legislative assembly thursday october
TRANSCRIPT
Queensland
Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]
Legislative Assembly
THURSDAY, 29 OCTOBER 1896
Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy
Victo1'ia B1'idge Toll. [29 OcTOBER.] 1319
THURSDAY, 29 OCTOBER, 1896
The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.
ERROR IN DIVISION LIST. Mr. COR:B'IELD : I wish to draw your atten
tion, Mr. Speaker, to an error which occurs in the record cf the division which took place last night. My name there appears amongst the "Noes," when, as a matter of fact, I did not vote at all.
The SPEAKER: With regard to the statement of the hon. member, I may point out that I have the division list in my hand, and his name is ticked off as having voted with the " No~~-" If he says he was not present, I shall, of course, see that the division list in ''Votes and Proceedings " is altered.
Mr. CORFIELD: I was not present. The mistake, I think, has occurred through my name being ticked off in place of that of the hon. member for Mackay, Mr. Chataway.
VIC'l'ORIA BRIDGE TOLL. The HoN. J. R. DICKSON, in moving-That this House is of opinion that the Victoria Bridge
across the Brisbane River, when completed, should be opened as a public highway free from toll; and that Government be requested to formulate, for approval of l>arliament, a scheme providing for such action, either by the appointment of a joint local authority, with or without a contribution from the State by way of endowment or for services rendered, or by such other mode as may still relieve the travelling public of the inconvenience and expense of the toll system-said: I wish at once to inform hon. members that in moving this motion it is not my intention to inflict upon the House a very long speech. I desire that hon. members will so address themselves to the question that we may arrive at some conclusion upon it by 6 o'clock, that the paper may not be further loaded with it. My remarks shall be pertinent and brief. I shall not enter into any ancient history connected with the Victoria Bridge, either to accuse or apologise for the Government of the day or the Municipal Council of Brisban<e in connection with the repeated controversies and discussions on the subject. I desire to start from the present time v.nd let " the dead past bury its dead," dealing
solely with the position of bridge construction in this colony as it stands at the present time. The controversies and discussions of former times raised f~elings of bitterness, animosity, and local jealousieg, which tended entirely to ob>cure the true issue. These controversies are recorded in the books of Hansard, and I need not load the present debate by references to them. I will ask hon. members to consider thi~ question, not so much as a question of the Victoria Bridge, as that some broad principle may be laid do..vn governing bridge construction, which in this colony is now only in its infancy. Undoubtedly, as a larger settlement of population takes place upon the banks of our tidal rivers, bridge construction must be largely increased, and some intelligible line of policy should be laid down by the Government under which bridge construction may be proceeded with. Under the system of the past, by which local bodies went "cap in hand"to the Government of the day to endeavour to obtain assistance from the consolidated revenue, the records show that certain localiti~s were favoured and others were disregarded. I wish hon. members then to bear in mind that I am not going to ask anything more from Brisbane than I shall be prepared to urge for bridge construction in other parts of the colony, whether in the North or the South. ·what I ask is that we should adopt some uniform intelligent plan of operations, rather than continue tbe eleemosynary method of grants to local communities hitherto ado;oted. I ask hon. members to bear this in mind as one of the features I intend to introduce into the debate.
The SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member that his motion is to discuss a definite matter; it deals solely with the Victoria Bridge.
The HoN. J. R. DICKSON: Yes, and I shall confine myself to the Victoria Bridge as an object lesson, but, subject to your permigsion, I desire to impress upon the Government the neces>1ity for some uniform policy in the construction of similar large structures. Bridgebuilding up to the present time, as in the case of the Victoria Bridge in particular, has heen attempted more upon the lines of affording temporary accommodation across tidal streams than of erecting permanent structures, but I think that in future, with the increase of population, the increase of the pr0sperity, and general development of the colony, a very much superior, and consequently more co>tly, class of structures will have to be provided. The Victoria Bridge is an exemplification of this, and I contend that that is an additional reason why the attention of the Government should be directed to this question a;; a matter of public works policy. The matter is one deserving of the attention not only of members representing metropolitan constituenciee but also of members representing other portion~ of the community where similar structures are erected. If the present unfair and expensive system of tolls be perpetuated, it will act as a deterrent to the construction of more bridges of a similar character which may even be required in this city, as well as in other parts of the c:>lony. It will be admitted by all who have studied the position of the Victoria Bridge that even at the present time that bridge is not sufficient to provide a convenient outlet from the city or conveni~nt access to it for the large amount of settlement occurring on both sides of the river, and that it will be considerably less so in the early future. The toll system on bridges gene, rally, which I am here to attack in connection with the Victoria Bridge, is to my mind incapable of being logically defended, especially at the present time. In the old days toll~ were
1320 VictoTia BTidge Toll. [ASSEMBLY.] Victoria Bridge Toll.
considered a fair mode of paying for the cost of construction, but in these later days we have arrived at a juster perception of things and recognise that it is the duty of the Government and the local B,uthorities to endeavour to remove from the public individually, as far as possible, the burden of tolls. I know that even now there are to be found many men of intelligence so permeated with old conservative ideas that they insist upon advocating that every person who uses a bridge ought to pay towards the expense of providing and maintaining that bridge.
Mr. McMASTER: Hear, hear! The HoN. J. R. DICKSON : I am sorry to
hear that my hon. friend, upon whom the civic government of this metropolis largely de>·olves, approves of that principle.
Mr. McMASTER: If there is a toll it should be equally divided.
The HoN. J. R. DICKSON: I am glad the hon. member has interjected that, but I am not entering upon the dist.ribution of the toll. I am objecting to the toll in toto as unfair in principle, and, in justification of my argument, I say that if it is right that the people who walk or drive across a bridge should be taxed to keep it in repair, then the principle ought to be extended to every street in the city; a turnpike should be erected in every street to collect tolls from the persons using those streets to keep them in repair. The toll system is an exceedingly inconvenient and most expensive way of collecting revenue, and it is incapable of being defended upon any of those aspects. The Victoria Bridge, when it is completed, will be not only a public highway but a public highway of very great importance connecting the popuious settlements on both sides of the river, and as such it should not in any way be subjected to the inconvenience and embarrassment of tolls. But in deprecating the toll system I am not in any way desirous of shifting the burden of construction and maintenance on to the consolidated revenue of the colony. There may, however, come in the question as to how far the Government may reasonably contribute towards the cost of the construction and maintenance of such an im· portant link in the public highway as Victoria Bridge is, and as other bridges of a similar character will be. I hold that no one can regard the Victoria Bridge, and bridges sin,i!arly built, without at once admitting that they improve the value of property on both sides of the river; and, though hon. members who have large experience in municipal and local government may demur, and though I, as a ratepayer, thankful for the protection they afford the ratepayers, may demur to increasing the local rates by any contribution for the purpose of removing the toll on passengers over such structures as the Victoria Bridge, still I say that property is benefited by the existence of such a public highway, and ought therefore to bear its fair share of the burden incurred in building and maintaining the bridge. In looking at this question I regard the city of Brisbane as a whole ; I do not regard it as a question of North versus South Brisbane, or the city ve1·sus suburban municipalities. I leave the matter of the adjustment of the area in the hands of the Government if they choose to formulate a policy upon these lines, because certain portions of suburban areas might fairly come under contribution, while other portions could not reasonably be taxed. It is a matter involving nice discrimination as to what portions of surrounding municipalities participate in the benefits accruing from the construction of this bridge; but I go upon the broad principle that tolls are obsolete, inconvenient, and harassing to passengers. The true principle now is to remove. them, and by a
judicious system to obtain from the local authorities circumjacent a sufficient income to totally extinguish the debt incurred in the construction of the "ark, and I will show that it will not be a large impost. As will be observed from the motion, I specially use the expression "when completed." I do not ask the Government to formulate a policy to-day or to-morrow, but when the bridge is finished, which I hope will be 8arly next year. I think it would he unwise to remove the completion of the bridge from the carE'ful supervision of those who are now associated on the bridge board. I have the greatest respect for those gentlemen. The two members of the board besides myself have devoted the greatest care and attention to the matter. One of them is a gentleman of marked commercial ability and the other possesses high professional ability.
J\Ir. LEAHY : They are paid for it. The HoN. J. R. DICKSON: They receive
certain fees, but that does not detract from the fact that they render good and useful service. A lar"e number of gentlemen receive fees from con;missions and boards whose services, if assessed by a commercial jury, would be assessed at a much smaller rate than is paid by this House. I think the amount of remuneration paid to gentlemen in these positions of trust is not commensurate with the amount of ability they show in the discharge of their duties. The professional services which have been rendered by one gentleman upon this hoard must not be gauged by the small remuneration . he rece~ves, and it would be a matter of mconvemence and embarrassment to the Government if the bridge were withdrawn from the careful supervision which is now exercised over it, and which I trust will not be required for longer than the beginning of the year. There is ample time to consider under what scheme the Government might feel disposed to give effect to the views embodied in my motion. I do not want the Victoria Bridge itself to be permanently in the foreground, because I am not going to rake up old matters, but this should not be lost sight of : Victoria Bridge has been placed in its present position entirely regardless of the views of the citizens of Brisbane. It has been re-erected in a position in regard to which the citizens of Brisbane were by no means consulted, and that should not be overlooked.
Mr. GLASSEY: They wer0 told they must either take it in that position or leave it.
The HoN. J. R. DICKSON: Yes, and that ought to be borne in mind in justly considering how far the city ought to be asked to contribute to its construction. In one respect it will be a splendid structure, which I hope will last for many generations, and which will in future years be worthy of admiration and regarded as a structure displaying considerable engineering talent and ability. At t11e same time the bridge has been placed in a position in which in times of flood it will not furnish an outlet from the city to the interior. It is unfortunate that it should be so.
The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: Can you better the site?
The HoN. J. R. DICKSON : I mention this not to find fault with the present site, which I fancy the Government were somewhat bound to adhere to, but to show that in the early future there will doubtless be an insistence upon an additional means of transit across the river which wili not be subject to periodical inunda· tion. At present a very small rise in the river floods Stanley street, and this outlet to the southern and south-western parts of the colony is incapable of being· used. Another thing I wish to point out is that, although we have spent a
Victor"ia B'f'idge Toll. [29 OCTOBER.] Victoria Br"idge Toll. 1321
considerable amount of money in bridge construction, there does not appear to have been any definite scheme pursued in regard to the manner in which local authorities constructint< large bridges should be assisted. Between 1885 and 1890 the RoHq Creek Bridge at Townsville, which cost £27,480, appears to have been built wholly by the State. Between 1884 and 1889 the Pioneer Bridge at Mackay, which cost £35,260, was also wholly built by the State.
The Hmm SECRETARY: Not wholly. The HoN. J. R. DICKSON: I am open to
correction, but my information is derived from a reliable authority. I am referring to the bridge recently constructed.
The HOME SECRETARY : The iron work was too short.
The HoN. J. R. DICKSON: Between 1885 and 1889 the Annan River bridge at Cooktown, costing £26,300, was also paid for by the State, and I may point out that none of these are railway bridges, but are entirely for public traffic, pedestrian and vehicular. Then we come to the Endeavour River bridge, built between 1885 and 1890, which cost £9,869, and which was paid for by the State. Then in 1886-9 there was the Clermont bridge, which cost £3,075. The less said about that bridge the better, because it remained for a long time an isolated monument of engineering construction. Besides that bridge is outside my category, because it is not a bridge over a tidal river, nor is the Balonne River bridge at St. George, which cost £4,815. In 1890-91 the Herbert River bridge at Ingham was built at a cost of £8,095, wholly at the expense of the State. In 1877-82 the Fitzroy bridge, Rockhampton, which cost £54,448, was built wholly at the expense of the State. Coming down to 18Dl, we find that the Rockhampton bridge-and perhaps this bears more forcibly upon my argument, because now the Government became less liberal, the local authorities having to bear a part of the cost, and I am not urging the full extent of liberality which was conceded by the Government in formsr days-in 1891, I say, in connection with the Fitzroy bridge restoration, the Government paid half, the amount being £5,900, the balance being found by the local authorities. 1n 1890-91, in connection with the Tiara bridge over the Mary River, the Government paid half, and the local authority the balance, the cost being about £3,000.
Mr. GLASSEY: The Government had built a bridge over the Mary before that.
The HoN. J. R. DICKSON : Quite so, but this is coming down to later years-since 1891, when the Government were compelled to economise. In connection with the Hemmo,nt bridge over Bulimba Creek, the Government paid one-third-getting gradually more economi· cal. The cost was £3,200, and the Government paid £1,100. Then the Breakfast Creek Bridge, which was erected in 1887, cost £9,876, and the Government paid £2,425-or about one~qnarterstill following the reduced lineg of Treasury assistance.
Mr. KERR : "What about the Charleville bridge?
