Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 23 AUGUST 1906

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Proposed Abolition o/ [23 AuGusT.] Legislative Council. 397

THURSDAY, 23 AUGCST, 1\)06.

The SPEAKER (Hon. Sir A. S. Cowley, He1'be1't) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

MINING :MACHINERY ADVANCES BILL.

APPROPIUATIOX RECOi\IJ\IEXDED.

The SPEAKER announced the receipt of a message from his Excellency the Guvernor re­commending the necBssary appropriation to give effect to this Bill.

FIRST READING. At a later hour, On the motion of :Yir. MAXWELL (Bu1·kc),

the Bill was read a tir;t time, and the second readiug made an Order of the Day for Thursday, 13th September.

QUESTIONS. CmniONWEALTH JiE.vmxEHA1'ION m· RAILWAY

tiTATION .VIASTERS.

J\Ir. J ACKSON (Kennedy) asked the Secre­tary for Railways--

"'Willlw state the position, as regm·ds remuneration, of those Tailwa.r station-masters who are doiug post and telegraphic work for the ~1ederal Government?

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS (Hon. D. F. Denham, Ox/ey) replied-

Post and telegraph work is takl.n into consideration in classifying stations, and 8tation-mastet'S are paid one ''"tlary for rail\vay and post and telegraph dnties according to the classification of stations. "'With regard to the sale of postage stamps, a lmnp sum ot £700 per annum is paid by the Postal Department and distributed amongst the station-masters. This is ec1ual to about 2fr per cent. on the sale~k.

CosT OF SLEEPERS FOR CLONCORI\Y RAILWAY. Mr. JACKSOK asked the Secretary for Rail­

ways-1. Has he sepn a statement in the Press purporting to

be made by ~Hr. 1Iinelmn. ex-superintendent oi main ten~ ance, To~ nsville. giving detail::; or CO'''t of sleepers I or the Cloncurry line, and asserting th Lt it cost~ £6 l2s. lO~cl. more per lOO sleepers to obtain them from the Srn1th than from the .i\'ortbern district?

2. Are the statements reported as having been made by ~Ir. ~1inehan correct, or approximately correct P

3. If so, will he, in the interests of economy, endeavour to obtain in Xorth Queensland all the sleepers re<1uired for the Cloncurry line?

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYt\ replied-

1. Yes. 2 and 3. Xo; 20,000 sleepers were sent up whieh will

cost £3 7s. per lOO more than if obtained iu the Xorth. The rt::~.son for sending sleepers from the South was that, although arrangements had been made in the Norlh for practically all those required, they were not being delivered sufficiently fast owing to shortage of teams. It is not COI•templated to send more than an~ other 10.000 sleepers !\orth unless the delivery of those con t.racted for is unduly delayed.

PROPOSED ABOLITION OF LEGISLA­TIVE COUNCIL.

Mr. LESINA (Clermont): In rising to move--

The SPEAKER: Order! Mr. J EN KIN SON : You called ":Formal."

Mr. LESINA: No; I called "Not formal." Mr. BowMAN : The hon. member certainly

called "Not formal." Mr. LESINA: In rising to move--

The SPEAKER: Order! I understood that the hon. member called "Formal" to this motion.

Mr. LESINA: No; I called "N at formal." HoNOCllABLE 11E>IBERS : Hear, hear ! "For­

mal." The SPEAKER: If the hon. member assures

me that he called "Nut formal," of course I accept his statement.

J\fr. LESil'\ A: I can assnre you, Mr. Speaker, that I called "Not formal." I wait<d to see if the Premier would call "~ot formal," but, as ha did not do so, I di<l it myself, because I desired to discuss this matter. Now, in rising to move this motion-

That, in the opinion of this Hons:e, the time ha.s arrived when the Gm.ernment should take steps to introduce a measure for tlle abolition of the Legislative CounCJl-Hrstly, on the score of economyi and, seconclly, because it is a useless institution-

! want to place my reasons as briefly and suc­cintly as I posoibly can before the Chamber. To begin with, I way say that I was returned to this Chamber as an oppcment of the Legislative G .• uncil. In the platf,.rm which I signed as a Lahonr man at the recent elections, and also at all elections previous to that ever since I came to this Honse in 1899, one of the chief planks is thi<: ''Abolition of Legislative Council." So important is 1 his considered as a principle in connection with the Labour movement that at the last Labour Convention which sat in Brisbane on the 5th Ma)·, 1905, this plank was taken out of the general platform and put into the fighting platform of the party as one of the reforms most urgently required by the Labour party of Queens­land. fhF·Y made plank fi,-e-in tbe fighting platform in the Queensland Labour pari y's general platform-the abol1 tion of the Legislative Council. I tried ac that convention, at which I I was a delegate, to have the first plank in the platform made the abolition of the Legislative Council, and I re:tsoned in this way in favour of that proposition. It appears to me that it matters not how broad your franchise is; it matters not how often the electore may be con­sulted ; it matter< not with what unanimity a majority of members b.re returned to this Cham­b r pl· dged t<> a definite line of conduct, so long as the nominee Chamber stand" in the way, it will be irnpo"sible to secure any reforms of a far­reaching, drastic, or bedrock character. It will be hardly necessary for me to refer to recent happenings in connection with the Legislative Council-the other bmnch of this Legislature­to prove that fact. It is the confessed opinion not onlv of Labour men inside this Chamber but of Labour men right throughout Queens­land, that the real "lion in the path" of demo­cratic progrt:<s in Queensland is the LegislativP. Council. If the people are ignorant on political questions it does not matter what you do to educate them by organising unions to select candidates pledging them to a definite pro­gramme of reform when they enter this Honse, and it does not matter even if they constitute a majority, the moment they pass legislation of a democratic character which threatens the vested interests which the Council exists for the per­petuation and protection of, to that extent then reform is delayed. The proposition I have moved contains two pclints-first, that it is necessarY to abolish the Council on the score of econom,;, and, secondly, because it is a meless institution. I am not going to dwell too much to-day upon the first point-that it will be a saving in public expenditure to abolish the Council. That is pretty well agreed.

Mr. JENKINSON: It would be more economy to reduce the numbers in the Assembly.

Mr. Lesina.}

398 Proposed Abolition qf [ASSEMBLY.] Legislative Council.

Mr. LESINA: Many responsible newspapers in tl)e country pointed out ctming the federation orgie that one of the immedi<tte results of the adoption of federation would be a prunmg down in the strength and number of the legi,lative bodies. \Ve were led to believe-at least the democratic section of the people of Queensland were led to believe-that with the ad vent of federation one of the immediate results in Queensland and the other Australian States wuuld be the abolition, first, of the provincial Governor;-which would result in a considerable saving, and one that I would vote for to-morrow morning-and, secondly, the abolition of the Legislative Councils.

Mr. JENKINSON: No. Mr. L ESI~ A : Yes ; it was generally under­

stood by a big section of democratic voters who supported federation, and that was one of the reasons why we were asked to support federa­tion.

Hon. R. PHILP : It referred to the Assembly, too.

Mr. LESIN A : I have already admitted that. I said that we were told it would result in a pruning down of the strength of our legislative bodies, and, in using that phrase, I cover the popular Assembly as well as the Legislative CounciL Now, I believe that the time is ripe when this departure should take placP. This is not a new-found opinion of mine, for I exvressed it in the columns of the Brisbane Courier on the 21st of July, 1902, in the following brief note, which was addressed to the editor of that paper :-

Sir,-\Yhen post-prandial federal orators 'vere calling upon the people to "arise" and claim their heritage as "one people" with a single desUny, their chief argument was that federation would bring along splendid econo­mies. Savings were to be effected in every dire(>tion, financial and relational. And thousands who believed the orators and voted for federation are now wringin~ their hands in helpless impoteltce. Expenditure, instead of decreasing, has gone ahead by leaps aud bounds. One of the directions in ""hich it was indicated we might effect considerable savings was the abolition of our provincial Governors. Another was in the super­session of the provincial Legislative Councils by an executive revisory committee elected by the members of the people's Chamber. Neither of these necessarv and practical economies have been effected. '\Vhen tile Canadian federation 'vas established, the various pro­vinces went in for rigid retrenchment. )lost of them abolished the bi-cameral system of two Chambers, and substituted the uni-cameral or single Chamber instead. The system is economical, and has worked 'veil. There is no better reason for 9 two-chambered Parliament in Queensland now than there is for two municipal coun­cils with co-ordinate powers in l\orth Brisbane. A well-known constitutional writer has pointed out that a second Legislative Chamber in harmony with the tirst js supeTfluous, in opposition it is necessarily noxious. Our bi-cameral system is merely cant and pedantry, and was adopted by our Australian Constitution makers only because 1t happens to be part of the Eng­lish Constitution. )Iorrison Davidson savs that most eountTies have imitated England in t.h8 division of their Legislatures into two ChambcTs, but that pro7es nothing more than that man is a foolishly gregarious animal, ever prone to follow be1l-wethers. rr England had started not merely with a second, but with a third and fourth Legislative ChambPr, there is no reason to doubt that it would hHve been generallv discovered that the eternal fitness of thh:gs demanded ihat. every Lrgis­Iatnre should consist of four Houses. The movement against the donble Chamber S.J'stem is spreading every­where. In England it is solely inspired as yet by hostility to the principle of hereditary legislation. The movement, however, so far as it has historical authority, tends in the direction of a single Ohambe1·. I do not know bow 1Vitenagemot 'vas brought together; but it was a single Assembly, presumed to be distinguished by a more than ordinary endowment of wisdom in the individual mem­ber. Professor Freeman says that the hereditary cbaracteT of tlle House of Lords came i~1 step by step, by accident rather than by design. \Yhen the time comes for a reversion to the original parliamrntary type, Englishmen will retrace their step~'<, pTobably, and try again to set up a representative Asstmbly which shall be one, like the people represented, and enly difl"erent from thmn in the possession of riper

[Mr. Lesina.

intelbgence and wisdom. It is about time we took the initiative in Queensland. \Ve want here a single democratic Assembly, with an executive committee elected by and responsible to that Assembly. to administer the affairs of Sta-te when the House is out or session. This is a rational and economical arrang-e­Inent, and there is safety in it. Any more complex system is expensive, useless, and dangerous. The fact that retrenchment is in the air is, sir, my excn8e for trespassing on your space.

I am, sir, etc., Y. B. J. LEsTXA.

Parliament House, 21st July.

So you will ~ee that four years ago I lwought this matter before the public of Brisbane, anrl in­directly before the public of Queensland, at a time when I thought it demanded serious con­sideration. But four years have gone past. The Labour party of Queemland, in one of the moRt representative conventions which ever sat in Brisbane, has determined to place that matter in the fighting platform of the party, and 1 hey re­turned, at the recent elections to this Chamber, thirty-four men, thirty-three of whom are pledged in black and white to the abolition of that nominee body. What have we done in four years to concentrate public attention on this matter and bring about the realisation of our platform promises? \Vhat has any member of the pany done beyond publicly calling atten· tion to nominations which he disagreed with outside on the public platform or in conversation with his fellows? The party has done nothing. \Ve have pennitted the present Government to pack the Chamber with their own nominees, and we did not offer a word of protest in this Cham­ber. The leader of the Parliamentary Labour party, the hon. member for Barcoo, represent­ing thA Labour bodies outside, if he had been true to his principles, would have taken the first opportunity offered on the Addre'" in Reply in this Chamber, and the firs& prates& he would have made would have been ag>1inst the Government for appointing to that institution thirteen or fourteen men, mostly in the heyday of manhood, who would continue its existence for many, many long years. Did he make that protest which the country expected him to do? \Vas any protest made ?

The SPEAKER: Order ! The hon. member is not in order in making :>n attack on the hon. member for Barcoo under cover of this motion.

l\1r. LESINA: I have no desire to attack any hon. member-not the faintest desire-I merely want to put before the House what I think the bonnden duty-although I may be mistaken in that view--of hon. members who are pledged to support the motion that I have made this after­noon.

The SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member will not be in order in persuing that line of argument. He will be in order in addressing any argument he thinks fit to enable hon. members to form a correct opinion on the motion he is moving.

Mr. LE SIN A : In dealing with the Legis­lative Council, we are dealing with another branch of the Legislature, which owes its existence to sec&ion 20 of our Constitution. There is no necessity to read the clause; any hon. member can hunt it up who de,ires to acquaint himself wi&h i&s construction, and the powers it confers for the establishment of this institution. There is a reference to the subject in a work published by Sir Charles Dilke, entitled " Problems of Great Britain." At page 259 of volume ii., dettling with ,·olonial democracy, Sir Charles Dilkes>tys-

Co1onial Upper Houses. whether nominated by the Crown, as in 7\e\v South ·wales, the Dominion of Canada, New Zealand, Queensland, Xcwfounclland, and Quebec, or elected, as in Yictoria., South Australia, rrasmania, the Cape, and Prince Ed\';:ard Island, are weak.

P1·oposed Abolition of [23 AUGUST.] Legislative Council. 399

'l'hat was his impression-they are weak. Our experience in Queemland is that tbe institution is a weak one. It h:os been arg-ued from various standpoints that the existen'ce of an Upper Hou'le was necessary, and one or two reasons have been given why this institutivn should be presbrved in our midst. \Ve are as<ured that the. Legislative Council is a check upon hasty legiSlatwn-a, check upon ill-considered unwise or hasty legislation of the popular Assembly: \Vel!, we have the authority of Sir Charles Dilke in another article dealing with the House of Lords, in which he arg-ues against the reform of the Upper Houses. On page 103 of "Subjects of the Day" he says this-

One large quest,ion lies behind-that of the necessity for rC'~tramts upon democrHcy-the need of a power to {)Vcrrule the sudden freaks of democratic Lower Houses. To my mind it is usele's to pretend that when a great wind or \vave of popular feeling spreads -over the whole country, and makes a democr:ttic Lower House commit some egregious folly, an Upper House Will ever have the courage to resist. The proba~ bility is that Upper House as well as Lower 'vill share the fool.ish f_eeling, but ~f it does not, and especially if the sUbJeCt IS one on which the prejudices of its mem­bers arc not aroused, is it not certain that if the f~eling is only stron¥ enough and silly enough the T"'pper House must yield? England happily has been free of late from sudden outbursts or unreasonable popular passion. They have been seeu in other ·countries, and in those countries the Upper Hawses have bowed before the storm.

The opinions of an experienced and liberal­minded statesman like Sir Char le"> Dilke have a n;ore than <;>rdi!lary value in considering a ques­tiOn of th1s Importance. I will say before leaving the aspect of the question that it is a check upon hasty legislation, that we who have bad some brief experience in Australia of Upper Houses, and pave been brought face to face with what is called hasty leg-islation are compelled to admit that the Upper House'only acts as a check upon hasty legislation when that legislation is considered diametrically opposed to the special interests of the majority of mem­bers in that Chamber, or the people whom they represent outside. Everybody who remembers the banking legislation which was passed durin~ the various banking crises, will remember th~ rapidity with which all such legislation went through the Upper Houses of the various States in Australia. It hardly received any considera­tion at all; it went through like a flash of light­ning in every case. But if it was an electoral reform Bill, which does not deal with the money interests or other matters of that particular Chamber, or the special vested interests thev represent outside, there is n:::> such haste charac­teristic of their actions then. They delay it purposely; delay it by every device that is known to the able parliamentarian. They delay the pa•~age of. nec~ssa~y reform by adopting every deviCe whiCh IS d1scoverable within the four corners of our Standing Orders. It takes years and years to get a popular measure through Parliament nowadays, even if any of the popular Ch<t1nbers of. rlemo_cr':cy get a big majority, or there are a b1g maJonty of members who sym­pathise with democratic aspirati<ms. \Vhy should the progress of reform be delayed so interminably by the existence of an institution of that kind? What ground has it to stand upon ? What reason has it for its existence? I have a quotation here from a work by Pro­fessor E. :Freeman, the eminent constitutional authority and historian. In a voluminous essay on the House of Lords, dealing with the popular conception of that institution, he says-

First of all, the HousA of Lords is a "Second Chamber." It exists with reference to another Chamber. Its business is to revise the Acts of that Chamber. Under certain circumstance::: not defined by law but which we know when we see 'them, it may

refuse to confirm the decisions of that other Chamber. Gndet certain other circumstances, also 110t defined by law but which we also know when we see thern, it must accept the decision of that otller Chaniber. 'l'he busines~ of the Ho.l::-8 of J..~ords, in short, is obstruc­tion. I use one of the cn.nt 'vords of the day, just to have the pleasure of using it in i's right sense. . . . So we invest our Second Chamber, tbe House of Lords with thP, right of obstnl"tion, in the hope that it wili use that right wbely, at all e,-ents on the understanding that it is to be u~ed only within certain bounds, ete.

So that, according to :Freeman, whose authority will not be questioned on this matter,

[4 p.rn.] the Honse of Lords, of which the in,titution at the other end of

this building is a feeble copy, is merely there for obstruction purposes. It i< a House of obstruc­tion. \Vh"t does it obstruct? It obstructs the popular will.

1\Ir. ,J. LEAHY: How is it that you are not there if it is a House of obstruction ? (Laughter.)

Mr. LESI::'\ A: It is important to ascertain upon what particular grounds ~if there are any re•,-.,son­able grounds at all-such an institution should be continued in a country like this. There is behind the House of Lords both history and pre­cedent, and a more or less long record of services rendered at times to the country in which it exists. If it has nothing else to recommend it it h:;~ birth and breeding, ancient lineage, ana nob1hty ; and, as Professor :Freeman points out, it existed some considerable time before the House of Commons, which is now the more popular and the more powerful Chamber of the two. Y on can get heaps of reasons, if you want them, for continuing the House of Lords, but with the institution at the other end of this building it is a very different matter. The Upper House here, and in the other States, is a useless institution of the Legisleture. All the work done by the Upper House could be done easily hy a revisory committee appointed at the beginning of each Parliament. We could elect from our numbers a sufficiently strong and able committee to revise all the legislation passed through this Chamber before it receives the final touch. Yet we keep in existence an institution consisting of nominees of dead and gone Go­vernments, whose appointments in every in­stance bear a political complexion, which makes it not that broad-minded and judicial Chamber that the House of Lords has history and pre­cedent for setting itself up to be, but simply a party House. If we have a strong Premier in power, who is backed up by a feeble, weak­minded following-~

::\Ir. J. LEAHY: Have we not got all that? 1\Ir. LESINA: I am not going to be drawn

off the track to discuss so obvious a fact as that. If we have a strong Premier, with a numerous but feeble following, he may pack such an insti­tution with layer upon layer of nominees of a particular political complexion. I might point out that it is under section 20 of the Constitution Act of ~867 that our nominee Chamber is brought mto existence, and we have at present forty­three members in the Legislative Council. I believe it has been customary for years past although there is no written law to settle th~ thing definitely, to keep the number of members of the Upper House at thirty-nine, At present there are forty-three.

