Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 22 OCTOBER 1912

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1876 Brisbane Exhibition Lc.nds Bill. [ASSE:\IBL Y.] Bremer Election Petition.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

TuESDAY, 22 OcToBER, 1912.

The SPEAKER (Hon. W. D. Armstrong, Lockyer) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

BREMER ELECTION PETITION. REPORT OF ELECTIONS TRIBUNAL.

The SPEAKER announced the receipt of the following letter from the Elections Judge:-

"Judges' Chambers, Supreme Court, "Brisbane,

"21st October, 1912. "To the Honourable the Speaker of the·

Legislative AsqAmbly of Queensland. " Mr. Speaker,-The petition of Wil·

liam Vincent Hefferan, of Ipswich, pre­sented the fourth day of July last, com­plaining of the undue election and return of James Clarke Cribb as a member to serve in the Legislative Assembly for the electoral district of Bremer, and claim-

Bremer Election Petition. [22 OCTOBER.] Machinery, Etc., Bill. 1877

ing that it might be determined that the ,·said James Clarke Cribb was not duly elected and returned for the said elec­toral district of Bremer, but that the said \Villiam Vincent Hefferan was duly elected, and ought to have been returned

,as the sitting member of the Legislative Assembly for the said electoral district,

.and that the said William Vincent Hef­feran might be declared as such sitting member for the said electoral district, or that the said William Vincent Hefferan. might have such further or other relief in the premises as the nature of the case might require, was tried before the Elections Tribunal on the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, Bighteenth, and twenty-first ·days of October instant.

" The assessors chosen by the parties . and sworn were John Adamson, George Phillips Barber, George Powell Barnes, Donald Gunn, Herbert Freemont Hard­,acre, and Harry Frederick \Valker, members of the Legislative Asse)llbly.

"On the twenty-first instant Mr. Watson, of counsel for the petitioner, announced to the tribunal that the peti­tioner did not intend any further to prosecute the petition ; that as the re­spondent at this stage had a majority of votes he would not oppose a determina­

·tion of the tribunal in the respondent's favour; and that he would undertake not to appeal against any decision or deter­mination of the tribunal. Mr. Stumm, K.C., of counsel for the respondent, asked for the determination of the tribunal.

"The ,tribunal accordingly determined that the respondent, James Clarke .Cribb, was duly elected and returned as the member to serve in the Legislative Assembly for the electoral district of Bremer, and in acordance with that de­termination I declared the said James

-.Clarke Cribb duly elected and returned as the member to serve in the Legislative Assembly for the said electoral district of Bremer.

"The assessors further detennined that the respondent's costs of and incidental to the petition, limited to the sum of one hundred pounds, should be defrayed by the petitioner out of the sum of one hundred pounds paid into court with the petition, and I ordered the said sum, with accrued interest, if any, to be applied accordingly.

" The assessors stated that thev were of opinion that both the petitioner and the respondent had suffered in consequence

,of the faulty preparation of the rolls .following on the redistribution of seats.

"All which I hereby certify. " A copy of the evidence given at the

·trial accompanies this certificate. " C. E. CHUBB, Elections Judge.

" Supreme Court, 21st October, 1912."

The TREASURER (Ho11. W. H. Barnes, B1tlimbu) : I move that the certificate of His

-Honour the Elections Judge declaring that . James Clarke Cribb was duly returned and elected as member for the electoral district ,of Bremer be entered on the journals of the House, and that the evidence taken in the <ease be printed.

Question put and pa5sed.

INSPECTION OF SCAFFOLDING BILL.

MACHINERY AND ACT AMENDMENT

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE.

(Jlt~r. J. Stodart, Logan, in the chair.)

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS moved- · b

" That it is desirable that a ~Ill e introduced to amend the InspectiOn of Machinery and Scaffolding Act of 1908."

Mr. RYAN (Barcoo) thought tJ:e hon. gentleman could give them more mfor~a­tion than that in moving the res,olutwn. He certainly gave them some last mght.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC 'WoRKS: I thought I gave you all that is necessary .

Mr. RYAN: There were some hon: Inem­bers here who were not then m the Chamber.

The HOME SECRETARY : That is a new argument.

Mr. RYAN: It was a new argument, and a very useful argument. :f[e thought this information ought to be giVen as soon as possible, so that . every !llember present might obtain possesswn of It.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIQ WORKS did not know whether the Committee were not asking for what was scarcely fair, although he recognised that. the leader of the Opposition was qmte ent1tled to ask for the information, but h~ thought he. went out of his way last mght to explain the objects of the measure very f~lly on leave being asked to introduce the Blll. However, if it would satisfy the hon. gentl.eman, he should be very pleased to run bnefl:y over it again. He had explained that th~ B1ll was mainly designed to remedy certam def.:;cts in the provisions of the 4ct of. 190~ relat~g to engineers' and engme-drlVers certifi­cates. HP further explained that cons~que:r:t upon the :'m~ndment. of the Min_ing B!ll th1s session wrndrng eng·rne drrvers certrficates were to be abolished. Hon. members -yvould remember that they were now to be Issued by the Mines Department, and not. by the [nspector of Machinery and Scaffoldmg. He might also mention that it was not thought desirabiB that the key of the, safety-valve should be in thB owner's poss<'sswn,. but that it should be in the possession of the mspector, and an amendment in that direction was P!O­posed. It was also proposed to deal with certificatBs as far as they related to steam engines, etc. It was thought ~ecessary .that a person attending to any engme or bo1ler .to which the Act ,applied should have a ce:tlfi­cate of competency. He ha·~ further explamed that it had been found m the course of administration that there had sometimes been a difficultv in establishing the fact 'as to whether the person concerned was competent or not. He might say that they had one case in particular where the department took action, and found that they were not able to sustain that action, because they were not able to prove in every detail that the party concerned was not competent . Now thev said that the onus of nro_of must be thrown upon the party employmg the persons concerned, and not upon the depart­ment; the object being, of coc:rse, to pre­yent, if possible, any leakage m that par­ticular direction. There were other matters,

Han. W. H. Barnes.]

1878 Insp ct"on oj Machinery, [ASSEMBLY.] Sc~tfolditt(, Etc .. , Bill.

but he thou~ht he had explained fairlv fully the obJects of the Bill, and hoped ther'.' :w_ould be no delay in getting through the Imtial stages.

Mr. \VINSTA:i\JLEY (Queenton) thou~;ht t~at the request of the leader of the Opposi­twn was a ver:;- fair one, for the simple reason that there were certain members here who were not in the House wh<m the order of leave was asked for last night. They were repeatedly told by thP hon. gentleman in c•.mnection with a certain clause of on~ measure which had been before the House that the amendments which had been moved from the Oppe,ition side were out··ide the scope of the Bill, and it was essential that they should know in the 'order of lea,-e st~se what was going to be the scope of one Bill. . If he m;dcrsto~d the Minister .correctly, he said that It was mtended by this Bill to· abolish \Yinding engine drivers' certificates~

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC 'NaRKS: As far aa the. Machinery and Scaffolding Depart­rnt>nt Is concerned, but not as far as the Government is concerned.

Mr. WINSTANLEY: The point he wanted to make was that they htcd one l~ill Htrlier in the ccession-tho Mines Regulation Bill­in which ct great manv peo;•le thought amend­mc·nts wore required. The a~sociation in Charter;s Towers submitted amendments not only in their own interests, but in th~ In­terests of the COJ?munit:< generally, and to those who were m charge of machinery in particular. He should like these people to have an opportunity after the Bill was presented, and. before it got to the second reading and Committee 'tages, of seeing the Bill, and judging whether it met with their approval. He WL\S surprised to hear that ther·· was evc-'1 a sugg;:stion of abolishin= winding· engine driverJ' certificate-s as at pn ,em issued under the lYiachine'rv and Scaffolc1.ing Act. '

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: No.

Mr. WINSTANLEY: Yes, as far as the Machinery and Scaffolding Bill was con-cerned. It was distinctly stated by the Minister for Mines that nothing of the kind was going to take place.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : B0cause it 1 s not necess~.ry.

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC Vi!ORKS: I think I shall be able to satisfy the hon_ member.

~fr. W.INSTANLEY: The. Minister for Mmes said that the only thmg the Mines Department were going to claim the right to do was to m~ke a kind of differentiation as to. what cer~Ificat~s should. be allowed in cntam conm;ctwns m the mmes, put tha. t they were gomg to safeguard the certificates and to giv·, certificates under the Machinery Bill like they always had.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: No· prescribe the mining qualification'., '

¥r. WINST~NL:p;Y: They would pre­se;Ibe the quahficatwns as to work in a. mine.

The SECR~TARY FOR PUBLIC WORR:S thought that It woc:Id be a mistake to lessen any r-.~fe~uar~ls "'.hich were provided in th:·e Act. This .Bill, m_s~ead of lessening thell'":!!. , would provide add1twnal ;aferuards, and :it; was generally . agreed that all legislatio3n. should. tend m . th .. "t direction. In the syEopsis of the B11! It was stated that the

[Hon. W, H. Barnes.

certificatu issued by the :!\Iachinc:ry and Scaffolding DepaTtment to engine drivers on ,,·inding en;;ines would be abolished, and that in future they would be is,ued by the :\lines Department. That meant th.1t the men in ch.-<-rge of winding engines must have the very highest qualificadons.

Mr. IVIN3TANLEY: \Vho i.; c:oing to give the certifkc.tes?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The :!\Jines Department.

:Mr. \YrxsTANLEY: And your department is going to "ash their hands of it.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The hon. member for Queenton was right m saying- tluv. the Machinery and Sc.lffold­ing Departmc nt was not going to iscue any more certificates to drivers of wir~ding cn­gmes. But the men driving winding engines must be men of the highest qualification, and must be thorough]·,- competent. The sdeguards would be mad,e just as rigid in the futur.,' so far as these matters were con­ce-rned. \Vher·' thHe was rick to life and limb on!v the most competent men wo.ulc! be a1lov:cd to take charge of the winding r;lant.

:\Ir. LEJ';"XON 1Hr .·b, rt) understood the Minister to rav that the winding t•ngine drivers' certifka.tes were to be abolished.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC \YoRKS: Yes, under this Act.

Mr. LEJ:\:NON: And the Mines Depart­ment would issue licens,•s in their place?

Tbe f:lECRETARY FOR Pc;BLIO ·woRKS: Cer­tificates.

J\Ir. LENNON: H0 understood that licensee' '''er-e to. be i.,,··ued. It appeared to him that the "afeguards would be le·.Jened bv the amending BilL There was no certificate that should be scrutinised so rlosel.Y as that of the engine-driver in char,;e of a "lvindi':g enc:ine. He knew that lot of drssatrs­f;.·ction cxi;ted amongst certificated enf,ine­drivers with Tespect to the classific;ttior,.

The SECRETARY FOR PrBLIC WoRKS: \Ve are dealing with that under this Bill.

"Ir. LENNO::'IT: He was glad to hear it. He had discussed the subject with certifi­cated enu-ine-di'ivers in Brisbanf'. and they considerecl that the clasJification wanted: auending-. They had meld,, recommendations h the il~ini.r,'r, and he hoped the J\1inister v ,yu}d conFtdcr them.

The SE<'~tETARY FOil Pl"BLir \YORKS: vVe aroc d~ctlino- with them.

The SECRETARY FOR R .. \ILW AYS: The drivers of windinfl: n1achinPrv v"-ill havr, hj~her q ualifica tim1s. "

I·Ir. LEJ';"2'\0N: His only purpose in rising '"'ts to ascertain if tl1c Bill dealt with the matters he had :nentionecl. There were ;ome :i',l inisters y·ho rer· · ivcd 'U?:gestions from the Opposition side in an abrupt manner. Of cnurse, he was uot referri,1g- to the ~Iin~st~r for Public \Yorke;. (La.uc:"hhlt.) Some Mmis­ters did not pru;c'~s the same sura ·ter in· '' ·Jdo as the :Minister.

Mr. J\IcCOI~:.rACK (Cairns) suggPsted that thA Minister would be wise if Le followed out the lines adopted in previous BiP·;, and gaye sufficient time for nu?n1bers to com­municate with their electontes, efpecially the people who wo.uld be concerned 1y the

Machinery, Etc., Bill. [22 OcTOBER.] Income Tax Ded•:zratory Bill. 1879

paooing of the amending Bill, and ascertain their views on the .ubject. There were engme-drivers who knew nothing of the pro­visions of the Bill, and as en;ine-drivers held pretty decided opinions about the Act, they should be comulted, as they could probably make some good. sugc;eotions as to how the Act should be amended.

The SECRETARY FOR Pu1lLIC \:V ORKS : I can s3.tisfy you on that point.

:i\Ir. ::\IcCOR:'dACK: The Secrdary for R:<ilways interjected that the nrivers of v:inding engines would have a higher quali­fication, but there vas a feeling amongst the an;:ine-drivers that the min<-· managers wished to lowe e the classification for engine­drivers by permitting second-class engine­drivers to drive winding engim s. It might be qualified by making provision that second­class drivers must not lower men on the wind­ing engines, but even where men were not lowered there was other important work to be dono, and i~ was necesc.ary to have the most competent men in charge. The ]\!fount Lyell accident sho"eC'. that in case•/ of emergcnc3 drivers all over the mine had to handle men, consequently the standard for winding drivers should be high. He knew some mine managers were trying to get second­class m'cn to drive winches. There might be tee,; or twenty men working directly under a 1.Yinch, and. it was necessary that the driver should he a first-cia's man. He hoped the Minister would give them time to get the views of engine-drivers on the subject.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: No one rew,gnisLd more than he did the importance of protecting life and limb. He r<·cognised that an impCJrtant Bill like this chould not be rw hcd throu~h; and, as the C{)mmittee vcas the stag·e where they would like to make alterations, he could assure hon. members that the Committee stag-e wcmld not be gone on with nntil the week after next. That would give them ample time to communir1te with their electorates.

:Yir. WINSTANLEY was g·lad to hutr the 1\Iinister's assurance, and hoped it would be carried out. \Vhen would members get their Bills?

The SFllbTARY FOR PUBLIC \:VoRKS: I shall move that it be print-ed >traight away, and you can get them as speedily as possible.

~.Ir. WINSTANLEY: 'rhat would be that they would get them n<'xt day, and if he did 11ot get his copy in time for the Northern mail\ his _conctitucnts would not get a copy of tt'' B1ll b,-fore Monday nrvt and that would not give them mnch time. ' The asso­ciation" concern.- d should he,ve time to con­sid·r the propoc·rls in the Bill. •o thnt the:v could m~ke . any suggc>stions if they wishe·d to do ~o. 1_1hcre wa .. :; a fePli•1.g· th1: second­class c~rtificates, or license;, were going to be allowed to men to c:rive engines where life and limb were .at stake. The drivers of winding engines felt snre that the Machinery and Scaffolding Act was not going to be inter­fered with, and it would come ae a surprise to them to learn that their certificates under th;,t Act would be abolished. Thev would feel that it was an attempt to ]o,~er their st!'ndard of efficiency. He hoped that the Bill would be held over until they had got an expression of opinion from these men.

Question put and passed.

The House resumed. The CHAIR1IAN re­re>rted that th•J Committee had come to a 1esoluti(Jll, and it ~.vas adopted.

FIRST READING.

The Bill was read a first time, and the scccmd reading \Yas mad8 an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

GOVERN::\IENT SAVINGS BANK STOCK, LOAN, AND TREASURY BILLS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

RET1iRliED :FROM CouNCIL.

The SPE"\KER announced tho receipt of a message from the Legislative Council, re­turning this Bill without amendment.

WEIGHTS AND :MEASDRES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

l\iESSAGE FRO;I! COUNCIL.

The SPEAKER anno1mced the rreceipt of a message from the Legislative Council, re­turninv, this Bill, with certain amendments, in whwh they reque,ted th•.l concmrence of the Legislative Assembly

On the motion of the TREASURER, it was agreed that the amend!Ilents o~ the Legislativ<:> Council be taken mto considera­tion in CoTnmittcG to-morro-...v.

INCOME TAX DECLARATORY BILL.

INITIATION IN CmnnrTEE.

The TREASURER moved-" That it is desirable that a Bill be in­

troduced to declare the meaning of sec­tion 7 of the Income Tax Act of 1902 with respect to t~1e ,~istribution of the profits of compames.

He did not know whether hon. membeJCs dc·sircd any further informat;,,, in re-;;ard to the Bill, oeeing that he had explamed Its provisions last evening.

Mr. HUNTER: Tell us l10'" it is that we canna+ includ" the amendmeP.t propo.sLd by the h~n. membel' for Lt:ichi1ardt. \Yhat is the Jifiicultv?

The TRE_\.SGREE: HD did not know 1vhether he ·would be in ordl~r in going i~1i.J the matter at this st:tge. There were dtffi­culties surrounding the matte;:, L ut ;t ha.d not b0,en overlooked. In fact, it had be€n looked into very carefully. While it was pos·,ible to deal with cases whore there was a profit as the rEoult of a eale, in all fall'­ness if that were done in one c_lSP. It would

' be equally right and proper, _if [ 4 p.m.] .a man made a loss, that .he.

should get credi: for ~ho1t l?sg, It was also consideN··1 that the difficulties, even supposing the neC'·-·k3ary nower \.vere given, would more than outwei,,;h the va!ue. of the sugge·· tion, e"pcci.all:v be.\ring :n nnnd that there were frequent losses. Th.c Com­missioner of Income Tax assured him that the matter had been thoroughly gone into, and he had seen nothing to shake his con­viction that nothinrr would be g.,inecl by an ,ainendment on th:' lines sugg.~~ted by the­han. member for Leiehhardt. His impres­sion of the Commissioner was that he sought to get ever:· penny he could; and he did not blame the Commissioner.

Han. W. H. Barnes.]

1880 Income Tax [ASSEMBLY.] Declxratory Bill.

Mr. RYAN: While he did not differ ·from the Commissioner of Income Tax, he thought the subject was of such importance that it <>ught to be thoroughly discussed, without :restriction as to being in order or out of <:~r.der. He was more and more coming to the conclusion that the Minister in charge of .a Bill should give a full explanation at every stage of the Bill. There was such .a rush of business just now-and they were sitting five <days a week-that members had to pick up a good deal of information by listening to the speeches of Ministers. All the forms and motions in connection with Bills were for the purpose of allowing discussion and elicit­ing information; and it w.as essential in this case that an explanation should be given by the Minister of the ambit of the motion. How many members even of those sitting behind the Government really knew what was intended to be declared? It was desir­able that the Minister should give a clear explanation of the purpose for whi"h the measure was to be introduced.

Mr. WINSTANLEY said that other amendments were necessary, and that he thought it would be well to define clearly the difference between ·income ·from property and income from personal ·exertion. He had been told that the incom<> from a cer­tain pastoral property, the owner of which was absent from the State-the amount being something like £100,000-was put down as income from personal exertion, the tax being .at a lower rate than if that had been put down as income from property.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: Can you give the name of a property producing that -enormous income ?

Mr. WINSTANLEY: It did not matter whether that was the amount or not. As­suming that it was only £10,000, or even £1,000, the principle was the same. It was a question whether it was not worth con­sidering the matter now it was P,roposed to .,Iter the Act.

Mr. HARDACRE (Leichhardt) thought the Treasurer might give the Committe·,· a little further information as to what he ";shed to attain by the Biil.

The TREASURER: He did not kno>v what his second-reading speech would be like when the Bill reached that stage; considering that this was practically his third second-read­ing speech, he was afraid it would be a bit stale. Briefly, the position was this: It had been found that there were some leakages with regard to limited liability companies_ In justice to the majority of th<>se companies he might say that the r,;akagc-3 had not bee,.; very many. Some limited liability corn­panies carried from year to year .a go'od deal Df their earnings to reserve funds, and at -a. later period distributed those earnings in shares. They paid on the amount carrie.d t-o reserve 6d. in the £1; hut when it c.ame out of the reserve there sl1ould he anoth"'r 6d. in the £1 paid. The majority of limited liability companies carried out the law in that particular regard : but one or two con1 _ panies alleged that they were not legally <lntitled to pay the additional 6d. in the £). _ This Bill practically removed any doubt in regard to the matter: and he would read' ·a memorandum from the Commis•Jioner which put the matter so clearly that there could be no misunderstanding-

" An Act of this nature is necessary for the following re:tsons :-

[Mr. Ryan.

" Limited companies are required to pay 5 per cent. on .all dividell;ds declared by them, hu.t upon sucJ: P?rtJOn of then profits as are not so drstnhuted the In­come Tax Act provides that they shall pay only 6d. in the £1, and a further 6.d. in the £1 whenever such profits ,are .dis­tributed as dividends .

"Some companies have placed such undistributed profits to reserve each ye.ar until a large sum has been so accu~u­lated. It has been considered expedrent in the interests of the company to tr~ns­fer such accumulated profits to caprtal and to issue new shares in respect of the same .and distribute such shares as fully paid up amongst the existing share­hoiders.

" Such a procedure be~ng, in effe?t, _a distribution of profits hrtherto un:drstn­buted, and upon whicl1 only ?d. m the £1 income t.ax has been pard, should upon such conversion to capital pay .a further sum of 6d. in the £1, but t~rs second payment some of the compames seek to avoid."

Mr. HuNTER: I understand that one big company has be,on doing that.

The TREASURER : Moreover, he felt a very great delicacy about asking que;s­tions upon such subjects ?f ." gentleman m the pcsition of the Commrs,wner of Income Tax. He might be entirely wrong, but he believed this was the right course to pursue. The remainder of the memorandum was .as follows:-

1 "The declaratorv Act is simP•Y t<> make it clf';tr that ~ll such transfers from r<-serve" to capital of profits w.hich ha':e only paid income tax at 6d. m the £1 ··hall on such transfer pay a furthe;r 6d., makinrr in the whole .a tax of 1s. m the £1, as" is paid on moneys distributed ,as dividends."

That put the whole thing in a nutshell. They might .assume, for argument's sake, that . a partv had refused to pay the extra 6d. m the '£1 when thev dealt with their reserve in the way indicated. If, then1 they ":s­sumed that the company so refusmg was .m a correct legal position, it would be readrly understood that other companies that had. paid the extra tax, under similar cir<?um­stances would consider thev were entrtled to a r~fund of the amounts so paid. T.he Bill would therefore obviate such a contm­gency arising.

Mr. MACROSSAN : Is it retrospective? The TREASURER: It is. Mr. HUNTER thought the Minister might

very well have broadened the scope of the Bill. In any interjections he mrgh! have made he had no intention of reflectmg on the Commissioner of Income Tax, whom he regarded as a courteous, eapahle, and wort~y officer. At the same time, the Commrs­sioner could onlv deal with his departme~t as the law of the country provided, and rt was to give the Commissioner more power than he alreadv possessed that the Trea­surer had introduced this Bill. He was of opinion that the Bill should take . a n;ore comprehen·,ive view of the whole srtuatwn, and that was a complaint that he frequently had to make against the Governmen~. Tl;ere was too much tinkering with legrslatwn. Amending Bills were brought down to the House on the slightest pretence, and each year they had an amendment of some Act or another. Instead of dealing with a matter

Income Tax [22 OcTOBER.] Declarat~ry Bill. 1881

:l.n a broad, comprehensive way, they passed a little bit of an amending Act, and next year they had another one to tamper with the first in some minor respect. He there­fore thought the Government would be well advised if, instead of brin!\"ing in scores of amend.ments on various statutes, thev

-amended an Act, vvhen they did deal with it, in such a way that it would serve for

·some years. He did not quite understand the whole meaning or the intentions of the Minister in this particular matter. The han. member for Lcichhardt had referred to ·the necessity of giving a better or fuller d.efinition of "income derived from per­wnal exertion." As that was a matter that was contained in clause 7, however, he be­lieved that the Bill would deal with that particular phase of the qu<>stion.

