETARY FUR PUBLIC LANDS: As far as the Lands Department was cnncerned, there was no such thing known in connection with pastoral tenants ~s mortgagees. As the clause was drawn, it would not effect the object of tbe hon. member for Gregory, because those who had holdings, though they might be mort­gagees, as far as the Crown waR concerned, were lessees, and the departmPnt had against them all the rights of recovery which they had against any other lessee. The department had agaiHst financial institutions a right which made all their assets respomible to the Crown for carrying out their agreement with the Crown. 'Vhen there was a failure on the part of an ordinary Crown tenant to meet his rent, the de(Jart­ment could only pursue him as far as his personal property was concerned, but in the case of banking institutions holding a great many pastoral properties, if the rent was not paid the department. hnd redress against the whole of its as-;ets. Tht-re was no such thing in the 1884 Act as mortgagor or mortgdgee ; they were simply lessees. Out,ide of that there was the question of the advisableness of passing this amendment. As far as he understood, it affected only the pastoral tenant. [Mr. \V. HA}!ILTON: The grazing farmers, too.] He thought a clause would have to be moved later on if the hon. member wanted this to apply to grazing farmers, because they were in a different position. They had power to mortgage, and the mortgage could be registered against their leases in the Lands Office. Under the Act of 1884 there was simply a transfer lodged and regisf.ered in the

name of the transferee, and, so far as the Lands Department was concerned, transferees were to all intents and purposes lessees. This clause, as drafted, would not affect those people, because they would not be in a position to mortgage. [Mr. \V. HAMILTON: Substitute transferror and transferee for mortgagor and mortgagee.] Then came the question whethel' it was desirable to interfere with the arrangements which had been made by W><Y of security. He had read carefully and with surprise the quota­tion marle by the hon. member for G-regory from the evidence given by the general manager of the Bank of K ew South \V ales and othe"' holding high positions in that colony with reference to the acceptance of the provision, but after con­sidering a little more, he did not know tliat it was very much to be wondered at that they gave the evidence they gave. \V hat they virtually said was this: Supposing a security, owing to certain circumstances, had become depreciated-- sup­posing £20,000 had been lent upon a pro!Jerty which had decreased in value by £fi,OOO-it wauld not be a very great act of genermity for the financial inotitution to say, "\Ve are prepared to write down your liability by £5,000 because we can see clearly that £15,000 is as much as you can possibly carry." He presumed that the persons who gave the evidence in question recognised that a readjustment could be made, and that losses had occurred which it was beyond their power to recoup thernsel ves for. \V as it wise for the Legislature to step in between a debtC?r and_ his creditor and say they must arrange thmr affaus? [Mr. BROWNE : If the State does not recognise the mortgagee, what is the good of having a clause in the Bill protecting the mortgagee?] If the hon. member read the clause he would see that it only affected existing mortgages. [Mr. BROWNE: But what about clause 16 ?] The 1897 Act gave !JOWer to mortgage, but he was not aware until he was reminded hy the Under Secretary that it was retrospective. There were about a duzen mortgages held under that Act, and clause 16 protected them. The great bulk of pastoral holding' were in the names of !Jersons who had had them transferred to them, but whether they were absolute transfers, or were held silnply as n1ortgages, \vas not known to the department, and they could nor, be dealt with under the hon. member's clause. Then came in the question of stepping in between the mortgagor and mortgagee, and saying, as the clause said, that they must come to a common ao-reement before thction to come under the Act was binding. He was very doubtful indeed whethet·sucha provision wasdesirable. The New South Wales Act allowed a common agreement to be come to between the mortgagor 11nd mort­gagee, and that was sufficient. Should the parties, hnwever, be unable to agree, the matter was to be referred to the ::Yiinister, whose decision, if accepted, should he final; but, it1 the event of the mortgagee refusing to accApt such decision, he was to be deemed not to have made the appli­cation under section 13. The clause of the hon. member for Gregory was quite different; it made it imperative that, in spite of a mutual agreement, it must be approved by a decisi?n of the court. vVhy should the court have to g1ve a decision after a common agreement had been come to? [Mr. \V. HAMILTON : That could be altered. There is no occasion for the court to intervene.] As the amendncent was drawn, the court. was bound to intervenP, He was inclined to think that when people had given security for money advanced, the Legislature should allow those transactions to stand good. If such a thing was to become common-if the Legislature interfered between mortgagor and mortgagee­he was afraid it would shake to a large extent the confidence of people who were willing to lend

1414 Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Land Bill.

money. The Legislature should be wry chary about intervening between clebtor and creditor;

but the amendment pr<1posed to pro­[9'30 p.m.] vide that the mortgagee would not

be given the same advantages as other pe0ple, unless he was prepared to write off a cert:>in portion of his debt. He coulcl quite understand the acquiescence of the people who gave evidence before the vVestern Lands Com­mission in New South \Vales, bec<euse they recognised that a great deal of their money was lost, and they might just as well give their present debtors an opportunity of working out the debt. as some other person.