Mr. J. LEAHY: J!'orty-fcur. There is one dead. 1\Ir. LESIX A : I have just counted them,

and I find there are forty-three. Out of the number at present in the Upper Chamber, one­third, or fourteen, have been appointed by the present Government in the past two and a-half or three years. They h:we actually increased the number of men who constitute the nominee Chamber of our Legislatme. The recent appoint­ments nun,ber fourteen; one gentleman nomi­nated, Mr. Rawling", has since died, which

Mr. Lesina.]

400 Proposed Abolition cif [ASSEMBLY.] Le,gislative Council.

reduces the number of new appointments to thirteen. That is about one-third of forty-three, which is the present strength of the Upper House. 'l'hose nominees are the Hon. Arthur Morgan, Hon. T. 0. Beirn~, Hon. W. H. Camp· bell, Hon. A. A. D~vey, Hon. B. Fahey, Hon. H. L. Groom, Hon. A. Hinchcliffe, Hon. M. Jensen, Hon. T. A. Johnsnn, Hon. C. S. McGhie, Hon. P. Murphy, Hon. :K H. T. Plant, Hon. R. H. Smith, and the gentle­man who died, Hon. W. H. Rawlinge. The appointment of such a large number cf nominees to the Counc'l is a very serious matter. It not only increases the number of nominees in the Council, who represent nobody except the Government of the day, but it also renders it ever so much more difficult for the Labour party, who are pledged to the abolition of this nominee Chamber, to accomplish that reform. I shall show, before I fini<h de::oling with these appoint­ments, that the Premier has not been actuated by any desire, either expressed or implied, to liberalise the comtitution of that House or to make it more favourable to democracy. As a matter of fact, he has made appointments which will render it harder for us to engineer reform legislation through the other branch of the Legis· lature than it would have been had he not made these appointments. Before I deal with the personnel of these appointments, I should like to say that various newspapers in this city have at times drawn public attention to the necessity of making a reduction in the number of members of roth branches of the Legislature. The Bri<bane Telegraph, which is now the Government organ, some time ago, in an editorial dealing with the abolition of the Legislative Council, had this to say-

In this rednction daily it i:-; becoming plainer that L<-·gh;lative Councils are factors whir.h must be elhni­nated from the sirnplitied vroblems of :State government. Already, in 'Jther ;States, tins matter is engaging active attention, and even meu who have long been known for their devotion to the present form ol' comtitu­tional government, as represented by tvro Houses, no\v agree that necessity no longer exists for suuh extensive mRchinery. . . . ·wherefore it seems that Upper Honses are no'v as snperlluouf.l i.n State gm'ernment as a ~econd chamber would IJe in a shire cotuwil or a divt\:!ional board. Economy backs up the claim of necessity in this matter. Those who hold existiu;s forms of gvvernment in deep veneration most probably will ftMl heavy-hearted at the revolution which fertcra~ tion is working in all their fond traditions. Doubtless they wouhl dearly love to ~eo the old t:pper Chamber~. in all their glory, panoply, and pomp, continued as they are, if only as an1iqnes of the eonsecrated past. But necessity and economy are ~a.d ieonoclrtsts. r:t'radition, sentiment, and all fond things which cling to the" has been" are ripped and ro red up, arc dragged down and demolished by their vandalising llauds.

Mr. ,J. LEAHY: How do they say they will abolish it?

J\llr. LESINA: They do not say; but we can do it as they did it in Canada. Here is what Sir Charles Dilke says about the province of Manitoba-

Manitoba put an end to its Upper House by "An Act to diminish the expenJ.;es of the Legislature," passed "b.v and with the consent of the L~gislative Council,'' which the Act abolished.

What they did in Manitoba we can do here. Mr. J. LEAHY: Was their Constitution similar

to ours? Mr. LES IN A: I do not know whether their

Constitution differed from ours, but anyhow we have the power to nominate 400 members if we like.

Mr. J. LEAHY : But will they vote as you want them when they get there?

Mr. LESlNA: The GovernmE>nt will have to pledge them; although I am becoming somewhat doubtful about the utility of pledges. It is all very well to institute pledging here, but when men get into the other Chamber they vote the

[Mr. Leswa.

opposite way. I have had some extmordinary things brought to my notice during the last twelve or eighteen months of men pledged to certain principles going back upon their pledges. vVe propose to abolish the L'gi.;lative Council by nominatim~ twenty or thirty new members taken from the "hop, the mill, and the factory. These men will enter that Chamber with their blucher boots and moleskin trousers, pledged to abolish the institution.

Mr. J. LEAHY: You may nominate them, but will they vote as you want them to do?

J\llr. LESI::"rA: I think we shall h::ove very little difficulty in getting some of them to keep their pledges, at any rate. Some years ago in New Zealand-in Mr. Ballance's time-when the Government had some difficulty about passing a Bill to impose a land tax and an income tax-when the Legislative Council rejected it-J\Ilr. Ballance made arrangements for the appointment to the Legislative Council of twelve working men. These were actual working men, and one of them was rivet­ing inside a boiler when he was called out and his commission handed to him. Afterwards there was some difficulty abnut getting those commissions signed, and the then Governor, the Earl of Glasgow, took up a strong attitude against those appointments. Communications were opened up with the Imperial Government, and the Imperial Government rapped the knuckles of His Excellency very severely, telling him that it was his buliness to accept his instructions from his constitutional advisers, the :i'.iinistry of the day. Those twelve men got their commis­sions signed; they went into the House; and from that day to this there has been hardly any trouble between the Ministry and the Legisla­tive Council in New Zealand. Possibly the Legislative Council there is more amena,ble to reason than the Legislative Council here or in the other States of L1.ustmlia. I believe my, elf that the abolition of the Legi"lative Council is justified on the score of economy, to commence with, and also because it is a nseless institution. Certainly the amount expended on its upkeep has not been very great, but it is utterly in­defensible. It j,; only a few centuries ago >ince the Long Parliament carried a resolution declar­ing the House of Lords a useless and dangerous institution, and abolished it. They went further. They abolished the Kingship too, and later on beheaded the King. I have no desire to ask hon. members to go as far as the Long Parli<ment went in Oliver Cromwell's time; but it appears to me that we c::on constitutionally abolish the· Legis!~.tive Council in this State by a perfectly simple and easy process. If the Premier, who is a member of the Labour party, and pledged to its prngramme, de1lires to abolish the Council, there is nothing to prevent him making a number of nominations this year, or next year, or at as early a date a> he cares to agree to, pledged to· its abolition. I believe the country would get. along a great deal better if such a resolution were arrived at. We should not be initiating any­thing new-fangled or revolutionary in doing- that. I notice, looking over the 1901 census of Canada, in their "Official Year Book," that the St::ote of Ontario, with a population of 2,152,947, hots only one ChambE>r. They abolished their Legislative Council on the adoption of federation. In Quebec and in Nova Scotia they have two Chamber". In New Brunswick, with a population of 381,120, they have only one Chamber. In .Manitoba, with a population of 255,211, they have only one Chamber. In British Columbia, with a population of 178,657, they haYe only one Chamber. In Prince Edward Island, with a population of 103,259, they have only one Challlber; and in the North-west Territories, with a population of 211,649, they have only one Chamber. The

Proposed A-bolition of [23 AuGusT.] Legislative Council. 401

Yukon Territory is still under a Commissioner. Thus it will be seen that out of Lhe nine provinces constituting the Dominion of Canada, there are six, with a population of between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000, which have not got a second Chamber. And they are just as loyal subjects of the Empire as Queensland ; they come of the same stock as we do ; they are precisely the same kind of people as we are ; and yet, with the exceptions of (.,luebec and Nova Scotia, they can do without a second Chamber.

Mr. J. LEAHY : \Vel!, you have got a majority. Mr. LE SIN A: I want that majority to do

something-to show that they are worth the £300 a year which the people of the State pay them. To return to my argument, Canada has a popnlaticm of between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000, and out of. its nine provinces seven have no second Chamber. I aok if that is neces."n' here, with a population of a little over 500,000? \Ve have only a second Chamber in Queensland because Great Britain had a second Chamber. If thev had had three or four we should have had the same number here. And, according to Professor Freeman, it was the intention of King Edward I. to have instituted a Parliament of more than two Chambers. Indeed, he says he discovered some quaint evid• nee, showing that it was the intention of that m on' rch to have had no le>s than five Hnuses. There were to be a House of Lords and a House of Clergv, and a House of Lawyers and a House of Merchants, and a House of Commons-five distinct Chambers. In Sweden, until quite recently, they had four Chambers, and did not think it an anomalous state nf affairs. In Fin­land they have four Chambers tn-day, and for some hundreds of years n~arly every country with legislative in,titutions has had three Cham­bers. Scotland had three before she lost respon­sible government. As a mat.rer of fact, in Eng­land they at one time had three, and if they had happened to have three Chambers at the time of the framing of our Constitution, we wou:d pro­bablv have had three also.

:\1~. J. LEAHY: Scotland never had respon­sible government.

Mr. LESINA: Perhaps that phase does not correctly describe the c"ndition of thin~s, but it had a H"use ,,f N,,bles, a House of Clergy, and a House of Commons. I repeat that it is only cant and pedantry which has adopted in this State, with its limited population, a Chamber which is utterly useless and dangerous. I r.m certainly of opinion, using the words of the Long Parlian.ent in the seventeenth century, that the existence of this body is dangerous and useleRS. It is danger­ous to the democracy because it attacks demo­cratic measure.~. It lies in wait for them. \V hen electoral reform Bills come before them they fall upon them tooth and claw ; they rend them and tear them ; they do everything they can to mutilate them. If they can prevent their pas· sage they do so. Why should a free and responsible people any longer permit the exist­ence nf an anomaly of that kind ? 'Whom do these gentlemen represent. In looking over the names of the rnembers•of the Legislative Council I see that they go back for years and years and years. At least one-third are recent appoint. ments made for political or other reasons. Each successive layer are the nominees of dead and gone Governments. The firsllayer represent the political opinions, sentiments, anrl sympathif's of a Government, every member of which is gone. Every single member of that Government is dead. The Governor who signed the commis­sions is dead. \Vhom do they represent? They represent nobody but themselves. They are responsible to nobody but themselves. Talk about being ruled by "the dead hand"! What about

1906-20

being ruled by the dead mind? Then upon th>tt layer there is superimposed another layer, who represent the opinions of a Government, every member of which has vanished. And again upon that layer is superimposed another layer, and so on up to the last layer. I ask you what justi­fication is there for the continuance in existence of a body of nominees like that representing no· body but themselves? They are not in touch with the electors. They do not know the will of the people exc8pt as the ordinary man in the street knows it. They are there to represent the policy of dead and gone Governments, and as they are free and irresponsible, being beholden for their seats to no constituency, responsible to no body of electors, subject to no programme, absolutely free and irresponsible, they may do exactly as they like. They may pretend they rlopresent the popular feeling when they attack an electoral reform Bill. I desire to point out that only a few months ago the Premier and his lieutenant, the Home Secretary, toured Queens­land from end to end. I carefully sera pped every speech they made. It Wa9 a labour of love. In every speech delivered by them when they were in radical constituenci~s they talked radicalism, and one of the most radical things they would do was to down the Upper House. \Vhen they said this they raised a cheer. \Vhen they talked to a conserv:.ti ve constituency they talked of the finances of the State, and when they addressed a pseudo-liberal constituency they just talked current politics, but they never forgot with a loud sound and fl•mrish to advocate the abolition of the Legislative Council when they addressed radical constituencies. \Vhat have they done to abolish it? Here are two speeches delivered on the 28th April, 1906, in the town of Townsville, by the ,,resent Premier and the Home Secretary. Mr. Kidston had this to say-

The fight. to put the Legislative Council out was one that could only be red hot. The Government must bave the people behind them.

The Home Secretary said-The fight with the Legislative Council was vital if

representative government was to live,

Tho'e were the utter,mces of these gentlemen on mnlti-platfurms. The fight again't this nominee power was to be "red hot," and it had to be red hot it representative government was to live, \Vhat have they done towards maki11g the LE'c(i<lative Council dis"ppear, and what have they done towards making the fight red hot? They have made it red hot among some of their supporters by appointing to that body a number of gentlemen who are strongly in favour of Legislative O<>uucils, and are strong-ly opposed to any attempt to abolish them. They have made thirteen nominations in two and a-half years, and out of that number only two were really Labour men. Only one was actually a Labour man who signed the Labour platform­the Hon. A. Hinchcliffe. Mr. McGhie I am not quite sure about. :VIr. Rawlings was a Lahour man of the old days, and I regret that. he did not Jive long enough to give us a ta,te of his methods. The others are est.imable citizens for whom many of us have a great personal regard, but I cannot s q that any of the bunch, with the excaption of Mr. Davey-who holds opinion' somewhat similar to my own in regard to the reconstruction of society and the national­isation of all sources of wealth, distribution, and exchange-are in touch with modern democratic sentiment.

Mr. J. LEAHY: And he is allowed to go at large.

Mr. LESINA: We have been told that it would be a mistake to get rid of S'lch an institu­tion because there is an atmosphere of intellect

Mr. Lesina.]

402 Proposed Aboiition qf [ASSEMBLY.J Legislative Council.

and intelligence about it-that they take a grave, judicial view of legislation which comes before them for consideration. I regret to sny that whatever little lilJerality characterises some of the recent nominations to the Council, that little liberality will ultimately fade a\l·av under the influence• which characteriw institutions of this kind. Any legislative Chamber which i" not in touch with popular sentiment, and which does

not depend upon the popular elec­[4.30 p.m.] torate, mnst grow more out of touch

with popular Bentiment, and, being out of touch with popular sentiment, it cannot bring to bear upon the legisbtion which goes to that Chamber from tLis that broadmind­edness which should be characteristic of the Legislature. l\I>tnv of those gentlemen, in private life, and in whatever part they have taken in public life, have expressed liberal sentiments; but they, too, are probably beginning to find out what a nice, quiet, reposeful, genteel place the Council is. Bnt with its dilettante affectation of statesmanship and in< professions of extreme gentility, you cc~nnot put working men into an institution like that and expect them to retain their rough, wholesome, and breezy democracy. They are unthinkable in an institu­tion of that kind. The nominees of the late Premier and of the present Premier are of a kind peculiarly susceptible to the atmospheric influ­ences of the Council. The present Premier was pledged to the Parliamentary Labour party and to the country by scores of speeches upon ecores of platforms to send to the Upper House-not a number of nice, genteel, reposeful, and dilettante Liberals, but a ring of political prizefighters, with big, brusque muscles on their tongues and a profound disrespect for conventional reopecta­bility.

Mr. J. LEAHY: I thought Mr. Davey was just like yourself.

Mr. LESINA: I should ima.gine that the Hon. Mr. Davey is a Fabian Socialist. The appointment of gentlemen to that institution whose convictions and habits render it in~ possible for them to grapple with democratic questions in a whole-souled, hearty, and breezy fashion show that the institution, instead of being liberalised and improved hy those nominations, has actually been made more retrogressive than it previously was. If it had not been for those appointments, the Council would only have numbered thirty members. ·with only thirty members the appointment of fifteen pledged Labour men to vote for its abolition, the Premier, if he really believed in the principle he advocated for so many years, would have had an opportunity this session or next session of abolishing it altogether, and of bringing this oountry into line with most of the provinces in Canada, which are saved the expense of this body, and are doing all their work with one Uhamber only. \Vhy has the hon. gentleman not done that? That is a matter I suppose that we shall be in a position to discuss on some other occasion and under some other circumstances. The appointment of gentlemen who have no sympathy with the democratic movement is an assault upon the democractic movement which we did not expect. The appointment of one gentleman, for instance, my constituents have strongly objected to, and have carried a resolu­tion protesting against it at a well-attended meet­ing. They carried a resolution condemning the appointment of the Hon. \V. H. Campbell. They regard his appointment as an attack upon the convictions of that large body of \Vestern unionists against whose best interests Mr. Campbell has publicly worked, both as a news­paper man and as a politician, for years.

Mr. J. LEAHY : Yes, and look at the artillery the hon. member for Barcoo brought to bear!

[Mr. Lesina.

Mr. LESIN A: I do not know who is respon­sible for the appuintrnent. It has been alleged that the hon. member for Barcoo is responsible to some extent for having used his influence with the Government. I cannot believe that; but I do not rlesire to pursue that subject. It is a matter in which the people of the \Vest are much concerned; because, if this appointment is to be taken as any indication of the Govern­ment policy with regard to the abolition of the 'C'pper House, they will have to take up a deter­mined stand against the Council. In s:rengthen­ing the Uonncil they are weakening our hands in the work of reform. We have power to till the Council with nominees who are of a democratic turn of mind, but the Hon. \V. H. C"mpbell and the Hon. T. M. Hall are of a liberal turn of mind. The latter gentleman is the vice-;•re,·ident of the anti-socialist league-an institution which is working night and day to down the Labour movement. Only a few days before hi.> recent appointment to the Counc•l-for what reason I cannot say-they were not demanded-no public meetings were held demanding them-there were no letters in the papers demanding them--there have been no deputations asking for them-they were simply made for what purpose I cannot say·--

Mr. .J. LEAHY : There were a good many individuals asking for them.

Mr. LESIN A : Possibly there was a good deal of underground engineering going on; but that is always the case in connection with political appointments of any description, either to the Legislative Council or to the m'arine board, or to any other body. However, the ltppointment of the Hon. T. M. Hall is particularly offensive to the radical section of the coalition, if I am to judge by conversations tha,t have taken place here and there about the House in connection with the matter.

Mr. ,J. LEAHY : He is a first-class man, any­how.