The TREASURER : The point in regard to widening the scope was dealt with last night. 1 was not responsible for the juncture at ·which it was dealt with.

Mr. HUNTER: Clause 7 dealt with that r>articular a"pect of the Act.

Mr. MACROSSAN : This only deals with dau••e 7 in particular.

Mr. HUNTER: They had a limitation there that wa,. undesirable, an_d_ he _thought that th£' Government were failmg m their . duty for not d.f'aling with the necessities of the Act at the present time.

Mr. RYAN: They are only tinkering. Mr. HU:'i'TER : \Vhen he had been speak­

·ing, the Treasurer had intimated that there were certain limited companie' that were ·escaping certain charges due to the Trea­sury, and that it was proposed to deal with them. On a previous occasion the Commit­·tee had been dealing with another phase of commerce-namely, the unregistered com­·pani<····-and he wantec:1 to know how it >vas propose.~. to deal with them.

Mr. YI:ACROSSAN: Read the definition of "'company."

Mr. H'CNTER: He had also interjected that there was possibly one very big com­pany that was doing the sort of thing re­ferred to by the Han. the Treasurer. In­stead of paying away their profits in divi­<.lends, which were taxable, they were piling up large reserve funds and paying no taxes thereon, and afterwards they distributed those reserve moneys in the form of shares.

The TREASURER: I said they paid 6d. in the £1.

:Mr. HUNTER: That was all they did pay. The Treasurer had also said, by way -of reply to an interjection, that the Income Tax Commis:~·ioner vv:as swor;n to secrecy, and could not reveal mformatwn. He quite admitted that the Income Tax Commissioner was sworn to secrecy, and should not re­veal any particulars of a legitimate nature about any company or private person or firm for that matter. He (Mr. Hunter) would be the first to condemn the Commissioner of Income Tax or the Treasurer if thev did reveal anything concerning the legitimate operations of any company or person that oame to their knowledge through the busi­ness of the Income Tax Office. On the other hand, however, if the Commissioner dis­·covered taxpayers trying to escape their proper obligations, he was no longer sworn to se0recy ; on the contrary, he was bound to expose the culprit·

Mr. MACROSSAN: He has a remedy under the Act.

Mr. HUNTER : He was not bound to take his remedy in a secret way. The courts woulc:1 expose all and more than he had asked the Treasurer to do in that connec­tion. He was not asking the names of such companies.

The TREASURER : I confess I do not know the names of any such companies, so I can­not tell you them.

Mr. HUNTER : The hon. gentleman would have done better if he had told them that previously. He w!Ls quite sa~isfied that a number of compames were domg what had been referred to. One very big company he had in his mind dic:1 it regularly-that w~s, instead of paying their taxes, they bmlt up reserve· funds, and then distributed those profits in that form; and he was very glad that that phase of swindling was going to be stopped as far as that amendment was concerned. But they coulc:1 find in clal!se 7 an opportunity of bringing other delm­quents to heel in a very decided way, and he would therefore have lik<ed to have seen the Minister go into the matter more com­prehensively.

Mr. HARDACRE : The information the Treasurer had given them made it ?learer wha.t it was proposed to do on the h_nes ~f the existing Act. At the present ~1me. ~t appeared that certain compames pard c:1IVI· dend tax to a smaller degree than other companies. The first-mentionec:1 class of company put some of their dividends to a reserve fund and thereby escaped the pay­ment of the 'full amount of their dues. The Act provideC', that later on, "hen that _po~­tion of the companv's profits was drstn­buted, the company \vas to pay the addi­tional income tax. The Tr0nsurer proposed to make them pay income tax, althougJ:l they might never distribute t~at. later P<?rtion of profit, but actually put It mto caprtal. At the same time the Minister had told the Committc'l of the necessity there was for a general overhauling of the Act. In that connection they 1night take a~, an example the definition of "company, concernmg which the han. member for \\'incisor had made an interjection. It was quite ck~r what a foreign company was so. far as the definition was concernec:1, and It was . a_lso clear what a company was. The defimtwn seemed to be very wide, in so far that_ a company included everybody, however m­corporated, whether in Queensland o~ <;lse­where and wherever the head ~or pnnmpal place 'of business might be. It seen;.ed to be sufficiently wide to cover every ,kmd of companv in the worlc:1, but the questwn was, how they were going to find out about c<:r­tain companies. If a company had no regis­tered place of business in Queensla_nd, h~w were they going to find out where 1ts regrs­tored place of business was, and whor~ were they going to assess? If it was a registered company in Queensland, they could s_end t?e ae·<"sment to its registered branch_ rn Bn_s­bane. If, however, it was not regrstered Ill Queensland, the d.epartment_ "':ight be at ~ loss to know where its prmcrpal pl<',ce or business was and who were the shareholders.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : There is a provision in th<· Act to meet that.

Mr. HARDACRE: There might be a pro­vision in the Act. but what was the good of it if the-_, did not know where the com­pany' o prop'er address was?

Mr. Hardacre.1

1882 I neon': Ta,r; [ASSEMBLY.] Declaralo1Y Bill.

The SECI'ETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : There is a public offic,-~r-tho registrar-1;rho is responsiblo under the Act.

Mr. HARDACRE: Thov had already pa~.:;od an .Ar:t in ,vhich th~y had adinitteili that certain com.mnies might not be regis­tered in (Jtwc. L 'ld. They kn(· , , a • a mat­ter of Ltct, that ~h,:re were certain coni­panics \'. 0rkin~· in Q ll · nsland, and tr.at thev vvere not reg{stercd, _ nd they 'vero going· to allow then, to rcn .tin unregistm·pd.

The SECRETARY FOR PunLrc IA.XDS : You are mixing up ~\YO di£1'€rent reg·istrations.

Mr. HARDACRE : Some companies W<lre not registered, as was pointed out the other night.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: You will find it is there.

Mr. HARDACRE : All kinds of companic:s, whether registered under existing Acts in Queensland, or registered as a firm, or not registered at all?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAND:o : Yes; all coinpan1es ca1-rying· on busines-'3 in the State.

The bell indicated that. the first portion of the han. member's time had expired.

Mr. HARDACRE: He would take further time. It seemed to him that there was a possibility of some pseudo kinds of com­panies being allowed to escape. There was another matter with regard to personal exertion. There were two kinds of income­one from personal exertion, and one from property-but there was a large number of income tax payers in Queensland who

derived their income partly from [4.30 p.m.] the produce of property and

partly from personal exertion. It had been put before him in this way: That everybody in Queensland who, in the slightest deg1·cP 1 got a:-:sociated -with bubi­ness or investment of which he had a man­agement-that was not a company-<c tme under the personal exertion form of income, and paid a smaller amount of income tax-6d. in the £. It seemed to him th::t an alteration \\as very desirable here. In case::3 of income fro1n salaries, ·wages, sti­pends-personal exertion purely-there should be a smaller payment on that kind of exertion than on that conjoined kind of exertion, partly from personal exertion and partly from investment of capitaL If a man earned ;.otne incon1e fror1 labour and some from money invested which ho had to superintend, there should be a Hparation between those two sources, so as to clearly define that part which was derived from personal exertion on the one hand, and that part which was from the produce of property, which latter should be made to pay a higher income tax-as "·ell as in connection with those who derived their in­come partly from investment with no per· sana! exertion whatever. There also seemed to be a nece'·sity to still further amend the Act, particularly with regard to that kind of gain which came from the en­hancement of anv kind of nronertv when it was sold. It s:'emed strange ~that, while they were going to make a business muu pay an income tax on the increased c:uan­tity of goods he had in stock at the end of the year-even though he had not se>ltl the goods-and when they were making a grazing selector or pastoralist pay an in­come tax on the increased number of stock-

[ Mr. Hardacre.

,, !though he :1ad nd realised on them-yet th.._v \\ere allo,\·ing a large class of per.'}HS to sdf property at an enhanced value without paying any income tax at alL. It seemed to him that that required amendii)g. That was a kind of income which was not em:ned either b;c· personal exertion or received from produce of property.

:\ir. LEXKON: A windfall.

l'clr. HARDACRE: It might be a wind­fall A man mirrht sell out and make £10;000, and would pay no income tax; and yet there were people in Queen"land who were paying income tcx on hard-earned monev in busines", and they had to bear the who!.;' burden o£ the income tax.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : They are paying income tax on their losses too.

Mr. HARDACRE: That should not be. It had been urged from time to time that certain kinds of--

The bell indicated that the han. member's further time had expired.

lllr. HARDACRE: He would deal with the question again.

Mr. GILDAY {lthacu): As a now memb~r, he thought it vety desirable that more Ill­

formation should be given when Bllls o, this kind were introduced. There were· many nEW members on b-Jth sid~s of the House, and when they had to neal wrth Dills five days a week, it did not give mu?h time to those new members; it was a drf­ferent thing with older me1:1ber_s, w?o had gained an insight into legrslatwn Ill con­nection with Bills which had bemr brougtlt before the House. He thought the atti­tude of the leader of tl1e Opposition was a good on<', and that as much infort;M.tion as possible should be given by the Mimster in charge of Bills, so that they . co1;1ld see whether they believed in the prmciple or not. From the interjection of the Trea­surer to the leader of the Opposition, he gathered that the object of the Bill was to deal with large firms which had J:leen. in the habit of getting away from pa:p!'g mcome tax which they should have_ paid.. . Th~t n1atter "'ras r·ei'errcd to in th'~ Co1nnussroner s report as one which was necessary to be dealt with. Many othEr matters could be dealt with in the measure. and that would cause a discussion which might be of value in enablino- them to arrive at a n,ethod by which ;evenue could be got from people who were evading income tax at the pre· sent tim<'. Frolil the report o£ the Com­micsioner, it appearr'd that the leakage of revenue was such as to necessitate an amend­ing Bill being brought in this session. . The arguments used bv hon. members might, perhaps, be the me;;,ns of widening the scope of this measur\).

JYlr. RYAN; He noticed that the Secretary for P,;blic Lands had interjected with re­gard to the registration of certain c~m­panies that had been described as forergn r.Jmpanies. He thou(iht it would .be as well if the hon. gentleman would nse in his place and deal with that aspect of. the matrcr, because he had fail<'d to do It on a preYious occasion. "~hen the . same ll~t;~er was discussed on the Registratwn of !:i'n.mE Bill. The subject ':.as one o~ far-reachmg importance. He did not tlunk .any hon. member thought there as an'.- des~re on .the part of the Oppc,ition to block this particu-

Income Tax f22 OcTOBE.R.] Declaratory Bill. 1883

lar business, but they wanted to have it fairly discussed, so that every member would not only understand what was contained in the motion, and in the Bill which was to be ~ntroduced as a sequence of the motion, but It was also well that they should understand what other difficulties there were in the In­come Tax Act which might require amend­ment. The hen. member for Ma;anoa -:ery prow ·ly pomted one that amenclmg legisla­tion, nut only on this but on previous o-:ca­sions, had been of a tinkering nature-not of a sufficient!:• broad nature to compass all the evils which must be found to exi"t b: the Income Tax Commissioner. For in­;tancc, it woulcl not be suggested that the Income Tax Commissioner thought that thi•· was the only defect in the present Act. Be should like to know why amendments in other directions had not been sought to be introduced in the measure

The TREASURER: Might I say that the Income Tax Commiesioner has suggested no other amendments whatever?

Mr. RYAN: Did he suggest that this wns a very urgent one?

The TREASURER : Yes.

Mr. RYAN: If it was, they would put the matter through for him. (Laughter.) Perhaps he should say they would give the ~on. gentleman every assistance in rutting It tl;rough, but at the same time, they were anxiOus to have a full and proper discussion on. these matters in the way that he did not thmk they were bPing discussed. Before the House sat for five days a week, hon. members had a bet~er chance of knowing what they were domg. A lot of thin·· went through, and they were absolutely in t~e dark as to what they were doing. That drd ~ot apply to any particular individual; he hrmself J:ad to listen very carefully to what was gomg on so as to be able to grasp the amount of work they were doing when they were sitting five clays a week. He trusted that in any future motions that were brought forward, by whatever Minister the Minister would give information as fully as po>sible.

The TREASURER: I think I have been very obliging this afternoon.

Mr. RYAN: He thought the hon. gentle­!llan had. He must compliment him on hav­mg shown the inclination this afternoon to give information, because, after all, that facilitated business and assisted to get it through. If the hen. gentleman had sat back, h·~· might have found it would have talmn so long to elicit information that he would have been worn out with the physicai strain.

Mr. KIRWAN (Bri.•bane) gathered from t\1e discussion that the Treasurer had p;-ac­twa!ly brought down this Bill on a very s~rong recommendation from the Ovrrcnis­s~oner of Income Tax, and that this being tne only amendment the Commissioner had su~(•ested, the Treasurer d.id not feel iL in­cunJwnt upon him to deal with other mat­ters which had alreadv be-·n rais?cl. vv~hil~. it might be very de,irable to amend th~ Act in the direction the Commissioner had suggested, he thought it would be readily g-ranted that there were one or two othe'r direotinns in which the Act might receive serious consideration, with the view of l:JC•R­sible amendment. It would be gener£i:lly

acknowledged that tho Treasurer was i ust as much after the bawbees as the O.:mnnis­sioner of Income Tax was. The hen. mem­ber for Leichhardt had suggested that cer­tain people were making a very fair thing by d··-:;1o,,.ing of propert.Y in con~wct1on w1th which theY were not liable to mcome tax. He was s,:;.bject to correction, but he under­stood that the landowners who paid the Federal land tax had also to pay income tax on the amount of money which they ~ad not received for their own benefit, but whrch they were compelled to pay away. ~hat was a direction in which the Tret.surer m1ght consider an amendment of the Act.

The TREASURER: That was disposed of last :light.

Mr. KIRWAN: He was not prPsent last night.

The CHAIRMAN : The question is that it is desirable to amend the Inc0me Tax Act of 19C in certain narticulai --with respect to the di'•tribution of the profits of COlllJ?a­nib. 'The leader of tho Opposition replrcd to the question ntised by the Treasurer, and since then all tho other F'Jeakers have been discussing all sorts of questions relating to income tax generally. I must a ~k hen. members to confine thom••"lvcs to tho ques­tion before the Committee.

Mr. HUXHAM (Buruml·t) commended tho Go;·ernment for bringing in the Bill. He was surprised to know that there was such a large leakagu in r•'V£nuo d.ue to the St.abc. Me,,,bcrs o£ the House wore not fully serzecl with the facts of the case, or they would be in favour of increasing tho scopo of the Bill, and sym]Y'thi•.} with th.e amendments which lud been suggest< d. They had some inforlnatiDn of the Trea.surer whirh men1bers • hould clearly under-tand. So far as limited liabilit:: com)1FniP9 were conc<>rned, they were -cimph limited to the number of share•· fully paid trp, whereas, in the case of a pr~­vate company thov could pursue ? man until the last pcni:J.y o( debt had been wip~cl .out bv him. Further in tho case of a lunrted !(ability company: tl1cre "as no dislocation of l •rsincss in th·· event of " large share­holder dropping out, where as.. in the casD· of a private company, the bus1nes~ \-Vas dis­located CJnsic.E:rably by the deaf h. of a part­n~r, as they would have to r<:tk·.c on thc­esratc, and that would probably loacJ, to· the destruction of the whole husiness. As the. limited liahilit;- company enjoyed cer­tain privileges, it was only right tha~ those ]Wivilegu should be adequately pard for. vVhen '\ company's profits were transferred to re .. crve fund, thev would, only have to pav 2~ per c"nt. incornn tax, a:1d y·hen that money was paid bc.ck into capital, the Trea­surer \vas going to !Hake thmn pr" :~ anot~er· 2~ per cent. That "as only a right thmg to do. He thought it was only ri~ht that the nrofits in g-ood •!ears should be used, and 'thee ehould b~' a sot-off against that when bad ·;cars came. It mi,;ht happen that a com pan;· would ha> cc phenom<'nal profits in one -.car but when the'.' < tme to a bad time. tl;erc 'would be no r)rofits at all, and. some consic'.eration should ].c ~iven by the Inco .. 1e Tax Act in that direction. They b.ew vcrv .. ,·ell thcv were· not always going to have 'good tim0s. He did not . suppose that any particular company "a:-. armed at in conned:ion with the alteratiOn of the· Act, but it was absolutely cs,ential that the amendment should be introduced. Sup­po,.e a private company tr .• ncferrecl £1,000·

Jl[r. Jluxham.l

1884 Inc~me Tax [ASSEMBLY.] Declctrat~ry Bill.

to reserve fund, they would. have to pay 21_ ~er c!"nt. on that, \Yhich would be £25. I~ tne !muted company paid £1,000 in clivi·

-dends, they would have to pay 5 per cent., £50. He cvuld not speak too contemptu­ously of those who tried to evade their re­sponsibility in the way they were doing at ~he present time so far as the payment of mcome tax \~as concerned, and he hoped that the Treasurer would gain a handsome return by the amendment of the Act. If it meant, further, that there should be an .amendment of the Cor:1panies Act, he hoped the Treasurer would brmg about those amend­ments so that no one could avoid their re­sponsibiliti~s, and they would have greater ·h~nesty m the commerce of the State. The Bill would. have the commendation of mem­

.. bers on both sid~q of the House. They could appeal _to the legal men, because they had been mi_xed up m . c<tses dealing with shady transactiOns of this sort. He commended the Treasurer for bringing the Bill for­ward. He wanted to see the Government ~ave a surplus every year, but he would hke them to just raise sufficient money to ~arry on the functions of the Government. He hoped the Government ·,,·ould re­member that provision should be mad.e for bad times, and, if tlwv c1id th:tt it 'vould a~3ure honestv in the bu~inf ~s ~om­munity, and it would me<1n that the terms of the Income Tax Act would be carried out.

Mr. FORSYTH ( .. "}Iur.·umba) pointed out that a limit:d liability company had to pav 5 per cent. mcome tax on the d,ividends that ·were declared, and 2~ pr r eent. on the pro­fits that were made, which had not been declared, and which had been carried to the reserve fund, while private companie-s onlv had to pay 2~ per cent. on their undivid.2d profits. Althoufeih a limited liability com­pa~y w<e:·e. asked to pay 2-,\- per cent. on their undiyided pr'?fit•, as soon as that money was put mto capital, they were going to make them pay another tax of 2~ per cent. That was really makmg the limited liability company pay 3: double tax. Seeing that t~ey already paid 2-,\- per c<ent. on the undi­VIded. l~rofits. that was quite sufficient with­out "-.l~mg them to pa~- another 2~ per cent. wher: It was transferred to capital account. It might happen that a company would have a bad )'ear, and they would have to draw upon their reserve fund to carrv on their b~siness. They wc:mld then be taxed another 2,- per cent., maki_ng 5. per cent. altogether. That was not a fan tlnng. It was necessarv f?r a comp~ny to make provision for a bad timE', and If they paid income tax on the reg~rve fund. on~e, that should be ·sufficient. Pnvate compames were able to dodge that extr.a. 2~ per cent. all the time, while limited liabil\ty companies were called upon to pay the 2, per cent. as soon as the,- transferred their re.serve fun~ to c:tpital. · The private compames dealt m business in exactlv the s~me way as the limited liability compa­mes, and yet they paid less income tax. I.t 'Y':'s expecting too much of the limited liability c?mpany to. ask them to pay 5 per cent., while the private company got off With 2-,\- per cent.

:.VIr. RYAN: ·what is a private company?

Mr. FORSYTH: One that was not a limi­ted liability eompan~-, although it carried on exactly the same kind. of business.

Mr. LEN:ti"ON: Limited liability companies have special privileges.

[..:1/: ... Hu:rham.

Mr. FORSYTH : That was an old gag, but he did not know what special privileges they had.

Mr. LENNON : They are only responsible to the extent of their paid-up shares.

Mr. FORSYTH : They would have private companies and limited liability companies carrying on the same class of business in the same street, and they would be ~reated differently, so far as the payment of Income tax was concerned.. It was far better for companies to have a reserve fund, so as they could carry on the business in bad times. Even if a company drew out of its reserve fund unpaid dividends, with it the Govern­ment would get an advantage out of the increased divid.ends on which an income tax of 5 per cent. had to be paid. If a com­pany increased its dividends from 5 to 8 per cent., the Government would get the ad­vantage of that increase in the shape of a hio-her tax on the dividends. There was no"' company in Australia that would. spend all their profits in dividends. It. would. be foolish for any company to do sucn a thmg. A o-ood business always puts by a reserve fund so that they would have financial strength in bad times. The private com­pany only paid 2-,\- per cent., and tha;t :was not a fair thing, seeing that the limited liability company would have to pay 5 per cent.

Mr. LE!,NON : Look at the immunity they enjoy.

Mr. FORSYTH : He knew they could secure themselves by issuing contributing shares to the shareholders. If they found they were short of money, they could eall up a certain amount on tho•e shares. If a company had £50,000 capital and in'?re<tsed their rf'o,en·e fund to £100.000, and still con­tinued to pay the higher dividend, the Trea­surer would be rretbing a great deal more income tax from ~that company than he "got before.

The TREASURER : The hon. gentleman evidently overlooked the fact that the majority of companies hnd already paid in­come tax when thev transferred from reserve to capital. •

:VIr. FORSYTH: I said so-2-,\- per cent.

The TREASURER : If a company c:uried certain sums to recBrve funds, it merely paid 2-,\- per cent. The hon. gentleman properly drew attention to the fact that it was important for any company of stn.nding to keep a good reserv-e, but it was r·ntirely at the option of the company when the re­serves should be distributed. Did not the person who got .an extra share get an t"xtra rdurn for his monev? Hon. members would r<ci"ognise that any "company not in a good position would not J,:Un the risk of distribut­ing shares and weakening its position. If some companies paid income tax <1s they ought to pay, why should other companies gv scot fn~o? If it ~vas consider·t"d right that 'Orne companies should go scot free, would not any company that had been in the habit of paying the full amount be justified in ask­ing for a refund? He, for one, would not hesitate to do so.

Mr. HUNTER: The hon. member for ::\'iurrumba argued that a private person or company had S!Jf·c•ial privil<>ges a' against a limite·d liability company in regard to in­come tax; but when companies, instead of Paying out profih as dividends, put them to the reserves, they escaped part of the

Liquor Bill. [22 OCTOBER.] 1885·

income tax. A private person had to pay on the full amount of his profits, whereas a limited liability company would onlc 1-ay 2~ per cont. He failed to see how any in­justice would be .clone under the Bill to com­panies _th<:t. had been '"caping their just respon,Jbihtles to the Treasury. and he in­tended ,to support the Treasurer in this matter. Unless the law was altered, there was only one thing to do, that was, remit the amounts received irom thos" companies who had been honestly paying tho bx. It was not fair that one section of the com­munity should pay, while others wDre al­lowed to ""cape. The only thing he regretted was that there was not .a furthf'r amendment which <nmlcl have the effect of increasinfr the payment to the Treasurer from th1s method of taxation.