Mr. KIDSTON: This waf' a very important matter. If the Committee was desirous of deal­ing out even-handed treatment to all parties, it should accept the amendment. The Minister had attempted to prove, in the first place, that the amendment was unnece-sary because the department did not know officially any such person as a mortgagee. But the hon. member proved that the whole clause was unnecessary, because, if there were no mortgagees, there was no necessity to put clauses in the Bill to protect them. However, the hon. gentleman ultimately discovered that there were mortgagees in his own Bill. It was a fair thing to protect mortgagees, but surely, in all fairness, they should just as carefully protect the rights of mortgagors. By that Bill they were purposely increasing the commercial value of the mortgagor's projJerty. That was the justification which made many people accept the Bill, in spite of many blemishes. The Minister and the representatives of mortgage companies appeared to be shocked at the idea of protecting the mortgagor; it was a kind of financial heresy. He was entirely sympathetic with the object of the clause; but he claimed that what was fair for the mortgagee was equally fair for the mortgagor. They were increasing the value of the mortgagor's property. [Mr. STORY: Does not that' increase his borrowing power8 immediately?] It did, but he might not he allowed to stay there. Whatever they did, the borrower would be the servant of the lender; bnt they should try to so frame the dause that the benefits accruing from the exten­sion of the lease would be shared by the mortgagee and the mortgagor in proportion to their interests in the holding. He hoped the Minister would reconsider the matter before it went to a vote.

:VIr. AIREY joined with the hnn. member for B.ockhampton when he said that he thought the Minister shouid reconsider hi,; decision. He hoped the hon. gentleman was endeavouring to come to a just conclusion. Of course they ·had a perfect right to give advantages, but they had als,J a perfect right to lay down certain condi­tions on acceptation of those ad •antage•. This Bill had been called a relief Bill. It was quite true that there were relief provisions in it ; and :while it_ wa~ nect·ssary to introduce a Bill grant­mg relief, 1t was more necessarv to decide to whom the relief should be given; and that the relief should reach the oer,ons it was intended to reach. He maintained that in the Bill ae it stood there was no provision that the relief should go into the proper channels. There was no doubt that many pastoralists were in dire distre:;s, and the public believed this Bill was going to give assistance, and put those men n1_1 their feet, but what would the public thmk 1f they found out that the relief was really going into the pockets of financial institu­tions, and not into the pockets of men who were intended to be relieved? He was not going to say that financial it•stitutions had not their sphere of usefulness. They were a part of the existing order of things, and he had no ·sympathy for the everlasting cry on the part of

some people that financial institutions were in variably a curse. But if this provision was left out they could only say that in nine cases out of ten they had considered the interests of financial institutions to a much greaterextent than they bad considered the interests of anybody else. One ohjection to the amendment was that if it was carried it would entail a great deal of work, but that was not a sufficient reason for leaving out a clauoe <•f this kind. It was eminently necessary to have such a provision. He had received a telegram from a well-known gentle­man in his electorate asking him to support strongly such a provision, and he knew that this gent le man had good reasons for sending that telegram. The hon. member for North Brisbane said that the acceptance of this amendment would tend tu inju•tice being done to certain people, but that was only a bald statement; the hon. member should specify the form of injustice that would be done, and to whom it would be done. He objected to many things in the Bill, but if this amendment was accepted he could say that the measure had at leaHt one redeeming feature. The Minister had said that there was no such thing as a mortgagee under certain conditions, but he thought the Minister was sheltering himself behind a quibble. They could amend the amendment ~o as to make it meet the circumstances of the case. If they passed the clause as it stood in the Bill, they would be simply assisting the usurer to get his " pound of flesh."