The HoN. J. R. DICKSON: I have not got that, but I think I have furnished sufficient illustrations of what has been done in the past and recently. I must do Sir ThomasMcilwraith the justice to say that he was prepared-as will be seen from Hansard-to contribute towards the cost of Victoria Bridge to the extent of half, but unfortunately the negotiations fell through, and the offer was not accepted. However, I do not want to enter upon any recriminations or accusations as to the why and the wherefore of these things not being done. What I am endeavouring to do is to point out-and I want to
adhere to my desire not to extend my remarks beyond a reasonable time-that the Premier, after having been waited upon by a deputation consisting of the members of the South Brisbane Council and others asking him to take into con· si:ieration the question of relieving the bridge from tolls, applied to the Bridge Board for some suggestions as to how this could be effected. The correspondence I think has been pub· lished, and, shows without my taking up time in reading it, that the board did not feel that they were individually at liberty to make any suggestions, beyond pointing out that they were working under a certain Act, and as long as they worked amicably together they would continue to work under that Act. Individual differences of opinion might arise as to how the bridge shall be paid for, but in the meantime they desired to point out to the Premier that they were associated for the purpose of carrying out the Victoria Bridge Act, and that that was the whole scope of their functions. At the same time they furnished the hon. gentleman with the statistics connected with Victoria Bridge, in which we may find some matter for consideration. The letter to the Premier was issued on the 25th June last, and may be taken as a state· ment of the condition of the bridge on the 30th June, the end of the financial half-year, with the prospective discharge of liabilities on its completion. It was shown that the total indebtedness which had accrued on ~he bridge repre· sented a sum of about £129,000. I would remind hon. members that under the Victoria Bridge Act the board have to pay the Treasury 5 per cent. for the moneys borrowed, but since the pas.,ing of the Act money has become cheaper. Taking the estimated liabilities on the the 30Gb June, in round numbers, at £129,000, the annual sum raquired to pay off that amount in forty years at 5 per cent., under the Local ·works Loans Act of 1880 and the Amending Act of 1890, is £7,535. In addition to that the annual cost of collection represents £1,350, so that altogether nearly £9,000 would be re· quired as the annual revenue to free the bridge at 5 per cent. But it has been represented to the Treasurer that if the rate was reduced to 4 per cent., it would necessitate an annual payment of £6,500 only, whilst the expense of maintenance, in case the tolls were remitted, would not exceed £500. At present the tolls aggregate £9,355, and their collection, even on the reduced scale, necessitates an expenditure of something like £1,100 per annum; so that if the Government found the money at 4 per cent.-and certainly a loan could be negotiated with the Government endorsement at 4 per cent., and would produce considerably above par -an annual payment of £6,900 would enable the bridge to be freed of tolls. Then how is this to be raised ? The same letter which contained the information concerning the bridge contained a statement of the value of the ratable property within a five and ten mile radius of the city. The total value of ratable property in the city of Brisbane is estimated to be £13,384,000, and it is only right to say that several of the districts within the five-mile radius will naturally object to contribute towards freeing the bridge from tolls, they contending that they have no affinity with the southern districts which are directly interested in this question. Doubtless there are others who ob~ect to share the responsibility of becoming contribn· tors who might fairly be expected to do so, and we shall probably hear my hon. friend, the member for North Brisbane, express his dissatisfaction at the proposal to remove the tolls, and shift the responsibility on to the rates. But I, not having the weight of civic government on my shoulders, take a wider view, and think that
1322 Victoria Bridge Toll, [ASSEMBLY.] 17ictoria Bridge Toll.
property within a certain radius which has benefited by the construction of the bridge might fairly be called upon to contribute towards relieving the public of the payment of tolls. Now, assuming that we reduce the ratable value of property from £14,000,000 to £10,000,000, f.d. in the £1 would actually produce a revenue of £7,000 per annum-sufficient to pay the whole annual contribution without any assistance whatever from the Government. But I say the Government are morally and equitably bound to contribute something, and as I mentioned at the outset, they should formulate a policy under which they would be prepared to "'ive a certain amount of assistance to local" authorities of growing importance which require the erection of further bridge accommodation. While I have not based the claims of the bridge upon anything the Government have done or have left undone, yet the whole circumstances of the case point out that there is an equitable claim against the State for a certain amount of assistance to local authorities, and more especially so in this case, because the Government have a direct interest in the bridge. They have the free use of it for all State service", such as postal work, railway work, and the judiciary. The public have cast upon them the burden of providing accommodation free of charge for all State purposes in connection with the bridge.
Mr. KmsTON : That is true of all bridges. · The HoN. J. R. DIOKSON : Certainly it is,
:md it is an additional reason why the Government are equitably bound to contribute towards the cost of bridge construction. I have opened up the furrows of argument in this matter, and now leave the Government to put in the seed. I Bay that there is great embarrassment and inconvenience caused by the continuance of the toll system. Actually under this system the owner of a private vehicle who crosses from one side of the river to the other pays more in proportion th<tn he pays the Government for travelling in a first·class carriage from Brisbane to Toowoomba. That is sufficient to point out the absurdity of the toll system as applied to this bridge. I think I have laid the salient points of the case before the House. I have shown how another systfm1 can be devised, and I have pointed out that it can only be devised by the Government. It is useless for a private individual to endeavour to formulate a scheme under which the local authorities WO'J!d contribute
·equitably towards the cost of this bridge. It requires the Government with their authority and their statistical information to devise some scheme which will not be unduly oppressive to the local authoritif'. There are portions of districts which might very fairly be called upon to contribute to the cost of the bridge, while there are other more remote di"tricts which, as I have said, have no affinity with the Southern district of the rrllony, which do not require the use of the bridge and which should escape taxation. At any rate I am quite certain the matter is quite capable of being satisfactorily solved, and the more it is ventilated the better. As I have said, the Government have cl uring the recess, and before the bridge is eo mpleted, ample time to formulate such a policy as will be applicable to the Victoria Bridge as well as to all other bridges throughout the colony, and I bring the matter forward not only in the interests of Victoria Bridge but also with a view of facilitating the erection of other bridges by local authorities who take an intelligent preception of the growing requirements of the various important districts of the colony and who may contemplate the erection of such works in the early future.
Question put.
Mr. GLASSEY: Surely some Minister is going to say something upon this question ! The speech delivered by the hon. memberfor Bulimba, which has been most carefully prepared, and contains most excellent information concerning the erection of bridges in various parts of the colony, deserves at least some recognition by the Minister in charge of this particular department. I had not intended to rise, but I think it is only due to the hon. member that some reasonable discussion should take place upon his motion. If the question goes to a division I shall be happy to support the motion. I was anxious to obtain the information the hon. member gave concerning the different bridges in the colony built wholly at the cost of the State, because my own constituents are very much interested in the con',truction of a bridge across the Burnett River. I shall doubtless have an opportunity in the course of a few days, in conjunction with a number of persons from that part of the country and my hon. friend the member for Musgrave, of laying this matter before the Secretary for Public Works. That in.format!on will give us some ground to go upon m makmg tha,t request on behalf of my constituents. U nfortunately, in consequence of some doubt existing in the minds of a number of persons in my--
'The SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member not to pursue that subject any further.
Mr. GLASSEY: I will take your advice, and not pursue it any further, except to say, in conclusion, that the information tendered by the hon. member for Bulimba will assist very materially my constituents and also myself in urging the matter before the Secretary for Public Works in the course of a few days.
The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I was under the impression that probably the Home Secretary would speak on this matter. Although it has Romething to do with the department of which I am the official hea.d, it has a great deal more to do, it seems to me, with the general affairs of the State in what may be called ways and means. The hon. member for Bulimba has given a series of facts in connection with bridge building in the colony, and the way the expense has been distributed. He has told us, going back for a number of year;;, that at one time the Government built bridges entirely. A period elapsed, and they modified their policy of spending the State money in particular locc1lities by paying not the whole cost, but only half of it. Further on the liberality of the State had diminished to the extent of two-thirds, and subsequently of three-fourths. And if we are to gather from that what the State is most likely to do in the future, it would seem that the State has arrived at the conclusion that localities would be able to attend to their own affairs themselves. That is what I deduce from the action of the Government in the past as described by the hon. member. There is another objection apart from the general principle as to h01v the obligations of the colony at large, and of localities in particular, are to be divided. There is the question of opportuneness, and I dare say the Home Secretary will view it from that point. The Rouse is aware that a few months ago a gathering of gentlemen took place to inquire into such questions as this, with which they are familiar. Those gentlemen came to certain conclusions, and legislation on the subject, I presume, will follow by-and·by, when the whole of these matters may be dealt with on some general principle. Whatever the hon. member for Bulimba may think at present, what he said is quite compatible with waiting some little time. He has told us he does not wish the gentleman at present supervising the bridge to be superseded till the work is finished. When
Victoria Bridge Toll. [29 OcToBER.] Victoria Bridge Toll. 1323
that is done, I presume their responsibilities will be at an end. There is more than one resolution contained in this motion. It may be divided, at any rate, into two. The first part of it affirms that the Victoria Bridge should, when completed, be opened as a public highway free from toll. That is a very important part of it. I am nuder the impression that it is proposed to place a toll on the Mary River Bridge. Looking at the subject from another point of view, it would seem that, if no tolls are to be placed on any bridge, when authority is sought from the \Vorks Department or from the Treasurer it will be borne in mind that the money which is lent will not be repaid by the traffic across the bridge, and the result may possibly be that a bridge which otherwise would be built would not be built at all.
Mr. TURLEY: Why? The SECRE'l'ARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS :
The Government are called upon to lend money. A certain locality represents that the bridge will be profitable-that it will bring in money to repay the loan. In that case the Government would be more likely to expend public money, more especially when, as at present, money i:; not over plentiful, because there is an income coming in, which there would not be in the other case.
Mr. TURLEY: Is there no other system? The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:
Certainly there are other systems, but if a local authority came to the Government and said they believed a bridge was really wanted, and that those who used it were willing to pay for it, a request like that would have a great deal more probability of being acceded to than a request for a bridge which they wanted the whole colony to pay for.
Mr. TURLEY : There are other ways of paying besides paying by a toll.
TheSECRETARYFORPUBLIOWORKS: I guite admit that there are ingenious ways of shirking the liability, and throwing it upon somebody else.
Mr. DUNSFORD: \Vithout a toll those who reaped most benefit from a bridge need not pay a penny towards it.
The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Take the Bri,bane Hiver without the bridge, and it will be admitted that there is a great deal of difficulty in getting across it. A man who wants to get to the other side has to hire a boat at a cost of probably ls. \Vhen a ferry boat is put on, and the difficulty of crossing becomes less, he pays ld. When a steam ferry is started he pays the same, but loses less time. 'When a bridge 'is built, and men can get acroi'S the river with the greatest possible comfort and speed, they do not want to pay at all. I do not understand how such a system can be equitable. It is not equitable. I do not say it may not be justifiable under certain circumstances. \Vhat I hold is that the Bridge Board might wisely have gone on doing what they did at first and charge people for the service rendered. It was estimated that if people submitted t,, the toll for a certain time the bridge would be paid for by the people who use it.
Mr. DuNSFORD: It is of more benefit to property-owners than to the travelling public.
The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I am not going to argue a side question, because I know that the hon. gentleman is desirous of getting a division on the subject. The other part of the regolution merely provides certain alternatives as to how the money is to be obtained-either by the appointment of a joint local authority with or without a contribution from the State, or by some other mode. I am sure that the representatives of the various parts of the city and suburbs would have the greatest difficulty in dividing the liability that would
fall upon them. But I will not go further into the question, as I presume that the members representing the constituencies concerned desire to speak. I only rose to point out that apart from other reasons for opposing the motion, there must be a number of months before it would be operative, and it would be just as well to leave the matter over until we are dealing with the Local Government Bill.
The HOME SECRETARY: I regret that I was absent when the hon. member for Bulimba concluded his speech, or I should have replied at once, being the administrator of the department with which this matter is connected. It is only two years since I submitted a question concerning the bridge to the Assembly, and I showed clearly that it meant no bridge at all, as far as the Government were concerned, unless it was accepted on the conditions contained in the statute. Neither of the local authorities was in a position to take action, and the consequence was that in order to carry out what was at the time a lot~al request, the Government said, "We will assist you by finding the necessary money to build the bridge, but under the special circumstances of the case, in view of the conditions of the colony, it must not be done at the expense of the general taxpayer, which would be unfair to a lot of highways that are more of the nature of public highways in the sense of justice and equity than this." Some years ago, when two Bills of similar import were under consideration, I pointed out that the State had treated the rivers as public highways from one end of the colony to the other, with the exception of the Herbert and the Burnett, by building bridges across them at the public expense. Since that time they have assisted the Herbert, though they have not acted as liberally in that case as in others. As to the Burnett, there is an Act of Parliament. I never was so favourably inclined to the Granville Bridge, because they had one public bridge before, and that was the second. The principle affirmed by Parliament was that where bridges are built across rivers of more than a local character the State will find half and lend the local authorities concerned the other half, giving them the right to levy a toll in order to secure the repayment of principal and interest. That was the principle laid down in two Acts of Parliament, which received acceptance without demur or division, and those conditions have been imposed for the last ten years on nearly every bridge built in Queensland, though the local authorities have preferred to repay the money by rates on the land benefited rather than by toll. At a time when money was lavishly expended, a few bridges were built in places where they are used principally by blackfellows; but they are not examples to follow at present. In the North, where the population is sparse, we have always contributed to any important b:idg:e two-thirds of the cost, in the Central distriCt one-half, and in the Southern district one-third. That is the general rule followed up to the present. There was £100,000 out of loan which had been distributed on that basis in connection with roads and bridges. Brisbane had its bridge practically paid for by the country. Then down came the floods in 1893, and the bridge was washed away. This place stands, so far as regards its isolation, just like many other portions of Queensland. There are many places in the colony which are inaccessible, and here they had a river which they could cross by means of ferries. The hon. gentleman has insidiously endeavoured to get us to agree by this resolution that this is to be considered a fortiori of all others the public highway of Queensland. Why a public highway any more than any other?