Mr. G. P. BAR::\fES (TT'aru·ick) : He ·was very gratified that members opposite had shown some degree of .libemlity in this m_atter .. In connection with. the 'Company ,.,Ith whwh he was connected, It came w1thin their provincD to distribute certain of their neserve funds. They appealed to Mr. Hughes, who at once informQ.d them that, as they had only paid 2~ pm c'lnt. on the ameunt of their pcofits over ard abovD th" amount distributed as dividend. they were entitled to pay a further 2~ per cgnt. When this Bill was announced he felt extremelv curious, because he knew the position adopted by Mr. Hug-hes with regard to his company. He felt. hewever, that the Com­miF~,ioner \vas taking up the lf'gal position and if the amounts cellectecl previemly wor~ not .acr,,wding to law, ho weuld be •a)cJ!e to make .application for a fairly round sum which his company had paid to the Com­miSSIOner. The rulo follo"ed bv limited Ea­bility companies was to pay 5 'per cent. on the dividend ; and en the profits over and. above the dividend an amount of 2~ per cent. was paid. Thev might place it to the reserve fund er carry it forward; but th<: plan pur­sued by the Commissioner in connection with hi" company was to require payment of a further 2~ per cent. when profits were distrilfutecl from reserve fund.

Question put and passed.

The House resumed. The CHAIRMAN re­ported. the resolution, which was agreed to.

FIRST READING.

The TREASURER present<·d the Bill which was read a first time ; and the second reading w:cs made an Ord€'r of the Day for to-morrew.

LIQUOR BILL.

SECOND READING.

The HOME SECRETARY: In rising to move this Order of the Day, I may say that it is well within the memory of hon. mem­bers that, during the last session of the last Parliament, a Bill, of which this is prac­tically a J;:eplica, was introduced into this Chamber. Considerable discussion ensued upon it during its second reading, and it was discussed during its Committee stages very fully. Having been passed by this House, it was sent to the Legislative Council for their concurrence. The Council, dealing with the matter, placed on the Bill certain

amendments which the Government con­sidered to affect the policy and principles of the Bill. That being so, this Chamber re­fused to accent the amendments. An at­t-empt was theii made to e~ect a compromise with the Legislative Counc;l, but th<:t J?roved abortive. It will likewise be w1thm the· me~ory of hon. members-especially those who were members of the House at that time-that it was propesed to reintroduce the Bill or to hold a session to speci:.tily deal with it within the pe1:iocl required by the Act affecting the matter; and, failing the acceptance of the measure passed by the Assembly it was considered that the matter should b~ referred to a referendum of the electors of the State. However, owing to certain matters which intervened, that course· was not followed.

Mr. BARBER: The Government funked on it.

The SPEAKER: Order !

The HOME SECRETARY: I do not pro­pose to take any notice of disorderly and. irrelevant interjections of that character. However the leader of the Government practically pledged himself to the electors of the State that that Bill would be intra· duced to all intents and purposes, in the same 'form in which it passed t~is. Ass<1m~ly, at the earliest possible opportumty durmg the fir~t session of this Parliament. In introducing the Bill en its second reading, I do not propose to follow the cou~se which I followed on the last occasion-that is, to discuss the principles and policy of t~e measure in what one may call an academiC ferm-boc:.mse. if I did so, I '' oulcl hav<' to pract!cally repeat what I said on the former occasron.

Mr. CoYNE : This is not a similar Bill to the last.

The HOME SECRETARY: The Bill which I am introducing on this occasion ~s, in all its cardinal points, the same Bill that left this Assembly to go to the Council. In connection with the policy and the prin­ciples which are contained therein, this measure is to all intents and purposes the same Bill which nassed this Assembly last Parliament. I do -not propose to discuss the policy of the Bill from an academic stand­point, or to submit the reasons why the State or the Parliament of the State, has the. ;ight to introduce and pa,ss legislation which may affect any particular industry, or to deal with the questi;:m tJ:at any pa;rticu~ar industry has a v~sted r1ght m com;ectwn with that industry, or whether the I;egisla~ur~ has the power, or the right: to restnc~ or h_m1t the operations of the law 1n connectiOn with that particular i~clustry. Suffice to say that I desire to point out that this matter is ad­mittedly one which it is desirable sho31ld be dealt with by the State a~ the ea_rhest possible moment. The questwn o£ liquor reform has been dealt with by all the other States of the Commonwealth. Our own legis­lation was nassed in the year 1885, and it must be apnarent to every hon. member that Fuch a length o'f time has now elap~ecl that it is absolutely necessary and essential, in view of the progress and settlement of the State that reform legislation sheuld be discussed' and nassed by the Legislature of to-clay. I have not the slightest doubt that even those who are connected with the liquor trade admit that a measure of reform is

Han. J, G. Appel.]

188G Liqu~r Bill. [ASSEMBLY. J Liquor Bill.

necessary. Undoubtedly, so far as the pre­sent Bill is concerned, that trade would like to have more liberal terms and conditions than we are disposed to give in connection with this legislation. On the other hand, those who are connected with the temperance move­ment are of opinion that we have not gone far enough in connection with our reform ]<;lgislation. But, as I said on the last occasion when this Bill was introduced, the object and purpo,es of the Government .v re to introduce a measure that would ::;ive sub­stantial liquor reform, while inflicting no injust1ce 0~1 tho~e \Vho ·v;erC' engaged in a legalised trade that has been carried on from time immemm:ial. We do not anticipate that we shall be able to please either the one section or the other section of the com­munity, but I venture to say that so long as we are able to pas3 such a measure as will bring our liquor legislation to the for0-front, place it on a par with similar legis­lation of other States of the Commonwealth, then we will have done something to meet the desires of those who wish for a substan­tial measure of reform. I have already indicated that, so far as this Bill is con­

-cerned, in all its c:trdinal principles and policy- -with certain exceptions which may -be termed compromises, and which do not affeot in anywise the principles and policy of the measure-the Bill is the Bill which was discussed and accepted by the Leg-is­lative AssBmbly of this State last year. The Bill has passed through the fire of a general election.

0PPOSITIO~ ME)!BERS : No, no ! Mr. KIRWAN: It was never mentioned;

there was nothing menti_oned but the strike.

The HOME SECRETARY: The han. gentleman says it was never m!)ntioned; it may have been so in his particular case, but I know that wherever I talked during that general election the matter of the Liquor Bill and liquor reform was brought up. The Premier, as lAade1· of this Government. pledged liimself, pledged his party, that a measure of liquor reform would be reintro­

-duced at the earliest possible moment. Wherever I spoke I m,ade the same state­ment-at Bundaberg, and at every other centre where I addressed the electors of the State. .Tli.e party that made that pledge, the party that had carried that measure through the Assembly during last session, was returned to power with an increased majority, and I submit that it therefore became the duty of the Government to rein­troduce- the legislation at the earliest possible opportunity. As I have already said, in all its principles and in its lines of policy the present Bill is similar to the on8 that has already received the, approval of this As­sembly, and it should now, if possible, become the law of Queensland. I propose, as briefly as possible, to give an explanation of the different parts of the measure and to point out to han. members those alterations which have been made in the Bill since the last occasion on which it v, as before tht' Assembly. As I have already indicated, the alterations which have been made, with the except1on of the revised scale of fees which are to be charged in oonnection with licensed victuallers' licenses, are compromises based on the amendments made by the Council, and which, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, I was prepared to ,concede to the Council at that conference, which, as I have before mentioned, proved abortive. I repeat -again that the alterations have in no way

[Han. J. G. Appel.

affected the principles or policy of the B,ill. There is one matter which I may mentwn now. The Legislative Council, as m~ny hon. members will doubtlhs recollect, desire4 t~at there should be a three-fourths. maJority vote. i\'e have provided for a sin;>ple ma­jor'ity, l>Et we have amended t~e Bill by re­quiring tiiat on any vote which IS taken there must be a poll of at kast 25 per cent ~f the electors in the district where the poll IS taken. The Bill is di,'ided into nir:e parts. Part I. IS preliminary, and deals pr:n.cipally with definitions. An additional defimtwn has been introduced in that part defin~n.g what conssttutes a "lodger." The defimtwn has b< ,:n ted< en from the South Australian ~'"ct, and requires that the person who claims to b,. a lod,,-er must have spent at lea~t one night ontli.e premises before he c'.'n claim the rigncs of a lodger. If he commits a breach of the law during the first night, then, under that definition, he is not : et a lodger, and would be liable for anv breach of the law, so far as the consumption of liquor during prohibited hours is concerned. Part II,. deals with administration, and in that por~10n _we have provision for a reform _in the hcet:tSI~g h,'IPh. The proposed hccnsmg _bench IS to consj',.t of th~\ police rnagistratc mtt~ng alone. Honorary magistrates now con.strtute tJ:re hcen•ing benches of the State, m some Ill­dances und::r the chairn1anship of a r"~trpcn­di_a~·y magistr~te, and in . othe

1r: .instanc.es

'' Itnout the assistance of a shpenarary magis­trate. There is no doubt whatever that, ho·.-.··t ,~('r honourable honorarv tnagistratt.:: mav have been in the toast, however much they may have desir;-d to _do th~t

which was just and rrg·ht, m [5.30 p.m.] many instances licenses have been

granted which _woul,d not have been granted had the shpeno.rary ma~rs­trates been the Jic.~n,,ing bench dealmg ·with thern. PrDvision is nHtdD in the s0111e part of this Bill for the appointment. of special lic~nsing districts, \vhere, owtng to an inrush of inhabitants, such as in the case of the breakinp: out of a goldfield, or from other cau~es, hotel accom­moc'.:ttion is requirt>d, special hcenscs may be granted for a period of six months ; but bt-fore they can b0 so granted there must be an etf!irmative poll on the pa:·t . of the electors who are resident within the boundaries of the newly-appointed c;pec_Ial di~.trict. Part III, of the Bill deals wrth licf'il"f'S. It en1po\Yf'rs tl1e Governor 1n Council to prohibit the sale .of liql!or. for periods of one vear in spemfied d1stncts. Ae hon. member's are aware, the p~esent Administration have put that partr~mlar clause of our licensing law into operatiOn­more especially where rail-way lin€S are l!nder construction-prohibiting the sale. o~ lrquo.~ or th" granting of licenses WI~hm r>;~dn ~ene--allv of 5 miles from the ra1lway hne, ;nd thus in manv instances safeguarded the mnn who a,re employed on tlie line, who other­wise would have been subject to the tempta­tion of licensed premises, which undoubtedly in the past have sprung up like mushrooms in the Yicini\·v of railway lines under con­struction. The clauses in th'' pres-'nt measure make it clear that the licensing bench must take a judicial notice o:O' the prochmation. Under existing conditions, benches have frequent!:· g-ranted a provisio:1al license for premises ''hile the procJamatwn was m force, the retail license havmg been o-ranted when the time has expired. The ~resent measure proposes that no application can be received, and no application for a

Liquor Bill. [22 OcToBER.} L1qw r Hill. 1887

provisional or a new license can be granted w.hil<; the proclamation is in force in any ·distriCt, and the same thing applies in con­nection with a local option poll on the resolution that no new licenses can he granted. No application can be received and no license can Le £:ranted, while a locai option re,olution is in force in the particular distric~ where ~he application is made. This part eJso conta1ns an amendment, vvhich was suggested by the Council, that packet licenses may he granted for the sale of liquor on week days only, on packets nlying within the harbours and rivers of the ·state. These are, as I have alre~dy mentioned com­promises which we were prepared t; grant io the Council on the former occasion. 'I'hev have been embodied in the Bill for the purpose of showing the Council that we were quite willing to meet them in matters v·hich -I repeat again-did not affect the policy or principle of the meaFure; but in the case of paclcet licenses thue can be no sale of liquor on those packets on prohibited da,.s which are: Sunday, Christmas Day and Good Friday-no sale of liquor can' take place under anv circumstanc:es or conditions Referring to the granting of licenses, befor~ a provisional or a new license can be granted an automatic poll of the electors within the lice'1sing district must be taken. If the vote of the electors is in the affirma­tivP, then such new or provisional license may be granted, but for any new licenses­and this will have effect up till the annual sittings in April, 1915, which is the last occa­sion on which applications can be made for new or provisional licenses. prior to the local option clauses of the measure coming into force--

Mr. PAYNE: There will be no new licenses after the April court in 1915?

The H0:\1E SECRETARY: No new licenses can be granted after the April court of 1915 until, in th<> year 1916, the !<_>cal option clauses of this measure come 1nto force. Part III. contains the remodnlled method of levving lie~·nse fees from licensed victualJers. These fe0s will range from £15 to £100, and they will be levied on the annual rental value of the licensed premises. 'The licensing court will assess the annual value, and an hotel which is assessed as hav­ing an annual rental value of £50 will be required to pay a license fee of £15, and for every additional £50 of annual rental value the license fee' will be £5 additional, until a maximum of £100 is rE'ached. £100 i,, the maximum license fee, the minimum being £15, which will be paid on licensAd premises having a minimum annual rental value Gf £50.

Mr. MoRGAN interjected.

The HO:ME SECRETARY· That is a matter that will be left entirelv to the licens­ing bench. I may mention in that connec­tion that at the annual sittings of the Licens­ing Court the licPnsee has a right to appeal or ask for a revisicn of the amount at which he has been arsessed. The licensing inspector in the ,'ctme way has a right to appeal to the licen:,.ing bench, and ask for a rc.viow of the assessment v:hich has been made at the previous annual sitting of the court. Part IV. contains the obligations which are to be observed by licensees. It also contains clauses relating to their duties and penalties for non-observance of the dif: ferent clauses of the Act, gives power to the inspector to require premises to be kept

np to the dandard in connectiOn with accom­n1odation and fanitation, and also n1akes provision requiring t:1e licensees tC! periodi­c'cllv clean and disinfect their preimeas. The Bilf requires that all billiard tables mmt be licencPd. As hon. nlen1br-rs arc a'rnare, at the present time a licensed victnallcr may have a billiard table upon his premises, but so long 1s h0 does not charge for the uoe of that table he is not r0quired to pay a hcense fe0 therefor. Hon. membcTs are aware that the usual m0thod adopted 'vhen they play for gain is that the lose'· pa;·,, for drinks.

Mr. HcXHA:U: On a licenHd table?

The HOME SECRETARY: No, not on a licensed table. I pointed out that whe~·e no charge is made for the use of the tabl.c the licensing authority cannot require a hcen~e fe,- to be paid in r··spect of that table. This m;oasure requires that all billiard tables on licensed premises must be pojcl for.

::\lr. Hl':!';TER: All sorts of tables, small or large?

The' HOME SECHET.ARY: It docs not matteY what the table i"-any billiard tab!" upon liccnocd prc>mi,,cs requires to be licens(ed, and must pa;\' thP license fee. E;x:· ceptions o,r<e made with respect to tables l_D schools of arts, mechanics' institutes, athletic clubs-bona fide clubs-tables are not re­quired to be licensed or to pay a fee. As hen. Inemb~"·rs are a-..vare, under pre...:ent legis­lation, the Treasurer may require a table at a ~.chao! of arts to be licensed. However, under the present meamre, we are prepared to cxc<'pt all tables wl)ich are situated on the premises I have particularised. Pr'?­vision is further made in the Bill-and th1s is a very important provision-that it is an offence to put inferior liquor int? a bottle which is labelled as containing a liquor of. a superior quality. Provision is also made m corrnection with tied houses. Any agreement whch is entered into between the licensee of what is called a tied house and any other p<erson must receive the consent of the licens­ing bench. All the conditions consequently have to be disclosed to the licensing bench, which has the power to refuse assent to such an agreement being entered into.

Mr. COYNE: In what particular?

The HOME SECRETARY: If the licens­ing bench, I assume, considers that the agreement is unfair to the licensee, and that the very nature of the agreement will not be beneficial to the public, so far as the sale of liquor is concerned, then I take it that the bench will refuse its consent to the agree­ment.

Mr. CoYNE: Are they bound to give the particulars of the agreement?

The HOME SECRETARY: Undoubtedly. The whole of the particulars in connection with the agreement must be disclosed to tl:e licencing authority, and no agreement 1s ya]id unle" it has received the assent of the Licensing Court. The licensing inspectcr is furthennore given the power to enter an objection to any such agreement, an~ has a rig·ht to bP heard in connection with the objection. ~'l.n omission appears in the Bill -that is, the clauses which were originally included in connection with the <employment of alien cooks. As hon. members are pro­bably aware, this is one of the amendments

Han. J. G, Appel.]

1888 Liqum· Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Liquor Bill.

of the Legislative Council-the omission of the clauses in connection with the employ­ment of alien cooks on licensed premises.

Mr. Con:E : Are you backing down to the LegislativP Council in everything? •

The HOME SECRETARY: Not at all. This is a Liquor Bill; it is not a Bill which deals with alien or coloured labour, and I am of opinion that that matter should never have been introduced.

GovERN:\IE:::.IT MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The HO:ME SECRETARY: I venture to say we arc guilty of hypocrisy in this matter. Han. members must be aware that in many parts of the State it is not possible to obtain any other than Chinese coob. Not that these cooks are paid a lower rate of wage, but it is impossible to obtain nny other. I venture to sa\C there is not an han. member who, arriving' at an hotel, and find.ing the cook was an alien cook, would refuse to take his meals at that hotel. Why should we limit a licensed victualler to t'he choice of :his cook, when in a boarding-house next door tl\.ey can employ any kind of cook?

Mr. LENNON: \Vhy was our amendment accepted last year?

The HOME SECRETARY: I am not pre­.P<tred to enter into that matter in dealing with the Bill on its second reading-that is a matter which I have no doubt will be amply discussed when the Bill is in Com­mittee, but it is one of the compromises which we are prepared to make with the Legislative Council. We desire to see this Bill become law, a!ld where we can meet the Legislative Council in any matter which does not affect its policy or its provisions we are prepared to mPet them. This is one case where we are prepared to meet the Council, and, in being willing to do so, we have omitted this clause from the present measure. This part also contains restrictions in connection with the sale of liquor to persons under eighteen years of age. No licen,ed victualler i" permitted to soil liquor or deliver liquor to persons under eighteen years of age.

Mr. KIRWAN: They cannot even take it away.

The HOME SECRETARY: No, that Is not permitted. Only two bars are to be allowed on any licensed premises, and they must be specified. An application must be made for the two bars, and such application must, of course, receive the assent of the licensing authorities. A very important clause is contained in tho Bill, which provides that a licensed victualler is not permitted to gratuitously treat his guests or his friends in the bar or in any room adjoining the bar of any licensed pre1nises durir1g- pro­hibited hours. Han. members are awar'3 that in many instances a licensed vic­tualler has managed to ucape from. prosecution because he said the persons who were found drinking in the bar or in the room adjoining the bar were his friends, or his guests, and he was treating them gr'!-­tuitously. We do not propose to permit that. The mere fact of a licensee supplying liquor during prohibited hours, whether the persons being supplied are his guests or not, is an offence under the measure which is now· before you.

Mr. COYNE: Does this gratuitous treatment nnly refer to prohibited hours?

[Hon. J. G. Appel.

The HOME SECRETARY: Only to pro­hibited hours. Another matteJ:, which is al.so an amendment of the Legislative Counml, and which is included in the Bill now be~ore you is in connection with the connectwns bet.:Veen nlaces of amusement and licensed premises.- The provision· which was _in the original measure provided that every hcensed house constructed after the Bill be0ame law should not have any connection between _it and the place of amusement. The Legis­lative Council pointed out that the only place where special connections could J::e made were in the cases of theatres, and It was not thought desirable that this limita­tion should exist. This is one of the mat­ters which does not affect the policy or the principle of the Bill, and we are prepared to meet the Council there. Consequently, we have omitted the claus<' which required that any house constructed after the Bill became law shall not have such a connection. In con­nection with the hours for the sale of liquor, we have also made an amendment in this part of the Bill to meet the wishes of the Council. It is in respPct to the supnly of liquor. to a. lodger or boarder, who is defined in the preliminary part of this Act. We have made provision that these boarders may be supplied with liquor during prohibited hours, at a meal between the hours of 12.30 and 2.30 p.m. '

Mr. KIRWAN: He must be at dinner to get it.

The HOME SECRETARY: Yes. Mr. RYAN: And he must be a lodger.

The HOME SECRETARY: Yes, he mmt be a lodger, and we have the definition of " lodger " in the preliminary part of the Act.

Mr. COYNE: He must have been there the night before.

The HOME SECRETARY: Yes. We have also nrovided in the Bill that, during a Comn;:onwealth or State general election, or during the taking of a local option poll. all licensed houses must be closed on the daY' on which such nolls are beincr taken. ··we have further amend-ed the Bill by omitting the day of a bycelec~ion from Jts provisions, as we realise that :t would I,D · flict an injustice on licensed viCtuallers If. because there hanpened to be a by-election in one electorate, the licensed houses in seventy-one other electorates should have to clos" their doors.

Mr. KIRWAN: Why not make those house• cJe,e whirh are in the electorate where th" poll is being taken?

::l<fr. WIENHOLT: Have they not to close in the electorate where the poll is being taken?

The I-J0::'.1E SECRETARY: Yes. In ever~- electorate where a poll is being ~a)mn at a general election. In the origm8 1

Bill a provision wac included that, If there was a li""ht in the bar after 11 n.m .. it was prima f"'acie evidence that a.n offence was being committed. It was pomted out that after 11 p.m. it was absolutely neces­sary that the licensed victualler or his ser· vants should be nermitted to clean up and count the cash. -This is one of .the amen?­ments insisted on by the Legislative Council. It is a matter again which does not affect. the policy or principle of the B.ill .. There IS a nertain amount of reason m It that the licensed victualler should be allowed to keep his lights in the bar for the object I have

Liquor Bill. [22 OcToBER.l Liquor B~ll. 188()

mentioned, and that provision, which was contained in the original Bill, is omitted from this one.

Mr. GILDAY: Why is there any· necessity to keep open so long?

The HOME SECRETARY: If any hon. member desires to move an amendment that the hom:s should be more limited than they are, I can assure them that that is a matter they will have every opportunity of discus­sing. Another amendment which we have accepted from the Council is in connection with the liability of the owner for the act of his tenant. In the original Bill the owner was alleged to be liable for any illegal act committed ·by his tenant. It is a matter which does not affect the policy of the Bill and, as it inflicted a considerable amount of hardship, possibly, on the owner, who was a guiltless person, and as he would have to keep an eye on a tenant from the beginning to the end of the year, the particular lia­bi]ity, so far as the owner was concerned, has been omitted from the Bill. The Bill con­tams stringent provisions in connection with the adulteration of liquor.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear J

The HOME SECRETARY: Hon. members will realise the necessity for having the same stringent provisions.

Mr. RYAN: You would not need them if you had the trade nationalised.

The HOME SECRETARY: That is an­other question that I do not propose to dis­cuss at this moment. If a licensee is found guilty of adulteration, he will be liable to disqualification for three years.

Mr. KIRWAN: Why not disqualify him for life?

The HOME SECRETARY: The premises may be advertised, and likewise placarded saying that the offence of adulteration had been committed on those particular pre­mises. Furthermore, the Bill providos that if the owner can be proved to be privy and a consenting party to the adulteration, the premises themselves may be disqualified for not less than two years, and not more than five years.

Mr. KIRWAN: Do you provide for Im­prisonment for adulteration?