Mr. GRANT (Rockhampton) hoped the Minister would see his way clear to accept the principle of the amendment. He had every sympathy with financial institutions, because they had gone through a •ery bad time indeed; they had kept the pastoral industry on its legs during the past few years, and had suffered accordingly. The financial institutions had no desire to have b0ldings thrown on their hands, and he did not think that would happen in many cases, because for many years to come there would not be very much capital invested in the pastoral industry. The only time when a financial institution might be inclined to dispossess the present lessee would be when a man with cash came alont; and desired to get a certain holding. The man on the land­the pioneer who had endured the heat and dust of the day out \Vest-was the man who should receive consideration under this Bill. \Vith regard to the objection to the Land Court decidin<: thi" matter, that could he met by pro­viding that the L~nd C»urt should advise. The technical objection of the Minister that there were no mortgagees was a mere quibble, because thA country was rotten with mortgages. Seeing that Parliament was passing a measure which would have the effect of enhancing the value of pastoral holdings, he thought that they should have something to say as to the conditions under which the proposed concession sht,uld he granted.

Mr. LAM OX r (Brisbane South} did not think that very much would b" gained if the clause was passed, because if a mortgagee was inclined to be harsh he wnuld find a way of accomplishing his purpose. He would simply turn out the present mortga5or, put in a fresh lessee, get his classifi­cation, and so ohtain all the advantages of the Bill.

Mr. HARD ACRE: It was no doubt true that at the present time mort gaged pastoral hol<lings did not appe~tr as such in the books of the Lands Department, or the rent list, bnt that they apneared in the name of the individua-l who had Ie,;t the money on those holdinl(s. But for all that, the department practically knew that a pro­perty was mortgaged, and that the right of equity belonged to the lessee who had borrowed the money. Under the Act of 188·4 every mortgaged holding was registered in the books of the

Land Bill. [28 NovEMBER.] Land Bill. 1415

·department as a mortgaged holding. Under the Act of 1897 it did not appear in the books of the department a" a mortgaged holding, but appeared in the name of the person who had lent the money, so that they could practically get to know all those holdings which were mort­gaged before the passing of the Act of 1897 ; and they included the bulk of the mortgaged holdings. It was quite true that, as the new clause was drafted, they could only recognise the mortgagees as lessees, but they could easily amend it in that respect. There was no doubt also that under the new clause in its present form it would be necessary, befme the lessee of any holding got the benefits of this Bill, that a common agreement should be arrived at between the lessee and the mortgagee. That was not necessary in every case-perhaps in a large number of cases-but the objection on that ground might be met by providing that the pro­posed procedure should only be adopted on the

.-application of the lessee or mortgagee. Then the provision would ·only apply to a few cases where the genuine lessee feared that a particular party was going to take adv!.ntage of the bene­nts which would be conferred by the passing of this Bill. He had not much fear with regard to financial institutions, because he believed that generally they were fairly liberal. "What he did fear wa; the individual Shylock,

who had lent money ann was anxious [10 p.m.] to receive his "pound of flesh" when

he got the chance. In such case• it was their duty to protect the mortgagee by seeing that the benefits proposed to be l"iven by the Act went to the persons for whom they were intended. It would be manifestly unfair to enable a financial ·institution to close on a pastoral lessee, and get all the benefit which was intended to be given to ·him. The ::\Iinister had in his hands power to confer certain benefits-[Hon. A. S. CowLEY: At the expense of the mortgagee.]-and he had the right to say that he would not give those benefits unless he knew they were going to the ·Tight parties. It only affected the lessee at this particular juncture. Once the lease was given the court could not interfere again, and the leRsee could go to any financial institution and offer his security. \Vith that principal in it the amendment ought to receive the support of all whb desired to see justice done, and considera­tion shown to the pastoral lessee.

::\fr. STORY : A great deal of sentiment had been imported into the debate. He would give a general illustration to show what were the real ·facts of the case. A lessee originally borrowed, say, .£15,000 on a perfectly good security. Bad times came, and the lender had to protect his 'OWn security by putting in thousands more to keep the place going. That went on until the original owner passed out of sight altogether; and he failed to see where the claim came in that the mortgagee should reduce not what he had lent to the man, but what he had invested in the property. Surely he should have a right to benefit by the Act, and not be a'ked by the original owner to have his debt reduced by 20 or 30 per cent., and be allowed to take possession again. The person who lent the money might have been compelled, by force of circumstances, to put far more tooney into the concern than the original owner did, and he deserved some consideration on that account.