Mr. LESINA: He may be a first-class busi­ness man. We have no objection to him as a business man, but we know that only a few days before he was summoned to the Council he was busily engaged on a public platform denouncing the section of the Labour party led by the Premier for making attacks upon the marriage tie. Yet his reward is not a vote .pf censure from the Labour party, or an attack in this Chamber from its leader, but an appointment to the Council, where he can exercise his right as a member of that House to a free pass to travel throughout Queensland, and do his best to down the Labour candid;ttes at the coming federal elections. That is a nice weapon to put into the hands of an enemy by the Government we sit behind ! I strongly protest against that kind of thing, and I feel sure that the people of Long­reach and the people in my district, who carried resolutions expressing their indignation at these recent appointments, will regard their appoint­ment in the same light as I do.

Mr. FoRSYTH : Has not Mr. Hall turned Labour?

::Yir. LESINA: He is about as strong a Labourite as the hon. member for Carpentaria. The atmosphere of the Legislative Council, even if a man is a democrat, is so seductive that the ordinary weak-backed democrat who goes there would rapidly succumb to it. The general feel­ing in that institution-so far as I am able to ascertain it by talking to its members-is that the working man is a very worthy fellow in his place, and he should be paicl as good a wage as his employer's fancy dictates. They believe that the ordinary working man has no rights outside his regular employment. His right to a fair wage and to buy his own "cakes and ale" is not considered to stand upon any solid foundation at

Proposed Abolittan of [23 AUGUST.] Legislati~·e Council. 403

all. The doctrine of the members of the Council is an easy-going and comfortable one, and it is profe~sed by some of the recent appointees to the Council, parti~ularly by the Hon. W. H. Campbelland the Hon. T. M. Hall. This com­fortable doctrine they have preached for year; outside, and its injustice is entirely lost sight of by them. If you take an ordinary, weak-backed democrat and make him a lllember of that organi­sation, what more certain than that, if he were .approached by some influenthl and able mem­ber of tr e L, gislati ve Council, who took him by the hand and patted him on the shoulder and welcomed him to that atmosphere of intellectual intelligence, his democracy would rapidly evapo­rate.

Mr .• J. LEAHY: ·what kind of men are those democrats ?

:ur. LESINA: There is not a democrat, with the exception of those I have mentioned, amongst the whole crowd.

Mr. J. LEAHY: Y on are talking of the demo­crats outside.

Mr. LE SIX A: Pos,ibly there might be demo­crats who would be proof against the demoralis­ing influences of the atmosphere of that Chamber. I believe the Government could secure some, and there is no reason why they should not make the attempt. I am interested in ascer­taining on what grounds the Government made those appointments to the Legielntive Council, and in the proper time and place I may Ket that information. I think the points to which I have adverted, in connection with this proposition, ought to commend themselves to the rrwjority of the members of this Chamber. I have not dwelt at any considerable length upon the £conomy that will be effected by the abolition of the Legislative Council, because the amount which it costs ie not very great when compared with other similar institutions in Australia. I uo not know whether the expenditure on the J,egislati,-e Council is as much as that on Dr. Maxwell's salary, or if we get any better result from it. The President of the Legislative Council gets £1,000 a year, the Chairman of Committees gets £500 or £600 ; then there is the Hansa1·d staff, and one or two other officers. There is also the cost of lighting, messengers, .and a few other employees, which does not run into an amount of money.

Mr. BvRROWS : ·what about the Bills that are knocked out?

Mr. LESINA: There is also the cost of wasted public time and wasted printing, and there is also tbe irritation-which cannot be £stimated at a monev value at ltll-the irritation which is caused in the public mind by the rejec­tion of necessary questions of legislation which are under consideration. I say that on that ground alone there is some rt<tson why we should attempt to stop public expenditure on it. It is a useless institution. If they agree with us, then they are supFrfluous; and if they disagree with us and prevent the passage of legislation, then they are obnoxious, if not dangerous. I can see no ground at all for the continuation of that institution in Queensland. There is no more reason why we should have one more in­stitution there than that we should have two, three, or four such institutions. There is no more argument in the necessity of a LegislatiYe Council as a second Chamber t ban there is for a second town council in Brisbane. If the town council originally consisted of two or three chambers, possibly we should have two town councils; but that is no reason why we should have a doubled-chambered to11 n council for the city of Brisbane. \Ve do not want this system of double government at all. If we could first abolish the Legislative Council and then h>tve a policy of the initiative and the referendum--

The SP:EAKER: Order ! Mr. LE8IN" A: One is the necessary corollary

of the other. Then we would be able tu pass those desirable reforms which make for the fullest possible freedom. I do not desire to say anything further on the subject now, so will simply move the motion. In commending this resolu­tion to the House, I ask hon. members to snpport it :md vote for it in order that it might indicate not only to our oupporters outside that as they signed the platform they will stick to it, but to indicat-e to the democracy of Australia, who are all moving along on the same lines for the cuttiug down of the cost of uur legislative estab· lishments, that the people are awu,kening to the necessity for doing away with this Chamber. I impress upon the members of the :Ylinistry who have been touring the country and calling upon the people to arise and a wake and pull down this in8titution, this ancient court of privilege, pride, and caste, in order that they may hear the cheers of the democracy sounding in their ears, that here is their opportnnity for doing- away with that institution. Let them show what they intend to-if they want this institution pulled down-this old feudal institution which represents nobody except dead and rrone Govern­ment,-if they want it shifted ont of the track of reform in order that the reform legislation passed in this Assembly will become law in the easiest and shortest possible space of time-let them show their sincerity as well as their conrage and manliness not only by advocating it on the plat­form, so that the crowd may throw up their hats and cheer, but here in this Chnmber let them show their sincerity by voting for it.

Mr. KERR (Bct?·coo): I listened closely to the speech of the mover of this motion, as I wanted to see where the economy was going to come in; but he never touched on that portion of his motion at all until he was reminded by the hon. member for Bulloo that economy was in the motion. I thought he would have shown to this House how considerable economy could be effected, and the benefits that would result by the practising of that economy, because it is useless, in bringing down a motion to this House, for any member to ask other members to vote for that motion without dealing fully with the ques­tion. Now, the latter part of the motion says the Council should be abolished because it is a useless institution. I thought the hon. member would have given us some suggestion about the abolition of this House. He gave one sugges­tion-and one suggestion only-and that was th>tt those who are appoint<>d should be pledged to the abolition of that Chamber. The hon. member must think tht1t the members of this Assembly are " lot of schoolboys. He mugt think that they know nothing about the Consti­tution, which any member of the Assembly or any person can re~d. The hon. member did not tell us that even " vote passed by this Chamber would have no effect.

Mr. J. LEAHY: N"ot a bit, and he knows it. Mr. KERR: There must also be a vote in the

Upper House "s well, and the motion must be carried by a very considerable majority, too-not merely a hare majority.

An HoNOVllABLE MEoinER: T~o-thirds majority.

:Yir. KERR : He never touched on that; he kept away from it altogether. He n<c,ver informed this House or the public through Hansa,·d­because it was a matter of appeal to the people through I:fansard-of that. He wanted to show that he was the only one in this Chamber that wa.s-to use his own expression-·'' gan1e" to bring this matter before this House.

::\Ir. LESINA: Someone must bring it forward. ::\Ir .. KERR: He said he was "game" to

bring it forward. I have always noticed that

Mr.Kerr.]

404 Proposed Abolition qf [ASSEMBLY.] Legislative Council.

the man who always brags about his gameness and his honesty is generally a man you must be very careful about.

Mr. J. LEAHY: That is your Premier. Mr. KERR: Our Premier is quite able to

take care of himself and to fight his own battles. Now, the hon. member dra~n;ect in a lot of other matter in connection with this. He said that I, as the leader of the Labour party, had not got up on the Address in Reply, and protested against the appointment• made to the Upper House during the receR>. If the hon. member knows anything about what has transpired in the party, he knows very well that a motion came before the party when the appointments to the Upper House were made, and the Labour party-be it said to their credit-considered that they had no right to take any action in reference to the appointment of those members to the Upper House. Now the hon. member comes down and tries to score off myself and off his colleagues by saying that I should have got up, when he, as well as the rest of us, knows that the party decided that they should take no action, or use any influence, in the matter of the appointments to the Upper House. \Vhy should we take any part or action in those appointments when we believe in the abolition of the Upper House?

Mr. MAOARTNEY : You have got your nominee in.

Mr. KERR: The hon. member for Toowong and the hon. merr,ber for Bnlloo have made interjections, and I noticed that the hon. mem­ber for Bulloo, afler the late appointmPnts were made to the Upper House, in an interview published in the Daily Jliail, made statements there which were utterly beside the truth. The hon. gentleman knows it, and the hon. member for Toowong, by interjection, said that I got my appointmPnt. I can say here from my phtce in the House, and everyone knows it, that I knew nothing of the appoint­ment of .Mr. Campbell until I saw it in the morning paper the day in which it appeared. The hon. member for Bulloo has made state­ments outside, and the hon. member for Too­wong by interjection thi" rtfternoon, that there is not one fuundation of fact for.

Mr. l'iiAOARTNEY: How do you know? Mr. KERR: Why did you make the state­

ment, then, if you did not !mow it as a fact? Mr. MAOARTNEY : It is generally accepted. Mr. KERR : I have had nothing to do with

the appointments that were made to the Upper House.

Mr. LESINA : Do you disapprove of them? Mr. KElUl: I arn not respon,ihle. \Vhy

should I approve of these appointments if I am not responsible? I am not guing to take the burden of the appointments. As to some of the appointments that have been cavilled at here this afternoon, I am certain that if the hon. member for Clermont proves as good a colonist as the gentleman whose name he has bandied about on the floor of the House, whatever his political opinions are, it will be a good thing for Queens­land. The only thing that can be brought against that man is his political opinions. The great oatcry against previous Governments was that they appointed men of their own political brand to the Upper Chamber. \Vhate,·er else is said, it cannot be said that that appointment was made because of the political opinions he held. Apart from his political opinions, he is a gentle­man who, from the position he has filled as a newspaper man and a business man, has a com­plete knowledge 0f this State.

Mr. LESIXA : There is a thousand like that in Queensland.

Mr. KERR: I never interjected when the hon. gentleman was speaking, but allowed him

[Mr. Kerr.

to have free scope, and I don't want him to make my speech-I am quite capable of making my own speech in my own way. That gentleman has a thorough knowledge of the grazing farmers, and he will be able to deal in a fair and proper manner with matters affecting that industry and the State generally.

Mr. J. LEAHY: \Vas it not a condition that he would call his political dogs off you?

Mr. KERR: The hon. member asks: \Vas it not a condition with Mr. Campbell that he would call his political dogs off me? Anyone who knows my position in the Barcoo knows that Mr. Campbell and I have been bitterly opposed in politics.

Mr. HARDAORE: No; he has been supporting you lately.

Mr. KERR : He has fought me at every elec-tion.

Mr. HARDAORE: Well, he has turned round. The SPEAKER: Order ! Mr. KERR: I fought every election with the

bitterest opposition that Mr. Campbell could give; and do you think that I need to call Mr. Campbell or any other paper politician off when I have won the Barcoo with the strongest oppo­sition they could bring against me ? The oppo­sition of the Western Champion always assisted me to win the Barcoo.

The HOME SECRETARY: That is so. Mr. KERR : Then why should I want to call

Mr. Campbell off? (Laughter.) Mr .. J. LEAHY: But you know he did call the

dogs off all the same-you won't deny it. (Laughter.)

Mr. KERR: I do not know any dogs that he had, because I am not up in political under­ground engineering like the hon. member for Bul!oo.

The SPEAKER: Oruer ! The language of the hon. member is not parliamentary, and he must withdraw it. I must a!Bo ask the hon. member for Bulloo to refrain from interjecting_ The hon. member for Barcoo hao stated t.hat he had no part in the nomination of 1fr. Carnpbell, and the hon. member for Bulloo must accept that statement.

Mr. J. LEAHY: Certainly. Mr. KERR : We heard a good deal this after­

noon about the blucher boots and the moleskins. The hon. member for Clermrmt can never get up and make a speech but he sneer•i at the blucher boots and the moleskins.

Mr. LESIJ'\A: I did nothing of the sort. I rise t<, a point of order, l\Ir. Speaker. You ruled me out of order the other day for using the word "sneering" in the discussion. I object to. that term being applied to myeelf. I did not sneer. I used the phra6e as deecriptive uf the nece,sity of appointing men with blucher boots and moleskin trousers.

Mr .• J. LEAHY: \Vhere is the point of order? Mr. LESINA: Any way, I make that explnna­

tion. Mr. KRRR: The hon. member is very touchy';

he has a very thin skin, and he expects other people to have the skin of a rhinoceros. The hon. member statEd what he considered would he the influence of that Chamber on men, even if they wore blucher boots and moleskin pants,

or trousers. \V e have !lien who [5 p.m.] have gone there who are as good

democrats or as good socia.lists as the hon. memberfor Clermont, though they may not have worn blucher boots and mole"km trouser,; ; and the opinions they held in the past they still hold, notwithstanding that thev are· me,nbers of the Upper House. I do not believe that the influence of the Upper Chamber has done anything to alter their desire and endeavour to remove burdens which rest upon their fellow­men. The hon. member also spoke about the·

P1·oposed Abolition qf [23 AUGT..'"ST.] Legislative Council. 405

"rough, wholesome, greasy detnocrat. ,, He always tries to lay on the butter very thickly. I am sure that no one who sees the hon. member in hi3 fancy vest dressed up, and hears him speak in this Chamber, would take him to be a representative of the "rough, wholeso1ne, greasy democrat'' out at Clermont.

:Mr. LESIXA: I said "breezy'' not "greasy:" Mr. KERR: No one would take him to be a

representative of those figures who are knocking about in blucher boots and moleskin pants. You would take him to be a representative of the city of Brisbane, or, if we had as thev have in England, the Universities of Oxford and Ca;mhridge represented in Parliament, you would thmk the hon. member for Clermont was a representative of one of those seats of le:uning. I can see no reasons why these &llusions should be made in this debate. ThA matter we are dealing with is the abolition of the Upper House. I thought the hon. member would have shown us some means, that he would have laid down some scheme, whereby we could accomplish the o,bolition of the Legislative Council. But he did nothing of the kind. The only sugges­tion he did m"ke is impracticable, because, while according to his own line of reasoning it was little use pledging a man, yet he wanted to appoint to the Upper House men who were pledged to the abolition of that Chamber. If he had come down with a scheme showing how the economy he spoke of could be effected and how the abolition of the Upper House could be accomplished in a proper and constitutional manner, I am certain thet he would not .only have got the support of the Labour party, but that he would also have got the support of other members of this House ; but the hon. member has not brought forw<trd any such scheme. As a matter of fact, this motion is only fireworks, brought forward in order to bring the hon. member for Clermont before the people of the State.

Mr. HYLAKD (Gympie): I think the time has arrived when something should be done to bring about a change in the Legislative Council in favour of democracy. In the State of (,lueens­land, as in other States of the Commonwealth, no matter whether men get into the Upper House by nomination or not, no matter what party is in power, no matter what king may reign as regards this Chamber, the constitution of the other branch of the Legislature is objectionable. If you appointed all Labour men, if you appointed all socialists, these wonld be as objectionable as if you put in all capitalists, because it would not be representing the people as they should be represented. As to the suggestion that hon. members nominated by the Government should be pledged to something in particular, I am afraid we cannot regard such a course as satis­factory. 'l'he Upper House of Queen,]and, Tasmania, New South \Vales, and other places, is against the spirit of democracy. The ques­tion is, Can we mend it, or can we end it? vVe cannot bring about any change in the Constitu­tion except by a two-thirds m&jority of the mem­bers of both HouRes. They had the same diffi­culty in Canada S•Jme time ago in c mnection with some States. They were succeosful in doing away with the second Chamber in some Stat~.s; but in other States the second Chamber stilt exists. About fifteen years ago one State adoptPd the course suggested by the hon. mem­ber for Clermont this afternoon-that is, mem­bers nominated to the Upper Chamber went in pledged to the abolition of that Chamber; but it has not been abolished yet. New Zealand aluo had difficulties in connection with its second Chamber, because its members were behind the age, and not in touch with the people of the State, and they brought in a rule

under which members were nominated for seven years instead of for life. They did not inter­fere with existing members; but all new mem­bers were appointed for a term of seven years. It also provided that the members of the Upper Chamber should receive payment at the rate of £200 a year, on the ground that as they were giving theit services to the country, their sen·ices were worth paying for. That was a step in the right direction--.£200 a year and a seven years' tenure of office. Still, I think seven years is too long to be out of touch with the people. In Tasmania and South Australia, at the present time, they are having great difficulties with their Upper House.'. T n both those Stat,,s democratic le"i"lation, passed by therepresentative Chamber, h,;:s been thrown out by the Legislativ9 Council. In Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia, the Upper House consists of members elected on a property qnalitic,,tion; and those elective Cham­bers are proving far worse than even nominee Chambers, such as those of New South Wales and Queensland. I am thoroughly of opinion that we are not in so bad a position as those States which have a second Chan1ber elected on a property qualific~tion. I neeil hardly say that I do not believe in a property qualification, neither do I believe in a hereditary Upper House like the House of Lords at home, nor in spiritual or temporal lords, The only lordship I acknow­ledge in politics is the lordship of the people. Why not go back in this respect to the old Mosaic economy? That great lawgiver pnt the administration of the law into the hands of the tribe of Levi, and it was required of them that they should have no inheritance in the land.

Mr. LESINA : They have got it all now. Mr. HYLAND: The acquisition of p~operty

by them was a disqualification for holdm~ the office. Let us go back to that system, and 1f we do we shall not go very far wrong. I hold that when a member of Parliament has another occu­pation or profession to look after he cannot pro­perly carry out his duties here. Be he doctor:, lawyer, merchant, large stmekeeper, t~o,;e pr~­vate businesses must aL,;orb a large portwn of h1s time; he is unable to devote the whole of his time to making the laws of the land; and, be­sides, his actions here, on certain occasions, are likely to be, unconsciously, perhaps, guided by self.interest. vVhy should we ask the Imperial Government to take a hand in this matter? I think we should do it ourselves. It may be asked, How are we going to do it oursel~es?. I do not think we can abolish the Le,lSiative Council by sending members here pledged t? i~s abolition. The only practical way to do 1t 1s through the Parliament of the Commonwealth. By the Federal Constitution, the Commonwealth P<trliament, with the consent of the State Par­liament, can amend the State Constitution in any direction required.

An HO!Wl:RABLE ME~IBER: The State Parlia­ment cannot give any such consent. .

