Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 1902

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

478 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Elections Ads Amendment Bill.

THURSDAY, 4 SEP'l'EMBER, 1902.

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

PAPER. The following paper was laid on the table :­

Return to an Order made by the House showing the amount paid fur advertising in certain news­papers at Charters Towers.

QuESTIONS. STAl\IP DUTY ON VVAGES RECEIP'rS.

Mr. COOPER (Mitchcll) asked the Trea­surer·-

1. Is it a. fact that, contr:uy to the Act, casual hands in the employ of the Government have been pa:_, lug stamp duty on their wages receipts?

2. U so, have steps been taken to refund the amount paid, and to prevent further charges in this way?

The TREASURER (Hon. T. B. Cribb, Ipswich) replied-

! am not aware of any stamp dut:y having been collected from men in the employ of the Government contrary to the Act,

NIONEY OWING TO 'l'HE TREASURY. Mr. LESIN A ( Clcrmont) asked the Treasurer­What objection has he to the collection of a certain

sum of money owing to the Treasury by an Assyrian named Lahood 1-'

The TREASURER replied-! have no objection to the collectron of any money

owing to the Treasury.

RAILWAY ADVERTISEMENTS.

Mr. LESINA asked the Secretary for Rail­ways-

l. Vl'hat is the total value to the State of the adver­tisements so far accepted since the appointment of }fr. John Ure }le~ aught as advertising manager to that department r

2. 1Vhat proportion of the total is due to contracts made with ~fessrs. Gm·don and Gotch, his late em­ployers?

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAY& (Hon. J. Leahy, B"lloo) replied-

! cannot give the definite information asked for,_ seeing ther~ is no time stated and the gentleman named is out collecting now ; but I can give it up to the 30th June last, lip to that date the answer to the first question is £1,168; and to the second question~ £860 4s, 9d,

HARBOcR BOARD BILL FOR CAIRNS.

HoN. A. S. COvVLEY (Herbert), for. Mr. Lyons, asked the Treasurer-

Is i.t the intention of the Government to introduce a Harbour Board Bill for Cairns at an early date?

The TREASURER replied­Yes.

ELECTIONS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. SECOND READING-RESUMPTION OF DEBATE.

* Mr. BLAIR (Ipswich): I had not originally intended to speak on this Bill, but a remark made in the Cbamber that a "conspiracy of silence., seemed to prevail on a certain side determined me to offer my opinion on the measure in order that I should not afterwardE be twitted with having remained silent. Objec­tion seems to have been taken that the preamble of this Bill is worded in such a way as to lead hon. members to believe that the framer of it desired to follow in the wake of federal legisla­tion. I have no desire to follow legislation that does not make for the well-being and pros­perity of the State, but inasmuch as a preamble· is in its nature rather an explanatory than ::tn integral portion of a Bill, I think an argu­ment of that kind ought not to have weight, more especially when it simply savours of those imperfections or lack of perfectne;;s in detail alluded to by the Secretary for Agriculture and the Home Secretary, which can be left to be settled in committee. A promise was made in the Governor's Speech to the effect that we should have a measure of this kind. I am glad that that promise was included, and I hope that measure will be introduced in the <'Vent of this being thrown out. But, although a promise of that kind was made, we are not entitled for that reason alone to refuse to discuss this Bill. Now, what I propose to deal with more par­ticularly is the extension of the franchise to women. [The HOME SECRETARY : Includ­ing blackfellows.] Probably the hon. gentleman is speaking for himself. [The HoniE SECRE· TARY: No, for the Bill.] That is a matter of detail which can be amended in com­mittee. It may be a question whether women should embark in the maelstrom of politics. It has been Fair! by Bryce, in his admirable book on the American Commonwealth, that a measure of this kind, extending the franchise to women, deadens and roughens the innate sweetness of their lives which go to make us respect them. Although it may have a tendency to unsex them and encroach on the privileges of men in the sphere of politics, surely when we consider the work they d0 in our hospitals, our infirmaries,

Elections Acts [4 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill.

ourshopo, and so on, it i.,atleast debatable whether they should not have extended to them, as a matter of right, the privilege of having a voice in making the laws by which they are governed. It was once aeserted that a measure of this kind had a tendency to lower women in social position. I combat that statement. I think it has the effect of elevating them, by giving them a privilege which undoubtedly should be theirs, and also that it will have a tendency towatds elevating, ennobling, and purifying political life. One objection has been that it vitally affects the position of relative representation. That is undoubtedly a serious objection, but after look­ing into it carefully I conclude it is one which really might be made to any proposed amendment in our electoral law. It is really a matter which is unavoidable in its sequence that a matter of this kind should perhaps unsettle the electoral system under which we live; but surely that in itself-especiaily when in com­mittee it c:m be ajusted-is no reason why a measure of this kind should not pass. Further, a more vital point seems to be the difference m type bet we en men and women, which is a social distinction differing from the powers of man which are more variative; but even that is not a consideration which should preclude us from giving them a share in political representation. It is a matter which deserves the gre ttest con­sideration; but where the franchise has been granted in municipal matters to women we have been shown that the ill-effects have not been such as to jmtify us in refusing to consider the exten­sion of that franchise to parliamentary elections. Further, it seems, according to the rppouents of this measure, that granting or conceding such a privilege as the franchise will injuriously modify the relations of life. It is said that woman's sphere is the home; that there she has ample opportunity for ex:ercising a beneficent influence. That may be true. She may possibly in that sphere of life soften the asperities of her bus­band, if he has asperities, and ennoble and guide the ambitions of her children. Undoubtedly that is a splendid work for women; bnt surely, if we look at it in the converse view, she has also the power of softening the asperities and guiding the ambitions of legislators or ameliorating the conditions of humanity were she given a voice in the making of our laws. It is said she will encroach upon man's prerogative, but I am not conscious that man, with all his oppor­tunitic-;, has done ttnytbing so wonderful that would entitle him to say to women, "Y on must remain outside the pale of politic,," It is also said that this has really a tendency to shift the burden of the man upon the woman ; but that, I think, may be dismissed as unworthy of serious consideration. It has also been argued that if the franchise is granted a large number of women will not exercise it ; but there is nothing in that, because a large number of men who already enjoy the privilege of the franchise do not exerciBe it. Therefore the question is : Is it politic ally right or wrong to extend the franchise to women? ::'\ ow, surely if we consider their capacity, we are bound to admit-we know it from eminent writers and historically-that they have ability suffi­cient to deal with the questions of the day ; that their intelligence is of a su1ficiently high order to, at any rate, enahle them to give a vote and decide who shall represent them. We had in a measure the other night a section which im­posed taxation upon them. Is it therefore right with the one band to impose taxation, and with the other to deny representation? Surely that is a cogent argnment why we should grant repre­sentation? \Vhy should they not be granted the right to vote upon the laws by which they are governed? I think I have said enough to show

that they are entitled to a voice in the affairs of the country. vVe know that in the efforts of the States to get abreast of the time.•, endeavours have been made to pass legislation of this kind. Victoria endeavoured fonr times to do so-in 1898 189jl, 1900, and 1901-and each time it was blocked by the Legisbtive Council. Ta";mania made a similar endeavour, and it was blocked by the Legisl>ttive Council; but in New ~ealand we find that it passed. Adult suffrage exists there. It was passed in 18[)3. In South Australia it was passed in 1S!J4, and in \V estern Australia in 1899, and I think it has passed in New South \Vales. Queen"bnd has a popnla­tion of about 503,000; the adult males number 157,000, and the adult females 104,000. On the roll there are about 105.000 men. and there are 104,383 females without a vote. I am aware of the old quotation-

'rhe .best of all we do and are. Just God forgive. ·

But many of us are not ashamed to stand up and say that the best of what we do and are i.< very ofcen due to the influence of women. Their intinence goes largely to sweeten, ennoble, and purify the sum total of that inexplicable thing called "life;'' and I think history pomts the finger of reproach at us that we have lived to such a date without giving them political emaricipation. [Honour­able members: Hear, htar !]

The SECRETARY FOE RAILWAYS: The question before the House is one wh;ch we have bad brought up in the same al stract manner on former occasions. The osten,ible purpose of this Bill, as laid down by the hon. member who intro­duced it, is to extend the franchise. The term "extension of the franchise" is som8what rela.ti ve, and we should be go;·erned to a large extent in considering this matter by what has been d,me in other places. The hon. member, as far as I know, did not give any instances of what they do in other places, but we have had some figures from the h'Jn. member for Bowen and other h<•ll. mem­bers, which were gro~t-ly inaccurate; and it is rnainly for the purpost> of ..;etting theHe figures right thati rise to speak, The hou. member for Ipswich delivered Ml excellent sp• ech on the desirableness of 0xtending the franchise to women ; but I thought that was a foregone conclusion. It is a thing I have advocated ever since I have been in this House; it is a plank in the platform of the Government; and it is generally admitted by the other side, too, though in the Bill introduced by the leader on that side some years ago, Mr. GJa,sey, the principle was absent. [J'vlr. JACK­SON: l:::l()me on your own side are op!JO:-;ed tu it.] Members on our side are not ti•"l down by the Trade' Hall, like hon. membero opposite. I said "the Government," and I was perfectly accurate in saying that was the view of the Govern­ment. [An honourable member: The Govern­ment backs down sometimes.] This is not a back-down GovPrnment. It is a progrc·ssive Government, and we will force this principle of giving the franchise to women on the other side of the House, notwithstanding the fact that it was absent from the Bill introduced by their leader some years ago. However, I am glad they are going to advocate it. lf a thing is good in public legislation, it does not matter where we get assistance fron1 so long as it is honest assistance. The hon. member who introduced this Bill made a very short speech the other evening, and I think that was rather wise of him, because in the propositions he laid down there were some matters which he c«uld not have dealt with at length without getting into some difficulty. But there was no nece"'ity for the hon. member to hurry himself on that occasion, and I think he might have taken time to explain what he meant by the Bill. He said

480 Elections .Acts [ASSEMBLY.J .Amendment Bill.

he was prepared to go step by step. I thought that WBS the policy of this side-the cautious sine. As Tennyson said-

Step by step we gained a freedom, known to Europe, known to all;

Step by stel_) we rose to greatness- through the tonguesters we may fall.

I congratulate the Labour party on going step by step for once-makinf( sure of one ste]J before they take the second. We are blamed on this side because we do not rush into all sorts of pro· blematicallegislation simply because it has been tried or proposed in other places-and even if it bas been proved useless or ruinous in other places. I am not going to rush into legislation of that kind or into anything else that does not present itself to my mind as something it would be wise to introduce here. Regardingthis Bill, the hon. mem­ber for Bowen said there were 15 per cent. of the people of Queensland on the electoral roll. [Mr. KE~NA: Of the adult males.] Considering that 17 per cent. of them voted at the last general elec­tion, it is strange that there are only 15 per cent. of them on the roll. In making an estimate of this kind, I think it is proper that we should know exactly where we are. There are something like 502,000 people in QueenRland according to the last census. There are 30,000 of them disfranchised by !t';si,lation which this Chamber passed some time ago, and which is included in the Bill introduced by the acting leader of the Opposi­tion. In no other colony in Australia that 1 am aware of is there any restriction with regard to the franchise with respect to any man of any race or colour, provided he becomes a naturalised citizen of the State, with the single exception of the Northern Territory of South Australia; and in South Australia proper the restriction does not exiet. I am aware that the principle is contained in the Bill introduc~d in the Federal Parliament at the instance of the Labour members; but it does not exist in State legislation in any colony of Australia or New Zealand. Hr.n. members first take our population as fi02,000, and then they proceed, after di,franchising 30,000 of male adults, to base their calculation, and include the 30,000 they have prevented from having a right to vote. That is an extraordinary mode of calculation. If we make a lJalcnlation of persons on the roll in Queeneland, we shall find that they compare remarkably well-that it is better than in any other State in Australia. I have not risen to make that statement without

being in a po.,ition to prove it. I [4 p.m.] know that hon. members opposite

will dispute anything; but l made out these figures and submitted them to the Registrar-General m order that I might be quite certain that they were correct, and the figures I am now about to submit to the House have the name of the Regi,trar-General at the bottom of them. Of course there are a very large number of persons in Queensland who are not on the roll; but if you disfranchise 30,000 of them, how are you going to get on with your argument about extending the franchise? If we are to bring our electoral laws into conformity with those of the other States of Australia, we shall have to advance in the direction of saying that if a man is adruitted as a citizen under the laws of the country, we have no right afterwards to deprive him of the rights of citizen­ship. 'We have no right to admit them as citi­zens unless we are prepared to give them the rights and privileges of citizens. These people are being naturalised in the other St~tes of Australia more than they are in Queens­land ; and if we are reasonable men we shall not admit men to citizenship, and then deny therr. the rights of citizenship. [Mr. HARD­ACRE: \Ve ought not to admit them. I have not