Mr. BROWNE agreed that a financial insti­tution or a private individual who advanced money had a right to claim a fair deal in this ·legislation ; at the same time, the man who had nearly gone under should be considered also. Legislation was generally supposed to look after the weaker man. Those who supported the .amendment did not say thut the pioneer who

had put money into a property should get an equal share in the beuefits of the Bill as com­pared with the mortgagee who had sunk a great deal more money in the same property, but they said that in proportion to what each had put in each should have a chance. He thought that w::ts fair play, and there was no sentiment about it. A financial institution was composed of a large number of shareholders, and it was the business of the directors to make as much money as possible in order to produce dividends, and if something was done by which the value of a security was considerably enhanced it was their duty to get as much out of the deal as they could, even if it did harm to others. The Minister stated that there were only twelve mortgagees concerned ; but if it was necessary to introduce a clause to protect twelve mortgag~>es, was it not common justice that tb!e twelve mort­gagors should also be looked after, in order that they might recover themselves? He had already mentioned one pioneer squatter who feared that the effect of the Bill would be to crush him out of existence; and the hon. member for Gregory had mentioned three letters he got on the same question ; the hon. member for Flinders had quoted a telegram to the same effect, and the hon. member for Barcoo said he knew cases of the same kind. [The SECRETARY FOR RAIL· WAYS: This clause does not affect grazing farmer•.] It applied to holdings, and he took it that a grazing farm was a holding. The hon. member for Gregory had pointed out that he was quite willing to accept any reasonable amendment, but he had not been met in any way by the Minister. The hon. member for South Brisbane, Mr. Lamont, did not express any antagonism towards the clause, although he said it would not do much good because mortgagees and mortgagors would find a way of getting round it. He admitted that might be so, and that it was possible to drive a coach and four through most Acts of Parliament, but because unscrupulous person• managed to evade an Act of Parliament that did not deter Parliament from passing laws. It would simply be their duty then to amend the law. [:\1r. LA:IfONT : That is what you are afraid of-that it will be evaded.] No; that was not what they were afraid of, but they were afraid that imme­diately the Bill became law thP mortgagee could close down on the mortgagor, throw him out, and take all the adnmtages to be derived under the measure. If it was the opinion of hon. members opposite that the clause would not restrict the rights of mortgagees, why on earth did they offer such strenuous opposition to it? He believed the financial institutions who had put their money into the industry should be protected to the extent of the money they had put in, but, on the other ~and, he believed that the men who had put their labour and time into the pastoral industry, and who had virtually gone under, should get a little protection from the financial institutions, He should be pleased to hear the hon. gentleman "ay that he would accept the clause, even in some modified form.

Mr. COOPER feared that the clause, far from protecting the mortgagor, would have the effect of doing him harm. lf it was passed there could be no doubt that the financial institutions, in order to protect themselves, would foreclose on the mortgagors who were heavily indebted to them. Many people made the mistake of supposing that financial institutions were desirous of acquiring possession of pastoral properties ; but it was only in exceptional cases that they did so, for station properties as a rule ccmld be more economically managed by the original owners, and it was 0nly when a man became hopelessly extravagant or incompetent that they

1416 Lancl Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Lancl Bill.

were compelled to take possession. Another reason why they objected to take possession was the same reason that actuated a fire insurance company in paying a claim rather than fight it, though it might be doubtful. It was a bad advertisement for the institution to get the name of foreclosing. He did not wish the Committee to think that he was not desirous in every way of protecting the mortgagor; but he did not think the clause would have that effect, nor did he think it could be so amended as to avoid doing grievous harm to the mortgagee.

Mr. HAWTHORN said that the amendment would work unfairly against the mortgagee, as he would have to lose a portion of his mortgage debt, although the mortga~or was obtaining an extension of lease.

Mr. HARDACRE: Some ft"ar had been ex­pressed that the amendment would not ,.eally

carry out what was intended, and [10"30 p.m.] that mortgagors might get alarmed;

but they need have no fear of fore­closure, becauRe they could give notice, immedi­ately the Bill was passed, that they elected to take ad vantage of the Act, and they would be instantly protected. There need be no fear of mortgagees evading the clause, because it could be made retrospective. He suggested that if they were agreed as to the principle they rright postpone the clause until a later part of the Bill, which dealt with mortgages, came on for consider­ation, and by that time it might be redrafted in such a way as to meet the various objections which had been urged against its wording.