Mr. RYLAND: The Federal Parhament has all the machinery to :tmend the State Constitu­tion.

The SPEAKER: Order ! The hon. member must not d.iecuss the Federal Constitution on this motion.

Mr. RYLAXD: I am contending that by first amending the Federal Constitution we can then amend our own State Constitution. A referendum of the people wonld have to be taken by the Federal Parliament on the pro­posed amendment of the Federal Con;titution. If this was done, and a majority of the States and a majority of the electors were willing to have their Upper Chambers abolished, that could be fffected by the Federal P>trliament. It would then be applicable not to Queenshnd only, but to all the States of Australia. That, in my

J.lfr. Ryland.]

406 Proposed Abolition qf [ASSEMBLY.] Legislative Council.

opinion, is the only w,cy in which it can be done. It is a practical way, and all the States are snffering under the same infliction. Victoria is suffering aho.

The SPEAKFR: Order! Mr. RYLAND: I believe the way I mggest

of accompli··hing reform is the way in which it will have to be ac,o.omplished. It will have to be put before the electors at the next federal election. \V e can tell them that we want to amend onr Constitution and that we want the FedPral Parliament to have power to amend it. I believe the people would take the matter up if we only put it before them in a proper manner. In that way we will do away with the neceseity of appealing to the Home Government. We will appeal to Cmsar. \Ve know no king but Cmsar, who is the people of Australia. I do not know that we should do away with the Upper House altogether, but we can well amend its constitution. I believe that our State is too big altogether. \V P could make three States out of it.

The SPEAKER: Order ! The hrm. member is dealing with matters that have no reference whatever to the motion. I must ask him to confine himself strictly to the terms of the motion.

Mr. RYLAND: I am merely pointing out the way in which this matter could be accomplished. I do not believe in the present Legisla.tive Council. Abolish the present Chamber and have an elec­tive one, the members of which should be elected by the whole of the people of the State jnst as the members of the Senate are. They would be the Ministers, and sit in this House .. I do not believe in our jJresent party government, and I believe if my plan were adopterl it would take the place of party government. \Ve might not have as many members as we have at present, because the referendum would take the place of a good many other thing", and there would be no fear of unfair or hasty legislation.

The SPEAKER : Order ! I must again ask the hon. member to confine himself to the terms of the motion, which has nothing at all to do with the referendum.

Mr. RYLAND : I know that objection wiil be raised that the Upper House is a check on has~y legislation, but we can make provision agamst that. I believe it is so possible to take the people into our confidence that nothing rash or which would endanger the safety of the State would be brought about. Our Upper Huuse is not in keeping with democratic sentiment. It cannot be said that it represents the people in any way, and I believe the people are beginning to see its usele;•sness. It is time we wiped out a useless impediment to our political machine. The industrial machine, as we know has made great strides. The old machinery 'which was used at one time hl1s become out of date and the same thing applies to our political ~achine. W_e. want something more in keeping with the spmt of the age. I have very great pleasure in supporting the motion.

Mr. KENN A (Bowen): I have followed the hon. member for Gym pie very closely, and I confess that, as far as the problem of how to deal with the Legislative Council is concerned it is just as remote as ever. I know there are difflcuJ. ~ies raised in connection with every reform that ~s '!looted. A lar.ge number of. people consider It IS be_tter to stwk to the dev1! you know than the devil you do not know, and that it is safer to leave things as they are. There are a great many people also who believe that Parliament is a bard-and-fast institution, that it cannot be changed, and possibly should not be changed. As far as I am concerned, I view Parliament as an inst,itution _which is as liable to change as everythmg else 111 the body politic is. There is nothing that needs change which should not be

[ lrf r. Ryland.

changed as the times change. That which cannot change, or which will not adapt itself to ch(mge, must necessarily go under or be wiped out. I believe that Parliament as an institution is ripe for amendment. In the first place, I con· sirler that it is a time-wasting machine. & great deal of unnecessary time ;s wasted in the work of legislasion. From that point of view alone it seems to me that the abolition of the Legislative Council1s a very desirable thing indeed. I con­fess that when I ha\e seen this Chamber occu­pied as it has been during the last ten year; in sitting night after ni!;:ht discussing measures, and perfecting them, and arranging them so that thev may be wise and jnst, it has seemed to me an outrage that the whole of our work accomplished by a popular Chamber should be ruthlessly ca•1t out with very little consideration by another b<'dy not elected by the people, with no responsibility to the people, and capable of doing what it likes with popular legislation. There has b"'en a demand for a reduction of members-a little inside and a little outside this House-and the abolition of the Legislative Council seems to me the best method of answer­ing that demand. \Ve have forty-three mem­bers of the Legislative Council in a Parliament totalling some 112 members, and the abolition of the Upper House would mean doing away with one-third of the number of members, which would b8 a very large reduction indeed. If there is a demand for a reduction of members­ani! I have some doubt about it myself-it seems to me that the very first place the reduction should take place is in the Legislative Council. I do not think the bi-cameral system of govern­ment, wherever it has been tried, has warranted its retention.

Mr. J. LEAHY: All the leading countries of the world have the bi-cameral system.

Mr. LESINA: Greece has not. Mr. J. LEAHY: Is Greece a leading country? Mr. KENNA: The hon. member is quite

wrong. There are fifty-one Legis­[5.30 p.m.] latures in the British Empire, and,

of these, thirty-three only consist, of one House.

Mr. J. LEAHY : Those are not Imperial Legis­latures. I spoke of the Legislatures of the leading countries of the world. The Legislatures you are referring to are only provincial.

Mr. KENNA: \Veil, there are six of the Canadian States, to begin with. Many of those Canadian States have more people and are pos­sibly of more importance than many of the­Anstralian States. They manage to get along with only one House, and two of the largest­Ontario and Manitoba-are about the only two countries with a Legislature which have no public· debt.

Mr. J. LEAHY: They have more legislators in Canada than there are in the whole of the Commonwealth.

Mr. K·ENN A : That I am not prepared to argue about ; but besides six of the Canadian States, the following British p0ssessions have only one House :-

::\'Ialta, Ceylon, Cyprus, Hongkong, Mauritius, St Helena, Gold Coast, Lagos, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Falk land Islands, British Guiana, Honduras, JRmaica rrrinida.d, Grenada, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, India, and the Straits Settlement.

Mr. RANKIN : What is the sense of talking of places like St. Helena? There is nobody there. (Laughter.)

Mr. KENN A : The population of many of those place, is larger than that of Queen"land. However, it is quite sufficient for me, anrl the analogy is much more applicable, to take the Canadian States, like Manitoba and Ontario, in order to point out that it is quite possible for a country to be well governed and achieve success

Proposed Abolition elf [23 AUGUST.] Legislative Council. 407

in government without the assistance of an Upr•er Hou<e. \Ve have not only the Legis­lative Councils in the various State8, bnt we have the equiv<tlent of a Legisbtive Council in the Commonwealth Senate. I believe we are over-governed-that we have too many legis­lators, but my remedy is not to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Assembly, but to wipe away the Upper House. We say we have ' representative system of govern­ment. \V e say we are governed by the people for the people, and of the people, and yet there is permitted to exist a body of men who are not responsible to the people, and not elected by the people. \Ve have a body of forty-three men who can exercise the right of Ye to over every piece of legislation which the popular Chamber may pa>s. If all tbe 210,000 electors in Queensland­men and women~ were to detnand to-morrow a piece of legiqlation, and if every member of this Assembly were, in obedience to that demand, to pass that legislation unanimously, there would still remain a body of forty-three legislators, not elected by the people and not responsible to the pe.ople, who would have the power to veto the united wish eR of those 210,000 electors and oft he seventy-two representatives of the people in this Chamber.

]\Jr. FORSYTH: You are supporting a Govern-rn.cnt th!:lt l;!tn-ffo..-1 tho TTnnoY> l=fr.n<><n ... The-sPi:\K:JfJi·;~ o~ctt~~~ ~~~~"V·

Mr. KEJ'\N A: I am not going to introduce the personal factor at all. So far as it is in my power, I am going to deal with the principle only. The position I have just laid down seems to me an anomaly that deserves, at any rate, serious consideration and amendment.

Mr. RANKIN: You are thinking about the Duma in Russia.

Mr. KENNA: The hon. member must be a thought-reader. I was not thinking of anvthing of the kind. I am thinking of onr own country, and the b~re truth presented to the mind of the hon. member for Bnrrum reminds him, in its forcibleness, of the Russian system of (;overn­ment. That is really the position here-that all our legislation has to pass through the veto of forty-three gentlemen appointed for life-not by the people, but by the Cabinet. How is the Legislative Council appointed? Certain repre­sentatives of the people, calling themselves the Cabinet-which, by the way, has no Constitu­tional standing either-meet together and decide who shall be members nf this vetoing Council. The representatives of the people in this Cham­ber have no voice in the selection of those candidates. The representatives of the people are not consulted in any way in regard to the personnel of those who are to occupy that irre­sponsible position. 'l'he Cabinet does it. I wish it to be understood that I have no personal feeling in the matter, but there is no denying the fact that many of those gentlemen have been rejected by the very voters whose wishes they have the absolute power for life afterwards to vetn. 'l'aking all Queensland a8 one constituency, if the members of the Council were to offer themsehes to-morrow for election, I ask hon. members, fairly, how many of them would be elected to occupy the positions they now fill?

Mr. RANKIN' They have done vmy good work, haven't they?

Mr. KEJ'\NA: I am one of tho-;e who doubt that. I am open to convidion as to the good work they have done.

Mr. PETRIE: 'I' hat is all rot. Y on are talking to the galiery now.

Mr. KENNA : They are supposed to prevent hasty le:;islation. So far as I know, that hasty legislation is largely legislation of one de,crip­tion. I have seen legislation of a class nature passed through that House in the most hasty

fashion. I have seen legislation of a democratic nature long delayerl, bitterly criticised, mutilated, and finally hurled out by that House. So fa.s as preventing hasty legislation is concerned, I do not consider the Council has justified its exist­ence. If it does not prevent hasty legislation I should like to hear some reason for its retention. I do not remember any measnre that has been benefited by its passage throngli the Upper Hous•'. If 'the seventy-two representatives of the people in this Chamber are not competent to deal with legislation effectively, then it is time something was done; but to say thattheforty-three members of the Council are posseseed of superior ability to the representatives of the people-as is inferred by saymg that they shall sit there and exercise a veto-is to cast a reflection upon the people who elect those representatives. I wish to deal now with the question ae to how the Upper House is to be abnlished. There are Jifierent methods, all of which are more or les» difficult and roundabout. It must be confessed at the outset that the Upper House find' itself very strongly entrenched, and it is a difficult matter mdeed to shift it; but there are three or fonr practical methods that may be adopted for dealing with that body. In the first· place, it would be possible for this Honse to refuse all Supply, and in that way practically starve the TTnna-r ll"n11.:!" f\nt The- TTnnP"r Jlf\11<o!A T l"Pr>lrnn

....... .l:'t''-'• ~~~~~'-'--~WO ~~~~ ..._., t'l'~- ~-----,- • -------,

costs this country something like £7,000 or £10,000 a year; that is for the salaries of its officers, printing, upkeep of its establishment, and the cost of the railway passes. The granting of that money rests with this House, and if this House refused Snprly to the Upper House it could soon be brought to its bearings, and made to submit to whatever amendment or whatever improvement might be demanded. In the second place, it would be po~sible to stnff the Upper House.

Mr. FoRSYTH: That is what you have been doing.

Mr. KENN A: That is, a sufficiency of demo­cratic representatives might be sent to that Chamber to influence whatever legislation of a dem~cratic nature that might be seut there from this body. It seems to me that the most effec­tive, and simplest, and surest way of dealing with the question is to ask for a referendum and discover what is the feeling of the 210,000 voters of Queensland in regard to the abolition of the Upper House. It is not possible, accord­ing to our Constitution, to aboli3h the Upper House by any process of this House. Clause 9 of the Constitution provides-

Not withstanding anything herein before contained, the Legislature of the said colony, as constituted by this Act, shall have full power and authority from time to time by any Act or Acts to alter the provisions or laws for the time being in force under this Act or other,vise concerning the Legislative Council.

That gives us power only to alter the laws; but there is a great difference between altering and abolishing. That alteration is rather specifically laid down two lines further on in the same clanse, which says we shall have power to alter the pro­visions concerning the Legislative Counc1l, and then goes on-and to provide for the nomination or election of another Legislative Couneil.

These alterations reCJnire a two-thirds majority of both Houses. No provision is m %de in the Constitution for abolishing the Upper House. Then we must go ontside the Constitution. The Imperial Government, when it first started us on our self-governing career, gave us a charter limiting the lines upon which we might govern this St,tte. That charter is the Constitution. My contention is that if a referendum of the whole of the people were taken on this question

.llfr. Ke:11.na.]

408 Proposed Abolition of [ASSEMBLY.] Legislative Council.

of abolishing the Upper House, and an appeal on the strength of that referendum were to be made to the Imperial Parliament to alter that clause of our Constitution in the direc­tion of abolishing the "{; pper House, that matter would be very speedily and very shortly arranged. The House of Commons has itself felt the pernicious influence of the House of Lords, and iil itself engaged in a struggle with that body, and it might easily appreciate the position m which any of it,, self-governing colonies finds itself and acquicoce in any request made by that colony to release itself_ I there­fore move an amendment to omit all the words after "take steps to," and substitute therefor the words "to bring about a referendum on the question of abolishing the Legislative Council."

HoN. R PHILP (Tmcnscille): I thought that <Jome member of the Government would have had something to say on this question.

'l'he PREMIER: \Ve have hacl no instructions. Hoc-;, R. PHILP: I thought that when an

important motion like this was mqved by the hon. member for Clermont he would have been followed by the Premier. \V e are entitled to know what his views are on the subject.

Mr. LESINA: He >aid at TownsviJ]p, he was in fa vonr of the abolition of the Council. It was to be made "red hot."

HoN. R. PHILP: He was before the con­stituencies then. I certainly thought that some member of the Government would have told us what their opinion is, and what they intend doing. This is one of the most important motions that we have had before us for years. I am not in favour of the abolition of the Upper House, because I consider it is a very useful institution. It may be improved by limiting the numbers and the term. I remember some years ago that the Upper House themselves passed a Bill by which the appointment was limited to ten years, and they were to have constituencies all over Queensland. 'rhey were to be called the mem­ber for S 1-and-so, so that when vacancies occurred some eligible men should be appointed for that district. The Government of the day at that time did not think fit to go on with the Bill, and nothing was done. I think that something might now he done in that direction. The usefulness of the House has been :proved time and again without question. The present Government have filled the House to overflowing, crammed the House with additional members­stuffed it practically. \Ve have forty-four mem­bers in the Upper House, I think seven or eight more than when I left those benches-something like four more than the normal numher for years. Why they did so nobody knows. There was no reason for it-no burning question between the two Houses. 'l'h" last speech the President made in this House was one declaring war against the Upper Home. Sinee then he has become Pre>i­dent of that august body, and he is not likely nO<'-' to commit suicide. \Ve know that the ability of members of the Upper House, not­withstanding the remark, of the hon. member for Bowen, is far above that of rnem11er.< of this House. :Men in that House have helped ta make this country. Some of the oldest pioneers of Queensland are members c£ that House. Until lately it included the late Sir A. 0. Gregory and the late Sir Hugh Nelson, than whom two· finer colonists have never been in (~ueensland.

A.n HoNOGRABLE ::'11E3IBER: Mr. Jl1organ. HoN. R. PHILP: I do not want to make

remarks about Mr. ::\Iorgan, but I will say this: If the late Sir H ugh N el,;on was worth £1,000 a year, how much is Mr. 1Iorgan worth? I say £100. My vie~< s are well known on that subject. I said years ago that £1,000 a year was too much, and wished to reduce it. J hope the mover of the motion will see fit to withdraw it,

[Mr. Kenna.

and try and improvE>, if possible, the mode of nomination of the Upper House-s'1y, 1f he thinks there should be an election to the House on a sub<tantial franchise, or else limit the number of years members should be appointerl for. Snme think appointment for life is ton long. Then make it for five or ten years, and diviJe the Upper House to represent several constitu­encies. Every part of the State should he re­presented. At present that is not so ; some parts of the State are not represented.

The PREMI!lR: It is very difficult to get men without payment.

Hox. R. PHILP: Youwillgetmen without payment.

'fhil PRE1IIER: Of one class. HoN. R PHILP: \Vhy did you say "of one

clas . ..;." The PRE>JIER: Or one political opinion. HoN. R. PHILP : They are better qualified

to give an opini()O on questions than n1any rnem­bers of this House.

Mr. LESI:\'A: Why don't they show it? The SPEAKER: Order! HoN. R. PHILP: They have shown that by the

boldness, the care, and the intelligence they have exercised in revising Bills sent np from this Chamber. They have saved the reputation of this Chamber in many cases by improving measures sent from here.

Nir. KENNA: Mention one case. Mr. MACARTNEY: The Hospitals Bill, for one. HoN. R. PHI LP: Hundreds of cases. Almost

every Bill we have sent from here has been im­proved by the other Chamber.

Jltfr. KENNA: Improved out of existence. HoN. R PHILP: No; improved. Because,

after all, they are men of wisdom and long ~x­perience in this country, and rnen who are qmte fearless. They have no constituencies to fear. They are not guided by the mob-there is no mob rule there at all.

Mr. KENNA : You do not call electorate rule mob rule, do you? , HoN. R. PHILP: \Vel!, sometimes. At the last election a wave of insanity swept over

, Queensland. Possibly the electors are getting , saner, and _.there-·"Wil:r-b<nrnlmnge at the next 1 election. But why anyone in this House should i disparage that Chamber, which h:.s done such ~splendid service in time past, I cannot make out.

Perhaps the mover wants to get there himself? (Laughter.) He said it is an obstructive Chamber, and, as the lwn. member for Bulloo pointed out, the hon. member for Clermont is the most ob<trnctive member in this Honse. Even last night he almost wrecked the Ministry by his amendment.

:'dr. LESINA: You cannot wreck this 11inhtry. They will always be a~le. t? keep their heads above \Vater-wood wont sinK.

HoN. R. PHILP: They n,ay be able to do that. I r>bject to a motion of thic; sort being brought before the House, and no member of the Ministry replying. I think it is a slight nn the Upp r House~-a slight on the worthy gentleman who i" now President-that not the slighte>t notice is taken of this motion of one of their own sup[Jort"rs. As leader of the Opposition I oppose this Bill.

