Legislative Assembly Hansard 191818-12 [ASSE'-\IBLY.] Personal E~'planat: ?11.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
THt;RSDAY, 29 .\c:Gusr, 1918
The SPEAKER (Hon. W. ::\IcCormack, Cairns) took the chair <J.t half-past 3 o'clock.
QUESTIO::\S.
1Ir. CARTER (Port Curti.J) asked the Home Secretary-
" 1. Is the place called the ' Hai'pice,' Lytton road, in any way subsidised by the G'uvernment?
" 2. If so, to what amount l " 3. How manv females are housed
there? • "4. \Vhat are the conditions govermng
the admission of inmates to the ' Hos­ pice'?
" 5. Are the sam8 conditions impooed with regard to th'"ir old age or invalid pensions as are made in the case of inmate~ at Dunwich ?"
The HOME SECRETARY (Hon. J. Huxham, Bura,nda) replied­
" 1. Yes. " 2. £150 per annum. " 3. Seventeen inmates, a housekeeper,
and an attendant. " 4. 'rhe approval of Mrs. \Vienholt,
who is devoting her life and private means to the extent of upwards of £5,000 in order to promote the welfare and happiness of the inmates.
"5. No."
Mr. ROBERTS (East Toozcoomba) asked the Home Secrotarv-
" 1. \Vhat w~s the amount of expendi­ ture incurred for upkeep of Brisbane General Hospital last financial year?
"2. \Vhr.t amount of this was paid by GovernmPnt?
" 3. \Vhat is the total amount paid by the Stt.te since this i1ostitution was taken over by Government'!
" 4. \Vhat was the cost per patient per day last financial year?"
The H0~1E SECRl1TARY replied- " 1. Home Department, £33,041 17s.
2d.; Works Department, £983 1s. 1d. Total, £34,024 18s. 3d.
" 2. Home Department, £25.-\02 16s. 6d. ; ·works Department, £983 15. ld. Total, £26,385 17s. 7 cl
"3. To end of 1917-18-Home De­ partment, £44.288 Os. 2d. ; \Yorks De­ partment, £1,166 6s. 3d. Total, £45,454 6s. 5d.
" 4. Gross, 6s. 5. 68d. ; net, 5s. 0. 24d."
APPOINT:ME"T OF :\lR. AUSTIX THEODORE.
:Mr. BEBJfi::'\GTOX (Drayton) asked the Treasurer-
" 1. Under whos'i' Ministerial authoritv was Mr. Austin Theodore appointe'd \Vorkers' Accommodation Inspector at
Cairns, and upon what date was he appointP:l'
"2. \Vhat experience has :\Ir. Theo-­ .dore had which fits him for such an appointment?"
The 'fREAS"C"RER renlied- ,, 1. The appointr:1ent was made on
6th June last, on probation for six months. upon the recommendation of the head of the depilrtment and the Public Sen-ice Board.
" 2. T:tc appointee is a returned wounded ;,oldier with " permanent in­ jury. B:fore th0 reco•TIITPmdation was m~de, the Chief Inspector of \Vorkers' Accommothtion satisfied i·,imself as to the qualifications and fitness of the candidate for the position."
GOYERX}!EXT ME)1BERS : Hear, he~~· !
SALE OF :MOcXT HUTTOX CATTLE. Mr. CORSER (Burnett), in the absence of
Mr. Vowles, asked the Secretary for Public Lands-
" 1. Have the whole of the Mount Hutton cattle agreed to be sold by the Government to J. :Morrissev and Sons been delivered? '
"2. If not, have any cattle other than Mount Hutton cattle been delivered, or agreed to be delivered, to the said purchasers in lieu thereof?
"3. Has any sum of money been paid or agreed to be paid to J. Morrissey and Sons by the Government as damages, or in any other respect in connection with the short deliwry of these st-ock?
"4. If so, what sum has been so paid? " 5. \Vhat' amount of damageo'l was
claimed by J. Morrissey and SoRs in respect of short cleliyery, or in any other respect?"
The SECRETARY FOR FCBLIC LANDS (Hon. J. H. Coyne, Warrcgo) replied-
" 1. Xo. "2. See answer to Ko. 1. ".3. Ko. "4. See anstver to Ko 3. "5. Nil."
PERSONAL EXPLA:NATIOX.
Mr. FRY (Eurilwtl: I crave the indul­ gPnce of the House while I make a personal explanation.
The SPE~\KER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member for Kurilpa be ~llowed to make a personal explanation?
Hoxm::RABLE 1'1Eo!BI:RS: Hear, hear! Mr. FRY: I thank the House for giving
me this opportunity. It affects a :otatement made last night which is a reflection on my­ self, and I have found it necessary to go further afield to get the information to supply to this House. What took place last night has got abroad, and I think it only just and proper that I submit this evidence to the House-
" AUSTRALIAX :MILITARY FORCES, " 1st Military District.
" Headquarters, "Brisbane, 29th August, 1918.
" Major J. P. Fry,- " 1. In reply to representations made
by you to District Headquarters conc.ern­ ing inquiries made int{) irregularities
[29 AB"GuST.] Supp:y. 1843
alleged to baye been committed by cer­ tain persons at Rabaul-
" I was Assistant Adjutant-General, 2nd ::Vlilitary District, and remember the inquiries referred to.
" I am pleased to say that you are not tlv~ Captain Fry referred to in those inquiries.
" Your militarv record is a clean one, as shown by department records,. and your appointment as temporary Bngade Major, 2nd Brigade Area, ~:m your. re­ turn from service abroad Is, I thmk, additional proof.
"A. P. LUSCmlfBE, Lieut.-Col., "A.A.G., 1st Military District."
0PPOSITIOX l\lEo!BERS : Hear, hear ! :Mr. RIORDAX: He did not say your mili­
·tary record was not good.
PRINTING OF COUNCIL'S A::VIE~W­ MENTS IN BILLS.
Mr. MACAR'r::\EY (Toowong): I desire to refer to a matter connected with the privileges of the members of the House. I ·refer to the new system which is to be established of dealing with amendments of another Chamber in Bills forwarded from .this Chamber. I have received the first list of amendments under the new practice, and it seems to me that the sy,tem will oo use considerublo inconvenience to membeu of this House and it is also calculated to create confusion. I believe that if the system is followed, not only will it create the difficul­ .ties I have referred to, but in all probability it ma.y lead to serious mistakes.
The SPEAKER : The system is already in operation in other Parliaments.
Mr. MACARTNEY: That is so. In mak­ ing this statement, I am aware that a mem­ ber of another place, as President, has taken part in the arrangement, hut that Cham­ ber is not affected by it because the legisla­ tion in the other Chamber is not handled in the sume way as it is here. It is a matt-er particularly affecting this Chamber, and I think it only right to call attention to it, and I trust that on reconsideration the practice .that has worked so well hitherto may be reYerted to.
The SPEAKER : I might explain to the hon. gentleman that last night, in his .absence, I made a statement to the House that the innoyation has been tried because it saves a considera.ble amount of expense in printing and paper.
The TREAS1:RER: Hear, hear l The SPEAKER: I notice that in the Com­
monwealth Parliament and also in the New South \Vales Parliament a similar system is adoptGd. I suggestud bst evening that it be given a trial on one Bill and said that, if it ·were found unsatisfactory and u'1work­ able, of course we would re\·ert to the old system. I suggest to tho House that they giYe the system a trial on one Bill, and if it is unworkable then we can reYert to the old system. I might mention that the old s0 ,tem means the printing of 250 extra Bills -not amendments-and 150 for the Legisla­ tive Council ; but, even so, if it is found unworkable the hon. member may rest as­ sured that the old system will be reverted to,
Mr. MACARTNEY: One mistake might cost more than the lot.
The TREASURER: We will look after that.
LOCAL \YORKS LOAXS ACTS .\l\1E~D­ ::1<IEXT BILL.
IxiTB.nox. On the motion of the TREASGRER, it
was formallv resoh·ed- ·' That the House will, at its next sit­
ting, resolye itself into a Committee of the whole to consider of the desirableness of introducing a Bill to amend the law with respect to the rate of iut-erest on future loam< bv the Treasurer to local bodie5, and to· provide that the amount of any instalment of repayment on ac­ count of any existing or future loan shall bear interest if not paid at its due date."
I::\F ANT LIFE PROTEC'riON ACT A:.VIENDMENT BILL.
IxrTtATIO :-;. On the motion of the HOME SECRE­
TARY (Hon. J. Huxham, Buranda), it was formally resolved-
" That the House will, at its next sit­ ting, resolve itself into a Committee of the whole to consider of the desirableness of introducing a Bill to transfer the powers and duties of. the Commissioner­ of Police under the Infant Life Protec­ tion Act of 1905 to the Director, State Children Department."
SUPPLY. FINAXOIAL STATEMENT-RESUMPTION OF DEBATE.
(Jfr. Bertram, lffaree, in the chai1·.)
Question-That there be granted £300 for aide-dei-camp to His Excellency the Go­ vernor-stated.
Mr. POLLOCK (Gregory): Judging by the nature of the criticism which has been offered on the Financial Statement so far, I think the Government can congratulate them,,eh·e' upon the weakness of the case that has been . presented by members of the Opposition. I do not intend to fteal gener­ allv with matters of finance. What I par­ tic;Jlarlv want to deal with is the attitude of the LiwislatiYe Council towards certain legislatign which ha-, been in~tiated by this House and passed through this Chamber .