Mr. KJ£RR: The experience in Kew Snuth Wales was that the mortgagor was protected. The Secretary for Railways said that the leader of the Opposition only had one case, but he could mention the case of a gentleman whom he had seen only last Saturday, who had lost £28,000 on a station which he had held for over twenty years to his knowledge. He had paid the financial institution interest during both good and bad yeara. [Mr. FORSYTH : And now they have lost their principal.] They had got the station as security. [Mr. FoRSYTH : \Vhat is the good of that if all the stock are dead?] It was still worth more than the amount of their advance. There was a general fear in the \Vest that, as soon as the Bill came into operation, the financial institutions would come down on them, and that they would reap the benefit of the extension of leases. A gentleman who had formerly represented the district which was now represented by the hon. member for Mitcbell and himself had been crushed out, and be left one of the finest stations in the Barcoo with one horse. [The SECRETARY l!'OR RAILWAYS: He speculated. He bought up half the run.] His position was due to the los,;es he sus­tained during the drought in the "eighties," and it was well known that he was crushed out. The hon. member for Mitchell ,;aid that a certain fin::tncial institution which foreclosed on its mortgagors got no busine"s afterwards, but it was 'well known that many men who had spent the best years of their lives in the West bad been squeezed out by financial institutions, which had got their money and their inter0~t on e\·ery occasion. He knew grazing farmers who bad been squeezed by the Union Mortgage Company. [The SECRETARY >'OR RAILWAYS: You do not.] He did. [The SEc­RETARY l<'OR RAILWAYS: Tell me one.] Had that interfered with the business of that com­pany? [The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: \Vho was it?] The man was dead now, but he was not going to give his name, because he had a family in the State, but he could give the hon. gentleman the particulars, which he knew to be correct. He knew the circumstances of the case

very well. [The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: No, you don't.] He did, and hoc could name the man.

Mr. BURRO\VS rose to a point of order. The Secretary for Railways had on two occasions flatly contradicted the statement of the bon. member for Barcoo. Was the Minister in order in so doing?

The ACTING CHAIRMAN : The Minister is out of order in interjecting; otherwise he is going on all right. (Laughter.)

Mr. KERR : He was willing to give the Minister privately the man's name; but he did not wish it to be made public. The Minister, in replying to the hon. member for Gregory, adopted a very wabbly attitude, but, at last, he evidently thought it was not clesirable to offend financial institutions. It had been contended that this was a Bill to give relief to pastoralists, but he (Mr. Kerr) thought it would give relief to financial institutions much more than to pastoralists. It had been said that the clause would be useless, as the mortgagee• could get round it ; then why did not the Minister accept it, as he had accepted some of the amendments of the hon. member for North Brisbane-whieh he termed useless-in order to save the time of the Committee? The hon. member for Gregory did not claim that the amendment was per­fect, but a similar amendment was in•erted in the Kew South \Vales Land Act, and if it was beneficial to the people on the land there, why should it not be beneficial to the people on the land in Queensland? Surely the Government would not contend that the financial institutions should not lose something as well as the men who had lost their all. This was not a pas­toralists' relief Bill, but a financial institutions' relief Bill, and why was that not stated in the title of the Bill?

The PREMIER: This Bill was brought in in order to afford relief to the pastoral industry, and not for the purpose of giving relief to com­pani~s or individuals who had lent money to pastoralists. The amendment would be unwork­able in its present form, and he asked the hon. member for Gregory to withdraw it for the pre­sent, to see if it could be made workable. He had great sympathy for the pioneer squatters, and he would like to assist those who had boTne "the heat and burden of the day." At the same time, they must not injure the industry at all. It was the industry they had to consider, and not the individual.

Mr. \V. HAMILTON wa• not surprised that hon. members were rather chary about accepting the amendment, because it was a new departure from anything which had taken place in this State, as it w::ts a new departure when it was introduced in New South \Vales. He had not introduced the clause with any feeling of opposi­tion against financial institution•, because he recognised their usefulness and necessity. He had not the slightest objection to postpone the clause for the present in order to allow hon. members to fully coneider the matter, and with the view of submitting it later on in an amended form, which would perhaps meet the objections which had been raised. His object was to assist those pastoralists who had been fighting the drought for years, and who might possibly be crushed out of existence if there was not some such provision in the Bill. During the drought financial institutions had made a very big profit; they bad had their "pound of flesh," no matter bow much the pastoral lessee had suffered. However, he would not discuss the matter further at present.

Amendment, by leave, postponed. Clanse 17-"Right of depasturing "-put and.

passed.

Land Bill. [28 NOVEMBER.] Land Bill. 1417

On clause 18-" Resumption without compen­sation"-

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS moved that after line 4G there be inserted the following :-

Provided that if the surrendered lease was granted under the Crown Lands Acts, 1884 to 1895, or under the principal Act, the right to resume under this subsection shall not accrue until fifteen years have elapsed from the date on which the term of such lease commenc('d.