said that we should admit them. They have 14,000 Chinese in Victoria, and there is not a single one of them prohibited from getting on to the electoral roll. Nor are such persons pro­hibited from getting on the roll in that great country-the republic of the world-from which the hon. member comes. The fifteenth amend­ment of the Constitution settled that point, and provided that a man should not be debarred hy his race or colour from becoming a citizen of the State and ca"ting his vote. I have not expressed an opinion as to whether it is right or wrong, but I say that if we are to bring our laws into harmony with those of the other States of the Commonwealth, we shall have to give them the rights of citizenship once they have been admitted as citizens. Compare the number of electors on the roll in Queensland with the number of electors on the roll in the other States of Australia, and see where the comparison lands you. The acting leader of the Opposition says that our franchise is less exten· sive than it is in any of the other States. I say it is more extensive. In Queensland, deducting from the total population-503,2()G-the 30,305 persons that our law prohibits from becoming electors of the country, we have a population of 472,951, and 22·95 per cent. of those are on the electoral roll. [Mr. KmsTON : What about the 10,000 plural votes? Are they included?] I shall come to that presently. In New South \Vales there are 25'47 per cent. on the roll, in Victoria 23'37, and in South Australia, where they have universal suffrage, 41'47. In Tasmania, which I may say has got one of the most liberal elec­toral laws in Australia-it is almost a transcript of the South Australian Act-they have 22'72 per cent. of the population on the roll. The hon. member for Rockhampton asked me if I included the 10,000 plural voters there are in Queenaland. I challenge the hon. member to prove that there is anything like that number of plural voters in Queensland. [Mr. KrnsTON: I never estimated them at 10,000; I said 5,000, but you interjected 10,000.] I did not say there were 10,000, but that somebody said there were 10,000. \Ve have only one mea-ns of estimating the number of plural voters in the State, and I believe that is a fairly accurate means of arriving at a con­clusion. I think it wili be conceded that it is in the city of Brisbane, Toowong, Enoggera, the V alley, Too m bul, and those other electorates which form what is known as the federal division of Brisbane, that this plural vote predominates under ordinary circumstances, and returns Government supporters. \Vhen we had the abolition of the plural vote at the federal election two years ago, and had one man one vote, the result was exactly the same. In the seven electorates which compose the federal division of Brisbane there are about 11,500 voters on the roll. That includes the plural votes. It is a very extraordinary thing that about the same percen tagp of those voters-52 or 53 per cent.-polled exactly the same as they did in all the other electorates of the State. We had very little over two-thirds of the polling at the federal election that we have at ordinary State elections. The " antdeds" did not vote at all, and another section of the community did not know what they were voting for. I confess that I begin te> doubt whether I did myself on that matter. (Laughter.) In those five electorates, as nearly as I can cal­culate, they polled about 5,800 vote,. Mr. Macdonald-Paterson got 2,300 or 2,400, Mr. Buzacott. got 1,600, and the Labour man got about 1,900. Notwithstanding that this was on the basis of one man one vote, the percentage was as high as was polled all over the rest of Queens­land ; so that, if only 53 per cent. was polled instead of the 79 or 80 per cent. which is polled at

Elections Acts [4 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment. Bill. 481

ordinary elections, the most you will get for plural votes will be 1,700 or 1,800 in thie elec­torate. I wr.uld like to know where the hon. member estnblishes even 5,000. [:\fr. KIDSTON : That is no evidence at all of the number.] It is the-highest of all evidence-statistical evidence. It show8 that, when we abolished plural voting, these electorates remained exactly as they were, and that here, where the pro­portion of plural Yotes is larger than it i~ in any ot,her part of (..lueensland, the proportion of electors who voted bore the same proportion to the general voting of Queensland that it always bore. I depart from this f,,r a moment, and return to the percentage of the populations of the various States who ar.l en the rolls. It is not a quF-;tion, however, of how n1any are on the rolls, but of how mo.ny of those persons who are on the rnlls cast their vote~_~ in deterrninin;; the policy of the country. You may have as many names as y.-,u like on the rolls, bnt they may not be in the country a.t all. \Vhat wR want is the real living voters. They are what determines the political views of the country. Let us see lvnv Queensland compares with the other States with regard to the efficient vote-the vote which puts us here. So that this shall be ;:cbsolutely accurate, it is c;:clcnlated not on the whole number of voters in Queens­land, because there are sometimes electorates in which there is no contest, and which would destroy the whole symmetry and proportion of the thing. If there are nineteen electorates con­tested out nf twenty, you must. only take the percenbge of electors who vote in the contested electorates. I can put it the other w .Ly if lion. me1nbers like ; but, of course, it is of no value. The proportion of electors wb<> voted in con­tested electorates at the last electirm" in Queens­land was 7:'\·iJS per cent. At the previous election the proportion was 79·13 per cent.­remarkably near-which would give an a-:e.rage for the two of about 79 per cent. In Xew South \VcJes 63·91 per cent. of the elec­tors voted at the elections; so that, if you take 63·91 per cent. of the 23 per cent. of the electors who are :m the rolls, and com­pare them with 7D per cent. of the 22·05 per cent. who are on the rolls in Qneen<­lattd, you will find a far larger pr"r'orti 'n of people voted in Queen,Jand. In Vict rria only 10'81 per cent. of the population voted -we have double that-and, althnu!<h ·?H per cent. of the electors voted in Queensland, only 63'-i7 per cent. of the elect.ors voted in Victoria. [Mr. AnmY: It shows our electors are better men.] Exactly so. It shows we have Pverything better -a larger percentage on the rolls, and a larger number who record their votes ; and yet hon. members opposite talk about this country being behind and wanting an extended franchise. [Mr. KmsTON : You must remember that the Labour party is better organised here.] That is what I am trying to point out. The drum of the Trades Hall beats, and hon. members do what they are told. 'fhat is the organisation the hon. members opposite have. It i.l no wonder they are organieed. \Vhen the hon. member for Bowen blows the bugle, and the people are aroused, you can understand how unani­mous they are. I do not know the individual who is running the show now, but I have no doubt the position is something similar. Then we come to South Australia. [Mr. LESINA: How many people are off the rolls here?] Less than in any of the other Australian States. [Mr. LESINA: Look at the census re­turns.] I do not think the hon. member could have been in the Chamber when I was speaking. (Mr. LESINA: I have been here all the time.l I pointed out that there are 30,000 adults in Queensland who are disfranchised by the elee-

1902-2H

toral laws of this State. [Mr. LESINA : The figures in the census returns show that 32,000 per­sons who are eligible to vote are off the rolls.] I will come to that directly. I am not saying that there are not a great many people who are not on the rolls. Of course there are ; but in that respect we are only in the same position as every other State in Australia. Thousands of persons come here from New South Wales and the other States by reason of our superior conditions and the higher wages that rule here. Thr·y go home again to help their poor rel:-J,tions, not remain­ing long enough to get their names on the rolls, and then they return the next year. Does not the hon. member follow my argument, that if his contention is right, and we have so many whu are not on the roll, and yet we have a far higher record of voting than the other States. there must be a still larger number in the other States who are not on the roll? We are ahe>td of them, notwithstanding the obstacles hon. members opposite speak abour, I now follow on with Sr,uth Australia. In South Australia only 2i'i per cent. of the populatioro votecl, and that must be divided by two, as it is a State which has adult suffrcq:;e. [Mr. KmsTON: South Australia is better off in that. respect than we are.] That may be so, and I prefaced my remarks by faying that I am as anxious as any hon. member to g-ive the franchise to the women of the country. _\nd if we had it, the figures wnuld j11st about work out the same; we should still have more people un the roll in proportion to the population, having re£{ard al wa:vo; to <nnitting thoHe persons who are entirely .. excluded from havin'( the rig·ht to get on tbe roll hy hrm. membe"'. opposite. [1\1r. DG!':OH<'ORll: \V e have a larger proportion of male adults in (..lueenslanrl thnn they have in :South Australia.] And we have aho a larger proportion of children attending the State schools tiMn they have in any other State in Australia, and a larger pro­portlOn of women too. I dare say also we have a larger proportion of people who do not under­stand politics. In South Australin the per­centagR for males and females is 25·02, which, dividvd by two, gives 12·G. There are a larger number of men on the roll than of women-some 82,000 men and 68,000 women ; ;;o that the division would be about 111, per cent. of female electors and 13~ per cent. of rn><le electors on the roll. And that is as :.tgainst 17 per cent. in (..lueensland. In Tasmania 11 per cent, of the peop]e voted. In New Zea­land, out of the electors on the roll, 7i5 per cent. voted at the election of 1893; 76 per cent. at that of 1896, and 77 per cent at that uf 1899. I have pointed out that in (..lueenslancl tile pro­portion was 79 per cent., which is larger than that in New Zealand. I have now completed the circle in the State9 as far as I am able, the figures for the la't election in Western Australia not being available. Let us now turn to countries outside Australia. In the United Statei', where the franchise is broader than in any other country in the world, at the last presidential election the voting was only 19 per cent. of the population. If hon. members dispute my figures, I would refer them to "1\iulhall," page 243. In the Fnited Kingdom only 11 per cent. of the population voted at the ·elec­tion of 1895, and 72 per cent. uf the electors on the roll. In France, one of the most advanced countries in Europe, 71 per cent. of the electors on the roll voted at the recent elections-or considerably less than in Queens­land. I want to know what standard of com­parison the hon. member who temporarily leads the Labour party is going to set up to compare things by. Tbis House consists of a body of intelligent men-they are the representatives of the people of Queensland, at all events-and they

482 Elections Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

have a right to know from him what standard he sets up beyond his own bald assertion. In Italy there is 1·3 per cent. of the population on the roll, and I think that Queensland stands

remarkably well in comparison with [4"30 p.m.] other countries. Now, it is not

after all a question of how many are on the roll, but how many of the persons on the roll are to be found in the country, and I propose to give some figures on that point. Up to 1893 thPy had the plural vote in force in New South \ValeR, and I hold in my hand a com­parison between the number of persons who voted under the system of one man one vote, and the number '"ho voted when tbey had plural votinr ; and th,, return I have shows that the abolition of the plum! vote has not reduced the number of electors on the roll to any appreciable extent. They have got every­thing in New So nth \Vales that they could desire with 1ega1'd to the extension of the franchise, and how has it panned <>ut? After all, the question we have to c'msider is not that some­body wants or does not want a particular system, but whether that sy 'tern tak0s us to our objective point. In New South ·wales they have no means, as we have, of purging their rolls except once in every three years. A man can be objected to at the first revision court, but once on the roll he remains there for three years ; and I have seen lots of N e.w S•mth Wales people in Qlleens)and in possession of their elector's rights, some of those s:tme people being on the roll in Queensland. \V ell, at the election in New South \Vales held in 189-i, just after the new roll was formed, there was a remarkably largepercentageof the electors who polled-about 80 per cent. ·what was the reason of that? Because there were not on the rolls just at tbat time a multitude of people who had gone off to other States or districts; but you will sec the remarkable falling off that took place at the next election, the reason being that although, as hon. members contend, there were 25 per cent. of the population on the roll, yet it was a stuffed roll. They were not there ; there were not as many bontt fide electors on the roll as there are in Queensland. Ooghlan says that at the first election under the new system in 1894, 204,240 votes were recorded, the electors numbering 298,817, and that number included 43,015 persons who were in possession of electors' rights and who could not be found. Yet they were included in the 2ii·47 per cent. of the population who were on the electoral roll which hon. mem­bers on the other side seem so proud of. Coghlan further says that the poll represJnted 80"37 per cent. of effective votes-by far the lar!:(est percentage of vote<, recorded at a general election in New South ·wales. At the next e]roti"n under the new Act there were 153,000 vote' polled out of a total of 252,000, and dedud­ing 14,000 names of persons who c•mld not be found, there were G4·66 per cent. who voted. At the next elec'ion the numbers fell to 56 ·41 per cent., and Coghlan says-

This shows a marked decline from the average of the two preceding elections, and it is difficult to offer ~m adequate explanation for this falling off in public interest. I think that show~ that the calculations of bon. members orposite are fictitious, because the men are not on the roll. [Mr. KERR : In Queensland thA men are here, and we cannot get them on the roll.] Very well, I will deal with that. I think the hon. member who introduced the Bill said he would confine himself to three po;nts, and the main point was that it was difficult. to get on the roll-that it was difficult to get claims witneSBed on account of having to go to a magistrate or a teacher or some other official to get them witne,sed. That same con­dition prevails in New South Wales, where the