Before .doing that, I want to say that to mE' it seems a very regrettable thing that this debate and the Address in Reply debate, and manv othec· opportunities which are gin'n members in this House to talk, have been taken advantage of by c<;r~ain returned soldier members of the Oppos1t10n to yell at members of this party: " Go to the front !" and incidentally in eYery way to try and make political capital out of the fact that they haYe been at the front, or sm;newhere thereabouts. whilst members of this party have not been. Kow, I haYe not been to the front and I do not think that I am going. I 'am in no way thin-skinned or sen"i­ th-e about the matter. My reaso':ls are my own and I think thev are suffiCient. The law; of this country give me the right to please myself ~11 the matter, and that I _am going to contmue to do. But I do obJect to ex-swachbucklers coming into this Cham­ ber with, metaphorically, spurs 6 inche'l lon"' on them, tearing up the carpets and telling member', of this party they have to go to the front. I object to their coming in here and telling us that we must form fours or words to that effect. I refuse to form' fours, or do anything else, at the ~om: mand of these three returned soLd1ersL
. Mr.Pollock.]
1844 Supply. [ASSEl\fBL Y.] Supply.
because I rea]i,l' that, whilst thos0 gentle­ men mav have held the ranks of major, corporal," and ser;:5eant re· pectively in the Australian Imperial Forces, as le~islators they are merely privates the same as ~nyself.
Mr. CoLLIKS : Hear, hear ! :\lr. POLLOCK: I want that fact recognised
by members on both sides of the House. I hope that that sort of talk will be discontinued in this Chamber, and that men who are sent hr·re bv the people of this State will att_end to the" domestic legislation that is reqmred of them when thev are cent here. If they want to go recrui'ting, the recruiting plat­ form is alwavs open to them for the purpose of securing "recruits; but members of t}1is Chamber I think, are >veil able to decide fo1· them;elves all matters of this sort with­ out being invited to do those things by members of the Opposition. who, after all, are only trying to make political capital out of it. .
I did intend to refer to the atbtude of the Legislative Council iJ? holding up t~e legislation which has . been pas,ed ?Y this House. First of all, It has been said that we did not produce a surplus during the past financial year. Everybody knows that this Government could have produced that surplus had the l.'pper. House allowed the taxation measures of this Government to go throu"h. \Yhen that was not done, it stands to re~son that the Government could not carry out its ]lromi&e or it') intPntion oE bringing in a surplus. To date, ne-..y final_l­ cial Bills haYe been intro·duced whiCh this House have on two occasions pas3ed. I refer to the Income Tax Act Amendment Bill and the Land Tax Act Amendment Bill. This House on t\YO ocr:asion~, has pa~,sed those Bill,, 'and the Li>gislati,,-~ Council has on this occ;csion, I believe, decided to allow those Bills to go through. But the Govern­ ment. in bringing in its Financial State­ ment' for the forthcoming year, laid it down that no surplus could be expected unless the reve;.ue Bills of the GoYernment were allowed t0 go through both Houses of Parli_ament. :Kow, the position to-day is that, while two of our revenue Bills have been allowed to p:o through the r pp er House, one Bill at kast hns been actually J•.ejectcd by the l!ppcr House or ameudccl ~n such a way that its effect Will be lost 111 so far as a survlus is COIWC'rned. I :·efer now to the Land Act Amcnclment Bill-a Bill whiCh was introduced on three occ,sions h? the Government in this Chamber and pa .. sed through this Houw, and on the same number of occasions has been rcj ected by the Up]wr Chamber. ='-iow, that Bill is distinctly a revenue Bill.
11r. HoDGE: A repudiation Bill, you mean. Mr. POLLOCK : P0rhaps I will be able
to throw some more light on that question. That Bill proyides that where an unfair restriction of 50 per cent. is placed on the amount by which the rents of certain pas­ toral holdings may be raised, that clanse ohoulcl be removed, and the Land Court should have the rii;lht to raise that rent to whatever it thinks 'is a fair value, having in mind the other conditions lai·d dom1 by the Act-as every Land Court. of course, must. In my opinion, it will be necessary for this Bill to go through before the Go­ vernment can even hope to bring in any­ thing like a surplus. ::'\ow, the l:pper House again have rejected that measure. They have rejected it on the same ground on
[Mt·. Pollocl;.
which it was oppos0cl in this House by mem­ bers of the Opposition-on the ground that it was repudiation. \'\ell, I havo taken up the stand all alo;1g in this Chamber that it was repudiation, ,-ith the qualification that there is nothing >nong with repudiation of something that is fundamentally unsound and unjust. Any breach of even a verbal agree­ ment, whether or not it affects the les"ec, must necessarily be repudiation. But, any­ how, repudiation is only a word. Repudia­ tion surely is not goinc- to frighten those who are out to deal out justice to all sections of the community ! I again take the stand that not only is this House guilty of that npudiation of an injuFtice, but that the old Liberal party v•ould also have been guilty of that same repudiation had the "Cpper House allowed them to have their wav. In 1905 this proYision protecting the big pas­ toral leases was gTafted into the Bill of 1905; and in 1910, ;,-hen the Land Acts wero being consoliclat0d by the then Minister for Public Lands Dh. Denham), who was Premier in the late Government, he f·ought to wipe out that iniquitous clause. That was not done, not because the Legislath-e Assembly objected-the Legislative Assembly did not object; at least, very few members of it did-but the l!pper House objected, and when the meamrc was again submitted to the Legislative Assembly }hey fell into line with the "Cpper House news, probably on the principle that it was better to get half the Act than no Act at all. ::'\ot only was the Denham Government guilty-if we­ are guilty-of repudiation, !Jut ~hey also were guilty of actually carrymg mto effect a greater repudiation in land matters. I refer now to the Land Act of 1902. Sub­ section (6) of section 18 of that Act proYidecl that-
" Xo resumption shall be made under this ccctio,1 exc0pt upon the recommen­ dation of the comt: and notwithstand­ ing anvthing h<'reinbcfore contained. un­ less irl tha opinion of the court it is ncce.s3ar;v in the public intC'rest 80 to do, no re'·nmptinn shall he recomnYnded bJ· it which will h; Ye the effect of reducing tl~e area of the holding to les;; than 40,000 acre.o."
:\ow, in the Land Ad Consolidation Act of 1910. that pro.-ision "-as not re-enacted­ the provision that holdings could not be decreased to less than an area of 40.000 acres. In other words. it was repealed. The Land Act of 1910, subsection (1) of section 146, states-
" \Vith re pect to pastoral holdings the leases "hereof are gr8nttcl after the commencement of this Act. the rec.ump­ tions following ma.'· be made, that is to say : If the term does not exceed fifteen vears. land not exc(·cding in the aggre­ gate 'one-fourth of the area of the hold­ ing; if the term exceeds fifteen ~·ears, during the first fifteen years land not exceeding in the aggregate one-fourth of the area of the liolding, and during the remainder of the term land not ex­ ceeding in the aggregate one-fourth of the area compri2ed in the holding at the expiration of the fifteenth vear, or, if no land has been so rt>ume'd during the· first fifteen vears, then during the re­ mainder of the term land not exceed­ ing in rho aggregate one-half of the area of the holding."
'You will see that in the 1905 Act provision was made that no holding could have its
Supply. (29 AUGUST.] Supply. 1845
~rea de,•reased to less than 40,000 acres. In the Land. Act of 1910, at any time after the first perwd of fifteen years the depart­ ment, without any reference to the Land Court at all, could decide that one-fourth Df each holding should be resumed. Now, under the old Act, if a man had a hold­ ing of 50.000 acres, only 10,000 acres could be eut off it. Bnt under the present Act, if a man has 40.000 acres, then one-fourth can be cut off, reducing it to 30.000 acres. I am not saying it is unjust. I think it is quite a just and hir thing, in every way. But. ncv<:>rtheless it is repudiation on the old Act of 1905-repudiation of the interests of the squatter. But that is neither here nor there. Mc>mbers of the Opposition do not object to that. I do not object to repudiation.
Mr. HODGE: To tearing up a " scrap of paper."
l\Ir. POLLOCK : The hon. member was in the House at that tin1e. and he did not object.
Mr. HoDGE: I wa' not. The 'l'REASl:RER : Y C'·· he was.
Mr. I'OLLOCK: In 1910 you were m the House.
Mr. HODGE : You said 1905.
Mr. POLLOCK: Xo: in 1910 that pro­ vision was re-enacted. and the hon. member allowed that provision to be repudiated \Yithout raising his voirC' in protest. Xo¥l, this party has nen'r been guilty of repudia­ tion of that Act-not to that extent. It has never been guilty of the repudiation of the intf'rests of the public. After all, th'' repudiation of an unjust claim of a few ]WO]llf' does not, lo me, have any particular significance; so long as the thing is wrong, then I take it it is the logical thing to re­ pudiate it, and make it right. Now, this Land Act. if it did go through the Upper House. would mean that 1,220 pastoral hold­ ings would be affected ; they would pro­ bably havP to pay a very much greater 1·cnt; and the total area of those 1,220 hold­ ings is 209,820 square miles. The number of grazing selections affected >vill be 1.650. and thf' total area of the grazing selections would be 15,288,900 acres. These figures will bear analysing, when we realise that most of the holder, of those big- pastoral lea,.es. because of the protPction the~· enjoy by rE'ason of the fact that the Land Court has not the power to increase their rental beyond 50 per cent. at each reappraisement-. are paying one-third as much as they should be-and would be, if the Land Court had the power to assess their rentals at what it considered to be a fair price. There ar<' 209,820 square miles on which only one­ third rental is being paid. That applies only to pastoral leases. There are grazing selection;;. and grazing selectors who can afford to pay at least 1d. per acre more than they are paying at present, and the actual area affected, of grazing selections, is 15.288,900 acres. Anyone without being excPptionally good at arithmetic can easily arrive at an estimate of ju't how much revenue is being lost to the State because thn rpper House is imisting upon the pro­ tection of those pastoralists and the grazing selectors who can afford to pav more rent.