The HOME SECRETARY: There are clauses there which provide that, fB.iling the payment of a penalh·, of course, there must be imprisonment, and under c~rtain condi­tions-I stand to be corrected in this, be­cause one cannot remember all the ntinor details in a Bill like this-I am under the impression that provision is made for im­prisonment as well. Part V. provides for the registration of spirit merchants. Under our present law, the applicant for registra­tion as a spirit merchant sends in an appli­cation in writing to the Clerk of Petty Ses­sions. not in opf\n court, am1 it is simply ap­proved, if not objected to by the police, and pasePd on to the administrative of the Horne Department, and he approves of it. Under the present Bill, application has got to be made to the licensing bench for the grant­ing of such licenses. Application has to be made to the bench in open court, and the bench either has to g-rant it or refuse it. The license fec,s haYe bef·n increased, so far a.s Brisbane is concerned, from £30 to .£50, and elsewhere in QucenslanCI. the fee is in­creased from £20 to £25. The Bill further-

1912-5 z

more gives the licensing bench the power to cancel any oLich spirit license, ~nd the power is also given to have the premises where. ~he license is carried on inspected. Provis!on is also made in the Bill for the rcgist~·atwn of bottlers. Bottlers may apply for a hce_nse to bottle bulk spirit, and they are subJeCt to the payme:>t of an ~nnual fee of £5. The Bill prondee th_at li~n.sed warehouses, King's bonds, brewenes, distlllers, or makers of wine of their own manufactm:e . f_or sale outside an area, where total prohibttwn has been carried, are exempted. from the opera­tion of the Act. The whole of these busi­ne's~·q are carried on under the la,, s of the Commonwealth, and they have been exempted from the provisions of this Act, provided that if the .district in which they are situ~ted is a total prohibition mBa, the liqum· is sold for use outside the area. '.n which they are situated. Wme and spirit merchant,, are subject to the same red.uc­tion as licensed victuallers in cas? a reduc­tion vote is carried in a local ophon clause. Part VI. deals with clubs. To. m<?et the objection of the Legislative Councrl1 we pya­pose to restore t~e C'<;emption whiCh BXI_sts in th<c' prE"ent hcensmg Act, and >yhich exempts clubs registered under the Liq~or Act of 1886 from the operat~ons of the Bill, save that they have to be regtstered and have to pay an annual fee. The clubs so exempted are the Queensland Club, the Johnsonian Club. the Rockhampton Club, and one of the clubs in Toowoomba. ~hese four clubs were registered prior to the Liquor Act of 1886, and. it is proposed that the exemption which exists unci~,. the present law shall be embodied in thrs measure. It is one of the amBndments of the Upper House.

Mr. BERTJCDI: Did you accept the whole of the amendments of the Legislative Coun­cil?

The HOME SECRETARY: Oh, dear, not The cardinal ones, as I hav? alr~ttdy <;x­plained, which affect the policy and prm­ciples of the Bill, we have not ~ccepted. Part VII. deals with the sale of liquor b~

unlicensed persons. Makers o~ [7 p.m.] wine who are permitted to se!I

the produce of th<;ir own manu­facture on their own premises, and ~who are not restricted by pre,ent legisl_a­tion, are not permitted und?r. the Bill to sell that wine on prohibite4 days. Part VIIL deals with what IS pos­sibly tlw most important part of ~he Bill­that is, the quc,tion of lo0al optwn. The Bill provides that the first poll shall be taken at the Senate election su~sequent t? the next one, which will be held, m the ord.r­nary course, in the year 1916. Th_e reason for the poll being taken at the. el~ctio_n of Sena­tors is, because these ele?twns ynll be held more 1·egularly than it IS possible for any other election to be held. and as t~e State, in connection with the Senate electiOn, ~ad a certain amount of control as far as pollm_g places are concerned, it was decided that this would be the best time for the poll to he taken.

Mt·. KIRWAK: Do you think it is wise to take that Yote at that particular tilJlB?

The HOME SECRETARY: It was origi­nally sugo-este.d that it should be taken on an ~ff .da~. but the object is to get as large a poll as possible. <tnd unless you have what may be called ,a contributing cause we would

Ron. J. G . .Appel.]

1890 Liquo1' Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Liquor Bill.

possibly not have a poll which would be in­<Clicative of the feeling of the elector, in con­nectiQn with the mattm'. All .applications for provisional and new licenses may be made up to the annual sittings Qf the licens­ing cQurt which will be held in 1915, subject to an automatic poll of the electors as to whether they approve of the granting of such new or pwvisional licenses. That will be the last QCCasion pr·ior to the poli in 19lo upon which such applications may be made. From 1916 no a11plications for new or pro­visional licenses can be granted unless Re­solution E of the ]Qcal option clauses has been oorried. That is the clause which pro­vides that new licenses may be granted. From that period on, it will be impossible for an~· applicant to obtain the approval unless in the licensing district from which his application is made Resolution E has been carried. A request must be made for a poll by one-tenth of tht' electors before the 30th NQvember, 1915. This applies both to those who wish a poll to be taken in connec­tion with the r£·duction vote, and those who .desire a vote to be taken on Resolution E. No deposit is required, as under the existing Act, from those desiring .a poll to be taken.

Mr. KIRWAN: What majority will be neces­sary to carry that?

The HOME SECRETARY: A simple majority, with 25 per cent. of the whole of the electors voting. The lQcal option cJ,auses Df the present Act, excepting that relating to the Third Resolution, are to be continued in this measure, and may be availed of until the first poll is taken in the year 1916, and all the existing resolutions are preserved ; and so far as any further poll which may be taken is concerned, such poll may be taken under the conditions relating to local .option clauses of the present law, and until a vote has altered those resolutions so taken they continue to remain in force.

Mr. MORGAN: Is it possible at any tirne for local option to close up the whole of the hotels in Queensland?

The HOME SECRETARY: Under the pr<>sent law it is possible for a vote to be taken in ·any area, and carried by a two­thirds majority.

Mr. MORGAN: Does that apply on]~, to the area or to the whole of Queensland?

The HOME SECRETARY: To the area. 1n which. the request for a poll is made.

Mr. MoRGAN : Not the whole of Queens­land?

Th<> SPEAKER: Order ! The HOME SECRETARY: Under the

existing lmv a poll might be requested in -even· district in the State; and if a. two­thirds majority was favourable, total pro­hibition would be possible under the present law.

::\fr. RYAN: But not und<>r this Bill until 1926.

The HOME SECRETARY: I will come to that in a moment. • It was realised that by -continuing the present local option clause-s a certain amQunt of expense was cast on thn local authorities. and provision is made for the local authQrity being reimbursed by th., Tr<>asurer to the <>xtent of £25 of the e~­penses ineurrcd under the local option dauses. All subsisting resolutions will re­main in force until superseded by new votes. The resolutions which may be submitted to

-the electors are as follows :-A-That the number of licenses be reduced; B-That th~

[Han. J. G. AzJpel.

number of licenses be further reduced; C­That tho number of licens~s be still further redlloed; D-Tlxtt the sa!o of intoxicating liquors be prohibited; E-That new licenses be <rr.:wted. If a poll is requested In 1916, two~ resolutions may be submitt~d. A vote mav be taken on Resolution A-That the nu~ ber of licenses be reduced by a quar.ter of the existing number; and on ResolutiOn E-That new lic<>nses may be granted .. From 1916 no applications can be madA m any licensing district for a. n-0.">V license unless Resolution E has been earned.

Mr. ADAMSON: vYhat polls are automatic? ~r. Gco:: Barber's po:Is. (L·aughter.)

The IIONIE SECRETARY: I do not know if that refers to ;;he hon. mombe~ f?r BundaberO' who is a strong advocate o:..: tne te1nper.ant~ cauEB, and will no doubt be ver_y active in connection with an;: poll that. IS taken. The automatic poll is a poll .whrch will havB to be t<aken from the time thrs Brll b<>comes law until the last occasion when >aj1plicationo for new or provisional licenses can be made prior to the poll taken under the local option clauses. In .all such cases 'Jrior to a lic<"nse being granted an aut-o­~la.tic poll of the ratepayers in the lic~msing district must be taken, and must be m the affirmative before such license can be granted ; but from 1916 no application can be granted unless Resolution E has been carried. The polls may be taken every three years at the Senate election; they cannot be t-aken -at an earlier period than. two y<>a~s and six months. That provisron IS 1-nade. m case it should happen that a Sen.ate electro!' takes place ,a few months enrher than 1t would take nlace at the regulation period, and provisio;, is made that the GDvernor. in ('Quncil may fix a pc·riod by prodamatwn within which the request for .a poll must be lodgE'd. But Resolution E is Qn]y ~ffective until the succeeding poll. ResolutiOn E­that new licenses may be granted-may be carried at every succeeding elec~ion, but. r: fails to oper·ate after the suc~eedmg electron if not re-carried. If Resolutron E has been carried, and during the th_ree years it runs a provisional or new license has be<>n "'ranted and at the succe-eding poll a. re­duction' resolution is carried, if that house is in the number ,vhich are taken into con­sk!er.ation in the r••duction, it is subject to reduction· but if Resolution D is carried­that is, total prohibition-then the provisio~al license J.anses. Until 1916, unless Resolutron E is curried, no new lic<>nse' can be gr~nted~ In 1925 a poll can be taken on the subject. or total prohibition. Prior to that, Resolution D cannot have been put until Rw··olution A (a quarter), Resolution B (a half), and Resolution C (three-quarters), have been carried. But in the vear 1925, whether any of these r<>solutions have been carri<>d or not, a poll mav be tak<>n on Resolution D. At that poll.' however. Resolution E may be submitted. Resolution D, once having been carried then the onlv rBsolution which can be sub~itted at any, poll ther<>aftm is Re­solution E-That new licenses may be granted--

l\Ir. LENNON: That is confined to rate­payers.

Th<> HOME SECRETARY: No: the fran­chis<> is extended to the electors of the local option area.

::\Ir. KIRwAN: The same principle as in K ew Zealand?

Liquor Bill. [22 Oc:roBER.] Liquor Bill. 1891

The HOME SECRETARY: If any member .-takes the trouble to look this pai·t of the Bill up, he will see the reference to fran­chiS_e. These resolutions may be carried Lv a srmple majority. It was urged that there ohould be a two-thirds majority, but we have mamtamed the proposal in the former Bill-that is, that a simple majority should rule, as m any other matter, but provision

.has _bE'cJ_l ma~le to_ meet the views of the LE>grslatrve Councrl, by ensuring that at least 25 per cent. of the whole of the electors must. record their votes to make the poll effectrve.

. Mr. KIRWA:;: Does that refer to prohibi­twn too.

The HO:tviE SECRETARY: It refers to .everythmg-to, every poll which may be taken under tho local option clauses. I have already stated that Resolution D remains in force_ until it is reversed. This part further ~rovr~es that no appeal lib against the hc€nsi~g bench, -who decide, in cases oi a :rcductwn vote being carried, which houses :shall be closed. The manner is specifi·ed as to how the bench is to decide which houses are to be closed in cases of a reduction ·vote which, practically, is to the effect that th~ houses least suitable for the purpose are to be first closed. :No uppeal lies against the ?ench, who _are <?ntrusted with the decision m that particular matter.

Mr. BERTRAM: Do you propose t<> com-, pm;sate the owners of clo,sed houses?

The ~0:\IE. SECRETARY_: No. Every d~·ctor rs guahfied to vote m connection With a poll taken under the Bill. If for .an~ reason a poll which is taken is void ·owmg to S?me informa.lity, ano.ther poll may be taken m 1ts place. Part IX. contains a general provision which deals with railway Tefreshment-rooms. Under that part a l€ssee of a r~ilway refre~hment-room 'may have all the rrghts of a hcensed victualler .for the sale of liquor is restricted in pro: hibited ho.urs, an~ no person may apply for Tefreshmer:ts durr_ng such _hours, unless he has a ra1lway ticket to Journey 20 mil<?s .ahead of the particular room in which he asks for refreshment.

Mr. KIRWAX: Suppose a person com<?s in by the ~ydney mail, would he be permitted to obtam refreshment c1uring prohibited l10urs?

The HOME SECRETARY: No· he must "have a ticket for a journey '20 miles further on. Summarised, the reforms and principal matters of moment in the measure may be said to be the preservation of the ""xisting rights under the local option clauses of the Lic.,nsing Act of 1885. I have indi­cated that all rights under those clauses are preserved until the first poll is taken in 1916. Then we have the reform in the ·ccnstitutio.n of the licensing benches. Under the Bill, a .3tipendiary magistrate is t<> con­stitute the bench, and honorary magistrates will no longer have tho right to de:cl with li~.enses or any other matter in connection with the administration of our liquor laws. ThNe is another matter that I have fo.r­gotten to mention. An interjector asked me if any compensation was to bB given to a licensed victualler whoso premises were 'Closed. All we propose to do is that which was propos<?d in the fo.rmer Bill, and that is, they have tweh·e months' grace in the

case of reduction or total prohibition after the vote has been taken. The vote will be taken during th" year in which the license has been granted and from the expiry of that annual ten:,1 thev will have twelve months' gracP ahead. 'In the former Bill that grace was not given in the ca&e of houses which were closed under the vote of total prohibition, but that has been ex­tended to those houses which will be closed if Rcso.lution D has been carried, in the same

ay that was already provided for in cases whe1·e houses were closed under Resolutions A, B, or C. V\~ e have the Pxtension of t_he franchise from ratepayers to electors. Prwr to the yew 1916 we have the automatic poll which is to be taken of the electors, who must affirm their approval before a new license can be granted. \V€ have the ex­cicion of what has been known as "the hona fide traveller clalls€ " whereby a person who has travelled 5 rr{iles und<?r our existing law is <?ntitled to purchase refreshment at any hotel. which, no doubt, has caused a large amount of liquor to be sold, and has causnd a large number of breaches of our lic;uo.r law.

i\fr. KIRWAN: You have only to go to Nundah to .see that.

The H0:11E SECRETARY : It is one of the provisirms of the old Act which has brought about the necessity of policemen, 'rho might otherwise be enjoying their Sun­day's rest, standing sentinel at the back and front of our hotels. Then we have the re­striction of the right of the lodger to obtain liquor at any time. At the present the ledger has the right to obtain liquor during prohibited hours. He now is limited to a drink between 12.30 and 2.30 p.m. Again, after 1916 as I have mentionc·d, no new licenses c~n be granted until Resolution E has been carried, and that resolution, as I have pointed out, only holds good_ during the three years. It must be carr10d on every occasion, while all the other resolu­tions hold good until they are reversed . Furthermore, whether any of the resolu~ tions in connection with reduction have been e"nied or not, a poll on total prohibition mmt take place :n 1925. I have endeavoured as briefly as possible, but as fully as pos­sible, to give all the salient parts contained in the Bill, and to point out all those matters which !to to make for the reform which is embodied in the measure. This Bill was fullv discussed on its second reading o:1 the forn1er occasion, and there was an analytical discussion upon rt during its pas­sage thro.ugh CommittE'c. All hon. members who were in the last Parliament are, there­forr, well versed with all the details of the BilL It must be admitted that it is a r,•easure which is earnestlv needed t.o be plr.ced upon the statut"-book of t~e Stat<?. It is a m<?asure which, no doubt, wrll not be accepted by the' temperance party as J:leing complete. It is a measure which the hquor trade urges IW<'>S too far: but I think-regard­ing it dispassionately-it may be taken to be a m<?asure which gives a solid mE·asure of liquor reform. and at the same time inflicts no acts of injustice upon those who are engaged in the liquor trade. I trusy that hon. members will givA me t_heir ass1sta_nce in passing- this Bill as speedrly as possrble though this Chamber. so. that we m_ay get it to the Leo-islative Council, for the1r con­currencE' at" the E'arliest possible moment; and I v~nture to hope that, on th!s occ_asion, when we go inw recess, the Bill wrll be

Han. J. G. Appel.]

1892 Liquor Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Liqu&r Bill.

the law of Queensland in connection with the liquor trade. I beg to move the second rEoading of the Bill.

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. RYAN (Barcoo): I regret very much indeed that the second reading of an nn­portant measure of this kind should not have been allowed to be adjourned, as was

done in the case of several le·-.s [7.30 p.m.] important measures which were

brought before the House this session. It ma v be that the Premier is ab­sent from his 'place in the House, but it came as a matter of surprise to me Iast evening, on asking a question on the motion for the adjournment of the House, to learn that the second reading of this Bill was to be proc-eeded with to-night. I may mention that there were several other Bills-the Rail­ways Bill, the District Courts Bill, the Jury Bill, and others-in connection with which the Premier did the Opposition the courtesy of inquiring whether we desired the motion for the adjournment of the second reading to be adjourned, so that we might make our­selves fully seiz,"1 of the positwn after hear­ing· the second-reading speech of the :Minis­ter. That method should have been adopted in this case, but it has not been adopted, and no reason has been given to the Oppo­sition as to why we should vroceed with the second reading to-night. I trust that some other Minister, when he is speaking to this measure, will giye some explanation of that action. vv-hether it is because han. gentle­men in charge of other Bills c'.o not find it convenient to be here to proceed with the business thu.t they arc in charge of or not I do not know. I certainly think that that courtesy is due to the Opposition-to allow them to adjourn before having to proceed with the discussion of an important motion of this kind. But the Home Secretary was at some pains to show that it was unneces­Fary for him to go through 'vith a di~serta­tion which he w mt through previously when introducing the for. runner of this Bill with regard to thP right of tho Legislature to in­terfere with vestc·d interes·ts. I may say that this party have always r<cognisecl, and do recognise, the right of the Legislature to interfere in any manner with v~stcd interests for the public good, and so much aavo they recognised that with r<;gard to this particu­lar traffic, that there has been for many years in the platform of the Labour party a plank which provided for the State manufacture, importation, and sale of intoxicating liquor. There is no doubt that the liquor trade, or perhaps the manner in which it has been conducted on certain occasions and in certain place,, has led. to a great deal of misery and suffering :;tmongst the people, and therefore it is only right and proper that legislation should be passed to deal with it. But the first thing that people have to apply their minds to is this: VV hat is the effective man­ner of dealing with this traffic; how are we going to bring about the results which we. all say we desire ; how are we going to get awaY from the influence that always follows in tl1e wake of the liquor trade-the influence of vested interests; and, on the other hand~ how are we to bring about the reforms that­are desired, I think I ma~- say, by the ma­jority of the people? The Labour part:;r have applied themselves to the consideration. of this matter for years, and they have come to the conclusion that the only effective way­of doing it is to provide for the State manu.-

[Hon. J. G. Appel.

facture, importation, and sale ot intoxicat­ing liquor. They say that is the remedy. Let us examine the merits that are claimed for this Bill by the Home Secretary. But before·· proceeding to that examination, I desire to preface my remarks by a ref-erence to the position with which the Government were confronted when this Bill was last before Parliament. I have here I£an.•ard, volume 110, which reports on page 3138 the proc,,ec'.ings of the Legislative Assembly on the 9th Jan nary of this year, and I find that the Home Secretary moved as follows :-

"I move that the following n1essage be transmitted to the Legislative Coun­cil:-

"1-lr. President,-" The Legislative Assembly having had

under consideration the Legislative Coun­cil's message, of elate the 4th January, 1912, further insisting on the amend­ments made by them in the Liquor Bill, to which the Legislative Assembly have· already disagreed, bev now to intimate that the Legislative Assembly being un­able to concur in the said amendments, the Bill, in terms of the Parliamentary Bills Referendum Act 1of 1908, is now lost.''

That motion was carried for the purpose of having the difference or differences then existing· between the Legislative Council and .the Legislative Assembly submitted to the people for decision.

Mr. COYNE: That's a nasty ghost to dig up.

Mr. RYAN: It is necessary, urifortunately. I regret very much to have to dig up these ghosts to the discomfiture Df hon. member3 opposite, but it is my painful duty to do so. (Government laughter.) That motion was passed in order to have these differences submitted to the judgment of the people, and we and the people of Queensland were told emphatically that the Government were going tD the country, and it was to be the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. They were to stand or fall by it. What is the posi­tion? The Home Secretary, in his concluding remarks, after introducing the Bill-which, I may say, without doing any injustice, is materially different from the Bill which was passed by the Assembly on that occasion­says he hopes that it may be on the statute­book before next se.-3ion. He hopes-I notic,ccl a little tremor in his voice, because he is afraicl-(Governmcnt laughter)-·of the influence of han. members behind him, and of the· influence of another place, and the diffidence which he showed makes me d.oubt very much now whether this Bill is going to be placed on the statute-book with the concurrence of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly this SPssion. We have been told to-night by the hon. gentle­man that the Bill differs in some respects from the previous measure-the Government have given v. ay to the Council on this, that, and the other matter, but the principles of the Bill have been stuck to right through.

The HOME SECRETARY : Hear, hear !

Mr. RYAN: That shows how much you can whittle away principles. An examina­tion of the details of this Bill will show the han. gentleman's conception of what is prin­ciple and what is detail. He has not shown us one of the principles of the Bill. All

Liquor Bill. \22 OcTOBER.] Liquor Bill. 1893

ne has said is, that anything the Govern­ment have agreed. to has not been an altera­tion· of principle.

The HOME SECRETARY: That is so.

Mr. RYAN: He claims certain merits for this Bill to bring about needed reform m the control of the liquor traffic. In the main, what are these salient points, these .principles that are going to bring about the so-much-to-be-wished-for changes? They are ,principally these : He says the Licensing •Court is reconstituted, the honorary magis­trates are done away with, and the Licens­ing Court is placed in charge of stipendiary magistrates, who will not be so prone to che influence of interested parties as the honor­ary justices will be. He then says that the !Provisions "-ith regard to the adulteration .of liquor have been made very stringent, .that there is a tendency by the provisions ,of this Bill to see that pure liquor is pro­·vid.ed for those who desire it, which is also .a verv desirable improvement on the present state of affairs. He also says that the people are to be given tho right of voting by local option with regard to certain resolutions: fir"t of all, with regard to the reduction of lic-enses, and, finally, with regard to the pro­hibition of licenses.

The HOl\:IE SECRETARY: And the granting of new licenses.

