Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Council

WEDNESDAY, 8 NOVEMBER 1916

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1592 Industrial Arbitration Bill. [COUNCIL.] Public Works Land, Etc., Bill.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

WEDNESDAY, 8 NOVEMBER, 1916.

The PRESIDENT (Hon. Sir Arthur Morgan) took the chair at half-past 3 :o'clock.

PAPERS.

The following paper was laid on the table and ordered to be printed :-

Report of the Royal Commission on Public Works on the proposed rail­way connection between Juandah and Taroom.

The following paper was laid on the table:-

Return showing all art union permits isoued bv the Government from 1st Januury," 1915, to 30th September, 1~16.

PUBLIC WORKS LAND RESUMPTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

SECOND READING.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES said: This is another small Bill dealing with land matters. Hon. gentlemen are aware of the procedure that obtains in rega1:d to the compulsory purchase of land in connection with the Closer Settlement Act. The Land Court ascertains the value of compensation pa.yablc in respect of the laud taken. It has been resolved to adopt this principle in respect of lands offered by agreement. It frequently happens that the Crown is c·alled upon to acquire land for railway construction· and public buildings, and it is in order that a fair price may be fixed for such lands that the Bill is introduced. Hence all purchases of land by the various dep<)rtments will be centralised, the value being determined by the Land Court. This procedure will be welcomed. There will be little question then as to whether too much or too little has been paid for the land. Thfl Court will have all the necessary data, and should be the best l:ody to give a fair valuation.

The Bill. then, provides, that where any owner of land in fee-simple- offers to make an agreement with the Cro-wn as constructing authority for the acquirement by the Crown at a price D1Pntioncd in such oi-fer, or at a price to be assessed by the Land Court, the Score· t1rv for Public Lands rnav refer the matter to the La.nd Court for report. Thereupon a member of the Court will inspect and furnish a report as to the value, specifying in such report certain particulars which are set out in subdause 4 of clause 2 of the Bill. Ori receipt of such report, the Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may enter into an agreement with the owner to purchase the land at a price not exceeding the value stated in the report.

There is an exception, howcYcr, made in the case where the value of land and improvements does not exceed £2,000. The Secretary for Lands will be empowered to purchase up to that value.

I beg to move-That the Bill be now read a second time.

Public Works Land Resumption [8 NoVEMBER.] Act Amendment Bill. 1593

HoN. A. H. PARNELL: I do not see much in the Bill to which exception can be taken, but there is one thing I would like to refer to in connection with the valuation of land. A good many people, when they vahw land with the object of selling it to the Govern­ment, may perhaps regard it as right to :get as much as they can from the Govern­ment. I would like to see a valuer appointed by the Government. When the Bdl was under discussion in' another place, this .question was raised. During the last few months there has been quite a number of valuations of land. The local authorities make one valuation; the valuer for the State Land Tax Commissioner makes another ; and the valuer of the Federal Land Tax Commissioner makes still another. I have had some iittle experience in connection with 1ocal authority valuations, and no doubt other hon. members have a similar experi­ence, and I am sure they will agree with me that the nearest valuation to the real value, as a rule, is that of the local authorities.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: The Minister really has· not shown us the necessity for. this Bill. At present when ·there is a dispute as to the value of land resumed it is subject to the decision of the Land Court under the Public Works Land Resumption Act.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : That is only when there is a dispute. This Bill proposes to submit all transactions to the Land Court.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: It seems to me that there is a dispute directly a man offers his land to the Government at a cer­tain price and the Government think the price too high and refer it to the Land Court. However, I have no objection to the Bill if it has been found to be necessary in practice, though it seems to be really duplicating the present law.

The SECRETARY FOR MIKES : Some Gov,ern­mont departments-the Railway Department especially-rPsume land outside the Public \Vorks Land Resumption Act.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Will this Bill do away with the Railway Department buying <:lirectly ?'

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : It is intended to refer all transactions in land to the Land Court.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I think the limit of £2,000 might be reduced to £1,000 with advantage. However, that is a mere detail.

There is one matter to which I wish to draw attention in connection with resump­tions for the Enoggera to Terror's Creek Railway. The Commissioner, presumably acting on advice from the Crown law officers has raised a most unusual point. He ha~ claimed that the Government are not en­titled to pay any compensation for land resumed for railway purposes, and he goes back to the title ·deeds that were issued in 1860, whereby leave was reserved to resume land for railway purposes. In those deeds it does not say anything about land resump­tions being ma·de without compensation, nor does it say, as later deeds of grant have pro­vided, that they reserve a particular area of, say, 8, 10, or 20 acres for road purposes. In the latter deeds of grant the purchaser would not have to pay for the 8, 10, or 20

acres of land that were specially reserved, but in the old deeds of grant no such par­ticular reservation of areas was made, with the result that<lif:te purchaser paid the pur­chase money m the whole area, thinking that he was getting the fee-simple for every acre sold to him. For instance, one par­ticular deed was for 200 acres. The original purchaser bought 200 acres at the rate of £1 per acre. Now, the Railway Commis­sioner says, " I am able to resnme 8 acres from your land without paying you any compensation." I consider that is a most unfair position to take up. The original purchaser bought in good faith, and, if that would apply to 8 acres out of the 200 acres, would it not hold with equal force to every acre of the 200? Could not the Government say, " vV e are entitled to take every acre of your 200 acres from you without payment of any compensation"? I am sure that was never intended in any Act; and I do not think any Government would be a party to what is nothing more or less than repudia­tion. I do not believe this GoverniUent would think of repudiation, although some recent proceedings might appear to indicate some desire in that direction. It is indefens­ible for any Government to repudiate a con­tract. The owner of land purchases, as he believes, the fee-simple, and now they. say, "You are only a tenant at will, -and we will take away as much of your land as we like without payment of compensation."

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : How long ago is it since that land was purchased?

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: It was sold in 1860. It hac been sold to different pur­chasers at different times, and not one of these purchaser> ever troubled to find out the terms of the deed of grant, which does not sav that the '!and can be resumed with­out compensation. However, the matter will

·probably be ·dealt with later. The position taken up by the Commissioner appears very unreasonable. He takes away from a man a certain an:-"'a without compensation, whereas in other cases compensation has been paid. Taking ad\'antage of what may be a flaw in the ·deed of grant, but for which the purchaser was not responsible, does not seem a fair thing for a Government department to do. ·

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : This is the first I have heard of it.

HoN. W. STEP HENS: I do not know that the Bill will do any particular harm. I have been connf'cted with local authorities, and I have also had land resumed by the Crown for railway pnrposes. The Railway Department, when the Hon. Mr. Leahy's late brother was Secretary for Railways, took 20 acres of our land at :Nerang. We had spent £5 an acre on ·dminage, and we valned it at £20 an acre, and the Railway Department off('red us 5s. an acre for it. I went to the Railway Department and asked one of the railway officials why so little was offered, and, having heard that it was my birthday, he said he supposed ~hat it was because it was mv birthdav that thev offered so much for the land. ('Laughter.)' I understand the Railway Department have ample powers with respect to resumption of land, and I also understand local authorities and the Government have ample power, but I gather from what the Minister said that he thinks some Ministers in the past have been giving

Hon. W. Stephens.]

1594 Public Works Land, Etc., Bill. [COUNCIL.] Constitution Act Amendment Bill.

people too much for land, and this Bill is intended ro see that the Crown do not pay too much for the future.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: The ~vernment can­not afford to pay tDo much Prtl'W. · The SECRETARY FOR :MINES : In a goo-d many

instances too- much has been paid.

Hox. W. STEPHEKS: If the land is valued at less than £2,000, this Bill will not affect the transaction.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Is there any 1nargin for paying too much there?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : T-here were some resumptions in Warwick that created a good deal of comment at the time they were purchased by the Eailway Department.

HoN. vY. STEPHENS: That was the fault of the Railway Department, and I am sur­prised to hear we are to have an Act passed to make officials honest.

The SECRETARY FOR JYlJKES : There is no queo<ion of honesty in connection with the matter. It ·is purely a question of over­paytnent.

HoK. W. STEPHENS: Is there any ap­peal at all if " mistake IS made by the Land Court'!

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Yes, there is an appeal to the Land Appeal Court.

HoK. vY. STEPHENS: There mig·ht be a slip either way, and it oug·ht to be subject to rcYiew. Then \Yhv limit the y,alue of the land which may be ~ssessed by the Court to anything oyer £2,000? I might easily have a piece of land worth £150, and get £300 for it.

Then, again, this Bii! does not say directly that the case must be referred to the court. There is nothing· here to compel the Railway Department to go to the Land Court. So far as I can road the Bill, no provision is made for compensation for damages. I know of one man who waa treated badly. They resumed part of his farm and cut one part of it off from the water, but they gave­him nothing by way of damages. In a case like that they only pay for the land and the improYements, but, if a man has to build an oyerbridge or an underbridge in order to get at the water, I think he is entitled to any damage that has been caused to his business. V\;~ e are living and lem~ning, and apparentlv we are to learn that Go­vernment offic~als have to be stopped be­cause th€'y have been giYing too much for land that has been resumed.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: This Bill appears to rno to be only of a permissive character. It does not refer to the compulsory acquisi­tion of land. It says-

" V\l'here any owner of land in fee­sin1plo offers to rnakc .an agrc€ment with the Cro\vn''--

So that, apparently, if a man does not "offer," the Bill would not apply at all. I am not raising that as an objection, but I just ''ant hon. members to understand the position. Tho Government have the right to ac9uire iand compulsorily, but apparently th1s Bill Is only a measure meant to provide different machinery for the acquisition of land which the owner is willing to sell. I am not at all objecting in this case either, hut I would like to point out that there is no limit to the amount that the Government

[Hon. W. Stephens.

might acquire, presuming t.hat the Land: Court reported in favour. A man m1g·ht offer to sell a million acres, and the Govern­ment, without consulting Parliament, could buv all th-at land.

ihc SECRETARY FOR Mrx.:s : The Govern­ment at the present time can bu0 ±:500,00(} worth of land without consulting P<trhament.

