Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Council

WEDNESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 1911

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

2650 Savings Bank, Etc., Bill. [COUNCIL,] Roma to Orallo Railway.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

WEDNESDAY, 6 DECEMBER, 1911.

The PRESIDENT (Ron. Sir Arthur Morgan~ took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

RC1MA TO ORALLO RAILWAY. PLAN RECEIVED FROM ASSEMBLY.

The PRESIDENT andounced the receipt of a message from the Assembly forwarding the plan, section, and book of reference of this railway for the approval of the CounciL

REFERRED 1'0 SELECT COMMITTEE.

HoN. A. H. BARLOW, without notice, moved that the plan, section, and book of reference of the proposed railway be refer­red to a Select Committee, to consist of -the following members :-Messrs. Brentnall, Hawthorn, 111urphy, Nielson, :;[orton, and -the mover.

Question put and passed.

Boonah Sclwol of Arts Bill. [6 DECEMBER.] Agricultural Banlc, Etc., Bill. 2651

PAPERS.

The following papers, laid on the table, were ordered to be printed:-

Regulations under the Land Act of 1910, chiefly relating to tho procedure in cases of resumption.

Rules of Court, as of 22nd November, 1911, being the Calendar of the Su­preme Court of Queensland for tho year 1912.

BOONAH SCHOOL OF ARTS LAND MORTGAGE BILL.

SECOND READING.

HoN. G. W. GRAY: This is a small Bill which has been entrusted to my care. It is-

" A Bill to enable the trustees of a certain parcel of land in the town of Dugandan used for the purposes of the Boonah School of Arts to mortgage the said land, together with the buildings erected thereon, and to devote the moneys so raised to the enlargement and im­provement of . the school of arts buildings and the furnishing and equipment thereof."

The Bill was referred to a Select Committee in the other House. Boonah is a growing centre, and it has been found necessary to enlarge the school of arts, and, with that object in view, the trustees ask for power to-" mortgage the whole or any portion or portions of the said lands 'for any sum or sums of money not exceeding at any one time the sum of eight hundred pounds, and in such manner as may be directed by the committee of management of the said school of arts for the time being, testified in writing under the hands of the members of the ~aid' committee or of a majority of tbem.''

!3imila~ Bills have recently b0en passed giv­mg th1s power to the trusteu of the school of arts at Mackay and Longreach. I have very much pleasure in moving that the Bill be now read a second time.

Hm; ... 'L H. BARLOW: I am not aware that there is the slight0st objection to the Bill, which was put through the Assembly by the Premier. There is not the slightest danger, in my opinion, of any forfeiture, especially while the present member for Fassifern is in the Assembly to back the whole thing up. Boonah is a very pros­perous township, and I see no danger in pa~sing the Bill.

HaN. A. NORTON: As a matter of prin­ciple, I object to this Bill. As I have pointed out on former occasions, we have no right to enable persons to whom grants of land have been made to mortgagE' them even for the purpose of carrying out the pm·poses for which the land was vested in them. I saw an application from a church in Boonah which wanted to borrow money, and they got guarantors and borrowed the money they wanted from private p~rsons. Why can that not be done in this case? In a number of cases private individuals have become guarantors, and have made themselves per­sonally responsible for the money which is borrowed. It is far better that that should be done than that people should come to Parliament to obtain power to mortgage property. Sir Arthur Palmer lent lots of trust money to churches in cases in which they could not go to Parliament to get per· mission to borrow. He took over their mortgages or took a guarantee from per­sons connected with the churches. That i;

the principle that ough~ ~o be. followed in this case. If the Council IS gomg to follow the course proposed, I object to it.

Qu,ostion put and passed. Clauses 1 to 4, both inclusive, put and

passed. On clause 5-" Application of proceeds of

mortgage"-Ho:r>:. A. G. C. HAWTHORN asked what

was meant by paragraph (ii.) -" T~.e cos~s of applying for, obtaining, and passmg this Act?" He understood that the Bill had been introduced as a Government measure, and that the fees chargeable in the case of private Bills had been remitted, as had been done in other cases. He would ask the han. member in charge of the Bill whether that paragraph was really necessary.

l-ION. G. W. GRAY thought it referred only to the cost of printing the Bill, which was a very small matter.

Clause put and passed. Clause 6, and preamble, put and passed. The Council resumed. The CHAffiMAN re-

ported the Bill without amendment; and the report was adopted.

THIRD READING.

HoN. G. W. GRAY: I move that the Bill be now read a third time.

HaN. F. T. BRENTNALL: Is this the usual practice ? It is competent fo~ us to pass the Bill through its second readmg and Committee stages on the same (\ay, but I t;tm doubtful if we can proceed w1th the third reading.

The PRESIDENT : The han. member who has raised the point has, I think, overlooke?­the fact that some time ago the Counml suspended so much of the Standing <;Jrders as would otherwise preclude the passmg of a Bill through all its stages in. one ~ay. I presume the Han. :Mr. Gray IS actmg on that motion.

Question put and passed.

On the motion of the HoN. G. W. GRAY, the Bill was passed, and ordered to be re· turned to the Assembly, by message in the usual form.

.\.DDITIONAL SITTING DAY.

On the motion of the HaN. A. H. BAR­LOW, it was resolved-

" That unless otherwise ordered, the Council will me~t for the despatch of busine~s at .3 o'clock p.m. on Monday in each week, Ill addi­tion to the days already provided for by Ses­sional Orders, and that Government business do take precedence of all other business on that day."

AGRICULTURAL BANK ACTS AMEND­MENT BILL.

THIRD READING.

HaN. A. H. BARLOW: There are a few verbal defects which have been discovered by the Clerk in this Bill. One of them is in line 3 of clause 2, where the words " lease held under Part VII." are inserted instead of the words "lease·; held under Part VII. of." Another defect is in clause 10, which im­poses penalties for non-payment of rent or insta1ments of rent. The word " pounds "

Hon. A. I!. lJarlou• 1

2652 Liquor Bill. [COUNCIL.] Liquor Bill.

is left out after tho words " two and a half " in line 39. The same word is left out aft;,,. the words "three and three-quarters," 0 n 11ne 40, and after the word "five," un jiue 41. I ask leave of the Council to make those verbal amendments at this stage, and now move that in clause 2, line 3 the words "lease held under Part VIII.",be omitted with the view of inserting the words " lc ase~ held under Part VIII. of" ; that in dans.o. 10, line 39, after the word " half" there be inserted the word "pounds"; that in line ·40 of the same clause the word " pounds " be inserted after the v:ords "three-quar­ters"; and that in line 41 of the same clause the word "pounds" be inserted after the word "five."

Ho:-;-. A .• J. THYNNE: I would ask if these amendments should not be made in Committee?

Hon. A. H. BARLOW : If you like. HoN. A. J. THYNNE: I think that is the

proper mode of procedure.

The PRESIDENT: The amendments r.re <lf a nature that it is quite in accordance with practim to make at the third-reading -sta~e. All the amendments are verbal, re-1atmg to words only, and not to ideas and the Council, sitting as a House, has power to !;:take such amendments at the third readmg stage, though it will be quite ln <lrder for the Council to go into Committee to cons~der them, if hon. members so desire. There. 1s, however, no necessity, under the Standmg Orders, to go into Committee to ·consider the amendments.

HoN. A. J. THYNNE: I understand from t~e President that the amendments are en­t!rely verba!, and_ I have therefore no objec­twn to dealmg w1th them at this stage.

Question-That olau,es 3 and 10 be amended as propoood-put and passed.

On the motion of the HoN. A. H. BAR­LOW, the Bill was read a third time pass~d, and ordered to be returned to th~ Assembly, by message in the usual form.

LIQUOR BILL.

CoMMITTEE.

Clause 1-" Parts of Act "-put and passed.

On clause 2-" Short title and commence­ment"-

HoN. G. W. GRAY mmed the omission of "January," in line 4, with the view of in­serting "July." As the clause stood, the Bill would come into operation on the 1st January; and his object was to provide that

it should not come into opera­[ 4 p.m.] tion until the 1st July. That

would give more time to licensees, and would fit in with the present time for the expiration o£ licenses-namely, 30th June.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Hon. T. O'Sullivan) regretted that he could not accept the amendment, which would have a disastrous effect on the whole scheme of the Bill. The scheme of the Bill was that no new licenses should be granted until after a local option poll was taken; and if the amendment was carried, there would be an enormous number of applications for licenses in April.

J,Hon . .A. II. Barlow.

UoN. A. J. THYNNE: If the Bill passed this month, it could not become law much before Christmas; but it would be law be­fore hotel-keepers in distant parts of the State could knmY what the law was. That was a very seYious matter; and for that reason he thought the time ought to be ex· tended. If the 1st July was considered too far distant, some other date might be fixed.

HoN. A. GIBSON 8aid there was so much of the old Act contained in the Bill that there was hardly anything new in it­nothing that a licensed victualler would not be able to pick up in a fortnight.

HaN. E. J. STEVENS was sure it was the intention of hon. mernh,rs to approach the measure in a spirit of fa.ir play, and with.:;ut any desire to inflict unnecessary har<;lsh1ps on persons engaged in the sale of hquor. He thought the objection of _the. Attorn_ey­General with regard to apphcatwns bemg made in April could be got over ~y a clause dealing with the matter. As lw_enses ex· pired on the 30th June, and the B1ll was <;f immense importance, it would be a fmr thing to postpone the commencement of the Act until the 1st July.

lioN. F. McDONNELL said that under the Bill the fee paid by grocers to sell liq?-~r was raised from .£30 to .£50-the sp1nt license to grocers; and the quantity was increased from 1 gallon to 2 gallons. From what he gathered, a large number of ~rocers at present holding licenses were not disposed to renew them on account of the altered conditions. Those who had large stocks of liquor when the license fee became due O}l 1st January would be liable to have 1t seized bv an excise officer, and they could be penafised for having that liquor in st?ck. For that reason in addition to reasons g1ven hy other memb~rs, he thought lhat the com­mencement ,·of the Act should be postponed until 1st July.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the remarks of the last speaker were made under; a misapprehension. There was no such thing as a grocer's license; and the quantity had not been raised from 1 gallon to 2 gallons. There was no alteration in the quantity that could be sold. It was true that these licenses expired on 31st December, but that had nothing to do with the amendment proposed by the Hon. Mr. Gray. He would be willing to meet the hon. member by alter· ing the date to the 1st February.

Hon. E. J. STEVENS: Make it the 1st March.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that would be getting too near to April.