Government has been kept in power for years past by the party hon. members oppo<ite are affiliated with. The same provision obtains in Victoria, and the same provision exists in New ;l,ealand. \V e hear a great deal about electors' rights in New 8onth \Vales, and one would think to hear hon. members that a man had only to get his elector's right in New South \Vales and carry it wherever he went and vote whenever an election took place; but no greater fallacy was ever put before a gulled public. Before the law was altered in New South \!Vales, a man had to go before the regis­trar personally and make a claim and sign his name: but tbat was found objectionable, and the law was altered so as to allow a man to get on the r,J!l by going before a magistrate and making a declaration and sending it to the registrar. And even now in New South \Vales they are at a wonderful disadvantage compared with the people of Queensland. In order to get an elector's right a man can go before a magistrate and make a declaration that he is entitled to an elector's right, and can have it sent to the nearest p,lliee office or the nearest post office, and then he has to go there personai!y and apply for his elector's right, and sign the butt, which goes back to the original office. So they have to make two declarations of signatures as com­pared to one in l,\ueensland. And even after a man bas got his elector's right, the right by itself ;., of no good to him. At the next revision court the registrar forms a list some­what similar to what is done here, except that the butt of the elector's right there takes the place of the claim here. vVhen that is sent to the revision court, objections can be lodged in exactly the same way as objections are lodged to a claim here ; and they do not get the same advertising there that they do here. There is a notice in the papers that there is a list hanging at such a place, and people can look at it. If that was done here it would be treason. If there is any objection lodged, or if there is no objection, and the tribunal decides that a man has the quali­fication stated, the name is placed ou the roll of electors. Y on can have all the electors' rights in the country, and if your name is not on the roll, the elector's right is of no value whatever to you. It is easier to get on the roll here than in New South \V ales. A man can come here from Eng­land, and after he has been six months here, he can be put on the roll; but he must be twelve months in New South \Vales before he can do it. He may be a qualified voter here in eight months, but it would take double that time in New South Wales. In which country, I ask, does the greater liberality of the franchise exist? If the hon. member for Barcoo, or "ny other hon. member, disputes what I have said, I have the whole of the echednles here, and any hon. member is at liberty to peruse them. Now let me come to South Australia, which is presided over by Mr. Kingston-or was. And let me say at once that they have a very crude form­notbing like our Act with respect to conveni­ence-what is called the Electoral Code, Act. They codified their electoral laws in 1896. \Vh2.t position are they in with regard to the electoral law there? ln Queensland there may be twenty or thirty polling-places in an elec­torate. I think there are twenty-seven in the electorate I have the honour to represent, and a man can vote ab any one of those twenty-seven polling-places. But in South Australia the Act and the form of claim show distinctly that you must state the particular polling·place where you are going to vote when you get your name on the roll; and if you go into another district where there is another polling-place you have to apply to the registrar to have your name trans­ferred, so that you may be able to vote at that

Elections Acts [ 4 SEPTEMBER. J Amendment Bill. 483

particular place. This, perhaps, accounts largely for the fact that the same number of electors do not go to the poll and record their votes as do in Queensland. Supposing we insisted on a similar condition, and required that every man in an electorate like that of the Barcoo should state the polling·place at which he in­tended to vote, what an outcry there would be in this Chamber. [.Mr. KERR: \Ve had to do it at one time in Qneens],nd.] There was no such provision in the Act of 1885, RO that it has not been the case for seventeen years, at :my rate. At one time there w"s a form in the cla1m which said that "man might elect to vote at a par­ticuhr polling-place if he liked; but he was not bound to do it. It is true that, under those circutnstances, 1nen sometirr..e~ n1ade a mistake, and elected to vote at a particular pullins;-place:; but tbnt was the result of ignor­ance. But in South Australia at the pre­sent time a man nmst elect to vote at a particular polling - place, and be must vote at that place, and "o other. \Vhat is the use of putting a man on the roll, and then imposing conditions which prevent him from exercising the right to vote? The Queensland law is much more iiberal in that respect. It may be defective in some points; it may aot please hon. members opposite, but it has its good features. If it suited the Government, we should not propose to bring in a new Bill. It does not suit us; we want to be in the van of progress, and that is why we propose to introduce

altering the franchise of this State s1mply because the Commonwealth Parliament happens to do something. "What particular sort of legislative capacity has the Commonwealth Parliament shown lately? It has disqualified hon. members opposite from even becoming candidates for a seat in that august Assembly unless they have been three months out of this House or any other Parliament. I believe that that provision limiting the choice of the electors of Australia is entirely unconstitutional. It is laid down in the Oommonwealch Elections Bill what the qualification of electors shall be, and I say it is impossible to ''Iter it, and for the clause to remain valid. But whether they can do that or not, does such a proposition show a broad, tolerant spirit which we should try to follow? Tbe Commonwealth franchise is restriction instead of expansion, an example to be a vuided. I am not going to talk this measure out. \Ve

are going to introduce a measure [5 p.m.] later on, and I am going to have a

great deal to say on it when it comes forward. I am only giving hon. members oppooite somethmg to think about on the present occasion, and I can assure them that there is absolutely nothing in the claptrap we hear about the country of the freedom of the people and of elector;:cl liberty. I believe that the position of the fr,wchise in Australia is not known to ninety-nine people out of every lOO in Queens­land, or perhaps in the States generally. I con­fess that it has been so often drummed into me by hon. members opposite that, before I gave the question some attention and some scudy, I really thought that the people of the other States enjoyed a greater degree of Eberty with regard to ti1e franchise than we do in Queensland. I was astonished to find out, however, that it is quite the reverse. I was not disappointed, beeause I knew that we had men here as broad and liberal as in any of the other States. I have no hesitation whatever in saying there is nothing in what bon. members opposite are con­tinually getting up in this House 'md on every cask and stump throughout the conntry and preaching with regard to our restricted franchise as compared with the franchise in the other States. \Ve are in a better position all round

a new Bill. I wish now to refer to another point, which was one of the main points of the hon. member for Rockhampton. Vvhen moving the second reading of this measum, the h<m. member suggested that thb State should regulate i its franchise, or electoral laws, in such a way i as to bring that franchise into line with the Commonwealth franchise. No hon. member who ever led a party in a responsible Chamber has displayed more lamentable ignorance in connec­tion with a subject than the hon. member did on , that occasion. The State franchise is the basis I

of the Commonwealth franchise, and not the Commonwealth franchise the \Jasis of the State franchise. And notwithstanding the provision which the Federal HousR of Representatives have put into the Federal Elections Bill that no ab.>riginal native of Australia, and no Chinaman, even if naturalised, shall have the right to vote at federal elections, every single aboriginal native and every Chinaman who is on the roll in , any State in Australitt has the right to vote for a i federal representative of that State. The Com­monwealth Constitution, which is an [mperial Act, and which can only be amended by sub­mitting the proposed amendment to the whole of the ele~tors of Australia, deals with this subject. Section 41 enacts that-

i with regard to the franchise. A greater pro­portion of the people are on our rolls, and a greater number of electors record their votes.

No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at electious for the Ill ore numerous House of Parlia­ment of a State sball, while tlle right continues, be pre­vented h\- any law of tbe Commonwealth from voting at electiOns for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

In the Commonwealth Election< Bill there is a footnote to the provision the hon. member referred to, stating tktt it was subject to section 41 of the Constitution Act. If any of those dis­qualified persons are prr1hibited by a State from becoming electors in that State, then the Com­monwe"lth prohibits them from voting at federal elections for that State; but if the St"te gives them the right to vote, the Commonwealth Parliament is power]e,s to prevent them from voting. Yet the acting leader of the Labour party tells this House that it is our duty tn conform to the electoral laws of the Commonwealth. The :hon. member wants to turn things upside down. I have not the least intention of being a party to

Having regard to the fact that there is an annual purification of the rolls in Queensland there is a f<tr larger proportion of the people of the State on the rolls than in the other colonies. In case there should be any doubt on the matter. I brought into this Chamber the figure< I have quoted, which are here for the pel'il,BJ of hon. members opposite, and which are signed by the Registrar-General of the State, and which sup-

' port the case I brought before the Chamber. [Government nwmbers: Hear, hear!]

1\Ir. LES.INA.: I entertain but very little hope that th1s Bill w!ll go through. I h"ve heard it said outside this Chamber by a prominent mem­ber on the other side that it is absolutely doomed. They have made up their minds tb.o_t the Bill will not pass, and, if it cannot bE- killed by a division, in which their names would h'we to be recorded, they will talk it out on Thursday after­noon. [The SEORllTAHY POR RAILWAYS: I did not talk it out.] \Ve have sat here ;,ilent while the hon. gentleman has talked f·n· two hours [The 8EORETAHY l<'OH AGRICULTURE: It is good matter, anyhow.] The quality of the matter was excellent; it is the applic<etion of the matter that I object to. I want to deal with one or two points, as briefly as I can, in connection with the number of people who are off the rolls in Q11eens­land. The figures qn<>ted by the bon. member for Bowen can be found in the speech of Senator

484 Elections Arts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendrnent Bill.

O'Connor in the Senate on the Federal Electoral Bill. Instead of going to the Registral-General, I have gone to the Blue Books and the census, and to the returns laid on the table of this House, showing the voters on the rolls in the various constituencies. [The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: That is exactly what I d1d, and I got the Registrar-General to verify them.] How does it pan ·out? I shall quote the hon. gentleman's own constituency as an gxan.ple. I tind that in the return laid on the t.::tble in 1000, on the motion of the hon. member for Hockhampton, .Mr. Kid"ton, the tom! nun.ber of electors is given for each electorate to so· h ,J nne preceding. Taking half-a-do~en of the tirst electorates that occur, I finrl that in Albert there w~re 1,588 per.,ons on the roll; and, looking up the cmhus returns, I tind that the t•>tal number of nw.les in that electorate was 2, 1-i!\. [The SECRETARY FOR HAlLWAYS: That is two years ctfterwards. Get the figures for the same year.J If you take a number of constituencies, the same thing happens. [The SECRETARY ~'OR RAILWAYS: The TII;"lll'8S

you ctre giving were those for 1899, and the census wa~ taken in 1901.] I am quoting the census figures for Hl01 as well as the figures from the return !Hid on the table of the Hr.nse for 30th June, 1\JOO. [The SECRETARY t'OR HAIL­WAYS: But the tigurt"S given in that return are for the year before that again.] It makes a little difference. [The SECRETAllY FOR Acmcl:LTcm;: You are comparing different things.] ::"ro, I 'lln not. I can take the figure' from the returns laid on the table for two or three yurs, and I find a gradual decrease in the number of electors in districts where the popu)ation ha:.; been increaBing. [Tht· t:lECRETAllY FOR RAlMI'AYS: There were about 400 navvies in the Albert ctt that time even.] I shD.ll place these figures on record. In Aubigny Lhere were 2,177 adult males according to the nen•ms, and there were l,,)Stl electors on the roll in 1D01. [Mr. MACARTNEY : There are 1,800 there now.] There is a di,parity then of some hundreds of men. In Balonne there were 2,129 adult rmtles and 1,403 on the roll. I believe there has been a slight increa''' since 1897. In Barcoo there are 1,9GO adult males in the district and 1,329 electors on the roll. They are well organised there, and yet there are some 400 or 500 men off the roll. In Bowen there are 2,351' adult male' and only 907 on the roll-t.hat is a, badly organised electomte. In North Brisbane there are 4,505 adult males resident within the bounds of the electorate, and only 3,444 on the roll. In South Bris­bane there are 4,593 adult males and only 3,606 on the roll. [l\lr. MACARTNEY : 4,000 now.l They generally hurry up about the elections ; but we wanted to ascertain exactly the number of people who could vote at the federal elections, and that is why the hon. mem­ber for Rockhampton moYed for thi.; return. In that year there were 103,3G9 on the rolls of the colony-that was in 1900. I do not know whether there are more now. [Mr. l\IACARTNEY: 111,000 now.] That is an increase of 8,000. I find in the Bulloo there are 1,484 adult males and only 557 on the roll. There has he<•n a slight increase there. [Mr. MACAR'l'NEY : There are 700 now.] There were 900 on the roll in 1896. In 1901 there were 1,441 adnlt males, and in 1897 the number of electors was 597. Taking those electorates alone, we find that out of a total of 28,108 adult males there are only 18,500 on the rolls, which means that there are 9,600 men who have no vote at all. From the census report I find that the number of adult males in Queem.!and, exclusive of those on board vessele, is lii6,972, while the return of the Prin­cipal Electoral Registrar shows that the number of voters on the roll is 99,982. [The SECRETARY l<'OR RAILWAYS: There are 30,000 kanakas, Asiatics,