Hox. P .. J. LEAHY: I am perfectly well aware of that, and I trust that at the first opportunity we have-when any Bill r':'aches this Chamber th-at permits us to do It-we will take away that power. Without attri­buting any tnotives. I say that it is a farce that the Government, without consulting, Parliament, should be able to spend £200,000 or £300,000 in buying cattle runs and rail­ways an-d an::thing else they choose. Here in this Bill they are permitted to buy land up to £2,000 in value without submitting it to the Land Court. The clause says-

" (6.) Nothing in this section shall be­construed to ·prevent the Secretary for Public Lunds from purchasing land and improvements (if any) without any such report as aforesaid in any case where the value of the land and improvement~; (if any) does not exceed two thousand pounds."

In all other matters they may buy hundred~; of thousands of pounds 1vorth of land, not under the authority of any Act of Parlia­meut. That is the important point-they assume all these functions of Parliamont and trust that Parliament will ratifv their illegal actions. That is what I object to. So far <ts this particul-ar Bill is concerned, I do not see any objection to it, but I wa& anxious to have the opportunity of pointing to what I think is the unparliamentary­and, according to the High Court, illegal­,action of the Government.

Hon. W. STEPHEC\'S: Is this Bill for the acquisition of r-ailway lands· or estates?

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: "As construct­ing authority," I think it says.

Question-That the Bill be now read a s~cond time-put and passed.

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

CONSTITUTION ACT AMEND:i\1ENT BILL.

SECOND READIKG-RESvMPTION OF DEBATE.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I do not know that it is necessary to go at any very great length into the different aspects of this Bill, seeing that we wont into the matter very fully last year. The only thing that might provoke full discussion on this occa­sion is that we wish to place before the country, who will eventually be the arbiters on the question of whether the Legislative Council is to he abolished or not, full and fair reasons why we advocate the loontinued existence of this Chamber. And probably, if it is not done in "Hansard," which reaches a very large section of the community, there may be no opportunity of doing it in any other way. I think, even on top of what was said last sees ion, we have had in the interval sufficient to show the people that it is of paramount necessity that there should be some check on the Legislative Assembly, as at present constituted.

Constitution Act [8 NoVEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1595

Only to-day I received the Auditor­General's report. That shows that . the pre­sent Government are acting in a very strange way in connection with the finances of this State. I was very pleased indeed to see that the AuditOl'-General took the stand he did. The criticism that he made on the financial situation showed the necessity for our insisting that that official should be placed above the control of Parliament and above politics. He has there giveh us an idea of what has been going on during the last twelve months. He has shown us how the Government have worked the finances, and in so many words he says that they have not put before the public the true position of Queensland as at 30th June, 1916. He goes so far as to say that, had thev done their dutv as trustees of the public· funds, instead ,;f showing a surplus of £34,000, they would more likelv have shown a deficit of £100,000. I think that sort of thing is not likely to give the general public sufficient confidence to make them abolish the "Cpper House, and to leave one Chamber completely without criticism, because that is what it really amounts to. \Ve have seen during the last session or two the way in which the gag has been applied. We have seen that there has been no free and open discussion on the majoritv of the Bills that have gone through that Chamber, and the only opportunity the public have had of se!'ing both sides of the question has been throug-h the discussions raised in this Chamber. I think that is a further reason why we may go to the country and say, "We hope that in any event you will not turn down the Legislative Council."

I think that our actions in the past have shown the public that we have the interests of the whole community entirely- at heart, that we are not doing what the present Lower Chamber are doing-legislating for a class and doing their best for one section of the community as against other sections. I think that is a reason that will weigh con­siderably with the general public when the refe1iendum goe" before them, and will make them consider very seriously whether they should adopt the suggestion of the Govern­ment.

Since the Premier has been back from England he seems to have attacked the Legis­lative Council more strongly even than he did before. I gather from that that he went into the question fully when he was on the other side, and he has had an intimation from the authorities over there that our position is as sound as we contend that it is legally-that if the people pass the referendum to abolish this House, this Bill can not legally carry out its abolition. That opinion is borne out, as I said last session, by the case that was decided in 1907. Cooper v. The Income Tax Con1missioner, in which very full and com­prehensive judgments were given by the members of the High Court. They held distinctly, on the question submitted to them in that case. what I consid0r is the law as it should be bid down in referehce to the Legislative Council of Queensland. I am going to read a few extracts from the deci­sions of the judges, and I hope that hon. members will not feel I am wearying them, because I think that we should put the legal aspect before the people, as well as the general aspect of the abolition of the Upper House. In that case the Chief Justice of Queensland, Sir Pope Cooper, contended that he was not liable to pay income tax as a

judge, and he relied on certain Imperial legis­lation to bear him out. The head note of the report of the case says-

" The power vested in a State Legisla­ture by its Constitution to enact consti­tutional alterations must be exercised by direct legislative provisions; so long as the Constitution remains unaltered any enactment inconsistent with its provisions­is invalid.

".A State law imposing a tax generally upon the income of each citizen of the State to the extent of the general balance of his income, after allowing· for all sources of revenue and all lawful reduc­tions is not inconsistent with the pro­visio~ in the Queensland Constitution Act, 1867, that such salaries as are settled by law upon the judges of the Supreme Court for the time being shall in all time coming be paid and pay~ble to ever:r such judge for the tlme ?emg, so long as the patenfs or comm1ss1.ons of any ~f them respectively shall contmue m force.

[4 p.m.] Griffith, C.J., says in his judgment at page 1311-

, " The original Consti!ution of Queens-land is to be found m the Order m Council of 6th June, 1859, made in pur­suance of the powers conferred by the Act 18 and 19 Vict. c. 54. By that o_rd<:r it was proscribed (pa.r. I.) that w1thm the colony of Queensland there . sho';lld be a Legislative Council and a Leg1slat1ve Assembly."

He quoted several paragraphs o~ the Or~er m Council, including the followmg prov1so to paragraph XXII.:-

" Provided that every Bill by which any alteration shall be made in the Con­stitution of the Legislative Council so as to render the whole or any portion there­of electiYe shall be reseryed for the signification of Her 2Ylajesty's pleasure therPon. and a copy of such Bill shall be laid before both Houses o_f the Imperial Parliament for the per1?d of thirty days at least before !'le~· Ma,J,esty's. pleasure thcreon shall be s1gmfied.

In pursuance of that Order in Council, the Queensland Government bro'!-ght in the C~m­stitution Act of 1867, sectwn 1 of whwh reads-

" There shall be within the said colony of Queensland a Legislative Council and LegislatiYe Assembly."

Tha.t Act is practically the c~arter of the Queensland Constitution. Sectwn 9 of the Act reads-

" Notwithstanding anything hereinbe­foJ'C' contained the Legislature of the smd colonY as constituted bv this Act, shall ha Ye ·f~11l power and authority from time to time bv anv Act or Acts to alt-er the provisions' or iaws for the time being in force under this Act or otherwise, cqn­cerning the Lcgisla.tive Council, and. to provide for the nomina t10ri or electwn of another Legislative Council to con­sist respccti yeJy of such mc;mbers to be appointed or elected respectiVely by such person or persons and in such n1.anner as. by such Act or Acts shall be determined."

Hon. members will note that the Legislature was to ha Ye power to alter the Constitution. of the Leoislative Council, but not to abohsh. it. Th';,re were further provisions in that

Hon. A. G. C. Hawthorn.]

1596 Constitution Act [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bill.

section which were presumed to be altered by the Constitution Act Amendment Act of 1908, under which the Parliamentary Bills Refer­endum Act of the same year was supposed to be passed. The memorandum by the editors of the statutes-who, I think, were Mr. ·wool­.cock and Mr. Groom-reads-

" Two provisos repealed by the Amend­Act of 1908, infra. They provided that no Bill to alter the Constitution of the Legislative Council should be presented to the Governor unless the second and third readings should have been pa,sed with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the Council and of the Assembly respectively, and that any such Bill should be reserved for the Royal assent.''

'The Constitution Act Amendment Act of 1908 was not reserved for the Royal assent. Coming back to Griffith, C:J., he said on page 1314-

" Powers of the Queensland Legisla­ture, like those of the other Australian States, are derived from the grant con­tained in the Order in Council bv which it was established. No doubt the 'Queens­land Legislature had power, by virtue of paragraph II. of the. Order in Council, to 'make laws in all cases whatsoever.' But these words must be read with the rest of the Order in Council, and clearly did not authorise the Legislature, while the provisions of the Constitution re­mained unaltered, to make any law in­consistent with it. They referred to the scope of authority under the Constitu­tion. The re-enactment of the provisions of paragraph II. in the Act of 1867 did not make any difference in this respect. The powers of the Legislature still de­pended upon the Order in Council, and not upon its own restatement of those· powers.' 1

On page 1315 he said-" For these reasons I am of opmwn

that the Constitution of Queensland for the tim<• being has the force of an Act of the Imperial Parliament extending to the colony, and that it is the duty of the court to inquire whether any Act passed by the State Legislature is re­pugnant to its provisions.''