Mr. RYAN: I shall have a word to say .about that directly. But let us examine .these merits that are claimed for this Bill, .and place them side by side with the policy -of the Labour party, because I call the plat­.form of the Labour party a policy with re­gard to the liquor traffic. I call the Bill put forward by the Government simply an at­tempt to tinker with the matter; on the one hand to try and gain a certain amount of temperance support, and on the other .hand to t~;y not to alienate a certain amount of the support of those interested in the liquor traffic. Supposing we have the State

.ma11ufacture, importation, and sale of in­toxicating liquor, what need is there for stipendiary magistrates? We do not need .the magistrate .at .aU, because the liquor trade will then ;be tmder the control of the ,State. Is that not a complete answer to that merit which is ·claimed for this Bill ? The only contention on the part of the Go­·vernment is this-that a stipendiary magis­·trate is an improvement on the existing \bench. I say that if we have the State manufacture, importation, and sale of in­toxicating liquors we do awav with the necessity for having a magisti·ate at all. Then, with regard to the question of adul­teration, would there be any reason to adul­terate liquor if it was under State control ? 'To whose interest would it be to adulterate liquor if it was under State control? W auld it be to the interest of the Government or the State to have impure liquor sold to the people? Would it not do away with the necessity for those provisions dealing with the adultoration of liouor, and d.o it much Inore

-effectively than the provisions of this Bill because in the investigation of any evil that exists if you strike at the root of it, re­move the cause, remove the motive-in this case it is the motive-the motive here is the main thing-remove the motive, and the evil disappears. If we have the liquor trade under State control, the motive is removed for the adulteration of liquor. After all, what is the motive? Private gain. That same

:motive could not exist in the minds of the

servants of the State who would have the dispensing of liquor. Incidentally and con­cnrrently with all the merits claimed fC\r ~he Bill we a.re told it makes a closer restriCtiOn on the hours during which liquor may be sold. It is claimed that the hours there are shortened and kent more within the limit. If it was under State control, what motive would they have for working after hours? What State servant would want to keep the State premises open after the hour of .11 o'clock? Would it not remove the motive again, and bring about an improvement that all right-thinking people must agree . would be more effective than the proposals 1n this Bill? (Hear, hear !) Moreover, above .all things, it would remove the influence whwh now exists of vested interests. (Hear, hear !) How often has the han. gentleman had his ear whispered into by those interested in the liquor trade? How often has he been pulled one way by the advocates of tem· perance-by members of the tempe:t:ance party? How often had be been pulled first one way and then the other, until ulti1nately he has gone away annoyed, and has said to himself, " How am I going to please. them, and keep in power? How am I g01~g ~o keep a middle course, and r~ma1n 1n power?" That is all that they desue to do. They wish to remain in power no m":tter at what cost. Remain in power is the Idea of the Government and the idea of the Home Secretary. He wishes to please ~he majority, whether they come from the s1de of the liquor control or from the temperance party, or both. If we had Stat~ contra), the uower and weight of vested mterest IS removed and then Parliament would be able to 'deal with the trade without being pulled first one way and then the C\ther. Supposing the State had control of the hquor trade now-suppose they had full control of the manufacture, importation, and sale of liquor, who in this Chamber would care about any particular interest? ·would not han. members come here guided by only one motive-the common weal, the greatest good for the greatest number? Evils we know do exist and bv that method we would create a factor which would remove the evil and therefore all the merits which are clai;,ed bv the han. gentleman who has just resumed his seat for the· particular clause of this Bill would be brought about, and much more effectively brought about, and much more permanentl;r brought about, than the Gqv0 rnnumt will brmg them about by any nrovisions of this BilL Let me just pause for a moment to consider what are. the main provisions of this Bill. I agree with the hor:. gentleman that the main provisions of thrs Bill are the claUsf·~ dealing with the local option. They are the basis of the whole measure and what does he ask those who are in favour of the reform of the liquor traffic to do under this clause? He asks them to drive the liquor trade through the channel of monopoly first. Resoluti?n A reduces licenses by one-fourth, re,olu~ron B reduces licenses by one-half, resolutiOn. 0 reduces licenses by three-fourths, resolutiOn D deals with the total prohibition, and reso­lution E deals with the granting of new licenses. Before resolution B can be passed, we must pass resolution A, and before reso­lution 0 can be passed, resolution B must be passed. In other words, those wh.o . ~re desirous of bringing about total prohrb1t10n -I think this will interest the han .. :n;ember for Muri!la, if I may judge his oprmon by

L1fr. Ryan-.1

1894 Liquor Bill. [ASSEMBLY.]

the interjection he made to the Home Secre­tary-before a total prohibitionist can vote for resolution D between now and 1926, he has to vote to reduce the licenses first by one-fourth, then b;v one-half, then by three­fourths, and then total prohibition. There are many people who will not do that because--

Mr. HARDACRE: It means never.

Mr. RYAN: It means never, because they will have to drive the trade into a few hands that will make for a monopoly of the trade, and hence you will find that as the ,.,.,,elu­tions progress from A to B, B to C, and so on, the number in favour of it decreases while the number in favour of prohibition increases, yet the temperance advocate' and those who desire total prohibition are pre­cluded from voting for it, owing to the sys­tem adopted in this Bill.

Mr. MoRGAN: It is the weakest part of the Bill.

Mr. RYAN: I am pleased to have drawn the hon. gentleman. I am pleased that I properly gauged his interjection to the Home Secretary, and I do not think the Home Secretary gave him a very clear answer to his interjection. I do not know whether the answer nleased the hon. member for Murilla, but ·I sav at once that the Home Secretary evaded it, perhaps unintentionally -perhaps I should not use the word evaded­but he escaped the point in the interjection of the hon. member for Murilla, and the reply given was not a comDlete answer to the interiection made. It is a fact, as the hon. member for Murilla points out, that this is the weakest part of the Bill.

Mr. HARDACRE: It is a ridiculous part of the Bill.

Mr. RYAN: I say it is a ridiculous part of the Bill to drive the people who advocate the prohibition of licenses-the people who are strict temperance reformers-to drive them through the channel of monopoly.

· \Vhy should they not have an opportunity of voting straight away as to whether they are in favour of prohibition or not? If we want to give these people an opportunity of saying what they want, we should do so, and whether we, agree or not-I am speaking now­of every individual in this House-whether­we agree or not with these people who favour­prohibition, we should at least give them an opportunity of saying what they want. Is that not logical ? I pointed this out on the second reading of the Bill when it was before the House last session, and I find the Bill is reintroduced here with the same old ridicu­lous provisions in it. It says in the Bill that in 1925-1925 is a long way off-they may be allowed to have a vote on prohibi, tion, but they will also at the same time have an opportunity of voting with regard to new licenses. I regard it, as the hon. member for Murilla said, as the greatest weakness of the Bill. It is a weakness that shows it to be a sham 111\)asure, and it i., really not directed as taking a true view of the people of Queensland on the matter. r would like to ex:cmine in detail some of the concessions that have been made to thE> Legislative Council. I have not been able to examine th<em all on account of the debat~ not having been adjourned. The conces9ions were really made for the liquor trade, al­though nominally they were made: for the Legislative Council. There i, one dealing-

[Mr. R_yan.

with tied houses. The principle of tie_d' houses is still there, but the back?one ts taken out of it. It is, what Mr. ~rvrne· was pleased to say with regar-d to th_e Ltber>;Ll pro-~ gramme in the South, 11 ~elatmous km(l of substance. The backbone ts taken out of the provision dealing wit_h t~cd houses, and gela­tine has been put m rts place. There ts a place left where the backbone o~ the clause should be, and gelatine is substituted for the backbone.

Mr. HuxHAM: A shivery-shaky kind of stuff.

Mr. RYAN: Quite so. With regard.to_the employment of aliens, that was a prmc:ple of thG Bill. The Goyernment can repudrate · that principle if they like, but they a~·e ex­cludino- that proYision from the Btl! as passel by the Legislative Assembly on the last occasion. The han. gentleman m charge of the Bill said it was hypocrisy to h~ve included it. Hypocrisy ! He was accusmg himself of hypocrisy, becau~e he consented to the inclusion of that particular clause, as. he also consented to the inclusion of the clause dealing with tied houses. Now, another little concession that has been _made to the Legislative Council, nominally, IS the extension of time with regard to the opera­tion of the local option clauses. I do not see an;y similar concPssion to the. temperance party. I do not see the grantmg of, say~ State option, which I have no doubt _the hon. member for Murilla would favour rf I gauged his interjection rightly. He . ":a:rts to know if they would go in for prohtbttJOn for the whole of the State of Que_ensland, That can only be done by State optton, and• I take it tha:t that is what the han. gentle­man would favour.

Mr. LENNON: Which is not provided.

Mr. RYAN: Then, as an example a~ to· how the hon. gentleman flirts with _both: std<;s -an example of his power of flrrtatwn ts shown in thG Bill, where he first appeals to the liquor trade, and in the second p~ace he appeals to the temperance party. It 1~ deal­ing with automatic; poll~, and there IS only one part of the Brll whtch the han. gentle· man emphasised with regard to automatic polls, and that was with regard to polls taken before the year 1915. There are to be automatic polls o"f the people prior to 191/Y, before anv new licensPs are granted. In whose int~rest is that? No doubt the ten:­perance party have advocated . automatic polls with regard to the local optton claus~s -that is, the subsequent cl~uses-but t~ whose interest is the automatic poll to bt: taken before 1915?

Mr. BARBER: "Bung."

Ivir. RY .\K: In the interests of the liquo,r trade. Before fresh licenses can be granteu, an automatic local option is taken, _but whE:n it comes to oubsequent local optiOn polls, there has to be a request.

The HmiE SECRETARY: A request l?efore Resolution E is carried, and before a ltcense· can be granted. No license can _be granted until Resolution E has been earned.

Mr. RYAN: It is automatic. The HO"-!E SECRETARY: It is not autom>ttic.

Mr. RYAN: I am spt:aking of the time up to 1915. After that there has to be a requeot. It would be too bareface<'! to say that after 1915 all the other resolutron~ had to have a request, and that that particular~

Liquor Bill. [22 OcToBER.] Liquor Bill. 1895

one had not. Besides, it is in the interests of the liquor trade that there should be no requ<"st before 1915. That is an illustration of want of sineerity. If automatic polls are a good thing, by all means have them, but do not try to throw dust in the eyes of the people, and say we are giving you automatic polls. Why did not the hon. gentleman lay more emphasis on the request that has to be made after 1916? He was very emphatic about no request-that it is automatic before 1915. Another concession I note is with re­gard to packet licenses, with r,egur,d to lodgers, ,and with rega1'd to this 25 per cent. that have to vote. In fact, there ,are very material differences between this Bill and the old Bill. I have no doubt that before the second reading of the Bill is over, it will be abundantly plain-as it is now to members of this House-to the people of Queensland, that the Government were very glad of the opportunity to adjust their differences in this manner, or to back down in this way from the position they took up in such a bombastic manner at the beginning of this year. They were very glad to take advantage of the strike, and make that the issue. But to-night, the hon. gentleman tells us that thev have been through a general election on 'the Bill.

The H01IE SECRETARY: Through the fire of a general election.

Mr. RYAN: They went through the fire of a general election on the strike, and we were told that the Liquor Bill was a matter of too small importance, when you had the issue of mob rule against constitutional go­vernment-a small thing like that had to be brushed aside. This Bill, the details of which I first know to-night-the details of which I might have known a week ago-we are told these things have been through the fire of a general election. I leave it to the people of Queensland to judge whether the Bill has been through the fire of a general election, or whether the hon. gentleman has been through some other fire of some particular party, or inte1·est, or trade, that has led to these con­cessions. There are many other matters in connection with the Bill that I should like to refer to, but I deem it the duty of a great constitutional party, like the Labour party, in dealing with such important legisla­tion as this, to make some effort to test the feeling of the House on their policy of deal­ing with the trade. I decidedly call it a policy, and I would like to have the oppor­tunity of testing the policy of the Labour party in the country, with regard to dealing with this traffic. At the close of last session, a question was asked of the hon. gentleman, when he was bombastically referring to the stand taken by the Government, and dramaticallv moved-" That the Bill is nmv lost "-I well remember the hon. gentleman throwing out his chest and moving-" That the Bill is now lost," in order to have this battle royal betwern this House and the Legislative Council. On that occasion he was asked a question by the then deputy leader of this party, Mr. Lennon, whether he would be willing to submit the policy of the Labour party to a referendum, and, of course, as usual, the time was not then ripe. It was not PL''sible, or opportune, to do such a thing as that. The hon. gentleman's answer on that occasion. as reported in last year's Hansr,·rl, page 3147, was as follows:-

"The HOME SECRETARY: With reference to the first question asked bv the deputy leader of the Opposition-a-s

to whether a further question might be tacked on to the referendum on thE> Liquor Bill-I may point out that thE> proeedure under the Parli~mentary Bi.lls. Referendum Act of 1908 IS that Parlia­ment may be called together three montns after the rejection of a measure bv the Legislative Council for the P';lr­pose of reconsidering the measure whwh has been rejected. That measure must be passed through all the usual stages by the Legislative Assem~ly, and'. then transmitted to the Counml, and If the Council again refuse to accept the measure, that measure, and that measure alone, is referred to the t:lectors of the State for their assent or dissent. Under those circumstances I very much fear­that even if we were prepared to accede to the request of the hon. member, it will be impossible to do so."

I wonder how many people in queensland thourrht he was desirous of accedmg t::> the requ~st. He turned it down~ be<;>ause 1f th_e difference between the Leo-Islatrve Counml and the Legislative Aesembly :vas referre~ to a referendum of the people, 1t was poss1ble

to pass another short Act to en­[8 p.m.] able the referendum to be a.lso

taken on the question of St';te manufacture, importation, and sale of m~ toxicating liquor. But we would have had an opportunity of seeing what number of the· people were in favour of our poh~y .. We· went throu o-h the fire of the last e,ect1on; and 99,000 "people voted for us with that plank in our platform.

Mr. MoRGAN: They did not vote on that alone.

Mr. RYAN: They did not vote on the <;io­vernment Liquor Bill aJone-so~ethmg which thev did not know. Even at this early staD'e of the Bill I can see members oppoSite sitting in little' knots. TJ:ose who _are of opinion that it is too dr3;stw. a:·e srttmg t?­gether; and those who thmk It IS n?t drastiC enough are sitting together. . Thrs party, however is solid on the question; there IS only on~ opinion on this ,ide; ev,ery mem~er­on this side has signed the platform w1th that plank in it. What platform had mem­bers on the other side signed? A larg~r­number of the people of Queensland are Ill favour of tho,t plank in the Labour party's platform than me in favour <;>f any other policy in dealing wrth the. hquor tra,~e; thereforB. I desire to move, m order to g:ve hon. gentlemen an opportunity of. <"Y.pressmg themselves on so important Jlnd vrtal ,a ques­tion, "that all words after the word ' be' be omitted " and the following words added, namely':-

" withdrawn for the purpose of recast­ing so as. to prov!dB for the Stat; _man":­fa-cture. 1mporhtwn, and sale 01 rntoxl­cating liquor."

That is the Pxact wording of the amendme':'t moved by the hon. member for Herbert m the last· Parliament. It is some evidence, that the policy of this party has not chan~cd since last Parliament when we como w1th the same amendment :md the same policy as we then advocated; and I trust that . hon. m·,mbcrs will apply themselves to t~e dlsc~s­sion with that amount of dehberatwn, fan­nee,, and non-nartv ff'ding which 'a ques­tion of this kin~d r.:.quires. I trust th:"t t~e amendment will receive a sympathetic dls­cussion f"om the other side of the House.

JJfr. Ryan.~

189'6 Liquor Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] L~quor Bill.

The HOME SECRETARY: NeecJless to say I do not propose to fall in with the pro­position of the hon. member who has moved the amendment. In his usual Serjeant Buz­fuz, dogmatic style--

The SPEAKER: Order !

The HOME SECRETARY: The han. member fir,t of all endeavoured to show that the liquor reform contained in the measure before the Bouse has been emasculated to such ·an ·extent that its principles and policy have been practically destroyed. I venture to say if that is the genuine reason for mov­iipg this amendment, the hon. member is working on a very slender reason. He has detailed several of the <tmendments now em­bodied in the Bill, and has urged lhat they <'!estray its principle and policy. Refer-ence has been made to the omission of the Asiatic 'Cook clause. Hon. members must recollect that that never was part of the Bill, but was an amendment introduced in Committee ; and it in no way affected the policy of liquor 1·eform. Do hon. members for one moment oontend that the fact as to whether there is .an alien cook in the kitchen of an hotel or not has any effeet on the question of liquor reform in the State? I venture to say it has not. Then the han. member strove to make a great point in arguing in support of the motion for the nationalisation of the liquor trade; and he argued that, because certein polls are automatic prior to the year 1916, and after that date it will be ne<:essarv for a certain resolution to be carri0d before a new license can be grante-d, ther0fore there has been a df'narture from th0 policy of liquor reform. I submit that the arguments which have been adduced bv the hon. mem­ber are absolutf'ly weak and.lacking in force, and must f,ail to convince any dispassiona.te member of the communitv of their value. Undoubtedly the han. m,;mber, in moving the amendment. is carrying o1it one of the planks of the platform of his party, and un­questionably he is auite justifi0d in endea­vouring to place that particular plank upon the statute-book of the Stat<:>. But what I submit is this: The Bill which is now before the Assembly is one that embodie-. ou" desire to leave in the hands of the peonle. if they so wish it, the newer to effect .a rodnction in the numbn of houses in which liquor is retailed; wher·e,o.s I venture to sav that with the nationalisation of the drink tr·affic there never will be a cessation of it. The hon. member urges in favour of nationalisation. that it destrm s the interest in the sale of intoxi0ating liauors and thus reduces con­sumption; again, that it turns the immense profits from the fe•.1' monopolicts to the public purse; that the State should be the publican for the electors of the State; that it should -enter into the business of the retailer of snirituous liquors and therehv gain the pro­fit which is at the present time enjoved bv those who are in the trade. Let it ·be ad­mitted that pure liquor does r<>duce drunken­ness, but can any hon. memher show that nationalisation would make the way easier for prohibition •

An HoNOURABLE MEMBER: Can you provo it does not?

The HOME SECRETARY: The result of '€Xperience is abs::.,lutely to the contrary.

Mr. BER'rR.<.M: That is not so.

The HOME SECRETARY: Let me quote the results of aationalisation in different

[Han. J. G . .Appel. .

places, and let me give first an extract from ''The Alliance News" of 3rd October, 1912, under the heading of-

" OPPOSING ARGUMENTS.

" In opposino- nationalisa~ion, we con­tend that the "'evil is not m the sellers but in the power o£ a)cohol to create a diseased craving for Itself. N? matt";r by whom sold, bishop or barmai?, puJ::hc servant or costermonger, the dispensmg of the chemical alco)wl · wi_ll prod ';Ice all the concomitant evils assocrate? with the liquor trade as we knoW' It to-day. Seco;.,dly, we say th~t the 1?-aking of the nation participate directly m th~ profits of the liquor trade woulcl br~be the nation into immoral _acqme33cence. Thirdly. that it would _be Jmpossli::J:le to cationalise the traffi~ . without cr~ati';? a huge engine of po!Itwal co.rruption.

That that would undoubtedly be the ca:se we have evidence from vVestern Austrah>:, where the State has. entered ~nto colr;pctl­tion with licensed victuallers m the hquor trade. It would be proposed, under the scheme we have now suggested to us, to ap­point members of the co:mmumty to .1nanag:e these pa-rticular houses where the liquor IS to be retailed, and actuallo: encoura!S<; t!:'at wl::ich liquor reformers desire to minn:rns~; :'IIr. W. E. Johnson. of '"J'he New VoJCe, said of the system in Carolina- .

''From the beginning not a man ha5 had to do with the management who h:'s not been besmirched and befouled m reputation."

" The Alliance News " goes on to say- . "Only rec''ntly the Press of Austraha

has contained a telegram from W est~rn Auetralia, ,showing that t~<; Pre~?-Ier there had appointed a pohtJCal fr,~end to the position o.f manager of the. ~t.ate hotel and was receiving· some cnbcism . ' " rn con-sequence.

I can quite realise that. hon. membe;rs on that side of the House, If they were Ill the position to do so, WC!uld have 1?-~ny of their friends placed m the position C!f managers of the State hotels. Buj; thi't IS not the position that those ,vho desi_re hquor reform wish to arrive at. The writer goes on to say-

"'\Ve can rightly assume that the officials appointed to the re~ponsible pr,sitions would be persons With con­siderable political influence. Any _at­tempt by temperance people _to bnng political influence to bear, either for restriction or reduction, waul~ ~hus meet with predominating opposition from these po:litical hangers-on."

Then the writer quoting ~gain from the same paper, under the headmg of-

" DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT.

"vYe disagree with _them o'! the fir33t point (that is de,.troymg an mteres~ m the sale anC! thus reduce consumption). We claim that a manager of a State hotel would be far from disintereo;ted in the sales of his establishmen~ any more than the Commissioner _for Rmlways is disinterested in the financial retu.rns of hi3 railwavs. A manager whose h1!\'hest ambition ,;_ ould be to do as little buslll<;''s as possible would be . uniqu<'. The In­

telligence rebels agamst the thought

Liquor Bill. [22 OcTOBER.] Liquor Bill. 1897

as being too prodigiously absurd. The next argument is that the immense pro­fits now made by the trade, and flowing into the pockets of a few monopolists would then flow into the pockets of th~ Treasurer.''

'This, I believe, is the argument most often advanced, and meeting with the highest ap­proval from the friends of nationalisation. 'To show that I am not over-estimating the importance of this argument, let me quote the tBxt-book of the subject, "The Case for .Municipal Drink." On page 120 it states-

" ' The decisive argument for the muni­""ipalisation of the drink traffic is the financial o~e.' . This, then, is the strong .argument m Its favour, but to me it is a fatal weakness in the system. Public cupidity is even more dangerous .than private cupidity, unless amenable .to moral restriction. When the Par­.iiamentuy Commission on Public Health asked the Finance Minister of France to prohibit the salE' of absinthe, he re­fused. They urged that it was a national question. 'Yes,' said h":.", 'and a Trea~

• sury question.' The question of money for his deplebd Treasury was of greater importance tha'l the well-being of his ·subjects, and the same weakness was painfully evident wherever nationalitia· tion has been tried."

There is no do:ubt the nationalisation of the liquor trade, especially if w•.:> combine the sale with the manufacture, would mean a very large amount of revenue flowing into the coffer'' of the Treasurer. Do hon. mem­bers for one moment say that the Treasurer in the possession of those large funds' would be prepar0d to relinquish them o{, that any Gov<>rnment, receiving those ~nor­mons sums of money, would be willing to forE>g-o them? \Ve who desire to see liquor reform have no desire to see the trade established for ever. The hon. member has said that liccming benches would be no Jonger nec,•s<ny. On that assumption, the State would establish hotels wherever it thought hotels were d"simble. It would take ·out of the hands of the electo:rs of the State the right to say whether they desired to have an hotel or not. The electors would ,have thrust upo.'l them a trade that they ·could never get rid of. We who desire to see such liquor reform as is contained in the Bill now before the House-desire it to be left to the people to say whether they wi·'h liquor to be retailed in their district or not. Quoting again from the same publication :under the heading of "Gwalia "- '

" The State hotel at Gwalia, in Western Australia, was to have been a ·model hoteL It has no competitors, hav­ing a monopoly of the trade of the -district. Mr. Robson, the first manager, .attempted to run it as decently as a -drink shop can be run, but his profits were evidently not large enough for the appreciation of the State Treasurer. Mr. Robson was deposed, a Mr. Hunter was placed in charge, and his profits have averaged over .£2.500 per vear in com­parison with :£500 per year averaged by Mr. Robson. The Western Australia Reformer .states, ' The Gwalia hotel was to have been run for the convenience of the public. It is now run for profit only.'"