When the Kidston ·Government, [4 p.m.] of which Mr. Denham was
Minister for Lands. a ttom pted to wipe out this iniquitous clause that the National party now terms repudiation, or, in other words. when the late Liberal party
desired to repudiate as this Labour party has done. the ranke<t injustice that has ev~r existed in Queensland. Mr. Denham had this to say on the matter-
" First of all there is the removal of the rent limit;tion, by which the rent cannot be raised by more than 50 per cent. on reassessment. That. did not appear in the .1?84 Act. It d~d not ap­ pear in the ongmal _\et. to which I ha':e alreadv referred. It first appeared m the amending Act of 1886. It was not re-en<tcted in 1897, and. it was not .re­ enacted in 1902, the Bill under whiCh most of the Crown lessees come; but, oddly enough, it was, re-enacted if! 1905. and per se became mcorporated m the 1884, 1886, and 1902 Acts."
Which, of com:,e. was ret)udiation in itself. Further, he smd-
" 'l'hereforE'. it was not until 1905 that the provision· of 1886 re limit of 50 per cent. on roassessments was re-enacte?. I want hon. members to bear well 111 mind that it did not appear in the 1884 Act, that it was introduced into the 1886 Act in a time of stress when a drought was prevailing."
That was the primary reason for its introduc­ tion. I-Ie goes on to say-
" In the principal Act o~ 18_97 it was not rPincorporated. nor was It mcorpor!'ted in the Act of 1902, which was specially designed as a relief measure ; but, oddly enough. it finds its way once more on the statute-book in 1905."
At that time there was not a big drought. That shows that that provision of the Ac~ was originally introduced to safeguard the ngh_ts of certain landholders when there was. a big drought (·Kisting in Queensland, and It was re-enacted a.t a time when there was not a drought in Queensland. Proba_bly the most prosperous time, as I am remi:'-ded b3" the Minister for Lands. that graziers enJoyed in Queensland was in 1905. Mr. Denham went on to say-
" The tenure >Yas lengthened from fif­ teen to twenty-one years, with a re::ssess­ ment every St'V!.'n year<', an.d It was If! ~he 1886 Act that the extraordma.ry pronswn_ a.ppears in which the rent for the new period shall not exceed that of the pre­ cedino· period by more than .50 per cent. That "'is the position in wh1ch we find the tenures from 1869 till 1886. I wou_Jd further sav that that 50 per cent. restnc­ tion is an ... unnecessary restriction.,
He was " Hear heared" by the membe~s. on the then Government benches. I!l givmg reasons at that time as to why this 50 P?r cent. limit should be ra.ised and the big pastoralists compelled to pay by the. court as much as any other landholder, which, of course, they have a right to do, Mr. Denham said-
" The Barcaldine pastoral lease had been reassessed at £2 14s. 6d. a square mile. Quite recently I was urged to resume that holding. and I asked the shire council, which is composed. o! men experienced in all matters pertammg to pastoral pursuits, what ~·ent could be obtained if resumed, havmg regard to the improvements. and the reply came- 5~d. per acre. That wou.ld amount. to £14 13s. 4d. per square mile, as agamst rent of £2 14s. 6d. now paid by the lesSf'<'S of Barcaldine Downs, and,
Mr. Pollock.]
1846 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Sup]Jly.
allowing that 50 per cent. limitation re­ mains in force, under that increase of SO per cent. it means that the maximum rent on their holding after the next reassess­ ment \vould be £4 1s. 9d., and yet we are told by pructical men it is worth £14 13,. 4d."
The reasons given by }Ir. Denham were, perhaps, the strongest reasons that could have been given. Th0y are the reasons that are now given by thi'l party for the reintro­ duction of that Bill, and they are the reasono that I am going to deal with later on in an argument as to whv we should endeavour to deal with a bo.dy which is blocking this legislation. ::'\ow, Yl:r. Gunn, the hon. member for Carnarvon, who was then sitting behind :Hr. Donham, said-
" This provi~ion will onlv refer to the grazing farmer·'· Those inen took up their. farms on the distinct understand­ ing, or if they did not do so at the time they afterwards understood when the Act was amended, that their rents would not be raised more than 50 per cent. at any time of reappraisement. This Bill proposes to do away with that condition. That is a dangerous proposal not that it will make any difference to' the lessees, but that it savours of repudiation."
You will see, therefore, that the hon. member for Cai·narvon was only against it because it 2avoured of repudiation.
Mr. CORSER: That is \Yhv he i' against it to-day. ~
Mr. POLLOCK: I will tell you directly why he is against it now. He went on to say-
" I do not remember anv case in which a grazing farmer or past'oral lessee has had his rent increased by SO per cent. It really does not matter twopence whether this r~rovision is in the Bill or not, except that It savours of repudiation."
l\Ir. CoRSER : He says the same to-clay.
1\~r. ~OLLOCK: That needs a little expla­ nation m new of later events. In 1910 he said it ~i<;J not n:atter twopence whether that pronsion was m the Bill or whether it was out of it. \Yhv? Because on his own admission he d_id n;t know of any pastoral less,?es c;r grazmg farmers whose rents had b~en raised up to the SO per cent. limit. \\hen the pastoral lessee or grazing farmer ~vas not made to pay up to a SO per cent. Increase at ea.ch reappraisement it was not necessary to strike that provision out of the Bill. He onlv objected to it because it savoured of repudiation.
Mr. CoRSER : There is a different Govern-. ment to-clay.
Mr. POLLOCK : There is nothing in that argument. The Land Court is an impartial body. The reason 'vhy the hon. member f?r .Carn!"rvon voted against this SO per cent. hmit bemg aboli~he~l is simply because to­ day the rents are bcmg raised above 50 per cent. because the pastora.lists during the past few )~ears have made such stupendous pr?fits, which have been quoted so often in this House that it is not necessary for me to repeat them, that they. are able to pay not only the 59 per cent. mcrease. but a great deal more m many cases. The Land Court in the Hughencl~n and \Yinton districts has recommended mcreases of 200 tc 300 pe.v cent.
[Mr. Pollor.k
on the rents that they are at present paying. That is why it matters now, although it did not matter at that time. The hon. membe1· for Carnarvon at that time did not object except to the principle of repudiation.
::\lr. Gl'XX: That is the reason I object now. It is repudiation all along the line.
Mr. POLLOCK: Onlv because it is repu­ diation. I hold a differ~nt view. The "Cpper­ House objects to it, and its argument, taken at its face value in respect to that objection, is that it does not like repudiation. \Ve all know that in the "Cpper Housa there are many men who a.re interested in big pastoral companies. They did not, at the time Mr. Donham wanted to pa 'S that clause, offer any great objection to the Bill going through, because up to that time the rentals had not been raised beyond 50 per cent. They would not have been hit by it, but they fore­ f<aw that it wa.s a dangerous thing for the future, and they wiped it out. They see now that if this Bill were passed they and the companies they represent will have to pay, in many instances, three times the reJC~tal for their country that they are now paymg. In short. I believe if this Bill became law the revenue from it would be well ove1· £200,000. I think that the estimate of thee Treasurer or of the 11inister for Lands of £100.000 as the amount that would be raised by this Bill is a very consen-ative one.
Mr. Guxx: "\.ncl Queensland would lose its. character.
Mr. POLLOCK: Queom,land would not lose its character. Queensland will not lose it' character 6imply becau~e it taxes the man who can afford to bear the burden of taxa­ tion, or simply because it taxes men who have no rig·ht to have the privilege that is given to the pastoralisb and to certain grazing .:~elector' to-day. Perhaps it is as well to again assert that this G·overnment does not propose to tax that money out of the people; it proposes to allow the Land Court. without any rcetriction, to have the same right to fix the p·ice that the pastoral lessee shall pay for his land as it has to fix the rental of the grazing selectors. \Yhat is \\Tong with that? If that is repudiation, well, I am prepared to take my share of it. and 'I represent easily a bigger area of country than any man in Queensland, and repre~,ent the biggest pastoral area as well, whore the people understand this thing and where the people are constant!~· seeking for land, and they welcome this. Naturally, the men who will have to pay increased rents do not welcome it; but whP,n do vested interests welcome anything which limits their privileges?
Jl.h. GuxN: \Yhv do not the:y- take up th~ grazing farms opened at Elizabeth Springs and Boulia?
Mr. POLLOCK: The reason for that is that there is a certain amount of dry country in that area and it is expensive to find wah:r there. I hope the hon. member for Carnarvon will pardon me, but I have been over every inch of that country, and I know its capabilities, and I say it is one of the driest areas in Queensland.
Mr. Guxx: Look at the artesian water. They have a natural spring.
::\:Tr. POLLOCK: There is no artesian water near Boulia, except that artesian water which can be obtained by sinking 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000 feet. The reason that the small
Supply. {29 AUGUST.] ~Supply. 1847
selector does not take up that country is simply bec,mse Jw cannot afford to pay the cost of putting down a bore. That is only natural. I would be prepared to take up some of that country myself if I could afford io sink for water.