There seemed to be some doubt, though he had none himself, that the way the clause was drafted the right to resume one-fourth of a run under the Act of 1886 might arise directly the new lease was issued, and the object of the pro­viso was to make it clear that the resumption would not be made until after fifteen years from the commencement of the lease.

Amendment agreed to. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAND8

moved the omission in line 50 of the [11 p.m.] words" of such holding," with the

view of inserting the words" actually comprised in such holding at that date."

Amendment agreed to; and a consequential amendment made.

Mr. HARD ACRE pointed out that two dif­ferent dates had now been introduced into the clause. The first referred to the date of the expiration of the original lease. The date the Minister bad inserted was the expiration of the fifteen years, which was not a! ways the expira­tion of the lease.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: To meet the objection of the hon. member he would move the omission of the word, " such date as last ~.tforesaid," with the view of inserting the words "the date when such lease would have expired if it had not been surrendered."

Amendment agreed to. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS

moved the omission on page 8, line 1, of the words "of such holding," with the view of inserting "actually comprised in such holding on that date."

Amendment agreed to. Mr. KIDSTON moved the insertion, after the

word ''resumption," on line 2, of the words "or, ·if the Governor in Council has not already exercised the right of resumption contained in subsection one hereof, then such proportion of the holding as will not exceed in the aggregate the area which might Le resumed under that subsection and the foregoing provi;ions of this subsection." Subsection (1) provided for the resumption of one-fourth of the holding under the existing lease, and subsection (:1) provided for the resumption of one-fourth of the re­maining three-quarters during the extension. In regard to many properties the one-fourth of the original lease had been already resumed. It was possiule thnt under this Bill it might be considered necessary to resume the one-fourth still to be resumed from many of the holdings dealt with by the Bill during the currency of the present lease, and the result woL1ld be that those holdings would suffer a reduction of 18~ per cent. while other holdings would suffer a reduction of 43~ per cent. That seemed inequitable. This was not compelling resumption; it was or,]y !Jer­mitting the same resumption to take place on all holdings. Under this amendment the lessees of the Crown would all have to be treated in the same way-some would not be treated better than others.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAKDS: There was something to be said in favour of the proposal. The Bill as drawn would probably drive the Crown, as a matter of policy, to give notice of resumption of land in the best districts of the colony before it was really wanted, and this clause would remove that difficulty. The

Bill as drawn did not necessitate the resumption at all, nor would this clause make it necessary. It simply went further than the Bill iu contintl· ing the right of the one-fourth resumption under the 1886 Act ttl the new lease. If the hon. mem­ber would limit the amendment to Class II. it would meet all the difticulty, because it was in that clas~ that the land would more particularly be wanted.

Mr. KIDSTO:N : His purpose in moving the amendment was twofold: first, that the Crown would not be under the necessity of resuming land until it was actually wanted for close settle­ment. In the .Mitchell district 70 per cent. of the present leases would expire within •even years. If the Crown did not resume one-fourth under the original lease it would lose its right to resume under the Bill. It would either have to go without land for c]n,;e settlement or would have to resume the land years before it was wanted. 'Vhat sense was there in that? The clause did not say that they must give notice of resumption before the expiry of the lease, but that they must resume before the expiry of the lease. He proposed that they simply carry over th~ir right of resumption to a later date. Then, ag-am, if the Crown did not resume the one-fourth be­fore they required it, it was perfectly certain that lung before twenty years were up they would not have land in the beqt parts of the colony for settlement. For the reasons that they should treat all pastoral tenants alike, and should make proper provision for settlement, some such safeguard should be in the Bill. As to restrict­ing the operation of the amendment to Class II., he did not think it would be wise. He did not see why those who were getting thirty-five-year leases should be less subject to resumption than those getting thirty-year leases. As between the two difficulties he bud mentioned, it seemed to him a rational thing to make provision not to disturb the pastoral tenant until the land was required for settlement, but to leave the Crown sufficient land for settlement at any time. He thought the provision should at least apply to Classes II. and IIf.

Mr. AIREY: The amendment would practic­ally be nullified if restricted to Cla&s II., bec~use the chances were that the resumptions would in variably be made in that class ; whereas the chances were that one-fourth would not be resumed from Class III., and there was all the more necessity for holding it over. ~Under the Bill they had power to resume 432 per cent., and that left 5fi± per cent. Twelve months ago the

Government were vrepared to have [11'30 p.m.] left no less than 57 per cent. for a

period of fourteen years. 'Vhen they were giving extemwns of thirty and forty years they had a right to be jealous of their powers of resumption. He hoped the Mmister would accept the amendment in its present form, but if he would not ag-ree to its being applied to nil four classes, that he would at least apply it to Classes II. and III.