''llhat is actually the position. Hon. members

opposite may advocate this pr~nciple as. a plank of their platform, but It Is one wh~ch does not commend itself to those who desire to see liquor reform in the State-who desire to see the gradual !eduction of those ~ouses which are engaged m the trade. That lS not the principle which is contained in the Bill, and I venture to say that the principle of nationalisation is not a principle which c.an commend itself to those who honestly desue to see liquor reform carried out. Under the heading " Pure Liquor," fro!ll the same publication, I quote the followmg :-

" The third argument is that under nationalisation, pure liquor would be assured and drur,kenness thereby be re­duced, if not abolished altogether. To reply to this we must inquire what con· stituent in intoxicating liquors causes drunkenness? The undeniable reply is alcohoL There is a foolish idea preva­lent in some quarters that drunkenness is caused by some concoction added. by the hotel-keeper. The experience of thousands of tests by Governme~t analysts demonstrates that rarely IS there any harmful addition,. and c~r­tainlv nothino- to compare With the m­jurious effects"' of the constituent alcohoL"

We object that the State should be engaged in this trade. Legal it may be-men who are engaged in the trade no doubt are as honourable as any other members of the com­munity-but it would be a sorry day . when the State engaged in the trade of liquor­seller to the people and electors of the State. Under the heading of "Breaking Down," from the same publication-

" Professor Anderson Stuart, as presi­dent of the New South Wales Board of Health said he had examined liquor )Jrought from thE'. hotel a':'c;. he never found any deletenous additiOns, water being the only addition found. Tern· perance workers can . surely have no objection to the addmg. of. water to spirits. The only complamt IS that men would have to pay £2 per gallon for added water. In Rmsia, every bottle of vodka was guaranteed pure; and on !he label the Russian eagle accompamed the Minister's name to testify to the fact, yet the Anglo-R;us~ian Gaz~tte states that the drink habit IS responsrble for 200 000 deaths every year in Russia. The eagle has now been displaced by the skull and crossbones, and an added warn­ing that the contents are poisonous.

"To revert back. The advocate of nationalisation does not propose to re­duce the percentage of alcohol in spiri­tuous or fermented liquor, and that is the crucial point of the argument."

I might go on and give different quotati9ns from the same publication, all of whwh point to the same conclusion---that if ~he State once engages in the liquor trad<l; owmg to the large amount of revenue whi8h they would receive thereby, there would never be any chance of reduction in that trade. The very argument adduced, that the liquor would be pure, would probably act _as at; encouragement to a greater consumption G•

spirituous liquors. But there is one point which the han. member did not refer to ill connection with this proposition; that is, how does he propose to deal with these who

Ffon. J. G. Appel.]

1898 Liquor Bill. [ ASSEl\1BL Y.] Lzquor Bill.

are already engaged in this trade? Does he propose to compensate the members of that trade? He is silent.

Mr. RYAN: We will deal with them justly. The HOME SECRETARY: Then, if he

does not propose to compensate them, does he propose to confiscate their property? If an arbitrary Act wae put on the statute­book, immediately such a measure became law it may be assumed that from that moment the State would step in as a retailer of fermented and spirituous liquors, and what would become of those who are engaged' in this legal trade ?

Mr. RYAN: \Ye will not confiscate th-eir property.

The HOME SECRETARY: If the hon. gentleman proposes to give them money compensation, where does he propose to obtain the ncc0gsary funds from in order to pay compensation?

Mr. FORSYTH: It would not cost much.

The HOME SECRETARY: I am inclined to think it would take a very large amount of money. I remember on the former occa­sion, when this motion was before the House. one han. member on the opposite side said that the present licensees could be appointed as the managers of the State hotels-that was to be their uompensation. But I venture to say that the hon. member, in proposing so important an amendment, should have indicated how he proposes to deal with those who are engaged in the industry.

Mr. CoYNE: How are you going to com­pensate them under this Bill?

The HOME SECRETARY: We do not propose to compensate them, because the position is absolutely different. In the one case it will be left to the electors to say whether they will have liquor sold in their districts or not ; in this case, the State will arbitrarily e0tablish a drink shop to be con­ducted by tho State. The hon. member urges that the purity of the liquor will b~ assured, tho State will engage in the dis­tilation and manufacture of the liquor which it is propoced to oall, and the State is to benefit by the profit which is made from. the sale of that intoxicating liquor, which those who are in favour of liquor reform say is detrimental and injurious to the human. system. I venture to say that, howeYer good from the Labour party's standpoint the pro­position may be, it is utterly bad from the standpoint of those who desire to see liquor reform, and who are of opinion that the less liquor that is consumed b~· the human being so much the better for his health, his con­stitution, and those who are dependent upon. him. The desire of this Government is to place in the hands of the people the control of the liquor trade-not to cause the State to step into the shoes of those who are carry­ing out their business, and to become the retailer of the liquor to the people of the State, and actually assist in dispensing that which we sa;;· is injurious to those who con_ sume .it. Under the circumstances, and as the han. member has given no indication._ how he propo,,es to deal with it-as he has put no business-like proposition before the House-I must oppose, the amendment which, has been moved by tho leader of the Oppo­sition.

Mr. LARCOMBE (Eeppel): I would like to offer a few observations before this amendment is submitted to the House. It .appeared to me that the Home Secretary

[Hrn. J. G. Appel.

evaded the arguments that were ad.duced bY' the leader of the Opposition in support o£ this amendment, and that while Mr. Speaker's attention was te1.;,porar~ly dis­tracted, he was discussing the man: ques­tion, and replying to argumentc, w,hwh .the leader of the Opposition had adducec agamst the Bill. Every statement adduced by the leader of the Opposition in support of t~e amendment has been proved up to the h1lt by the practical experience of Western Aus-

tralia. The Home Secretary m­[8.30 p.m.] dicated by his speech that he

knows very httle about the ex­periment of State ownership of hotels m \V estern Australia. The hon. genpem!'n said the State would. step in and arb1trar1ly establish hotels, irrespective of whether the people of the district . desired them. or not. That is absolutely agamst the expe.nence of State ownership in \'VTestern Austraha. There the people have the power to decide w!>ether an hotel shall be "'tablished or not, m the same way as they. h~ve in <;Juee_nsland. under the present restnct1ve leg1slatwn WIth re­gard to privately-owned hotels. The Home Secretary also attempt<>d to prove that by means of State ownership the State wovld receive such a revenue from the sa~e of liquor that it would. not relinq~ish t!>e hquor traffic, even if the people des1red 1t. Th~t is not a very sound argument, because 1t might just as logically be contended that, as the State receives some revenue fron: ~he liquor traffic under the present restr.10t1ve system the Home Secretary is not ser.wusl.Y concer~ed about liquor reform. I thmk ~t can be proved that constructive control IS a much bl'tter way ?f . dealin(l' w!th most trade evils than restnct1ve leg1slatwn. We find that restrictive legislation ha~ prov:ed absolut,"lY inefficacious in connectwn w1th trusts, combines, and monopolies. For yea!'S· past anti-trust laws have been passed. m Am~rica, and what has been the result? .In­stead of trusts and combines becommg "·eaker we find that they have become· stronge'r and stronger,. and that ins~ead of the anti-trust laws w1pmg out the evil, they have really perpetuated. it. The same re­mark appli<'s to Australia.

Mr. GRANT: Why do<es Fisher want that power, then ?

Mr. LARCOJYIBE: Just for the very. reason I am giving, that this anti-trust l~grsJatwp has proved. a failure and natwnahsatwn IS necessary. As was pointed ou! by the leader of the Opposition, it is very d:fficult for new members to discuss this question, on acc.ount of the short notice which has been g1ven. It is rather regrettable that the Home Secre­tarv d.id not see fit to follow the example· se(by the Secretary fo,·. Public Works wh!'n moving the second readmg of t~e Industnal Peace Bill, and agree to an adJournment of the debate. The essential difference be~ween State ownership and private owner~h1p of hotels is that under State mvnerslnp, the principal obje~t is socia.l, the welfarE; of. the people· while under Tlnvate ownerclnp, 1t IS profit. ' Under the p1;ofit-making system the intense competition _in the !rade \~ads to manv regrettable evrle, notvnthstano.ang the fact 'that there are many fine men connected with the liquor traffic. I have been asso­ciated with some of them, and I know ~hat they are just as honour::bl? as other sect.Jons of the communib·, but rt 1s. all the same, a regrettable fact 'that t11e 8\·ils of adultera­tion, supplying liquor to drunken men •. and Sunday trading, result from tho pnvatcc

L1quor Bill. £22 Oaromm.J L1quor Bill.

ownershiJ? of hotels. "Under State ownership there Will be no reason for adulteration. There Will be absolutely no motive for the management to adulterate drink. In West­ern Australia it has been pro' ed that the liquor sole!, in State-owned hotels is of a much superior quality to that supplied by pnvatc hotels. Adulteration is robberv of the consumer-it is giving the conJUmer something which is not of the nature and substance demandE>d, and that is robberv. But, in addition to that, we find that :J.chll­teration of drink causes increased lunacv and sene! .. s many men to the asylum. "

;y1r. FoRSYTH: Do you regard the sale of liquor as an evil or not?

Mr. LARCOMBE: I am not going to enter into a discussion as to whether the sale of liquor is an evil or otherwise·. Such a dio­cussion would be outside the amendment and I do not intend to engage in an argu: ment with the han. member for Murrumba any more than with the hen. member for Fitzroy. Then there is the question of Sun­day trading. "Under State ownership you would. not want to have an army of officers waiting outside an hotel, as the Home Secre­tary indicated is necessary, in order to pre­vent Sunday trading.

An HoxouR,BLE ME)IBER: They trade on Sunday in \'\'estern Australia.

Mr. LARCOMBE: They conduct all kinds of sports in mining towns in different parts of Queensland on a Sunday. I am not too sure whether they trae!.e on Sunday in \Vest­ern Australia or not, but it was the practice under private enterprise, to open hotels 0~ Sunday. I question very much whether that is the condition of affairs under State owner­ship. The object of the private owne.rs of hotels is to make profit, but under State ownership there would be no incentive in that direction, so that we should at once eradicate a great evil.

Mr. Do'C'GLAS: The State gets some rev·enue from the liquor trade now.

Mr. LARC0::\1BE: I have already pointed that out, and shown that it is just as logical to argue that the Home Secretary is not sincere in his desire to bring about liquor reform, simp1y because the Government are receiving a little revenue from the traffic at the present time, as it is to say that under State ownership there will be no desire to restrict the number of hotels because of the rewnue derived from them. \Vith regard to the serving of drunken men, it is a regret­table fact that many publicans do serve such men. D'nder State ownership that would not be the case. That has been proved in \Vestern Australia, where they refuse to servo a man who is intoxicated. Again, if the wife or mother of any man who misspends his estate through his drinking habits makes representation to the manager of a State hotel, that man is placed on the prohibited list. As I was saying, if a wife goes to an hotel manager and repre,ents to him that her husband is misspending his estate, that man is placed on the prohibited list. In Queensland and the other States under the prcsont· system the wife has to go through the court if she wishes to get a prohibition order at;ainst her husband. She is exposed to the public gaze of the people there, and there are many women who, rather than submit to such degrading publicity, refuse to apply for prohibition orders against thei1· husbands at all. \Ve know in connection ·with

State ownership, for instance, in conn~ction with the ownership of railways, that 1t h~s been an absolute success. \Ve know that m Victoria the anti-Labour Government there have gone in for State ownership in con­nection with a coalmine, and it has proved profitable and succe.isful in every way. The object of the State hotel in \Vestern Australia is not financial, as the Home Secretary attempted to prove, but socml, and they are doing a large amount of fOOd work there. The Home Secretary quoted from a report, but I do not know really from whom that came. His renort attempted to prove that State ownershrp was an absolute failure. I would like to read the opinion of the· Anglican Bishop o£ Porth on this question. He says-

:, I am glad that the Government propose to establish State hotels where there are to be anv new ones. I have for thirty years achocated these ideas, and I ain glad at least to see Western Australia taking a lead in this direction."

That is the opinion of the Bishop of Perth, who had thirty years' experience as a temperance advocate, and who be)ieves in State ownership in \V estern Australia. That is a great endorsement of the system of State ownership as suggested by the Labour party. We also find that _in vyester~ A,us­tralia out of forty-two hcensmg d1strwts thirty-two decided, at a recent referendum, in favour of State ownership. It may be. reasonablv assumed therefore that a great majority "of the people of.Western Australia are perfectly satisfied with the system of State ownership when they vote m such overwhelming numbers in favour of it. One· of the advantages of State ownership in \Y estern Australia is excellent accommoda­tion. The State hotels there have splendid accommodation, they are electrically lighted throughout, and there is e\-ery cpmfort and evcrv convenience that a traveller or a lodger could desire.

Mr. MoRGAN: Don't you find the same in some of the private hotels?

Mr. LARCOMBE: You do find it in some of the private hotels, but you certainly do not find it in all of them, and, as a gener~l principlE', the hotels under State ownersh1p come to the front easilv in that respect. I would like to give a· comparison of the­moneys raised in 1909-10 and other years from "the State hotel in Gwalia. This proves the utter fallaciousnees of the Home Secre­tary's argument that in \V estern. Australia the Government there are attemptmg to run the State hoteb simply as a revenue-produc­ing concern. We find that in 1909-10 the revenue received fron1 vvines, beers, etc., amounted to £9,028 lOs.. and in 1911-12 the amount received from the same source was £8,130 ls. lOd., so you see the revenue re­ceived from wines and beers in 1911-12 was much less than in 1909-10. That shows clearly that the Government there are not attempt­ing to push the sales of grog in order ~o make monev. It is interesting to know m connection 'with accommodation that the amount received from this source in 1909-10 at the State hotel, Gwalia, was £1,397 lOs. lOd.. and in 1911-12 the amount was £947 8s. 6d. That showed a great amount of n1oncv y, as received from accommodation, and 'shows conclusiveh that the Govern­ment of \Vestern Australia go in for provid· ing for the comfort and convenience of too: people rather than to make money out of the sale of liquor.

llf r. Larcombe. J.

U900 Lzquor Bzll. [ASSEMBLY.] Liquor Bill.

Mr. MoRGAN: Can you give the total pro­fits?

Mr. LARCOMBE : Yes; the profits at the ·State Hotel at Gw.alia were as follows:-

To 30th June, 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912

£ s. d. 588 16 4 589 17 1

2,547 7 10 3,002 8 1 3,000 14 2 2,467 12 0 2,355 15 6 1,687 12 . 2 1,715 18 11

Total £17,956 2 1 'The total capital outlay on the hotel to 30th .,June, 1911, is-

Premises at cost Furniture at cost GJ,assware, crockery, etc. Live stock Stock on hand

Total

£ s. d. 7,969 5 10 1,543 2 2

280 13 0 15 0 0

590 19 4

£10,399 0 4 The profits to date were nearly double the capital outlay. The profit of the dwelling-up hotel w.as .£1,244 lOs. lOci. In twelve months' time the profits from that hotel will wipe out the whole of the capital cost.

The HOME SECRETARY: It is a profitable business for the State.

Mr. LARCOMBE: That money comes from accommodation. The Government pro­vide suitable accommouation such as the Salvation Ar,ny people prO\·ide at the differ­ent palaces ·at Queensland and the other States. It does not come from the sale of liquor at all. Whether you look at it fronct a financial or a social shndpoint, the State hotel in \V estern Australia has been an abl'o­Iute success. To prove conclusively that th·e contention of the Home Secretary is wrong-, we find that the \Ycstern Australian Govern­ment arc spending the profits from the hotel in the estnblishment of free libraries. They .tre catering for the intellectual improvement

.of the people out of the profits they get from the State hotels, and the money does not go into the con,.o]idated revenue for ordinary purposes,

The HOME SECRETARY: They won't be in­clined to r0strict the number Seeing they are utilising the profits.

Mr. LARCOMBE: They are not attempt­ing to increase the number. All thev are attempting to do is to establish a State-hotel in any particulnr part of the State where the people in that part of the district desire it. That i_s the on!:;· way of dealing with the traffic until you have a chance of absolutely abolishing it. To my mind it ~>ill be a long time before you can do that. The only sound and rational way of doing that is through State ownership. You will never do it on the lines that the Home Secretary Ruggests in this Bill. I have giYen a little information as to what is taking- place in. Western Australia, and I would like to in­dicate to l11embers what is being done in. other parts of the world in connedion with State ownership or semi-State ownership. The following is taken from the " Encyclo­pedia Brittanica," eleventh edition. unde~­the heading of "Liquor Laws":-

"The company system (the Gothen­burg syst<'m in Sweden and ::\Torway) had in 1910 more than h,llf a century's trial. It has gone through some vicissi-

,[.Lif r. La.rcmnhe.

tudes and has been subjected to much criticism which was balanced by at least as much' eulogy. It had held its own i_n Sweden, where 101 towns had adop_ted It in 1906. In Norway at the same trme It was in force in thirty-two towns. The comp·any management has had the fol­lowing effects :-It _ h;as greatly_ reduced the number of spirrt bars; rmprov.,(ld their character and conduct; added eat­ing rooms where good, cheap meals are served ; stopped drinking on credit and by persons under eighteen ypo,rs of age; and shortened the hours of sale."

Semi-State ownership, or something on the lines of State ownership, has been an abso­lute succ.-ss after half a century's trial, in Sweden and Norway, and h":s eradica~ed many of the evils that existed m connec~10n with the traffic. Taking these f~cts 11:1to consideration, and taking into consideratiOn the wonderful impr?vement tha:t S_tate owner­ship has effected m the traffic m Western Australia, I say members may be reasonably urged to supp01:t the amendmen~ .so ably moved by the leader of the OppositiOn.

Mr. MORGAN (Mu1·illa): In connection with the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition, I would like to kno-,y if we would be in order in dealing with the general question. If I rel!'ember rightly, a similar amendment to this was moved on the second reading of the Bill la~t yea.r, and you, Sir, allowed a general discussiOn to take place on the amendment. If that w<;re allowed, I feel sure we would get on With the business much quicker. It appeaJ:s to me that we are thrashing a dead horse. A similar amendment to this was moved last year-certainly the House was ':'ot _then con­stituted exactly the same as It IS at the present time, but this is a matter that t~e Labour narty has endeavoured to have drs­cussed time after time in this House. So far as going to the country on this particular measure is concerned, the leader of the Opposition claimed that 99,000 peC!ple voted in favour of the Labour party, srmply be­cause they had the nationalisation of the drink traffic on their platform.

Mr. COYNE: He said nothing of the sort.

Mr. MORGAN: He mentioned the fact that 99 000 neople voted for the Labour party, becaus~ they had this pa:ticular plank on their platform, and he mferred . that 99,000 people were in favour of the na~IOnal­isation of the ddnk traffic. That IS not correct. If this matter were referred to the people of Queensland, he would find that at least seventy-five per cent .. of them would. be against the nationalisation of the drmk traffic. We know that the temperance party of Queensland consists of people of all political opinions, and we also know that the temperance narty of gue':nsland ~oes not approve of the nationahsatron of drmk. We know also that one of the planks of the LR,hour pa.rty is the nationali_s":ti.on of d.rink with a view to total prohrb1t10n. If the revenue raised through the sale of intoxicat­ing drink were handed over to .t~e. State for charitable purposes, then prohibitiOn would be a thing of the past. We h~ve an oppo_r­tunity of prohibitir,.g the drmk traffic m Australia so long as the people generally ~re not getting any revenue. fro~ th!3 drmk traffic. While the money IS gomg r~to the pockets of individuals and monopolies, .. we have more Iikelihqod of the people nsmg

Liquar Bill. [22 OcToBER.} Ltquor B~ll.

up and protesting against that monopoly and protesting against private individual~ getting wealthy by means of the drink traffic. Those who believe in total pro­hibition, and who do not want anything to do with the money obtai?ed from drink, naturally enough are not m favour of the State controlling the drink traffic in any shape or form. I contend that the people of QuHnsland have a right to say whether total prohibition should be brought about or not. This is one of the weak points of the Bill-that the people, m;til a certain number of yf)ars have elapsed, cannot have a vote on total prohibition. So far as the amend­ment is concerned, I think it is only so much waste of time. It would be just as fair, and just as correct, for the Govern­ment to say that the people of Queensland, who sent them here with an overwhelming majority, as they did at the last general election-that those people sent them here because thev bPlieved in the Bill the Govern­ment were· going to bring forward. The people of Queensland, during the last elec­tion, never had an opportunity of voting on the drink question in any shape or form.

Mr. RYAN: You are contradicting the Home Secretary.

Mr. MORGAN: I do not care whether I am contradicting the Home Secretary or anyone else. I .say we w, 'nt to the country l:lst time on a definite promise from the Premier that the Bill was going to be introduced practically in the same form as it left the Chamber last year, and I am pleased to say that the Premier has kept his promise.

The SPEAKER: Order ! The hon. mem­ber must keep to the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition.

Mr. MORGAN: I do not wish to trans­gress, but in discussing this matter, I wish to deal with this particular question. We have had figures quoted to us to-night which go to show that the State hotels in Western Australia have proved a success. I am not going on the figures prepared by inter"'ested persons, because we all know that figures can be made to prove anything. We have had figures prepared by a certain source to show that the State hotels of We,tern Austra­lia -~ro a success, and we have had the Home Secretary reading quotations and figures which go to show that the State hotels in ·western Australia have not been a success. I like to be guided by people who have had experience of these particu­lar hotels, and I have spoken to people from Western Australia. I also have rela­tions in "Western _iustralia, from whom I have received letters in connection with this particular matter, and the general opinion is that the hotels in Western Aus­tralia under State control are not con­ducted any better than the best hotels run by private individuals. This is borne out, generally speaking, by people who go to \V<'etern A'lstro1ia fro:n othc- parts of Aus­tralia, and who have an opportunity of judging. There is no doubt that when a manager is put into an hotel-whether he is put in to manage it by the f?tate or by an individual-he is put there to co his best and make it pay, and that is exactly what is being done in Western Australia. I admit that if we had full control of the liqncn· traffic there woukl not be the same inclination on the part of the State to serve adulterated liquor, or serve after hours, or on Sundays-that is, if the people do not

desire to drink on Sunday. If the people of Queensland or of any other State desire to have drink on Sunday, then the State will have to provide that drink. I. certainly think it would be a very great mistake for the State to have complete control of the manufacture and sale of liquor. We have now inebriate homes kept up by the St";te, in order to cure men and women who drmk to excess. And if the amendment were car· ried the State on the one hand would be serving men and women with drink, which is practically ruining them, body and soul, and on the other hand, would provide an inebriate home in order to cure them, so that they could come back again ::nd drink more intoxicating liquor. ~hat IS • exac.tly what it would mean. There IS no mistakmg the view I hold in connection with the liquor

traffic or in connection with this [9 p.m.] Bill. 'I look upon it as a non-

party question, and.' if I believed in the nationalisation of the hquor trade, I would as soon vote with the Opposition party as with the Government. We have no right to allow party feeling to influence us in the matter. I am here to say what I think is right on this question, to vat~ as I think right and just, and my constituents will be able to say whether they approve of my action or not .. Tha~ is the stand. I took during the last discussiOn on the Bill, and it is the stand I intend to take now. We find that the present leader of the . Opposi· tion and some other members of his party are divided on many points in connection with this question.

Mr. HuNTER: \Ve are not divided on this motion.