The P!lEi\IIJCR: This motion is by a member of the O]Jpnsiti,m.

HoN. R. PHILP: \Vhen the Premier was over on this side, nobody enjoyed the speeches of the hon. member for Clermont with more gusto, or cheereri him for the splendid speeches he made ctgainst the then Government.

The PRE:IIIER: Then, as now, he is killing the party he is supporting.

HoN. R. PHILP: He is a strenuous sup­porter; and I have seen the Premier look as blue as possible, and as if he would like to kick

Factories and Shops [2:{ AuGusT.] Amendment Bill 409

bim out of the Ch>tm ber, because of his criticism. This time he may have conslllted the Premier­! do not know_:before he proposed this motion. I don't think he did last night, when he moved "'n amendrr.ent on the Btheridge Railway Bill. "\Vhy does not some member of the Government get up and defend their appointments to the Council? But nnt a word, except from the hon. men1ber for Barcoo, \vho on every occ:asion would support everything done by the present Ministry.

Mr. Kmm: I never supported you. HoN. R. PHILP: It w.mld be much more

manly if some member of the Ministry, who are all paid for their services, wc•uld get up. The hon. member for Barcuv is not paid, except his salary, but the members of the Government are drawing salaries, and ought to get up and defend the appointments.

The PREMillH: Is that why you get up-because you are paid? · ·

HoN. R. PHTLP: I feel it my duty to get up and read the hon. gentleman a lesson; he is very fond of discoursing to us what our duty is. He ought to tell the House what he thinks of this motion. Surely he is not condemning by silence the fourteen appointments he has made since be has been in office. I understand that before he went to the Treasury he was also of the opinion that the Upper House should be abolished. Of course, we must judge that gentleman by his actions. He i< not at present in favour of abolishing it. He wants to stuff it full to overflowing. He is prepared, if necessary, to make five or six other appointments, if he -can get some politicctl kudos by doing it. '!.'hat was never done by any of his predecessors.

Mr. RAXKIN: Why not offer some suggestion?

At 7 o'clock the Hot;se, in accordance 1vith Sessional Order, proceeded 1vith Gove1·nment business.

FACTORIES AND SHOPS AMENDMENT BILL.

Coil!i\IITTEE.

On clause 1-" Short title and construction"-· The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS

said it was considered advisable to provide that this meast1re should come into force on some particular date, and he thought the first day of next year would be a sui table time. He moved that the cl;cuse be amended by the addition of the words-

This Act shall commence and take effect on and from the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and seven.

Mr. :MAUGHAN welcom<d this Bill, but trusted that the time was not far off when they would have a 1nore con1prehensive 1neasure submitted to them, which would apply the pro­visions relating to a • pecial wages board to bakers, butchers, coalminers, and to rr1en em~ ployed in timber mills and in other departments of our industrial life.

Amendment agreed to; and clause, as amended, put and pa•,,ed.

On clause 2-" Amendment of section 4 "­definitions-

l\Ir. KERR wi-.hed to bring under the notice of the :Minister the urgent need there was for more inspectors of land boilers. He was speak­ing more p!ctrticularly for the "Western rlistrict. l\Iany owners of boilers used on statio·.s had told him that they had had their boilers for tw8nty years and over, and they had nev8r been in­spected, so that they did not know the condition of the boilers. Some of the men who had been in charge of those boilers might have been incom-

petent, and the owners had naturally a feeling of insecurity in regard to them, and would like to have thPrn inspected, so that they might know what state they were in and get any necessary repairs effected.

Mr. KE::'<NA: He quite agreed with the remarks of the leader of the Labour party, as far as the deficiency of inspectors was concerned. For instapce, there was or.ly one inspector for the vast district comprising Cairns, Port Doughs, Ingham, Mackay, and Bowen. Tu do the work efficiently was far too much for one man. He would suggest that that portion of the Act should be made applicable wherever there were boilers, and that the impection ;hould he rigidly carried out. On the Burdekin there were a large number of boilers and locomotives employed on the big plantations, worked by Chinese, kanakas, and Japanese, without any certificate. Even if there was not sufficient mone.y to pay more inspectors, the extension of the Act wou:d have an excellent moral effect.

The CHAIRMAN : I would point out that this discussion is somewhat irregular on the clause the Committee is c0nsidering, which is simply a definition clausP.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLXC WORKS: The que,tion rahed was a very important one, but it could be more conveniently discussed on J\1r. Barber's amendment to clause 3, of which he had g-iven notice. He moved that on pag-e 2, line 5, in the definition of "closed," the following be inserted after the word "words": "by being locked or otherwise secured." It had been found in practice that the existing definition was in­sufficient.

Amendment agreed to. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS

moved, in line 31, adding to the definition of "occupier" the following words be inserted after the word "person": "whether employing any other person or not."

HoN. R. PHILP: Before the amendment was put, he would ask the Minister why the words "after a poll" had been c•mitted in the definition of "half-holiday''? ·

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: As Saturday was the time fixed for the half­holiday in any new dietrict brought under the operation of the Act, the words were unneces­sary.

Amendment agreerl to. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS

moved that in the definition of "shop," after the word " retail" in line 33, the words "or whole­sale" be inserted. On the se conrl reading the opinion was txpressed by S<-veral hon. n1err1bers that the Act should apply to wholesale as well as to retail houses. In deference to that opinion tee amendment bad been submitted. In the original Bill those words wPre inserted, but they were knocked out in another place.

HoN. R PHIL P: Perhaps he might be allowed to go back a little to the definition of "im­prover." A1nong;,:;t others an in1prover was defined as "any person who is not over twenty­one years of age, or who, being over twenty-one years of age, holds a license from the Minister to be paid as an improver." There were plenty of c%ses in which men and women over twenty­one years of age desired to learn a trade, and yet they would not be able to do so without the consent of the Minister. Plenty of people had heen reduced in life and desired to make a new start in a new busin~css. Why should they require to go to the Minister for a licenee? He considered that a person of any age should be allowed to learn a trade without the sanction of the Minister.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The bon. member was under a misapprehension. He understood the definition to mean that a

Hon. T. O'Sullivf!n.]

410 Factories ancl Shops [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

person over twenty-one years of age could uot be apprenticed without the sancti"n of tbe Mini"ter. That was not the meaning-. Tbe definition was rendered necessary by the crea­tion of wages boards. One of the functions of the boards was to fix the vroportion of improvers to workmen, and hence it was necessary to pro­vide that a person over twenty-one years of age could not work as nn improver without a license.

The CHAIR:'I1AN: I suggest that the 1Y1inis­ter withdraw the amenrlment before the Com­mittee if there is a desire to discuss a previons part of the clause. It would be more in order.

Amendment., hy leave, withdrawn. HoN. R. PHILP: The ~iinister would not

progress with his Bill if he t<~ld members that they di•l not un•lerstand it. The definition said distinctly that m, one over twenty-one years of age should be allowed to work as an irnprover unless he held a license from the Minister.

The SECRETARY FOH PUBLIC WORKS: The clause simply meant that if a person was orer twenty-one years of age he had to hold a license to work as an improver; otherwi":'~ the provisions relating to the proportion of improrers to skilled workers would be evaded.

Mr. PETRIE asked to what trades the provi­sion would apply?

The SEOR~;TARY FOR Pl:BLIO \VoRKS: Any trade that c .me under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. PETR[E hardly thought the hon. gentle­man understood the conditions under which apprentices or improver• were Pngaged. The provision would work ~:ery unsatisfactorily.

Mr. MoDON"NELL: An impro1·er was a person who had not fully served his time. Unless some such provision were inserted, men might come into a shop and contend that they were improvers, while at the same time they were workmen, and thus the provisions of the wages board clauses would be evaded. In some cases, young men went into a trade until they were eighteen years of age, and then desired to take up another trade or branch of trade, which would extend their apprenticeship until they were over twenty-one years of age. Such cases would require the intervention of the Minister. There would be a very large field for evasion of the Act, both by employer~ and employed, if some such provision was not agreed to. Under the special wages clauses there was power to fix the proportion of improvers to tradesmen, and the definition applied particularly to those clauses.

Mr. BARNES : The clause might very easily be made to act as a Yehicle for political influ­ence, and, in his opinion, required considerable modification.

HoN. R. PHILP: From his experience of men, an improver was much more likely to say he was a journeyman than a journeyman was to say that he was an improver. People did not go about saying they were incompetent. It ap­peared that the Minister had to make inquiry whether a person was an improver or journey­man. Perhaps the per.,on concerned might have been working in New Zealand, and the Minister wonld have to write down there to find out whether he had been working as an improver or journeyman. The employer could tell far better than the Minister whether a man was a fully accomplished tradesman or only :tn apprentice; but under the clause the person desirous of work must get the :Minister's permission first. The thing w"s intolerable. If no one was to be allowed to obtain work as an improver until he

had first got a license from the [7.30 p.m.] Minister, it would make that hon.

gentleman as autocratic as the Cz>r of Russh. A man might go to an employer and say he w,;s an 1mprover, and the emphyer might be quite satisfied to take him on as an improver,

[Hon. T. O'Sullivan.

and that should be sufficient. A journeyman was not at all likely to s,1y that he wns an improver in order to get work. Plenty of men came to him for work, and they gPner«lly said they were competent to do anything. The mn,tter might fairly be left to the man who wanted w,>rk and the man who had work to give, without thP Minister interfering.

Mr. BOWMAN thought it was wise that the definition shoald be inserted. He had had a great deal of experience in connection with the boot trade, and he had seen the difficulty that had arisen through men of atlv1nced years coming in as iruprovers who had never sened any length of time as apprentices. He knew instances of men having paid £5 and £10 to get a smattering of the trade to enable them to get a joh at either making or finishing boots. Section ur; of the Victorian Act provided-

The Minh;ter is hereby authorised to grant to any person over twenty-one years of age, who has satisfied him that such person has not had the full experience prescribed for improver'\ by any spe~ial bonxd, a license­to work as an improver for the period named in such license at the wag-P fixed by the board for an improYer of the like experience.

He thought the special wages board to be ap· pointed under the Bill would be able to deal with improvers and journeymen. It was fair, seeing that the employers and the employees const1tnted that board, that they should be able to get permits from the Minister, and he took it that no Minister would ever refuse to grant a permit. The employer would be protected against what were known in many trades as "botches," and it was fair for the employer as well as for the journeyman.

Mr. MACARTNEY: Supposing the Minister refuses to grant a license?

Mr. BOW MAN : He was not likely to refnse. If he did, the Minister would have a lively time of it if it was brought up in the House.

The CHAUtMAN: I would point out to the Committee that, as they have agreed to an amendment in line 31, no matter how much they may desire to discuss that part of the clause which defines the word "improver," it will not be possible at this stage to go back and amend that definition.

Hon. R. PHILP : Didn't the Minister with­draw his amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The amendment which the Minister withdrew came after line 33, but an amendment was made prior to that in line 31.

HoN. R. PHILP: The hon. merr,ber for For­titude Valley said that the clause would protect the employer.

Mr. BoWMAN: And the journeyman too. HoN. R. PHILP: The hon. member did not

say anything about the journeyman. Mr. BoWMAN ; I will say it now, if you like. HoN. R. PHILP : What was to hinder an

improver saying he was a jonrneyman? Nothing at all. If he said he was an improver, he must go cap in hand to the Minister and ask for a license before he could obtain employment.

The SECRETARY POR Punr,rc \VoRKS: If he is over twenty-one years of age.

HoN. R. PHILP: Yee; he could Yote to put the Minister ont of office if he liked, but he "as not to have the right tQ work without a license from the hon. gentleman. He hoped the hon. gentleman would see fit to delete the definition altogether. If the :Minister was going to say who were the only competent men in Queens­land, he would have a most difficult job. The thing was unheard of. Suppose a man at Thursday Island wanted work a.-< an imrm>ver, was he to be compelled to come to Brisbane to ask for a license from the Minister? Everyone in Queensland did not live in Brisbane; and, if anyone 1,000 miles away wanted a job as an

FactoTies and Shops [23 AuGusT.] Amendment Bill. 411

improver in future, he would have to travel to Brisbane and >eek the permission of the 11inistc"r, Could not. the h<m. gentleman see the absurdity of the po-iiion he had taken up?

The PRE:\IIER : The Committee se·,med to be wasting time, as this was hardly the right time to deal with improvers. That would come later on" Nobody had complained that this was not a good definition of an improver, or proposed to improve it. The dtfinition would not pre­vent anyone from getting work, and it would not require anyone to go to the l'dini;ter at all for a permit. That would all come later on !n the clause dealing with the wages board, whem 1t would be necessary to distinguish between journeymen and apprentice5 and improvers. It could then be settled whether it should be permissible to employ anyone as improvers nr not.

Hon. E. B. FORREST : It says here that he must hold a license. It is the licenRe we object to.

The PRE::\IrER: This definition did not compel anyone to hn,ve a license. That was done by another part of the Bill. The definition did not say that he must hold a license, It just defined what any improver was. If the Com­mittee "pent the whole evening in discussing the definition, they would still have the same thing all over again when they came to the clause relating to the wages board.

Mr. J:BJNKINSON: After hearing the Premier's speech, he was more convinced than ever that the hon. gentleman did not understand the Bill. (Laughter.) If there waR ever a Bill placed on the table of the H•mse that was going to be profuse with litig:.tion it was this Bill, and he quite understood that the Minister was not going to elucidate any of its points which were going to help the lucr"tive profeesion which he now adorned. The Premier said that no one suggested an amendment of the d'finition of the word "improver," but they were blocked by the Secretary for Works moving his amendment. Neither the Premier nor the Secretary for Works understood that the interpretation clauses covered the subsequent clauses of the Bill. If they turned to clause 50 they would see that this provision applied to that pn,rt of the Bill, because it stated distinctly that every apprentice was an improver. The contention of the leader of the Opposition that it would place obstacles in the way of all sorts of people getting work was correct, and the Minister would be wise if he withdrew that clause until thev bad discussed the other parts of the Bill. There was nothing n\)reasonable in asking that.

Mr. BOWMAN: 'l'he leader of the Opposi­tion seemed to think that there was going to be a great deal of trouble owing to this particular clause being inserted; but the same clause had been in operation in the Victorian Act for the past ten years, and there had been no trouble there, and why should they fear it in Queens­land? It bad gone beyond the stage of experi­mental legislation, and worked satisfactorily in Victoria. It was a check on cet:tain employers, and because they were safeguardmg the men who wnuld come under it, the Opposition opposed it.

OPPOSITION :MEMBERS : No, no ! Mr. BOWMAN : The special wages board in

JYielbourne dealt with three classes--apprentices, improvers, and journeymen. It was the old gag over again-anything introduced in Queensland, for the benefit of the wage-earner was wrong. They had always found the leader of the Oppo­sition opposed to legislation that had a tendency to give consideration to employees as against employers.

HoN. R. PHILP: The hon. member had been making statements which were not true. He was leader of the Government which first intro-

duced the Factories and Shops Bill, and, as the h<m. member, !Hr. 11cDonnell, knew, if he had not taken the steps he did, the Bill would not have gone thr<'ugh that session. He had been an employee longer than the hon. member, having worked in the State since he was eleven years of age, and he bad also been an emtJlover.

l\J:r. Bow:\IA:'-1: You always opposed the Con­cili >tiun and Arbitration Bill.

Ho:'<. I-t. PHILP : He had opposed the Arbitration and Ccmciliation Bill becau~e it was a senseless thing to bring in. The hon. member for the Valley 'aid that because New Zealand and Vic~oria ·had passed it we ought to do so IH:re, but tbe positions were differ0ut. A man in a distant part of the State, who was over twenty·one, could not get work unless he came to the JY1inister for a permit. How many persons in the State could wait for a reply from Brisbane bef•Jre getting work? Hon. members opposrte talked about the poor, struggling, shning people, and now they would block them from getting work. If a man was willing to work, why should an employer not be able to give him work without any interference on the part of the Minister?

l\Ir. PETRIE, with other hon. members, desired to see justice done to everybody. It was proposed that the Minister shouid give a license for an improver to get work ; but what did he know about an improver? The matter ought to be left in the hands of the employer, who knew more about what an improver should be than any Minister or member of Parliament. If they wanted to improve the conditions of their young people they should not pass legislation which would injure them. A clause such as that would be absurd.

iiir. GRANT suggested that as the clause simply defined the meaning of the word "im­

prover" as used in subsequent pro­[8 p.m.] visions of the Bill, and as clauses 48

to 55 dealt with the granting of licenses by the Minister, they should defer the discussion until they came to those clauses.

l\lr. MoDONNELL expressed surprise that the definition had not been accepted by hon. members opposite, if the leader of the Opposi­tion meant what he said, which he believed the hon. member did. \Vithou" this definition there was a danger that a number of men would be prevented from getting work. The special wages board might determine that, say, £210s. should be the wages of a journeyman in a par­ticular trade. 'fben if a person weut to work a& that wage, and his employer found that he was not competent because he had not served his apprenticeship, that person would be discharged as a journeyman, and if he was over twenty-one years of age he could not be employed as an apprentice. By inserting that definition such a person would be able, on obtaining a license from the Minister, to be employed as 11n im­prover, and would thus have an opportunity of perfecting his knowledge of the tradP.

Hon. H. PHILP: Suppose a man lives at Charters Towers?

Mr. :MoDONNELL : If a man worked in Charters Towers for the recognised time as an apprentice, he ~ould refer the inspector to that fact, and the inspector cnuld make inquiries; but if he had not served his indentures, then under that provision he could get a license from the Minister to be employed as an improver.

:\fr. MACARTNEY: The premises of the hon. memberc who had just sat down were somewhat false. His argument was bnsed on the assumption th<>t a man could not be an im­prover if he w:ts over twenty-one years of age. That was not the law, but this Bill proposed to make it the law, and it was to that propo~al that objection was taken by the leader of the

Mr. M acartney.]