:\1r. GUNN: Have not the Government got an Act which provides for bore trusts?
Mr. POLLOCK : The country is so dry that it requires a ycry large area to enable a persm~ t_o make a living, and the trust­ bore prmciple only applies in thooe cases ''here three or four or more selectors are able to receive water from the one trust bore and where the areas are so largP it will b~ readily understood that it would require a tremendous pressure of water in order to supply threc or four selectors. The hon. member for Carnarvon is a squatter, and he should understand these things better than I do.
J\:lr. Qusx: If it was not for Labour legis­ lation, 1 wonld be out there taking np some of that country r,ow.
:\!Jr. POLLOC:K: We have no objection to the hon. member going out and taking up that country, so long as he utilises it propHly.
:'IIr. Gu:m: Then I would be called a profiteer.
Mr. POLLOCK : The hon. member is that drea?Y· . The. action of the Upper House In re] ectmg this Bill, as well as many other measures that have been passed by this C!Jam_ber, to me savoLus of repudiation in Its highest form, because, after all most of these Bills W8re rejected by the 'upper House durmg the last Parliament. Since t~ten we have g~me to the country, and prac­ hc_ally every Bill that the lJ pp er House has reJected was made a prominent feature of the Premier's policy speech; and, although we. ha_ve come back with the strength of forty-eight members to twenty-four the upper House is still insisting on it~ ·atti­ tude of holding up l!lgislation that we werel sent here to pass. The position is intoler­ able, and th~re must be some way of putting an end to It. The people of Queensland cannot be expected to return men to Par­ liament after Parliament to carrv their legis­ lation and then have it arrest~d by a few men who were ·appointed to the Upper House long before I, and thousands of other electors, were born. They have no right there, in my opinion; no right in accordance with common sense; and I sav that these men, at any rate, have no right to hold up the legislation that the people have asked for less than eight months ago. There must l1e some way out of this difficultv. If the "l)1pe~ House insists, as it has done, on the r~J ectwn of one Bill-insi 'ts on the rejection ot others, then the course of this Govern­ ment is perfectly plain, in order to carry out the work entrusted to it by the people. I say that the Government-I am pleased that the Premier has already made the announcement-should go to the Governor and ask him ~or some appointments, so that there will be m the Upper House a maj oritv of _men_rbers who are prepared to pass the legislatiOn that the people are asking for. I think it is a moderate request-that the people should be allowed to rule themselves; and I hope that the Premier-when he said he is_ going to take drastic steps, or when h~ hil_lted at such-is going to go in that d1rectwn for the purpue of wiping out this
difficulty oPce an cl for all. (Hear hear )) The mere fact of this House stating that the Upper House has no right to amend money Bills does not seem to vet us much further. \V 8 seem CO be continually in trouble. with the 'Cpper House. They are orrogatmg to themseh·es a right the" ·do not possess-thJ.t .common \'lense suggests th_ey ~hall not PO?Sc~s, and that every con­ ehtutwnal authorrty I haye been able to read also suggests that they do not possess.
:Ylr. G. P. BARKES: The idea 'is to wipe them out altogether.
Mr.· POLLOCK: 'I'he idea at pre3ent in my mind is to enable the legislation the people de'iire to be carried out-that is the iclea I have in my mind, and the only 'idea. The people of Queensland have ah·eadv decided on the question of the abolition of the Upper House; I am not talkin"' of that matter now. "
::VIr. G. P. BARXES: On the retention of the 'Cpper House.
)Hr. POLLOCK: On the retention of the Upper House. Perhaps it was under dif­ ferent circumstances ; I am not going too far on that matter. All I want to sav is that ~he matter in my mind at the present time IS the necessity of doing what we were sent here to do, in spit~ of the opposition of the Upper House. (Hear, hear!) ·while I have not personally altered my views on the abolition , of_ the Upper House, I say that the public mterest must be paramount to every man :-vho believes. in _rule by the people; that m the public mterests we s)wuld be aJlowed to carry out the legisla­ tion they desire, and failing being allowed to ca_rry that out, we should take such steps a' >nil secure the passage of those measures. \Ve r!mst w:ipe ou~-temporarily, at any rate, If we' do nothmg more-whatever ob­ >i:ruction is in the way. (Hear, hear !) And the question of appointing sufficient members to the Upper House to enable the elected House to carry out this legislation is by no me·<tns a new one. It is a recognised principl<'. You can go back as far· as 1832 whf'n ~ position something similar to thi~ a_rose m the Hou'e of Comm·ons. At that tune Lord Grcv was leader of the Govern­ ment which pa;sed the Reform Bill through tlw House of Commons.
Mr. G. P. BARXES: That was nearly 100 years ago.
Mr. POLLOCK : Perhaps so; but evi­ dently members of the Upper House have something to learn from the oecurrences of 100 ye.ars ago. But at that time Lord Gre;;'s Governmqnt pa,·'ied a Reform Bill. The House of Lords rejected that Bill. Lord Grey appealed to the King for suffi­ c-ient new peers to enable him to carry his Reform Bill through both Houses of Par­ liament. Thf) King refused the requMt. Earl Grey immediately resigned, and the Duke of \Yellin!\ton endeavoured to carry on the affairs of Government. He failed. The King then sent for Earl Grey, and asked him to again form a Ministry. Earl Grey absolutely refused to make any attempt to form a Ministry unless the King gave him one guarantee, and that guarantee w.as that ,ufficiqnt members should he placed in the House of Lords to enable him to carry his legislation through--
An OPPOSITION MEMBER: Is that what the Labour Government proposes to do?
Mr. Pollock.]
1848 Supp~y. [ASSEMBLY.] Supply.
Mr. POLLOCK: I am hoping that some­ thing of the sort will happen. This time the King consented; he said he would under­ take that if Lord Grey could not get the Reform Bill through the House of Lords, then h\e would give him •,sufficient new peers to make a majority in favour of that Bill. However, the House of Lords did not per;o;ist in the rejection of the Reform Bill.- 'I'hey merely absented themselves from the House, and the Bill went through. But it does not alter the fact that the King at that t·ime was pr(lpared to allow Earl Grev to put sufficient peers in the House­ of Lords to enable the people's will to be conformed to-to allow that which had been approved by the people ~o actually beco_me law. The same set of Circumstances ex1sts in Queensland to-day. Not only is there that precedent. Ther'e ,is the preeedf'llt which has been set in New Zealand-a pre­ cedent so late as 1892. Todd, who is pro­ bablv one of the best constitutional authori­ ties 'on the;o;e matters, says, on page 821-
" Pending the result nf a general election held in that colony, in the fall of 1890, the Atkinson Ministry recom­ mended the appointment of eleven mem­ bers to the Upper House, whose num­ bers, it appears. are not defined under the Constitution."
I-Ion. members will notice that their posi­ tion there is similar to ours-that the num­ ber of members who can be appointed to the· 1:pper House is not defined or limited by the Constitution. Now, it go~s on to sav-
. " The Governor declined to sanction this increas;o, but consented -to the crea­ tion of the Speaker and six Councillors, an alt0rnative that was ultimatelv ac­ cepted.- Thes<' appointments, the Gover­ nor afterwards explained, were made more with the object of strengthening the character of the Upper House than for party purposes.
" It transpired that the ministry, by the election returns. were actuallv in the minority before the appointments were made; and statem~nts having ap­ peared in the public Press to that effect, protests were addre~sed to the Governor bv over fortv members of the> House of Representatives and others, ~gainst his accepting the advice of ~1inisters no longer possessing the confidence of the people.
" On th~ other hand, the Governor. in accepting ;,linist£lrial advice, justified his course to the Colonial Secretarv on the ground that he did 'not think 'it is seriously maintained, in the face of the constnnt practice in England for de­ fc»ted ~linisters to advis.; Her 1\fajcsty to create peers. that there has been anv­ thing unconstitutional in my action; but so far as I can gather there is a strong feeling in the colom that the practice which obtains in England of making Ministerial appointments before vacating office is not one which ::'\ew Ze;dand Ministers should be encouraged to follow.' "
No"> the position 'there was altogcthel' different to the position here. The New :0ealand Government made those appoint­ ments of Councillors ju6t before thev vacated officc-aft<'r it was found they we~e in the minority in the House. The posifion here is different. To-day this Go,·ernment is backed with a majority of forty-eight to twenty-four,
[1llr. Pollock.
and we ask immediately after having received the people's assent-or, at least, I ask that something shall be done to ap­ point sufficient new members to the Upper House to enable us to carry out th<;) legisla­ tion we were sent here to carry out. Surely that is a more reasonable request than wa<> the recmest of the -:-.rew Zealand Government which ·was acceded to. - " Todd " further says-
" After the elections, and before Par­ liament met. the Atkinson Administra­ tion resigned, and th<J new Ministry, of which Mr. Ballance was Premier. suc­ ceeded to office. In February, 1892, the Ballance Ministry submitted to the Go­ vernor eighteen names for appointment to the Legislative Council, claiming that of this number thev >vere entitled to make seven appointments to counter­ balance those granted to their prede­ ce·,ors. the rest to fill vacanci(!s and allow for a few creations.