Mr. BROWNE : Because the Brisbane people think so.
1324 Victo1·ia Bridge Toll. [ASSEMBLY.] Victoria Bridge Toll.
The HOME SECRETARY: That is so. Of course this motion is craftily devised to get a vote on the abstract question of tolls. But the matter is quite outside the question of tolls. There is not a single member who, on the abstract question a,, to whether highways should be free or not, would vote for tolls. The question is-Is this bridge, when completed, to be opened as a public highway? Why should this bridge, which only connects North and South Brisbane, be a public highway any more than the bridge connecting North and South Bundaberg? There are certainly a few more people on either side of it, and a few more better able to pay. Why the hon. member for Bulimba, who knows the position so clearly, should propose this motion I cannot understand. Even the hon. member for South Brisbane, 1\Ir. Tnrley, in the utmost of his dreams at the time did not go further than to propose that foot passengers should be exempt from toll.
Mr. Tt:RLEY : I opposed the second reading of the Bill.
The HOME SECRETARY: The division was 36 to 18, and many of the 18 voted solely on the abstract question of tolls. Now, two years ago a majority of 36 to 18 in the Parliament represe:;ting the country passed the Bill, and sa1d : Here you are now; the country goes home to the money market, and borrows this money for you, on the one condition that the security to the man from whom the money is borrowed shall be that the money shall be paid back by the means provided in the Bill."
The Hon. J. R DIDKSON: Not at all. 'fhe money was borrowed on the credit of the colony. You would not get ls. on the security of a toll.
The HOME SECRETARY: I do not know that the money was borrowed at all, but I do know it came out of the Government funds, and the Premier distinctly said on several occasions during the second reading of the Bill that the security for the repayment of this money was the toll. I admit that at the time there was a hint of some kind of hope, which seemed to me a distant one, that so far as foot passengers were concerned some consideration would be shown to them in the future. But I ask any man to look through the whole of the discussion and say if there was one person in the Honse who was sanguine enough to believe that all tolls would come off this bridge nntil the bridge was paid for?
The Hon. ,T. R. DICKSON: Certainly. It was only a temporary expedient-a temporary cover.
The HOME SECRETARY: It might have been considered a temporary expedient by persons who were anxious to get the bridge at the public expense. If the persons supporting the Government at the time were not in earnest in voting for the then proposal, they would have come forward and voted against the Bill, even though the bridge were not to be bnilt unless t~e mode of repayment was put upon some d1ffermt footing. Nobody said that theqnestion was narrower! down, and everybody, especially the hon. member for South Brisbane, were most anxious that the bridge should be built.
Mr. TURLEY : Not at all. I voted against the second reading of the Bill.
The HOME SECRETARY : It was known that the bridge was hanging at the time on a very slender thrP,ld, and everybody was anxious to get it. There were other means of getting over the difficulty, and for a few months temporary arrangements were made for getting across the river. Look at Sydney, with four times the population, finding a means to get across tram North Shore to Sydney and having to pay for it.
There were many means of crossing the water besides the erection of the expensive structure being put up there now.
The Hon. J. R. DICKSON: The Government proposed the costly structure.
The HOME SECRETARY: No one objected to it at the time. There were plenty 0f other ways of getting across. For a hundred years people have been going from one large centrE' of population to another in Sydney without having a bridge across the harbour.
Mr. TURLEY : Can you show a place similarly situated?
The HOME SECRETARY: The general taxpayers came to the rescue here, and the suggestion they made was this : If we find the money for this bridge, the bridge is to be paid for by a toll. That was put most conclusively, and the hon. member tested it by a division-not on the question of a toll, though a good deal was said in the abstract on that question with which I agree. The whole burden was to be borne by a toll, though it was suggested that it should be borne more immediately by those interested in vehicular traffic.
Mr. TuRLEY : Because we could get nothing else.
The HOME SECRETARY: Is that the state of public morality in this colony? Now that this motion is brought forward, when they have got the bridge, hon. members say they could not get anything else at the time, and this was accepted under false pretences.
Mr. TURLEY: I voted against the bridge altogether on the second reading of the Bill.
The HOME SECRETARY: I know the hon. member did, and he prayed all the time that it would be passed by the Government majority. I know well why he voted against it. He wanted to affirm certain principles which he desired to make very prominent at the time, sincerely hoping that the G-overnment would carry the bridge in the interests of his constituents.
Mr. TuRLEY : Sincerely hoping that it would be carried against you.
The HOME SECRETARY: Now, two years later, before the bridge is actually finished, having got a promise ant of the general taxpayers ratified by their representativets in Parliament and the two members for Korth Brisbane voting with the Government, it shows a very low state of morality indeed if hon. members say they got it at the time-no matter how-and having got it they will use every possible means to throw the burden upon those who, out of their generosity, offered to take it at the time to come to the rescue of what was to a certain extent a local body.
Mr. TURLEY: Who asked them? Who offered the Government in 1893 to take thege terms?
The Hon. J. R. DrcKSON: Who were consulted?
HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Nobody. The ROME SECRETARY: Who was it
moved the Government to build a bridge over the Brisbane River ?-the whole community with one accord. Local bodies everywhere invoked the aid of the G:)Vernment, and came, through their representatives, to interview Ministers day by day with a view of getting some mode of getting across. But none of them ever said that if they did not get the bridge on the terms set forth in this motion they wonld not take it at all. Their idea was to get the bridge built in any way they could, and this motion proposes to alter the incidence of repayment. The hon. member for Bundaberg is interested in this matter, because he wishes to get a bridge over the Burnett, and if the principle of this resolution is to come into force the Government will say to those who ask for their assistance to build a bridge, " No, because directly we find the money an attempt
Victor-ia Briilge Toll. [29 OcTOBER.} Victoria Briilge Toll. 1325
will be made by the mode often adopted in Par- but this House is asked to affirm alone that liament-by bringing pressure to bear upon the bridge should be a public highway. The the community in one way or another-to Act provides that there shall be a toll, and get the terms which have been accepted that toll will have to be continued until both altered." ·what I complain of in this matter Houses of Parliament arrange to alter it. The is that the terms which were offered by propoeal that the Government should constitute the country, through their representatives at a joint local authority mo '"ns that the whole that oime, were voluntarily accepted, and burden of constructing the bridge should be that we are now asked to alter those terms. I a char~e upon the land unless an endowment could mention dozens of local authorities who is prov1ded by the State. That is the whole have been levying heavy rates in order that they difficulty which led to the proposal m:cde by might bear their share of the burden of building the Government that those who use the bndge bridges over various rivers, and some of them should pay for it. It is very difficult to deter. have now paid their proportion. Why should mine what land is benefited by the bridge, anc! they be placed in a different position from that therefore difficult to sav what local authorities occupied by the local authorities interested in should he included in the joint local authority. the Victoria Bridge? In some of the cases I If this bridge is put under a joint local authority have referred to half the money has been lent, and made 'free, then the Maryhorough bridge and the other half has been a grant. must also become a fr<le bridge. It is about
Mr. TURLEY: Were those bridges paid for by one and a-half miles from the post office at tolls? Maryborough, and on what was originally the
The HOME SECRETARY: They were not main Gympie road. Probahly it is more a paid for by tolls. In the case of Victoria Bridge national highway than the Victoria Bridge, the persons who were re.,ponsible refused or inasmuch as it separates not two populous parts neglected to enter into such an arrangement as of a town, but a country district from a town. the other local authorities did. If the House at It is impossible to expect local authorities, that time had said they would n0t accept the divided up as they are, especially about Bris-principle, of the Bill, as the principle of the bane, to build large and important bridges out of colony had been to throw the burden on the laud, revenue; it is also impossible to expect them to and not on the users of the bridge, then they undertake the liability by way of loan, and the might have come forward now and said, " \V e result is that the bridges are not built. This is always protested against this system of taking a matter which will he taken into c0:t!sideration the burden off the land." But it was well when we bring forward the Local Government known at the time that we were introducing no Bill-how are bridges and main roads which ~re new principle, but were simply following what not local works to be built and paid for in future? had been done in the case of the Granville and Until the financial position of local authorities is Bundaberg Bridge proposals. Mr. Macrossan improved there will be no possibility of making said, in that case, "\Ve will give you half the provision for such works; therefore the Govern-money, and throw on the local authoritv the ment must deal with the matter, aud we necessity of finding the other half by tolls." propose to deal with it in the Local Govern-
Mr. TURLEY : How long did they pay tolls? ment Bill which will he one of the first laid The HOME SECRETARY: The bridge was upon the table next session. A commission was
-never-built,-bnt-that-was-the-principle-affirmed- -appointed-to-consider-the-whole mo,tter, and the in that instance. It is very convenient to say Government are now going into the question. that this bridge should be made a public high- It is not only a question of first cost, but also of way, but somebody has to find the principal and maintenance, and assistance in that respect is even interest for its construction. The question is now being asked for in the case of the Fitzr<?Y upon whom shall the incidence fall? That Bridge, at Rockharnpton. 'The Governmentw1ll question was decided at the time the Act deal not only with the question of Victoria Bridge, was passed, and the proposal now is to change but with all brid;:;es, and the Burnett Bridge will the incidence, and place it upon the whole h:we to stand in abeyance until a, scheme is colony. I can well understand that many brought forward. If the hon. member will be hon. members may agree that the incidence satisfied to let this matter rest upon the basis of should fall in another direction, but we were the contract made some time ago, until such in dire necessity at that time ; funds being time as the Government pass the Local Govern-short, we had to make this particular bargain, ment Bill, and formulate a comprehensive scheme and the people were compelled to accept the dealing with all main roads and bridges through-terms offered. The onus of formulating a scheme out the colony, his course will he-having ven-for opening the bridge free is to be thrown upon tilated the subject-to go no further now. In view the Government, who came here before and of the knowledge I have of the clear contract I offered a scheme which was accepted by the submitted to this House at the time this bridge community. The proposal is that the Govern- was started, I am certainly not prepared to vcte ment should " formulate, for the approval of for the motion, because all bridges and main Parliament, a scheme providing for such action, roads should be placed upon the same footing. either by the appointment of a joint local Mr. MACDONALD-P ATEHSON: A very authority, with or without a contribution from few words on my part will suffice to deal with the State by way of endowment or for services this topic. I would like to refer to th~ circum-rendered." I do not know what the hon. stances under which this contract, which has been member means by "services rendered." referred to so much by the Home Secretary, was
The Hon. J. R. DICKSON : The gratuitous made. \V e ought not to forget the pessimistic services rendered to the various departments. condition of the people at that time, when we
The HOME SECRETARY : The proposal were glad to have a bridge at any price, and we which the hon. member wishes the House to ought to remember that the bridge was re:.lly a affirm is that, instead of the bridge being built Governmental bridge from the start. It united upon the terms of the Act of Parliament, the North and South Brisbane for the general Government should throw the burden upon some- advancement of the colony, and the Government body else. I may point out that the resolution is benefited largely by the con•truction or that an abstract proposition; that it eau have no pos- bridge in the augmentation in the values of sible effect in view of the fact that the bridge is Crown lands sold from time to time. being built under a statute which was assented Mr. CROSS : .£62, 000. to by the two Houses of Parliament. The other Mr. MAODONALD-PATERSON: Those House has a right to be consulted in the matter, lands realised prices they never would have
1326 Victoria Bridge Toll. [ASSEMBLY.] Victoria B1·idge Toll.
realised but for the existence of that bridge. But, coming now to the present aspect, this work should not be approached as if it were an initiatory work. The present state of affairs is due to what is commonly known as the "act of God." A disastrous flood brought about the loss of the bridge, and under the circumstances we are as much entitled to ask for the restitution of that bridge as the Townsville people are to have a sum placed on the Estimates to restore the breakwater. The cases are precisely the same. I diRapprove of the wording of the motion, because I think no contribution should be asked from any local authority. It was a public misfortune, and our brethren in other parts of the colony should aid us in the reconstruction of that means of communication. I am sure that if this calamity had happened in Normanton, Cairns, Cooktown, or Charters Towers, the people of Brisbane would give their assistance. A bridge is now being bnilt over the Burdekin, to make the transit of passengers and the carriage of goods more certain.
An HONOURABLE MEMBER: The Northern railway pays 8 per cent.