Mr. CAMERON : The amendment was a very considerable departure from the original intention of the Bill. He did not object to it personally, because he and other paRtoralists had a! ways contemplated losing two quarters of their holdings under the Bill ; but he thought that the amendment should be limited to Classes I. and II., bPcause it was natural to assume that the bud in Classes III. and IV. would not be required for closer settlement.

Mr. HARD ACRE: It was more important that the amendment should apply to Class III. than to any other class. In Cla•s II. they bad unexpired terms of from fifteen to twenty years, and one-fourth of those lands, whi~h were uf the best; quality, would be resumBd fnr close settle­ment. But the lands in Class III. had short

1418 Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Land Bill.

unexpired terms, mnging from teu years to six or seven years, in the bnlk of cases. That {:ountry wa• not likely to be required for clasP settlement until a later stage, and it was there­fore necessary that the Minister should not be {:alled upon to exercise his right so quickly as six or seven years from now.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS suggested that the hon. member might insert the words "with respect to any holdings in Class II. or Class III.," after the word "or," in the 1st line of the amendment.

Mr. KIDSTON accepted the hon. gentleman's suggestion.

Amendment amended and agreed to. Mr. KIDSTON then moved the inRertion of

the following new subsection, to follow sub­section (3) :-~o lauds resumed from any holding under this Act

-shall be sold or disposed of otherwise than by selection.

He saw no good purpose that could be served by resuming land from the pastoral tenants unless it was re•erved for closer settlement. [The PREMIER : \Vould it not be better to wait until we come to clause 40, otherwise there will be the same fight over again?] There would not be the same fight over again. The question he was raising was not the abstract one of whether it was wise to sell land or not.. [The PRE3!IER : Practically it is. What other land can you sell?] The Minister had told them of the millions and millions of acres that the Govern­ment held in their hands just now, and that land wonld not be affected by the amendment at all. During the thirty or forty years of the cnrrency of the leases the Crown conld only resnme a limited area for closer settle­ment; and-apart altogether from the (]Uesti"n of the wisdom of the policy of selling \V estern lands-tbey ehonld try to secnre those resnmp­tions for cloeer settlement. It was said th:1,t the 13Ill was one for the relief of the. pastoral in­·dustry, but, if something of that kind was not inserted, it would turn out to be a Bill for the relief of the Treasury. The amendment ought to commend itself to all who had an earnest desire to see closer settlement. If that land was permitted to be sold, there wonld not be suffi­cient land for closer settlement inside of twenty years. Unless some such reservation as this was made, land would be frittered away, and there would be agitation and discontent jnst as there wos before 1884, because people could not ,get land for close settlement. It was wise to try and prevent that. If the Government did not accept a prnvision of this sort, they would not be acting fairly by Queensland.

The PREMIER: The Government conld not accept thi" amendment, because practically it meant that they would have no land to sell. The pastoral lessees were not the only buyers of land. The Treasurer would reqnire some money from the sales of land ; he hoped not a great deal, bnt he would reqnire some, and it would not do to tie the hands of the Government in this way. He did not want to raise a big discussion on this point, so he would simply say that the Govern­ment conld not accept the amendment.

Mr. GRANT regarded this as the crnx of the Bill, and maintained that they should keep the resumptions for the purposes of close settlement. [An honourable member: They are giving land away in Canada.] On the condition that it was at once settled upon, and he would be prepared to sell the whole of Queensland on the same con­·dition. Here they were selling land to hinder settlement. In the Central district land had been sold simply to consolidate big holdings and block settlement. Grazing farmers did not want to buy land-it was the big pastoralists who

wanted to buy large blocks of land. It was an extravagant policy to sell land, and to only have a few sheep grazing on it. This was evidently a Bill to give relief to the Treasury.

Mr. W. HAMILTON: On the second read­ing, he had stated that he objected to long extended tenures, and to the power being given to purchase resumptions. He had seen the in­jurious effect of this-where persons "peacocked" portions of a run, and rendered all the rest useless, He did not believe in the selling of Crown land. If he could have his way, not a single acre would be sold. They should not mix up the two ques­tions of selling land and selling resumed portions of runs. Purchases of resumed lands were only made for the purpose of stopping settlers from getting the land. Some time ago he moved for a list of freehold lands in the Mitchell district, and from the return which was furnished he found that nearly all the freehold land in that district had been purchased out of resumptions. The part bought by the lessees was generally in a strategic position, and commanded abont three times the area purchased. If it was necessary to sell land in order to meet the exigencies of the Treasury, then let the pastor~.] lessee snrrender a portion of his leaseholrl for that purpose ; bnt he had no right to the resumed portion, which was taken from him for the purposes of settlement. A great injustice would be done in allowing resumptions to be sold, He hoped the Committee would accept the amendment.