and others who are disfranchised.] That means that there are 5G,990 adult males who are not on the roll. 'l'his number, it is pointed out, is decreased by those whose namesappectrupou more than one electoral roll. I know of one voter whose name is duplicated sixteen times, and there are many whose names are duplicated half­a-dozen times. To what extent the number­would be thus affected the Ref!istrar-Geneial admits that he is unable to form an opinion; but this fact remains: that there are 32,000 male Mlnlts in Queensland who are qualified to have vote~, but who h~tve nn vot1-s at all. [The Sgcm,'rARY FOR RAILWAYS: Take 111,000 from UiG,OOO, and :10.000 from that, and it brings it down to 13,000.] And take awpy the other 15,000 and there will be nothing left. ::\1any of those 32~000, the Regi:;;trA..r-General points out, are­probably visitors, i ravellers, recent arrivals, and others who fl.re not entitled to vote for various reasons. All the same there is a large number off the roll who ought. to be on it, and this Bill ,-dms at providing n1eans for those persons get tin~ on the rdlk On the eve of the referendum the late Sir J. R. Dickson fJromised usth .. t if we entered into the compact with the other States we should be gran1ed one man one vote. Four years have elapsed, and there is no prospect, as far as I can see, of this House being given the oppor­tunity of discussing one man one vote. Year after year it hcts been inserted in Governors' speeches and Premiers' manifestoes. :Members on both sicles are pledged to electoral reform; ctnd yet this is the only colony that has made no attempt to libemlise its franchise. It is perfectly sclndalou:S. It is a constant repetition t1f broken promhms. The country is crying out for a Bill like this, which will give facilities to many men scattered through Queensland to get their nmnes on t lw roll, and strike out of exis­tence that wretched piece of legislative blunder­ing-the property YO~,e-which gi\'es one n1an twenty-five vote,, and takes awcty those of 32,000. That is tbe kind of thing we are sent here to remove, and I hope hnn. members opposite will not adont the tactics they appear to hn.ve done of deliberately talking this Bill out. As to the Bill itself, there is only one thing in it to which I object-that is, the sub­section of clause 2 which prevents women from becoming members of this Assembly. As to that the constituencie., are the best judges. If a cnnHtituency choos' s to elect '1 woman to rPpre­sent it in Pctrliament, it should have a right to do so. Thctt argument wa" used in the House of Lords by a well-known Tory peer; it was, be said, the business of the consti­tuencies. No doubt the average woman will be perfectly content to exercise her vote at an election, but still she should have a right to a seat in Parliament; and if the Bill should ever get into committee, I shall vote againsb that particular pro vi -ion. My only reason for occupying a few minutes this afternoon was to place the figures I have quoted on record, so that the public may see that there is any quantity of room for improvement in our electoral law, and that this Bill, even though introduced by a private member, makes some attempt in that direction, andslwuld be supported, although I recognise the fact that it is almost impossible for a private member to get such a Bill through. The Government have in their mind a ln.rger scheme of electoral reform, and they seemed inclined to kill this scheme in favour of their own, which will not be brought down until the closing days of the session. I intend to vote for the Bill.

Mr. BURROvVS (Charters TMven) : I did not intend to speak, because it is the desire of this side of the House to come to a vote; but hon. members on the other side have decided that

Elections Acts [4 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 485

they will not allow a vote to be taken, and there­fore I will offer a few observations. I listened carefully _to the Secretary for Rail ways, and it seemed to me that the only point in hi8 speech was the blame he cast upon the other colonies for the effect" of their legislation. Now, if the hon. gentleman i' so well informed as to the defect" of electoral legislation elsewhere, why does he not use his influence to induce the GovernmBnt to bring in a perfect 1neasure? I -do not propose to deal further with the hon. gentleman's speech, which has been effectually pulled to pieces by the hon. member for ;.;Jermont. When a debate of this kind is adjourned from 'Thursday to Thursday, it is necessary for hon. member. to take notes, and I have a few notes of what thB Premier referred to. The hon. gentleman told us that he thought there was no business in the Bill, and then he referred to the Government !Jroposal which has been before us for so many years. \V e know that that promise is the same old bosh. It has been brought in year after year, but no attempt IS

made to bring the proposals to a definite issue. The hon. gentleman's attitude was entirely dif­ferent to that of hnn. members. sitting beside a.nd behind him. \Vhereas he did not discuss the Bill in detail, others are anxious to keep on talking. The Premier said th11t instead of being the strongest argument in favour of the Bill it was the weakest to assert that we ouii;ht to bring our legislat:on into line with that of the other colonies. It appears that if the word "Commonwealth" is introduced, it has the same effect as shaking a red rag in front of a bull. The hon. gentleman tuld us that he did not want to imitate the U1mmonwcalth in any way, and that he certainly did not want to imitate it by sitting sixteen months without a break. I think that is all the more credit to them. I wish this Parliament would sit without a break, and get thwugh the busi­ness of the country, instead of sitting only three days a week. \Ve ought to sit every day in the week, and get through our business. It is cer­tainly b~tter to sit for sixteen months without a break than to loaf for seven or eight months without a break. The Secretary for Agriculture and the Home Secretary took an entirely different attitude to that of the Premier. They wanted to have thA Bill discussed, and blamed us for not talking. The Secretary for Agriculture con· demned the hon. member for Rockhampton for introducing the Bill because a similar Bill bad been promised for ten years by the Government. That is the very reason why it was introiuced-because promises have not been fulfilled, and it is about time that some­body else took the matter in hand. The hon. gentleman said he did not know whether the Bill was expedient or not. I do not think that statement does much credit to his intelligence, because nine-tenths of the electors have demanded for years electoral reform. The hon. gentleman in his airy manner quoted from the preamble, "and to bring the franchise of Queensland into accord with that of the Commonwealth." Then he asked what is the law of the Commonwealth, and proceeded to tell us that there was no such law in existence, and therefore the action of the hon. member for Rockhampton was preposterous. ]fancy a Minister of the .Crown, and especially a Ministerfor Education, not knowing that there is a Commonwealth law on the subject! [The SJWRE­TARY FOR AGRICULTURE : There is only a Franchise Act.] The Home Secretary endeavoured, without success, to shield the bon. gentleman, but he failed miserably in the task, because his col­league had got himself too deep in the mire. A speech such as that delivered by the Secretary for Agriculture has the effect of keeping good men out of this House. Mr. Richard Adams,

the secretary of the National Liberal Union, was asked why they did not get a better class of candidates, and he said one reason was that the contest cost too much, and another was because men would not go to PCLrliament to waotf so much time in listening to men speaking for hours on subjects which they did not under­stand, simply for the purpo'e of getting their remarks into Hansa1·d. \Vhen such men as the Secretary for Agriculture show such ignorance and talk for hours on subjects which they do not nnderstand, it is no wonder that good men cannot be got to enter Parliament. I notice that the National Liberal Union has the laudable ambition to climb to the plane art'ived

at by the Labour party. After [il'30 p.m.] mentioning certain m>ttters, Mr.

Adams says: " \Vhen this has been achieved we shall then be on the same plane tts the so· called Labour party." That is a very estimable object; but members like the Secretary for Agr-iculture are preventing them from attaining that object. The hon. gentleman condemned the Bill because it did not provide for giving votes to aboriginals, and in doing so he showed that he was talking about some­thing of which he was ignorant, bec~use his colleague, the Home Secretary, took the hon. member for Rockhampton to task for giving a vote to aboriginals. The Home Secretary said the hon. member for Rockhampton was on the horns of a dilemma; but there were no horns on that dilemma. It was a sort of a poley dilemma, and I may say that the hon. member for Gympie had the Secret<Lry for Agriculture impaled on the born of a unicorn. (Laughter.) The Home Secretary said it was not desirable to alter the clauses now, because in fifteen months fresb legislation would be brought in. They are a very tired Government, and they are going to let things slide till then. ·with regard to wit­nessing claims, the hon. gentleman admitted tbat he knew of a justice of the peac8 who could not write his own name. He went so far as to say that a man who could not write his name, but had been appointed a justice of the peace, might perhaps be better qualified than many a one who could write. I think that I can state without fear of contradiction that the justice of the peace who could not write was certainly not a labour voter. 'rhe hon. gentleman told us that one gin might witness the claim form of another gin, and said he would charitably conclude that the hon. mem­ber for Rockhampton was blinded by love for his own bantling. Then he went on to give an anecdote showing the love a father had for his bantling by murdering it. It was •· most pPculiar form of love that induced a man to murder his own offspring. The hon. gentleman seemed more incensed because he thought a gin would get a vote than because a vote would be given to the aboriginal blackfellow; yet he told us about a blackfellow who murdered his child even with­out the gin's consent; so that if he got into heroics against aboriginals having votes, it should be against the males and not so much against the gins. The hon. member for Forti­tude V alley told us he did not want to talk the Bill out, but hoped it would go to a division. If that hon. member had not known that there would be sombody else ready to speak after him, he would probably have talked a little longer. He said he did not believe in one man one vote, and he said a man who had no property could leave the place when he liked. The fact was that a man with property was in a better position in that respect, because if he wished to do so, he could sell what he had and get away, whereas the individual without any property had not the means to shift. The hon. member further intimated that the man who paid the most taxes should get the most

486 Elections Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Anzendment Bill.

votes. Th~e Premier the other night said the most of our Customs and excise were derived from tobacco and sp1irts, so the hon. mem­ber for Fortitude V alley seemed to ad vacate that tobacoo-chewers should have three votes, and whiskey-swipers should have four votes. I have a few other matters noted here, hut I shall not refer to them, because I do not wish it to be understood that I am talking out the Bill. I hope that hon. members opposite will give us a chance to go to a vote, if not this Thursday, then the next Thursday when the matt~r comes on again. I i!o not suppose they will give us that chance, becanse they are afraid to vote against the Bill, and do not therefore want to go to a division.

Mr. PL UNKETT (Albert) : It seems to me that it is an utter waste of time discussing this Bill, and many other Bills which are introduced on a Thursday afternoon, because there is no busine~s in them. There is not the slightest chance of this measure going to a vote. The hon. member who introduced the Bill had a perfect right to do so, because I consider that the Government have been humbugging the people for the last two years on this sub­ject. Last year they introduced a Bill which they never intended to pass, and it is not their intention to allow this Bill which has been brought in by the acting leader of the Opposition to pass. Nor do I think it should pass. A Bill which affects every person in the State should be introduced by the Go­vernment, and until it is introduced by the Government it is not likelv to become law. The extension of the franchise to women has been promised before, but the Premier came nearer to a definite promise in the answer he recently gave to a deputation than any we have had hitherto; and seeing that he has promised to in~roduc.e a mev.sure embodying that principle thiil se ,sJon, I would suggest to the hon. member for Rcckhampton th,.,.t he should withdraw this Bill.

Mr. MARTIN (Hnrrum): .Judging from the speeches which have been delivered on both sides of the House, there is no douOt whatever that it is recognised that the time has arrived when we should allow more than 17 per cent. of the people to say who shall become their representatives in Pariiament. It is no credit to those who have charge of the electm.•J laws of Qneensla11d that the members of this House should be returned by 17 per cent. of the whole adult population of the State. The House appen.rs to be unanimous that the people should be entrusted with the power to return representatives-not representa­tives of 17 per cent. of the population, but repre­sentatives of the whole of Queensland. I listened with some amusement to the remarks of the Secretary for Railways with reference to the electoral laws of New South \Vales. I lived there for thirty years; but it seems that one has to go from home to get news. \Vhen electors' rights were issued in New South \Vales it was thought that thc,y were going to give every man a vote, and abolish plural voting ; but the result was that there was one man one vote and thousands of men no votes. J'l•hny men who had electors' rights could not find them at election times; others had removed from one district to another, and were debarr~d frnn1 voting; others, again, gave their electors' rights to farmers to keep for them, and when polling day came they were so far away that they could not use their right.3. I have known cases where men haYe gone about the day after an election holding up six or seven electors' rights and boabting that they had obtained them from men the day before for a glass of beer. And the electors' rights issued in New So11th Wales allow that sort of thing to continue. However, I do not

wish to detain the House any further on this matter. There is no excuse now for the Govern­ment of Queensland not bringing in a Bill to give adult suffrage.