Mr. MACDONALD-PATERSON: TheCentralline also pays good interest, but the balance beyond 4 per cent. is used to prop up a poorpaying- system of railw.ays in the Southern division of the colony. The metropolis is now asked to pay back not only a part of the capital but the whole"of the interest in connection with the reconstruction of a work the loss of which was a calamity to Queensland. It may happen in a few years, though I hope it never will, that a similar misfortune may overtake Rockhampton, or Maryborough, or any other part of the colony; and I am sure the people in the metropolitan districts will never grudge the necessary expenditure from the public Treasury to put them in the same position as they were.
The HOME SECRETARY : We made the Rockhampton people pay £3,000, by statute.
Mr. MACDONALD-P ATERSON: The late Mr. Macrossan had to establish a precedent on account of the exigencies of the Treasury. The exigencies of the Treasury corn pelled them to adopt the principle of putting as much as they could upon the local authorities. It was not because it was a desirable policy, but because the Treasury could not afford to do otherwise. If a local authority was game to build a bridge over a tidal river, the Government gave them £1 for £1, or £2 for £1.
The HoME t3EORETARY: You want a free bridge.
Mr. MACDONALD-P ATERSON: I am going for a free bridge. I am going for the liquidation of the whole cost of the bridge out of the Trea,ury, and that is what I rose to say.
Mr. 1fcMASTER : I have no doubt that the Home Secretary proved his case to his own satisfaction, but I hope he has not convinced any hon. member of this House that the bridge is not a national work. At all events he has not convinced me, and it would take him a long time to convince me. The hon. member for Bulimba wants the question settled this afternoon, and I will not therefore go into the whole history of the bridge, as that would take me two or three hours. The Home Secretary says that we must abide by the bargain this House made when the Bill to construct the bridge was brought in, but the Government have already broken that bargain. When the Act was passed it provided that every person using the bridge should pay a toll, but the Government have made the vehicular traffic pay for the foot passengers, who now cross free. Is not that a violation of the bargain which was made? I consider that a most iniquitous proceeding. It is not fair or honest. There is no use the Home
Secretary trying to get out of the fact that the Government own that bridge. The people of Brisbane have nothing to thank the Government for. I do not allude to the present Government more than to past Governments. They have all been playing ducks and drakes with the city of Brisbane for the last twenty years over that bridge. First of all, a Bill was passed giving permission to build a bridge over the river. Tenders were called for, and a tender was accepted for £53,000. What did the Government do? When the tender had been accepted, and the whole of the material cast, they sent a letter to the municipal council-and I may say that Ipswich to a great extent ruled the colony at that time, and did with the Government as they thought proper, and they were responsible for the action taken by the Government of the day. The Government eent a letter to the municipal council insisting upon a swing in the bridge of a certain width, otherwise they would not allow the council to build the brid§Se. If I had been in the council then, and had known as much as I do now, I would have told the Government to bnild the bridge and make the swing themselves ; but unfortunately the council submitted and sent an order to England for a swing bridge, with the result that before the bridge was finished, instead of costing the council £::iS,OOO, it cost' nothing under £150,000.
The HOME SECRETARY : Cost the country that amount.
Mr. McMASTER: No. The citizens of Brisbane had to pay £30,000 in hard cash apart altogether from the debentures.
The HoME SECRETARY : They sold the land. Mr. McMASTER : They did not sell a single
inch of land. The Government got the land. I know as much about it as the Home Secretary. I admit that when the first bridge was built the country gave a certain area of land to the council as an endowment instee1d of money. But what was the land worth at that time? What were thirty acres in South Brisbane worth without the bridge? Not £5 an acre. When the bridge was built its v«lue was enhanced tenfold-aye, more than that.
·Mr. lVIACDONALD-PATERSON: One hundredfold.
Mr. 1\lc:\IASTER: I am very mo:lest in my estimate. When the bridge was built at a cost of something like £150,000, the council placed a toll on it with a view to collecting sufficient money to redeem the debentures as they fell due. The council had the land in South Brisbane and some land at Oxley, and they intended keeping that land to providA for the maintenance of the bridge. The revenue when the bridge was taken from us was between £8,000 :>nd £9,000 a year, and as the population increased the revenue from the tolls would also have increased, and had the bridge been let alone, and the Government minded their own business, the bridge would have been paid for long ago, and the councils would have had the land as an endowment. J~ut, no, the Government must come down to Parliament with a Bill, and said, "We will take over Victoria Bridge as a r;ational work," and the House agreed to that. "\Ve will make the bridge free," and the House adopted that idea also. Victoria Bridge was taken over against the wishes of the council, and the tolls were taken off.
The SECRETARY FOR PFBLIC LANDS : Did the council oppose the propoRal ?
Mr. ;\'Ic::\IASTER: Some of the aldermen did. I did, for one.
The HOME SECRETARY : It was forced on you by Act of Parliament.
Mr. Mcc1IASTER: They put it back on us by an Act of Parliament. The next step was that when a few pounds were required to keep
Victoria Bridge Toll. [29 OCTOBER.] Victoria Bridge Toll. 1327
the bridge in repair the Government of the day published an Executive minute in the Gazette calling upon the municipal council to find the money for that purpose, although the bridge had been taken from us as a national work. I happened to be mayor at the time, and I said that I would not do anything until the Supreme Court made me, and a friendly action was brought in the Supreme Court, which decided against us. Immediately the decision was given we took the matter in hand, and kept the bridge in good repair. "When separation took place between North and South Brisbane the two councils agreed to keep the bridge in repair jointly; but unfortunately, in 1893, the floods came and took a portion off the national bridge, which had been taken from the council and handed over to the Government, and some of the bridge is now in the bottom of the river. I say that when the Government took the bridge by force from the municipal council they took the liability also. They took our land and they sold the land in South Brisbane. They were in a great hurry to replenish the Treacmry, and they had the use of something like £35,000 for fifteen years before the debentures fell due. I do not know what the land at Oxley reoJised, but at all events they could not have got far short of £40,000 altogether; and if that had been put out at interest and compound interest it would have been more than sufficient to meet the debentures. I do not know whether the Home Secretary was in the Hpuse last night when the Premier made a speech on the prO]JOsed vote for restoring the Townsville breakwaters. It was proposed to vote nearly £28,000 for that work. I have not the slightest objection to that, but the reasons the Premier gave apply exactly to the Victoria Bridge. He said that "Sigma" came along, touched at Townsville, and destroyed the breakwaters, and he contended that the Government were in honour bound to place those breakwaters in good order when handing them over to the Townsville Harbour Board. The Home Secretary will remember that I told him in the mayor's office when the Victoria Bridge was destroyed that it was the property of the Government; that it was a national work; that the Governm~nt Rhould restore it and the councils would keep it in repair. I believe I am voicing the views of both the North Brisbane and South Brisbane Councils when I say that if the bridge is put in the same condition as it was before the flood of 1893 they will keep it in repair. But what did the Government do ? They did not consult the councils as to where the new bridge wss to be built or as to its cost. Dneq the Home Secretary think the two councils would have erected such a bridge as is being erected now? They would have built half of the bridge whiCh would have been quite sufficient for the next ten or fifteen years, and would not have gone in for an expenditure of £140,000. I have always maintained that ever since the Government took over the bridge from the council it was theirs, and the council had nothing to do wit.h it.
The HOME SECRETARY : And yet you voted for the Bill.
Mr. MoYl:ASTER : I voted for the Bill because the Home Secretary at that time had formed a joint local authority called the "Bridge and lt'erries Board," and he had them under his thumb. At the time the Home Secretary came to see me after the flood I was very emphatic in my opinion as to who should take the responsibility of replacing the bridge ; but he got at the member for South Brisbane, Mr. Stephens, as chairman of that board, and offered to give £4,000 if the city would give £4,000 and South Brisbane another £4,000. I protested, and voted against any such arrangement. In the
meantime I was elected mayor, and I said that, so far as I was concerned, I would not allow another farthing of taxation to be put upon the citizens of Brisbane after the bridge had been taken from them. If we had been left the bridge we would have taken all responsibility, but the Government took the bridge and the land, and then turn round and say, "This is not a national work at all, and we will repudiate all liability." A great deal is heard of local authorities repudiating their liabilities, but I hay the GoYernment have repudiated their action in connection with Victoria Bridge.
The HOli!E SECRETARY : Hdw ? Mr. McMASTER : Inasmuch ad they took the
bridge away from us, an.i when Providence destroyed it by flood they refused to have anything to do with it, and said it belonged to the councils.
:Yir. THO>fAS : Didn't the Government pay your debt?
Mr. McMASTIDR: \Ve gave them the land to pay the debt.
The Hmm SECRETARY: The land we gave you. Mr. McMASTER: A portion of that land
belonged to the City of Brisbane as well as to Ipswich. Ipswich is a gn.a.t deal to blame for all the difficulty in connecdon with the Victoria Bridge, and now they will never s~e the "Indus" or any of the Ducal steamers going up there.
l\fr. STEPHENSON: Don't be too sure. Mr. McMASTEH : Th<oy were the cause of
piling on an additional £70,000 or £80,000 to the original Victoria Bridge. The hon. member for Draytou and Toowoomba will bear me out in every word I say in th;tt respect. I am not going to support the hon. member for Bulimba in the whole of his motion. I am going to support the motion so far as relates to freeing the bridge of tolls-up to the word "toll"-but I will have nothing whatever to do with the taxation of the local authorities. I say the Government is in honour bound-if they have any honour about them in connecti•'n with this matter, which I very much doubt, judging by their past actions in connection with Victoria Bridge-to remove the tolls from the bridge at the earliest possible moment. The Home Secretary 'aid the Government could not re,build the bridge in 10:93 because the Tre:1sury was empty, and the two local authorities were not prepared to do so.
The Hmm SECRETARY : They were stone broke. Mr. 11cMASTER: 'I'hey were not stone broke.
They were at any time able, but they were not willing to rebuild the bridge. I say it is a cruel thing to keep the tolls on and make the vehicle traffic pay for the passenger traffic, and that is only ano'ther instance of how the Government have broken faith wiLh the people.
The HoME SEOilE'l'AilY: It is the board. Mr. McMAST:BjR : Is not the board under the
control of the Government? The Home Secretary told us the management of this affair is in his department.
The Hmm SECRETARY: Local government. Mr. McMASTIDR : Wh,, t is the Bridge
Board? They are a great deal worse than any local government.
The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC LANDS: That is a very 8trong indictment.
Mr. McMASTER: They are responsible to no one but the Government.
The HmiE SECRETARY: No ; Parliament. Mr • .Mc:'lfASTER: I do not know who is
chairman of the bnard now. The hon. member fur Bulimba i·; not permanent ch.tinnan. The Secretary for Railways used to be chairman. I do not know whether the J\Iiniotbr for \Vorks is chairman now. Does not that show that the board is under the immediate control of the Government. The Under Secretary of the
1328 J?ictoPia Bridge Toll. [ASSEMBLY.] Victoria Bridge Toll.
Works Department is its secretary. The Bridge Board and the Government are one and the same, and there is no getting over it. It is no use the Home Secretary trying to make a bogey of the Bridge Board. It is the duty of the Government to step in and make that bridge free. It is a most iniquitous tax they are placing on some of the inhabitants of South Brisbane. I know one man, a 'bus proprietor, who is paying £12 or £l:J a week in tolls to the Bridge Board. For what reason? To enable foot passengers to croRS over free.
The Hol\IE SECRETARY: That was done by the Bridge Board. .
nfr. McMASTER : It is no use the hon. gentleman trying to shelter the Government under the Bridge Board. He may make some hon. members believe it, but he will not make me believe it.
The HmiE SECRETARY: The hon. member for Bulimba will take credit for it on behalf of the board.
Mr. McMAS".CER : They have to administer an Act of Parliament, which says they shall collect a toll from every person who crosses the bridge. Who gave the instructions to relieve the foot passengers? I'll guarantee they came from the Government.
The Ho~IE SECRETARY: No. Mr. McMASTER : It is no use the Home
Secretary saying no. That Bridge Board would never have attempted to take off the toll unless they had the sanction of the Government. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not object to foot passengers going acro~s free. What I object to is that people who have vehicles have to pay for their freedom. It is unjust, it is not honest, to the 'bus proprietors of South Brisbane to take away their passengers by enabling them to walk over the bridge free while they have to pay every time their 'busses cross over. \Vhen I interjected "Hear, hear!" at the commencement of the speech of the hon. member for Bulimba, I meant that if there was to be a toll it should be a toll on all parties, an cl make it as light as you possibly can. But I do not believe in the toll at all, and I say the Government have no right to collect it. When they decided to build the new bridge not a solitary word was communicated to the municipal authorities as to what kind of structure it was to be. They took it all upon themselves, and then they said, "If you do not pass a Bill for a toll there will be no bridge." I would rather have left the bridge.