412 Factories and Shops [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Opposition and other hon. members. They objected to laying down a hard·and-fast rule that a man could not be an improver if he was over twenty-one, unless he had the con­sent of the Minister. If it was considered proper that the con~;ent of some official should be obtained in sueh a case, it would be better to make that official a police magistrate, as that would bring the official nearer to the applicant for a license. Man v Acts pas>ed by hon. members opposite which were intended to benefit the worker had operated very much to the injury of the worker, and they shonld con­sider very carefully any proposal which wo11ld impose restrictions in regard to employment. He did not agrEe with the Premier that they should pass this clause now and deal with the matter later on, because if they did their hands would be tied to a certain extent. The matter appeared to be a contentious one, and it would be reason­able to postpone the consideration of this provi­sion until they had dealt with the clauses relating to the special wages buard. He thought the :Minister would make more progress if he adopted that course.

Mr. JBNKI::'\'SON thought there was an in­consistency between the definition of an improver in the clause and the provision in chuse 50. The latter stated that "all apprentices, unless bound by indentures of apprenticeship, etc., shall be deemed to be improvers for the purposes of this Act." According to the definition, an improver was "any person other than an appren­tice."

The SECRETARY FOR PGBLIC \VORKS: There is nothing inconsistent between the two.

Mr. JENKINSON was afraid the hon. gentle­man was looking at the matter with a leg,] eye. They knew that all apprentices were not inden­tured. As a matter of fact, there were ,·ery few indentured apprenticRs in the State. There appeared to him to be a c mtradicti,m in the Bill.

Mr. TOLMIE (Dmyton and Toowoomba): Hon. members seemed to be working at cross purposes, although there was no doubt a desire on both sides to do the best that could be done. There was a g<,od deal to be Raid in favour of the contention of the hon. member, 11r. l\IcDonnell. At preeent there were a great number of men over twenty.one years of age in the various trades who really were not expert workmen, and if there were no means of enabling them to work at a le~s wage than was given to expert workmen, the probability was that they would be debarred from employment. As employers knew, the apprenticeship system was almost non-existent in Queensland. A lad went to learH a trade, and after two or three years fancied he knew everything about it, rtnd refused to work for the wages of an apprentice. He then sought for higher wages elsewhere, and went from town to town getting '<Vork in ont3 factory a.nd anf;ther. After a time, in each case, the employer dis­covereJ their want of skill, and they had to moYe on elsewhere. \Vithout some such provision as the present a very large number of workmen would be debarred from employment after the Act came into operation. At tbes>tme time be would like to See the power to grant permi&,,ion given to the polic2 tnagistrate, as suggested by the hon. member for Toowong. Tbe State was a very wide one, :1nd if a man in the far North­west had to sen~ in his application to the Minis­ter, and the ;\Iinister had to make inquiriee, the employer might get tired of waiting and tile man might lose his chance of work. The question could be settled at once by some authority on the spot. If the 1Iinister would adopt that sug­gestion he believed both sides would be fairly well satisfied that the best had been done under the circumstances.

[Mr. Macartney.

Mr. CRI BB (Bundanba): The proposal under discus>ion was intimately connected with the special wages board. The board would pre;cribe a rninimun1 wage, and whEn that wage 'vas established the improver was not likely to get any work. In years gone by it was customary for a boy to be apprenticed for five years to learn a trade. ~ow there were no apprPntices in Queensland, and very often wh8n a lad reached the age of about eighteen he left his employer and went to another place to get work at higher wages. As soon as the board fixed a minimum wage that lad would get very small pay indeed. The ide~ was a good one, but it would be a mistake to lertve it to the Minister to say how long an improvet· should wo~k under u. license. The emjJloyer would suon tind out his ability, and it would perhaps be the best way out of the difficulty to leave the matter in the hands of the board of the di.otrict. If the clause was umended in that way it would be satisfactory to all. Certainly without the provision improvers would be done for.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IYORKS: After the expression of O!Jinion they had beard, perhaps it would be advisable to insert "Chief Inspector" in the place of "1\finister."

Hon. R. PHI!.P: \Vhy not any ins)Jector? The SECRETARY FORPUBLICWOltKS:

The Chief Inspector would be in comtant touch with all the districts, and applications would be disposed of without delay. There was no reason to bring police magistmtes into the Bill. It was a departmental matter, and must be under the contrnl of the head of the department. The scheme of the Act might be evaded unless "improver" was defined. The proportion of improvers would be fixed by the boat d, otherwise some employers n1lght have ten or tl\·elve in1M provers and pay them less than the mini~num wage. He hoped hon. members were satrsfied by this time that the definition was all right.

Mr .• TENKINSON: They ha Ye an appeal from the board in Victoria.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The effect of that appeal in Victuria bad nothing whatever to do with the clause. He asked leave to omit the word "Minister" on line 27, with a view of inserting "Chief InE-pector."

The CHAlR.MA~: It is contrary to the Standing Orders to go back, but, with the Com­mittee's coment, I will put the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the amend­ment be ,uhmitted?

Mr. JEKKINSON did not think they were strictly in order. He agreed with the previous ruling that after an amendment was once made they "could not possibly go back. The Standing Orders were very definite on the subject, and the whole difficulty could be got over by ·adopting the sugghtion of the leader of the Opposition to postpone the clause, and take it up after the rest of the Bill was denlt wil h.

Tbe CHAIRMAN: Do I understand tha,t the hon. member oLjects to the amendment being submitted?

1\lr. JENKINSON: Ye,. because he was a believer in the Standing Orders being rigidly arlhered to. They were getting into a very slip­shod method of doing busint ss which tbey would afterwards regret.

l\1r. HAWTHORN sugg·ested that instead of " Chief Inspector" the Minister should sub­lnit tbe word "inspector." The definition of "inspector" under the original Act was-

The Chief Inspector or any inspector appointed under the provisions or this J .. ct. or any person appointed for the time being to perform the whole or any portion of the duties of the inspector.

It h>td been pointed out that it would be a great hardship to have to refer everything to someone sitting in Brisbane.

Factories and Shops [23 A.UGUST.] .Amendment Bill. 413

The CHAIRJ\fA::'-r : The question now is that clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. CRI BB thought it w•s a mistake to put in either "in~qJPCt()r'' or "Chief In~pector." They were appointing a board to fix the wages, and it would be made up of tho"e in the trade, who would understand the matter far better than the inspector.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: As he understood there was some objection to allowing the amen:lment to be put, he would mo'e his next amendment, to insert after line 33-

In the defiTiitlon of '' shop," after the word "retail," the words" or wholesaleu are inserted.

HoN. R. PHILP had no objection to the amendment, but the Minister should inform the Committee what he intended to do in the matter of the determining the question of improvers. He admitted that the Minister was not the proper person to give the license or that the Chief Inspector was not the person. If the inspectors were competent, why should they not grant the licenses ?

The CHAIRMAN : The hon. member is not in order in now referring ta the question. He should confine his remarks to the amendment.

HoJ;~. H. PHILP: He was merely trying to save t1me, because when they came to discuss the clause as amended thev could rai,e the question. The Minister would have saved time had he not been so ready to accuse m ern bers of not understanding the Bill. He had proved that he did not understand it himself. If the Minister would say what he intended to do in the matter of irnprovers it would save time.

The CHAIRMA::'-r : I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amend­ment.

Arr,endment agreed to. Mr. McDO::'-J"NEL L mnved the insertion, after

line 3!!, of the following word< :-In the definition of "shop," aft~r the word" occu­

pier," the word~ ·' unless he is a person of the Chinese or other Asiatic race" are inserted.

The reason for that was that an evasion of th6l Act was frequently committed by Chinese and other alien storekeepers, who carried on the drapery and grocery business in conjunction with fn;itselling. They roughly partitioned off the grocery and drapery business, but they came into unfair competition with other grocer" and drapers by sel:ing after hours the goods which they were pr<>hibited from selling. People went into th~ir shops ostensiuly to buy fruit, and yet the articles which were prohibited to be sold after 6 o'clock were disposed of. In some tm1 ns that was a practice which the legitimate store­keepers had good reason to complain about. He thought the "mendment was a good one, and he hoped the ::Yiinieter would accept it. It would Rimplify the administration so far as Asiatics were concerned.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS sympathised with a good deal of what the hem.

memher had said, but he regretted [8.30 p.m.] that he could not accept the amend-

ment, because it meant differential treatment of Asiatics. Previous Bills had been le-st by the insertion of such differential pro­visions. We had lost one ourselves, and one which was passed hy the Parliament of \Vestern Austra1ia not long ago was also lost for the same reason. Last year a clause on similar line'"! Wfl.S

inserted in the Land Bill, and representations were at once made by the J apane,e consul, who drew the attention of the Government to the fact that it discriminated against Asiatics, included in whom were the Japanese. He had nothing to say against the reasons given by the hon. member for Fortitude Valley in support o

the amendment; but Asiatics were not the only persons who evaded the Act. There was a pretty general emsion of it. (Hear hear !) If the amendment wece accepted he was afraid it would result in lo•ing the Rill.

Mr. BAH~ES: The Minis~er was quite right in saying that Asiatics wez e not the only ones who broke the Act. It was well known to those who lived in the country that many of the retail hon<es which sent representatives into the country mode a practice of showing their samples at night- tirne.

Mr. KERR was very sorry the Minister could nut accept the amendment; but he could issue instructions to his inspectors to take action in cases of 'breaches of the Act. He had seen the evasions practised by Chinese storekeepers in Cunnamulla, Roma, and at several places in the Central district. In Cunnamulla a Chinese store­keerer had a frnitshop adjoiz,ing his store, and there was a doorway fr<>m the fruitshop into the store, and customers were supplied with goods after other storekeepers were compelled to close. The amendment was moved with the object of blocking that. They were told that they must not discriminate between Asiatics and people of their own race, but it was unfair to the people who observed the Act that those aliens were allowed to break the law. In the outlying districts the inspection was a dead failure. At Longreach the land agent was the inspector under the Act. He was never out at night, particularly on Saturday night, and things took place that should not take place. He trusted that the Minister would is,ue instructions to all his inspectors to take action.

Mr. MANN (Cairns) thoroughly believed in the amendment. In his electorate the que~tion of A8iatics keeping their stores open when other people had their' closed was a very burning one. If the ::\IinisLer thought the amendment too drastic, he might draft one on the lines of the clause in the Etheridge llaiiwa.y Bill, and impose an educational teot. That should not offend the susceptibilities of their alltes the Japanese, although, considering the treatment meted out in J ttpan to British subjects, we might very well retaliate by making them amenable to our laws_ Ve,y few Asiatic storekeepers could pass an educational test, and the few who could were those who were most likely tc• obey the law. It was a scandal in Cu;irns the way the CninesP were allowed to evade the Act, and the Minister would be well addsed if be inserted an amend­ment enabling inspectors to deal with the matter. Of late, inspection in Cairns had been a farce. It was too mnch to expect the clerk of pett.y ses­sions to go round and see if all the Chineee store keepers clo8ed their shops, but the case might be very well met by instructing the police to take action against any offendere.

::VIr. BU k.ROWS (ChaTters 'l'owers) endorsed the remarks of the previous speaker and the member fr·r Fortitude Valley, and hoped the member for Fortitude Valley would draft an amendn•ent that would riot be objectionable from the point of view referred to by the JI.Iinister, who was in sympathy with the object proposed to be attained. In Charters Towers the Cainese were great offenders in tbis respect. They ketJt open after hr.urs every day, and sold day and night, and although he was told that the police had been instructed to keep an eye on these places, if they did so, it must have been in a perfunctory manner. He had been inf"rmed by members of the ass >ciatecl httirdressers that one particular in· dividnal was continually evading the Act, and while the police passed there every day during the time that this man had his shnp open, hour after hour, they neglected to report it. J\'Ir. Dean, the officernnderthel<'actoriesand Shop.s Act

Mr. B1~rrows.]

414 Facto1·ies and Slzops [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

at Charters Tower~, would do all he could in the :matter, but his other duties were so large and numerous that he had not got. the time to devote to this particnlar branch. Although the police were supposed to exercise supervision of these mattere, they simply waltzed round the place with their eyes shut and did not take any notice of whftt went on.

Mr. PAULL: They reported eighty cases in one week.

Mr. BURROWS: That was a spasmodic effort to show th~tt they were not dead. Did his colleague wish to say that the Chinese in Charters Towers were nut openly disregarding the Act?

J\Ir. P AULL : I said that there were eighty cases reported in one week, but not all Chinese.

Mr. BURROWS: What they wanted the police to do was not to make a report, but to issue a prosecution, and to contmually keep a vigilant eye upon these people, and keep them wit.hin the provisions of the Act, the same as white people were compelled to do. If they could devise some amendment which would prevent the Chinese, ,Japanese, or any other "ese" from evading the Act in this manner, they would be doing a good thing for the com­munity. The white storekeeper who complied with the law was penalised by the trade, which would otherwise Jegitimally be his, being taken to these lawbreakers. The lawbreaker being an alien made it more objectionable to him. He would like any member of the House to see if he could not frame an amendment to meet the case.

Mr. FORSYTH had a great deal of sympathy with the member for Fortitude Valley in connec­tion with this matter. Dnring his recent travels up North he found a good deal of complaint on this question. The most unfortunate part of it was that the Chinese who broke the law sold their goods in this way : They might have a fruitshop in front, and behind the fruitshop they had groceries and other things which they sold in violation of the law. If they could only get the people living in these places to boycott the Chinamen whether they sold groceries, Jruit, or anything else, something might be done in con­nection with the matter. And if the Inspectors were more rigid, more careful, and more alert, this evil to a lar-'e extent might he stopped, but it was a difticult thing to stop. He suggested that the Minister might give svecial instructions to the inspectors to make a more rigid inspection, and endeavour to stop this infringement of the law. The trouble was this: A great many people who believed in the Factories and Shops Act, and who were always complaining about the alien evil, were the very persons who went to these shops to get their suppliee, because they could get them slightly cheaper. These aliens were able to live cheaper than white men, so that thoy could Reil their goods a little cheaper.

Mr. HAWTHORN: J\o doubt there was a good deal of evasion not only by Chinese and other aliens, but by white people as weil. He thought the difficulty might be got over by making the amendment ''pply to Chinese only. He therefore suggested that the hon. member should ornit the worrls "or other ~'\~iatics.''

Mr. l'vlcDOXNELL: The majorit.y of hon. members appeared to be in fanmr of the amend­ment, and so was the Minister, but he said he could not accept it, as the Bill would then have to be reserved for aRsent. But in the original Act a distinction between Chinese and Euro­peans wa" maJe in the definition of the word "factory." There was no exception taken then, and he did not see how any exception could be taken to the differentiation now. Something must be rlone in the matter, as the Chinese were evading the Act very largely. The evasion by the white people was non to be compared in extent

[Mr. Burrows.

with that by the Chinese. He thonght the ::\Iinister was raising-not a bogey, perhaps, but a fear that there was no reawn for. He hoped the hon. gentleman would be able to accept the amendment, which was the only possible way to prevent Chinamen from evading the Acr ..

::VIr. HAXRAN was sorry the Minister objected to the wording of the amEndment, but he would suggest a w.•y of getting over the difficulty. The amendment as it stood might cause some little complication between Great Britain and other countries who had commercial treaties with each other, but if the hon. member would erase the words "or other Asiatics," >o that all mixed shops selling fruit and vegetables should close at the ordin,.ry hour of 6 o'clock, he thought it would meet the caRe.

Mr. LESIXA thought the hon. member for Fortitude Valley had put his finger on the real trouble in this matter when he spoke of the "bogey" raised by the JYiinister. Every time they proposed to differentiate between the people of Queensland and aliens, this bogey of trouble abroad was trotted about. A Chinaman in Albert street kept open after buurs, when a white Christian had clo~ed his shop, and yet the Minister said that they m11st be very careful when dealing with these Chinese or Japanese, otherwise it would create international complica­tions. But why could we not shut up the China· man who broke one of our early-closing laws without causing trouble with Great Britain? He hoped the senior member for Fortitude Valley would stick to his amendment, as there was no need for fear at all. The statement that the Bill would have to be reserved for the Royal assent practically meant that Great Britain, merely beeause of an alliance entered into with Chr1stless Asiatics known as Japanese, said that we could not legislate to close the shops of Chinamen who kept their shops open till 9 or 10 o'clock at night. The people of Australi:1 would sooner or later have to take a stand. If we were going to be frightened of a ""\Vhite Australia," and allowed wretched Chinamen and .Tapanese to keep open till12 o'clock at night, while Chris­tians closed at the proper time, we would never be able to deal with it. The Imperial Govern­ment had something more important to occupy its attention than to interfere in a matter like this. It might seem a small matter in itself, but it

was a large matter to us. There [9 p.m.] were a considerable number of

Chinese and .T apanese carrying on operations as laundrymen in Queensland, aud he believed some of them em played white girls. 'Why shc.uld they be exempted from the pro­visions of the Factorie• and Shops Act? The hon. member for Townsville had suggested that they could get over the difficulty by making the Act apply to all mixed shops, and the hon. mem­ber for En<',;gera hari suggested that they should eliminate the words "or other Asiatic," "o that the provision >hould not apvly to Japanese; but he saw no reason why they should resort to those devices, tend he hoped the Minister would accept the amendment. He could hardly realise that a self-governing people such as we claimed to be would permit our rights in this matter of domestic legislation to be trodr!en under foot. Anyone who had been in the North of Queensland knew that there were numbers of wretched little dirty shops kept by Chinese and other aliens, and that the fruit department in those shops was divided from the cabinet department by a ragged, foul, and ill-smelling curtain, which had been handled by leprous hordes of Asiatics who evaded the law ; and yet the moment they attempted to amend the Factories and Shops Act so as to deal with that evil, they were told that if they did so the Bill would be re,erved for the Royal assent. If that was so, then sooner or later a definite

Factories and Shops [23 AuGusT.] Amendment Bill. 415

and determined stand would have to be taken by some Government in Australia agaimt that position.

An HoNOURABLE MEMBER: Do you mean war? ::Yir. LESI~ A: No, he did not mean war. He

meant that they should ;,end to the Imperial Government a re,pectfully tvr>r,ied protest against thi;; interference with domestic legisla­tion, which proposed to prevcmt aliens keeping their shops open after t; o'clock, merely because Great Britain had entered into a treaty with the Christles; ,Japanese. He thought the fear ex­pre;;sed in this matter was a bogie, and that the more tlwy allowed themselves to be frightened by it, the oftener the bogie would be trotted out; but if they took a !inn stand, it v. ould vanish.