HoN. F. McDONNELL admitted that when he spoke before he was a little bit mixed. Under the existing Act, grocers who ~eld spirit license3 could sell 2 gallons of m1xed liquors ; and their licenses expired on 31~t December. If they did not renew the:r licenses, and could not . get rid of theu stocks before 1st J anuaTy, they would be liable to be penalised.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Seeing that this Bill was going to have suoh ~ar­reaching effects he thought a little more t1me should be all~wed before it was brought into operation. In the case of Local Authori· ties Acts and other important measures, from one to three months had always been allowed, and he thought that in this case the hon. gentleman might go so far as 1st March.

Liquor Bill. [6 DECEMBER.] Liquor Bill. 2653-

Ho". A. J. THYNNE sugg"'ted that the amendment mig·ht be accepted as far as existing liC'':'llS0'3 vvere concerned, and that the provisions of the Bill should come into operation on 1st J t:.nuary a~ far as new licensro were concerned. If it came into operation on 1st March, there might not be time to take a local option poll with respect to new licenses.

Hox. T. A. JOHKSON could not see how the pas,,ing of the clause in its present form could injuriously affect existing licenses. The Attorney-General had pointed out a very important objection to the amendment, as it would permit of a rush of applications for new licemes before 1st July, before tho local option poll could be taken. The Bill was a regular democratic measure, as it would hereafter place the decision in regm·d to the granting of new licenses in the hands of the people instead of in the hands of the licen­sing benches. He considered the Attorney­General had made a very liberal offer when he expressed his willingness to extend the time to 1st February, and he thought the offer should be accepted without he5itation.

The ATTOHNEY-GENERAL said he had only one oLjection to the suggestion made by the Hon. Mr. Thynne, and that was that it would get the Bill into an inextricable tangle. Through the making of an amend­ment in the State Child1·en's Bill in another place, the Council had to amend seven or eight clauses in that measure ; and in such a large and complex Bill as this the amend­ment suggested by the hon. member might involve consequential amendments in thirty or forty clauses.

Eon. P. MuRPHY: What about adopting the Han. Mr. Stevens's suggestion?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not see how I could accept it.

HaN. C. F. NIELSON: The evil conse­quences that the Attorney-General feared would ensue from the acceptance of tho amendment were purely imaginary. If the clause were amended, it would read-

" This Act, save as hereinafter expressly pro­vided, shaii commence and take effect on and from the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twelve." The words "save a,e hereinafter provided" could be made to apply to new licPnses by providing that all applications .for new licenses should be made to police magis­trate'S alone, instead of to licensing benches as at present constituted. If volice Inagis­trates were good enough to be entrusted with the administration of the Act for the next twenty-five years, they were good enough to be entrusted with its adminis­tration for the next six months, and to pre­vent any rush for new licenses being granted. '.rhe plain meaning of the clause as it stood was that the Government were prepared to break the terms under which they granted license5 to a couple of thousand of people in Queensland. Their licenses expired on 30th June next, and Parliament was now asked to impose more stringent conditions and more severe penalties. They had en­tered into a contract with those people.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is not a con­tract.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON: Of course it was a contract. A person who got a license under an Act of Parliament made a contract with the Government, and, as long as he observed the conditions on which the license was granted, the Government should observe

the conditions under which they took his money. He would like to ask the Attorney­GcnGral whether the Government intended, on 1st January next, to collect from every hotel-kcopr in Brisbane a proportionate part of the increased license fee for the year, and if not, why not. They were entitled to. do it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No; they are not.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON: Why were they not?

Han. B. FAHEY: Under their contract they aro not.

EoN. C. F. NIELSON: That was exactly the answer he wanted from the Attorney­General. And, if they were not entitled te> that, they were not G!.ltitled to break any other condition of the contract. In April next, when those licensed victuallers whe> wished to renew their licenses made applica­tion, they would have to furnish a proper description of their premises, entailing in many cases a survey.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Is that an inter­ference with their contracts?

HoN. C. F. NIELSON: Certainly it was. It was an extra condition imposed on them, and in many cases it would entail expense. There were licensees in Brisbane who were making alterations to their prcmis0' which would probably conflict with the provisions of the Bill in regard to bar fittings. ·were those people not to have any time to com­plete their contracts, or were they to )Je run mto expense merely because Parliament passed this Bill? The thing was prepos­terous, and he hoped the Han. Mr. Gray would adhere to his amendment, and he 'hoped that, when the amendment was car­ried, the Mini,ter would find some simple means of prev0nting a rush for new licenses -a rush that was not likely, in his opinion, to take place.

Qtw.~tion-That the word proposed to be omitted (Han. G. W. Gray's amendment), stand part of the clause-put; and the Com­mittee divided:-

Ron. CONTENTS, 9.

A. H. Barlow Han. F. T. Brentnall A. Gibson T. J\L Hall T. A. Johnson

C. F. Marks T. O'Sullivan L. Thomas H. Turner

Telle1·: Han. T. M. Hall.

NOT-CONTENTS, 17. Ron. A. J. Carter Ron. B. B. Moreton

J. Cowlishaw P. Murphy B. Fahey C. F. Nielson G. w. Gray A. Norton :rr. L. Groom A. H. Parnell F. H. Hart E. J. Stevens A.G.C. Hawthorn W. F. Taylor F. McDonnell A. J. Thynn& C. S. McGhie

Telle1·: Ron. C. F. Nielson. Resolved in the negative. Amendment agreed to. HaN. A. J. THYNNE: The porti<;m. of

the Bill that would most affect existt?g licenses was Part VIII., wJ:ich dealt w_Ith local option, and, with a vrew to meetmg the difficulty referred to by the AttorneJ:­General, he was prepared to move the addi­tion of the following amendment:-

" But the provisions of Part VIII. herein shall come into operation and have ~;rt=ect on and from the first day of January next. That would give the han. gentleman aU

Hon. A. J. Thynne.]

2654 Liquor Bill. [COUNCIL.] Liquor Bill.

the protection he needed to prevent a rush of new licenses; and, if the bon. gentleman was prepared to accept the amendment, he would move it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was much obliged to the Hon. Mr. Thynne for

his suggestion, but thought it [4.30 p.m.] might, perhaps, be better to let

. the matt.er stand over until they considered whether It would suit Part VIII. of the Bill. Some of the provisions in Part VII~. would not come into operatio11 for a considerable time, and, if they were to bring the whole of that part into operation on 1st January, they might interfere with the scheme of the Bill. He would take a note of the matter, and, if necessary, recommit the Bill to give further consideration to this clause. -

Hon. A. J. THYNNE: In that case I will not press the amendment now.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

On clause 3-" Acts repealed"-

HoN. G. W. GRAY moved that subclause (iv.) be amended by omitting the word "twelve," on line 44, with the view of in­serting the word " thirteen." The effect of this amendment, which was consequential on the one alrea;dy passed, would be that every club and sprrit merchant registered under the repealed Act would be de<:'med to be registered under this Bill until the sittings of the court to be held in the year 1913, in­stead of the year 1912, as proposed in the subclause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was not quite able to follow the hon. member's reason fo~ this amendment.

Hon. G. IV. GRAY: It is practically a con­~equential amendment on the one we l•avcl Just carried.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It was not a co.nsequential amendment on the one just earned. The amendment just carried ex­tended the time for bringing this Bill into operation until 1st July next. The amcnd­m~n~ now proposed was that every club and spirit merchant registered UJ!der any re­pealed Act should be dE>emed to be regis­tered until the licensing court sat in 1913. That was not a consequential amendm,mt b':lt was something entirely different. H~ did not thiuk the hon. member had given any reason why a spirit merchant should l:>e deemed to be registered until the sittings <>f the licensing court in 1913.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON: The reason was perfectly obvious. The Bill would come into <>peration on 1st .July next. Between this and the 1st July next all clubs and wine m'd spirit merchants would have their re"'istra­tion renewed under the present Act, ~nd if the proposed amendment was not made the existing Act would be repealed, and on 1st July next clubs and spirit merchants would have no means of becoming licensed.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes; that was so, and he agreed that the amendment was consequeutial on the amendment just passed.

HoN. A. J. THYNNE: The subclause was a peculiar one. Wholesale licenses which ran out on 1st January were by this pro­vision extended until ist July next vear. The clause read- ·

" Every club and every spirit merchant regis­tered under any repealed Act shall be deemed

[Hon . .4. J. Thvrl/1u.

to be registered under this Act until the annual sittings of the licensing court to be held in the year one thousand nine hundred and twelve." That meant that existing licenses would be extended from 31st December until the time the licensing court held its sittings next year.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is so; I had overlooked that point. '

HoN. A. J. THYNNE: The question occurred to him whether the Government proposed to make a present of their licenses to those licensees without any further pay­ment for at least three months from 1st January?

HoN. 0. F. NIELSON: The difficulty aros0 from the fact that licensed victuallers' licenses ran from 1st July to 30th .June, while wholesale licenses ran from the 1st January to 31st December. They were either going to penalise the holders of wholesale licenses for six months, or make them a pre­sent of their licenses for that period, but that was a difficulty which could be met by a simple provision. They could provide that the licensees should pay a part of the license fee for the year. Under the present practice, when a merchant obtained a license in the middle of the year, the department charged him only half the fee, and the same priu­ciple cDuld be followed in this instance.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He ac­cepted the explanation which the Hon. Mr. Nielson first gave with respect to this amend­ment, and that was that unless the amend­ment was carried . there would be no means of renewing- the licenses under the Bill. The Hon. Mr. Thynne had point'ld out, and he agreed with that hon. geutleman, that the t:mendment went a grccat deal further than that, and would actually have the t>ffect of pxtending a license from 31st Decembt:l' till the next sitting of the licensing con' t, \dth­out any payment being made f<>r such lie• nse. That was a most unjustifiable thing to do. and he did not think the Committee should agree to the proposal.

Ho:-r. A. J. THYNNE thought that it was undesirable that the Committee should make an amendment which would .materially aff<>ct the revenue by extending lice11ses, without payment, from 31st December until the next annual sittings of the -licensing court. Exception might very reasonably be taken to an amendment of that kind. He would point out the peculiar phraseology of the clause. It provided that clubs and spirit merchants should "be deemed to be registered under this Act until the annual sittings of the licensing court." Dia that mean the beginnir,g or the conclusion of the sittings? If it .meant the beginning- of the sitting-s, then as soon as the sittings commenced the term of the license would cease. He thought that it should be made quite clear that it was until the conclusion of the sitting of the licensing court the.t these per­sons should be deemed to be registered, otherwise the J icenses of clubs and spirit m<>rchants would cease the moment the court met.