The HoME SEcRETARY: Parliament did that. Mr. McMASTER: 'l'he hon. gentleman now
takes shelter under Parliament as he did just now under the Bridge Board. I admit it, but that does not say the Government should not rise to the occasion now, and admit that the old bridge belonged .to the Crown, and that they are
i n duty bound to replace it in the position it was in before the 1893 flood. If they would do that the local authorities would keep the bridge in repair without a farthing of toll being placed upon it. I hope the Home Secretary will see the error of his ways-and I include with him all the other members of the Government-and remove the toll as soon as possible,
The HoME SECRETARY : And put it on to somebody else.
Mr. HAMILTON : The chief argument of those hon. members who have spoken in favour of removing the toll is that the bridge over the Brisbane RiYer is a national work. It is no more a national work than any bridge over any little gully in any part of the colony. Here is a bridge benefiting one portion of the colony. Why should it be paid for by people in other portions of the colony who derive no oenefit from it whatever? I was surprised at the hon. member for South Brisbane and at Labour members
by their interjections taking the part of those gentlemen who are now taxed on crossing the bridge, because they actually propose that the workers in the West and the North should be taxed so that those poor people who rida across the bridge in carriages and cabs, or ride over it on their horses or bicycles, should be saved their penny or twopenny toll.
Mr. GRIMES: The hon. member for Fortitude Valley has given us a very concise and truthflill history of this bridge question. There is no necessity for me to go over the ground again, but I have no hesitation in saying that if that bridge had been standing to this day it would have been a national bridge, a:; it always was. When the old bridg-e was washed away the Government took advanbge of the opportunity, turned round, and said to the municipalities, "That is your bridge that has gone, not ours," and so rid themselves of the responsibility of the erection of a new bridge.
The H011E SECRETARY : And yet you voted for it.
Mr. GRIMES: 'We could not do anything else under the circumstances, but we voted for it with the idea that eventually, when things improved, the toll would be taken off. The toll has been taken off foot passengers, and unfairly imposerl on owners of vehicles, especially on the omnibus proprietors of South Brisbane. The hon. member for Bulimba has been very moderate in his request to the Government. He has asked for the bridge to be freed from toll. He says, " Give it to us free if you will ; if you cannot give it to us free, provide such a scheme as will do away with the toll." The toll is the objection. I believe the outside divisions would be prepared to take their share of the burden if a fair and equitable scheme were prepared. Coorparoo, South Brisbane, Stephens, Belmont, Yeerongpilly, and Woolloongabba have all signified their approval of the necessity of paying this debt off in some other way than by means of a toll. They are all willing to participate, but they think the Government ought to bear its share also. If the Government would bear one-half, I believe the divisions would bear the other half, and so rid the bridge oi this obnoxious toll.
The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : Why one-half?
Mr. GRIMES: It is open to the Government to pay more, if they like.
The SECRETARY l<'OR PUBLIC LANDS: They only pay one-third elsewhere.
Mr. GRIMES: The Home Secretary has expressed his opposition to tolls, and I agree with him. They are expensive; and it would be far better for the Government to mal;:e a decent offer to the local authorities and let them provide for the cost in some other way.
Mr. CRIBB: I am sorry the hon. member for Fortitude V alley has gone out of his way to attribute a portion of the blame with reference to the expense of the bridge to Ipswich. There is a certain matter in connection with the construction of the bridge of which the hon. member may not be aware or which he may have forgotten. \Vhen the authority was originally given to the Brisbane municipality to erllct that bridge, there was a clause in the Bill which provided for a swing bridge. Notwithstanding that, tenders were accepted for a bridge without a swing. The bridge was in course of erection and would have been gone on with, but representations were made to the then Treasurer, Sir J. P. Bell, to the effect that the municipality was evading the Act, and the Treasurer insisted on the construction of the bridge iu accordance with the authority given by the Act. Therefore the charge made against Ipswich is not a fair one. I wish to say at the same time that certain
Cyanide Patents. [29 OcTOBER.] Ways and Means. 1329
lands were given to the municipality by way of endowment to assist them in raising money to pay for the bridge. Owing to financin,l troubles which arose in the colony they were unable to pay interest on the debentures, and they appealed to the Government, who took over their liabilities in connection with the bridge, and at the same time received back the lands. Those lands at that time were not worth anything like the amount the Government paid to relieve the municipality of their liability, though I admit that they afterwards increased in Yalue. I know of no other instance in which a municipality has received from the Government valuable land for a specific purpose, and I think they were liberally treatfd. I think the hon. member for Bulimba said it would be impossible not to afford equal rights to other municipalities in connection with the erection or repairing of bridges, but if the resolution is passed in its present form it will only apply to the municipalities of North and South Brisbane. While I would like to see this bridge made free, as a representative of the colony I think there are other places which should be considered
a s well as Brisbane, which I do not consider to be the hub of the colony. In the electorate of Bundanba there are something like thirteen bridges to keep in order, on one of which-an important one-the board has spent several hundred pounds. It is now in that condition that the board cannot repair it any longer, and they have not the means to build a new bridge. In the Stanley electorate the floods have washed away two large and important bridges, the rebuilding of which will be a severe tax on the divisional boards. I approve of the Government making a grant to the extent of one-third of the whole cost of the Brisbane bridgt3 ; and if the municipalities get that in addition to the tolls already received, it should not be much trouble for the joint authorities to arrange between themselves for the payment of the balance.
Mr. THOMAS : I cannot support this rewlution unless I hear from the Ministry that they are prepared to deal with all other local authorities on the same terms. As the hon. member for Ipswich has Raid, there are a good many bridges in my electorate out of repair, and one shut up entirely; therefore I cannot see why Brisbane or any other place Rhould be tre.1ted different to the others. "\Ve had to pay the whole of the cost of the bridge over 'vVoogaroo Creek. Of course we got the money on los.n, but we have to pay it back. If the Government is going to pay for this bridge over the Brisbane River, I want to see them build a new bridge at Bunrlanba.
Question put; and the House divided :AYEs, 27.
Messrs. Dickson, Cross, Keogh, Grirncs, Kidston, Drake, Hardacre, Dawson, Jackson, 'l'urley, Lethy, 1\fcGahan, Macdonald-Paterson, Groom, Dibley, Daniels, King, Sim, McDonnell, Fraser, Dunsford, Browne, Fitzgerald, Kerr, McDonald, Glassey, and Stephens.
NOES, 23. Messrs. Philp, Tozer, Foxton, Dalrymple, Stephenson,
Ohataway, O'Ocnnell, Oollins, Newel!, BattrTsby, Oribb, Castling, ::U:urray, Corfield, Smith, Thomas, .Armstrong, Story, Lord, Orombie, Stewart, Callan, ana Hamilton.
Resolved in the affirmative.
CYANIDE PATENTS. Mr. MoDONALD, in moving-That, in the opinion of the House, the Government
should take steps to relieve the mrning industry frmu the excessive royalties paid for the use of the cyanide proce~<s by one of the following means :-
l. To test the validity of the patents. 2. If valid, by purchasin;; the said patents. 3. By the Governor in Council reducing the saia
excessive royalties-said : I wish to say, in moving this motion, that so far it has had a good effect. Already we have
1896-4N
learnt, from papers laid on the table, that the royalties have been reduced to 5 per cent., or a reduction of 50 per cent. on the royalties previously charged. With that I am very much pleased, but I am still of opinion that the royalty now charged should be materially reduced, as the reduction to 5 per cent. is not sufficient for the extraction of gold by the cyanide process. I am one of those who believe, and I stated it clearly last session on the same motion, that theBe patents ought never to have been granted. If they were thoroughly investigated I do not believe they would be found to hold water at the present time. In New Zealand they were refused, and the grounds upon which an amendment of the patent was based were not held to bf' good. The patents have also been refused in Victoria; and here in Queensland, the colony which above all the colonies of Australia is likely to benefit most by the use of the process, the patents have been granted.
At 7 o'clock, the House, in accordance with Sessional Order, proceeded with Government business. SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS.
On the motion of the TREASURER, it was agreed-
That so much of the Standing Order,• be suspended, for this day, as will admit of the reporting and receiving of resolutions from the Committees of Supply and Ways and )
1330 Ways and Means. [ASSEMBLY.] Statistical Returns Bill.
special funds, because there h~d been a good deal of expenditure, as hon. members would be aware, on account of the tick disease and other things of that sort, and he thought he had better include the whole in one Bill. Then there was a great deal of expenditure going on in regard to railway contracts, in regard to which he wanted £50,000 from loan to meet the requirements of the next six weeks or two months. He moved-
That a further sum, not exceeding £250,000, be granted out of the consolidated re renue fund, exclusive of the moneys standing to the credit of the loan fund.
Mr. HARDACRE thought they ought to have some further information besides that given them verbally by the Treasurer, because, although they would have a Bill before them, they should know what they were doing even in the first stages. He had listened to the Treasurer's remarks, but was not quite sure what amounts were required from the revenue and from loan. If they had papers before them they would know what they were doing, but, as he had said on previous occasions, a verbal statement was not sufficient.
The TREASURER : He had explained the matter so often that he was tired of doing so. The vote on account was a vote in accordance with the Estimates which hon. members had in their hands. Ever since he had been Treasurer the Estimates had always been tabled before he had asked for any vote on account, and he had always told the Committee that whatever expenditure was made in virtue of the vote on account would be directly in accordance with those Estimates. Further information than that he could not give. The details were all in the Estimates, and he could not go beyond what was contained in them. At the same time they had to keep the colony going.
::\1r. HARDACRE : By-and-by a Bill would be introduced in which would be stated the variou~ items of expenditure covered by those votes, and he would suggest that that information might be given them a little earlier for the convenience of hon. members. All that was required was for the Government Printer to print about lOO sheets with the items contained in the Appropriation Bill. If a Premier at any time wanted to work a trick, he might get them to vote more money than was asked for on the Estimatr•, and so get control of a larger sum than he was entitled to.
Question put and passed. The TREASURER, in moving-That a further sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted
from the trust and special funds, said that he would like the hon. member for Leichbardt to understand what he was doing. He had explained frequently that agreeing to this did not bind any member of the Committee, when the Estimates' came on, to approve of any items of expenditure from the trust and special funds. The whole revenue of the colony, exclusive of the trust funds, amounted to something like .£3,500,000, and np to the present he had authority only to spend £500,000. He was only asking for enough to pay salaries for the next two months.
]l,fr. HARDACRE: And something more. The TREASURER: What else? Mr. HARDACRE: You said there was £50,000
for railways. The TREASURER : They would come to
that directly. What the hon. member would like to do, so far as he could under~tand, was to bring in a set of Estimates going through the whole of the departments, and comprising the expenditure for two months, then in two months ;more go through the same procedure, and again m another two months. The practice he was
following was the one that had been followed ever since there had been a Parliament in Queensland.
Question put and passed. The TREASURER moved-That a further sum, not exceeding £50,000, be
granted from the moneys standing to the credit of the loan fund account.
Question put and passed, The House resumed ; and the Committee ob
tained leave to sit again on Tuesday next. The resolutions were agreed to; and a Bill was
ordered to be brought in founded thereon.
APPROPRIATION BILL No. 3. This Bill, intr~duced by the TREASURER,
was passed through all its stages without debate, and ordered to he transmitted to the Council for their concurrence.
STATIS'fiOAL RETURNS BILL. SECOND READING.
The HOME SECRETARY: This Bill is the necessary boiler power for doing the work we have already provided for, and which we discussed on the Estimates. '\V e cannot get statistics in Queensland at present except by the courtesy of persons who like to give them to us. This Bill simply contains the necessary machinery by which in future the Registrar-General will be able to ask all persons for such fnformation as in the interests of the colony they ought to give. The Bill speaks for itself; the clause;; are all very clear. I commend the Bill to the House, and move that it be read a second time.
Mr. GLASSEY: The Home Secretary's speech was very brief; I shall follow that excellent example, and make my remarks brief as well. I welcome the Bill, and regret very .much that some such measure has not bee,, in operation for some years. I take a great interest in statistical matters, and I am sure there are many people in the country who, like myself, have felt that a measure of this kind was very much needed. I hope the Registrar-General will be energetic and active, and supply the public with the fullest and most complete information concerning the various industries of the colony, so that they and the people of other parts of the world may have accurate information.
Question put and passed. COMMITTEE.
Clauses 1, 2, and 3 put and passed. On clause 4-" Registrar-General may forward
forms to such persons as he sees fit"-Mr. BROWNE said the clause was too vague.
It left too much discretionary power in the hands of the Registrar-General as to the persons to whom the forms should be forwarded.
The HOME SECRETARY: It was advisable to put the clause in a general form. The Registrar-General was an officer of the Parliament; he must take his directions from Parliament and the Minister; and a general power, without limiting him, would be the means of getting all the information Parliament desired.
The HoN. J. R. DICKSON : They were pushing the Bill through rapidly, and investing the Registrar-General with a good many inquisitorial powers which might or might not be beneficial. Certainly they ought to have some information from the Home Secretary as to the necessity for a Bill of that character. He had not heard that abuses existed which required remedying, although he presumed they did exist, or the Bill would not have been introduced. Under the present system there was as much blame attributable to the collectors of returns as to those who filled them up. He had
Statistical Retu'i'ns Bill. [29 OCTOBER.] Statistical Retu'i'ns Bill. 1331
had returns filled up lying for months without their being called for. That was where the system was capable of improvement.