" The Governor, the Earl of Onslow, declined to adopt this advice, and de­ sired that the question might be de­ ferred for the consideration of his suc­ cessor, the Earl of Glasgow, whose appointment had been announced. as his sta v i11 the colonv would not enable him t~ sec the eJ1d of consequenceA which R p~rsistent refusal to accept the advice of Ministers would entail.''
This is rather a long quot'ltion from "Todd," but in view of the peculiar po,ition, I hope th0 House will bear with me while I read it. It goes on-
" Accordingly, on the arrival .o~ the new Governor, in ,June, 1892. Jl.im1sters lost no tirne in ad·dsing an increase to the rpper House, this time of twelve members. on th.; grot~nd that the GC!­ v<'rnment was in an unbearable posi­ tion in the Legislative Council, where thev had but four or five supporters, and ' that no Government can carry on the bminess of the Houee satisfactorily when in one Chamber they exist only on ~ur.t.'er~n1ce.'
" The GoYernor declined to appoint this number. fearing that in so doing he would be running the risk of making the Lcg-isbth·e Council a mere echo of the other HousP, and thns destroy its independence: but he consentNl to an incrf'ase of eig-ht members. This con­ cession did not meet the requirements of :'.1inisters. who continued to press their claims for twelve appointments. whilo the Governor. equally firm. ob­ iectcd to that number; and in so doing he was. in acrorcl with the Yic'ws entertained bv his predecessor, who had embodied the '<trr.e in a confidential memorandum for the information of hiB 'u" ,,e-.:sor.
" Finally. :Ministers, in a memoran­ dum dah·d August 5, 1892. appealed to the Coloni:ol Secretarv on the difference existin:;: between them and the Gover­ nor. After setting forth the facts of the case, thev iustified their action in ha vinJ:; remained -in office, though their a·dYic<; had not been acc0pted by his Excellency, as follows :-
" ' Ministers would point out that the Parliament is in session, and they are answerable to the House of Representa­ ti,·es for the advice tendered to his Excellency. It has been alleged that
Supply. [29 AUGUST,) Supply, 1849
they ought to have resigned when their advice was declined, but th<;ly relied on the constitutional practice as expressed in " Todd's Parliamentar:v Government in the British Colonies,'' p. 590 (old edition), which is as follows:-" They woul-d be 1reaponsible ~or the advice they gave, but could not strictly be h0ld accountable for their advice not ha ,·ing prevailed; for if it be the right rrnd duty :1f the Governor to act in any case contrary to the advice of his Min­ isters. they cannot be held responsible for his action. and should not feel themselv<•s justified in retiring from the Administration." '
" In a dPspa tch addressed to the Go­ vernor, dated September 26, 18\'2, the Colonial Secretary, the Marquess of Ripon, rQp!ied that, while fully appre­ ciating the difficulties surrounding the caee, he had no hesitation in advising the acceptance of Ministerial advice on the question at issuP, adding:-
" ' \\"hen questions of a constitutional character are involved it is especially, I conceive, the right of the Governor fu.!ly to discuss with his },1inisten the desirability of an:v particular course that may be pressed upon him fo1' his adop­ tion. He should franklv state the ob­ jections, if any, which· may occur to him; but if. aft~t full discussion, Minis­ ters determine to press upon him the a'hice which they have already tendered, the Governor should, as a general rule. and when Imperial int<crests are not affected, accept that advice, bearing in mind that the responsibility rests with the :.\Iinisters, who are answerable to the Legislature and, in the last resort. to the counb;y.' "
Kow. there is a clear statement: that the edyice of J:\Iinir,ters on a matter of this sort where thny have difficulties with the upper Hous<' shall be accepted by the Governor. unleS' J mpPrial interests ar~ affected. I hold that this Government will be justified in U'iking for snffit :lent :numbers :in tho l:pper House, not to ,,swamp it, but to get sufficient men thC>re to enable us to carrv out cur legislation. (Hear, hear !) I say that knowing that in this case the upper Honse have exceeded in everc- wav the responsibility that rests upon them to see that fair government is < arried out in this Stat0. Kow, with regard to the l'\ew Zea­ land nblegmm, or, perhaps I should say an extract from a cablegram, directed from the Sccretarv of State for the Colonies to the Govemo;. of Wellington, New Zealand, and dated 26th Septemb<:r, 1892 ·, this should b.:> of prrrticular interest. It stntes-
" I have carefully considered your deepatch, and appreriate the diffirulties of your position; but I have no hesita­ tion in ach-ising acceptance of your re­ sponsible adviserO)' advice."
This i. pretty clew and definite, and the l'\ew 7,caland Government were not being treated in such a shabby fashion as is the present Government by the T~pper House. \Ve have also a precedent ·which was sent from the Serretary of State for the Colonies to Governor Normanby, in 1876. It is as follmn :-
"~dy Lord,­
" Downing street, " 6th February, 1876.
" I have to acknowledge your Lordship's despatch, Xo. 90, of 27th Xovember.
enclosing a. corre,pondence with the chief Minister of your GoYernment re­ specting the appointment of extra mem­ bers to serve in the Legislative Council.
"Her :Majesty's Government, 'as your Gr,tce will see from former correspon­ dence, do not interfere with the Colonial Government in regard to the appoint- ment of Councillors. ·
"I have, &c., "KDrBERLEY."
Now, that is an additional prooi that, after all, the -difficulties previously encountered by Governments with the Legislative Council in this State, or in any other State of the dominions, so far as I have been able to gather, have never been in any way as great as the difficulties this Government ar(l en­ countering from the upper House of Queens­ land. They have never been as great. If the authoritic'' agre<; that those dominions have the right to appoint councillors, or, in other words, that the Governor should take the
advice of his responsible Minis­ [4.30 p.rn.] ters situated therein, then, if this · Government ask the Govenwr of
Queensland for sufficient members here he should have no hesitation in granting a suf­ ficient number tu enable us to do our work. Now, not only have those two authorities been in favour of the principle that I am advocating this afternoon, but Dicey, the great constitutional authority-probably one of the greatest in the British Dominions­ says, on page 451 of the seventh edition of "The Law of the Constitution"-
" How does it happen that the peers could at one time arrest legislation in a way which now would be generally held to involve a distinct breach of comtitu­ tional authority?
"The answer to this and like inquirieB is that the one essential principle of the Constitution is obedience by all persons to the deliberately expressed will of the House of Commons in the first instance, and ultimateh· to the will of the nation as expressed "through Parliament. The conventional code of political morality is merelY a hodv of political maxims meant to sec'ure resj)ect for this principle."
Here we have it that the ver:v first principle in constitutional government 'is that the will of the people shall prevail and oyery other principle is merely, in his words, " a body of political maxims meant to secure r0spect for the one great governing principle of rule by thf' people." Not only have I. th~t authority, but I haYe further authc;r!ty m Dicey, on page 349 of t~1e ~ou,1;th ed1t10n of "The Law of the Consbtutwn -
" If there is a difference of opinion between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, the House of Lords should at some point not definitely fi;«ed give way, n.nd should the peers n~t ylCld and the House of Commons contm~te to enjoy the confidence of the country, 1t ~e­ comes the dutv of the Crown or of 1ts responsible advisers to create, or threa!en to create, enough new peers to overr1de the opposition of the House of Lords, and thus restore harmony between the two branches of the Legislature."
Now there is a definite opinion given on the position as it exists to-day in Queensland bv the foremost authority-! -should sa~ the foremost authority, I think-on constitutwnal
Jfr. Pollock.]
1850 Supply. [ASSE:\IBLY.] Supply.
matters in the British dominions. He ~ays that should the House of Commons contmue to enjoy the confidence of the countrv and the Lords not yield, or, in other words, should the Legislative Assembly continue to enjoy the confidence of the country and the Legis­ lative Council not yield, then it becomes the duty of the Crown or its reqponsible advisers to create, or threaten to create, sufficient new peers or councillors to carry out the will of the people. That, again, 1 think, is addi­ tional proof that this Government would be on sound grounds if they approached the Governor to ask for an increase in the mem­ ber•·.hip of the Legislative Council. A further opinion was given by Lord Knutsford in a despatch of 11th April, 1891, to the New Zealand Government, in which he stated-
" ·with regard to the appointments to the Legislative Council recommended by the late Government, I am of opinion that, in accepting the advice tendered to you by your lordship's responsible Minis­ terF, under the circumstances described in your despatche·", you acted strictly in accordance with the Constitution of the colony, but I do not desire to be under­ stood to offer any opinion upon the action of your Ministers in tendering such advice.''
There is an intimation from the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which he stated definitely that the Goveruor was quite right in accepting th<· advice of his responsible a?visers, even ~hough those responsible ad­ VISers were gomg out of power and had been defPated as a Government. But we have just been elected as a Government, and nr~ being flouted by a nominee body. He sa1d he approved of the Governor's decision althougJ:. he could not approve altogether of the advtce tendered to the Governor by his Ministers-which means in effect that whether the advice of the Ministers be good or bad the duty of the Governor is to accept it. Now, I am not going to be one-sided in this matter. I have another authority here­ Keith-a noted authority who disagrees with the views I hold and with the views of those constitutional authorities I hav~ quoted also hold. I am going to quote him to show that I am going to carry on an unbiassed dis­ cw;sion this afternoon. In 1·eferring to the Philp-Kidston reign of government, he says, on page 586 of volume 2 of " Responsible Government in the Colonies"-
" Mr. Kidston's alliance with the Labour party was unsteady, and it be­ canle necessary to consider a coalition with ~lr. Philp's followers. Th<> result was seen in the passing at the end of the session in a very inconspicuous 1nanne1· which escaped the notice of Labour m em-· hers of an appropriation to make good the smns expended during the period of Mr. Philp's Ministry and the adoption of :m Act, No. 16, providing for a refer­ endum in case of difference of opinion between the two Houses, in place of swamping the Council. On the other hand, the Council showed its change of spirit by accepting the legislation of the Ministry without further demur, and in particular it passed the Bill for the re­ ferendum, though bv a narrow majoritv. and in 1910 it accepted in substance . a vcrv elaborate Government programme. The relations of the Houses mav thus hc said to hE' settled on a new· basis; no doubt it is still legally open to the
[Mr. Pollock.