HoN. G. W. GRAY thought that . the matter of the licensing fee was one that mig-ht be left to the other Chamber. No doubt his amendment would alter the term of the license, but it might be arranged that the licensPes should be charged a nortion of the fee up to 1st .July. •

HoN. F. McDONNELL: It' appeared to him that the position was that club licenses and spirit mer-chants' licenses would continue

Liquor Bill. [6 DECEMBER.] Liquor Bill. 2655

under exactly the same conditions as they were now until 1st July next, and that on that date they would come under the pro­visions of this Bill so far as fees and other matters were concerned.

Clause postponed. On clause 4-" Interpretation"·-HoN. C. F. NIELSON moved the inser­

tion after " interest," line 16, page 4, of the words " either in the freehold, leasehold, or by way of registered. mortgage of the lease, license, goodwill, or effects of licvnsed pre­mises." There were certain clauses inserted for the protection of owners or mortgagees .of licensed premises, clauses which gave the right to the owner or mortgagee to take -certain steps to protect licensed premises from losing the license in the event of the license being liable to forfeiture through the default of the tenant; and he was not sure if the definition of " owner " was wide -enough to cover "mortgagee."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had no objection to the object that the hon. member sought to obtain; but he had con­·sulted the Parliamentary Draftsman, who said that in his opinion the amendment was not necessary, in view of clause 31, sub­clause 2.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON said he had read dause 31, a11d was satisfied that it protected the owner of the freehold; but he was not satisfied that it protected the bill of sale holder.

HaN. A. G. C. HA IV THORN said he thought the amendment was a good one. The definition of " licensed premises" re­ferred only to the premises, and the word " owner " was used in respect of licensed premises, so that the holder of a bill of sale might be cut out. He thought it would be better to make it certain.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had no objection.

Amendment agreed to. HoN. A. J. THYNNE said it seemed to

him that some other definitions would be advisable. For instance, there was no defini­tion of "parliamentary roll." There were two parliamentary rolls available, and the presumption was that it was the parlia­mentary roll for the Legislative Assembly ; but that ought to be stated.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: What other roll is there?

HaN. A. J. THYNNE: The parliament­ary roll for the Federal Parliament. A little later there was reference in the Bill to electors, and reference was made to "Senate electors. There were several senates -there was the University senate, for in­stance. Why not say what senate was meant?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have no objec­tion.

HaN. A. J. THYNNE: In connection with that Senate, he thought it was desirable to have a specific amendment. If he was not wrong in his recollection of the Constitution, it was possible that there might be a dissolu­tion of the Senate as well as of the House of Repreoentatives; and that would throw the working of the Bill compl'etely out of gear.

Hon. C. F. NIELSON: It would be much better to specify the years.

HaN. A. J. THYNNE said he would leave that to the Attorney-General.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will make a note of that.

Clause, as amended, put and passed. On clause 5-'' Exempted persons gener­

ally"-HoN. C. F. NIELSON moved the inser­

tion after " or," in line 31, of the words " by order of the executor, administrator, or trustee in the estate of a deceased person, liquor forming part of the property of such deceased person or "

Amendment agreed to . Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clauses 6 to 11, both inclusive, put and

passed. On clause 12-" Annual sittings"-HoN. C. F. NIELSON moved the insertion

after "applications," in line 33, of the words " for new licenses, including licensed victuallers' licenses, wine licenses, packet licenses, billiard license,,'' bagatelle licenses, and provisional certificates, and." The in­sertion of these words would necessitate a consequential amendment. The object was to extend the business of quarterly sittings. The general object of the Bill seemed to be to restrict quarterly sittings, and he thought it would be a good thing to allow the quar­terly court to be operative as at present. He remembered reading that Mr. Ranking, P.M., deprecated being bothered time after time with the same application. That might be all very well in the metropolitan district, but in country places, where the conditions were very different, he thought the powers of the quarterly courts should remain as at pr"sent.

The ATTORNEY-GEKERAL said he could not acc3pt the amendment. The scheme of the Bill was that applications for licenses could be made only at the annual licensing courts in April ; and no new licenses could be granted until after a local option poll had been taken. If applications could be made at every quarterly sittings there would be four dates in every year instead of one in which a local option poll might be required. If an application be made for a new license in any district, under the Bill it could only be made at the annual court, but under this amendment they would have to adjourn the application at any quarterly sitting and have a local option po)l. Take cases like the applications made at Pinkenba and Nambour. Applications were constantly being made for licGnses, until, in the case of Pinkenba, a license "·as granted, and in the case of Nambour the Government intervened by proclamation. If this amendment were carried it would stop the scheme of the local option provisions as far as new licenses were concerned.

HaN. A. J. THYNNE: If Resolution E. in clause 167-" That new licenses shall be granted in local option area "-were car­ried--

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : That is not the clause that governs it. Clause 164 is the one which governs it.

HaN. A. J. THYNNE: Once Resolution E was carried permitting new licenses to be granted, it rested entirely with the court whether a license should be granted or not.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: But before a license is granted, a poll must be taken.

Han . .4.. J. Thynne.]

265G Liquor Bill. [COUNCIL.] Liquo?· Bill.

Hmr. A. J. THYNNE: But a noll would not be taken upon every appli~ation. It would be only taken once in three :years. Once that resolution was carried, no further

vote \Va'c required to authorise [5 p.m.] the licensing court to grant a

license, and thero ·wus no reason why an application should not be granted at a quarterly sitting as well as at the annual court. In a town not far from Bris­bane there "ere three or four different people applying for licences. It would be absurd to qy that it would be necessan· in that case to have three or four local 01;tion votes. It would be for the licensing court to decide, after Resolution E was carried, whether any of those applications, and which, should be granted; and, under tho•·.e con_ditions, he could see no reason why appli­catwn could not _be made at any period of the year. It might happen that a provi­sional certificate was granted but the build­ing was not quite finished when the annual court sat ; and it would be most unfair 'oo have the premises idle and unoccupied for nearly twelve months until the next annual licensing c•ourt. There might have been a strike to prevent the building being finished. Let them deal fairly with the people who were in this business, and it was certainly a fair thing to give them an opportunity d

, applying at any quarterly sitting of th" court.

HaN. C. F. NIELSON understood the At­torney-General to say that it was the law at the present time that new licenses could only be granted at the annual licensing court. That w':s not so. The precent law was that new licenses could he granted at quarterly sittings. The only reason for the change that he had heard was that it ap· plied to Brisbane. He repeated his objec­tion that the Bill was absolutely a city measure, and did not take into con•ideration circumstances existing outside Brieban~. He would give an illustration of where hard­ship would arise. When ManY Peaks broke out there was a sudden influx ·of people, and a great many people visited the p!a,·e on business. One hotel got a license, and it had sufficient influence to maintain a mono­poly for some time. The place sprang up in six months, and, if applications could only be granted once a year, an applicant might have to wait for one year and eleven months before he could get a license. No reason was given for the discontinuance of the present system. A local option poll would govern not only the next quarterly licensing court, but every licensing court for the next three years.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Notwith­standing what had been said by the two hon. members, he contended that the amend­ment interfered altogether with the scheme of clause 164. He did not suggest that fresh iocal option polls would have to he tal-:en on every application for a license; but if the amendment were carried, they would have to make provision for having a poll in four different months in the year instead of taking it in July, following the annual sitting of the court.

Han. C. F. NIELSON: Under the Present law a poll can he taken in any month. of the year.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He had never heard of any hardship. People got provisional certificates easily enough now.

[.IT on. A. J. Thynne.

The object of the Bill was not to increase· facilities for granting licem'"• but to restrict them. He regretted that he could not accept the amendment.

HoN. T. \. JOH?\SON: If license" were to be gra•rtcd by qua •·terly courts, it ;vould occvsion a considerable amount of Incon­venience and expense to the Government in having to take four polls instead of one. The object of the Bill, as the Attorney­Genera!" said, was not to increaee facilities for granting licenses, and he was of opinion that one poll a vear was quite sufficient. That would not iir any way injure existing hotel-keepers.

HoN. B. FAHEY : The consensus of" opinion on the various amendments that had been moved seemed to he against the Go­vernmCI1t. So far, nothing of an unreason­able nature had been forced upon the Go­vernment, and he did not see that any hardship need be feared from the present amendment. He thought it wao a very fair one, and was only anticipating business. Business hitherto had been rather slow. Without the amendment, a man would have· to wait a long time after a poll was taken before he could get his license. If a po!I were taken, and permis.,ion was given to­the liccnsin g court to issue a license, if the court could grant a license four times a year instead of only once, it would greatly facili­tate business. He did not want to give his vote on any amendment without giving his reasons. If he had known tha.t the Attorney­General was going to divide the House on the first amendment, he would haw given his re:tsons for voting against the hon. gentle­man. If the hon. gentleman divided the­Committee on the present amendment, he­would vote against him.

Question-That the words proposed to he inserted (Han. C. 7!'. Nielson's a1nenClment) be so inserted-put ; and the Committee­divided:-

CoNTENTS, 12. Hon. B. Fahey Hon. P. Murphy

G. W. Gray C. F. Nielson H. L. Groom A. Norton F. H. Hart A. H. Parnell F. McDonnell W. F. Taylor C. S. McGhie , A. J. Thynne

Teller: Hon. F. McDonnell.

NoT-CoN rENTS 12. Han. A. H. Barlow Hon. T. A. Johnson

F. T. Brentnall C. F. Marks A. J. Carter B. B. Moretoil J. Cowlishaw T. O'Sullivan A. Gibson L. Thomas T. M. Hall H. Turner

Telle1·: Hon. C. F. Marks.

The CHAIRMAN : The votes being equal" I give my casting vote with the "Contents."

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Hoes. C. F. NIELSON moved the omis­sion of lines 50, 51, and 52, which was con­sequential on the amendment jast agreed to ..

Amendment agreed to.

HoN. G. W. GRAY moved that on line 55, after the word " district," there be in­serted the words-" or on the expiration of any license whereof the licensee has omitted to apply for a renewal at the previous annual sittings of the court." The object of this amendment was to pro-

Liquor /Jill. [G DECEMBER.] Liquol' Bill. 2657

vide for the cases where the licensee through an OYersight omitted to make application for a renewal of his license.

The ATTOR~EY-GENERAL did not think the amendment was required. Para· graph (a) of subclause (3) of clause 164 pro­vided that the section should not apply to any new license granted in respect of pre­mises which had been licensed prior to the annual sittings of the court in any of the years mentioned, and the license whereof was intended to be, but was not, renewed in the usual course at that sitting, owing to circumstances beyond the control of the late licensee. He would also draw atten­tion to the fact that the hon. member had given notice of another amendment on clause 29, which seemed to him to be suffi­cient. He was willing to accept the pro­posed amendment on clause 29, but did not think the two amendments were necessary.