The HOME SECRETARY: The necessity for the Bill has been generally admitted by the fact that the House, in passing the Estimates, increased the salary of the statistician by such a sum as wouid enable him to comply with the wishes of Parliament in regard to the colony's statistics. At present nine-tenths of the information got by the Registrar-General was sent in answer to private rather than official communications, and generally on the understanding that the information should not be disclosed. He had seen the forms to be sent out by the Registrar-General, and was satisfie,1 that every one of them was in the intemsts of the public; there was nothing he would ask for that any man ought to conceal. Under the Bill the police would be requisitioned for the purpose of collecting. The statistician had already compiled a Queensland "Year Book" which it was intended to circulate largely. The work was now in the hands of the printer, and he hoped it would be out in a few days. He had looked through it, and it seemed to contain an amount of valu!tble information. The statistician would henceforth build on that groundwork, and he trusted he would vie with Coghlan aud Hayter in publishing statistics that could be relied upon.
Mr. GRIMES: Sometimes the questions contained in the forms w~re inquisitorial. They sought to obtain information on matters of business which, in the interests of the individual, should be kept private. Those furms were collected openly, and generally by the policeman in the district, who might show them to anybody. A man might be making an experiment with a new crop, and did not want the details of it to be sent forth to the public until he had had an opportunity of fully testing it and making it a commercial success. If he was compelled to give that information openly in a paper, it might be the means of doing him much harm. Anybody who saw it might say," So-and-so is growing a new crep, and in this form he says it returns so much per acre." It would be unfair to ask a person engaged in business in that way to give that information, so that it might be made public. It would meet the case if some words were added to the clause, providing that persons who desired to keep their business secret should have an opportunity of sending the return not to the collector but under cover to the Registrar-General.
Mr. GLASSEY did not chare the opinions expressed by the hon. member. Queensland for years had been very far behind the other colonies so far as statistical information was concerned, though the Registrar-General had done his b,,st with the material at his disposal, and the time had arrived when steps should be taken to furnish the people here and elsewhere with full detailed information regarding the progress of the colony. He knew of no better means by which that could be done than by the provisions contained in the Bill ; v.t the same time the Registrar-Geneml should be instructed by the Bill or by regulation when the forms were to be sent out, to whom they were to be sent, and when they were to be returned. As to the collection , of these statistics being something inquisitorial, he did not see that any person had a right to withhold information which the country required. If a man's gronnd was not yielding as much as he would like, and he wished to dispose of it, he would not be anxious to state what the yiEld was; but the mformation should be given. There was a wide difference between a man's busineRs and his private domestic affairs, and he thought the Registrar-General should be armed with power to insist on being supplied with an annual return from every employer showing
the number of hands, the wages in kind and part in coin, the hours of labour, and every other information relating to the industries of the colony.
Mr. ARMSTRONG did not think there was much in the argument of the hon. member for Oxley. His experience was that people were very glad to give information regarding their land and their crops ; and if the statistics to be collected were reliable they would help to educate the men the hon. member represented. He did not go so far as to say that all details should be required, because that would be inquisitorial to a degree, and would lead to a large amount of both friction and fiction. The 6th clause provided for a penalty on anyone divulging information obtained under the Act, so that there was really no objection to this clause. Attempts had been made to collect these statistics, and papers had been sent round to people, but there was no law providi~g for their collection, and people as a rule d1d not return them.
Mr. JACKSON did uJt think the RegistrarGeneral would abuse the powers given him under the Bill. He supposed the Bill was modelled upon the Acts of the other colonies, and that the Registrar-General would be guided as regarded the info~m.a~ion he would collect _by c the action of the statJstlC!ans of the other colomes. The Home Secretary said it was more as a matter of courtesy than anything else that they g'?t such information at present; but he would remmd the hon. gentleman that under _many <;>f their Acts it was compulsory to furmsh vanons returns. Under the Gold Fields Act machine-owners were obliged to send in returns of the gold output and he did not see why mine-owners should' be made practically to furnish returns of their earning-s while other people were exempt. No doubt a ~ueensland year book would be very valuable, as at present they had to go to the year books published by other colon!es to get information about Queensland, and m those books summaries of mining and land Acts and other information of use to the people were published. He wished to know from the Home Secretary whether the usual volume of statistics would be continued, or whether it would be merged in the year book which the hon. gentleman said would be published in future ?
The HOME SECRETARY : He did not con· template making any chanjie. The informa~ion at present supplied to Parliament would contmue to be supplied as before. What would appear in the year hook would be in addition to that, and he hoped that the department as now constituted would be a real live department. They would not necessarily follow fixed lines and keep to them too closely ; he hoped some original ideas would be developed by their statisticians. The work done would be in the direction of extend· ing the information at present supplied to the House.
Jliir. TURLEY was surprised to hear the hon. member for Lockyer say that if certain informa· tion were required the result would be that a great deal of fiction-false returns-would be sent in to the department. That was a libel on the persons who would be asked to furnish returns. If people would lie to the Registrar in supplying the information suggested by the hon. member for Buudaberg, what guarantee had they that the same people would not lie in respect of all other retums they were asked to send in? There was nothing in the point raised by the hon. member for Oxley, because nothin,s in the Bill prevented people, when they had filled in the _forms supplied to them, posting them to the Registrar.
Mr. ARMSTRONG desired to correct the hon. member. He had merely said that if they made the returns too inquisitorial in detail it
1332 Statistical Returns Bill. [ASSEM:BLY.] Statistical Returns Bill.
would lead to a certain amount of friction and fiction, and they would get false returns. He held to that.
Mr. G LASSEY did not assume that in Queensland they were going to take any steps which had not already been taken elsewhere. \Vhy should the people of Queensland be prevented from having the most complete information they could pos~ibly procure at a reasonable expense~ Let the hon. member for Lockyer look at the statistics furnished in the colonies of Victoria and New Z0"~land, and especially in connection with the labour departments, and he would find ample information of the sort to which he had previously referred. They wanted the fullest light possible on the industries of the colony, the soil, the manufactures, the pastoral properties--
Mr. CRoss : The rates of interest and number of mortgages.
Mr. G LASSEY: Yes ; and if it wer& possible to include a compulsory clause to prevent the rate of interest being too high he would try to have it inserted.
Mr. GlU:MES: The hon. member for Lockyer was quite right. If the returns were too inquisitorial, and if they had to be collected openly, the statistics so collected would not be reliable. He did not think the statistics supplied up to date were always reliable, because the per&ons supplying the information had no confidence that it would be kept secret and used only for statistical purposes.
Mr. CROSS : The Registrar-General would apply for information to various parties in the State, and if that information was to be used for publication there was no need to hide it from anybody. The best part of their leg;islation was that which threw light on each other's affairs, and it was for the benefit of the whole State that they should know how the affairs of the country were being conducted, and what were the conditions of individuals and corporations. He could not imagine the Registrar-General asking for information which was not required, and if their statistics were to be worth having the inquiries must be in a measure inquisitorial.
Mr. BROWNE did not think there was any dan;;-er of the Registrar-General being so inquisitorial as some hon. members feared, as it was
· exprusly provided that the forms on which the information was to be supplied must be approved by the Governor in Council, and afterwards published in the Gazette. If those forms con· tained anything injurious to individuals members of the House would soon sing out about it. What he complained of was that the Registrar-General had power, in sending out the forms, to omit some persons if he chose.
Mr. GRIMES was not complaining of the information which was to be given to the Registrar-General, but that it might be used by a collector greatly to the disadvantage of the party affording the information. His objection could be met by putting a footnote on the forms stating that they could be either given to the. collector or sent direct to the Registrar-General.
Mr. J ACKSON: The Home Secretary had said that the Registrar-General would not follow the stereotyped course adopted in the other colonies, but would strike out in an original manner. It would be interesting if the hon. gentleman would give some information as to what new departures it was intended to take. It would be useful and interesting if they had a national balance-sheet, so that they could ascertain the amount of their private as well as their public indebtedness. Queensland was supposed to be a very heavily mortgaged colony, but he would like to know what their assets were. In the other colonies, particularly in New Zealand, a national balance-sheet was always published.
Of course, they could find out here from the volume of statistics what was the value of freehold land and the value of stock, but there was a vast amount of property besides those things, such as mining, of which they had no means of finding out the valuP.
Mr. GRIMES asked the Home Secretary if in framing the forms he would have a footnote inserted informing those furnishing the information reqmred that they could send it direct to the Registrar-General or give it to a collector ?
The HOME SECRETARY: That was provided for in the Bill, and the Registrar-General as a matter of convenience would certainly request that the information be sent to him by post. If it was not sent, then the collector would call for it, and if it was not furnished then the person responsible would be liable to a penalty.
Clause put and passed. On clause 5-" Penalty for neglecting or
refusing to supply information"-Mr. LEAHY : An entirely new principle was
introduced in this measure in providing for the collection of information under a penalty. Under the Stock Returns Act the owner or manager of a station was required to supply the necessary information to the department under a penalty of £20, bnt no forms were sent out under that Act. But under this Bill it was proposed to send out forms, and it might happen that the owner of a station, say, in the West, was in JYielbourne when the form was delivered. His manager might not be able to give the information required, and even if he was, there was nothing in the Bill to say that anybody but·the owner could supply the information. Then, again, there was no provision in the clanse as to who might prosecute or sue for the penalty. There should be some provision by which a return could be made in the absence of the owner.
The HOME SECRETARY: The returns that would be required under this Bill were quite different from those required under the Stock Returns Act. If they wanted to know how many cattle there were upon a selection they would send a form to the person upon that selection, and they defined him as the owner or occupier; but under this Bill they would throw the whole onus upon the Registrar-General. If the person to whom a form was sent did not receive it, he would not be liable, and the Hegistrar-General would have to put up with that, but he thought it was better to use the word "person," because it included anyone whom the Registrar-General found to be in possession of certain information. If the person to whom a form was sent received it, but did not return it, and the Registrar-General could satisfy a tribunal as to those facts, a penalty would be inflicted. It was far better to urJe an indefinite word than to define any specific person. Agricultural returns were sent voluntarily, but if a form were not returned under this Bill, and a good excuse were given, the Registrar-General would have to send the form to another person. If they defined the persons who would be liable to penalties, they would probably get the wrong person.
Mr. LEAHY : They had affirmed the principle that it was necessary to get this information, and it was their duty to see that the information was sent in in time for the yearly compilation. If they could not secure that, it was useless going on with the Bill. The proper way to secure despatch was to work the thing from local centres, such as th~ police districts, instead of from the Registrar-General's offiM. He would also like to know if the Registrar-General was going to sue for these penalties? Under the Stock Returns Act the police officers sued, and if these penalties were going to be enforced some better provisions
Public Service Bill. [29 OCTOBER.] Public Service Bill. 1333
would have to be made in the Bill. He recognised that the Bill would be of great service to the country, and he wished to make it as practical as possible. They were a long way behind New South Wales in this matter, and he hoped the Bill would be made as perfect as possible.
The HOME SECRETARY : They were going further than the other colonies. The Registrar-General had had a long experience in gathering statistics, and he had asked that officer to state what additional power he would want to procure this information. His reply was that this Bill would enable him to get what he wanted. There was nothing in the Bill GO prevent it from being worked from local centres; it was probable that the Registrar-General would aClopt that plan, and unless some ·hon. member could sugge"t some very great improvement they had better leave the Bill in the form the Registrar-General wished. It was the best Bill they could bring in at present.
Mr. LEAHY: Who will prosecute ? The HOME SECRETARY: The Justices
Act said that whenever under any Act it should be necessary to recover any penalty it should be the duty of the police to prosecute.
Mr. LEAHY : Then what was the necessity for inserting it in the Stock Returns Act?
The HOME SECR:BJTARY: Directly they said that a thing should be done in a particular way they prevented it being done in a general way under the Justices Act, and limited the operation of that Act.
Mr. LEAHY: If returns were sent in direct to the Registrar-General-supposing they were sent in at all-how could a policeman prosecute? The Registrar-General could not come forward and say that he had not got the return, if the prosecution was to be under the Justices Act, and the policeman would have no knowledge whatever. How would the prosecution be conducted ? The policeman would not be able to give any evidence, and the Bill did not state that the onus of disproof would be upon the man who was said to have sent in no return. He did not think it would work at all.
Clause put and passed. 'l'he remaining clauses and the preamble were
put and p~,ssed. The House resumed ; the Bill was reported
without amendment. The report was adopted, and the third reading ma::le an Order of the Day for Tuesday next.
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL. RESUMPTION OF COMMITTEE.