Go.-ernment <lf the day to ask the Governor to swamp the Council, but H1ch a course would hardly be approved in yiew of the new position as provided in the Referendum Act."
:\'ow, while Keith says that a new po~ition has arisen, and that although the .Gover!l­ ment would still be ·within thei1: Tights .m approaching the Governor, tins Parha­ mentarv Bills Referendum Act would meet the diificultv perhaps better than swamp­ ing the CoLincil, as . it is termed. I \\:ant to sa, that cond1hons that have ansen between the LabouT party and the Legis­ lative Council sincP Keith wrote that matter-which »·as immediately after the carr:,-ing of that Parliamentary Bills Referendum Act-such as he could not have had any idea would arise. He could never have known, for instance-nor could anv man have foreseen-that after the people had returned this party to power by. an overwhelming majority to carry out lcglsla­ tion, it would he necessary to appeal .to the people on the number of Bills .on wluch we would have to appeal to them 1f we wanted to have our programme carried into effect. He could nm-er have had any ide'.' that such a state of affairs would arise 1n Queens­ land. For instance, the Land Act Amendment Bill (Xo. 2) has been rejected by the "Upper House the Popular Initiative and Refer­ endun{ Bill has been rejected. The Local Authorities Act Amendment Bill was re­ jected last session, and I .suppose. if th.e Legislative Council ~an cm;tmu<; the.1r b~lh­ cos<' attitud0 they w11l agam reJect 1t. _I'he Mcatworks Bill was rejected last . ses~wn, and probably will be again'" dealt W!th m. a similar manner. The State Enterpnses B11l will probabh- also be rejected. The 'Wages Bill has been mutilated to such an extent that it is practically of no use at all.. There ha~ been a .disallowance of regulatwns by the Upper House. .TheTe has been fricti.on re"'ardino· monev B1lls-a matter on whJCh th~ grea1est coi1stitutional .aut.ho;·it!es hold that we cannot go wrong m 1111•1Stl!1g that the 'Gpper House has not the nght to amend. Ke>ith, I say. could never h>tve had any j.dea that this Government would be up against such a stonewall as the U PJ?er House has put up against us. vY!nlst thev have been prepared to pass hvo of our' important taxation Bills, t~ey have inter­ fered with other revenue Bllls, and they threaten to destroy our general legi~lation in such a way as to rr.ake the carrymg on of government by this party merely a far~e. :'\either Keith nor anv other authonty ~ould have given an effective opini?n vchen he was not brought face to face w1th these things that have later oc~urre? .. Suppose that we were to adont th1s prmc1ple, and bv moans of the Pa'rliamentary Bills Re­ ferendum Act go as often as we <:ould ~o thE> country. and ask the people to g1ve the1r consent to'Bills twice rejected by the ppper HousP ! The rt'ferenrlurn on the queshon of the abolition of the Upper House cost some­ thing in the neighbourhood of . £15,0.00. Here are seven Bills already this sesswn which we would have to take to the country bv that method. and it would mean an ex­ p'Pnditurc of £105,000. That is a con,en-a­ tive estimate. Surelv there must be some way of over· riding ·such strenuous objec­ tions by the Upper House, such unwarrant­ able interference by the 'Gpper House, other than by spending £105.000 every yea~. !hat is surely not a way which any conshtuhonal
Supply. [29 AuGUST.] Supply. 1851
authority woulll arrree to as being just or fair. Then the otl1er way must lie in the direction of putting sufficient membeTs in the Upper House to enable us to carry our measures.
I hope the GoveTnment will takE• this matter into consideration, and that the PTemier will move, and the paTty with whom I am associated will stand behind him, in an effort to get a majority in that Upper I-Ious_e. It is hardly likelv that we should be agam expected to appeal to the country in order to carry out our legislation, when we have just come from the country. (Hear, hear.!) !1, is not as if we had been three years 111
office and were just going out-we have just come into office. We are fresh from the country, with a mandate from the people, and I con,ider that there is no authority in the world which can prevent this Go­ vernment from using its right to carry out that which it has been sent here to do.
Apart from all constitutional anthoril ies I want to speak a word or two of common sense-that it is not a fair thing, in my opinion, that men who have long ago ceased to move with the times, who are far too old in manv instances-as are some members of the "Cpper House-to take an activ,_, and intelligent interest in wha.t is going on-it is far too much to expect of any reasonable being that this Parliament of men, sent here by the country to do definite work, should have its legislation interfered with hy an old body of men of that kind, should have that work preventf'd and at the same time the progress of the people hindere-d. I do want to say in conclusion that the posi­ tion is absolutely absuTd from every point of view. \V e stand to-·day in the position ':'f men who have been sent heTe to do certam work, with a body appointed to see that we do not do it. Could anything be more absurd than that? It is placing the people practicalb' in the same position as the manager of a business firm-and, after all, the carrying on of this country should be a business matter for the people of the State-in the position of a manager who appoints an overseer to carrv out certain work at £300 a year, and then · appoints another overseer for life at no salary at all to see that he does not carry it out. If anything could be more absurd than the position into which Qneensland has driftNl I would like to have it explained to me I hope the Government will take this matter up, and immediately approach the Governor with a view to removing the obstructio!1 that has too long existed.
GOVERNMENT MFMBERS: Hear, hear ! Mr. SWAY NE (M irani) : I think we have
good reason for disappointment in manv cases . in comwction with the Statement now being­ discussed. First of all, comparing- it with previous Statements of the kind, it is most meagre, most scant. As you know, in pre­ vious Statements we have had particulars of our bill' primary industries. comparisons of the mining production, and' so on, with regard to the agricultural and pastoral in­ dustries, and all those other industries on which we depend for our prosperity. This time they arc all lacking. None is mentioned, except the sug-ar industry, and that hail a Yery short notice. Practically the whole of the Statement, except so far as figures are concerned, on the broad featm·c' of expendi­ ture and revenue. is mainlv confined to these State enterprises: After ail, thev have not a YCry intimate bearing Ul10n OUr prosperity
-upon those big industries on which we ha vu to depend ~for our financial position. _\.s regards the financial position itself, hon. members opposite have been, as it were, almost un:cnimoU'·· \Ye have heard all sorts of panegyrics on the Treasurer-that he was the beet Treasurer W'l have ever had, and so on. At the same time, I am plea'•ed t<il say there a1·e one or h\ o of them who entertain doubts as to whether all is well. Of course•, we know it is not, and something must be done to encourage production. This continual policv of taxation, taxing those few who are "posse"sed of enterprise and energy, if that i~ the policy th';' Govern­ ment depend upon for their financ1al success thct State will come to disaster. As regards this matter of taxation, it see111,s, judging by the utterances made it1 connection with it. to be a labour of love-not of necessity so much-to hon. members opposite. ~\nyone who saves his monev and becomes liable b taxation i"' an objectionable individual­ one who has acquired his property by dis­ honest means, and it is quite a laudable work to takE' it from him. That means that an individual who has money locks it up and it becomes of no benefit to o.nyone. 0•.1 the other hand, we know his money goes again into use in the development of our resources. As a rule, those who are singled out for taxation in Quec,nsland are the men who have distinguished themselves over their fellows by their superior industry and enter­ prise. The~ have a little more energy, and, therefore, thcv haw• to boar the whole bur­ den. Thev do not con;plain as Tegards any burden in1posed on them for war purposes, but if thev have also to finance the schemes of the UO\:ernment it will not act as an incen­ tive towards that enterprise which has done so much towards opening up our State, and that incentive will be taken away, and we shall find as time goes on a, less display of those qualities. Their funds are used for opening up our resources, and for the development of our different ~ines, agri­ cultural lands, and so on, and If you take the whole of that money away by means of taxation, they have not got it to lay out upon such works, and the whole com­ munitv suffers. I know it is urged that taxation is the only resort the Government have to raise revenue, and we have been challenged over and over again to suggest another remedy. As far as C'conomy goes, I know that the hands of the Government are rather tied but I think before I sit down I can 11oint ot;t, at any rate, one direction in which we can make the money go much further than it does, and that is the same as raising our income if we do more with it. But before· touching on that point I would likte to draw attention to the opinions on finance held by our opponents before last election and point out how their practice compar~' with that thev then professed. I have hf're a l<'aflet that was published at the " V\T orker " office just before la,t elec­ tion, and it is headed, " How your money goes," and " J_ust a fe;v- si,~ple lessons . on a very mvstenous subJect. In spealnng about 'the ·deficits it uses this homely illus­ tration-
" If the breadwinner earns £3 per week and spends £4 per week, he is OR the way to insolvency."
In three years Queensland ha;s got into t!:e same position as the breadwmner would 1f he transacted his affairs on similar lines. During the three years that this Govern­ ment has been in office there have been
Mr. Swayne.]