HaN. G. W. GRAY: Under the circum­stances, if his friend on the right thought that the proposed amendment to clause 29 was mfficient, he would withdraw the amend. ment now before. the Committee.

Hon. C'. F. NIELSON: I think the other amendment meets the case.

Hox. G. W. GRAY: In that case, with the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw tho present amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

HaN. C. F. NIELSON moved that the clause be amended by inserting the word " special " before the word " sittings " on line 17, page 8. This amendment was pro­posed with the view of having these extra­ordinary sittings of the licensing court ear­marked by a special name. The marginal note to the clause \vas "other sittings," so that it was evident that special sittings were n1oant.

The ~\TTORNEY-GENERAL: I am advised that the amendment is unnecessary.

HaN. C. F. NIELSON: The amendment was only a kind of mark to distinguish these sittings from other sittings of the court. Reference was made to the same sittings in a subsequent clause, and he proposed to add to clause 54 tho words " any proceedings und"l' this section may be taken and deter­mined at any special sittings of the court."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will postpone this clause for the present, and see if that amendment is carried.

HaN. C. F. NIELSON: Very w.ell. Clause postponed. Clauses 13 to 16, both inclusive, put and

passed. On clau&3 17-" Appointment of inspectors

and sub-inspectors"-

HaN. A. NORTON said he was glad to see this clause in the Bill, but he was not sure that the inspections of public-houses would be any different from inspections in the past. In his opinion the inspection was an absolute farce. In some cases the sanitary arrangements were so abominable that the premises could be smell<Jd a hundred yards away. At Toowoomba on one occasion there was an application for a lic0nse, and the police magistrate, Mr. Murray, gave his evi­denoo to the effect that before the day for renewal the hotel was cleaned up, the old furniture taken away, and new furniture supplied throughout. The applicant got the renewal of his license, and immediately after-

1911-7 z

v:ards the new furniture was taken away and replaced by the old furniture. Of course, that was an extreme case; but if there had been proper inspection that man would have been come down upon the following week. He hoped the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill would see that wh<Jn it came into operation the inspection was a real one, and that hotels were kept not only in decent order, but absolutely clean.

Clause put and passed. On clause 18--" Duties of clerk of petty

sessions"~

On the motion of HaN. C. F. NIELSON, the clause was amended in lines 22 and 29 respectively by substituting " three" for "four."

Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 19 put and passed. On clause 20-" Governor prohibit issue of

licenses in certain cases "-HaN. C. F. NIELSON moved the insertion

of the word " new " after " victualler's," line 4, page 12. The o]:>ject. was to make a distinction between existmg licenses and new licenses-that was, licenses of premises nev<;r licensed before. The object was to make 1t clear that prohibitions could not extend to existing licenses.

Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Glaus" 21 put and passed. On cia us3 22-" Persons and premises dis­

qualified"-HaN. C .. F. NIELSON moved the insertion

of the word " or " after " granted " in line 46.

Amendment agreed to. HaN. C. F. NIELSON moved the omission

of the words " or transferred " in the same line.

Amendment agreed to. HoN. G. W. GRAY moved the omis.sion of

the word "aforesaid," in line 49, w1th the view of inserting " latter." The paragraph he wished to amend read as follows:-

"No licensed victualler's license or wine­Relter's Iicen::;e shall be granted, renewed, . or transferred in respect of any pr~mises of wJ;nch any constable or bailiff, or an~ licensed auction­eer or his partner, or the Wife of a~y of the aforesaid persons, is owner or where1n he or she is directly or indirectly interested." Th.9 substitution of "latter" for " aforesaid ". would make it clearer. As it stood at present the meaning was obscure.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the clause was quite clear as it stood, but th.e hon. gentleman's amendrhent would make tt obscure.

HaN. A. NORTON asked whether it was intended that licenses might be ?eld by husband and wife for different premrses.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There is nothing to prevent it.

HoN. A. !'\ORTON: Should there 1_10t be something to pre>·ent it? He thought rt very undesirable that the husband should koop one licensed house and the wrfe anothe:. A wife was wanted in every .house; and rf the licensee was not a marrred man there should be some woman in the house who could manage it in the same way as a wife.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

H on. A. N ortun 1

2658 Liquor Bill. ~COUNCIL.] Liquur Bdl.

HoN. 0. F. NIELSON moved the insertion after the word " void '' in line 6, page 13, of the words ''unless transferred within a reasonable time.''

Amendment agreed to. HON. 0. F. NIELSON moved the insertion

at the end of the clause of the- following sub­clause:-

" (5.) The fact that an applicant was a mar­ried woman shall not operate as a bar to such applicant becoming the grantee of any license under this Act."

HoN. B. B. MORETON said that hon. members on that side could not hear what was going on on the other side of the Cham­b"r. They did not know whether the amend­ment was being postponed or whether it was being accepted.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: When an amendment was proposed to which hh did not object, he did not rise to say that he did not object. Any hon. member could raise a discussion upon the amendment; but, as this was the existing law, he did not see that it would be reasonable to ask the Committee to al&er the law.

HoN. :B. B. MORETON thought it would be advisable for the hon. gentleman to let hon. members know what was being done.

Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, put and passed. On clause 23-" Accommodation required

on premises within city or town"-HoN. 0. F. NIELSON moved thtc insertion

in line 34, after the word "are," of the word "newly."

Amendment agreed to.

HoN. A. NORTON hoped that the sanitary arrangements connected with hotels would be properly looked after in future. He could say a great deal more than he cared about the beastly neglect in many place9, not only in the country but within th:> boundaries of this city. In many country hotels there wa'S a place set apart for women and a place for men, with nothing but a half-inch partition between the two. In othl?r cases women had to pass the place set apart for men to get to their own. All these things should be car,3-fully g-uarded against. They wanted decency and cleanliness, if they wanted nothing more.

HoNOURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear! HoN. 0. F. NIELSON moved the omission

in line 55, of the words " as such," with .;_ view of inserting the word "of."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot accept that.

HoN. 0. F. NIELSON: Tb3 obje~t was later on to move tli~ omission of the words "upon the recommendation of the inspector.'' His object in moving those amendments was that tli:, inspector would report to the court in every case. ThG wav the clause read now, the inspector was above the court. The EngliHh interp11etation was that the court; must do as the inspector told it. The court had specially to approve of all rooms set apart as sleeping apartments, all sanitary conveniences, and all facilities for e~cap·· in case of fire, on the recommendation of the inspector. As he proposed to amend it, th~ clause would read that those things sho11ld be approved of by the court. Surely the. court was an authority above th'<> inspector_ The duties of inspector.s would be provided for by regulation, nnd one of those dutiE"s would be to report to the court.

[Han. C. F. N1:elson.

Th3 ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not agree with the view expressed by the hon. mem­ber. He thought the clause was a ver_y proper one, and that it sho.uld be passed m its present form. IIe did .not agree _that the fact that the recommendatiOn of the· mspector was a nece~Ssarv condition to a man making an application 'meant that thtl inspector was above the court. It was analogous to the case of the Secretary for Lands approving of an application for a selection _on. the recom­mendation of the Land Oommrsswner. That did not put the Land Oommis~ioner al:ove the Minister. 'l'he clause provrded that an applicant for a license must first satisfy ~he inspector and get his certificate; and, hav.mg got that certificate, he had then to satisfy the court. * HoN. F. T. BRENTNALL thought the clause as it stood was intended.. to secure that the rooms and conveniences referred to in the subclause must be exactly suited to. the object for which they were erected. They had to be approved of by the inspector " as such "-that was, as fit· for the object for which thev were erected. He thought they should allow the clau&o to remain as it was.

HoN. A. NORTON: If the inspector made no recommendation, how was an application to be dealt with?

Hon. 0. F. NIELSON: The court cannot deal with it under those circumstances. ·

Hon. A. H. BARLOW : They can adjourn. HoN. A. NORTON: But the inspector's

duty was to inspect and recommend. HoN. C. F. NIELSON: Of course. The in­

spector's duty should be to obey the regula­tions issued by the Government. How could the court grant an app!ication against t_he recommendation of the mspector? The m­spector was not a qualified inspector in all cases. In Brisbane the licensing inspector was the chief officer of police. In some of the towns he was the sergeant of police, in other towns he was a first-class constable, and in some other towns an ordinary con­stable. In some towns where there was only an ordinary constable, the Health Act was enforced by a qualified inspector under the Act. In Bundaberg at the last annual licensing court, when they h":d a hare­brained gentleman there as S';'b-msp~cto_r of police. he took all sorts of srlly obJectwns, and the court adjourned and took a cab and went round to all the houses he objected to, and then came back and passed every application, because they said the man was unreasonable; and the police magistrate was the chairman of the court. When they had a qualified inspector under the Health Act and the court could get his recommendation, surely the hands of the court should not be tied merely because the nominal inspector had not furnished a report.

HoN. A. GIBSON said he read the story of the inspector and the court in Bunda­berg and the Press report was to the effect that' the backyards were disgraceful.

Hon. 0. F. NIELSON: That is what the in­spector said. - HoN. A. GIBSON: That was the report made to the court. He was aware that the court went round to look at the premises. You had to walk the plank to get through the backyard to the water-closet.

HoN. A. NORTON: With such insl?ectore as they sometimes had in the past, m wet weather you could hardly walk across the yard to get to the back premise~.

Liquor Bill. [6 DECEMBER.] Liquor Bill. 2659

Hon. A. H. BARLOW : That is owing to the enormous distance from the house.

HoN. A. NORTON: It was not becaus·a of the distance from the house, but because the yards were simply filthy. He was speaking from personal knowledge.

HoN. A. H. PARNELL said he would be very sorry to see the clause altered in any way. On the second reading he referred to the way in which the police carried out their duties with regard to inspection. For many years they had carried out those duties well, especially in the backblocks, where they had to ride many miles. The court could only be guided by the experience of those officers.

HoN. T. A. JOHNSON: Under the pre­sent Licensing Act the inspectors had always to report to the licensing bench with regard to any irregularities in connection with licen­sed houses. He had been a licensing justice, and his experience was that the police ser­geant, as a general rule, did his duty im­partially. He thought it was advisable that the inspectors should now report to the police magistrate, who would be the licen­sing court in future, instead of giving the inspector the whole power in an important matter like that.