Mr. ::VIORGAN: No. They are not divided on this amendment· and WB are not divided on that particular question. The (_)pposition have a plank in their platform. with regard to the nationalisation of thE> hquor trade: the nartv sitting behind thA Government arR absoluteiy opposed to the principle of nationalisation; and, so far as th.e. ":men~­ment is concerned, when the diviSion rs called, the' que'ltion will be deci~ed from . a partv standpoint. I feel certam that m dealing with th<e Bill there will be some membprs on this side voting against the Government on some matters, and some mem-

, 0ers on the other side will perhaps be found voting with the GovE>rnment on some oc.ca­sions. That is as it should bE> when dcalmg with a Bill of this sort. \Vhen W<' get on to thP Bill ite,elf. I shall point out what I con· sicJ.,.r '>l'e its weak poii1te.: and in Committee I shall trv to make the measure as perfect as possible. ·

Mr. ADAMSON (RQckha npton): Mv views on this matter nr<> well known. as 'r expressed them full.- when I spoke on the amendment moved last year. I want n10m· hers on both sides to remember that the plank in the Labour party' platform reads in this wav: " The i:ltate manufacture, control, sale and distribution of intoxicating liquors, with a view to total prohibition." ~he v!ew I take of the matter is that the natwnahsa­tion of the drink traffic iR preferable to the present system. I belim-e it would be a great deal better for th" traffic to be under th<> control of the State than in the hands of private enterprise. As far as our railways are concerned, we have a great deal more say in their management than we v<:ould have if they were in the hands of private enterprise ; and, if the drink traffic were

Mr. Adamson.]

:1902 L1quor Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Li7uor Biil.

nationalised, Parliament would seek to so regulate it that, instead of it being the great <Jvil it is to-day, the evil would be mini­misBd. And while nationalisation is not the ultimate goal of temperance reformers-so far as I am concerned I am a prohibitionist -it is better than the present system. Every argnment used by the Home Secretary against the nationalisation, State manufacture, con­trol, and distribution of drink, can be used against the pre,ent syst.•m, and can be used with far greater force. He spoke about State vested interests being worse than private vested intel·ests. I do not believe that is true. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Keppel quote the figures which he took from the debates of the \Veqtern Australian Parliament. I saw some of them in the New South W ale•. TF orker. As to ho>' far national­isation m· municipalisation has been a success, I have read what has taken place in Russia, South f'arolina, Sweden and Norway, and other countries ; and I have read of the ex­periments in Roumania, and I bdiew• the Roumanians "·ill perhaps teach us a lesson as far as this matter is concerned. "While I believe that State control has not been proved a failure, or a complete success, it has never been tried under circumstances which would help it to be a complete suc­cess. As to Russia, with their 16w state of intelligence in many respects, and the Russian system, it seems to me that those who speak about it have not road about the Russian system. Personally, I am of opinion that to eliminate private gain is a very desirable thing. I think the State is more likely to be interested in the welfare of its citizens than private men and women are. What is the thing which members of this party particularly stand against? It is ,selfishness, which is ingrained in private individuals, which is the result of competi­tion, where men are seeking to get as much .as they can out of other people, and give as little as they can in return. Under 'State control there is more likelihood of the right thing being done in regard to the liquor traffic for the welfare of the people. With State control, people can have pure liquor instead of adulterated liquor. The Home Secretary told us of the drastic penal­ties provided in the Bill against adultera­tion. I want to say that if the State had the making of the liquor, and the sale of the liquor, they would. see that the liquor was pure. There would be no real motive for adulteration. Everybody who has been in the West knows the kind of drink given to the men out there. I remember being in Longreach one Sunday, and a man was thrown out of one of the hotels. He died, I was told, as a result of the bad liquor he got there. I was told further that a number of men had died from a similar cause in a comparatively short length of time. Every­body knows that it is going on all over the State, even in the'•e centres of population. And I hold that whatever will tend to give men pure liquor is desirabl-e and preferable to putting a premium on adulteration, which comes always through men seeking to get gain from their fellows. \Vhy are we seek­ing to protect the people against iJUpure foods? Just because those who want to make money are prepared to give them food which will injure them in order to make more money. If we can have this in the hands of the State, the State is more likely to seek to attend to the health of its peopk than to allow adulterated liquor to be given

-to its people. One of the particular things [Mr. Adamson.

I ho vc .learned in relation to municipalisa­tion is that whatn-er profits are made out oi 1nunicipalised concerns are USf'd for the welfare of the community. As the han. member for Keppel had pointed out, what­ever profits have been made from these State hotels in \Vostern Australia are used for public libraries-to provide books . for the people. 'l'he hon. member further pomted out that if the wife of a man goes to the manager of one of these hotels and informs him that her hw;band is getting more drin!< than he should, that man's name is placed m the hst, and he is not allowed to get any more drink. Are there any hotels under private enterprise where that is done? Perhaps there are, n,nd I have known some n1en who have refused to serve drunken men, and I honour them for it. They are, however, few and far bdween.

?\Ir. \VELSBY: They are more than you irragine.

21lr. ADAMSON: If the hon. member for :\Ierthvr can convince me of it-and I am willing: to accept his word-I shall be very pleased. There are men who are, decent a:n~

' hom'Dt in the trade, men wlth blg and kma, hearts, but I say the trade does no:t tend to make men.

The HOME SECRETARY : And yet you want to make the trade a State concern for ever.

Mr. AD.A:iHSON: I believe in it bei!'-g. a State concern, so tha_t there may be ehml!'-­ated from it the prmClple of pnvate gam and greed-so that there ~nay be the least motive possible for the makmg of adulterat<;d liauo'· and the interest of the State Will be" th,~ health of the people. .At ~he present time all kinds of pains !lnd penaltws have to be inflicted on certam members of the trade to keep them straight, and yet we know th3 thing continues to go on. ~f there are profits to gain in this particular Ill~ustry by the State, then it would be a d~sirable thing that those profits be sper:t m pro­viding p.arks for the people, musiC for the peopl"e., statuary for the people, and 9ther things that have a refinmg a!"d h<;althy ;nflu­erce. I am told that that lS usmg tamte_d money. As far as the St,at_e i~ c<.mcerned, lf it cannot eliminate an evll, lt IS very de­sirable that it should use the devil t"' fight the devil, and try to bring out of evil some­thing that is good.

Th!' Hmm SECRETARY: Do evil that good may come.

1\Ir. AD.AMSO:.J: I know all about _th~t quotation, and I know, too, h_ow easy .It lS for the hon. member who Is now m~el'­jecting to do political evil in order to ~nng about some politic.al good, . a.s he thmks. One knows in relatwn to pohtics how often expediency has to take the place of h1gh principle, and ho.w often we have to com­r;romise when we would rather not com­ptomise. Wh:,- do I tal~e the stand. tha~ I do now" Because I beheve that natwnahsa­iion i" prefcnblo to _the pr-es.mt sy~tcm. I believe ,t is a, st<'P 111 the rl~·ht dl!'ectwn,; that "half " loaf is rctter tl;an no bl:eacl. I beliPV'l ,t i~ a step further m the socialism that I believe jn.

An Hm:oliRABLE ?\IEMBER: And towcrcls prohibition.

::IIr. ADA::\ISON: Ye~. and a step in the directimc of prohibition. The Han. the Minister quote-d the Alliance New~, _but he did not read out to us some resomhons of the T~"nper ,,,-e Alliance. iJ?- relation to liquox reform, that appeared m the same

Liquor Bill. [22 OcTOBER.] Liquor Bill. 1903

paper. He, too, told us nothing about the paper read a.bout scientific temperancn, and nothing of the speech of Dr. Merrmgton and Rev. G. E. Rowe at the Temperance Alliance conference. I hold that the han. member, while he is opposing nationalisation, is up­holdin,s a sy·,tem which is ten times-a thousand times-worse than nationalisa­tion. If he believes in total prohibition as the goal of temperan, E· reform-and he could not possibly believe in it more e:trnestly that I do-then he would .<.ee no mcon­sistency in my attitude on the subject of the nationalisation of the liquor trade. I .do not hold that nationalih~tion is the be-a]] and the end-all of temperar:ce reform, as I do not hold that a shilling a day more wages, ur an hour a day lr's work is the be-all and -end-all of unionism. I am of this party because it stands for certain ideals, and if it dicl not, I would leav3 it, and I would leave politics. But because I believe that we stand for the principle of co-operation, for the principle of socialism, for the prin­ciple of mutual aid, as being better than the principle of competition and private enterprise, I support it. I believe the bottom of our platform has a better base than that of the han. member's. It is for those reaso'!s that I stand here, and I will help to bring about nationalisation if possible, for I believe it would be a stepping­stone towards the ideal I looJr forward to, wl:ich is total prohibition, which, too, is in harmony with the platform I believe in. I Bhall support this amendment because it is ·in harmony with the best things in tem­perance rdorm, and because it tends to­wards the prohibition which the Temperance Alliance are advocating, and whose resolu­tions the han. member did not quote when he quoted from the Alli:znce Yews of a few weeks ago. I have great pleaoure in supporting- the amendment of the leader of the Opposition, and I hope it will be carried. Of course, it is futile, because they have the ·big battalions o,ver there, and • there are some people who still believe that God is ·on the side of the big battalions. I have got to believe that God is on the side of the two or three sometimes. While I do no;t believe the amendment will be carried, I think it is right for us to stand to our policy, and to make our protest.

Mr. VOWLES (Dalby) : I listened with very great interest to the speeches of han. members opposite, particularly the last speech of the k:tder of the Opposition. Per­sonally, I have not so far heen convinced. in any way on the practical side of the amendment. It is all very well to talk in theory of other countries, and give figures, but we are here to deal with our own affairs as if we were dvaling with a business, and the first thing in dealing with a business IS to look at the pounds, shillings, and pence side. If we have not the money to national­ise the liquor trade of Queensland, there is only one other way of getting hold of the traffic from private enterprise, anCL that is by confisc·~ttion, so I have come to the con­dusion that my friends opposite, who do not believe in borrowing, and wish to na­tionalise the liquor trade, which will run into millions of money, must approve of con­fiscation.

Mr. HARDACRE: We have never said we believed in confiscation.

Mr. VOWLES : How are you going to do -it without money unless you confiscate?

Mr. COYNE: How a.re they going to do it in IV estern Australia?

Mr. VOWLES: I am talking of how we can do it here. Han. members opposite have a platform which they ask us to s;vallo.w, and support an amendment to natronahse the traffic, which they know >nll cost so many millions of money, and . the~ do not know where the money IS commg from. If vou show me that I will consic.er whether I cnn •upport the ~mendment, but until they put the matter in a practical form, ~ am not going to entertain it. \V e are simply having the same claptrap which we. had on the last occa,ion when the Liquor Bill c~me before the House-we had a lot of tnne wasted on futile amendments. The last speaker said he did not believe the ame_nd­ment would be carried-then why waste time upon it? Han. member~ simply wish to have their speeches recorded m Hansarrl, so as to let their electors ~ee that they a;te_mpt to carry out the varwus planks of tnmr plat­form in regard to socialism. If any han. member opposite can show me the practwal side of the amendment, I am prepared to listen to it, but ther·e is not one speech m which anybody has attempted to show where the practical side lies.

Mr. COYNE: It appears to me that t~e han. member who has resumed his seat IS obsessed with one particular difficulty in re­gard to this amenC.ment-that is, as to ~hei:e the compensation is to come from which IS to be provided for those persons . who . are dispossessed of their right to sell mtoxica~­ing liquor. Under our present. Act, there IS a provision for taking away hcenses, under certain conditions. I might say that, under the provision we have here,. we s-ive a time compensation, but if you natwnahse the tr;;f­fic there will be nothing to p:event ~s giv­ing them the same compensatiOn as I~ pro­vided for by the Bill itself. If that IS the real difficulty that the han. ~ember for Dalby is up against, it can be easily ~emoved. If, what I have pointeCL out to him as a fact will satisfy him, he will support the amend­ment· and if he does not support the amend­ment 'because of that he will not support the Bill because the Bill provides the same thin'o-. It has been logically argued by the lead~r of the Opposition and o~her han. members on this side that there IS les.s de­sire for adulteration 'of intoxicating lrqu~r if the trade is nationalised than there IS when it is in the hand.s of private p_erson_s. We have not heard of any complaints m Western Australia, the State which the Ho~e Secretary is very ;;pt to. quote adversely _If he can in connectwn with State hotels m that State. We have not heard of ';ny co!"­plaints of the people heing supphed With adulterated liquor-we have not heard of any convictions against any of the manag!"r!' of these hotels. I take it we would admmi_ster the law as honestly in this State, and If a manager adulterated the liquor he would ~ punished in the same way as any other public servant who disobeyed the law would be punished. Wf' can accept ~t, then, as a. fact that there is no adulteratiOn of the liquor in that State. The Han. the Home Secre­tary made a boast abo:rt the. provisions ~on­tained in this Bill dealmg With adulteratiOn. I have looked up the principal Act and the 1855 Act, neither of which has b~en repE!aieCL, and I finCL there the same drastr'? proy-Isi~ms against the adulterat!on ?f :ntoXIcatmg liquor as is contained Ill this Brll.

The HoME SECRETARY : That is not so .. JJ[r. Coyne.]

1904 Liq~wr Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Liquor Bill.

. Mr. COYNE : Th~ only thing in this Bill different from that IS that there is a better opportunity given to th·:• inspectors to pounce upon persons whom they may suspect to have adulterated liquor. Under nationalisation of the traffic, as proposed bv the amendment there would be no inducement to adulterat~ liquor. The manager simply gets his salary and no more, for C.~ispensing liquor witlu~ certain limits to persons who mav require it and pay for it. I understand both from members of the West Australian Legislature as well as reading about the matter, that the chief function of the State hotels in \Vestern Australia is not to supply liquor at all, but to provide accommodation in places where it is badly needed. They have done that with profit to the State and satisfac­tion t? the community. The Home Secretary .a while ago tned to make the House be­lieve that nationalisation of the traffic would. tend to increase the number of hotels be­cause of the profit that the State would make from those hotels.

The Hmm SECRETARY: That would be in­evitable.

JY[r. COYNE: That is the hon. gentleman's way of reasoning this out. Mine is the op­poFite; my opinion is that the tendency would be to reduce the number of hotels.

The HOME SECRETARY: The experience in those countries which have undertaken it is that it increases the number.

Mr. COYNE: The tendency in Western Australia is not so.

The Hmm SECRETARY: They are increas­ing the number.

Mr. COYNE: Exactly, but it is a new country, and being opened up every day. The population is increasing, and the need for more hotels is becoming greater every day. It is not the same as an old-eotablished country, like Non\ay or Sweden, where the limit of population has been reached. It must of necessity follow in Western Aus­tralia that they are going to increase the number of State accommodation houses that are required for the increasing population of the State. My opinion is that there would be a reduction of licenses in the more populous centres if nationalisation of the traffic was brought about, for the reason that there would be no inducement for the State to conc1uct six or seven hotels where two would suffice. \Vhy could not the State put

up two or three places in [9.30 p.m.] Brisbane, 6r whatever number

was required, the size of the People's Palace belonging to the Salvation Army, and have a place to supply liquor if 1t was requi~ed, for the time being, until the people smd that they no longer required it? If v.ce nationalise the liquor traffic we ~hall do away with vested interests, and we shall do away with the incentive to people to vote against their own interests.

The HOME SECRETARY: \Vhere do vou prc,pose to locate thB breweries anc!. distil­leries?

Mr. COYNE : We propose, under this amendment, to manufacture the liquor our­selves, and to import such liquors as it ma:v be necessary to import. It will be necessary to. import some, because people require cer­tam wines and whiskies which are not made in the State. But the hon. gentleman is trying to side track the issue b:v asking where we propose to locate the breweries and. distilleries, and I am not disposed to bs led away from my argument. I may, how-

[M~. Coyne.

ever, say that if the State took over Perkins'E· Brewery, that would be a nice investment for the State.

The HOME SECRETARY: Yes, if they con­fiscated it.

Mr. COYNE: Where does confiscation come in under this amendment? The only confiscation is in the Bill. not in the amend­ment. This party do not stand for confisca­tion. If any party stands for confiscation, it is the party on the opposite side of the House.

The HOME SECRETARY : You propose to compensate them?

Mr. COYNE: We propose to deal with this thing in our own way when we are called upon to dc:al with it, and I am not disposed to allow the hon. gentleman to draw me off the kack at the present time. Where there is such competition as there is to-day among the proprietors of breweries and the importers of wines and spirits, it must follow that in order to find an outlet for their wares they must use every influence they possess to· increase the number of retail shops. One brewery may have a monopoly, or the bulk of the trade in a certain town. Then another brewery, in order to find an outlet for ih; · products, prompts people to ask for an hotel license at some other place, so that they may obtain new customers for their products. That is only natural under a system of private competition. But competition of that kind would not enter into the matter if the· State had control of the drink traffic, and imported its own liquor. Moreover, except where there was a sudden abnormal increase of population, there would be no increase· in the number of hotels. The tendencY would be to reduce the number until we- got it down to the exact number requi1·ed to pro­vide accommodation and suppl:v drink to the public. Under present conditions, the ten­dency is to increase the number of hotels. I am not one of those who favour at any time a partial reduction in the number of· lic0nsed premise,,, because I think that "auld give an unfair monopoly to those who are loft, and I do not think it would l<lssen the quantity of drink consumed. I believe that, under the proposition of the lead.er of the Opposition, therB would be no incentive to make men drunk, or to adulterate liquor, as there is to-day, and that is where the curse of the traffic comes in. With State control of the traffic, thew would be no selling of c1rink on Sundays or dur­ing prohibited hours, and we should not require an armv of police to watch hotels on Sunda:; s. That would not be necessary, because the manager would have the place securely locked up, and would be enjoying his holiday on Sundays just the same as other people. During prohibited hours we coulc1• not go to the hotel bar, and no one could get a drink there an:v more than he could transact business at the Home Secre­tary's office after closing hours. I do not wish to tranegress bv going off this par­ticular amendment. but I shall have a good deal to sav in replv to the Home Secretary when we get to the main question.

Mr. GUNN (Cm·narvon): Just a word or two before this matter goes through. I, for one, do not wish to be connected with the liquor traffic in any way. There are a great number of people m Queensland who do not wish to own any public-houses or to have a share in any hotels. There are many tem­perance people who think that grog is an evil, and, whether that is so or not, they

Liquor Bill. (22 0CT03ER.] Liquor BZ:U. l9G5

do not wish to have anv share m any hotels or in tho liquor traffic." VV-hy, then, snould you compel these people to have a share in the business ?

Mr. BET'TRAM: If nationalisation will n1inimiso the evil, why not accept it?

Mr. GUNN: I do not think nationalisntion of the liquor traffic would minimise the evil. f~n;r sn:lCe . I have been in the 1--Iouse, this natwnahsahon cry has been brought forward on ~overy possible occasion. It reminds m" of :•n . old sheep dog we had when I wa; u,"nagmg my father's station. It was a verv i-Helhgent dog at one ti1ne, but aftfr a whil~ it becante one of those dogs which alwavs stop a~ ho~e and never do anything. 1£ ~he child erred the dog would chase the pig· If the parson came to the house it would chase thP pig; if the flees were bad it would chase the pig-(laughter)-if the cocks fought it would chase the pig; no matter what happened it went and chased the pi!'. (Renewed laughter.) So it is with this nationalisation cry. No matter what the subject is the cry is "Nationalise! Na­tionalise!" Hero is a liquor Bill and the cry is "Nationalise the liquor tr~ffic." If the birth-rate is falling off, the crv is "Get Mr. Fisher to nationalise the children." (Laughter.) If the mining industry is get­ting into disrepute, and the ores are re­fractory, the cry is "Nationalise the ores." (Ren~wed I_augh_ter.) I am really getting tired ?f this natwnahsatwn cry. If nationalisation IS ~uch. a. wonder. a~ J:on. members opposite olarm It Is, and If It IS such a paying game as they contend it is, why do not the Trades Hall do as the Salvation Army people have done-nationalise some building of that kind and see if there is such a good re>enue to b~ oLtainod from it? While the Liberal partv are in power it is quite futile to talk nationalisation as members opposite are doing. When the people of Queensland think fit to put the Opposition in power, then it may be time to talk hationali>'ation; but at present I '"ay the sooner we get to business ancl. deal with this Bill the better:

Mr. McCORMACK: I, have listened with a good de~Jol of interest to the arguments ad­vanced for and against the amendment. The hon. member who has just sat down said it is unfair to ask people 'who are against hav­ing anything to do with the liquor traffic even though they are in the minority, t~ have anything to do with the nationalisation of the traffic. We have a considerable num­ber of people in Queensland, and a con­siderable number of members on the Go­vernment side of the House, who believe in the private ownership of railways, and yet they have to put up with the nationalisation of railways, because the majority of people believe in that policy. The same applies to the liquor laws. If the people of Queens­land think that nationalisation will be a good thing, I hold that they should have an opportunity of having a say upon the mat­ter, and then we would once and for all settle the question of nationalisation. The hon. member for Dalby brought forward the question of compensation for the people en­gaged in this industry. I hold that the same reform that applies to compensation for private railways can be adopted in this measure. When the Government takes over a private railway, they pay for the railway according to its value, and the same thing can be done in connection with the liquor trade. The Government would not pay for any goodwill in connection with any private

1912-6A

railway they took over, nor would they pay for any future profit the sellers might expect from that railway. If the people of Queens­land desired to nationalise the liquor traffic, they coLtld nrtainly get the money and buy the properties. They certainly would not pay compensation for any goodwill. It is ridi­culous to pay compensation for goodwill in regard to any industry. If we pay the people who put money into a hotel for the value of the hotel, we would be doing far less in the way of confiscation than the Home Secretary proposes in this Bill. The arguments used by the temperance people against nationalisation are almost on a par with the arguments used by the advocates of reform in connection with betting and gambling. We find the reformers and the bookmakers on the same side against the totalisator. The people may honestly believe that they are advocating reforms in gambling, but they always join forces with the bookmaker against the totalisatm:. Members agree with nationalisation so far ad the totalisator is concerned, and I say that it is identical with the nationalisa­tion of the liquor traffic. We often find temperance reformers on the same side as the vestec1, interests in the liquor trade in connection with certain proposals on which the people are asked to vote, say, for the increase of the number of hotels. These temperance reformers may be honest in their intentions all the same. In New Zealand there has been a good deal of legislation in connection with prohibition, and it has not been very successful. Why, therefore, should we not give nationalisation a trial in Quensland? Most other reforms have been given a trial. They have been given a fair trial in America. If we give nationalisation of the liquor traffic a trial in Queensland, and it fails, we are no worse off than we are now. We are told that it would be a good thing for the State, and that the State would hang on to it. The State means the people of the State, and if the people of the State do not wish to hang on to it, nothing can make them do ~o. If the I?eople do not desire reform, we will not get 1t. If the neople do not desire any reform under the present Bill, then we will not get it. No matter how many Bills are introduced, if the people do not desire any reform, they will not have them. If the people of Que<',-s­land think it is a bad thing to increase the State hotels, once they are established, then they can do without them and tax the;n­selves in other ways. The people are qmte able to abolish the hotels themselves under nationalisation, just as they >;re when tJ:e hotels are in urivate hands. as IS proposed m this Bill. In. the State of South Carolina, in America, they have a monopoly of the liquor traffic and we find that the drunken­ness has de~reased considerably, and that arrests for disorderly conduct and drunken­ness have decreased by about 10 to 20 per cent. during the last e~ght or n!ne :yea':s. If nationalisation was given a fair tr1al m Queensl~nd we would find that in a few years we w'ould have a better system for the control of drink. Several members used the State hotel in Western Australia as an example of nationalisation, but that is not natior,aJi,ation at all. The \',",,tern Aus­tralian Government entered the arena there i~ a business way. They are the owners of State hotels, and they compete with private owners. It is not nationalisation, but a

Mr . .ill cG ornutck.]