1852 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Supply.
two acknowledged deficits, and really 1916 also was a deficit. because it was onlv bv juggling with the figure, that they sho,ved ;, surplus of £35,000. Reallv, as pointed out by the Auditor-General; there was a deficit. Roughly speaking, during this short time they have had deficits amounting to £7GO,OOO, and thev increased taxation during that time by £500.000, so that the taxation and the deficit together come to something like £1,200,000. Then we hear what they have to say about previous Administrations on this point. Thev made their case out largely on what thev st\·led the actions of their predecessors. They. go on to say here-
"" " vVould yo,, be ··urpris,or! to know that the deficit of the Liberal Governments since Queensland was made a sc>parate col.ony-that is. from 1859 to 1914, have amounted to £4.219,708; and that the much-talked-of surplnsc>s have onlv amounted to £2,600.843? Of this sm:­ plus, the Morgan Labour Government wa·· responsible for one-half. That means a total deficit of £1,618,865."
That is a period of fifty-five years. Yet thev, 111 the verY short time of three years, got behind to' the extent of some­ thing like £1.200,000, and if thev remain in office for another three vears-and I sup­ pose they will be there for another three vears-at any rate, I do not think they will b~ there any longer-I think there is very great cause for apprehension as to what the state of the countrv will be. That was their opinion before the'la't election. and I leave it to the electors to comparp that with tl~eir actions since th?Y have been in office. \\ e know they obtamed office larg-ely on false pretence->. and that is one of the false pretence,, by which they gulled the electors to put them where they are. In regard to production. there . is no getting away from the fact that IS It on]:,- by production we can finance the liabilitie" we are IIow in­ -curring. As far as the Commonwealth lonn liabilitieo are concerned, I heard other mLmb0rs calculate that it would be so~nething over £500.000,000 at t-he termin­ at;wn of the war, but I no!ice other figures by Sir Joscph Carruthers give a much higher figure than that. Other figures make the loan liability, including the war liabilitv, as over £700,000.000 at th•· cmd of the win. With, a big yearly liability for interest on that amount we will have to do a great de:J.l more rhan we are doing, and the State is not increasing its production as it should with the natural resources we have at our disposal. Comparing our countrv with other -countries, comparing ourselvE's ":ith Canada, I find that Canacl1 in 1012 exported to the extent of £70.000.000, and in 1917 five ycoars after, it exported to the val~1e of £317,000,000. Comparing Australia with that we make a poor show in that regard. I find that the imports for the first eiglvt months of 1914-15 were £44,830.000. The nE'xt vear they had in_creasE'd to £51.000.000, but, after all, that IS only a paltry increase of £7,000.000 and prices for products had in­ -creased, and on the other hand our im­ ports w_Ne largely increasing. Takin15 our productiOn as a whole, I find that Aus­ tralia's production in 1914 as compared with 1913 fell off by 'Omething like £9,000.000. In the face of that, unlPss a grr"t change indeed occurs in rc~·ard to the policv of our Government, what is the use of hon. members ~xpressing any hope that we arc going
[Mr. Stvayne.
to increase our production to cover our liabilities. In connection with State enter­ prises there is a general apprehension on the part of those who have given attention to these matters, that under Government control they are not going to he successful. I heard the hon. member for Mackav last night contending that State enterprise \vould always succeed better than private enter­ prise, but we know from experience that wherever it has been tried it has been a failure. I think that one of the rea>ons beromC's evident when we notice the recep­ tion with which anything like criticism as regards those employed in these under­ t"-kings is met in this House. I have noticed it several tim.es, and anvone who travels the country knows we are not getting the same efficiC'ncy from those employed by the State as obtained some years ago. \Ve know the Commissioner for Railwavs commented o;1 it, and it is a matter of great moment to the ;Jroducers of this State, because work is made more co,tly, and in the case of the rail ways it means, for the future, higher freight charges and higher fares, and yet anyone "·ha mentions it is twitted with hostile interjections. and an endeavour is made to howl him down. I remember some vcars ago that the late member for Rose- 1mod, Mr. Stevens. speaking of the Ipswich workshops em,ployet'"· said they were, on the whole. a very fine body of men there, but that the general impression amongst those who visited the works and those who were acquainted with them. \\"as that there were some men thPre who were not doing all they might. It was quite a legitimate opinion to express, and it was the dut~· of those who represent th~ taxpayers to draw attention to these matters if they thought there was any fault. and yet his life was 'lJmost thre" tcned. and he was told what would hapi;Cn to him. ii he. went 1war the place again, although he distinctly referred onlv to a few of the men. I notice just recimtlv" the hon. member for Oxlev read a letter from a correspondent in ·Cairns pointing out something which, if it was true, \vas an undoubted C;J.se. of malingering, and I think hon. memhers should make in­ quiries regarding it, and condemn it if there is anv reason to believe that such a thing exists: I remember the howl of execration that went up the moment he opened his m.outh on the snbjPct. He read a letter from a correspondent whose name he ob­ viouslv could not giYe. At the same time,
• therE' "as a demand for the name [5 p.m.] in euch a tone that boded very
ill for the writer of that letter if it wem giYen. I may say he gave the name of the writer of another letter, because I suppc'·:e in that instance the writer was safe. It comes to this: that apparently on these Government jobs anything of thG kind can take place. and the moment anyone opens his n~outh, in the interests .of the general pubhc, hon. members opposite _de­ m.and the name for the oake of persecntmg them afterwards. Anyone who watched hon. members opposite could very well calculate what their fate y,·onld be if those names werP given. In reading throug-h the report . of the late Commissioner for Railways, I nohce that in dealing with this subject, he makes use of thE'se words-
" In matters relating to employment I contend that the' State should set an example as the model employer; at the same time State emplovees should prove by mterest and energy in their work
Supply. [29 AUGUST.] Supply. 1853
that State cnterr.rise is the success they claim it to be. It is understood that the unions consider it their dutv to see that a man gets what he earns. · I maintain, therefore, that it is the duty also of the ·unions to see that a man earns \vhat he gets. There should be .sincerity on the part of the uniom in this respect.
"Much might be ·done in this direction by extending the co-operative system which has b'?en in operation' for some time in connection with the moulders' work in Ipswich shops, and of which they thoroughly approv-e. For instance, thoro is nothing to pre.-cnt the men at the v'lrious goods ·depots, workshops, engine-sheds, carria.ge-sheds, 1naintenance and rajhvay c0nstruction works, etc., forming themselves into co-operative group, much to their own advantage and to the benefit of the department ; tendering for the work under a butty gang s~'tem. This would mean payment by rc;;nlts, and would give men a chance to U•·<' their brains as \Yell as their museles, and would, in my opinion, to a great extent reduce political influence and domineering unionism, and make the men theit· own masters except, of course, so far as the supervision of the department of the co-operative work is concerned, and I trust some of the staff will deci·de on trying it."
Anyone who goes round the country and secs how the work on Government \Yorks is carried out knows that the Commission<.:r is perfectly righr.
Mr. F. A. CoOPER: He was the most expensive Con1n1b;Jioner Queensland eyer had.
:'\lr. SWAYKE': This is the first \Ye have ev-er heard of it. I think it is a fair qUC'otion to ask : Is not this getting rid of the Com­ missioner iust now, when he has still vears of good work in front of him, owing to his outspoken r< marks on this subject? \Ye know Queensland is hard up for money at the present time, and one of the ways of econo1uisi ng is to get a. fair day's work for a fair d1.y's pay. \Ye ha\e been challenged oYer and OYer again to n1ake suggestions as to how economv can be effected. I notice•d the other day that, in connection with one of our railways under construction, sleepers· "·ere being obtained by contract at the rate of £16 per 100 blocks, and the man getting them \Yas very well satisfied, and was making a good thing out of it. How­ ever, it was decided to adopt the day-labour system, and the cost of those sleeper blocks imme.diately went up to £30 per 100. That iacrease in tho price of sleeper blocks \1 ould ' make a considerable addition to the cost of a mile of ra.ilwav. The matter I have men­ tioned is closely 'bound up with our financial position, and I do think that that is one way of securing greater economy without cutting down wages at all, and it is our duty, at such " time as this, in the interects of the tax­ payer, to practise economy in every direction.