HoN. R. PHILP did not think it would be a very difficult matter to get over the trouble about this amendment. His colleague, Mr. Hanran, had suggested one way-that was to make the Act apply to all mixed shops. \Vhy should not all shops be treated alike? (Hear, hear!) And why should not those people who sought to buy goods after hours be fined ? (Hear, hear !) That would soon put a stop to these evasions of the law. Let them appoint a few more inspectors. The cost would not be great, and the 'l'reasurer had a surplus last year of £120,000. After the next general election there would be any amount of people wanting billets, so that they would have no difficulty in getting impectors. He thought that the people who bought goods after hours were more to blame than the shopkeepers, who naturally said that if they did not supply those people some­body else would. Many of the people who went after hours for goods were afraid to deal with Chinamen in the open daylight. He believed that if it was provided that all persons who bought stuff from Chinamen, Japanese, or other aliens, after hours, would be punished, that would stop the evil.

Mr. GRANT (Rockhampton): He hoped some steps would be taken to check the evil. At Rockhampton there were Chinese who kept fruit­shops and also dealt in groceries, and the grocer who obeyed the law was handicapped by them. The inspector had not enough power, and the whole of his day was occupied in other official duties. Perhaps it would be advisable, where there were not sufficient officers, to hand over the work to the supervision of the police, who were in a much better position to know who were keeping within the Act and who were disobeying it. As to Imperial interference, he looked upon that as a bogey. He die! not believe the British Government would interfere in matters of internal domestic reguhtions ftffecting the State. They could not get at the Chinese who kept their fruitshops open till 10 o'clock at night. vVherever Chinese were storekeepers and fruit­sellers they were flagrant violaters of the law.

Mr. PAULL (Gha1·ters Towers): Complaint had been made of the way the inspectors carried out their duties. The real trouble had not been mentioned, and that was that the inspectors had no power to initiate prosecutions on their own account. They had to report to the Chief Inspector in Brisbane ; an enormous amount of CotTespondence followed ; and in nineteen cases out of twenty that was the last they heard about it. To remedy the evil in country districts more power in that direction should be given to the local inspectors.

Mr. MITCHELL (Maryborouuh) : It was a fact that many white shopkeepers were c.ompelled to bre'>k the law in order to eke out an existence. A Chinese shop might be only a few doors from a white man's shop, and when he saw people

going into the Chinese shop ostensibly to buy fruit, and coming out wif.h an armful of groceries, he had to keep his own shop open in self-defence.

Mr. FonsYTH: I<'ine .. 11 who go in to buy after hours.

Mr. MITCHELL: The thing was to do away with temptRtion, and extend t.he Act so as to include Chinese as well as white people. He agreed with the sugge,tion that those who broke the law by purchasing fr.JJn Chinese after pm­hibited hours, should be puni;;hed just the same as those found on licc·nsed premises on Sundays, or after closing time. It had been stated from the other side that the working classee were th" chief patrons of the Chin•~,,e shops. He ventured to say thut they did not patronise them to nearly the Bame extent as what wen• termed the" upper cla··ses." It shonld not be difficult to frame an amendment which would be acceptable to the Committee, and at the same time not ruf!le the sensibilities of the Imperial Government.

Mr. BAR"':ES (Bu/imb"'): He supposed he would be con"idered the "odd man out." He was thoroughly in sympathy with any steps that could be taken to bring the Chinese within the law, but he was the "odd man out" in express­ing the hope that the Committee would not take any steps-suciJ as had been proposed to-night­to make the small peoplA of the community find it more difficult to make a living. The leader of the Opposition did not think of that when he made the "uggestion. It was not a popular thing to say, but if they were going to close every place they would have to put the hotels on exactly the same footing. The trend of recent legislation bad been to make it harder and harder for the men who occupied humble posi­tions in life to live. He did not think the Com­mittee should do anything that would make it more difficult for widows and women supporting husbands unable to work to make a living. They could not make a law for the Chinese apart from other members of the community. It would not be British. The Chinese were not the only people who did not obey the law. He hoped the suggestion made would not be carried out unless it applied to every person in the community.

Mr. MAUGHAN: In reply to the hon. mem­ber for Bu!im ba, who ,said that differential treat­ment could not be meted out to the Chinese, he might say that the Victorian Government-the most Toryfied Government on the continent­he,d recently clone that very same thing. The following was an extract he had taken from the Melbourne Aue, of 8th August :--

CnrKEsE IX FACTORIES.

1\-ew Regulation Bill. The Chinese Employment Act, designed to regulate

the employment of Chinese in factories or workrooms, "\vas circulated yesterday in the Legislative Assembly. Its provision::-:. are similar to those of the meRsure intra~ duced last session with the object of protecting the Europeans f·mployed in the furniture and laundry trades. After 1st January next no Chinese person, whether an employer or employee, will be allowed to work in a factory unless he holds a license. Any Chinese person engaged in a factory during the present month (August) who applies for a license within one month of the coming into force of the Act is entitled to receive one on payment of a fee of 2s. 6d. The licenses are annual, and f•annot be transferred. If a license is lo-st or destroyed a nmv one can be obtained upon pay~ ment of a ff'e of I Os. The onus of proof that a Chinese found working ln a factory is r~gistered lies upon that person. It is also provided that no Chinese employer shall recei\·e any employee as a boarder or lodger, and that no Chinese employee shall receive his employer as a boarder m· lodger; neither can a Cbinese be registered as the occupier of a f::tctory unless he holds a license. Further, occupiers of factories cannot employ un­licensed C:hinese. For contraventions of the Act the punishment for the first offence is a fine of £10, and for subsequent offences not less than £5 or more than £20. .For the third offence :tny Chinese person who

Mr. Maughan.]

416 Facto1·ies and Shops [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

holds a license may have the license cancelled. The practical effect of the Bill is to license those Chinese already worhing in factories, and prevent any others entering them.

·when would they hear the last of the Imperial veto? A couple of years ago he moved an amendment in the Dairy Bill preventing Hindoos and other Asiatics from being em played in butler factoriee, milking and dairy work gener­ally. The Minister was very sympathetic, and practically agreed to the amendment until in­formed by the Parliamentary Draftsman that if accepted the Bill would have to be reserved for the Royal assent. He agreed with the member for Clermont that it was about time the Assembly took some stand in the matter. Within a mile of that Chamber tbey had scores of Chinese em­ployed in the furniture and joinery trades who were driving Europeans out of the trade alto­gether. The furniture shop' were full of Cbinese­made furniture, and he hoped there would be some way found of adopting the spirit of the amendment. According to "Coghlan" there were no less than 54,441 Chinese, Japanese, Hindoos, Cingalese, and Kanakas in Australia, !l,OOO of whom were in Queensland, and surely they con­stituted a serious menace to the white workers. He trusted the hon. member would press his amendment.

Mr. JENKINSON rose to sympathise with hon. member;, who suppnrted the amendment now before the Committee. It was a very humiliating position for them to be in to be" barracking" for a lifetime to get that principle adopted, and then to find that they were banlkect by the mere will and wish of the Minister. They did not understand the true inwardnees of the ·Government's posi­tion. (Government lau!'hter.) They forgot that this Government had sent its plenipotentiary to China and Japan, and while he was being feted, and was saying all Rorts of pleasant things about the Japanese and Chinese, the supporters of the Government wanted to destroy the indus­tries engaged in by people of those countries here. Two weeka ago the Govemment's agent, the notorious 1\Ir. J ones, was being feted in China and Japan, and the local papers went as far as to flatter Ministers, particularly Li Hung Kidston, N anki Po Dclnham, Ah Sim Bell, and Kong \Var Airey. {Laughter.) \Vas it any wonder that the Ministry took up their present atti­tude? They found the agent of the Government in;-ited to play fan tan, or visit "No. 9," and hence 1\Iinisters were nnt willing to do any­thing to block the Chine>e at this parti· cuhtr period. Therefore he tendered his sympathy to members of the Labour party \vho were so urgent in their advocacy, and yet continued to support a Government who blocked what they were trying to carry into effect. The reference in the principal Act to Chinese was incorporated by a democratic Government, but they had now got back to the old Conservative days, and had the most Tory Government that ever <'ccupied office in Queensland, while hon. members who professed liberal opinions were

supporting them. They were not at [9.30 p.m.] all consistent. The hon. member

for J<'ortitude V alley was in a very awkward position, as the Government had abso­lutely no sympathy with him ; and as long as this Government remained in office the hon. member would have no chance of getting his democratic propo~qJs carried in to effect.

Mr. R:BJINHOLD: The discussion proved conclusively that what he had said on the second

reading was true-that the Bill was [9.30 p.m.] not drawn on proper line1'. They

were trying to fix the hrmrs for shops instead of trying to fix the hours which the employees in those shops should work. He agreed with the hon. member for Bulimba that the

[Mr. M aughan.

leader of the Opposition was thoughtless in the remark he made. There were many people who bought at white shops as well as at Chinese shops after 6 o'clock simvly because they had no other time to buy. They had been starving for two or three days, and their breadwinner had managed to get a few hours' work and brought home the money he earned after 6 o'clock ; and were those people to be prevented from getting their food because the shops closed at 6 o'clock ? Shops should be allowed to open for the whole twenty-four hours, so long as they did not require their assistants to work more than the prescribed number of hours. (Hear, hear l) And those hours should be even fewer than those now fixed. The present Act had always been in favour of the big shops, and he objected to it on that account.. The fact that it was in favour of the big shops was shown by the way in which the owners of those shops had come to regard the Act with favour. It was not only the Chinese· who sold after fi o'<•lock. He knew some people who sold for two reasons--firstly, for their own profit, and, secondly, ber:,1use they had some humane feeling3. \Vhy should the woman who had not enough bread for her children not get a loaf of bread or any other little thing she wanted as well as a man could get tobacco?

Mr. KERR : She can get bread at one of the exempted shops.

Mr. McDONNELL fully recognised that the carrying of the amendment might cause the loss of the Bill. The question was an important one, but there were provisions of far greater impor­tance contained in the Bill ; and rat.her than jeopardise the Biil, he asked leave to with<lraw the amendment and substitute the following, which he understood the Minister approved of. To insert after the word "shop," the following:-

Provided that this provision shall not apply to any pers·m of the Chinese or other Asiatic race unless he holds a lic'~"·nse from the l\Iinister to so conduct two or more descriptions of business.

Mr. \VOODS was exceedingly sorry the hon. member proposed to withdraw the amendment. The one be proposed to substitute did not cover the ground."

Mr. McDONNELL: n is better than nothing. ::\Ir. WOODS: The worst evil in connection

with thA business had not so far been touched upon. The Act had played into the hands of the Chinese and other Asiatics in every dietrict in which it was in opention. Anyone who had travelled in North Queensland knew that the Chine'e storekeepers sold all kinds uf ,-oods over their fruitshop counters, and that they also supplied liquor to people. The worst thing, however, was that they sold lottery tickets to little children. He did not agree with the sug­gestion of the le3der of the Opposition, because it was utterly impossible for men anci women who worked from morning till night to obtain the necesso,ries of life before 6 o'clock. He did not think the Minister need have any fear as to the result of the amendment. The people in the Southern part of the State had no idea of what was going on in the North. In the Cairns and Chillagoe districts not only were Chinese shops open till all hours of the night, hut Chinese hawkers sold lottery tickets to women and children when going round with fruit and vege­tables. That was one of the reasons why the hon. member should stick to his amendment.

Mr. McDONNELL: He was just as desirous as the hon. gentleman who had just spoken to deal with the Chin< <•e in the manner he had pro­posed, but if by kPejJing to hi' amendment there was a chance of losing the Bill altogether, would it not be better to do the next best thing? In the first place, he did not want to lose the Bill, and in the next place, if his second amendment were included in the Bill it would be in the Minister'&

Factories and Slzops [23 AUGUST.] Amendment Bill. 417

power to do exactly what his first amendment proposed. Under the circumstances he thought the best thing to be done was to withdraw his amendment and substitute for it the one he had just read.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. McDONXELL moved that in the defini·

tion of "shop," after the word "occupier," the words-

But this provision shall not apply to any person of the ·Chinese or other Asiatic race unless he holds a license from the Minister to so conduct t'vo or more descrip­tions of business be imerted.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS was quite prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. MACARTNEY : \Vhat iti the difference between the two amendments?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: It seemed to him-and it was the opinion of the legal adviser of the Crown-that this amendment would achieve the object of the hon. member without being open to the objection that applied to the first amendment.

Mr. MACARTKEY: But what i' the difference? TheSECRETARY:FORPUBLIOWORKS:

If the hon. member would look at the two amendments he would see the <difference. The provision applied to everybody, but so far as Dhinaman and other Asiastics were concerned they would have to get a license from the :Minis­ter. It was all very well for some hon. members to indulge in mock heroics and talk about "twisting the tail of the British lion," and refer to the constitutional objection ag a "bogey." They had lost one Bill already-and a Yery im­portant Bill, too- because of that objection. So long as the King had the power to veto our legislation it was no me in talking in that way. A great deal had been said about not being able to interfere with the Chinamen. That was absurd. They had jnat the same power to inter­fere with the Chinamen as with white men, but if they legislated to deal differently with Asiatics to what they did with o\her people, then the Bill would not get the Royal aRsent-atany rate, so far as the Japanese were concArned, because they were persons with whom the old country had entered into a treaty. However, he was prepared to accept the amendment.

Hol!. R. PHI LP: The Minister might just as well have accepted the amendment in the first place, as there was no differenc3 whatever in the two amendments. The hon. gentleman had wasted the time of the Home, because he might as well have accepted the first amendment, as the same objection applied to one as to the other.

::\Ir. LESIX A was very much inclined to be­lieve that there was still some doubt about the matter, as he saw the Premier go our. and talk to 11r. \Voolcock. \Vas there any certainty that this provision would be passed ? As had been pointed ont, time had been wasted bec.>use the Hon. the :\Iinister declined to accept the first. amendment moved by the hon. member for Forti­tude Valley. Why should thfl Minister get up and talk about "mock heroics" and "pulling the British lion's tail"? If they were going to allow the democratic legislation passed by this Parliament to be interfered with by the Down­ing street Administration they deserved to lose re,ponsible government altogether. There was a limit to human endurance in this. Every time legislation of this kind cropped up they were warned of the bogey of the Imperial veto. If this was to continue, the democracy of Queensland would have to take the matter up outside the Chamber as well as inside. He thought that at the next Labour convention this question should be fully discussed-as to whether the Imperial veto was to be exercised time after time-that whenever democratic legis-

1906-2D

lation was proposed the Minister got up and said : "If you are not careful about that amend­ment the Imperial veto will be exercised." This was the time to take action. He was doing his duty, in any ease, in protesting that in this free country, and in a democratic Assembly, they were told, when they got up to object to such treatment, that they had heroic desires in wish­ing to pull the tail of the Imperial animal.

::\Ir. BOWMAN: It was a mistake for the hon. member for Clermont to take up the stand which he did. They had evidence from the Minister that Bills in the past had been vetoed because of certain provisions being put into them. They alw knew what happened to the Commonwenlth. \Vhen his colleague and him­self saw that the Bill was likely to be knocked out by the inclusion of that amendment, they thought it better to accept the next best pro­vision. The hon. member might object to the Imperial veto-just as he objected to it himself -still there was the law, and they had to face it. It would be better to accept the terms sug­gested by the Minister, and put a provision in the Bill that would enaLle it to bo passed, because there were many other useful provisions in the Bill.

The PREMIER: It WM manifes; that it would be exceedingly unwise to press the amend­ment: They had their own opinions as to the desirableness of being able to legislate jast in the way they wanted without being hindered by anyone; but the better thing to do at the pre­sent moment would be to accept the amendment now moved by the member for Fortitude Valley. The matter would be carefully inquired into, and if they found that the insertion of the amend­ment was likely to risk the remainder of the Bill, they could recommit it, and deal with the question later on.

Mr. LESINA: The wisdom of adopting the course suggested both by the hon. junior member for Fortitude Valley and the Premier commended itself to every member who thought over the amendment. It was wiser to let a small thing go rather than risk the whole mea~ure, for the sake of the valuablA provisions contained in it. But he made his protest now because, sooner or later, big questions involving the Imperial veto would come up; and, if they allowed these vetoes to be registered time after time without a protest, it would be said that they had estab­lished a precedent. He dicl not want any prece­dent to be established without protesting. If they made a protest now, they would be able in the future to refer to the fac; of having entered a democratic protest against it. He recognised the necessity of accepting the suggestion made by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to. Mr. MACARTXEY asked the Minister what

he proposed to do in reference to substituting an inspector for the Minister in the case of issuing licenses to improvers?

'TheSEORETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS quite agreed that sub,titnting an inspector would be an improvement, and he would consider the matter and see if he could manage it. He did not want to make any definite promise just now.

Mr. FORSYTH said it was not the slighteot me making a statetnent like that, as the hon. gentleman knew he would do it. The general consensus of opinion was that the word ''in­spector" should be put in ; and, if the .'\Iinister was willing to do it, there was not a single mem­ber who wanted to discuss the question for five minutes. They would be quite satisfied with the Minister's promise that he would put it in the Bill.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

Mr.Forsyth.]

418 Factories and Slwps [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

On clause 3-" Amendment of section 5 "­Mr. BARBER moved the addition to the

clause of the following provision:-The following proviso is added to the said subsection

one of section five:-Provided further, that without any such Order in

Council the provisions of this Act and the regulations relating to the regulation and inspection of boilers shall extend and be in force with respect to every boiler used upon the premises of a sugar factory, l'efinery, or cane crushing mill, and sawmill.