Mr. COOPER wished to propose an amend­ment on the amendment, which he hoped would be acceptable to the Committee. His amend­ment was to the effect that no resnmed conntry should be opened to purchase until it had been thrown open to selection for at least two years. Having in view the long leases which were to be granted to pastoraliHts nnder this Bill, they would rnn very serious risk if resumptions were allowed to be sold, and snfficient land was not left for settlement in the shape of grazing farm selection. The finances of the conntry were in a bad state, and land would have to be sold, no matter how distasteful it might be to hon. members, bnt still such sales shonld not. interfere with closer settlement, If land was open to selection for two years, and was not selected, that would show that it was not snit­able for selection, or that nobody wanted it, or that selection did not pay. He moved that the amendment be amended by adding at the end thereof the words " unless it has been open for selection for two years without having been selected."

Mr. KIDSTON: He had no objection to the proposed m,,dification of the hon. member for

Mitchell. It took away the objec­[12 p.m.] tion the Premier had to his pro-

posal, and probably the hon. gentle­man wight accept his amendment as so modified. All he wanted to secnre was that the land reserved from those holdings shonld be a,t least offered for closer settlement.

The PREMIER would remind the hon. mem­ber that when the Treasury bills were issued last year the Honse authorised the Government to sell land to meet them, Further Treasnry bills would have to be issued this year, and they wanted to redeem them also by the sale of land. If land was to be kept open for selection for two years it meant that, in the meantime, they could not sell it. [Mr. W. HAMILTON: You bave all the leasehold portions.] The holders were not bound to snrrender their leases. He conld not accept the amendment.

Mr. HARD ACRE: All the amendment pro­posed was that the resnmed areaH to be made in future for close settlement shonld not be sold.

Suspension cif 11£r. Lesina. [1 DECEMBER.]

'There was a lot of resumed areas at present-­some of them excellent land-and this would not prevent the Government selling any of them.

Mr. BROWNE preferred the amendment originally moved by the hon. member for Rock­hampton ; but the hon. member, thinking there was a better chance of getting it throng h, was prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Mitchell. The Premier, however, state<l that he would not accept it even in the modified form ; and he was glad the hon . . gentleman had not accepted it, as he (Mr. Browne) and other mAmbers of the Opposition were oppose<l to it.

Mr. STORY pointed out that it was essential that money must be found to meet the obliga­tions of the country, but he had every hope that the Government would sell no more land than was required for Treasury purposes.

Mr. TURNER (Rockhampton N01·th): When land was resumPd for settlement it should be kept for that purpose. He would gladly give land

.away if closer settlen:ent could be encouraged. Mr. GRANT: A clear· cut issue was now before

the Committee, and hon. members were divided into two classes-those opposed to settlement and those in favour of it. The Premier bad declared the naked truth-that he would sell all the resumptions he could.

Mr. KIDSTON was sorry the acceptance of the amendment of the hon. member for Mitchell had displeased some of his colleagues. He regretted being in the position of a middleman, being unable to agree with the extremists on

·either side. He had accepted the amendment of the hon. m ern ber for Mitchell as a rational com­promi"e, which it would be well for moderate men to accept.

Mr. FORSYTH: While he believed in the principle of keeping that land for close sett le­

ment, somet!.ing like 2,000,000 acres [1:!'30 a. m.] should be devoted to the retiring of

Treasury bill•, a,nd he thought there was sufficient for both purpose~. If some amendment was moved in that particular direc­tion, he would support it.

Mr. HARDACRE contended that the Gov­ernment had any amount of land that they could sell without resorting to those resumptions. The Minister would not be carrying out the wishes of the people if he took land away from one perRon just in order to give it to another person.

Mr. BURROWS: The biggest argument againRt th~ sale of these land< was that people would be able to peacock land in the future as they had done in the past. He intended to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Mitchell.

After some discussion with regard· to taking a division or adjourning,

The House resumed. The AcTING CHAIRMAN reported progress, and

leave was given to the Committee to sit again on Monday next.

The House adjourned at nine minutes past 1 o'clock.

Land Bill. 1419