HaN. F. T. BRENTNALL: The clause was perfectly clear. The inspector had to make his report and recommendations, and then the court had specially to approve of the building and sanitary conveniences, and sen that they were ample and satisfactory. The clause was quite clear, and they should leave it as it was.

HoN. T. A. JOHNSON: The question was whether the clause provided that the in­spector must report to the court.

HaN. C. F. NIELSON: An ordinary police inspector was not supposed to know any­thing about the construction of fire escapes ; but, unless he recommended that a fire <Jscape was good enot:gh, the court could not ap­prove of it. The court should be in a posi­tion to get expert evidence.

HaN. A. H. BARLOW thought with his colleague that the clause should stand as it "\Vas.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON: He had discussed the matter with the Attorney-General, and, with the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw his amendment.

HaN. P. MURPHY thought the amend­ment would be an immense benefit and a great protection to the public. As the clause now stood, the court had no option but to act upon the recommendation of the inspector, and if Wll had an unprincipled inspector who reported that things were all right when they were not all right, the court might con­tinue the license of an unptincipled licensee. The question was who was the more worthy of trust-the court or the inspector? It did not concern him whether th<? amendment was withdrawn or not, but he thought it would vastly improve the Bill.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON explained that he and the Mio.ister in charge of the Bill had gone into this matter, and the Minister had agreed to the omission of the words "upon the recommendation of the inspector," with the view of inserting the words " after con­sideration of the report of the-inspector."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is so. Amendme!lt (Hon. 0. F. Nielson's), by

'leave, withdrawn.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON moved that the words " upon the :cecommendation of the in­spector," on line 56, be omitted, with the view of inserting the words " aft!lr considera­tion of the report of the inspector."

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

On clause 24-" Accommodation r!lquired on premises outside city or town"-

HoN. C. F. NIELSON moved that the word "newly" be ir;serted after the word " are," on line 14.

Amendment agreed to. HoN. C. F. NIELSON moved that the

words "upon the recommendation," on line 44, be omitted, with the view of inserting "after consideration of the report."

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

Clause 25-" Exceptions a" to booth and pre­mises in special district "-put and passed.

On clause 26-'· Applieation for new license''-

HoN. f'. F. NIELSON the word "by," on line 1, inserted the words "or on

Amendment· agreed to; amended, put ar;d passed.

moved that after page 15, there be behalf of."

and cia use, as

On clause 27-" Applicant for license to furnish testimonials"-

HaN. C. F. NIELSON said he thought this clause should not be allowed to remain in the Bill. It introduced quite an innovation as far as tho licensing law of Queensland was concerned, and up to the present he had heard nothing in favour of the innovation. The clause said-

" Every applicant for a licensed victualler's license, or wineseller's license. or for a trans­fer thereof, but not for a renewal, shall, with his application, deliver to the clerk of petty s~-ssfons testimonials as to his character and suitability for the particular premises applied for." The last nart of th0 clause was a most wonderful -requirement-the applicant had to submit testimonials as to his "suitabilib- for the particular premises applied for." If this class of testimonial was to be adhered to, it mmlcl be of very little value; it would be like most of the recommendations that one received when neonle went to friends and asked for a reference or a testimonial. The persons applied to did not like to refuse, and such a. testimonial in this case would be absolutely valueless, and would probably le•ad the court astray. In the past an intend­ing applicant for a license or a transfer of license had to lodge his application for twenty-one days with the clerk of petty sessions. The police inspector wa.s furnished with a copy of that application, and he made inquiries through the police of the districi where the man came from, and on the infor­mation obtained in pursuance of those in­quiries decided whether he would object to the granting of the license or not. If the vigilance of the police in that respect was to be continued, it would be much better to omit this clause altogether, because if it was left in the court might be guided more by the testimonials suvplied than by the

officer's recommendation, or the [7.30 p.m.] officer might make fewer in­

quiries than he had done in the past, because someone had handed in a testi­monial. It would be very difficult for any·

Hon. O.F.Niellon.]

2660 Liquor Bill. [COUNCIL.] Liquo1• Bill.

one to give an opinion of any value as to the suitability of a person for any particular premises.

Hon. A. H. BARLOW: He might be fit for a town hotel, but not equal to chucking out in 1a bush "pub."

HoN. C. F. NIELSON: Did the hon. gentle;nan think that the better clas; of men fit to conduct hotels in Brisbane should not be licensed in the bush ?

Hon. A. H. BARLOW : Oh, yes; but in the bush they must be capable of chucking out.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON said that for that purpose they could call in the services of the police.

HoN. L. THOMAS considered that the clause was very necessary. He did not think anyone could say that all the publicans in Queensland were fit to hold licenses. He was of the opinion that a good many of them were not fit to be licensed, and he consid­ered the clause was very necessary.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the clause was a very reasonable one. Any per· ~on applying for a small billet-a clerk, for mstance-had to produce testimonials. If a stranger <·ame here and applied for a license th~ police might. not be able to find any­thmg out as to h1s character ot fitness; but if he was a respectable man he would have no trouble in getting testimonials to satisfy the licensing authorities.

* HoN. F. T. BRENTNALL said they had to consider the principal object of the Bill. If there was nothing that could be amended or improved, th~y were simply wasting their time: He took 1t that the main object was to p~ov1de. additional safeguards in connection With th1s trade; and unless they were pre­pared to maim improvements there was no use in spending time over the Bill. This clau,e was one in regard to character. If th_e t_rade neede~ s.o m~ch watching to keep w1thm proper hrrnts, 1t was necessary that the men engaged in the trade should be reputable men. There was sr·arccly anv walk in life in which it was not den1anded that applicants for positions should produce testimonials.

Hon. C. F. NIELSON: The worst man I ever employed had the best testimonials and I was glad to get rid of him. '

HoN. F. T. BRENTNALL: That only proved that the men who gave the testi­monials were of a worse character than the applicant.

l-IoN. A. NORTON agreed with the Han. Mr. Brentnall about getting men of first­class character before granting licenses, be­cans<' th<;re were many license<'s utterly unfit to hold hcenses; at the same time, he agreed w1th a good d!'al of what the Hon. Mr Nielson caid. How was the suitability of ~ man for particular prmnis<·' to be shown? It was not the premi>·es that should be tes­tified to, but the fitness of the man for the position he sought. If men were to be lic0n·o0d because they were considered fit for rough places, there would be a worse state of affairs than existed at present. As far as testimonials vvc:rc cm~cerncd, many of the_n; were not worth the paper they were wt:1tlt•n on. IIe knew a case in which hvo men, who were well known in the district to ~e cattle-st<o•alers, obtained good testi­momals as to charact..r. He did not think the clause was of any value.

[Han. C. }t', Nielson.

l-ION. T. A. JOH::-JSON said the local op· tion vote vcould have to decide whether new license' were to be granted or not, and he did not sec how a testimonial would affect the question. He had been thirty years a licensing justice, and he thought that, in most instanc .. s, thee lic.ensing justices had a fair idea of the character of applicants for licenses. As had been remarked already, some testimonials were not worth the paper they were written on. A man might get a. testimonial from a person of no better character than himself. In any case, this clause only dc·alt with cases in which the people decided by local option that new licenses were to be granted.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is only where new licenses will be allowed under local option that applications can be made under this clause.

HoN. T. A. JOHNSON said that if the people in the di~trict by a large majority decided in favour of new licenses, he hardly thought they would be refused.

HoN. T M. HALL wa·s rather in favour of the suggestion which had been made by the Hon. Mr. Niehon. If the clame were omitted, a person applying for a licenc' could produce evidence as to charactor, and then it would be the business of the police to ende-avour to furnish the court with in­formation on the other side, if· they dis­covered that he was not a man of good' character. He had been called up:m to give cvideneo as to the character of applicant.:; for licen~. 'c, and he had done so.

Han. 0. F. :ioJIELSON: If he is a good man, the police will say so.

HoN. F. T. BRENTNALL: The object of the clausa was to rnake as3Ul ance u.oub1y­sure. What the Ilon. Mr. Hall had bun arguing for w:>s prm<ded in the firoct r art ot the clause. and what ho desiro:d to ha ,-, was provided ;n the second paragraph. A ma:r would present his te,timonials to the- court. and they wonld forthwith he forwarded ]~ y the clerk to the inspector, who would report thereon to the court. If the inspector foun:l that tho t.stirnonials were either not gcnuino or not deservinrr of rpspect he would report accordingly. "

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The prin­cipal value of the clause would be in dealin;; with a -stranger. If a complete stranger had to present testimonials, he must disclose­where he came from, and that information would be in the hands of the impector in sufficient time to enable him to make in­quiries.

Hon.' P. :\Tt:HPHY: He has informat'on as to where a man comes fron1 no',v.

'J'he ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He might mislead the bench and the inspector. He mio-ht sav he came from Invercargill, wh3n he o actually came from San Francisco. . He might hav.o bocn living in the place for thre:•. or four months and be to all arpearance a resp2etabl<> mm{, whereas he might be utterly unfit to hold a licenb '·

HoN. P. MURPHY quite agreed with hon. members who said that ev,ory prec•ntion should be taken to ensure that men who vot licenses were mc>n of good charactPr; but th~e clause would be worthless for that purpose-. because it did .not say whom tho testimonials. were to be from. It did not say they were to be, from a police magistrate or an inspector of police. A stranger might come from

Liquor Bill. [6 DECEMBEB.] Liquor Bill. 2661

Inyercargill or San Francis _o, bringing a bundle of te"timonials which he mi,;ht havd written himself. On one o~casion he had a<~ employee who he had very good rewcon to susp~ct wa" robbing him_ 'rhe man lroughb him an exc•Jilent testimonial from an hotel­keeper in Brisbane. He took it that th~ teoti­monial was all right, and he wont to the hotel-keeper and asked him if he were a good man, and .he said, "No, I caught the oooundrel robbing me." The practic' when a stranger appli'ed for a license was {or tho police to communicate with the police in th" place he came from, and find out what kind of character he bore. If he brought testi­monials, th-, police would l:e put to the further trouble of inquiring whether those testimonials were genuine, and whether the givers of thoae testimonials were of goorl cha ract<'r themselveil. Tho clause should either go further or it should be deleted.