Various suggestions have been made as to how we could increase production. As an old hand on the land-I have been working on the land all my life-I say two things stand out prominently in this connection. One is an efficient means of transport, and the other is good roads and railway com­ munication. \Vhat do we find? Of course, we know the Government are not altogether to blame for the falling off in the number
of miles of railway that hav-e been opened recently; but, c1t th0 same time, if they have not money for eYerything, I think thev should have concentrated their loan exp-~nditurc on raih,·ay construction instead of establishing hotels and State enterprises. A': .any rate. they could very well have left ov-er those thing' until money was morG> plentiful. I know at the present time, for the want of a short railwav which was v-ir­ tually P':omised to them-{ am referring to the Owen's Creek Railwav-that a number (If farmers have been practically ruined. That railwav \YOtd-cl onlv c<cot between £30,000 and '£40.000, and 'there are many things on "·hich that amount of loan money has been spent which were not nearly '·O
importnnt as that railway. Another thing that deters men from embarking in produc­ tion to the extent they otherwise would is the quec,tion of farm labour. '\Ye cannot get away from the fact that no -farmer is likely to be of material benefit to the countrv unlees he employs, from time to time, labour to heln him. Yet, how do we find he is treatE:•d? Look, for instance, at what i« occurring round Inn;sfail at the present time? The sugar-workers there have an award at the present time, but tllf'y will not abilh~ b:v it. The IllE.'11 v~·0rc earning, under l.lw award ratf'S, from £11s. to £112s. a dav, but a strike has taken place and a demm1cl. hts bcBn made for a minimum wage of £1 5s. " .clav. Regardless of what amount o;· cane is ci.1t, they ure asking for £1 5s. a cl.av. ThP farmers, of course. are stand­ ing out agaiHBt the demand, as they know it would mean ruin to them. They also know that if the,· ''cc0ded to the demand, it would then he u~ecl as a len·r to squeeze further concessions out of them later on, also th<e abolition of piecework: because, when ewrything is conceded in this way, it is afterwards need in the Arbitration Court as a fonndution for e\en greater concessions. The point is thi : "\re the farmers going to ('r·ntinnc g-rov,~ing ::·ugur-cane and take all the risks inyoln'd in growing these crops, if thev arc compelled to submit to trtcatment c.f that kind? I saw by to-day's paper that the picketB are out, and gang-s ,,-hich were perfectly willing to go on working aro being pulled out and prevented from carrying out the contracts that they entered into. This .sort of thine; is largeh' retarding production. I am alluding- to this stJ·ike because it has a large bearii1g nnon the whole qnestion of production; and that is what. in many in­ stances, pr~ vents people putting- the acreage undf'l' crops that they otherwise would. I further sav that this Government in their legislation chavc largely exposed the farmers to that kind of thing. It. is generally ad­ mitted that where arbitration exists there should be no strikes. I have heard hon. nwmbers o]mosite express that oninion. That is a nerv fair claim to make. 'I'hat was one of the iitrong arguments used in favour of that legislation-that if any grievance exists there is a court to which the men can refer. I would point out tha.t it is not onlv a ques­ tion of the loss to the farmers themselves and to the workers, but thE're is also the loss to thE' community as a whole. I would point out that under the Industrial Peace Act of the, Denham Gm·ernment that strike would not have occurred.
The hon. member for Lockver made refer· ence to the war, which has such a great bearing upon our prospects at the present time, and I would like to refer here to a.
Mr. Swayne.l
1834 Supply. [ASSK\1BLY.] Supply.
statement made by the speaker who has just resumed his seat. That hon. member charged this side with trying to make pol_iti­ {;al capital out of the ":ar. and w1th bemg responsible for opprobnous terms, and. so on and yet he himself, while deprecatmg co~duct of that kind, mlled three members ·on this side "swashbucklers."
i\1r. CARTER : A common term. Mr. SW AYNE: Yes; but it ill becomes any
hon. member who is deprecating any allu­ sion to such a thing at all to use the word "swashbuckler." After all, who are these men to whom he applied that term? Two o£ them did their duty in Gallipoli. Two <Jf them are entitled to the term "Anzac," :and the hon. member for Kuri!pa-I might say the hon. and gallant member for 'Kurilpa -offered his services to his country at the beginning of the war .. He att_ained the rank <Jf major, and :"as mcapamtated_ through sickness. After h1s recovery he agam offered himself for foreign service. Those are the men whom the hon. member for Gregory called "swashbucklers." Then there is another matter to which I would like to refer. That is-I was going to say the dastardly attack, but I will withdraw that if it is objectionable if the hon. member will apologise-to the dastardlv attack that was ma,de on the hon. member· for Kurilpa last night.
An OPPOSITION MEMBER : It was done <1eliberately, and GoYernment interjections.
Mr. SWAYNE: 'l'he whole thing was what they call a "frame up." The hon. member for Kurilpa had made some rather scathing criticisms of the Premier and his connection with a person who has since been found out to be a traitor, and who ha<1 been in communication with the enemy, Germany, :and also to the telegram that was sent, and so on. The hon. member criticised the send­ ing of that telegram, and then apparently in revenge, we had the hon. member _for South Brisbane getting up an<1 producmg Federal "Hansard," and gh·ing an account Dr a courtmartial over thefts from German prisoners at Rabaul, and trying deliberately to c,>st the odium of the disgrace on the hon. member for Kurilpa. All the time that that was going on, hon. members opposite were crying out: "Yes, and that is the man who has just criticised the Premier."
:y{r. FREE: Have you got proof that it is not?
}lr. SWAY~E: That shows that it was done in revenge. Luckily. the hon. an.c] gallant member was in his seat at the time, and he called out : " Do vou mean me? " but he did not get any reply. It now turns out that the whole thing referred to some­ boclv else.
::\fr. FREE: Ko proof of it yet. Mr. SWA YKE: If the person who made
those statements "as a man. he would apologise after hearing the explanation which was given.
GoYEm;;uEXT interjections. The CHAIR""IAX : Order ! Order ! Mr. SWAYNE: Those hon. members say
things here under privilege which they would not say outside. I say it is a dastardly and <'owardly charge to hurl at a man because he attempted to disagree with the Chief Secretary.
Mr. FREE: I will ha Ye all inquiries made and state the resl.\lt.
Mr. SW AYNE: And then will you apologise?
[Mr. Swayne.
}fr. FREE: When I find that the man accused is innocent.
Mr. SWAY::\'E: I sav that hon. members should be more careful, and I hope they "ill be more careful in the future before making such charges.
:l\Ir. FREE: I neYer believe a blackleg's word.
HoN. \V. H. BARNES: I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. member for South B~is­ bane in or'der in making the inference wh10h I understand referred to the member for Kurilpa, when he said he would not believe a blackleg's words?
Mr. FREE: Ko, I did not. The CHAIRMAN : I did not hear the
remark. Mr. SW AYNE: I was referring to the
hon. member for Loekyer, who raise.(! ~ mo~t important question, and whether we 1n th1s House are competent to discuss it ?r not with such information as we have 111 our possession, I think is worthy of CoD;sidera­ tion. Before going any further ~egardmg the items which I wish to deal w1th, I would like to say a few words on t_his matter. Quoting from "Hansard," I. not10e that the hon. member for Lockyer sa1d- .
"I consider it would be a calam1ty that all would deplore if Germany was beaten in the way which hon. members opposite infer."
Surelv he does not want Germany to come out o'f this struggle under the same . system of government, and on the same hnes as existed there before the war ! All hon. mem­ bers must realise that it is not a war between nations-not a war between Britain and Ger­ manv · it is a war between systems-between milita~-y clespotism and constitutional clemo­ cracy. \Vitness the countries arrayed_. on one side and those arraved on the other. Take France. Take the' 'United States of America, take Britain, and compare. them: with desnotic Austria and barbarous Turkey. If bv ail:v chance militarism comes out of this <stru~o-!e with anv show of any advan­ tage, the~"mi!itarism Is justified in existence, and militarism we shall have. It has been contended over and over again by those men that democracy in time of war cannot stand against militarism, ·and we have. to sh?~ that democrac,· can stand agamst mllr­ tarism. As st~re as the sun rises, if by chance Germany comes out of this war and 1·emains under the rule of the Hohenzollerns and the particular system they stand for, we shall have war again. As it is, in any case, I suppose unles, human nature is altered, we shall haye war again, but I hope, and I .think all concerned with me hope also. that, at any 1·ate, tllQse "ho brow:;i1t about this war will receive such a nunishnwnt that we shall have no more wai· for 100 years at lea~t.
A GOVERXYENT ME~IBER : Do you believe that?
Mr. SW A YNE: Yes, I ·do. We can sup­ press militarism, we shall be w!thm;t war ao·ain and it is onlv bY suppressmg 1t that w~ sl{all be free from 'wars. Now, talking about negotiation, what grounds have we at the present time to negotiate on? U nfor­ tunately, according to the " Courier" yester­ day, we still have 140 miles to capture before we oust Germany from France and Belgium. Now, reading the history c:;f Ger­ manv vou will find that from the time of the El~ctor Frooerick right back to 16~8, in which year I think he ascended the throne-
[29 Aucn;:n.] 1855
that h0 originated a dynasty which has bc·c·n -0110 (·onsta11t arra ,. of a.o-gression and di 1 1lo­ lllatic bad faith right th;;ough. \Y c are r\cny coming down to Frederick the Great. \Ye know how the war witll Austria \':aB brourrl.t .about-the war of Austrian succession· .;'nd the o~ject was terrir.ory. They thet~ got pos,esswn. Then, agam, eommg on to 1756, w!1cn_ there was a war for the conquest of .Srlesia. Then there were the wars with Den~nark, Austria, and France. all for ter_ntory. For hundreds of years their obJect ~as been territory. They fought for territory and got territory. Aftflr the seven years' war, as showing· how little a lP,,.;on counts to that power. I have here a book written by J. Ellis 'Barker entitled "Th<:' Founda~ions of Germany"-I am just ?howm!l" how ltttle can avail unless a change m therr system of governmenf is brourrht .about, unless it ends in their becominrr s~tb­ ject to constitutional demo0ratic g~vern­ men_t. That is the grea~ victory that we are hopmg for, and that IS that Prussia will em~rge from this struggle under some consti­ tutwr,tal ~orm of government in which the people wrll have a say as to whether war B to be declared or not. Hon. members ~m the other sidE! m~tst acknowledge that that I? a worthy obJeCtive. Now, showing how httle lessons co':'nt with this power, I find on page 49 of thts book that during the seven :years' war Prussia's population had dimin­ Ished by 500,000, and a considerable amount of the then small population had been pillaged and ransacked by so manv armies that thev had bee