Mr. P. J. LEAHY (War-r-ego): I have a grievance again•t the hon. member for Charters Towers, Mr. Burrows, became I have a few remarks to make on this question which I think may be of some interest to at lust a few mem­bers of the House, and the hon. member was so extremely long in deli,ering the interesting speech he made that he has not left me sufficient time to put my moderate and brief remarks before the House. It comes with very bad grace from a member like the hon. member for Charters Towers to talk out a measure of this kind, and I am wre it has not the approval of his leader. I was present when this Bill was introduced, and I was rather ourprised at the "conspiracy of silence" which appea:ed to exist on the other side. I was hoping that the hon. member for Gympie would enlighten us, and that even the hon. mem­ber for Charters Towers, lYir. Burro>< s, would give us some explanation in the matter. The latter hon. gentleman has now spoken on the matter, and had he don'l so in a comparatively brief manner I should have had an opportunity of making my speech this afternoon. I consider that hon. members opposite have adopted a very improper attitude in this matter. They have taken up a position of the man who goes into court and asks the court to give him a decision without hearing his case. If an hon. member brings in a Bill, he and the party with "horn he is associated should give adequate reasons to new members to enable them to make up their minds as to whether they will vote for or against that mEJasure. I believe in a measure of electoral reform, and if it could be shown to me thn.t this is a good Bill, anrl that it should pa>s, I would vote for it, not­withstandin;:; that it has l1een introdu~-"<l by the hon. member for Rockhampton. I am not one of those people who believe that "no good can come out of Nazareth." I heard some expressions from the hon. member for Rockhampton which were very good, but unfortunately the majority of his expressions and so-caller! arguments in regard to this matter, and those members who were as,ociated with him, were not sufficient to convince me that I should vote for this particular Bill. I do not wish to be understood as being opposed to elec­toral reform. I am a believer in giving a vote to every man who can be called a free citizen of this State, and when "' Bill is intro­duced in which business is meant I shall be found voting in favour of a comprehensive and liberal measure of electoral reform, not a mere fad and make-believe like this Bill. It was amusing to hear loon. members blame the Government for having no intention of intro­ducing a progressive measure of electoral reform. Have hon. members such bad memories that they do not remember last year? The Govern­ment then introduced a really liberal Eh ctnral Bill-a Bill that may have had one or two minor blemishes, but, on the whole, embodying a very valuable principle with regard to electoral re­form; and what W''S the attitude of hr.n. mem­bers opposite? 'l'hey 'killed it; they crucified it. That Bill would be the law of the land to-day if it were not for the factious opposition of hon. members opposite. I do not blome the acting leader of the Opposition particularly for this, because I understand he was taking a well­earned holiday; and, judging from the remarks of the hon. member when he moved the second reading of this Bill, some four weeks ago, it is quite possible that, if he had been in the House last session, wiser measures

Elections Acts Amendment Bill. [4 SEPTEMBER.] Income Tax Bill. 487

would have prevailed, and the Bill would have now been the law of the land. I do not widh to do hon. members on the other side any injustice, but it struck me then, and it strikes me now, that they deliberately killed that Bill. They did not want electoral reform, because they knew if that Bill had become law, when the general election came on in a few months their cry wonld be gone. They could not go to the electors and tell them, "You have a Government in power who deny you ele~toral reform." But by killing the Bill their stock-in­trade remained, and they were able to use this political weapon of offence against the party in power; and they made very good use of it. It comes, therefore, with a very bad grace from hon. members on the other side to accuse the Government now of \\ant of eincerity in con­nection with electoral reform. In the course of the speech of the acting leader of the Opposition, he mentioned that there was a clause which pre­vented women from sitting in this Hou,,e, and yet, as was clearly pointed out by the Home Secretary, under the Bill an aboriginal native of Qneenshtnd would have the ri'(ht to vote for the election of members of Parliament, and, conse­quently, the right of being elected to Parli!:ament. It is quite possible that we should witness the extraordinary spectacle of a blackfe!low or a black gin ,sitting on one of those benches. It mig·ht be urged that the electors of Queensland would not clo anything so extraordinary. [Mr. KIDSTON: It would not be the first time you have seen them sitting on benches.] I am sure that the hon. member has a much mnre extensive and intimate acquaint:<nce with black people of both sexes than i hav<·, because it has al\\ ayc< been my aim in going through life to maintain the whiteness of my soul in every respect. I was about to remark when I was interrupted that we might witness the extraordin:try S]JeCtacle of a black gin sitting, probably, on that side of the House. [The SECHETARY l!'OH AGRICULTURE: Alongside the acting leader nf the Opposition.] I do not think that, because I belie ;e the bon. mem­ber holds with the idea expressed by Brunton Stephens in one of his pieces, where he ~ays, referring to a black gin-

Good heavens! Could ever arm of man enfold thee? Did the same Xature that made Phyrne monld thee:"'

In another place, thinking of her lover-because he presumed she had a lover--he said-

And doth he ki~s thee :J Oh, my soul prophetic~ The \ ery notion is a strong emetic.

[Mr. KIDSTON: It is evidently a subject yon are well up in.] I do not yield to the hon. member in my knowledge of poetry, but I certainly do yield to him in my knowledge of black people. That is such an outrageous hlot on the Bill that, if there were no other blot in it-and it abounds in them-that in itself wonld be sufficient to consign it to oblivion. The hon. member was quite emphatic, when moving the second reading, with regard to women occupying a seat in this House. This is what he said : "It proposes to gh e them only one part of the right or privilege to which they are entitled; but, once they get that part, it would be their own fault if they did not attain the other part also." I yield tn no person in my desire to see the injustices women have laboured under rectified. I believe that they >houJrl be permitted to exercise tbe franchise in exactly the same manner as men ; but I am not prepared to go beyond that. vVe give them the franchise in connection with divisional board and municipal elections, but we do not permit them to sit on boards or councils. I may, of course. be reminded that a Mrs. Y a tea wrts on one occasion the mayor of a town in New Zealand, but I do not think she, as a mayor, was such a success that

we should be too anxious to follow the example in Queensland. If it can be shown that women have not been a success in minor matters-because, after all, divisional board and municipal council matters are minor matters - I take that as conclusive proof that in the larger legislative sphere women would not be a success; and it is for that reason that, whilst as anxious as anybody that women should have the privilege of voting, I am par­ticnlarly opposed to giving them the right to s_it in this House. [Mr. KmsTOX : I hope you w1ll have the gr:1ce to allow us to adjourn the debate.] I have a great deal to say on the matter, and if permitting the adjournment of the debate will not prevent me resuming my remarks at a later date, I shall be most happy to give way.

At 7 o'clock the House, in rwcor'dance with Sessional Order·, proceeded with Government business.

INCOME TAX BILL. HESUMP'J'ION m· CmiMITTEE.

Question-That clause 29-" Employer may be declared agent for employee"-stand part of the Bill-Htated.

The TREASuRER: As hon. members were aware, the object of the Bill was to collect revenue, and it ".>s desirable to collect It as inexpensively as pcssible. In all tax<·tion pro­po-.t!s, and cspPcially in an Income Tax Act, very large powenJ must uf ncnes.sity be given to the CommiL ,ioner; but it did not follow that becaiLe tho.se powers were given they would neces,.arily be exercised. Knowing that those powers existed, people would not do what they might otherwise do. The question was whether, a man having rleliberately refused to pay the tax, the Con1rni•.,;iuner shnuld hrtve the power to go to the place where the taxpayer derived his income, and collect it fwm his employer. It was said that that would be annoying to the employer ,,f lahonr, and he frc- ly admitted that if the employer had to collect the tax from all his ernpluyees it would be a very harassing thing. But he did not anticipate anything of the kind. He w.:.s satis­fied that the knowledge tl·~t the power existed in the Commissioner to col!ect the tax where the income was earned would have the desired effect. He believed all right-thinking l'eople would pay toe tax as it came due if they had the means to do so. If they had not, they would have to satisfy the Commissioner that it would entail gTeat hardship upon them to pay the tax. But it wonld not do to onc<Jurago those persons, if t.here were any, who were disin­clhwd to pay the tax, not because t!1ey were unable, bnt because they were unwilling, and they would no doubt prefer to pay it through their employers than to have it drawn out of them by civil process in the courts. The proposal contained in the Bill was more ef)uitable and less hara"'·~ing than anything sngJested by hon. rnembers opposite. ~\_s hon~ members had taken some excej,tion to the phraseology of the clause, he had httd an amend­ment prepared which made it clear that the employer would not be called upon in Hny way to collect the income tax from his employees unless there had been defnult in tbe fi st instance~ and then the Oomrni~";ioner would be able to ·protect himself by an appeal to the employer. He moved the omission of lines 35 to 49, with a view of inserting the following:-

(1.) In any case where any taxpayer mnpl0\'8'1 by any 11erRon, loe<il authority, <:orporation, board. comrni:-.,ion, or body has in any yeat· failed to pay the incon1c tax

488 Income 'l'ax Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] lncome Tax Bill.

payable by such taxpayer, the Commis~ioner may declare such person, local authority, corporation, board, emn­lnission, or body to lJe the ap;ent of such tHxpayer so far as respects the in:Jome by way of ectrning8, salary, wages, allowanees, pension, Ol' stipend paid or allmved by him or it to snch bxpaycr, a.nd may giv,l notice to such agent setting forth the fact that such taxpayer has failed to pay the tax payable by him, and requiring such agent to pay the same on behalf of such tax­-payer.

(2.) 'rhereupou every such ag-ent shall deduct and re­tain ftom t,irnc to time ont of such earnings, salnry, wages, allowances, pension, m· stipend rc·~peetively so 1nuch as is sufficient to pay such income tax, aud shall pay the same in pursuance of this Act..

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted ste<nd part of the clanse--put and negatived.

Mt. COOPER said he was perfectly "ertain that every employer in the \Vest would object most Btrongly to the elause. }Tor yc.trs the employer; and employee., had fought an open battle, and now that they had come to under­stand each other the Government came forward with the proposal which would make them abso­lutely antagonistic. He objected to the clause and would vote against it. '

Mr. KIDSTON (Rnckharnpton) : It seemed to him that the proposal of the 'l'reasnrer was simply a cheap device for turning the employEJrs of the State into persons who should give effect to the garnishPe orders of the Government without any remuneration. He would suggest th<>t when any taxpayer earning wages intimated to the Commissioner that he was willmg to have his employer appointed his agent for the collection and payment of the income tax, and that such employer was willing to act as his agent, then the Commissioner should have power to appoint such employer as the taxpayer's agent. Until an intimation Wt>R made by the taxp<>yer that he was willing for his employer to deduct a certain amount from his wages, he thought it was alto­gether bad in principle that they should give the employer power to make any deduction without consulting the man who had earned the wages .. If both the taxpayer and the employer were w1lhng, of course that was another matter but he believed as the amendment stood it wa~ absolutely bad.

.T~e TREASURER: If the taxpayer was not wlllmg to pay the tax himself he would not be wi]ling fo_r _his employer to pay it for him, and th;.s proviSIOn was necessary to ent>ble the Com­miSSIOner to call upon the employer to pay in those cases and deduct the amount from what was due to the employees on whose account he paid the tax. His <>menclment did not deal with r;ersons .'~ho were willing to pay the tax, and this provisiOn was no more stringent than the clause which t>ppearecl in the Bill originally.

* The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Hon. Sir A. Rutledge, Mo,rano(f,): It seen,ed to him that the <>mendment suggesteci by the acting leader of the Opposition would rerluce the clause to an absurdity, and it was not likely that the Committee would corrnnit itself to anything like that. There was a principle analogous to this in the V al nation and Rating Act of 1890, which provided that, in the absence of any expres~ provision to the con­trary between the partie<, a mte leviable upon property occupied by a man must be paid in the fir,;t instauce by the occupier, but that the occupier could tender to the owner the amount of rent clue les" the amount of ra'es, and the owner was bound to accept that. This was . a very effectual way of obtaining from a third person the amount of taxation which anot~~r person w~s liable to pay under the Pl:ovislOns of the Bill. It was a principle of the Bill that everybody should pay something and unless it was desired that there should 'be a

number of persons who could evade payment of the tax, there must be some provision by which empl0yers could be called upon to pay the tax with resr,ect to employees who failed to pay it themselves, and deduct the amount from wages clue to tLose employees. He hoped the <>cting leader of the Opposition would not pur,ue a course that would make the legislature appear ridiculous.