On clause 4-" Divieions of public service"The HOME S:ECRETARY moved as an
amendment the omission in the last paragraph of the words "all such officers and classes of officers as the Governor in Council shall from time to time direct," etc. The paragraph would then read- '' The unclassified division shall include all officers not appointed by the Governor in Council." That should meet the objections raised by hon. members. The distinction for the future between classified and unclassified officers would be that the classified officers would be all those who had been appointed by the Governor in Council, whilst the unclassified division would include all those appointed under Acts of Parliament which gave authority to others, such as Ministers and heads of departments, to make the appointments.
Mr. GLASSEY: The clause was a very important one, and the amendment was a very good one, but the hon. gentleman had not been as explicit a• usual in his explanation. They wanted to have the Bill so clear that officers in every branch of the service would know exactly where they were. If he understood the hon. gentleman aright, all persons engaged in the
Government service outside the railway men, and he presumed the police, would be in the unclas,Jfied branch of the ser.vice, and that persons who had been in the service prior to the passing of the Civil Service Act in 1889, and who were practically doing bond fide Civil Service work, would be eligible for promotion in the classified branch without examination. The Bill repealed the old Act and establi,,hed a new order of things, and he was extremely anxious to make it as fair, just, and humane as possible. He wanted to voice the opinions of a number of persons in the lower grades of the service who had not received that fair treat· ment to which they were entitled. He had always had a leaning towards the weaker side, and he hoped the Home Secretary would see that no loopholes were left so that the cla~s of persons he mentioned could be overlooked. Those persons should have a chance of advancing in the service to positions which their talents, ability, and industry warranted.
The HOM:BJ S:BJCRETARY: He would bring in a clause later on which would make very clear what the hon. member referred to. \Vhether he would deal with the matter in a way satisfactory to the hon. member was another matter. This clause simply meant that there should be a professional, a classified, and an unclassified division. He would introduce a provision later on by which the unclassified officers might come into the classified divisions.
Mr. GLASSEY was quite sure, if the Home Secretary knew all the details of the various departments, the matter he complained of would be remedied at once. It was a frequent occurrence in some departments that persons were employed temporarily for years.
The HOME SECRETARY : That will be rectified. Mr. GLASSEY: In the postal and other
departments appointments had been made over the heads of persons who occupied positions of that sort. .
Amendment agreed to; and clause, as amended, put and passed.
On clause 5-" Classifioation"-'fhe HOME SECRETARY moved the omis
sion, on line 39, of the words " officers on their first admission," with a view of inserting "candidates who have successfully passed the pre· scribed examination and have been admitted." 'rhat would more accurately define the term "probationer."
Mr. DA WSON: Would that include the men who had been in the service and who had been readmitted ?
The HOME SECRETARY : They did not come under the probationary class, which included all the young boys who had passed the prescribed examination and who were appointed for the first time. Those boys remained in that class for six months. There might be pro· bationers in the mechanical branch of the Post and Telegraph Department, but the youths he mentioned were the only persons who came under the probationary class.
:Mr. DAWSON: Do you propoce to meet the case of men who re-enter the service?
The HOME SECRETARY: He did, although the Civil Service Board objected to it. However, he would try and do it.
The HoN. ,J, R. DICKSON asked how the amendment would affect probationers who had recently been admitted?
The HOM:BJ SECRETARY: It would not affect their status at all. They had already gone up to the sixth class. He might explain the practice with regard to youths entering the service. Candidates presenting themselves had to obtain a certain percentage of marks. For the higher work of the service it might be fixed at 75 per cent. The standard was made lower
1334 Public Service Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Serviae Bill.
for work which was not in its nature of so high a class ; 50 per cent. might be the standard and 60 per cent. the pass. Twenty boys might pas&, and there might be twenty more who had obtained between 50 and 60 per cent. of mar b .. Those who had ]Jassed over 50 per cent. were eligible for employment in the Postal Department. The door of the Civil Service was open to them. There were a lot of boys who did not get into the firet twenty, and they got notice that they had successfully passed the examination. That would admit them into the Post and Telegraph Department. The others were drafted off into other departments
Mr. GLASSEY: The qu&stion of probationers was a most important one, and he wished to point out how the sy"tem worked in pracbice? SixtAen years was the minimum age for boys entering the Railway Department. Fifty or sixty lads might present themselves for examination, when only twenty or thirty were required. For another branch eighteen was the standard age, and another set of candidates offered themselves; and it often happened that those in the first list were left in a hole. That should be altered. He would suggest that boys who obtained a large number of marks at the younger minimum age should stand along with those at the higher age, so that they should not be left out in the cold. Another matter specially referred to country districts which had not that attention paid to them to which they were entitled. He wanted to see boys from every part of the colony receiving the fulle~t and faireet consideration irrespective of rank and class, and every facility given them to travel to the various places where examinations were held, so as to be able to enter the service on the same terms as boys in the larger centres. The term of probation was six months. A lad might serve his full probationary term, and give entire satisfaction, and yet the head of the department might have someone else on his list whom he was anxious to promote, and say the lad had not given satisfaction.
The HOME SECRETARY : That has never happened yet. Every probationer at the expiration of his six months has gone in to his cla3s.
Mr. GLASSEY: It had happened, and was likely to happen again.
The HoN. J. R. DICKSON: Instances had come under his own observation, particularly with regard to the railway service, where grave discontent was felt by boys who had successfully passed the examination, who had to wait for months without being employed.
Mr. GLASSEY: It may be for years. I know of one case where the waiting extended Ol'er three years.
The HoN. J. R. DICKSON knew of cases where boys had passed a most satisfactory examination, and had been told they would be employed. The parents had to keep the boys during the interval, and the boys themselves were growing discontented.
The HoME SECRETARY : There is not one on the list now.
The HoN. J. R. DICKSON: Not in the Railway Department?
The HoME SECRE'l'ARY: This Bill has nothing to do with the Railway Department.
The HoN. J. R. DICKSON: Something should be done to relieve those in the probationary class of the tedious waiting to which they had to submit at present.
Mr. STEPHENSON had intended to refer to the position of those youths who had gone up for examination to qualify themselves for employment in the railway service.
The CHAIRMAN: This Bill does not apply to the rail way service.
Mr. STEPHENSON: He was much mistaken if he had not heard two or three other hon.
members refer to the Railway Department. If he was out of order he bowed to the Chairman's ruling, bnt he could not understand why he was out of order if they were not.
The CHAIRMAN: I trust the hon. member will not take it in that spirit. ·when another hon. member referred to the Railway Department the Home Secretary informed him that this Bill had nothing to do with that department. If hon. members wished to discuss the position of those young men the proper time to do so will be when the Railway Estimates a1·e considered.
Amendment agreed to. Mr. STEW ART always understood that State
school teachers were classed according to their educational attainments, but if he read the clause aright such was not the case according to this Bill.
The HOME SECRET"'\.l~Y pointed out that in the case of teachers the term "salary " ineluded any sum paid as an allowance, varying with the number of scholars, in addition to the fixed annual remuneration ; and this clause said that teachers should rank with other officers of the public service in the class to which they belonged according to the salaries received by them. If a tea.cher's emoluments reached .£300 he would be in the third class ; if they amounted to £400, he wonld be in the second class. The clause gave teachers the right of appeal in the case of arbitrary dismissals, and threw round them the protection of the Public Service Board. Take the case of Mr. McDermott, who was formerly a teacher. "When he entered the Civil Service from the Education Department he took his class with the other officers according to his salary, including the total emoluments he received in the Education Department. This clause would preserve to those in that department their rank in the public service.
Mr. STEvV ART was confirmed in the opinion that injury to teachers was possible under this clause, because the man with the biggest school would be in the highest class. 'fhere were not always vacancies in the big schools for the teachers of the highest educational attainments, and their emoluments were consequently lower than those of teachers who were in charge of bigger schools, bnt whose educational attainments were not so high. Under this clause the latter wou!d rank higher than the former, but he thought that teachers should be classified according to their merits and attainments.
The HOME SECRETARY : This Bill did not classify the teachers. The Education Department was m_maged under a special statute, by which provision was made for the classification of teachers. They had two standards. The first was the position which the teacher held from the class in which he was according as he had pa"sed his examinations. A man holding a low examination classification might get a good school and vice versa, but that was avoided as far as possible by the department. They regulated their staff, and he took the staff as regulated for the purposes of the Bill, and said that a man in the Education Department getting a certain salary ranked under the Public Service Act according to his salary. There was no injury in that. The hon. member might have touched a matter that required reform, but he must deal with the Education Department for that. The regulation of the bt':1chers must be left to specialists, and it required to be dealt with by a special Act. Had it not been desired to give teachers the benefit of a pension and the· protection of the Civil Service Board, they would haYe been excluded from the Act altogether. The Public Service Board was not competent to regulate the transfer and promotion
Public Service Bill. [29 OcTOBER.] Public Service Bill. 1335
of specially trained men such as teachers. That was done by a special department working under a special Act. The Bill did not say that the classification of a•teacher by his own department was a proper classification, but, taking that classification, it decided where he should come into the general service if appointed to fill a vacancy in that service ; and if he felt he had been unfairly treated by the Under Secretary or the Minister, it gave him the power to ask that his case should be inquired into by the Public Service Board. Hon. members, he
· was snre, would not like to exclude the teacher from that privilege. A matter of the salary, transfer, or promotion of a teacher never came before the board at all. He admitted that there were too many persons excluded from the operations of the Public Service Act; but they proposed to continue the machinery they had for the past seven years for the next three years, and hoped in that time to be able to devise such further general machinery as would enable them to bring in a much larger number. After the explanation he had given he asked hon. members to leave the clause as it stood. As a matter of fact, he had improved the clause by using the word " rank" instead of the word " class."
Mr. STEW ART: Taking the case of two teachers of the same classification in their own department, did one appointed to a big school obtain an advantage over one appointed to a smaller school? He understood the term "salary" was distinct from emoluments.
The HOME SECRETARY: No; it includes emoluments.
Mr. STEW ART: Then the difficulty remained so far as he was concerned. He suggested that the Home Secretary should omit the words "according to the salary received by them."
The HOME SECRETARY : How can you decide to which class they should belong unless you fix some standard ?
Mr. STEW ART: Then the standard of comparison was the salary. His point was that that was no standard for teachers.
The HoN. J. R. DICKSON: The teachers in State schools were placed in a most unfair position, As an instance he might mention the case of the teacher of the Albert School at Maryborough. In 1893 that gentleman u·as receiving .£420 per annum, which would entitle him to be placed in the second class of the Civil Service. But unfortunately, owing to a reduction in his emoluments, he was now receiving only £312, so that he was actually degraded into the third class. He had a list of a number of cases of a similar character, but would defer further reference to the subject until they came to the Estimates for the Department of Public Instruction. He merely mentioned that particular instance now to show that, while officers of the Civil Service who had been retrenched had had their salaries restored, the unfortunate school teachers would be admitted to the public service under a degraded classification through no fault of theirs.
Mr. BATTERSBY believed that some time ago there wa.• a revision of the system in force in the Department of Public InstructiOn under which the whole of the capitation grant was taken away, the schools classified, and the salaries of teachers fixed according to the attendance of pupils, without any emoluments. If that was so he did not think the teachers had much to complain about. He would like the hon. gentleman to tell him whether he was correct in his impression.
The CHAIRMAN: I am sure the hon. member will see that the time to get that information is wh!ln the Estimates for the Department of Public Instruction are before the Committee,
Mr. BATTERSBY knew that he would be pulled up. They had been talking about the Department of Public Instruction for the last hour, and he was very pleased that his getting up had stop_ped the discussion.
Mr. KERR complimented the Minister for inserting in the Bill a new system-that of the minimum wage, and hoped that when he brought in another measure it would contain the same principle.
Mr. GLASSEY hoped that the most important point raised by the hon. member for North Rockhampton would receive.the full consideration it was entitled to from the Secretary for Public Instruction. The Public Service Board was intended to stand between the taxpayers who found the money and the public servants of the· colony. The teachers of State and provisional schools were entitled to all the protection which that board was capable of giving them, and as the board had to examine persons applying for admission to different branches of the service they should be in a position to examin<:> persons appointed to those scbools. If they could not do that it was quite clear that a change was needed. He said nothing against the ability of the men who now constituted the board, but the time had arrived when the functions of the board should be enlarged, in the direction he had indicated. No reference was made in the clause to provisional schools, and as he wished to see them included in the Bill, he moved that the words "and provisional" be inserted after "State" in the 32nd line.
The HOME SECRETARY : A provisional school was a State school. The interpretation clause included both.
Mr. G LASSEY: Provisional schools had been treated differently from State schools, but if the interpretation clause covered both he would be satisfied.
Clause, as amended, put and passed. On clause 6-" Governor in Council may
appoint Public Service Board"-Mr. GLASSEY: In his opinion three were
too many members to have on this board, and the salary paid to the chairman was too great, as compared with that paid to the other two. The present board had been working for seven years. All the initiatory work had been done, so thnt two members should be sufficient in future .
The HoME SECRETARY: There will be a perpetual deadlock.