It had been asked why there were no further inspectors appointed, and a desire had been expressed that the method of boiler inspection should be made applicable to every boiler in the State, and he would be pleased to see that done. If the Minister was willing, he was prepared to move a further amendment to make it applicable to evAry boiler, which he considered was im­peratively necessary. Already, under the :Fac­tories and Shops Act., in tlw proclaimed areas these boilers were subject to inspection by the Government inspector. In the Bundaherg dis­trict the proclaimed area was only three or four or a five mile radius from Bur.daberg, which left a large proportion of the sugar-mills altogether outside the area. He had had some experience of plantation boilers as a working man, and also of those used iu sawmills, and some of them were not too safe. If the amendment were adopted a great many men would be aesiRted. A number of young men had spent their time and money in preparing themselves to sit for examina­tion under tbe :Factories and Shops Act, and secure a certificate of competency to take charge of boilers and machinery, but these certificates were of no use out,ide the proclaimed areas. There were about thirty young men in Bunda­berg who had obtained these certificates. Very often the men in charge at these outside mills were incompetent, and there had been two or three shocking examples in Queensland during the last twelve months-one in the '\Vide Bay district., and another in the Beenleigh district. He was only told the other day, by a young man wbo had left one of thE se places, that the boilers at the plantation where he was working had not been inspected for a number of years, and the place was in a ramshackle condition. He hoped the Committee would accept the amendment. *~The SECRETARY :FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The question raised by this amendment was a

very important one, and the exten­[10 p.m.] sion of boiler inspection had his

warmest sympathy, as well as the sympathy of the Chief Inspector. Indeed the matter had engaged the attention of the department for some time past. It had been decided to appoint one extra inspector, and it was only a question of time when more inspectors would be appointed. There were two different ways in which boiler inspection could be ex­tended. One was that suggested in the amend­ment, and the other was that provided by the Act, which was to create further boiler districts. As to the method proposed in the amendment, he would point out tbat section 19 of the Act provided that-

Save as hereinafter provided, the owner of a boiler shall not-

(!) Use the same, or permit the use thereof, if it was not in use at the commencement of this Act, unless a certificate of inspection has been granted in the manner prescribed.

If the owner continued to use the boiler, or per­mitted it to be used, after the lapse of forty-eight hours after this amendment becoming law, with­out such certificate having been granted he would commit a breach of the Act. If a certificate were granted, the longest period for which it could be used would be twelve months, so that

[Mr. Barber.

the immediate effect of the amendment becoming law would be that every sawmill and every sugar­mill would come under the operation of the Act. and the boilers used at such places would be sub­ject to those provisions. A sawmill might be at Charleville, or the Gulf of Oarpentaria, but still the proprietor would have to comply with the· Act. The Chief Inspector was of opinion tbat the best way of dealing with the matter would be to create further boiler districts, and he pointed out that if the amendment were adopted an impector might have to travel a considerable distance to instJect a boiler at a sawmill, and on his way pass ·larger boilers which were more in need of inspecticn. Under the circumstances he hoped tbc bon. member would not press bis amendment.

Mr. P AGET had for some years strenuously advocated the inspection of boilers in sugar­mills throughout the State, and had therefore ve1 y much sympathy with the amendment. But he had always Eeen the objection to making the application of the law too general in such a big State as Queensland, and that was the difficulty which woald arise from bringing all boilers in the· State under a provision under which they could only be licensed for twelve months. 'rhe inspec­tion of boilers" in sugar-mills in the N ortb, especiaJly in tbe Mackay district, had met with the very greatest favour, not only from the employees, but also from tbe employers. The inspector who did the work in that district W?-S highly spoken of by tbe whole of the sugar-null proprietors, even by those whose boilers he had condemned this year. Much as be should like to see the whole of the boilers in the State subjected to rigid inspection, he boped the hon. member br Bundaberg would take the advice of the :Minister, and not press the amendment, as the department had at tbeir disposal the means, as far as legislation was concerned, to do all the work eventually.

Mr. HAMILTON hoped that if tbe Minister was going to take into consideration the question of extending the work of boilEr inspection he would not confine tbat extension to the industries mentioned in the amendment. In the '\Vestern country there were meatworks and shearing­sheds, in which tbere was a lot of complicated machinery, and it was just as necessary that the boilers in use at.thme places should be inspected as the boilers in sugar-mills.

Mr. KENl'\ A: While he should like to see the system of boiler inspection extended all over the State, be recognised that there were very great diffcultres in the way of such an extension. He would, however, point out that in the vV estern country boilers were Yery much scattered, but tbat in ~ugar districts they were concentrated in a very small area. ·within 20 square miles in a sugar district there might be twenty-five or thirty boilers, while in the country districts there might not be more than a couple in 200 or 300 square miles. Earlier in the evening he had mentioned a fact which showed the necessity of extending the Act to the Burdekin sugar dis­trict, where Chinese, Japanese, and even kanakas were working boilers and driving locomotives. The Act bad been extended to Bowen, where it had worked very satisfactorily to all concerned, and it was abont time it was extended to the next largest sugar district to Mackay.

Mr. MAUGHAN :·The announcement by the Minister that it was the intention of the Govern­ment to appoint an additional boiler inspector would be received with gratification by scores of workers who had to stand behind boilers only fit for the scrap heap-as rotten as those locomotive boilers that blew up seven or eight years ago at the Roma-street Station. In the West Moreton district boiler inspection was nothing like what it should be. The boilers at some of the sawmills

Factories and Shops [23 AUGUST.] Amendment Bill. 419

were a disgrace to the country. Not long ago a boiler which had been used for years and years exploded in the Fassifern electorate, and it was in such a disgraceful condition that after the ex­plosion it was very diff.cult to find the remnants. It was satisfactory to know that steps were to be taken to alter that state of things.

l\Ir. FORSYTH: To make the Act of general application in a large State like Queensland would be almost impossible, except at an enormously increased expeme. In his own electorate there were boilers at sawmills, wool­scours, and so on, which were 200 miles away from each other, and it would require quite an army of inspectors to go through all the country districts. Boilers should certainly be inspected; it was most essential that the lives of men em­ployed near them should be protected ; but there was just a possib'lity that if that suggestion was carried out it would cause a great deal of hard­ship. He agreed with the idea of the hon. member for Mackay not to do everything at once, but to proclaim district by district. The appointment of additional inspectors would help to a large extent, but if they were to attempt to include every sawmill in Queensland the thing would never work.

:Mr. KERR wished to bring under the notice of tbe }Iinister the necessity of a boiler inspector in the \V estern districts, where there were a good number of engines and boilers, and where inspec­tors were very much needed. Although it might be expensive to appoint more inspectors, yet if it resulted in the prevention of loss of life it would be money well spent. Some boilers that he knew of had been in use for fifteen or twenty years, and it was absolutely certain that if things were allowed to go on as at present there would be a terrific explosion some day and lives would be losv. ~Ien had to work very close to the boilers at shearing-sheds, woolscours, and boiling·down establishments, and if an explosion occurred the consequences would be fatal. He would urge on the Minister the necessity of appointing more boiler inspectors to examine those boilers and certify that they were fit for use.

:Mr. BARBER understood it was the inten­tion of the Government to appoint other inspec­tors and extend the area of inspection, for which there was great necessity. The whole of the Isis district did not come under the operation of the Act. The Minister havinf{ given that promise, he would withdraw his amemdment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn, and clause put and passed.

On clause 4-" Amendment of section 8 "­Mr. BOWMAN : Section 45 of the principal

Act said-After one month's probation, no person under the

age of twenty-one years, unless in receipt of a weekly wage of at least two shillin~s and sixpence, sho,_lld be employ eel in any factory, or in wholly or partly prepar­ing, working at, dealing with, or manufacturing any article for or in connection with any trade or for sale.

The time had arrived when they should have no one working on trial, and if the Minister would accept an amendment abolishing a month's pro­bation he would be doing a great service to a number of people. A case was recently brought under his notice in which a person who took work out from one of the largest houses in Bris­bane boasted that she gob girls to work a week, a fortnight, three weeks, and as long as a month without giving them a penny, and said she had a doctor's bill to pay, and that was the way in which she met it.

The CHAIRMAN : I am sorry to call the hon. member to order, but what he is saying is not relevant to the clause. The ~question before the Committee is clause 4.

Mr. BO\VMAN: He only raised the question at that stage because the amendment of the sections of the Act was being taken in rotation, and he thought he might lose his opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member is dealing with clause 45 of the principal Act. \V e aro:> now dealing with section 8 of the prin­cipal Act. The hon. member will have plenty of time later on to rE-fer to the matter.

Clause pnt and passed. Clanoes 6 to 9, inclusive, put and passed. On clauRe 10-" Amendment of section 24"-­The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS

moved after line 36 the insertion of the follow­ing-:-

After paragraph (iii.) ol subsection two of the said section, the following provision i.s inserted: u and also

H (iv .) The average weekly earnings during a period of three months ending the thirty-first day of l\iarch in each year of every pieceworker."

Every occupier of a factory must keep a record showing certain things, and it was proposed to add another record. The necessity for that arose under section 69, which required an annual report by the Chief Inspector showing, amongst other things, the average wages. There was no provision for getting the information which the Act required to be put in the return.

Mr. LESINA thought the amendment a good one, bun was it not a devious way on the part of the Treasurer to ascertain what women were earning so as to impose an income tax upon them?

Mr. KERR : You helped to put the poll tax on. Mr. LESIN A : He did not. The hon. mem­

ber was making a gross misstatement. He was asked that question at Clermont, and received a denial, and now the hon. member made a deliberately false statement.

The CHAIRMAN : The hon. member must withdraw that statement.

Mr. LESINA: Not nnlefs he withdraws his. The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has no

right to charge another member with making a deliberately false statement.

Mr. LESI~A: Was the hon. member in order in deliberately making a statement about him which he knPw to be untrue?

The CHAIRMA~ : The hon. member will be in order in contradicting the statement made by the hon. member for .Barcoo; but he is not in order in accusing him of deliberately making a false statement.

Mr. LJ<~SIN A had no desire to offend against the Standing Orders, and he would

[10.30 p.m.] withdraw the statement; but he emphatically denied the truth of

the statement made by the hon. member. He had repeatedly made it.

Mr. KERR : \V ell, you voted for the collection. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr. LE:3IN A: He did, and he had pointed

out recently at Charters Towers why he did so. The same clause he voted for in 1902 was in the present Income Tax Act, and the Treasurer, who voted against it, afterwards inserted it because he knew it was useful.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr. LESINA: However, he would go into

the whole question on the Financial Statement. Amendment agreed. to; and clause, as amended,

put and passed. On clause 11-" Amendment of section 25"­The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS

said that he proposed to ask the Committee to negative the clause, in order to insert the clause of which he had given notice. Section 25 in the principal Act was what was known as the "sweating clause," but he had come to the con· elusion that it was not sufficient to cope with the evil of sweating-, and so he had taken the section from the New Zealand Act. Hon.

Hon. T. O'Sullivan.]

420 Factories and Shops [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

members would see that it required the occupier of a factory to keep a record showing the full name and address of any person to whom work was given outside the factory. Another dis­tinctive feature was that such work was to be labelled. The last part of the clause was taken from the Victorian Act, and requirEd outside workers to register themsel VAS, and to answer questions put by the inspectors. Taking the two provisions together, he thought they would have an up-to-date and satisfactory method of dealing with the evil of sweating.

Clause 11 put and negatived. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS

moved the insertion of the new chnse, the pro­visions of which he had indicated.

::\1r. HA WTHORX suggested that the clause might be improved by the insertion in subsec­tion 25o of the words "or her" after the word "his," and by the insertion in paragraph 2 of the same subsection of the word "truth­fully," so as to make it an offence if the questions put by the inspector were not truth­fully answered. He thought the clause was a Yery good one. It would deal with persons who took work home from factories and sublet it to others, and over whom there was at present no supervision.

The SECRETARY J!'OR PUBLIC WORKS thought the amendments suggested by the hon. member were improvements, and he would be pleased to accept them.

Mr. HAWTHORN moved the insertion in subsection 25o of the words "or her" after the word "his" in the 4~h line of the 1st paragraph.

HoN. R. PHILP thought the clause required some explanation.

The PRE1IIER: The explanation has been given, only you were not here.

Hox. R. PHILP: He spent a great deal more time in the Chamber than the Premier. He heard the :i'.Iinister explain that the clause was taken from the New Zealand Act, and that appeared to be sufficient to induce hon. members to accept it, but it meant that in future all work must be done in factories.

The SECRETARY FOR Pt:BLIC \VORKS: That is practically what it is driving at.

HoN. R. PHILP : It did not matter to him whether the work was done in a factory or not ; but it must be remembered that there were other places in Queensland be~ides Brisbane. They would find sewing machines in pretty well every other house all over Queensland.

::\Ir. McDoNNELL : This part of the Act does not apply to those places. This only applies to certain districts.

HoN. R. PHILP: The Act dealt with the whole of Queensland now.

Mr. McDoNNELL : Not the factories portion. HoN. R. PHILP : It wa. in force in Towns­

ville, Hughenden, Charters Towers--Mr. BURROWS : Only in regard to shops. Ho:\'. R. PHILP: It might be a good thing,

but the clause was sprung on them, and he would suggest that the Minister should move the Chair­man out of the chair to give the people who knew more about those things than most hon. members an opportunity of considering it. He imagined there were plenty of people who would not work in factories. Some might prefer to starve to going into a factory; and what did it matter so long as they did the wo~k and were paid a fair wage for it? Why should they be compelled to put a label on work that was done at home? So far as he could see, the Bill wonlcl make the poor poorer, and would play into thA hands of the big factory-owners and merchants. It was a very important alteration to make, and

[Hon. T. O'Sullivan.

those people who knew more about it than mem­bers of the House ought to have an opportunity of seeing it before it became law.

The PRE1IIER: It ha~ been working for years in New Zealand.

HoN. R. PHILP: How many people in this State knew anything about the working of the Act in New Zealand? Because it was working in New Zealand tha':' wa• no reason why it should be introduced here. If this provision had been iu the Bill when the second reading took place, the people in the country would be able to "ee it and understand it, but they had not seen that provision at all. It was a new provision altogether. He was ju•t as much against sweating as any man in the House, but he could see that the big factories would be g·lad of this provision. \Vhy should people not be allowed to work at home so long as they got a fair wage ?

Mr. HAWTHORN : This will ensure a fair wage. HoN. R. PHILP: Let the wages board see

that they get a fair thing. If this provision was passed, many people who made a living by taking work home would be com[Jelled to sell their machines or go into a factory. He hoped the House would sift thA thing to the bottom before they passed it. If it was found to be a good thing to pass, he woulrl not object to it. The Minister had told them nothing about the amendment except that the provision was the law in New Zealand. That was no reason. He might have said that it was the law in Hussia. At that late hour he did not think it was fair to force through a clause of that sort.

::\Ir. BOWMAN: Clause 25c was really the provision that the leader of the Opposition objected to. It read as fo1!ows :-

Every person to whom work is let or given out from a factory as aforesaid shall, either personally or by written notice, register with the inspector his full name and address, and also from time to time in like manner register with the inspector any change in such addresfl.

.Anybody who had taken any interest in the sweating in Brisbane and elsewhere knew that sweating was not indulged in so much in the large factories as it was amongst the people who took their work ont and sublet it. (Hear, hear !} That had been one of the greatest diffi­culties they had to contend with. They had evidence of one woman getting work and taking it home and bo1sting that she could get girls to do the work for her for nothing. Thi" particular clau>~e was a protection for those who worked for a person such as that. This was one of the greatest difficulties that existed in Melbourne before the establishment of the special wages board there. In the latest report that came to hand-which he had received that day-Mr. Ord, the Chief Inspector of Factories, reported as follows:-

I<,or some years before a speciH.l wages board was appointed to fix the rate~ to be paid for manufacturing clothing, the newspaper5 contained frequent and often bitter complaints of the condition of the "sweated" worker. These complaints led to the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the allegations of sweating. The commission repol'ted that the com­plaints were well founded. Sir A. J. Peacock Yisited the homes of some of the workers, and ascertained that they worked long hours for wretched pay in circum­stances of extreme penury.

\Vhere they h:v] had evidence that it had worked satisfactorily in Victoria they could Yery wisely introduce it here to check the sweating that was going on. Every member of the House was anxious to put down sweating. He knew that some hon. members had got figures from .l'.fessrs. Stew art and Sons in the V alley and other firms to show that the wages they paid compared favourably with those given iu Victoria. They knew also that these factories complained that they could not compete against the sweating that

Adjournment. [28 AuGusT.]

existed outside amongst people who were un­registered. They took this work home and got people to work for them br the lowest possible pittance, and for nothing at all for a month in some instances. Surely they wanted to protect those people ! And surely they should protect the employer.who wanted to be fair against the sweater outsrde! He was trying to show the leader of the Oppo>ition and other members that the clause was absolutely necessary to check the sweating that was taking place. They wanted to put it down, and this would be one of the most effective clauses for doing it.

HON. R. PHILP: The hon. member told them what was done in small factories. He said a man could employ a number of girls. Then that would be a factory.

Mr. BowMAN : If there are two, it is a factory, and quite right, too.

HoN. R. PHILP : ·what about the woman who worked at home with hey daughter? Was that a factory, too?

Mr. BO\niAN: She should register. HoN. R. PHILP: She would be penalised

then. There were people in Brisbane who made a living by the work they did at home, but this clause would prevent them from doing it, because their work would have a label put upon it accord­ing to that provision.

The House re;umed. The CHAIR~IAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again to­morrow.

SPEUIAL ADJOURNMENT. The PREMIER : I move that the House, at

its rising, do adjourn until Tuesday next. Mr. LESINA: I propose to enter my_ weekly

protest against the adjournment over J<'riday. I want to place on record the fact, so that later on in the session I may be able to turn up Hansarcl, when the Premier is rushed for time, and has to drop certain measures, and say I objected to the adjournment every J<'riday, knowing that the day was wasten. In the debate on the days of sitting the Premier was very anxious to git four days a week, and even hinted that it wou!d be a good thing to do away with Thursday afternoon for private business, in order to get on with Government business. Although he was anxious to take our two and a-half ho•1rs away, now he adjourus over all Friday. ·what conclusion can a man draw who looks at this matter clearly? That the Premier did not want Friday. The business-paper is full, and we have no time to attend to it. Later on the ::Yiinisters will get up and say we will drop thi", that, and the other; and that it is a pity we cannot get the Trade Union Bill or the Closer Settlement Bill through, as there is not time .. Then members will grumble. But the proper time is to grumble now, when we ~.re wasting a whole day a week.

Question put and passed.

ADJOURNMENT. The PREJYHER: I beg to move that the

Home do now adjourn. Tbe bu•iness on Tues­day will be the making of the Financial State­men~, after which the Etheridge Railway Bill will be taken.

Hon. R. Pmr,p: Do I understand the Trea­surer to say he will bring in his Financial State­ment next Tuesday?

The PRE::YIIER : That will be the first busi­ness on Tuesday.

Hon. R. PHILP: I suppose you do not want a debate the same evening.

The PREMIER : No ; I do not expect that at all. There will be an adjournment of the debate, in the usual way, for a week.

The House adjourned at five minutes to 11 o'clock.

Questions. 421