:\fr. AIREY (F/indc>'s) could not agree with the clause in the Bill, or the Treasurer's amendment, or the amendment sug-gested by the acting leader of the Opp. ,sition. rrhe Trf iRUr~r's ainendment was practically the same as the ciause, with the important exception that the Government was to collect the tax from decent men who were willing to pay, and the employer was to colleut it from those who had not the decency to pay it in the ordinary way. One thing more disagreeable than paying taxe:; was coli• cting them, and it was propotied, under this clause, to force on the employer both the tax and the duty of collecting it, thereby inflicting on him what he would con­sider a double injustice, because as a rule em­ployers were oppooed to the income tax. There were sufficient causee for friction between em­ployers,ancl employees without a clause of this kind providing a fresh one.

Mr. KENNA (B01un) thought the difficulty might be overcome by adopting theN ew Zealand practice of requiring employers to furnish the· Government with part.iculars of persons employed and wages paid by them. It seemed to him thatJ the collection of the tax was a duty that should be done by the State itself.

Mr. HARDACRE (Leichhardt) quite agreed that where a taxpayer woulrl not pay the tax, the

Government had a right to appoint [7.30 p.m.] anybody they chose to collect it; but

the oc jection to the clause was that it compelled an en:ployer to collect the tax, and thus forced upon him a very obnoxious duty. The clause as it was now framed was an absurdity, inasmuch as it proposed to make the employer collect the tax on an income which had been paid to the employee, not for that year, but for the previous year, and possibly by some other em­ployer. How could such a provision be made workable?

Mr. MACARTNEY (Toowono): The objection of hon. members opposite was that the clause sought to make an employer a tax-collec~or for the State; but thelegiolaturehad incertaincasesmade the employer a debt-collector, and why should they not extend to the Government the same relief as they extended to an ordinary creditor? '!'he acting leader of the Opposition complained that the employer would be made a t<>x-collector without any remuneration. But in the case of a garnishee the employer was neither consulted nor paid for his services. If the clause was amended to suit the views of the acting leader of the Opposition, it would be made ridwulous. There ar,peared to be a feeling pervading the Committee that because certain hon. members were ag<>inst the Bill it was their duty to endeavour in every possible w;~y to make it ridiculous, instead of bowing to the decision of the majority and try­ing to make it as effective t>S possible.

Mr. OANLI<;RON (B,·isbcme N01·th) : The amendment appeared to him to be worse than the original clause. The Premier stated the previous evening that very few employers on that side of the House took exception to the clause. He (Mr. Oamernn) was an employer, and in this matter he represented a great m<>ny other employers in Queensland, and, speaking on their behalf, he had no hesitation in con­demning the provision. For years past he had used his best endeavours to establish friendly relations between employers and employees in the Western country, but if this clause were

Inl'ome Tax Bill. [4 SEPTEMBER.] Income lax Bill. 489

passed it would destroy those friendly relations, because in its operation it would be objectionable to the employers and extremely offensive to the employees. He should oppose the amendment.

Mr. DUNSFORD (Charters Towe>·s): 'fhe clause was ohjectionaJleeven in its amended form, as it would creo,te a number of unwilling debt­collectors, who would be requeste.d to collect debts from men who, in many cases, could not pay their butchers' or baker,' bills. Hon. members would scarcely o,gree th .t an employer should be made a collector of rem, doctor·<', butchers', and bakers' bills. 'Why, then, should they compel an em· plover to becom<3 1 debt-collector for the State?

Mr. ARMSTJWNG(Locky,r): Tloe hon. mem­ber for Toowong must know that it was very im­proper to attribute motives to any member in the Chamber. Because he (Mr. Armstrung) happened to be opposed to this o,mendment, and had spokPn against it, and would vote against it, \Vas he to be told that it was because he wished t•l wreck the Bill? He refused to allow any such "tate­ment in regard to him to go mi.rllsput~d. He contended that Parliament should not ask an employer to make any deduction from the wages of his employees, whether they were casm1l or permanent. The Home Secretary had quoted the case of those engaged in the pearlshell industry in Torres Str<1its; but did the hon. gentlenun mean to place the white men of (~ueens­land on the same level a' those aliens? He repre­sented a very large number of men, some of whom employed more labour than he did, and some less, and he refused absolutely to cast upon them a work which the Government, by the clause under discussion, declared themselves unable to do. A great deal had been said by the hon. member for Clermont and by Ministers ab<mt the difficulty of collecting such small amounts; but there had been no difficulty in the past in collecting amounts as small as· 2s. 6d. under the stock tax and the meat and dairy tax by me.~ns of the police in C•mntry district8. Surely the same means could be adopted in the present instance. Such a proposal should never have emanated from the Government, and he intended to vote against both the amendment and the original clause.

Mr. MARTIN : The amendment was very much worse than the original clause, becaURe the em players were only to be made collectors of the tax when there was a difference of opinion between the Commissioner and the man who had to pay the tax. The Commissioner then asked the employer to do the dirty work. During his experience of municipal life, the local authority was continually being served by storekeepers with contra accounts against the employees of the local authority, and the local authority had to put a stop to it. That was what would happen in this case. Employers would be asked to act as collectors. A tax that could not pay the cost of collection was no tax at all.

Mr. STORY (Balonne): Hon. members started with the assumption that everyone would evade the tax if possible, and that they would look with an amount of di,taste upon any man who attempted to collect it. He could imagine a state of things where the employees wonld be perfectly willing to pay the tax, and it would be a convenience for them to pay it to their employers rather than pay it direct. He saw a difficulty in another direction, and would like the Treasurer to make an expla­nation. When an employerreceived notice that an employee of his had not paid the tax due the previous year, he was instructed to collect the money. It seemed, from the wording of the amendment, that the employer must pay it to the Commissioner in one sum, although he might only collect it from time to time. That did not seem to be a very great objection, because in

very few cases would the amount be more than 10s. or £1. If the employer was not empowered to cCJ!lect the amount of the tax piecemeal, it might be very hard upon an employee to deduct nearly the whole nf his weekly w•ge to satisfy the Government. At the same time, a man who was willing to pay the tax would just as soon pay it through his employer as direct to the Commissioner.

Mr. J AOKSON (Kennedy): ·while he thought the amendment was decidedly better than the original clause, it was otill very objectionable. The argument of economy, used last night, seemed to have been discarded, for it was assumed ther8 would be very few ca,es cf default. The Let seemed to be that the Gov1-1rnment, having passed a poll tax, were nut game to collect it, and wanted to shift the odium from themselves to the employers. \Vhy could not the Government sue defaulters in the ordinary way in a court of law, and proceed by levy and distress? Were they unwilling to face that position? If defaulters were going to be few, where would the expense come in? Seeing that so many hem. members on both sides were against the amendment, it would be better not to press it to a di,·ision.

'l'he PRK\HER (Hon. ll. Philp, Townsville): The Government took up the pusition last night that all the taxes were payable at the office, that they were not going to send round tax-gatherers at all. If pec,ple did not pay, there was power in the Bill to make them pay. But it would save some employees both money and trouble if they paid the amount through their employers. He be­lieved the great majority of people were honest and would pay the tax, and that there would not be oo much trouble in collecting it as some hon. members anticipated. It was no new thing for employees to contribute to hos­pital funds and accident association funds through their employers; they did it willingly. They had heard about the dreadful garnishee;

but employers had to collect that [8 p.m.] now without payment. He under-

stood that the unions sent men round to collect money, and that the man who did not pay could not get work. The Government did not propose to do anything of that sort. All they desired was to discover the most efficient and economical way of collecting the tax, and the cheaper it was collected the better for the people of the colony. Snrely it would be better for the employers to collect the tax than that men should be summoned and have to pay costs, in addition to the tax. Another suggestion was that the police should collect the tax, but he thought that would be a ve1y bad thing.

Mr. NORMAN (Nlaryborough): There was no danger in allowing the employer to collect the tax from a man in constant employment, but in the case of the casual employee it was very different. The employer might have to pay away the whole amount earned, and when the employee came for his wages he might be met with the statement, "I have had to pay 10s. or £1 for you, and there is nothing coming to you." The result wonld be that the employer's good nature would be im­posed upon, and he would have to pay a good many sums of 10s. to accornmod::tte men in casual employment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Bill provided that when the Commissioner knew that a man was in employment, and had not paid the tax upon his previous year's income, it could be obtained through the employer. The hon. member for Mo,ryborough mentioned that in the case of a casual employee the employer would be compelled to pay the tax, but that was not so. There was a provision byw hich a man who could not pay by reason of poverty could be exempted by the Commissioner from payment.

490 Inrome Tax Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Income Tax Bill.

There was a special provision in the amendment which relieved the employer from deducting the whole sum at once. He might deduct 6d. or ls. a week from the amount payable by him to the employee. The hon. member for Kennedy had suggested the expedient of obtaining a garnishes order against the employer, but that would mean extra expenses, which would be demandable as well as the tax. \Vhy should a man be made to pay costs in that way when it might be a case of simple negligence on his part in regard to paying the tax? The Commissioner was not likely to act the tyrant, and he would not be fit for his position if he did not manage in mch a way as to avoid all unnecessary friction. JI.J:ost employees would pay the tax voluntarily, and it wonld only be in a limited number of cases that the employer would be required to pay the tax, and deduct the amount from the wages of the employee. He thought hon. members should cease to raise difficulties which were only imaginary. This was a simple and economical way by which the tax could he collected, under judiciqus manage­ment, wit bout any friction at all.

Mr. LESIJ\'A: Tbe difficulty he saw in the provision was in connection with the poll tax. He was in favour of an income tax, and this machinery clanse was the simplest and most expeditious and economical method of collection from persons who failed to pay when the tax was due. Under the Treasurer's amendment, it was only after the Commissioner had made an effort to coilect the tax and had ;ailed that he would call in the assistance uf thr employers. He was surpri~ed tllat hon. l!I~'>Inber.-3 ~hould object to this provision when they had passed previous clau,es in which the garnishee prin­ciple had been adopted to some extent. There could be no sincerity in the belief in the necessity for thi" form of taxation, which the Labour party had advoce~ted in season and out of season for many year::.;, if n1em bers were not anxious to assist the Government in iwpo<;;ing that tax in such a way as would pay for col­lection. Clans'' 4:1 of the Bill interferE 1 with the private rights and liberLies of individuals, inasmuch as it provided that when a member of a company was an absentee such company should be deemed to be the agent of bUCh member, and should pay the tax on his beho.lf. Clm,se 7!\ imposed a penalty on any person car!-ying on business who refused, when requestGd by the Com­missioner, to disclose the name and re~idence of the person entitl~J to receive or pJrticipate in the income or rent derived from such business, \Nhich was another interference with the rig-hts and lib­erties of private individuals; so that the principle of the clause under discussion was embodied in other parts of the Bill. If hon. m em hers were going to persist in finding difficulties in impo·iug this direct taxation, then they mig-ht expect that it they got over to tbe other side and attempted to impose a direct tax on land, they would be met with sirnilar difficulties. They were making a whip for their own b8cks. X o cheaper method of collecting the tax than that proposed in the cla.nse had been suggested, and they had no reason to believe that employers would object to the provision. One hon. member who was an employer stated this evening- that he did not approve of the clause; hut he '111dPrstood that the two hon. members lot North Brisbane, the hon. member for Herbert, and two or three other hon. membere on that side. desired to take every opportunity to kill the Bill. [Mr. O.niERON: You have no reason at,,,]] to say that about me.] The discussion had gradually formed in his mind a conviction that there was a desire to kiil the Bill. Personallv h8 lJelieved that it would be an advantage to the employee if, instead of losing half-a-day's wages going to the Treasury, and hanging about there interviewing ll1f:::ssengers,

and being pushed from post to pillar in the endeavour to pay his tax, he could pay it at his employer's office. He should support the clause as proposed to be amended more willingly than he would support the original clause.

Mr. OAMERON denied most emphatically that he had any desire to kill the Bill. It was well known to hon. members that he did not approve of the Bill, and that on the division he 1·oted with the minority of five against it; but the majority of the House having affirnwd that it \Vas necessary to in1pose an ir1con1e tax, and that this Bill should become law, he loyally accepted the position. At the same time, there were provisions in the Bill to which he took exception, and he was perfectly justified in objecting- by his voice and vote to those pro­visions.