Mr. GLASSEY: There should be two members with equal rights, equal duties, equal responsibilities, and equal pay. \Vhen they first took office they had to visit all the departments, and classify all the officers as far as poseible, but now there was only the work of continuity to he done. As for the possibility of a deadlock, he might point out that the Land Board consisted of only two members, although it had far more intricate and important work to do than this board, and he was not aware that there had ever been any deadlock during the last twelve years. He thought there had been only one cl1Se in which there had been an appeal to the Minister.
The Hoi\!E SECRETARY: It has different functions.
Mr. GLASSEY: The Land Board had more important functions. They were a judicial body, considerable sums of money were affected by their decisions, but the colony had not suffered from the fact that that board consisted of only two persons. He might point out also that they had three railway commissioners, but a deadlock actually took place, and when the services of one were dispensed with the other two conducted matters for a considerable time without any deadlock having taken place.
The PREMIER : You hunted out the best man ever here.
1336 Public Service Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Service Bill.
Mr. GLASSEY: He held a different opinion, and so far as he was concerned he wished the Victorians luck with him. He wished Mr. Matbieson "God speed," and hoped he might live to enjoy the splendid salary which he was sure he was incapable of earning. Considering that two members worked well in the instances he had given, he did not see why that number should not be sufficient for the Public Service Board. He therefore moved that the word "three" in line 38 be omitted with a view of inserting '' two."
Amendment put. Mr. GLASSBY asked if the Home Secretary
was not going to say anything ? The HOME SECRETARY: VVhom are you going
to leave out? Mr. GLASSEY : They would deal with that
later on, He wanted the hon. member to say whether or not he would accept the amendment?
The HOME SECRETARY: He had already stated that the object of the Bill was simply to continue the board for another three yearsduring the life of the present Parliament. If it was to be reduced to two members it would be better to have no board at all, as two was not a suitable number to have on a board which had so much patronage. Promotion was supposed to depend upon seniority and merit, but in various places merit was synonymous with patronage. One member of the board might be in favour of A, whilst the other would favour the claims of B, and it required a third member to decide who should get the position.
Mr. LEAHY : Do members of Parliament go to the board at all?
The HOME SECRETARY: You are very innocent.
Mr. LEAHY : I never went to the board at all events.
The HOME SECRETARY: He did not say that the hon. member had ever gone, but influence was used. Ministers had to look after the board at times, as well as the board was required to check Ministers; no one was perfect. Members were not perfect, and the board acted as a check upon them. He could not accept the amendment.
Mr. GLASSEY asked whether the Government were afraid to face the responsibility of deciding which of the members of the board should have to retire? \Vhen Mr. Railway Commissioner J ohnston was edged out, the Cabinet took all the responsibility ; and if they were afraid to decide in the present case, they showed an amount of moral cowardice which was unworthy of them. He proposed that there should be two members at £800 and no more, and if his amendment was not carried, he would move a reduction in their salaries, as he believed they were overpaid.
Mr. JACKSON agreed with the leader of the Labour party that two would be sufficient to do all the work, and he would vote for the amendment if it went to a division. They could not afford to pay three men, seeing there wa•' not a great deal of work to do. The board was fairly impartial, although on some occasions it formed a sort of buffer between Ministers and applicants for employment in the service. Some time ago he suggested that one duty which might well be imposed upon the board was the control of the electoral laws. The Courier did not agree with his proposition altogether, but thought that it would be advisable to take the administration of the electoral laws out of the hands of the Government. He drew the attention of the Home Secretary to the suggestion again, seeing that under clause 61 additional duties might be imposed upon the board. If that duty was cast upon them, there would not be so much objection
to the bo~rd consisting of three members, but he did not think that their present duties occupied the whole of their time.
Mr. STE'N ART: The Home Secretary had furnished tbe best argument possible for the abolition of the toard. The meaning of what he s~id was that under the Civil Service Boa,·d political influence had been as rampant as ever. \Vhen the hon. member for Bul!oo interjected, the Home Secretary seemed much surprised at the hon. member's innocence. He (Mr. Stew<>rt) was surpriserl at the Home Secretary's assertion. He understood that the appointment of the • board had done away with all political influence; if not, there was no reason for their existence, and £2,600 a year might be saved. \Vhy not return to the old, open, and aboveboard political patronage? If they were going to be corrupt, they should be corrupt openly and not secretly.
The PRE11IER: Have you ever asked me for a billet for anyone?
Mr. ST.FJW ART: No; and he hoped he never would.
Amendment put and negatived. Mr. COitFIELD moved the omission of the
word "shall" on line 44 with a view of inserting ''may." It might be said it would be better to appoint the present members on account of their experience, but seeing that one of them was bordering pretty close on the limit referred to in the Bill he could hardly see any consi&ten~y in binding the Government to apyoint him. Personally he did not know the members of the board, but he believed that they had done good work. Circumstances, however, might arise between now and January which might alter the views of the Government, and his amendnaent would enable them to meet the case.
The HOME SECRETARY: It would not help matters to adopt the hon. member's suggestion. Either the words should stand as they were in the clause, or they should not be there at all. Everyone knew that the board "might" continue in office, but tl'le clause was put in to give Parliament power to reappoint the members for three years. Rather than adopt the hon. member's suggestion, it would be better to leave out the proviso altogether. He had said that the Government proposed to appoint the present board, but if the Committee did not wish to retain the proviso he had no objection to leaving it out.
Mr. CORFIELD : Circumstances might arise which would compel the Government to make a change in the personnel of the board. That was his object in moving the amendment.
:M:r. LEAHY thought it would be better to leave the proviso out altogether. The present board expired on the 4th December, and the Government should be given a free hand for a couple of months to do what they liked.
Amendment put and negatived; and clause put and pas0ed.
On clause 7-" Recompense to members of board"-
Mr. GLASSEY intended to move a reduction in the salnry of the chairman of the board. He never believed that he was entitled toreceive£1,000 a year as chairman and £250 a year special allowance under Act of Parliament. He had never seen any SPnse or reason in the special 'allowance. "When the Bill passed giving the present chairman of the board £250 a year, they were told that he was entitled to a retiring allowance of £500 a year. That bogey was raised whenever any attempt was made to economise. He would ask hon. members if they considered the chairman was entitled to draw £450 a year more than the other two members of the board? He did not think so, and in order to equalise matters he would move, as an amendment, that' "one thousand" be omitted, with the view of inserting
Public Service Bill. [29 OcToBER.] Public Serviee Bill. 1337
"eight hundred." That would leave the chairman with a total remuneration of £1,050. If the amendment were carried, as he trusted it would be, it would be for the Government to bring in an amending Bill in the event of a new chairman being appointed.
The HOME SECRETARY: Hon. members would have to look at t'\'O Acts to guide them in that matter. The Auditor-General's Pension Act of 1877 gave Mr. Drew the right to a very large pension, while the other provided that if Mr. Drew should he appointed chairman of the Civil Service Board he should receive £250 in addition to his salary of .£1,000 w long as he held that office. Parliament practically asked Mr. Drew to take the position ; he made no application for it, and the term of office was seven years. That bargain was now ended, and if the House thought that arrangement was not a good one they could make a different one. He did not think it would be advisable to continue such an arrangement for any very long time. The Bill was only intended to carry the present arrangement on for another three years.
Mr. GLASSEY: And if Mr. Drew remains chairman for another threB years he gets the extra £250 as well as his salary.
The HOME SI~ORETARY: That was the arrangement, and it would have to he adhered to as long as Mr. Drew remained chairman of the board. 'The only question to consider was whether the arrangement made in 1889 was a good one, and whether it should now be renewed for three years.
Mr. BELL: The main contention of the hon. member for Bundaberg was that a salary of .£1,000 a year was too much to give to the chairman of the Civil Service Board. He (Mr. Bell) considered that the man who occupied that position should receive for his important and responsible duties quite that amount. Though the gentlema;n at present filling the position might be receiving .£1,250 a year, the salary proposed for the chairman of the board was .£1,000 a year. There was no man in the service, in his opinion, who more thoroughly deserved liberal remuneration than W. L. G. Drew, who was an ornament to the Civil Service. Apart from the dignity of the position and the responsibility of the duties, the individual himself deserved well of Parliament on account of his long and honourable connection with the service; and he believed that no man who had any knowledge of that gentleman as an individual and as a public servant would grudge him the amount of salary proposed.
Mr. STEW ART: The position of Mr. Drew seemed to be entirely anomalous, inasmuch as he was in receipt of a salary as chairman of the Civil Service Board, and was at the same time drawing a pension. A special Act was passed--
The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIO INSTRUCTION : It was considered desirable to get the benefit of his services.
Mr. STEW ART had heard a hundred times about Civil servants being so efficient that the country should make any sacrifice to retain their services. When lVIr. Drew died, as he would some day, somebody as efficient would be found to perform the duties. If his services were so valuable, why not retain him at £1,000 a year, with the stipulation that he would have no claim on his pension as long as he drew his salary? If he did not like that-as the hon. member for Normanby said with rr::;ard to the railway men -the world was wide, and he could clear out. With regard to the difference between the salary paid to the chairman and those paid to othAr members of the board, he could find nothing in the Act giving the chairman any more work or
responsibility than either of the other members, and, that being so, he would support the proposed reduction.
The HOME SECRETARY drew hon. members' attention to the fact that when Messrs. Mylne and O'Malley were appointed the appointment was great promotion for them, because Mr. O'Malley was only getting about £450 and Mr. Mylne at the most .£600. Mr. Drew had been at the top of the service, and hon. members admitted that .£1,000 a year was not too large a salary for the Auditor-General. If he had not accepted the appointment of chairman of the Civil Service Board, Mr. Drew, who had as much capacity for the office now as he had then, would have continued to occupy the position of Auditor-General. With the desire to fill the office of chairman of the board with the most suitable man, Mr. Drew was asked to come fro.m the position of Auditor-General to that of charrman of the board at .£1,230, taking .£250 off the pension to which he was entitled upon retirem&nt. Therefore the comparison made between Mr. Drew and Messrs. Mylne and O'Mailey was not a fair one. There would be no gain if the country lost Mr. Drew's services, because he was entitled to a pension of .£;;oo, and they would have to appoint another man as chairman of the board at .£1,000. He did not propose to go any further than this clause, and as hon. members had made up their minds on the question the Committee might come to a division.
Mr. GLASSEY desired to answer some of the remarks of the hon. member for Dalby. If the £250 had not been again included he would not have moved any reduction at all, as he believed Mr. Drew to be a capable officer, worthy of a first-rate salary. He was in the House when the Act was passed, and he believed it to be a sheer job on the part of the Government to favour a particular gentleman beyond his deserts. He did not agree with the Home Secretary that the Act was passed in order to induce Mr. Drew to take the position of chairman of the board ; he believed Mr. Drew would have taken the position at .£1,000, as the work was lighter and allowed more outdoor exercise than the position of Auditor.General. He did not believe the Home Secretary shared the opinions expressed at the time in order to induce hon. members to vote the additional £250 a year. Many members were opposed to the Bill at the time, but did not care about going against friends interested in the passage of the measure.
Mr. LEAHY: They proposed some time ago to appoint a chairman of the Land Board at £1,000 a year, and if they voted this salary the result would be that every man appointed to a board would look for those big salaries. Much had been said at one time about Mr. Drew being a prejudiced man, but he admitted that that gentleman had perjormed the duties of chairman of the Civil Service Board admirably. The position was that Mr. Drew entered into an agreement to give up any rights he enjoyed as Auditor-General for an extra .£250 a year for seven years. That contract had expired, and Mr. Drew had now the option of taking a pension of .£500 a year or continuing to act as chairman of the board at .£1,000 a year. He need not ask any man of common sense what JYir. Drew would do if that option was placed before him. He would continue in his present position. Hon. members should not be too ready to put their hands into the public purse to pay away money that was not needed, and the Home Secretary, occupying a responsible position, should be one of the first to object to needless expenditure. He believed that Mr. Drew was now in the full possession of his faculties, but he had passed the age of three-score years and ten, and would be very glad to get a further lease of office at .£1,000
1338 Meat Exportation. [COUNCIL.]
a year. A good many people thought that too old an age at which to put a man back into the service. However, the Home Secretary must take the responsibility in the matter, and if he guaranteed that the country could not do better than to reappoint Mr. Drew, he (Mr. Leahy) was not prepared to go against the appointment.
Question-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause-put; and the Committee divided:-
AYEs, 23. Thfessrs. Tozer, Philp, Dalrymple, Dickson, O'Connell,
Leahy, Foxton, Bell, Chataway, Armstrong, Corfield, Lord, Crombie, Murray, Cribb, Collins, Battersby, Stephenson, Hamilton, Th:IcMaster, Newell, Castling, and Grimes.
NOES, 16. frlessrs. Cross, Glassey, Dunsford, l\IcDonnell, King,
Kerr, Jackson, l\:1cDonald, Hoolan, Turley, IIardacre, Dibley, Browne, DaT~ son, Fitzgerald, and Stewart.
Resolved in the affirmative; and the clause put and passed.
The House resumed ; the CHAIR:IIAN reported progress, and the Committee obtained leave to sit again on Tuesday next.
The House adjourned at twenty-four minutes to 11 o'clock.
Children's Protection Bill.