We contPnd that the Constitution Act Amend­ment Act of 1908 is repugnant to the pro­visions of the Constitution Act of 1867. The judgment of O'Connor, J., was read by Griffith, C.J. On page 1320 he said-

" The rights of the parties rea.lly depend upon the construction to be placed on section 17 of the Queensland Constitution Act, 1867."

On page 1321 he said-" There is no difference in the rules to

be applied in the interpretation of a Con­stitution Act and in the interpretation of any other statute. The object of t·he

· court must al" ays be to ascertain the intention of the Legislature from the lan­guage it has used. \Vhere the language is ambiguous, the court may be aided by a consideration of the other sections of the statuto, its scope and purpose as a whole, the subject matter, and the condition of the law before it was passed. But where the language is unambiguous, the rule to be applied is that stated by Lord Chief Justice Tinda.l, in the Sussex Peerage Case (1) as follows:-' My Lords, the

[Hon. A. G. C. Hawthorn.

onlv rule for the construction of Acts of Pa1·liament is that they should be con­strued according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act.' "

There are many passages from the judgment of the court that might be read, but I do not want to weary hon. members. On page 1325, O'Connor, J., said-

" When in substitution for the Order in Council of 1859 the Queensland Parlia­ment passed the Constitution Act, 1867, establishing its own Constitution, it adopted in section 17 verbatim the pro­vision of clause XVI. of the Order in Council.''

Then on page 1328 he said-" The question at once arises, what was

the power and scope of legislation per­mitt.-,d to the Queensland Parliament under that clause? It was no doubt open to that Legislature to repeal or amend eny or all of the provisions of the Order in Council. But the whole scope and purpose of the order indicate that it was never intended to authorise the entire aboli1ion of any binding form of Con­stitution or the entire disregard of its

- provisions."

On page 1329 he said-" It follows that a law of the Queens­

land Parliament 'which is repugnant to any provision of the Queensland Consti­tution Act, 1867, is by virtue of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, void and inoperative."

Those are the opinions of men whose opinions must be regarded as of great weight, and, in the light of those opinion4 I think we can reasonablv contend that the Constitution Act AmendmPnt Act of 1908 was not passed pro­perly, and is therefore void and inoperative, and that in consequence the Parliamentary Bills Referendum Act, which "-as passed the same year by virtue of the provisions of the earlier Act, is also void and inoperative so far as the abolition of the Legislative Council is concerned. We have also the opinion of Keith, the author of "Responsible Govern­ment in the Dominions,'' and a very great authoritv on constitutiona-l law. In the chapter ·entitled "Repugnancy of Colonial Laws," he says, on page 402-

" The second great ground on which, colonial legislation may be invalid is that of repngnancy to English law. The rule used alwavs to be that an Act of a Colonial Leg-isfature must not be repug­nant to English law, and the exact force of this term was wrapped in decent obscurity.''

The whole question arose through"something that took place in South Australia after Mr. Beniamin Boothby was appointed a judge of the ·supreme Court of that State. " Keith" says-

" He promptly began to enunciate a series of doctrines which, though in part neutralis<?d by the presence in the colony of two other judges who did not in all points agree with him, were very awk­ward for all concerned in the adminis­tration of justice. · Eventually the two Houses of Parliament passed, as required bv the Constitution Act, addresses for his removal, and the matter thus came before the Secretary of State for the Colonies."

Judge Boothby expressed the opinion that

Constitution Act [8 NoV::E:MBRR.] Amendment Bill. 1597

certain Acts passed in South Australia were absolutely invalid. He. impeached the validity of the Constitution Act itself on various grounds, and made himself a general nuisance. " Keith" says-

" There can be no doubt that in some respects the judge was unreasonable and wrong-headed."

" Keith" says, on page 403-" The law officers in England upheld

him on one point, and that unfortunately of cardin~tl importance; they held that it was necessary that the Electoral Act, No. 10 of 1856, under which the Legisla­tive Council and House of Assembly were elected, should have been reserved under the Imperial Act, 13 and 14 Victoria, chapter 59, section 32, and they laid it down that all the Acts passed by these bodies were therefore invalid. Accord­ingly, an Act;25 and 26 Victoria, chapter 11, was hastily passed to validate ex post facto the laws of South Australia."

On page 407 he says-" The unhappy colony was still to have

another experience of invalidity on the ground of repugnancy, for, while the Acts in question were validated, another serious blunder was made with regard to a subsequeni; Electoral Act of 1861, though reserved, by not seeing that the statutory majorities in the two Houses had 'been observed, as required by section 34 of the Constitutional Act itself. The Acts subsequent to the operation of the Electoral Act were thus all invalid and required to be validated, and, moreover,· the judges were inclined to ~elieve t?at Legislature could not alter Its constitu­tion as a whole."

That is the point we· are trying to a get at here. We say that the attempted abolition of the Legislative Council is an alteration of

.the Constitution Act, which provides that there shall be a Legislative Council in this State. On page_ 408 " Keith" says-

" The law officers were consulted and gave an opinion on 28th September, 1864, which advocated the passing of an Act to remove the doubts-in some cases needless-of South Australian judges. There followed upon this correspondence the passing of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, which finally regulated and det~rmined the position of the laws of the colonies as regards Imperial legis­lation and repugnancy to the law of England."

On page 410 he says-" In both regards colonial legislation

'was rendered less liable to useless criti­cism and avoidable doubt. "'n the other hand, the impossibility of the repeal by colonial Parliaments of Imperial statutes was once and for all laid down."

We contend that the Constitution Act is practically an Imperial statute; that the Order in Council is an Imperial statute; and that it is impossible for Queensland, as one of the colonies created under that Order in Council, to repeal an Imperial statute. 'l'he Commonwealth Constitution Act renders it necessary that, when a vacancy occurs in the Senate other than at the expiration of the term of office of senators, that vacancy must be filled by a meeting of both Houses of Parliament in the State in whose representation the vacancy occurs. If

the Legislative Council is abolished, the Act of abolition practically repeals that section of that Imperial statute. Then we have the Australian Constitution Act of 1907, which provides that the assent of the King shall be given to all Bills amending the Constitu­tion of a State, and that that assent must be signified to both Houses of Parliament. If the Legislative Council is abolished, there is no opportunity of carrying out the pro­vision of that Imperial Act, and therefore we are attempting in this way to repeal practi­cally that Imperial statute, which is a power entirely outside the scope of the Queensland Legislature. I think that we are endeavour­ing by this Bill to interfere with Imperial legislation, which is an impossibility. We have also the Parliamentary Bills Refer­endum Act on the statute-book without the necessary formalities in certain respects. 'l'here has been no assent by the King to that particular amendment of the Constitu­tion. Therefore, it is not good law, and anything done under it is absolutely void and inoperative. So far as the legal aspect is concerned, I think we can safely rely on that.

In addition to that, we have the position of this Chamber as regards Queensland generally. It has been said that we interfere with the legislation of the popular Chamber unreR.sonablv. I contend that last session we did absolutely good work-work that we thought was absolutely right. I think that forty-four Bills came up here, and out of those we passed thirty-eight. Certain Bills which came before us were not passed, for very good reasons, which we gave. Such was the Industrial Arbitration Bill, which provided for preference to unionists-that no man should have the right to live unless he belonged to a union, because otherwise he was not to be allowed to work. We thought that was such an interference with the liberty of the subieet that we refused to pass the Bill with that particular clause in it, and on that issue we are entitled to ask the support of the g-eneral bodv of the electors of Queens" land. Every worker in Queensland is not a unionist, nor does every worker in Queens­le,nd want to become a unionist, and why should he be compelled by law to become a unionist whether he likes it or not? On that Bill I have no hesitation in going before the country and telling the people that our position is absolutely sound.

The Meatworks Bill was supposed to be a war measure. We were told that it was necessary to take over the meatworks for the successful carrying on of the war, and

·. we were quite prepared to allow the Go­vernme(lt to have them, on the condition that they acquired them on just terms. I . think that is certainly a thing that we can advocate and defend before the country. In addition to the justice of our amendment we have the additional fact that it has not been shown in this Chamber or elsewhere that through our not passing that me'll.sure the Imperial Government or the Common" wealth Government have been in any way hindered in carrying on the war. They have been able to get all the meat they wanted, and more. Even at the time the Bill was passing through this House the pro­prietors of the meatworks expressed them­selves as perfectly willing to do all they could to assist the Government in getting meat. They closed down, ·certainly, and it was asserted that· they closed down in order

Hon. A. G. G. Hawthorn.]

1598 Constitution Act [COUNCIL.] Ameniment Bill. ·

to defeat the objects of the Government. I think that everybody who can reason and who knows tile true circumstances, who knows of the drought that existed previously, ~will know that they had no possibility of getting stock to carry on with. They did not want to close down unless they could help it. Many of them have reopened, and business is going on as previously. But neither the Commonwealth Government nor the State Government ·have shown any necessity that that Bill should have been passed.

Then fVe have the Local Authorities Acts Amendment Bill. Our action in that regard is one that we can safely defend. There is no doubt that it would be a tremendous hardship if a Bill like that were passed, and men who had no stake at all in the country, who had no interest in any particular area, if they liked to combine with-others, could get a loan forced on that local area which not they, but the people of the district, whose rights they have practi­cally outvoted, will have to pay. That is a Bill that we have justly passed out, and w.e may, with confidence, defend that action before the country.