Mr. HARDACRE : If there was a.ny force in the hon. member's arguments at all, they were in favom of the original clause, which did pro­

vide an efficient and cheap means [8·30 p.m.] of collecting the tax; but the amend-

ment proposed to abandon that means, and provided machinery for making the employt"" collect the tax in exceptional cases where the Commissioner failed to obtain pay­ment. [The PREllriEil: l said last night, and I say again to·night, that everyone is expected to pay his tax into the Treasury; but, if he does not, his employer will be asked to collect 1t.] Then the Commissioner would have to write to every taxpayer in the first instance, and he aRsun1ecl that the police wo11ld go round in country districts to collect the tax. [The PHllMIEB : None will go round collecting the tax. All the taxee will have to be sent in to the Treasury.] Then why bring•in such a clause? [The PREli!IER: For those who do not send in their tax.] If that was the case, and it was only in isolated eaees where people did not send in the amount of their t:~.:x, thEre :l.S no neces~ sity for the machinf•ry provided in the clause. The Govennnent had nu right to n1ake an en1-ployer do dirty work which the Commissioner could nCJt do himself. Supposing an employee refu~ed to pay th•: tax to his employer, how was the empl0yer goi1:g to enforce it? [The PREMIER' The employer would very likely inform the Com­missioner, who would take him to court, and it wouU cost him more than the an101.mt of the tax.] But under thi8 clause the employer was compelled to co.1lect the tax under a certain penalty.

The CHAIRMAN : Order, order ! 'When I call " Order," it is only becoming on the parb of hon. members that they should respect my direction. [Honourable members: Hear, hear!}

i\Ir. HARDAORE: The employer was com .. pelled to collect the tax, under a penalty not exceeding £50. [The PRE11IER: The penalty is knocked out-.] \Vel!, that was something, and it woul.d not be so objectionable if it were pro­vided that the consent of the employer should be obtained before appointing him to collect the tax, and he might even be allowed the cost of collection.

Mr. HA \VTHOltN (Enoggera): The amend­ment would be far less harast-ing to the employer, as it would only be practically in the case of what was equivalent to gar11ishee prl~ceedings that they would have to collect the tax, so that his objection to that ]Jortion of the clause was removed. At the same time they should have something more than a withdrawal of the penalty, and he W'Juld suggest the insertion of a clause expressly stating that for any default in collecting the tax such agents should not be liable to any penalty. .

Mr. P J. LEAHY: Speakmg as an employer of labour, he did not think toere would be any great trouble in getting employer" to collect the

Income Tax Bill. [4 SEPTEMBER.] Income Tax Bill. 491

tax in the manner proposed in the clause as it stood, which he preferred to the amenr1ment. It would provide a very cheap and expeditious method of collecting the tax. <\_s to the objec­tion that it would create friction, and t.hat there would be a difficulty in keeping men, as the scheme would apply to all employers of labour, and as it was necessary for men to get work, he failed to see where the difficulty c<tme in. He should prefer to see the clause made permissive on the part of ern players to collect the money before default had been made. The men them­selves would be gainers, and it would be much simpler for them to pay in the money, and for the employer to send in one cheque for the whole amount. The men would prefer doing that to having to go to the nearest police stati<m to pay it.

Mr. KERR (Barcoo): While he believed in an income tax, he did not believe in a poll tax, or in the machinery proposed for collecting it. It would be next Lo impossible for employers of casual labour to collect it. The Premier said no man would be employed who had not paid his 10s. or .£1 to the union. That was not the case in Queensland, where there were many men who had been unable to pay their contributtons for the last two or three years. A man was only a mem­ber of the union for the period for which he took out his ticket. If he missed a year, he was not returned as a member. Had the Government granted even the smallest exemption that the Lauour party asked for, they would not have been confronted with the present difficulty. He was certain that if the amendment was passed very few employers would carry it out.

Mr. PAGET (Mackay) pointed out that under the Sugar Experiment Stations Act of 1900 one man was made liable for a tax owing by another man, and he was empowered to deduct the money owing by the grower of cane. That was a somewhat analogous case to the one before them. La-t season there was something like .£4,000 paid to the Minister in charge of that Act under the operations of the Act, and one-half of that amount could have been deducted by the sugar­mill owner from the grower. O( course, the sugar-grower was not in exactly a similar position as the employee under this clause, hut he wished to impress upon hon. member" that the power existed in an Act already in forcE' whereby one man acted as agent for the Government in the collection of a tax payable by another man.

Mr. RYLAND (Gympie): No one was contra­dicting the principle that one man might under the Bill act as agent for another man. That wae provided for under clause 24, which was passed last night without discussion. In the casP the hon. member quoted, the payment was not for personal exertion, but the debt was due on the property. Income tax upon property could be collected quite independent of the amendment moved by the Treasurer, as the occupier could always be made the agent. The Attorney­General quoted the procedure under the Local Government Act to show that the tenant paid the taxes a.s occupier, and afterwards could tender his receipt as legal tender to the owner. That was quite right. The local authorities did not go hunting around for the ownet·. They simply went to the tenant, and intimated that the pro­perty owed the local authority so much, and that he must pay as occupier, and settle with the landlord afterwards. The proposal they were considering now was to get the poll tax portion of the Bill from the employer. This provided that a local authority might be

made a collector, but he thought [9 p.m.] local authorities had enough to do

to coliect their rates without col­lecting this tax for the Government. In any

case the position of tax-gatherer was an objec­tionable one; and as an employer of labour he objected to the slur of being called a tax-gatherer. .Everything connected with this portion of the tax was most objectionable. Members on his side were accused of being against the income tax because they opposed this provisicm, but that was not so. \Vhat they did wae to point out the results which would follow from the imposition of the tax as proposed by the Govern­ment.

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. member that he is adopting a very discursive method of discussing the amendment.

Mr. RYLAND: Instead of getting the em­ployers to collect the tax, provision mi~>;ht be made for the postmasters to collect it. The Attorney-General had forgotten to point out that though the employer might not ask the em­ployee to pay the full amount of the tax at one time, still it was imperative on the employer to pay the full amount. It might be the means of cau.sing men to go away. A man whose income tax had remained unpaid for two years might consider his job was not likely to last more than a few weeks, and he might not think it worth his while to remain and work a dead horse. He hoped the Committee would reject the amendment.

HoN. E. B. FORREST (Bri.1uanc North): He took it that any hon. member who was prepared to vote against clause 29 would also vote against the amendment, bec~use the difference between the two was scareely worth talking about. \Vith re,ference to the argu­ment that under the Local Government Act tenants sometimes paid taxes and then passed them on to the landlord, and that under the Garnishee Act an employer sometimes paid the debt' of an employee, afterwards deducting the amount from wages due, he would ask how often tho·'e things occurred? He had been in busin•'' here for the last thirty-five years, and during that time he had never been ulled upon to pay under a garnishee order. He had in his hand the wa:;es list of Jumpers 8lll]Jloyed on the "Duke of Portland." It was dated the 12th of last month, and was fr>r three broken days. The nu1nber of na1nes on the list was forty~ four, and the amounts paid r::tnged from £1 2s. 9d. to 5s. Suppose the encployer had to collect a tax of £1 from the man who received £1 2s. 9d., and he handed the man only 2s. 9d., would there not be very strong language used? And he should like to know what would happen when,. person had forty-four men to deal with if he deducted .£1 or 10s. from their wages. An employer had no right whatever to do such a thing. The men had served their two or three days, and were entitled to their money. The name "\Villiams" occurred no less than four times on this sheet, and they might have half-a-dozen "Smith's," "\Villian1s's," "Buckley's," and "}~ass's" on the wages-sheet. :\Iany of these men worked on the ''Duke of Portland" to-day and on the "\Vodonga" to-morrow, possibly under another name, and how were they going to follow those men? The Government were imposing upon employers no end of trouble, and it was absurd to attempt to saddle them with a duty of this sort. His colleague, l'vfr. Carneron, had thought it necessary to explain to the hon. member for Clermont whether he want0d to kill the Bill or not. He (Hon. E. 13. Forrest) did not think it necessary to explain to anybody what his motivr s were in voting. Hon. members could judge of his position by what he said and how he voted, and 1t was not for the hon. mem­ber for Clermont or anybody else to question his motives. He should vote against the amend­ment, and if the clause went to a division he should also vote against that.

492 Income Tax Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Income Tax Bill.

Mr. TUH.NER (Rockhampton North): The more the~· considered the clause, the more it bristled with difficulties. 'Where employer and emvwyee were mutually agreed, it would be an easy way of cnllecting- the tax, but he objected to the duty being forced upon any employer against his will.

Mr. KIDSTON : Tbe hon. member for Bris­bane North had just pointed out how difficult it would be for employers to collect the tax, and how much trouble it would entail, and that was a m·•tter they should consider before passing such a clause. He made no pretence of wishing to provide the Go,·ernment with a cheap and easy way of collecting the obnoxious poll tax. He did not want to see it collected at all; but, if the Government impused it, they should certainly bear all the odium 8f collecting it, and not put it on employer>, besides saddling them with a penalty of £50. [Mr. FORSYTH: That is withdrawn.] It w~ts not withdrawn. lt was quite true that the Treasurer had withdrawn the penalty from his amendment, but that would not remove employers from the penalty imposed in clause 83. [The PRE)!IER : That can be altered when we come to tbat clause.] It could not be eliminated from clause 83 without emasculating the Bill ~tltogether. The amend­ment sugg,-sted by the hon. member for Enog­gera was necessary, stipulating that employers should not be subject to any penalty, despite the provisions in other parts of the Bill. That was the only way in which they could remove that unfair liability.

Mr. BURROWS:· As the question of inter­ference with the liberty of the subject had been raised, h·' would like to quote from a work by D. G. Ritchie, 1I.A., on State interference.

The CHAIRMAN: Unless the hon. member carries out his intention in a very different way from what I anticipate, he will find some diffi· culty in reconciling the line of argument he intends to follow with the question before the Committee.

Mr. BURRO\VS : The clause proposed to compel employers to act as collectors, and that was an interference by the State with their liberty. [The hon. member then proceeded to quote from the work referred to.]

The CHAIRMAN : I am bound to tell the hon. member that I think that, at the committee stage of a Bill, he is going too far in reading principles laid down in text-books. The hon. member must really see that himself.

Mr. BURROWS could not see why they should compel a private individual to fight a battle that the Commissioner himself refused to fight. One phase of the question had not yet

been referred to. It appeared from [9•30 p.m.] the report of the Labour Bureau

that certain employers of labour, to whom men had been forwarded by train, had forgotten to remit to the Rail way Department the amount of the fares they had collected from those men. Might it not happen that under that clause many employers would collect the tax, but would not p:>..y it in? In that case the Commissioner would have no remedy, because he would not know the number of men employed by large employers of labour. Indeed, it would be quite possible for the employers to make a good thing out of it. If the Government would, even now, drop the iniquitous poll tax there would be no necessity for such a vile progosition as that before the Committee.

Dr. GARDE (Maryborough): Whether they liked the tax or not they must face the position, which was that the money must be collected. The system proposed was one which he. as an

employer of labour, would have to put up with, as he had to put up with many other inconveni­ences, and no better or more work~tble scheme had hitherto been suggested.

Mr. DRNHAM (Oxley): The amendment was di8tinctly in the interests of the taxpayers, who, if they did not pay the tax within the thirty days' notice, would bF compelled to pay it by the court with 10 per cAnt. and costs added. He believed that most employers would willingly a>-sist the men to comply with the tenns of the .<\et, and makA the arra;1gements with them for that pur­pose as easy as possible. It was neee"'~try that there shonlct he snch a clause, so that the tax­payer would feel that he w~ts safe in h~tnding the tax to the employer. A great deal had bten said about nomadic or casual labourers, but he main­tained that the c.,mmissioner would exercise com­mon sense, and "ould understand !Jow difficult it must be to exact from the empl~>yer the tax due by that c1tL'S of labour. It had been assumed that only those who paid the minimum amount would be Cfllled uvon to pay through their em­ployers. Hts opinion was that the compara­tively poor man would as readily hand over his 10s. as the man who was better off, and he believed the operation of the Bill would "ffect more largely those in receipt of large salaries than those in receipt of small ones.

Mr. COW AP (Fitsroy) was as much against the amendment as the clause. The fact remained that it would cause friction between employer and employee in many cases. Personally, he should be inclined to resist being maoe the collector of a bad or a doubtful debt. In the case of fees for miners' rights and homestead rents on goldfields, they were voluntarily paid by the persons con­cerned, and the warden had not to ask the employer to collect the muney due. He thought the public officers should collect the tax, and that the duty Rhould not be thrown upon employers.