HaN. B. FAHEY said he had been a memher of a licensing bench under the old law and under the pl'csent law for over twenty years, and during that time thev had practically to depend on the report of the police inspector as to the character of the premises and the applicant. In those days recommendations were frequently not accepted by the bench, because the benches were constituted of people who were more or less interested, or wJ10 had influence brcught to b'car on them, and they outvoted th0 police magistrate ami himself. H~ remem­bered one licensee in a C3-rtain town ,,vho was a regular ''bad <;gg." He wws constanth­wat~hing the poli~e, and supplying grog after hours. A policeman came to him (Mr. Rahey) and said that he was going to catch that man. He said, "In that ease you mm expect promotion." The policeman mid, "I may, but I am not go in[( for him for that." He told the polic:'y,mn hr would have to l::e very careful of consequences. The man was caught and convicted, and the berch fined him the. full penalty, be-cause they knew he was doing wrong for so.me time. Three months from that day that intrepid policeman found himself in Normanton. Political infiu. ence was brought to bear on the Minister who administered the ~\ct. He was sure t'1at would not be done under the last two i\Jini,­tries. They mu,;,t place great relia1.,.-;e upon th police, who were as estimable and reli­able ws the polict> in anv part of Australia; but th• y were not always supported. Und<>r the Bill the inspc"tors might be r Jied upon. He would C"rtninly eupnort the am"ndment.

RoN. A. H. P AENELL looked upon the clause as nn o of the good clauses in the Bill, and he intend ·d to support it.

Clause put and pa«"ed. On clause 28-" Provi•sional certificat•- " RoN. C. F. NIELSON moYed the irscrtion.

in line 31, aft·,r the word "annual," of th2 words "or any quarterlY."

Amendment agreed to. HaN. G. Vf. GRAY moved the omiEsion o£

subclause (rl), as follows:--"There shall also be produced a certificate

under the hand of the Minister that the Go­vernor in Council has not r ~Cercised and does not intend to exerci...;e the powers conferred by section twenty of thi;; c/cct." The subclause wo,s too wide. It would be n~xt to impossible to get ~uch a certificat''·

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The reason of the subclaus<" being inserted was that there was a section in the present Act giving the Governor in Council power to prohibit

the issue of licenses in new districts. That section had proved most beneficial. It had been made use of often of late years in places where railway lines were being con­structed. The operation of the section had been prevented sometimes by the Governor in Council discovering that a provisional license had been granted before their atten­tion was drawn to the district or before it was realised that there was any necessity for the issue of a proclamation. The sub­clause would have the effect of making it necessary that, if a provisional license was applied for, the Minister must be informed of the application, and then he could exer­cise his option of proclaiming the district if it was a suitable district in which to pro­hibit the issue of new licenses. He submitted that the subclause should be retained.

RoN. A. J. THYNNE thought the clause ought never to have appeared in the Bill. The name of the Governor or the Governor in Council should not be brought into a

matter of this kind. What autho­[8 p.m.] rity had the Minister to say what.

tho Governor in Council would do when a matter came before them for con­sideration? To compel an applicant for a license to go first to the Minister for a cNtificate, which had to be obtained from the Cabinet or the Executive, and then to go through all the other forms specified- in the Bill, was very much like obliging him to run a severe obstacle race. The Attorney­General had referred to the beneficial exer­cise of tho power possessed by the Minister under the present Act. He (Ron. Mr. Thynne) did not think that power had always been exorcised beneficially. He quite agreed with prohibiting the granting of licenses in dis­tricts where new railways were being con­structed, b·cause nothing had done more injury to working men employed on railways than the facilities afforded them by licensed houses or sly grog-shops for getting drink. But he knew of a cas" in Sandgate where, after a provisional certificate had been granted, a proclamation was issued prohibit­ing the granting of lir·<msc>s in that area.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: After a provi­sional certificate was issued?

RoN .. \. J. THYNNE: A provisional cer· tificatc had been granted.

The ATTORNEY-GEXERAL: I very much doubt that.

RoN. A. J. THYNNE: Well, the hon. gentleman had an opportunity of ascertain­ing whether his statement was eJrrect or not. Speaking genE'mlly, he thought that when a man had got a provisional certifi. cato and had probably spent a con,iderable sum of monPy either in buving property or in making ar'rangcrnc,nts fo; a long building lease, or in building a new house, he was ontitlE>d to some consideration. The Bill said that if a man did not build the house within the time allo\\ ed he would lose everything : and yet this clause told him that he had only 'a chance of getting a licPnse after all, because a lor,1l option poll might be taken in tho mc·:1ntime, and the· issue of licenses be prohibited. He thought that was unjust. Once the provisional certificate was granted, there was an implied, if not a direc~, . con­tract with that man, and such provi~wnal certificate should be equivalent to a license as soon as the applicant had satisfied the requirements of the Act.

Hon. A. J. Thynne.]

2662 Liquor Bill. =COUNCIL.] Liquor Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the hon. gpntleman who had just spoken must be under some misapprehension. A good deal of opposition to some of the clam.,-." of the Bill proved to be founded upon a mis­apprehension when they got to know the facts. The hon. gentleman assumed that this clause applied to a case in which a provisional certificate had been issued, and that aftm such provisional certifirate had been issued the applicant had to produce a certificate from the :Minister that the Go­vernor in Council did not intend to exercise the powers conferred upon them befom he could get a license. If the hon. gentleman looked at the claus" he would see that it provided that " at the hearing of such ap­plication " for a provisional certificate " there shall also be produced a certificate under the hand of the :Minister that the Governor in Council has not exercised, and does not intend to exercic.0, the powers con­ferred by 'Pdion 20 of this Act." It was apparent, therefore, that the Minister did not come in after the provisional certificate had been issued.

Hon. A. J. THYNNE: I mentioned an in­stance in which that was done under the present APt.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. gentleman would, he thought, admit that his argument on that point was based on a mis­apprehension as to the meaning of this par­ticular provision. \Vhat took place at Sand­gate was very different from what one would be led to believe by the hon. gentleman's observations. Under the present law a man could define any area he liked for the our­pose of a local option poll. At Sandgate a man who wanted to get a license got a small area consisting of a single block with a few houses defined as a local option area. A poll was taken and the decision was in his favour by a very small majority of two or three votes. As soon as it was known that this man had made application for a provisional license another local option area was defined-a very much larger area, includ­ing the little block in which the first vote was taken, and the vote in the larger local option area was unfavourable to the grant­ing of the license. The question then was, Was the Minister to take the decision of the larger arE>a or the smaller area ?

Hon. A. J. THYNNE: Why did not the Minister leave it to the licensing court ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That was for the Minister to say.

Hon. A. J. THYNNE: That is the abuse I complain of.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It might have been wiser for the Minister to leave the decision to the licensing court, but there was no injustice done in the matter.

Hon. A. J. THYNNE: What was the poll?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He could not tell the hon. member from memory, but he had sent for the papers and wouid soon have all particulars. In the c·ase re­ferred to it was just the little bit of sharp practice on the part of the applicant who got the first local option area defined. After a local ontion noll was taken in the larger area, which included the smaller one it was decided that the Minister should ~xercise his powers.

Hon. A. J. THYNNE: Will the hon. gentle­man allow me to explain?

[Hon. 11• O'fhtllivan.

The ATTORNEY-GENER \L: He should be glad if the hen. gentleman could corred him on the point as to whether the first local option area was not a small area, and whether the larger area in which the poll was unfavourable to the issue of the license did not include the smaller area.

HoN. A. J. THYNNE: The area in which the local option poll was taken was not the vcrv small area the hon. gentleman spoke of. • After the application for that area had gone in and the area had been defined, somebody else, quite irregularly1 p~t in an application for another area whiCh mcluded a small part of the original area, not the whole of the original area as the hon. ~en~le­man had indicated. The second applicatiOn was absolutelv irregular, because once an arpa had bee~ defined and a poll taken, the people in that area must abide by the deci­sion arrived at for three years, and nobody could come along with a new application for a new area in order to modify that vote until after the three years had expired. The local authority made a mistake or did not understand what it was their dutY to do in defining a local option area and taking a poll, or they would not have allow!'d the overlapping which had taken place m con­nection with the two areas. Without the overlapping the applicant carried his p_oll and applied for a provisional license, whwh was gnmted him by the Licensing Bench. Then the Minieter came in with his pro­clamation stating that for the next twelve months no new licenses should be granted in Sandgate. That was the way in which the powers of the Minister could be abused.

Hon. B. FAHEY: How long ago was that?

HoN. A. J. THYNNE: Within the last few months. This case, of cours0, occurred under the present Act, and he simply re­f<'rred to it to show the Committee what might happen under a clause like that now being considered. The clause expressly said-

" On application by the holder of the certifi­cate or any other person at the annual or any quarterly sittings of the court, made within the time specified in the provisional certificate, and on proof of the performance of such conditions, if any, as are imposed by the certificate, the applicant shall be entitled to a certificate for a license in Form No. 25 of the said schedule or to the like effect, but not in a district where­in a local option poll against an increase of licenses has been carried.,

He did not like the clause, because he did not think it was wise to pass a law which brought the Governor in Council into a measure of this kind.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON said the reason for the retention of the subclaus-e was stated by the Attorney-Genera[ to be the fact that the Minister administering th:> Act might not know that an application had been made. for a license in a district. But certain tlungs had t.o be done in connection with this matter. Befor an apnlic:ltion was made twenh·-one davs' notice mll'st be given to the clerk 'of pett}; ses,ions. Under the Bill th'l clenk of petty sessions had certain duties to perform, one of which was to obey any rogu­lation made under the Act. Would it not be a simple matter to make it his duty to report to the Home S2cretarv's Denartm<'nt as to every anoliration? "\Vhv ,saddle the man in the ·west or 1at Cape York with the ;J.eces­sity of •sending to Brisbane for a certificate

Liquor Bill. [G DF.C'RMBEH.] L:iquor 1f111. 2663

to say that the Governor in Council had not exercised his power under clause 20, or did not intend to exercise it? Why not let the inspector or the clerk of petty sessions notify the dPpartment and the court? Th:; appli­cant should not be saddled with a duty "hich was simp!~- departmental work.

HoN. T. A. JOHNSON said that under th" present Act the applicant always submitted plans and specifications of the hotel for which h3 want€d the lice.nse·. If they were satis­factory, a prm·isional license was always granted, provided the building was erect~d within a certain time. Under this Bill h did not think the provisional license should come first. He thought it would be better to take the local option vote first, before a man was put to the expense of building an hotel. It would be an act of injustice to allow a man to spend his money on an hotel and afterwards refuse the license. ·

Question--That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause-put; and the Committee divided:-

CONTENTS) 12.

Han. A. H. Barlow Ron. C. F. Marks F. T. Brentnall B. B. l\'Ioreton B. Fahey T. O'Sullivan A. Gibson A. H. Parnell T. M. Hall L. Thomas T. A. Johnson H. Turner

ielle1·: Han. B. Fahey.

NoT-CONTENTs, 14.