Then there is the Commonwealth Powers (War) Bill. That I consider the most unreasonable Bill put before us last session. We. were asked there.,-and the request came anew this year-to pass a Bill which would hand over to the Federal authorities powers which werc specially retained by the States at the establishment ·of federation, and· powers which the people of Australia had at two referendums refused to give to the Commonwealth Parliament. Still, we were asked, as a matter of barter, to give away those rights in consideration of certain assistance or promises made to the different States. As I said on the second reading of that Bill, I consider that the Premiers had no right at all to promise any such thing. They had no mandate from the people, no authority even from their Parliaments to do it, and yet that is ono of the reasons, we are told, why this Council should be abolished.

Those are all details, but they go to show the case that is brought against us. To my mind the institution of the unicameral system is one of the shibboleths that the people of Queensland and of Australia generally will be very loath to conntenance. They have looked upon the Upper Houses as the proper thing to have. They believe in the two Chamber system, and • I believe that, after the twelve or eighteen months' experience they have had in Queensland of the present Government and the way they have con­ducted business, they will be very reluctant to part with the only check that remains on the extravagance of the Government. This House cannot do everything it would wish. If money Bills come before us, we cannot interfere with them, but we'can reject them, and I do not know that in the future it may not be necessary for this House to go even that distance. That is a matter for con­sideration, but, if we do it, the people will know that we havfl the power and that it is the only check on the increased extravagance of the Government. ~owherc in the British Dominions, in any

place of any importance, is the single Cham­ber system in vogue. It is in vogue in some of the small unimportant States of America.

[!!on. A.: G. C. Hau;thorn.

It is in vogue in some of the Swiss cantons, and I think in Bulgaria and Montenegro­small Balkan countries. Are we in Queens­land going to wipe away the bicameral system simply because it happens to be the wish of tho Labour party and a plank of their platform? There is an ·aspect of the argument in reference to the abolition of this Council being a pl-ank of the Labour plat+orm which I think should be made public. It is that the platform has not been reformed since 1908. Under the old wording of the platform, the abolition of the Upper House may possibly have been sup­ported with some justification, but since that we have had a Bill passed by both Houses which provides that, when measures are twice rejected by this House, they may be sent to the country for the decision of the <electors. It S·eems to me that that so far has taken away the right of veto from this Chamber; that the. people are in an entirely different position to what they were when the plank was placed in the platform.

Hon. A. HINCHCLIFFE: The Labour plat­form was reformed last February.

HoN. A. G. C. HA WTHOR~: And is not the abolition of the Upper House a feature?

Hon. A. HINCHCLIFFE: Yes

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHOR~: Was it place·d before the people who were drawing it up and the people who were supporting the Labour party that the Upper House now has practically no veto? I do not think that the persons in charge of drawing it up would do so.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY': Do you mean to say that the caucus would mislead the public? Perish the thought!

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I do not know what the caucus would do so ,far as misleading the public is concerne.d, but I want to try to provide that the caucus shall not mislead Queensland generally. Whether they mislead or not, they ,are in an unsatis- ~ factory position so far as Queensland is con­cerned. We have a large body of electors who have no say in the formation of the caucus.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES · The Liberals have a caucus, too.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: They have not a caucus that is •autocratic and despotic, nor h-as the man connected with it to si"n 11> pl·atform, nor, if he dOf•s not carry o~t what he is told by the caucus, is he corn· polled to go out. \Ve have instances of that just lately.

The SF.cRETARY FOR MINES : That is not so.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: What about Holman? What about Hughes? What about Spence? What about Webster? They are like the man who fell out of the balloon ·--they are out of it.

Hon. T. M. HALL: They did not break the platform either.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHOR~: Whether they did or .did not, the caucus and the trades unions have power to turn them out apparently, without any right of appeal at all. Anyhow, I say that the fact that that plank was in the old Labour platform should not signify at all. The Upper House of Queensland at the present time is practically the most <lemocratic House in the States simply because of the removal of that right

Constitution Act [8 NoVEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1599

<Jf veto. The people haye more mntrol over the l'ppe1· House at the 11>cesent time than they h~tve over the Assembly.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : I thought you said that that Act was no good because it had not received the King's consent.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: It is good enough where you "vant to refer 1natt~rs of local importance to the people-Bills which are not alterations or amendments of th~ Constitution, and do not in any \vay infringe I1nperial A._.cts, and are not necesc-arily repugnant to them. But, with the exception of the measure for the aboli­tion of the Council, I do not suppose that any Bill has been brought' up hece within the last two yc<lrs which could not legally under that Act be referred to the 'j}eople. ·what further do the people want? They have got the veto and the right to say that they want particul-ar Bills. If they do that, what more can they ask '1 Wiping out this House will not assist them <lny more in that .Oircction. In fact.. it will ret-ard their pro· gress, because it will put into power ·a single Chamber which wi][ be autocratic and despotic. We hav<l had suffic'ient evidence of that up to the present. The Government are spending no end of money without refer· ·ence to anybody. I suppose they have spent £500,000 on the purchase of stations alone. That is a yery wrong thing, I think. Further. is it a judicious thing for the Go· vernmcnt to spend £500.000 on the purchase of cattle? If the late Government had spent '?- fraction of that, they would have got mto trouble at once.

The SECRETARY FOR MIKES: You supported a Bill allowing the Secretarv for Public Lands alone to buy £500.000 ~·orth of land without referring to Parliament.

HoK. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: This has been done without ~ny authority at all. What I blame them for IS that that half-million is represented by perishable stock. If we had a drought in the next year or two, half, or three-quarters. of them might be wiped out with great loss to the State. Far better for them to have left to the squatters the risk of losing their stock.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: It might have been a book mu,tcr. What proof .have we that the stock were there?

HoK. A. G. C. HA IVTHORN: Whether it was a book muster or a bang tail muster, or whether the whole of the stock were there

or not, the principle. is wrong [4.30 p,m.] that the Government should spend

such an amount of money without authorisation of any kind. Then we haYe all these other State enterprises.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Didn't the Full Court sa~' they were illegal ?

HoK. A. G, C. HAWTHORN: Thev do not seem to care for the Full Court. The Full Court is the Full Court, but the caucus is above everything,

Hon, P. J. LEAHY: Th-at is the High Appeal Court?

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHOR2\J: Yes. According to the Anditor-General's report. practically every one of these utilities, as they may call them, is working at a loss­State sawmills, and even the meat business has not been a profitable concern.

The SECRETARY FOR Mio;ES; It is a profit­able concern.

HoN. A. G, C HAWTHORN: It shows a very small profit.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: \Ve do not want to show a profit. ~We only want to give the people cheaper food.

HoN. A. G, C. HA \VTHORN: Even with butter we do not know yet how we stand. Every one of the Government State enter­prises has been a failure. The Auditor· General says so. Should there not be some sort of check on extravagances of that kind? There is absolutely no check in the other House. The Opposition there are only a small minority. and, if they attempt to put their views before the public by means of " Hansard " and the Press, they are immedi­ately gagged. Fortunately, up to the present time we have no gs g here. \V e can express our opinions, and we can atlempt to mould the legislation in such a wav that it will be for the benefit of the whole of.the people of this State. \V e do not attempt to legislate for any particular class. VJ e shO\yed that we \:ere fairly reasonable m pas'mg the Electwns Bill -la.st year. That Bill introduced very large electoral reforms.

Hon. P. J, LEAHY: It brought in very large abuses.

HoK. A. G, C. HA \VTHORN: I say it brought in · refDrms. It may bring abuses if th.e Act is \Hongly carried out. It has been said here that the electoral law as amended last year is going to operate very lar<>'elv in favour of the Labour partv. If that i~ so, it will be the fault of the Liberal partv for allowing it to be worked in that wav: The whole thing will be a matter of adn<inistra,tion. The Labour party. with their organisation, will probably get the better of the other side on election day; but that is cntirelv the fault of the other side if it is allowed. At the present moment I do not know that we have Liberal organ­isation worth a rap, but there is no reason whv there should not be ono. For every £1- that is spent by the Labour party the Liberals could, if they liked, spend thirty shillings without the slightest trouble.

'l'he PRESIDENT: Order ! Order!

Hox. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I will not pursue that subject further.

Hon. P, J. LEAHY: The Liberals have not the n1oney to spend no,v.

Hox. A. G. C. HAIVTHORN: I am saying this to show that at the present time every­thing happening g·oes. to prove that it would be a great mist<tke for Queensland to be saddled with one Chamber only. There would be no check on legislation. no chock on ex­penditure, and no discussion allowed of Bills brought in bv the Go,-ernment. That is one of the main 'reasons why we should not pass this Bill.

Further than that, I sec no necessity for it. This House does its best, b~, free dis­cussion and by full consideration of any Bill brought before us, to benefit the whole of Queensland; and, while we do that, we should roceiYe the support of the people of Queensland. and if this matter is ullowed to go to a referendLm1-I do not know whether the Government intend that it shall do so or not-I do not fear the result. I feel sure that the people will realise that we are a barrier between caucus government and righteous government, and they will see that \VC get the just reward for what we are trying

Hon. A. G. G. Hawilwrn.]

1600 Constitution -4 et [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bill.

to do. and that we shall be allowed to remain here as long as there is a Constitution in Queensland. (Hear, hear!)

HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE: The hon. mem­ber who has just resume-d his seat has en­deaYoured to justify his opposition to this proposal. As a lawyer, of course, he has given us the legal aspect of the proposal, and said that he does not think it is good law. I have no doubt it would not be a difficult matter to find other lawyers who ·disagr<'e with the hon. gentleman. Further, I shall not presume. not being a lawy-er myself, to follow him through the legal technicalities of his argument.

When this subject was before the Council last session, there was a long and exhaustive debate on the measure. I participated in that debate, and gave opinions which seemed to me at the time to justify the vote I gave in fayour of the passage of the Bill. In the interim I have seen no reason to alter mv attitude, but. on the other hand, additional reasons why the Council should go. I do not now propose to take up very much of the time of the Council. I do not suppose· it would b'' possible to convince hon. mem­bers. who have already ma-de up their minds on the subject. and therebv secure the pas­sage of the Bill; but there are one or two matters to which reference has been made during the course of the debate to which I would like to direct my attention very briefly.

·when this question was last before us a week ago. we had from the Hon. Mr. Brent­nall an interesting speech in defence of this qouncil as a necessary part of the Constitu­tiOn. In. the course of that speech he dealt at some length with the plea set up by the prf'sent Government, and bv the Minister and mvself in this Chamber in support of this Bill, that it was, and had been for a very long time, a part of the Labour plat­form. The Hon. Mr. Hawthorn has used a similar argument this afternoon. The Hon. Mr. Brentnall displayed considerable anxiety to know by whom that platform was com­prlecl. and what authority there was behind it. Since the hon. gentleman has for many years devoted himself wholeheartedly to attacking that platform, and the method by which it was framed his inquirv come's rather late in the day.' •

HoweYer, for his edification and for the edification ·of other hon. members who may b: equa)l_v curious to know, I propose to ·:hgr~ss JUst for a moment to reply to the mamry. Fust of all, let me say that no political party, eithf'r in this or in' any other country, is constructed on a ·wider or a more democratic foundation.

Its organisation is established on a State 9lectoral basis. Any person, male or female, ~n. sympathy with _its general policy may ]0111. Its platform rs fr-amed at a triennial convention. to which cverv electorate branch is entitled to send one delegate, <mcl in the election of that delegate everv electorate branch momher is entitled to vote.

Hon. ~- J. LEA:r>:: Does the delegate express h1s own opmwn, or the opinion of the branch?

_HoN. A.. f!:INCHc_LIFFE: He expresses h1s own opmron at hrs own branch meeting Mon~hs prior to the assembling of the con: ventwn eYE'ry branch and every member

fHon. A. G. C. Hawthorn.

through his branch, has an equal right to• the placing on the business-paper for con­sideration any question affecting the plat­form or for inclusion in the platform, or· any question affecting the methods of organi­sation.

Hon. F. T. BRExTNALL: What would be clone in case sonH'one proposed an amend­ment to the original proposition? W oulcl the doors be thrown open then for the public to come in?

HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE: Will the hon. member allow me to conclude what I was saying? Three months prior to the assem­bling of the eonve11tiun an1ple opportunity is given to every branch to consider the items on the agenda paper, which is printed' and published in the Labour Press and in such other newspapers as care to take it.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: It is always very interesting reading.

Hox. A. HINCHCLIFFE: It is said that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." For many years the so-called Liberal party, under quite a variety of names, has en­deavoured repeatedly to imitate the methods oi the Labour party, but so far without

suH~~-- A. A. DAYEY(: Thank God.

HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE: The hon. member and his new-found friends are still wishing to establish a similar organis-ation.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: There are points. that are well worth imitating in connection with your organisation.

HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE: I am merely giving the information because it was sought; by the Hon. Mr. Brentnall.

Hon. F. T. BRENTNALL: I never asked for any information. I said I did not know.

HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE : I hope the hon. memb@ is enlightened by the information I have given.

Hon. F. 'I'. BRENTNALL: No, I am in­formed ; that is all.

HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE : I am speaking· now with some authority, seeing that for eighteen years I occupied the position of honorary secretary to the political Labour party.

Hon. T. M. HALL: It was a good institu­tion in those clays.

HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE : I thjnk the information may not be misplaced by being· published in the records of this House. We feel proud of the organisation. and of the work which it has accomplished. This par­ticular plank has been in the platform for very many years. The programme of the party at the last general election included this very plank, and I believe it was dis­cussed by every Labour candidate without exception during the campaign.

Hon. T. M. HALL: Amongst other things. HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE: Amongst other

things, and because of them. The Govern­ment have full authority for introducing this measure and seeking to secure its passage.

Hon. A. G. C. HA\VTHORN: It was the cry of clear food that won the elections.

Hon. A. DUNN: Nothing else but dear food the whole time, and the responsibility of the late Government for it.

HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE': The hon.·mem­ber knows that this question was discussed at

Constitution Act [8 N OV:EMBhR.] Amendment Bill. 1601

considerable length by the whole of the Labour party throughout the whole campaign.

I would like now to call particular atten­tion to the remarks of the Hon. Mr. Leahy. In the course of his speech, that hon. member declared-

" All the countries that are great to­clay, and, indeed, all the countries that have been great for the past hundred years, have had some form of second Chamber."

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Isn't that true?

HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE: I believe it is quite correct.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: \Veil, what are you attacking me for? (Laughter.)

Hox. A. HINCHCLIFFE: It is also true ~hat in every English-speaking country there IS manifest a. strong disposition either so to limit the powers of the second Chamber as to make it more ornamental than useful or to get rid of it altogether. '

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: The movement has not made any progress.

HoN. A: I-II.NCHCLI.:U:FE': During the last ten years this d1spos!twn has become in­creasingly pronounced. This House is a replica in miniature of the British House of Lords. Its Constitution ma v not be the same but its functions are fairly' analogous. '

Hon. A. A. DAVEY: There is nothing wrong with the House of Lords.

Hox. A. HINCHCLIFFE: We have it on record that by the Parliament Act of 1911 the_ powPrs of the House of Lords were very seriOusly restnctcd-so far restricted that they have not now the power even to reject money Bdls. Under the same Act anv Bill which is submitted to the House' of ''Lords three times during three sessions-not neces­Rarily of the same Parliament-may pass, not­Withstandmg that the House of Lords is opposed to it.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: It is not nearlv as democratic as ours-Bills twice rejected by us have to go before the people.

HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE: There arc greater restrictions on the House of Lords under the Parliament Act of 1911 than on this House at the pre,cnt time. We find that two years later, notwithstanding those re­strictions, the dissatisfaction with the attempts by tho House of Lords to control the representative Chamber was so strong that Mr. Lloyd George, one of our foremost British statesmen to-day, declared-

" Democracy is in greater peril now than for generations past. There is a deliberate conspiracy on foot to over­throw democratic government. We are fighting- the last desperate effort to re­store the grip of class ascendenm·. The recent action of the House of L,;rds has made the abolition of the second Cham­ber essential."

That is the opi_nion of the gentleman who figures so consrncuously in the pres-ent crisis m Enrope. We come then to the Brisbane "Tele'l'raph," a paper which for manv vears the Hon. Mr. Brentnall edited with· con­spicuous ability and CA}nsiderable force. In dn editorial in that journal, we find the fol­'o·wing :-

" It is daily becoming plainer that 1915-5 F

Legislative Councils are factors that must be eliminated from the simplified problem of State Government."

'rhat is not a Labour paper either. Those words were written in 1906.

Hon. F. McDoNNELL : By the Hon. Mr. Brentnall?

Hon. F. T. BRENTNALL: Not for the last twenty years. The fact is that I never edited the " Telegraph."

HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE: The hon. mem· bor contributBd the oditorials to the "Tcle­gra11h" for many years. We find also t'hat the ::'11elbourne ·' Ag·e" of 12th March, 1910, declared-

" The Legislative Councils of the States offer a protection to the Tory which he cannot find in the broader poli­tical atmosphere of the Commonwealth."

So one might go on quoting innumerable authorities in favour of amending or abolish­ing the second Chamber; and I believe that the greater number of modern writers will be found in favour of the same step. n has been said by the Hon. Mr. Hawthorn that consideration is given to the various Bills which come up here, irrespective of which class they affect. Bur, we know very well that any attempt in legislation which seeks to re­sb·ict the rights of private companies or monopolistic enterprise is pounced upon im­mediately and amendments are secured to maintain those rights.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: To prevent injustice­that is all.

Hox. A. HINCHCLIFFE: We are also frequently told-by the Hon. Mr. Leahy amongst others-that this is a non-party House, and that every measure receives most impartial consideration. (Hear, hear!) Hon. members who interject, especially the Hon. Mr. Leahy, make speeches nearly all of which, on any contentious question, are tinged with strong party prejudice. I say that there is a strong partv in this Chamber -the party that is opposed to the present Government; and attemph have been re­peatedly made by that party to reject most of the legislation of any vital concern ,1lf!ich has been sent up here. In saying that, I am not taking exception to the attitude of hon. members at all. be~ause the time mav come -if this Bill does fail to pass-when I and others will find ourselves in opposition to another Government which will be in office, and we shall very likely have to take up exactly the same attitude.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Then why do you blame us?

HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE : I am not blam­ing hon. members. I merely seek to expose the fallacy that this is a non-party Chamber, and that it is strongly prejudiced a~Yainst the party that is now in office. I am in favour of this Bill, as I said when it was before us last vear. I do not blame the Council fo1• the ,:ejection of Bills, and I do not support this measure because of that. I am opposed to the bi-cameral system for the reason that I think it is out of step with the spirit of the times, and has long since failed to justify its existcnee. We cling to it because it is an old ti·adition, and because in all British­spcakin« communities there is a sentimental vene-ration for old institutions. Whatevel." excuse there Was mHny vears a.go for its ex­istence-and I believe there were good reasone

Hon. A. Hinchcliffe.l

1602 Constitution Act [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bill.

for the est·ablishmcnt of a second Chamber­there are none now. For instancB, I bclieYe that in Queensland prior to 1888 they had five-yearly Parliarnents. V\"Te have llO\V lntwh more frequent appeals to the electorate, and to say that a Government can ride roughshod over the rights of the people, if this Chamber is wiped out, is to say that no Government has any regard for its responsibilities. I do not believe it. I believe that the best oheck on the actions of any Government is the fact that it is forced to go to the people at least once every three years. I do not desire to trespass on the time of hon. members any further. I shall, as I did on the last occa­sion, give my vote for the second reading of this Bill.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY : I do not intend to say very much, because when the Bill was before the House last year I ma•de my stand­point a rather particular study, and I think I gave ample reasons for my vot<e-· reaso<lS that would be satisfactory to any pN··Oll not blinded with prejudice-n'a sons sufficic·nt to show that it is essential unde'r the pc] itical conditions that exist to-t!av to have .a eecond Chamber. ·

Hon. A. HINCHCLIFFE: You did not always think so.

HoN. A. A. DA VE Y: I did not. I was ignorant, but I have liver! and learned. I have no hesitation in saying that in years gone by I regarded this House cts being an incubus, and that opinion I shared with others who were as ignorant as I wab of the work that this House did. I c;;rne in ~ore with a strong prejudice .against it. But the conviction has grown upon mo that I was wrong, until it has got to be a veritable conviction that this House at the present time is, and for some' years past has been, the most valuable institution this country has. It has been valuable in that it has seen that party politicians have not been able to impose on the people by their questionable me-asures -to say nothing stronger-measures which are fillE>d with injustice, and sometimes con­tain much which almost amounc; to dis­honesty.

I have no axe to grind in this matter. So far as I am able, I am perfectly willing to do whatever I can to give to the country my services for the' general good. I distinctly and absolutely deny that this is a party House, and I claim that I have as much intelligence .as the hon. member who has just sat down. I have associated with hon. members here, and I say, candidly and honestly, that I be-lieve there is no surh thing as party Government in this Chamber. Of course, if we have in power an extreme Go­vernment, which is prepared to bring in measures without any regard to the hone-sty of them, and without any regard to previous contracts, without any regard to anything except the well-being of a section-an im­portant section, but only a section-a£ the community, then, naturally, in a House like this there will be opposition. But that does not constitute it a party House. This Go­vernment are in power, possibly by a fluke, possibly by misrepresentation. Certainly, in my opinion, they obtained power by means of the cry about cheap foo-d, which they h'lJO not been able to justify. I travel about the country very considerably, and my experi· ence is that, now more than eve'r, it is the conviction of the people that the only thing

[Hon. A. Hinehcliffe.

that stands between the Government and the destruction of the country is this House. "Whether the people are right or wrong, that is a conviction that is growing in this State. I am perfectly certain, if this question were referret! to the people, what the people woul•d say.

Hon. P. MuRPHY: The next e-lection will prove that.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: I do not know that elections prove anything. \Vhcn you do appeal to the people you can get no proper answer, because the issue is clouded by side· issues. \Ye have just gone through a very tur· bulent period with regard to conscription or anti-conscription. I have no hesitation in saying that the result has been a campaign of misre-presentation and lying. A number of persons have been induce-d to give their votes in a certain direction because they have been officially connected with a certain party, without .any regard whatever to the national i)nportance of the question.

Kow, this House is of infinite importance to this country at this particular time. I think it would be a calamity if Queensland were without it. If the country •desires it, I think it is entitlerl to have what it wants. If it thinks it ought to have only one Chamber, in the face of all the available experience of the world, let it have it. 'l'he bicameral sys­tem is in existence in pretty well every part of the world, and every man who will seriously think about the matter must see the ne-cessity for it under a system of party government. If we had not this cursed party government, there might be some means by which we could do away with a Chamber of this sort, but even then we should need some kind of commission to do the work of rev1s1on. When we consi·der the legislation that is pushed through a strong party House, where the Government supporters dare not vote against the Government, I think some­thing of the sort is necessary. Take all the divisions in the other House. How many times do we re·ad of members of the Govern­ment party going to the opposite side and voting with the Opposition? In this House we find .an hon. member voting on that side on one question and on the next question sitting over here·. It has happened this session.

Hon. A. HDWHCLIFFE: Not on any vital issue.

IIox. A. A. DAVEY: It has happened, but it doP< not happen in the other place. The proceedings in another place are simply controlled by the party machine. They have all got to vote in one way, and they dare not vote against the Government. Even the high officials have to vote as they are told.

What have they ·done with the [5 p.m.] members of that party who

conscientiouslv ·advocated con­scription throug·hout th~ country recently? vYhDt <.lid they do to them? Is th lt liberty? It is pro~tituting democracy. It is a nega­tion of democracy. '\Yhen electors elect a man to represent them in the House of Par­liament thev elect the member betause he has some so;·t of intellig-ence: but under the prc,ent system of party government., where only the machine is nscd, intelligence is not required. A wooden man woul-d do so far as the party machine is concerned. An india-rubber man would -do equally .as well.

Constitution Act Amendment Bill. [8 NoVEMBER.] Factories and Shops, Etc., Bill. lb03

We do not require intelligence at all. I do not say that members herB have more intelligence than the members in another place, but we are <It liberty to exercise our intelligence in a way wo think best, while they arc not at liberty to do so in another place. I am perfectly sfttisfied that under the party system a second Chamber is abso­lutely necessary. I am also equally certain that the people of this great State think the same. I have no hc·,itation at all in saying what I thmk the result of t'he referendum to the people will he. If a refe"endum could be put to the people without what I might term the unmoral-I will not sav immoral­interference of party politics, the question would be answered with a three to one majority in favour oi the retention of this House. But, if the parties are going to be whrpped up, then the people will be asked to support this, that, and the other, and the same kind of immorality and argument and Jiscussion will take place that we saw quite reccntlv. In a case like th<tt no one knows what >vill happen, and it certainly does not matter very much what will happen. The people -dLserve to have the best services of enry man in the State; but, if the State as a whole does not want the senices of the members of this House, and they decide that they do not any longer require the ser­vices of the membef' of the Leo-islative Council. they will sav so. I should think it would be advisable, in the case of a referen­dum to the )Wople, that there should be distinct instructions that this party w«rfare should not bo allowed to enter into it at all. It would have been far better instead of having so murh literature circul~ting and so many speeches as we had in the reeent dis­eussi~Hl on the conscription issue, jf such a thmg had not. been allowed at <tll. \Ve should just have put the main facts in re­gard to the que,tion before the people with regard to the necessity for having it. If it ~-ere put before th0 people in a simpl" way lrke that, <1nd all discussion prohibited then th0 answer that the people would hav~ gi vcn on the last occasion would have been yastly different. The unfortunate part of it rs that under the syste!'1 of party govern­Dlent there IS no one tvise or clever enough to see \vha.t is going to haupen, because there are no depths of misrepresentation to which the; party men with the party machine will not !Pnd th(omselves. I cannot adduce <1ny further argument in favour of the retention of this Council. I put my views in a strong form when 1 spoke last year. and I ·do not •:ish to -add anything further on this occa­sion. Dnnng· t.ho interval since last session I have not changed my mind at all. I feel sut;,ficcl that it will he a great misfortune to this country if it is left to one Chamber to rule it. I clo not say that this Govern­ment are worse than anvc future Government will be: hut I do •,ay that it would not he wise to place the whole of the power solelv in the hands of any onB Chamber. In the first place the members of one Chamber do not no.,scss all the wisdom in the countrv <tnd in the second place politics have becom~ a nrofession with numbers of men. The unfortuna!e part of t:he whole thing is that members 111 ,another place haYe got to stick to the; pnrty or the party will he severe with them and chuck them out. We know that whPn a man is in Pe.r1ia.ment for a 11umher of ;<-oars he will sav. "If I lose mY seat I am not fit for anvthino- else." . Conse: quontly it is a very seriou; thing for th~se

men how they votB, and when there is a direct appeal made to the people they will look at these things, not in the public in­terest, but in their own personal interest, and from the point of view of their own liveli­hoo-d. I do not think for one moment that, when the question of the abolition of this Ch-amber is submitted to the people-if it is e,-er submitted to the people-thoro will he an.v doubt about their answer. The longer the present Government keep in power, the more certain it is that the answer of the people will be that this Council is necessary in the intorBsts of the people.

Ho!\'. A. DUNN: I beg to move the ad­journment of the Jebate.

Question put and passed.

The resumption of the debate was made an Or-der of the day for Wednesday next.

F ACTORIEB AND SHOPS ACTS AMEKD­:YIEXT BILL.

SECOKD READIXG.

The SECRETARY FOR MIKES: In mov­ing the second reading of this Bill, I may state that it is reallv in the nature of <. Committee measure, and fuller details will be given at that stage of the Bill. 'l'he Bill n1akcs various arr1endments in the existing laws as to factories and shops, the necessity for this having become apparent in the course of administration. Hon. members will remember that the principal Factories and Shops Act was passe-d in 1900, and amended in 1908 and in 1914. I will deal with the main objects of the measure seria­tim. Hon. gentlemen will observe that, for convenience, there is a printed synopsis of the amendments propose-d attached to the Bill, which I am sure will be of assistance and save the time of the Chamber.