19)6 Liquor Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] L;q_;wr Bill.

business. propositi~n, just the same as any other kmd of busmess. It is open to any­~me to ru_n hotels in opposition to the State, 1f they w1sh to do so. There is no doubt that evenmally the ]Wivate owners will be ex­cluded from the industry altogether and they will all fall into the hande. of the' State and become a State monopoly. In that way the VI-estern Australian Government w1ll solve the problem which the hon. mem­ber for Dalby had asked information upon. The han. member for Keppel pointed out that, so far as the receipts fm· drink vvere concerned, there was a decrease of about 5 or 6 per cent. at the State hotel at Gwalia but m regard. to the accommodation and food, there was a profit of about 25 per cent. DVer that of a few years before.

Mr. DoUGLAS : Where did he get his figu~es from?

Mr. McCORMACK : He got them from the Governn:'ent reports and from the figures quoted m the debates in the \Vestern Aus­tralian Assembly, whe~1 the State Hotels Biil was being introduced. You can get them in the librarv. We find in Wf'st­ern ~\ustralia also that the vr·,ted in­terests are running with the temperance re­formers. Does anyone believe that the Upper. House of Western Australia, which represents vested interests, objects to the scheme of the Legislative Assembly of that State on the grounds that it will increase the consumption of drink. We know that all the Upper Houses of Australia are com­posed of vested interests. Do they desire to see less liquor sold? Not at all. It is im­possible to have any genuine liquor refol'ln unless there is less drink sold, and if there is less drink sold, then every brewing com­pany in Australia will have less dividends to pay. That is why they are opposed to nationalisation, as they know that the people will not drink so much. Most of the mem­bers of this House who oppose nationalisa­tion, oppose it on the ground of vested in­terests, and not" on the ground of reform a,t all.

::Ylr. WELSBY (."'vferthyr): I am inclined to think that this question of the nationalisa­tion of the liquor traffic is one of those Utopian dreams that members opposite are so fond of talking about. The plank of their party reads like this: "The State manu­facture, importation, and s·ale of intoxicat­ing liquor, with the view of ultimate prohi­bition." Those are the exact words, but when the member for Rockhamnton was .speaking I think he used another \Vord -after "importation." I might be wrong. Has it ever o~curred to any n1en1ber of this !louse more particularly to the leader of the Op ~ position and his colleagues, what it would cost to bring that Utopian idea about"? V\·hen speaking last Pm·liament, I stakd that the number of hoto:s in Queenscand runs into 1, 700, and to buv these liotels outc I venture to "tate, woucd cost between £3,000.000 and £4,000,000. and if the Oppc5·i­tion go furt.hcr. and p:o in for the manufac­ture of intoxicating liquor, they would havB to find double that amount itself for that; very thing. The 1ner•.:' idf':t of t ::;king ove:i:" the hotels of QueenRland. not bv conficc:ation but to take over the hotels to bring a bon i nationalism, will never be brough1 about b:y any Parliament in Queensland. Then take the matt.e>r of importation. Th" amo{mt of grog that is br::m:rht into Queensland i:s

·enormous. The Government, to take that;

[Mr. M cC or mack.

over, would have to have different agents, and if thev went in for the manufacture of liquor, the amount of machinery to be broug:lt a..;1·oss tho seas ·would be enorn1ou~. V\-he1·e \Voulu they find the money? The hen. 111en1bor for ltockhalLpton spoKe al~,_.ut tllt connnunity, a.nd he a~'-'} s1Joke about thl' honest ho,~,:-ket pers in Queensland. I am quit0 s:.u..:. as one c:o~elv c--'"'"~ncctcd ·with the tra-de, o: which I am not ashamed, that there are rr· .1:nv hotel-ke~~~, :r-= in Brisbane 1-Yho, th2m "c-lv~-:, rarely i ike intoxicating liquors, and I can aFsure the hen. member that rhe san1e an1ount -of '-·harity prevails among·st th-ose selling grog at the pretsent time as would be the case if it was carried out by the State. I say there is no better chance of robbery in connection with any business in any part of Queensland than in the mana;.;e­ment of hotels. If the hotels were taken over by the Government, the owners would have to receive payment for what w:10 known a.c, the goodwill, and the State voould have to appoint manager" and those n1auage-rs 1vould be, in so::1w cases, the 11re~Pnt 1nanagc rs. If you .appointe-d a. manager at £500 or £600 a 0ear, the very men who were the keepers of hot-els would, in many cases, be the very first peroon' to turn round and rob their own ·emp:oyers. The more question of the raihvays be:onging to the Government is not on all-fours with the Government hk­ing ovn the hotels. There is no >tnalogy, and if the Opposition think the:, ace going to bring this about no"\v, they are makrng a. huge mrstake. The fi1··t three things, manu­facture, importation, and distribution, with a view to ultimate prohibition-they have a colossal task before them, more than even Hercules himself could perform. I hold that the great majority of electors of Queens].and -I feel the member for Dalby was sincere when he said that the great majority of the electors of Queensland would never for one moment be desirous of being shareholders in a company where money was received that might be called tainted. I quite under­stand the remark of the han. mPmher for Rockh<tmpton that the strength behind the pres<>nt Government is quite sufficient to de­fceat the amendment when it goes to a divi­sion, and I ean quite see th:1t th<ey are try­ing to carry out the planks of their platform, and I do not blame them for doing so, but it seems to me that the electors ·are against such a thing being carried out.

Mr. P AYKE (Jfitchell) : I think the hon. member who moved the amendment g·ave some logical reasons why the drink traffic. should be nationalised if the people of Queensland are in e.nnest in trying to get riel of tho evil. I have sat here nearly all night and I have hc,ard the opponents of this amendment repeatedly say it is not possible to nationalise the drink kaffic. I am ready to admit that it is a big question, and that it \vill requiro a gn-':lt a1nount of n1oney, but we have hJd m<>mbers on the Government side rep+>atedl:v say that it is the best paying inductry in the State. They havP repeatP.1ly s.Jid that m!lrly every man ·engaged in the indm try is growing \vealthy. If that is the case, the Government should have no hesita­tion in bo1.~rowinp: 1nony for the purpose. I have h<>ard it said thcot the Labour party are opposed to }~Jrrov{ing money, hut l-Ye all know that that is not correct. The Labour narty <tre not opposed to borrowing money for reproductive works.

The HmiE SE~RET-\RY: In New South Wales they are indulging in a wild orgy of it.

Liquor BiU, [22 OCTOBER.] Liquor Bill, 1907

Mr. P A Y)JE : I am speaking of Queens­Jane! and in favour of the amendment. I .have also heard it said that there are num­bm·-, of people in Queensland who are that delioatB or feminine that they would not touch this question if the State took it on. We all know that the State of QuPensland for all time has b1> n dra-wing a very large proportion of it.-:; rcvonuv either dirrctlv or indirectly from the drink traffic. \Vhen we nad control of the Customs v-·e know verv well that the duty on liquor "as the bigge;t .item in the Custorns collections, and ·we know that we are getting revenue indiredly -every <.1a;;, fron1 the drink traffic. I h'lve also he.·rd it said that it i not nossible to run State hotels in Quce,,land as well as they are run by private inJividuals or com­panies. You cou' ~' say the -orne thing al•out the railways. \Vhile theN' may be a. differ­<ence, I am satisfied that there is a consider­able amount of money handled in connec­tion with the railways, and the State has to trust different officers with that monev. The leader of the Opposition pointed out very logically that under State control there would be leos inducement for inferior liquor ·to be sold. He al-," pointed out that there would be no encouragement to sell drink on Sunda:s or during prohibitBd hours, and no -encouragement to adulterate liquor. If

hotels cannot be run under State [10 p.m.] control, I do not think anything

can be run under State control. •One of the greatest obstacles in the way of liquor reform is the great amount of monev Bunk in the industry; and it is only natural that the people who have monev inv<O>sted in -the industry 'should object to any legislation that would r<'''trict them in their business. 'If you only pick out one area in Queensland, then the Government could borrow enough money for the purchase of every hotel in ·that areg, on the understanding that thev would, be run by the StatB till the State go't 'back the money with inter,est, and that then they would be liable to be closed. This nlank has been in the Labour party's plat­form for over twenty ye·ars: and -at the last gener<1l election the Labour party secured over 90,000 votes. That shows that over 90,000 people were in favour of the Labour partv's platform in reference to the drink traffic. I have never been a teetotaller; and 1: have never indulged too much in liquor; but I say that the only way to deal honest] v with the liquor h-affic is to vote for its tota"l <Lbolition. The principal feature of the Bill is contained in the local option cJ.auses.

The SPEAKER : Order ·r The han. mein. her must confine himself to the amendment.

Mr. PAYNE: I claim that the nationalisa­tion of the drink traffic is preferable to the sy:;tem of shutting up a few hotels in a ·district-a system which leads to monopoly and the sale of bad drink. It would be better to allow the trade to remain as it is than to adopt such piecemeal leg-islation -as is contained in the Bill.

~ir. WINSTANLEY: I may say that I never had any doubts as to the wisdom of State control of the liquor traffic; but if I ·had any doubts. after lic,tf·ning to the hon. member for Dalbv and the hon. member for Jl.lerthyr, those doubts would have been dis­·pelled, and I would be prepared to support nat.ionalisation. The HomB Secretarv quoted the arguments of the Temperance 'Alliance -against State control. The Temperance .Alliance are also opposed to some of the prin-

ciple.< of the Bill ; but the han. gentleman, though willing to accept their arguments and statements against State control, is not pre­pared to accept their arguments and state­ment~ in regard to other matters. The han. member only quoted them as far as it would suit his purpose. The Temperance Alliance are strong advocab''' of the people hav­ing the right to say whether they will have the drink traffic in their district or whether it should be banished; but they are dead against the people having tho right to say whether there should be State control of the liquor traffic or not. If it is right for the people themselves to be i.Lllow<'d to say whether the number of hotels should be reduced, or whether there should be prohibi· tion, then it is just as equitable for them to be allowed to say whether they are in favour of State controi or noL It is repeatedly stated that if the State were to take control, instead of it being minimised, the reverse would be the c.1se; and Russia has been re­fen·ed to as an examnle. But the express purpose for which Russia to?k over ~~e manufacture of a particular kmd of spirit was in order to get revenue ; and the Go· vernment, offered ever<: facility for people to make use of that part'icular kind of spirit in preference to other kinds of drink. In that they succeeded; and they get a large revenue from that spirit at tho present time. Those who read on the subject know that in othei places where there has been a kind of com­panv control, like the Gothenberg system, whe-re thev do not control the whole of the liquor traffic, but dc·al with sp!rits, and try to curb that part of the traffic, they have succeeded in reducing it to a large e~tent, while they do not interfere, and practically have had nothing whateyer to do with drink of other kinds. Then it must be admitted that the greater facilities the>re are for get· ting drink the more will _be consu~ed .. If any argument is needed m that dn·ectwn, one need only quote the experienoo of coun­tries where there are no license fees, where the excise is not very high, and where they can practically sell drink wholesale. Those arP the countries where drink is con­sumed in the largest quantities. Wh~re there are difficulties in the shape of high license fee,; or close monopoly, and the restrictions 'are severe, there is less drink consumBd. My own opinioJ?- in c_onnection with this is that if the incentiVe whwh at the present time exists for prin;te g~in, and the facilities which are provided m BYery town in Queensland, and other places than towns were taken awav, I am confident there' would be a "'reat deal less drink con­sumed than there" is at the present time. ·where hotels close earlv in the evening, it has been shown that there is a reduction in the amount of drink consumed, which shows that immediatelv the facilities ar,·\ curtailed there is a reduct'ion in the consumption. The argument has been used about . the. State being a participator in a traffic whwh IS char­acterised as an. iniquitous tra,ffic, yet sur~ly there is no denying the fact ~nat we partiCI­pate in it, even at the pr~sent time. ThB ~tate Government regulates It and controls It by license and the Federal Government by excise 'and tries to keep it within reasonable bounds. \Ve derive a considerable amount of revenue, and it is only a question of degree as to whether we draw little or much -there is no qm "tion of principle. ·So that the community can by no means regard itself as clear of the traffic which exists at the

JJ/1·. Winstanley.]

1908 Liquor Bill. [AS SEMEL Y.] L1qu:;r Bill.

present time. The Home Secretary seemed to have an idea that the Tr.-asurer would be overwhelmed with the revenue that would come in from this traffic, but ther~ are dif­ferent ways in which this revenue could be used. One reason why hotels are frequented a~ tJ:e pr~sent time, particularly in country distncts, Is bc0ause there was not the facilitv for recreation that there is in Brisbane and other large cities, and the hotel is the onlv place wh~re men can go. It is practicall:\­the trystmg place, and there are no other opportunities for men putting in their time. The revenue which would be derived from this source would be used in other direc­tions. Men would cease from going to the hotels. Some men would go under any cir­cumstances, but if other facilities were pro­vided a good many would not go to the hotels. The be;t temperance reformer in my opinion, has poinkd out that what r~allv ought to be done is not to have this monev put into revenue and used for other purpose;;, but to provide means for counteracting the drinking customs of the country. The hon. member for Merthyr ceemed to rega,·d the thing as too gigantic to be coped with, and he instancxl it as a Herculean task. But he seemed to forget that Hercules accom­plished his task, although it was a difficult one. I am sanguine enough to think that either by State control or by some other means the time will come when this drink traffic will be dealt with, and, if not pro­hibited altogether, curtailed within narrower limits. As people get better educated, and have higher ideals, they will have the good sense to see that it is not beneficial to drink as they do now. One of the most clinching arguments that could possibly be used was that of the hon. member for Merthyr, where he instanced a number of people who were in the business, and who never touched it, which goes to show that they know what the result of having anything to do with it will be. In connection with the question of confiscation and compensation, the Home SecretarY, when introducing this Bill last session, laid it down that publicans had no legal claim whatever to compensation.

The SPEAKER: Order! Mr. WINSTANLEY: 'I'hat may be out­

side the scope of the amendment, but it has been an argument that has been used against nationalisation-that the Government could not find the money to take over the drink traffic; ancl yet we find in the pro­po_sals _before the Houso at the present time It IS gomg to be curtailed, and an opportunity is going to be given to reduce it bv one quar­ter, one-half o.r three-quarters, as the case may be, and there is going- to be no such thing as compensatio:n. \Vhy it should be neces­sary to introduce it, as against the argu­ment for State control, is not easy to see. 'l'he proposal of the Government' g-oes to show that they do not think that any so,urid argument can be used against compensa­tion. Then. as to the kind of stuff which will be sold. It is well known that people get drunk on what may be regarded as pure liquor. ~"-s to some of the stuff sold at a great many places in Queensland at present, it is not fit for human consumption. Those who are determined to have it should cer­tainly not be poisoned by bad liquor. It has been point-ed out, in oonnectio:n with the char.acteJ; of the hotels, that even under existing conditions, and under private enter­prise, some hotels exist for the express pur­pose of retailing liquor, and others not

[Mr. Winstanley.

merely for that, but for the purpo.se of pr<J-· viding exceptionally good accommodation. :\ly contention is, that under State control th<:se placc;s wou:cl be what they are really intended to be-house~ of accommo.dation, and not merely places for the sale of drink. It appears to me that the arguments which hr.ve been used against the nationalisation of the drink traffic can be used with a great deal more force against things as they exist at the present time. When one re­members that, ac8ording to the amend­ment, and according to our platforrn, Stab3 centro! is only a means to an end, and not an end in itself, it makeo the thing entirely different. If the State controiled the traffic so far as the people demanded, so far would it be possible for the Government to curtail thesD places. Under existing conditions, the Government have practically little or nothing to do with it. The licensing bench and· the trade decide. It seems to me 'a fair and reasonable thing to say that the people sLall have an opportunity of expressing an opinio'l on this question. I know there are some temperance pe Jple who are dead against it, but there are others who are not tem­perance people who are strong advocates of it. While I do not think the last general election, or any other e!Gction that has taken place, has shown in any shape or form what their opinions are in this connection, I think it would be a fair and just thing t'J give the pcDple an opportunity of expr-es,ing their opini<In. \Vhat I have to say further on the subject I shall reserve until the amendment is disposed of, and we are dealing with the principles of the Bill. Having listened to the ai·guments of the Hom.e _Secretary and other me;nb• rs who are opposed to the amendment-and, no doubt, honestly and ccnscientiously oppo.sed to it-I say the argu­rr.ents against State control are not con­vincing. lt would be a good thing, in the interest of the people, and in the interest of the State, to place the liquor traffic under State control. Even assuming that there w.as no reduction in the number of hotels under State ownership-and I am confident that there would be a considerable reduction-! still think that State control is the best course to adopt with regard to the liquor traffic. Assuming that as much drink was consumed by the people as is consumed now--

The SPEAKER: Order ! The han. mem­ber has stated that argument fo.ur times al­ready. (Laughter.) He is now dealing with the queetion of a reduction in the number <?f hotek which does not come under this amendment.

Mr. WINSTANLEY: That is so, and all I wish to acl.d is that, even if hotels remain as th<cy are at the pr<'3ent time, the. only differenc,, will be that the revenue whrch at present goes into the pockets of private per: sons will go into the coffers of the State, and that would not be worse, but rather better, than the existing conditions of affairs.

Mr. HARDACRE: This is .a very import­ant amendment. It really expresses the vital difference between the policy of this party and the policy of the Government. The one policy propo·<,es to continue the existing system, and the other proposes to grapple boldly with that system. Although the amendment may be a very extreme way of trying to solve the liquor problem and the many-sided evils connected with it, still, it has at least the merit of courage. Some· members have said that_ it is not possibl&

Liquo1· Bill. [22 OCTOBER.] Liquor Bill. 1909

<to accomplish a solution of the problem but I _hold that if t)le people are really .deter­mme<1 ~m adoptmg this particular method for solvmg the problem, they will accomplish it. The problem is a deep one and cer­

. t~inly the proposal in the. Bill is ;,ot a prac­trca~le way of solvmg rt. It will merely

· c<;n:tmue .it. As far as the local option pro­'VI~IOns ;are concerned, it is certain that they ·-wrll rrot solve the problem.

. Th<;l SPEAKER: Qrder! The whole ques­:twn IS not under revrew at the present time, ;and I cannot allow the hon. member to ·~vander over the whole question-he must ·deal now with the question of the national­isation of the liquor traffic. That is the only question before the House.

_Mr. HAR_DACRE: I was just showing the drfference between the proposal in the amendment and that in the Bill.

The SPEAKER : Order ! The hon. mem­iber will not be in order in doing so. There is a speuific question before the House. On the proposition, "That the Bill be now read .a second time," an amendment has been moved to omit all the words after the word "be," with the view of inserting "with­·drawn for the purpose of recasting so as to provrde for tho State manufacture impor­tation, and sale of intoxicating liq~or." I ask the hon. member, and I can only allow him, to deal with that question.

Mr. HARDACRE : Is not the amend­ment-~

The SPEAKER : Orc1.er ! Th0 han. mem­ber may not discuss the question with me. I have qtated the lines within which he must confine his remarks, and I must ask hirn to keep within those lines.

Mr. HARDACRE : Yes. I was tr-ying to ·show that this amendment is at l~ast work­able, and that the proposal in the Bill is not so practicable, so tha.t the m11endrnent should be p;·eferred to the proposal con­tained in the Bill.

The SPEAKER : The han. member did .not convey that 1neaning to me.

Mr. IIARD"\CRE: That is the position I ''as trying to reach. I contend that this is an eminently practicable amendment, and. that it has at least the merit of courage. Look at this problem in whichever way you like, there are difficulties connected with it .and it seems to me that every proposal yet made to df::d with it, either in the Bill or by the temperance people by way of pro­hibition, has proved a failure. In whatever ·country you look, whether in New Zealand Dr America, the methods adopted have failed. 'Therefore,_ we :;.re drive'! to an heroic way Df grapplmg wrth the <1rfficult:y. The mere fa.ct that there are difficulties m the way is not an insuperable argument against any pa.rticular method that may be proposed for solving the problem. \0\~e have to try to ·de::t! with the problem in some way, or ehe not solve it a.t all. I submit that the amend­ment offers a reaqonable way of meeting the difficulty. It has been said th<tt if the liquor traffic <vas nationalised the drink evils woul-d continue. As long as the system continues undonbtedlv there will be some evils con:, nected with' it, but I nntenc'. that there would be fewer evils under State management than there are no·w under private management because big Vt--'sted interest-,, nc"\v thvyart tl~~ expression of public opinion on the subject, and influence people to vote against their own interests. On the other hand, if the bu~incss was owned by the State, those out­side ve,ted interests would not prevent the

people doing what they wish to do with their own. It has been well said that a ship can cond.uct its voyage in the route the captain desires to go when the anchor is taken on board better than if the anchor is dragged in the water. So I say that, if we take the liquor traffic on board the ship of State, we can conduct our navigation in the way WP want to do much better than we could if out,ide influences were dragging against the way the people want to go. It is said that we should not have so much control over it when it is run by the State, but I contend that we should. have much more control over

it. We have more control over [10.30 p.m.] our railways to-day than we

would have if thev were owned by a private company or syndicate. We have more control over many other things belonging to. the State, and! so it would be with the drink traffic. When it is controlled and managed by the State we shall have much more control over it than we have und.er a sy,tem of private management. Then, so far as the jncentive of profit is concerned, it is true that the State Treasurer will desire to gd revenue, but there will no.t be the sa.me extreme incentive for profit under the State management as now exists with private management. There is an old argument about State nationaJi,,ation-that the State is not .,.o keen in getting the best aut of an industry ~s a priva.te individual would be when it is in private hands. ThD same thing would come: in when the liquor traffic is no&nac;ed by the State. E'~ryone will ad­mit that there will b._: much mo,re chance of getting shortflr houLs, and much more cha.nse of doing away with inferior kinds of liquor, and many other evils 'muld be aholi,hed. With reo·a.rd to the possibility of taking over the trade, it j., ~aid to be a c·olossal task, from a financial point of view. But. lookin.<c intD hi,tory, we know that Great Britain had to deal with the question of p.]averv in the \Yest Indies, and they spent the' sum of £20.000,000 to get rid of that ueat evil. If ;he drink traffic of Queen;land is such a grPat Pvil, it is vvo.rth r:· ising a lur~,{ e su1n of rnoney to get rid of it. 'vY.e might dc•al· with it in a simpler wa.y. It is not a difficultv that has to be faced to-morrow. or to be solved to-morrow, but it is a difficnltv that will have to be faced feu· years to come. The difficulty of taking over the liquor traffic might be met by taking oyer a few hotels at first, and using the profits from those hotels to gradually extend ihe D!'in~iple of State ownership of h<:.tels. In tirat wav the whole traffic could bn taken over, and 'managed in the interests of the pe«ple, with the view ultimately, at their own loss, of doing away with the State hotels altogether, and abolishing the sale of intoxicants altogether.

The HO)'[E SECRETARY: \7\That utter -drivel! Mr. HARDACRE: At least, it is an alter­

native about which there is some hope, whereas neither proposal in the Bill or any­where else is a reasonable sGlution what­ever. \Yith these few remarks, I do not intend to detain the House any lon.ger. I sl•all vote for the amendment.

Mr. HUN'fEiR (11£aranoa): I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

Question put and passed. The resumption of the debate was made an

Order of t.he Day for to-morrow. The House adjourned at twenty-five

minutes ¥> 11 o'clook. JJlr. Hunter.]