Han. A. J. Carter . Ron. C. S. McGhie J. Cowlishaw P. Murphy A. A. Davey C. F. Nielson G. W. Gray A. Norton H. L. Groom E. J. Stevens F. H. Hart W. F. Taylor F. McDonnell A. J. Thynne

TdleJ': Han. W. F. Taylor.

Reso]v.gd in the negative.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON moved the insertion after "Certificate," in line '16, page 16, of the words "or any extension thereof which ex­tens~on . the court is authorised to grant on applicatiOn made at any sitting." The object of the amendment was evident to hon. mem­bers, and he thought they would admit that it was necessary.

Amendmc,;t agreed to.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON moved the omission in subclause (6) of the words "but not in a district wherein a local option poll against

an increase of licenses has been [8.30 p.m.] carried." Very little need be

said on the question. Hon. members had only to imagine that · a person had applied for a provisional certi­ficate, that it had been granted, and he had gone to the expense of bringing the building to completion or to the C'Ve of completion, and then lost the whole of his money throu"'h the '!a':'ryi?g of a local option polL Ab;o­lute lllJUSt!Cil would b0 done by the carrying of a poll in such a case.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

On clause 29-" Renewal of license"­

Ho~. C. F. NIELSON moved the ins'"'tion, in line 32, after the word "him '' of the words "or on his behalf." '

Amendment agreed to.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON moved the omission of paragraph (c) in subclause 2 :--" That the house is no longer necessary; or." That was quite new phraseology. The existing provi­sion read-

" The reasonable requirements of residents in or travellers through the neighbourhood do not justify the granting of the application."

Tlwro was no mention of the word " house " in the Bill, which spoke of " premises" and " licenses."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause practically re-enacted the exist­ing law. The only difference was that the phraseology was simpler. He advised the Committee to retain the paragraph.

Hmr. A. G. C. HAWTHORN thought it would be much better to adopt the phrase­ology in the present Act, as it was very much more definite.

HoN. E. J. STEVENS thought some pro­vision of the kind was necessary, and they should either adopt the phraseology in the present Act or retain the phraseology of the clause under discussion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is put in on Mr. Ranking's recommendation.

Amendment put and negatived. HoN. G. Vv. GRAY moved the insertion

of the following subclause to follow sub­clause (3) :-

,, ( 4.) In any caE:e where a licensed victualler has inadvertently omitted to deliver the pre­scribed notice within time, the court, upon such tern1s, if any, as it thinks proper, may never­theler-s treat the application as duly made for the proper sittings of the court, and may enter all necessary adjournments to enable the appli­cation to be heard and determined.,

Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 30-" Where license not renewed be-

fore expiry of old license "-passed with a. verbal amendment.

Clause 31 and 32 put and passed. On clause 33--" Transfer of licensed vic­

tualler's license"-HoN. G. vV. GRAY moved the insertiun

of the following words to follow subclause (3):-

" Pending the hearing of the application, the court 1nay grant pernlission to the proposed transferee to carry on the business under the transferror·s license."

In practict', when a vendor sold he ap­pointed the purchaser his agent, and the transferror got leave of absence, but it was really illegal, as the purchaser was merely the agent of the li<'"nsce. It was necessary that some provision should be inserted giving the police magistrate power to grant a per­mit to the transferee to carry on the business.

The ATTORNEY-GE::'\fERAL said he could not accept the amendment in that form; and he would ask the hon. member to wait until they rectched the amendment proposed to be moved by the Han. Mr. Nielson in clause 95.

HoN. G. W. GRAY thought this was the place where the amendment should be in­serted.

The ATTOHNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. memb0r wanted the amendment inserted, he would ask him to submit it in another form. It would be obviously wrong to allow the proposed transferee to carry on the premis<ils pending the hearing of the application for a.

Han. T. O'Sv.ll~;an.]

2664 f.iquor Bill. [COUNCIL.] Liquor Bill.

transfer, ancl he would suggest to the hon. member that he should make his amendment read that the court might grant permission to "the agent of the proposed transferror" to carry on the business.

HaN. G. W. GRAY: With the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw his pro­posed subclause in view of the fact that the Hon. Mr. Nielson had an amendment which carried out the object at which he was aiming -an amendment which he understood the Attorney-General was prepared to accept.

_Amendment (Han. G. TV. Gray's), by leave, Withdrawn.

Ho::.r. C. F. NIELSON moved that after the word ''him," on line 19, there be in­serted the words " on the date of such trans­fer."

Amendment agreed to.

HaN. G. W. GRAY moved the omission 0f subsection (6).

HaN. C. F. NIELSON: This subsection was a prohibition against the same license being transferred more than once in three months. Such a provision might operate very injuriously. Supposing the owner of an hotel got a bad tenant, that he did not know that he was a bad tenant but o-ot the license transferred to him on the first' of the month, and by the end of the month found out ~h!'t he was a bad tenant-then, if this prov1s1on became law, the owner would be prevented from getting rid of his bad tenant for three months. Again, if a person who had bought an hotel and obtained a transfer of the license, then effected a bona f1de sale of the propertY and wished to leave the State, he would be prevented front transferring· his license to the purchaser until three months had elapsed. There had never boen an:v such prohibition in the licensing law of Queensland before, and he could see no reason for introducing it in the present Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL pointed out that transfers of licf•,nses could only be made at the quarterly sittings of the licensing court. ~t "~s thm·.,·fore pPrfectly reasonable to say that tf a man became a licem;•Je he should undertake to hold the license fo 1•

three months. At present a great deal of trafficking might take place in connection with licenses. A man or a company might b~' the owner of an hotel, and put one man in as licensee this week, and another next week, and so on. It was considered desir­able to stop that kind of thing, and that was one reason why this provision was introduced in the clause.

Hon. E. J. STEVENS: Supposing he has an offer of £3,000 for his propert:v ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He coulct sell, and the purchaser could get a transf0r of the liceme at the end of three monthA~

HoN. C. F. NIELSON: I£ a man bought an hotel and-could make a good thing on his bargain in a week or two, why should he not be allowed to E·Jil and have his license trans­ferred to the new purchasers?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : He can sell out; and comply with the Act at the same time.

HoN. C. F. NIELSOX: No; he could not. Amendment (Han. G. TV. (hay's) agreed.

to; and clause, as amended, put and passed. On clause 34-" Court may transfer license

where licensee deserts premises or refuses to transfer"-

[ H on. T. 0' Sttllivan.

HaN. C. F. NIELSON moved that the clause be amended by inserting the words " or his nontinee '' after the word " license " on line 26.

Amendment agreed to.

HaN. C. F. NIELSON moved that after line 34 there be inserted the words " or neg­lects to make due application for the renewal of his license ; or."

Amendment agreed to; and clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 35 postponed.

On clause 36-" Transfer of license on eject­lnent "-

HaN. C. F. NIELSON moved the omission of the word " legally " in line 1. This was

a very dangerous word. It threw [9 p:m.] the onus on the licensing board,

the police magistrate, of decid­ing whether a tenant had boon properly ejected. This was a matter for the Supreme Court to decide.

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

On clause 37-" Removal of license"­

HaN. C. :B'. NIELSON moved the omission of paragraph 2, as follows:-

" No such license ~''hall be removed from the premises in respect of which it was granted to any other premises beyond the bqundary of the city, town, or shire (if undivid~d), or of the ·ward or division (if divided Into wards or divisions) as the case may be, within which the first-~entioned premises are situated, nor in any case to any premises situated more than half a mile by the nearest road from the first­lllentioned premises if such premises are in a city or town~ or one mile if in a shirl'."

As the law stood at present, removal could h3 made to .any part of the same licensing district, or an adjoining district. He thong, ht an adjoining district was far too wide. Havmg abolished the franchise under which local option was exercised at present-whic]:t was the lora] authorities franchise-having wrden,~d the franchise by putting it on the electo~al basis, the court should have power to dectde what was a fair thing for the removal of a license. Half a mile might be a fair thing for :a town, but one mile was absolutely nothing in the case of a shire. There were shir•es in Qu<'unsland as large as the whole of the State of Maine; and the removal to a dietance of one mile, where there might not be a house within twenty miles, was absurd. He thought the court should have the right of deciding what was a fair distance. Nobody would apply to remove a iicenst· or a house further than was necessary.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he could not see his way to accept the amendment, because there must be some limitation as to distanc·e; but he would be glad to hear further reasons in favour of the amendment.

Hox. P. MURPHY supported the amend­ment. The ~ubclause would prevent the bansfcr of a license across a street if it was the boundarv between two wards. There ''ere gentlemen in Brisbane at the present tim-e who thought that a large hotel should be built in this citv something like the Metro­pole or one of those large hotels in Sydney. He heard of one gentleman who was desirous of buying the license of a small hotel with the view of transferring it to such a large

Liquor Bill. [6 DECEMBER.] 2GG5

'hotel across the street; and he was told that the idea was to erect an hotel costing £50,000 "'r £60,000. But with this provision such a transfer could not be made, and the .sffect would be to retard progress.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: What limitation should there be?

RoN. P. NIVRPHY said that the boundary ·of a city would be all right, but this pro­vision would prevent a transfer from one ·ward to another just across the street.

HaN. A. H. PARNELL asked how the dause would apply to townships on railways. He had seen townships r•3moved from 10 ·to 20 miles, and I'icenses transferred. How would cases like that be met if ther·s was to be a hard and fast rule?

HoN. C. F. NIELSON: vVith the permission -Df the Committee he would alter his amend­ment and move the omission of paragraph 2 with tho Yiew of inserting the following:-

" No such license shall be removed from the premises in respect of which it wa~ granted to any other premises beyond the boundary of the city, town, or shire, as the case may be, within

·which the first-mentioned premises are situated."

Amendment agreed to.

HaN. C. F. NIELSON moved the insertion <af the following paragraph after line 54-

" (6.) Provided further that the court shall _have power to grant to any licensee who has obtained a provisional certificate for such re­mov:il permis.-::ion to remove the buildings -erected upon or forming part of any licensed premises to the site mentioned in such pro­visional certificate for removal, and in Ruch ease the licensee shall be at liberty within the time limited by the court to remove such build­ings for re-erection on such site ; and during the period required for such removal 'and re­erection, it shall not be obligatory upon such licensee to c01nply with the provisions of this Act with respect to the aceommodatioii required regarding licensed premises."

This was a provision Yery often required in the bush. As the Hon. Mr. Parn.gll shted hotels were sometimes shifted; a.nd ther~ was no provision for allowing the license to be removed with the house. The license could only be removed from one house to some other house, and this would enable wooden hotels in the bush to be removed along with :the licenses.

Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, put and passed.

On clause 38-" Description of premisos"­

HoN. C. F. NIELSON moved the omission, in subclause 2, of the word "twelve," with a view of in,erting the word "thirteen." The amendn1ent "\Vas cunscquential on an amend­ment in clause 2.

Amendment agreed to.

HaN. C. F. ::•nELSON said that sub,Jause {2) read-

" rrhe court at its annual sittings in the month of April, one thousand nine hundred and twelve >hall cause the particulars of the land then in the occupation of all licensed victuallers and ust ii as part of or in connection with their Iiceru:ed premise:' to be entered upon all exi" ting Iicen~~es and recorded in the register of licenses, and for that purpose every IicenF~"!d victualler shall furnish the prescribed description of his premises, and produce his license to the court."

He would like a little explanation as to the meaning of the subclause. It was well known

that a licensee might lease the upstairs part of an adjoining building, or in a country place he might lease an adjoining paddock for grazing purposes; and he would like to know whether the information required to be furnished would be confined to the original licensed premises or would include any other buildings or land which he might acquire.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It was a matter that would be settled by the regula­tions. He should think it would apply to property which came within the definition of the curtilage of the hotel and properly used in connection with the hotel.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

Clause 39-" Applications for winesellcrs' licenses"-put and passed.

On clause 40-" Packet license"-

HoN. C. F. NIELSON moved the inser­tion, in line 42, after the word " steamer," of the words " or other mechanically-propelled vessel." The clause was taken from the Act of 1885, since which time motor boats ar.d Yessels part sailing and part motor had come into existence, and it was as well to include those vessel.

Amendment agreed to.

HaN. C. F. NIELSON moved the insertion, in the same line, after the word "vessel," of the words. " carrying passer.gers or plying within any part of the harbour or on any riyer in Queensland." Those were the words in the present Act.

Amendment agreed to.

HaN. C. F. NIELSON moved the omission of the words "(other than within any har­bour or within any river)." The amendn~ent was consequential on the amendment JUst passed. ~\mendment agreed to.

IIoN. G. W. GRAY moved the omission of paragraph (d.) in subclause (7), as follows:-

" No liquor shall be sold, supplied, o_r &;iven on board on Sundays or on Good Fnday or Christmas Day."' That was too dra>,iic a provision.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL sugg<''.ted that, instnd of deleting th" paragraph, they should add the words " on any vessel plying within any harbour or river in the State." That would nermit liquor to be sold on any oversea ves,el, but it would not allow it to

be sold on those days on a vessel [9.30 p.m.] plying within a harbour in t_he

State. It would be an absurdrty for a man travelling on the "Emerald" o;n Sunday to be able to purchase liquor when he co~ld not do so at an ho,t-el at Reclcliffe or Sandgate.

HaN. G. \V. GRAY: There was a very strong f•eeling that those vessels should not be deprived of the right to sell liquor on those days. He would take a vote on the matter.

·Question-That the words proposed to be omitted (Hon. G. W. Gmy's amrnd.ment) stand part of the clause-put; and thn Committee divided:-

CONTENTS) 6.

Han. A. H. Barlow Hon. C. F. Marke A. Gibson T. O'Sullivan T. M. Hall. L. Thomas

Teller: Hon. T. l\L Hall.

Han. G. W. Gray._]

2666 Liquor Bdl. [COUNCIL.

NoT-Co>r~'ENTS, 14. Ron. A. J. Carter Ron.. C. S. IvicGhie

A. A. Davey B. B. Moreton B. Fahey P. Murphy G. V:r. Gray C. F. Nielson H. L. Groom A. Korton 1<'. H. Hart A. H. Parnell F. l\IcDonnell H. Turner

Teller: Ron. A. A. Davey.

Resolved in the negative.

HoN. G. W, GRAY moved the omission of the words " and published in some newspaper generally circulating in the district."

Amendment agreed to.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON moved that subsec­tion (5) be omitted. A booth authority being of a purely temporary nature, and being, as a rule, granted in the interests of visitors, and not affecting in any way the local residents, it should be left absolutely to the judgment of the magistrate to decide whether such a license should be issued. If this subclause was allowed to stand, a local option area might be defined which would include the Eagle Farm Racecourse, and if the no-license resolution wa'; carried, it would be impossible for the court to grant a booth license on a race day, which might be only once in two or three months. For the reasons he had given, he hoped the Committ<>e would agree to the omission of the subclause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This was an absolutely unreason'able amendment. What the hon. member proposed was that if a local option resolution was carried and the sale oJ liquor within a particular area was prohibited, a booth license might be granted in that area so that liquor could be sold there. The hen. gentleman stated that a booth license did not affect !he local residents. That was a very ex­traordmary argument. As to booth licenses only being granted temporarily for the Eagle Farm Racecourse, or once a year fo;r any other place, that was no. reason for breaking a local option resolution after it had been carried by the electors. He submitted that the amend­ment was an absolutely unreasonable one, and that it would make local option a farce, which he dared say the hon. member would be very glad to see.

HoN. P. MURPHY tiiC;ught the last re­mark of the Attorney-General was uncalled for. Those who were associated with the Hon. Mr. Nielson and the Hen. Mr. Grav in amending this Bill were just as anxious as the Attorney-General himself to make it a Bill which would be a credit to the Chamber. The amendment was an absolutely reasonable one. There were days at Eagle Farm when anything from 10,000 to 15,000 people were present, more than nine-tenths o·f whom were visitors. If a local resident wished to go in there to get a drink he would have to pay fo.r admission, and if he went in to the grand­stand enclosure it would cost him lOs. pro­bably. Another point which should be borne in mind was that horseracing was carried on, '?O.t only for amusement, but also for improv­mg the breed of hors~s; that the association connected with the Eagle Farm Racecom•se gave away £25,000 or £26,000 a year in prize mon~y; and that the produce required for the feedmg of the horses which took part in those races was a considerable item to the traders of Brisbane. He held that it would not be rignt to prevent the sale of liquor at the Eagle Farm Racecourse on race days. Nor would it be right to prevent the granting of booth licenses for the Exhibition Ground at

f Han. G. W. Gray.

the time of the annual show, when there.­were about 70,000 people present. Surely they could make some reasonable allowance for the large number of persons there who were accustQmed to have a drink or two dur­ing the day. In a climate fike this it would be almost cruelty to deprive a man attending the Exhibition of his glass of lager beer or other

, beer. It was out of all reason to prevent booth licenses being granted f<?r places of that descriptiol1. The general publiC were the ones, to be considered; and it was an unreasonable proposition to say that at a place where 70,000 people were assembled'-most of them strangers-thev should not be able to get a glass of beer 'Or whatever they required.

HoN. A. NORTON: If they were going to dictate to people what they were to do o~ what thev were not to do-if they were gomg to say" to temperate people that they mus~ not drink a glass of beer or a glass o.f wme­whether it was on a Sunday or any other day -they would have to suffer. The local opti'?n clauses might have a very good effect m: some places, but not everywhere.

HoN. A. A. DAVEY supported the pro­posed amendment. It was going beyond reason to dictate to people what. they should drink and when they should drmk. In his· opinion the majoritv had no right to ~ay that the minority should not have. a ~rmk in a certain area. The local optwn Idea, like many other false ideas, had become popular; bnt so long as an individua;I did no injury to another, he should be at liberty to use his life as he thought best. Alleged temperance reformers might say that the individual should be deprived .of the '?ppor­tunity of taking too much liquor; but It was th0ir mission to agitate, educate, and c'?n­vcrt to their ideas. It might be beneficwl if liquor were banish<ed from the Common· wealth · but he denied the moral right of any m~jority to s~y that. he should not do· this or that so long as his conduct was con­fined to hi~self. If he did injury to any­bod-.; else, the strong arm of the law would reach him and punish him. Self-protection was the only ' justification society ha;d for interfering with the l_iberty _of th<;> i_n_divi_dual; and there was a claim to mfalhbi!Ity m the attempt to force ideas upon other people. He s.upposcd no so-called temperance ~!~an­would claim infallibility; and though drmk· ing to excess was a curse, no body of ycr­sons had a right to interfere with the hber­ti~s of individuals who were doing no injury· to others.

HoN. A. GIBSON thought it was a ques­tion to-night of " Bung, beer, and burst!"' It seemed as if members made up their minds to support the amendment without any consideration as to the result. He did not know that he would have risen but for the remarks of the last speaker, who had' insulted a number of people quite as capable as that hon. gentleman of deciding what was right and what was wrong.

Hon. A. A. DAVEY: Let them mind their, own business !

HoN. ~\. GIBSON: He rdused to submit to the opinions expressed by some hon. gentlemen, just as the hon. gentleman re­fused to accept the opinions of tho tem­perance pooplc. vVhdher the hon. gentle-_ man thought it was right or wrong, he held· that if a racecourse was in a dry arPa, the­people living there should not be subject to'

Pupers. [6 DECEMBER.] Questions. 2667

the ann~yanco_ of drunks coming and going. They bUilt residences and went to live there ; they had the power by a majority to have this local option ; and no majority of other people should interfere with their rights in regard to preventing the sale of liquor in tho area. The thirstv souls who went to the racecourse or the <'xhibition had a right to honour the principles adopted in the areas concerned. 'What were our laws for, if thev wPre not to be resp•"•cted? The Eon. M,:. Davey knew vpry well that since tho passage of Labour legislation they had been hemmed round with conditions in the conduct of busi­ness; and if they were to break the law they would be punished. They were all bound to observe the laws made for the good go­vernment of the people ; but it would not be right to pass a Iaw that would infrino-e on the rights of the inhabitants of any dis­trict because there happened to be in that district a racecourse or a place where an exhibition was held. It might be asked, ""What right have you to interfere with my thirst?" But it might also be asked, " \Vhat right have you to go into a dry area and disturb the peace and quietness of the people who have gone to live there?" He refused to be sat upon; and he would not be >at upon in this matter while he had the power of speech to declare his principles. The majority might make this amendment law, but in doing so they would be robbing a great many people of their rights.

Hon. P. MuRPHY: The racecourse was there before those people went to live there.

RoN. A. GIBSON: Possibly so; but the people were there now, and their rights should be respected.

The Council resumed. The CHAIRMAN re­ported progress, and the Committee obtained ]pave to sit again to-morrow.

ADJOl:RNMEI\T.

RoN. A. H. BARLOW: I move that the Council do now adjourn. We will resume the discussion on the Liquor Bill to-morrow.

Question put and passed.

The Council adjourned at 10 o'clock.