In the first place, it is intended to aboiish the system of establishing districts within which the Factorie" and Shops Act will operate, and to pro.-ide for the application of the m<>asure to the whole State, giving power to the Governor in Council to exempt, by Order in Council, either wholly or in part, any factory or shop. or any class of factories or shops, from the provisions of the Bill.

Again, much discussion has arisen on the question of the weekly half-holi-day. In the principal Act, as amended by the 1908 Act, the clay for the half-holiday is determined by the taking of a poll ir1 the various dis­tricts concerned. This Bill will fix the half­holiday as "the period after 1 o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday in each week."

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: All over Queens­land?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The Government haYe power to exempt any dis­trict or portion of a district. I understand that the records of the Factories an-d Shops Department show that the Satur·dav half­holi-day is the most popular, and applies to the majority of the important districts.

The principal Act makes provision in sec­tion 7 for the r0gistration of factories only. U ndcr this Bill shops will also require to be registered, and the fees for' registration of a factory or shop arc set out in clause 10.

Hon. W. Hamilton.]

1604 Factories and Shops [COUNCIL.] Acts Amendment Bill.

Returns will be required to be furnished by the occupiers of factories and shops setting out the number of persons employed therein at the ·date of the first application for regis­tration and on 8ach annual renewal thereof. The object of such registration is to secure better supervision of shops by the depart­ment. The registration clauses will, however, not apply to hawkers, peddlers, and auc­tioneers.

A very important amendment is made to the princii:wJ Act in respect of sanitary ar­rangerrlcnts, ventilation, etc.

The clauses of the original Act dealing with this matter arc hereby repealed, and there is substituted a comprehensive set of rules. These deal ge11erally with cleanlinf'ss, sanitary conveniences, overcrowding, venti­lation, temperature, lighting, freedom from damp, dust, etc., arising from processes, painting, and limewashing, water supply, dining and eating accommodation, change rooms, sitting accommodation, deleterious substances used in processes, incapacitated and diseased workers, fire escapes, stairways, etc.

The Bill also specifically sets out that shops shall be closed during the whole of every Sundav. Hon. members will observe from a perusa'l of section 51 of the principal Act that the closing hours of shops are fixed at 6 o'clock on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and 9 o'clock on Fri·day night. I understand that certain shopownors are desirous of doing away with the late even­ing in the week. \Vhen, therefore, employers and employees come to an agreement that shops dose at an earlier hour and get such a~recmcnt ratified in the nature of an indus­tr.ial award, the Bill makes provision for this in claus~e 17. The clause provides~

"In cases where industrial awards pro­Yide that the ordinary working hours of employees shall cease at an earlier hour than that prescribed as the closing hour herein. such ceasing time shall be re­g-arded as the closing hour for the shops or cl asses of shops affected by such awards."

A new Part VIII.\ is proposed to be inserted dealing with the stamping of furni­ture. All furniture manufactured or sent out of any factory shall be legibly and per­manently stamped, setting forth in legible type the manufacturer's true name and a~ddress of the place where the furniture was manufactured or prepared. It is further pro­vided that where an article of furniture has been manufactured or prepared solely by European labour, such stamp shall set forth in legible type the words "European labour only." Where manufactured solely or partly bv Chinese labour, the stamp shall set out th0 words " Chinese labour." Imported furniture is also to be stamped as being imported, and rulps as to the method of stamping are inserted, and penalties are pre-

• scribed for contra vcntion of the provisions of that part of the Act. The Bill further pro­vides that the provisions of industrial awards relating to remuneration for employment, hours of employment, and overtime rates shall, in case of conflict with this Act, pre­vail over thB provisions thereof.

There are various other amendments pro­posed to be made dealing with meal hours overtime, and the provi·d.ing of a minimu~ wage in factories and shops with annual

f Hon. W. Hamilton

increases. This is set forth in clause 17 of this Bill. Premiums are prohibited except wit!J. consent of the inspector.

The above are the principal features of this Bill, and I have pleasure in moving~ That the Bill be now read a second time.

HoN. F. McDO="i~ELL: I do not rise to delay the passage of this Bill, but simply for the purpose of expressing my great pleasure that the Government have seen fit to introduce it. It is certainly a Bill that is Ycry much required, because there was a good de>tl of doubt >tbout the interpretation of certain things in connection with the work­ing of the principal Act. I am particularly pleased to see that proYision is made for a uniYersal Satmday half-holiday. I think that is a good thing. I notice that during the debate on this Bill in another place there was practically no opposition to that pro­posal. If I am not mistaken, more than half the places in Queensland where the Act is in operation observe the half-holiday on Saturday. That has been -decided by appeal to the people in those districts. Of course that does not include the metropolitan area, where the Saturday half-holiday was always definitely fixed in the Act. There is one matter I am particularly pleased about. We know that when the Act was originally passed sixteen years ago, it was alleged that the Bill would have a very bad effect on business, and particularly on the one-man shopkeeper, while it was said that the poor widow who kept a shop would simply be sacrificed.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: Didn't they dese'rve consideration?

HoN. F. MoDO="fNELL: Yes. I am glad to say that, after the Act has been in opera­tion for sixteen years, the whole of those complaints have been removed. You never hear now of the poor widow or the one-man shopkeeper. On the contrary, both of these classes have grown to very considerable extent. I :;:ot a return prepared by the Factories and Shops Department, because I was one of those who took a ver.v prominent part for a number of years, in connection with the agitation which led to the passage of the Act; and, if I had never done any­thing else in my political life, I would feel that my labour had not been in vain. (Hear, hear !) I am very pleased that, after the hpse of sixteen years, the Act has been more than justified, and to-day I believe there are not half a dozen shopkeepers in the city of Brisbane who would ask to go back to the old conditions.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: Six o'clock closing has justified itself.

HoN. F. McDONNELL: Yes. (Laughter.) I may be pardoned if I go back a little, because I feel a considerable amount of pride in connection with the Act. Within the last thirty years there have been wonder­ful changes in the conditions existing in shops and factories in Queensland. Less than twenty-five years ago there were not more than half a dozen shops in Brisbane which closed at 6 o'clock. The bulk of the shops kept open every night until 9 o'clock and on Satur•day night untillO and 11 o'clock. It was a regular occurrence for shop assistants to come out of the drapers' shops when the· clock was striking the hour of midnight~

Factories and Shops [8 NovEMBER.] Acts Amendment Bill. 1605

going home at that hour after toiling from 8 o'clock in the morning. And in those days 15s. a week was a very fine wage for a girl to get for working those hours. That sort of thing obtained here for years; but despite those conditions, the employers of those girls did not prosper.

The conditions have since been materially improved; the hours have been considerably reduced; wages have been largely increased, until to-day the shop assistant in Queensland is working under as good conditions as shop assistants in any part of the British Dominions. And the employers are better off. They are able to enjoy life-and they do enjoy life-and I believe they are making better profits than they did in the old days. All round, the lot of employees and employers has 'been very greatly improved. We were told th<tt the one-man shopkeepers and the poor widows were going to be sacrificed because of the introduction of these great reforms. So far from that having happened, the number of shops kept by poor widows and one-man shopkeepers has multiplied until, from being comparatively few in number, they have grown into thousands.

I say this because I spent four or five vears of the most strenuous years of my life in advocating this reform, and in combating the fears that were expressed with regard to the abolition of the one-man shop. The Hon. Mr. Stephens, who at that time repre­sented the electorate of South Brisbane, was a very strong supporter of that contention. However, I am particularly pleased to-day to see that the prophecies and anticipations that were then expressed have not been realised. and that the people who were bitterly opposed to this legislation at the time it was passed have long since recognised that it has been to their interests and to the interests of employees.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: What Government introduced that legislation?

HoN. F. McDONNELL: I am always pre­pared to give credit to any Government for passing a humane measure like this. The Act was certainly passed by a Liberal Go­vernment.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES: This House also passed it.

HoN. F. McDONNELL: It was passed by a Liberal Government, with a strong Labour party behind them, who had been agitating for it for years. But it took a good many years before a Liberal Government was persuaded to pass it.

Hon. A. HINCHCLIFFE: Hear, hear!

HoN. F. McDONNELL: We started the agitation in 1889, and no question WM ever more strenuously agitated for a number of years than the agitation in favour of early closing, and it was only in the year 1900 tha.t a Liberal Government brought in the Bill after eleven years of agitation. It was a fairly good Act when it was passed, al­though it has been since improved. It was the first Act passed in Australia providing

·for a Saturday half-holiday. Hon. P. J. LEAHY: And you have to thank

a Liberal Government for it.

HoN. F. McDONNELL: The Labour party very strongly urged the Government

to introduce that legislation, and the great bulk of the people outside were in favour of it.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: I was in favour of it myself.

Hon. A. HINCHCLIFFE : So were quite a number of employers.

HoN. F. McDONNELL: That is quite true. I am very pleased to see that the reform has been such a.n unqualified success, and I believe that, if many of the reforms that the Council are opposing to-day had the same opportunity of being put into operation as early closing has had, hon. members would see the same beneficial results, and employers would ha.ve no reason to regret the adoption of those reforms.