Mr. BARBER (Bundaberg) believed that what­ever amicable relations existed at present between employer and employee, this clause would break them np altogether. Although it might be a very easy matter to collect the poll tax from men who were regularly employed, it would altogether fail in the case of casual labour. For instance, many men were employed in the sugar industry who, at the beginning of the seaeon, commenced in the Southern district and \"orked perhaps for a few days at a mill, then worked a week or two at Bundaberg, and gradually drifted up North, and when they came to be paid there would be only 10s. or 12s. due to them. If they were met with the request to pay the poll tax, he would not care abont being in the position uf the em­ployer. It might be very well to deduct a certain amount from the alien population at Thursday Island for hospital purposes, but he did not think that would apply so well in the case of the white workers of the State.

Mr. HARDACRE asked for an explanation of the first part of the amendment. Did it mean that the employer would have to collect the tax on the salary or wages the employer paid to the taxpayer? If so, it appeared to be contradictory to the rest of the Bill, which said that the taR was to be paid on the previous year's income.

The TREASURER : The amount of income tax would be settled by the Commissioner on the income of the previous year. This clause gave authority to the Commissioner, when he had not been able to collect the tax in any year from any taxpayer, to declare the employer to he the agent of such taxpayer for the purpose of paying the tax; and it was provided that the employer should deduct the amount of the tax from such taxpayer's earnings in one sum or in instalments.

Income Tax Bill. [4 SEPTEMBER.) income Tax Bill. 493

The agent was not responsible for anything beyond the amount payable to the taxpayer while acting as his agent with respect to the tax.

Mr. HARDACRE : As he understood the amendment, it meant that the employer would have to deduct the amount of tax due on the income paid by the employer, while the taxpayer had to pay on an ao.se,•srnent of his income for the previous year.

The TREASURER: The clause provided that the employer should be the agent of an employee who had failed to pay his income tax, and when called upon by the Commissioner, the employer would have to pay the tax and deduct the amount of the tax irom the earning.! of such employee.

Mr. HARD ACRE: He was still under the impression that the amendment was not in accordance with the explanation given hy the Treasurer. •- Mr. HA \VTHORN : If the hon. member for Leichhardt read the amendment properly he would see that the employer might be declared to be the agent of a defaulting employee only with respect to the earnings of that employee. He did not say anything in the o.mendment ubout incmnes earner1 in the previous year.

Mr. HARD ACRE: The hon. member for Enoggera had proved that his contention

wus right. The clause stated that [10 p.m.J an employer should collect the tax

on income, wages, or salary paid by him to his employee at that time, but the Bill provided elsewhere that the tax shnuld be on the taxpctyer's income for the previous y ar.

The TREASURER: To prevent any miscon­ception on tile part of hon. members, he might mention that he had only proposed the amend­ment printed as far as the word "Act" in the latter portion of pangraph (2), leaving out. the words referring to the penalty. If the amend· ment was c"rried, he intended to move the "''insertion of those words, but making the penalty £5 instead of £i:i0.

Mr. HAWTHORN: He presumed that the Treaimrer was taking that course in consequence of what be had pointed out-that the penalty, under a further clause, would still be £50 or J:lOO. He should very much rather see it £5 than £50.

Mr. KIDSTON : Although the Treasurer proposed that the penalty should be £5, yet an employer would still be liable to a penalty of £50 for not u<>rrying out the regulations provided for in a subsequent clause.

The CHAiltMAN : I must point out to the hon. member that the question of the penalty is not now before the Committee. I understand that the Treasurer intends s•.1bsequently to move an amendment dealing with that matter.

Question-That the words proposed to be in­serted (the T·reawrer's ctmendmcnt) be so inserted­put; and the Committee divided:-

Mr. Bridges , Campbell , J.C.Cribb

T. B. Cribb , Dalrymple

Denham , Forsyth , Fox

Garde ,, J. Hamilton

Hanran Hawthorn

, Lamont , J. Leahy , P. J. Leahy

AYES, 29. :Yir. Lesina

, Lmdley , Lyons , '!11acartney , }fackintosh , }fc111aster , :Moore , Paget , Philp

Sir A. Rutledge Mr. Stephens

Stodart :; Story , Tolmie

Tellers: Mr. Hawthorn and Cll:r. Lamont.

2\ir. Airey l~a-rber

, Blair Burrows Cameron

,, Cooper , Oownp ,. Co\vley

SO.ES, 27.

, Dibley ., Dun~!'ord , l"orresL , Grant ,. ''r.Hamilton , Hardacre

C\fr. J acksou Kenna

, Kerr Kidston Martin 'liaxwell 11cDonnell )lulcaby

,, .'\ormun , Ryland

;-;:nnmerville Turner

, Woods

1'elle•·s: )Jr. Blair and Mr. \V. Hamilton.

PAIRS:

A.yes-::\Ir. O'Connell, :J.lr. Foxton, and Mr. Thorn. Xoes-Mr. Plunkett, Mr. Fogarty, and 3-ir. IIodge. Resolved in the affirmative. The TREASURER moved the addition of the

following words to the amendment :-"And for any default in so doing such agent shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds."

nir. KIDSTON was opposed to any penalty being inflicted upon employers for any default in performing that odious duty.

Question-That the words proposed to he added be so added-put; and the Committee divided:-

AYES, 30. ::lir. Bl'id~es }!r. P. J. tcahy

, Campbcll , Losina

:: J~~-J~i,·ih!J " t;.~~~ey , '1'. B. CrilJO :: ::\iacm·tney , Dalrymple )Iackintosh , Denham }lc:Jiaster

:: i~~~syth ;: ~~~1~e ,, Garde , Philp

.J. Hamilton Sir A. Rutledge , Hanran }fr. Stepbens , Hawthorn , Stodart

Lamont , Story ., J. Leahy ., 'l'olmie

Tell eN: ~Ir. J. C. Crihb and :Yir. J. Hamilton.

NoEs, 26. ::\Ir. Airey .:\Ir. Jackson

B:ul)er Kenna Blair Kerr Burrows ,, Kid::,ton f'ameron )lartin Cooper }'laxwell nowap :vicDonncll Dibley )lukahy

., Dnnsford Xorman , Forrest Jtvland , Grant ~lmnnerville

'\Y. Hamilton , Turner ,. IIardacre , WoodR.

Telle1·s: Mr. :Ylaxwell and Cll:r. Summerville.

PAIR~.

Ayes-:Yir. O'Comwll, :VIr. Foxton, and }Ir. Tborn. Xoes-::IIr. Plunkett, }Jr. Fogarty, and 2\Ir. Hodge. Resolved in the affirmative, Mr. LESINA: As the penalty had been

reduced in this clause from £50 to £5, he hoped it would be taken as a precedent, with the view of making a corresponding amendment in oubse­qucnt clauses.

HoN. E. B. l<'ORREST: It did not matter a rap whether the penalty was £~ or £50. ThPre was a principle involved, and if there was to be a. penalty at all it might jnst as well have been left at £50.

Clause 29, as amended, put and passed. Clause 30 put and passed. On clause 31-" Assessment of incomes of

foreign companies"-The TREASURER moved that in lines 36

and 37 the words "Queensland deposits bear to

494 Income Tax Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Adjournment.

its total deposits" be omitted with the view of inserting the words "amount that its assets and liabilities in Queensland bears to its total assets and liabilities." That would bring it into line with the Victorian Act.

Amendment agreed to. The Tl:tEASURER moved that the clause be

further amended in line 40 by omitting the word "fifty" with the view of inserting the words "t,venty "five."

Amen<lment agreed to. 'l'he TREASUR:B.R moved that the clause be

further amended by inserting, after the word "company," in line 42, the words-after deducting any 110rtion of such premiums actually paid away by way of reinsurancc effected in Queensland with any other company.

Amendment agreed to. '' Mr. HAWTHORN wanted to have made clear the amount of dividend duty that would be

credited. If a cmnpany had a pre­[10'30 p.m.l mium income of £20,000, 1 per cent.

dividend duty would be £200. Under this clame there was a special definition of "income" which would fix the income of that company at £-1,000. \Vas the company to be credited with the full £200 or with only £40?

The TREASURER : The company would be credited with the bll amount paid as dividend duty. He moved, on line 50, after the word "business," the insertion of the words " if 'uch profits cannot, in the opinion of the Commis­sioner, be otherwise satisfactorily determined."

Amendment agreed to. The TREASUKER moved, on line 51, to omit

the word "five," and insert the word "three." It had been represented to him that some com­panies doing a large agency business did not make more than 21, per cent., and therefore5 per cent. would be oppressive.

Amendment agreed to. The TREASURER moved, in sub-paragraph

(v. ), the insertion of the words "if such profits cannot, in the opinion of the Commissioner, be otherwise '•.atisfactorily determined," after the word "Queensland," on line 4.

Amendment agreed to. The TREASURJ!:R moved the omission on

line 5 of the word "five," with a view of insert­ing " three."

Mr. DUNSFORD asked for some reason for the reduction.

The TREASURER: It was not necessarily a reduction. If the Commissioner was not satisfied with the inc:>me, he could assess it at 3 per cent.

Mr. RYLAND asked for a ruling from the Chairman as to whether the Treasurer w~·· justified in assuming that there would be any profit. \Vas it not against the principle of tlie Bill to deem companies to have a profit when tbey n1ight have a loss?

The CHAIRMAN : I am unable to see any­thing in clause 31 which appears to me to be out of order.

Mr. LA:YI:ONT (Brisuane South): It appeared to him that there was a slight inconsistency between the alteration here and the one in the previous clause. The alteration in the previous clause was to assess at 3 per cent. on the turnover, which was a very different thing from 3 per cent. on the c>< pi tal.

The PREMIER exphtined that a lot of com­panies were described in the chmse, but not all. This was a sort of dragnet clause to catch com­panies which might otherwise escape.

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

On clause 32-" Assessment of foreign com­panies or absentees carrying on business in Queensland by agent"-

The TREASURER admitted that at present !t was more than probable that all properties m (lueensland belonging- to absentees sho111·ed a loss; but they were legislating for ordinary times; and, speaking generally, a man investing in propert)- in queensland expected to make a profit. He proposed to amend the clause by omiLing on the 15th line the word "five" and inserting '' three."

HoN. A. S. COWLEY : He would state his principal objection to tbe clause. Suppose an absentee owned a property which was assessed at £1,000. That might be mortgaged for £700, yet under this clause before the m' ·ney could be paid over to him his agent would have to pay Income tax on the gross amount reali.~ed, no allowance being made for auctioneer's fees or anything else. Surely the Tre'<surer could not intend a clause like that to pa"s! He thouvht it would be only fair for the hon. gentlem:1n to move the Chairman out of the chair and draft a new clause.

The TREASuRER thought the object of the hon. member for Herbert might be attained by moving the omission of the word " total" in the 16th line, and inserting the word "net" in its place.

HoN. A. S. COWLEY said he would rather have the clau•e redrafted.

Mr. KIDSTO~ : It was unfair that the nominal owner of a property which was mort­gaged should pay a tax on the whole amount received. There should be some provision requiring the mortgagee to pay the tax on the amount received by him, or that no tax should be paid on that part. He objected to the reduc­tion of 5 per cent. to 3 per cent., beeause the income tax was only 5 per cent. on that 5 per cent.

Mr. DENHAM : Supposing a company was reconstructed, and sold a property to themselves, would they t.hen be called upon by the Commis­sioner to pay 3 per cent. upon the total amount for which such property had been sold or disposed of?

The House resumed. The CHAIIUIAN reported progress, and the Committee obtained leave to sit again on Tuesday next.

AD.TOURNMENT. The PREMIER : I move that this House do

now adjourn,. The business on Tuesday will be the resumptiOn of the Income Tax Bill in com­mittee. I hope we shall get on with it a little more quickly next week. 'Ne should be able to dispose of it in two more nights, as most of the contentious clauses have been passed.

Mr. KIDS TON: I am rather surprised to hear the Premier speak as if he was in a hurry to pass thrs mea"ure, because I was beginning to suspect that the Govennnent were delaying its passage in order to give themseln's time to get other bminPss ready. Twice the Premier has promised to have other Bills ulac0d on the notice-paper, but they have not b~en introduced. I ,,gain urge upon the hon. gentleman the need of getting other Bill;; on the notice-paper, so that there may be no excuse for rushing them through afterwards without full consideration.

Ho:s-. A. S. CO\VLEY : I would ask the 'l'reasurer if he would be so good as to have copies of the Income Tax Bill-which is a very important and intricate measure-printed with all the amendments made up to date, and distri­buted to hon. members before we meet on Tues­day next?

The TREASURER : I shall have much pleasure in obliging the hon. member.

Question put and passed; and the House adjourned at three minutes to 11 o'clock.