There is nothing in this Bill to which I take exception. Certainly some of us will be affected by some of its provisions ; but, as they will be for the general good of the community, we must be prepared to make some sacrifices. The Bill will mean a certain amount of loss to the cla.ss of busines; with which I am connected through closing early on Friday night. There are some districts in the city of Brisbane where they do a lot more business on that night than in other districts. I am situated in one of those dis­tricts, and I think the Hon. Mr. Beirne is situated in a.nother, and we do a very large business on Friday night. However, we have to recognise tha.t in the old days business was done till 11 o'clock at night, and they thought in those days that, if they had to close at 6 o'clock, their doors would close altogether. They ha.ve had to close at. that hour .Juring the week, and at 1 o'clock on Saturday, and yet they do the same amount of business as before. vVhen the shops close at 6 o'clock on Friday night the same amount of business will still be done. The tra.de that is now done a.fter 6 o'clock on Friday night will be distributed over the week, an-d it will be a very good thing indeed.

I observe with a good deal of satisfaction that there are very definite provisions in the Bill in connection. with sanitary arra-nge­ments and matters of that nature. I believe that employers particularly shopkeepers, are most desirous 'of providing their employees with the best possible sanitary conveniences in the interests of their employees. Tha.t has been my experience. . I can only hope th3:t these improvements w1ll be properly appreci­ated bv the employees-I say that advisedly. The bulk of the employers do all that is possible to provide the best of facilities for their employees in this respect, _ b_ut in some cases there is not that recogmtwn on the part of the employees tha.t them should be. Employers and employees should co-operate to the full in this matter.

"With reo-ard to the proposal to mark all Chineso-m:;"de furniture. it is about time that wa.s done. Nearly twenty years ag·o we advo­cated such a provision in another place.

Hon. A. Hil'fCHCLIFFE: The agitation started in 1888.

HoN. F. McDONNELL: In my time in another place, when the Factories and Shops Bill wa.s introduced in 1896 a number of us advocated the proper stamping of Chinese­made furniture, and that has been advocated manv times since then. I am glad the Go· vernment intend to. deal with it now. I am in the furniture trade, but I do not want to

Hon. P. McDonnell.l

1606 Factories and Shops [COUNCIL.] Acts Amendment Bill.

take advantage of my position here to speak about any other firm, I will only say that I h(eartily welcome the stamping of all furni­ture. ·without individualising any firms, it is a well-known fact that certain firms which claim that they do not sell Chinese furniture are not quite straight in the matter. This Bill will place it beyond all doubt, and people who sell Chinese furniture will need to have it stamped. arid that will indicate its origin. I heartily weleorne the provision, because I do not believe in selling any Chinese-made furniture, and there are a number of other employers in Brisba.ne in exactly the same position.

There is very little more that I wish to say on the Bill. 'There arc one or two little things that it may be necessary to make a little plainer in Committee. I am very glad the Government have brought in the Bill, and I am pa.rticularly pleased to feel that I can get up in this Chamber and say that, after sixteen years' experience of this legislation, the buik of the employBrs in every part of Queensland are well satisfied with it. I do not believe you would find 5 per cent. of the shopkeepers in Queensland who would care to go back to the old conditions. (Hear, hear.)

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: I am pleased that the Hon. Mr. McDonnell, in reply to an interjection from myself, admitted that the first Factories and Shops Bill was passed by a Liberal Government; and I think that at the time it was passed it was the best Bill of its kind in Australia. It was fair on the part of the hon. member to give a Liberal Government credit. It is also fair that I, as a believer in such a humane principle, should give the Hon. Mr. McDonnell credit for the years of strenuous work that he put in in bringing this thing before the people and the Legislature of Queensland. I have no doubt

that it was very largely duo [5.30 p.m.] to his persistency and wdYocacy

that the Bill became law as early as it did. I should like to point out, too, that so far as my memory serves me, this Chamber, which is supposed to be anti­quated, did not offer any serious opposition. When the House finds that the people want a particular thing; it does not stand in the way, and it did not on that particular occasion.

I have doubts whether the compulsory Saturday half-holiday is a good thing. I do not, of course, object to having a half­holiday during the week ; but it seems to me a.n undemocratic principle that Parlia­ment should take on itself to say, "We think you all should have a half-holiday on Satur­day throughout Queensland." Surely the people in the particular districts concerned are the best persons to say which day suits them. Why take away the right of the rate­payers or the electors to say which particular day is most suitable for them? I know that in some farming districts Saturday is not the most suitable day. In fact, I think that is the case in most farming districts, and I tnmk that this particular provision is urcdemo. cratic, and the decision might -~c,ry well be left to the electors.

As rega~ds closing on Friday night, I see no opposition at all to that. It may be, as the Hon. Mr. McDonnell says, that the same amount of business will be done, whether they close at 6 o'clock or not. But, in any

[Hon. F. McDonnell.

case, nearly all drapers are people who are making a good deal of money-and they deserve it-and perhaps even if less money was spent it would not be an unmixed evil. The Hon. Mr. McDonnell says that it might be spent in the hotels. Well, then, I would close the hotels, and in that way we would be keeping the monPy in the people's pockets, and it would be applied to somethiug more useful than drink, or eyen drapery. How­ever, I have no doubt that we shall apply our intelligence to this measure and eliminate some things in it. I do not think it will be ·necessary to eliminate Yery much, but I feel sure that when the Bill leayes this House-as in the caBe of most of the others-it will be a better Bill than when it reached us.

Hox. A. P ARNELL: I welcome this Bill, because I have had a good deal of experience in storekeeping, although it has been prin­cipally confined to the Qountry parts of Queensland. It is in the interests of people in those districts that I am going to watch this Bill carefully. During the whole time that I was an employee, the hours were from 7 o'clock in the morning until 11 o'clock every night. It was not until I became a master myself, and was able' to run a st?re, that these early-closing hours came mto force; and I might say conscientiously that, as a master, I welcomed the change to closing at 6 o'clock.

One thing I want to speak on particularly is the closing on Saturday afternoon. I have no interest in a store at all now, but I know that the stores keep open on Saturday after­noon in a lot of the \Vestc'rn towns for the reason that on Saturday afternoons in many of them the whole of the mails come in and many of the mails go out on Saturday after­noon. It would be an injustice to those towns if they were compelled to close the shops on the Satut·day afternoon. Some of them observe Wcdne0dav, and some Thursday, as the half­holiday, according as it suits the. convenience of tlw pcovle. I quite agree that m the larger towns they should fall into line, and make the half-holidav on Saturday general in all the trades, and I should agree to that prin­ciple if it could be brought about in the Western towns also. But I know that It would be a serious inconvenience and a great lose. The life of the country storekeeper is not what it used to be in my time. Profits have fallen off, and the bulk of the trade has gone to Brisbane and Sydney and the large towns. vVhen the parcel post came m, it practically ruined the country storekeeper, and I was not sorry to get out of the _busi­ness. At the same time·, I have a lnndly interest in the country storekeepers. and I would like to see them protected in every way, and therefore· I shall watch the Bill very carefully in Committee.

So far as closi;,g the shops on the nights before Christmas is concerned, I welcome the provisions of this Bill, because I never saw the reason for keeping the whole of the shops open till 11 o'clock on two nights prior tO' Christmas Dav. I believe that there IS good reason for keeping open on one night in the week, especially where the country stores arc concerned.

There is another objection to this Bill-to a provision which we. generally get in such Bills-that ig. the honorary or tempo_rary inspectors. Nobody minds an inspector If he

Adjournment. [8 NoVEMBER.]

is a properly appointed Government in­spector, but I do object to these temporary inspectors.

In common with other hon. members, I congratulate the Hon. Mr. McDonnell on his work in the direction of early closing, be­cause I know the keen interest ho took in it. I have presided at meetings when he has come along to expound his views, and nobody appreciated the shorter hours in the store more than I did. and, so far as this Bill is concerned, I shall assist a! I can to help to pass it. At the same time, I want to see the small country man protected.

Ho;;r. T. M. HALL : I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

Queshm put and passed.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES moved­That the resumption of the debate be made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

HoN. F. T. BRENTNALL: This is a very· important Bill and requires a good deal of careful consideration, and I think hon. mem­bers should have the opportunity of com­paring it with the existing statute clause by clause. I hope the Minister will see his way to postpone the resumption of the debate till Tuesday next. If not, I would like to pro­pose an amendment.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I have no intention of bringing it on again to­morrow, or again this week. I recognise that it is a Committee Bill, and hon. members must admit that I have tried to give every­body an opportunity to deal with the various measures. (Hear, hear!) This is merely a formal motion, and, if any hon. member is not ready on any Bill and tells me that he will be glad to have it postponed, I am only too glad to •do so.

Question put and passed.

DISEASES IN PLANTS BILL.

MESSAGE FROM ASSEMBLY.

The PRESIDENT announced the receipt of a mes,age from the Assembly agreeing to the Council's amendment in the Bill.

ADJOURNMENT.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I beg to move-That the Council do now adjourn. The first business to-morrow will be the second reading of the Money Lenders Bill. Next, we will take the second reading of the Townsville Harbour Board Acts Amendment Bili, then the motion for the adoption of the report of the Select Committee on the :'1/Iany Peaks-New Cannindah Railway, then the consideration in Committee of the Land Act Amendment Bill, and then the considera­tion in Committee of the Public ·works L-and Resumption Act Amendment Bill.

Question put and passed.

The Council adjourned at sixteen minutes to 6 o'clock.

Questions. 1607