Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 11 OCTOBER 1921

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Questwhs. [ASSEMBLY.] Questions.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

TuESDAY, 11 OcTOBER, 1921.

The SPEAKER (Hon. \V, Bertram, Jlarcc,) took the chair at 3.30 p.m.

QUESTIONS. RAILWAY FREIGHT oN LIME FROM RocKHAMPTON

TO MACKAY. Mr. SWAYNE (Mirani) asked the Secre·

tary for Railways-" What is the •freight by rail from

Rockhampton tO' Mackay on lime for agricultural purposes?"

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: (Hon. J. Larcombe, J( eppel) replied-

" Burnt lime to be used as a fertiliser, carried in truck loads, Ss. 8d. per ton, including terminal charge."

UsE oF WATTI.EBRAE HosPrrAr, FOR PLAGUE PATIENTS AND CoKTACTs.

Mr. KERR (Enoggera) asked the Home Secretary-

" 1. Is the report correct that Wattle­brae Hospital, Bowen Bridge, is the place where persons suffering from plague are to be treated, also that contacts are to be isolated at this hospital?

!tHan. E. W. H. Fowles.

"2. If so, is he aware that Vlattlebrae is within less than 100 yards from the Brisbane General Hospital, of the nurses' quarters, and very close to the Children's Hospital?

"3. Is he aware that this !orality is R thickly populated suburban area, and that an indigation meeting of protest in this connection is being held by the residents this evening?

" 4. Have the local authorities been consulted on the question'!

" 5. Under all tho circumstanc<>~, will he consider the advisability of r<Jscinding "uch de• ision, if reached, which is said to contain the poosibility of danger to the community?"

The HO::VIE SECRETARY (Hon. W. Mc­Corrriack, Cairns) replied~

" 1. Acting on the advice of the British Medical ~\swciation, \V attlebrae is to be used for the treatment of plague p.ttients.

"2. Yes. "3. l'\ot aware that an indignation

meeting was to be held. Suggest that the hon. member r-ead the manifesto issued by the British Medical A·•sociatinn deal· ing with the whole question of plague infection.

" 4. The local authorities concerned are aware of th<J action which w;,s taken. T~he Government will bear the expense.

" 5. The weifare of the communitv will always be the first consideration." •

Co:I.\IPLAIN'fS BY OFFICIALS OF ENGI~EMEX'S AssociATIO~ I~ RE B.mALABA CoAL.

Mr. BRAND (Burrurn) asked the Secretary for Railways-

" 1. Has his attention bem1 drawn to a statement by the president and s-ecretary of the Enginemen's A::sociation in the Central division, appearing in the ' Bris­bane Courier' of 6Gth September last, which says that complaints have be"n and are still being continualh· made to the heads of th, Railway D'q>artment that Baralaba coal is un t1itable for locomotive purposes'!

" 2. Can he state if this ctatcment is correct'?'

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS replied-

" 1 and 2. I saw the st·atcment re­fern•d to. In September reports reached Brisbane to the effect that Daralaba coal had been badly screened, and was not so good as that first supplied. Action was taken to improve it, but the mine closed on 15th September, and is only just re· opening."

STATE STATIOKS AKD STATE BuTCH£Rs' SHOPE. Mr. VOWLES (Dalby) asked tho Minist0r

in Charge of State Enterprises-" 1. Is he aware-

(a) That the sum of £1,950 was paid to a contractor named McDonald for work done at Vanrook Station, which, according to a reliable estimate, could ha vc been performed for half the money; also, that no proper contract in writing was signed by the parties, and, further, that the sum of £500 was

Questions. [ll OcTOBER.] Questions. 1265

paid to such contractor before any work ,,·as performed on the station, and that this sum ''as hold by such contractor over twelve months before <·ompleting his contract?

(b) 'That telephone lines were being built on State statiom at 50 per cent. above local costs for sin1ilar work?

(c) That fencing ·was being repaired or re-eroded at over 80 per cent. above prop<'r cost? -

(d) That carriers \\ere being paid 33 per cent. above local rates in a first­-da...-·.s season?

(e) 1,h~t. carriage cheques '-Vere paid to a nctthous person? Note.-Chequo made out for D. Johnston. No such person in vicinity. Bookke(~per .re­ported to be the recipient.

(f) That brandings of cattle have been seriously neglected? Xote.-Ono Etation's record shows over 100 thr"u· :··v-oids branded during the year.

(g) That free beef was given to t.ne ~llegcd contractors and cart~iers; and, 111 .:-ome cases, contJ.~artors had the rl·rat to kill station cattle for beef? "

(h) That payments and bnlanc~s fc•r hlackboy employees were much wn­fused?

(i) That a farcical inquiry "a, held into some of these details but the per~on acting as adjudicator' attempted to mfluence the only witness?

(j) !'hat old rubbishing and excessive workmg plant Is purchased for such statwns? "2. Is :he aware that political inter·

fer>?nco by a '?ember of the ils embly enforced the remstatement of ,a manager to a management of another property ~ftor. such manager had proved "asteful m h1s management, whilst the inspector who detected such waste and saved the State hundreds of pounds has been re· mo\'ed and disrated?

" 3. Is ho a'vare that the stock t )turns at Silver Plain, State Station were some­what manipulated, and would he qt;ote the numbt)rs relative to such run for the last t" o years ?

:' 4· Will he consent to a Royal Com­nussion bmng appointed to inquire into the above matters and generally into the conduct of State stations and State butchers' shops?"

HoN. \Y. FORGAX SMITH (Jfackay) l'oplied-

" 1 to 4. I am a ware that the state­ments contained in these questions are false, malicious, and ridiculous. Thev embody a list of general charges mad-;, by an ex-employee of the State Stations Depa~tment, whic~, .on investigation by the 1..rado Con1miss1oner, general man­ager, and n1yself, on our recont visit to th.e stations, we~c found to be absolutely without foundation; and this I am pre­pared to sho'.v \"~/hen the Estimates are under discussion. The hon. member would be well advised not to pay too much attention to the staterhents made to him by disgruntled employees whose services have been terminated. The affairs of the State Trade Department are cm;ducted at least as efficiently as any pnvate concern, and therefore it is 1921-4 I

not nece',sary to appoint Royal Commis­sions to inv<Jstigate the charges of every­one who imposes on the credulity of the hon. member."

]\l:01'0R-CAR 1:SED BY SECRETARY FOR AGRICULT1:RE.

:'dr. ELPHI:\STO:'<E (Oxlcy) asked the Secretary for Agriculture and Stock-

" 1. vVhat was the cost of t:w Govern­ment cur until recently used by him?

" 2. \\chen was that car sold, to whom, and at what price?"

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE (Hon. \Y. N. Gillies, Eac!tam) replied-

" 1. £550. " 2. The car was sold during Decem­

ber, 1920, to W. Johnson, for £200. It was placed out of commission at the end of .!\larch, 1920, was upon two occa­sions advertised in the Brisbane news· papers, and was also placed with agents for b<ile, but no satisfactory offers \1 ere received prior to the determination to c-ell as mentioned."

APPLICATION OF THE CLoseRE TO GovERNMEl':T Bc:SINESS.

l\lr. S\VA YNE, without notice, asked the Premier-

" 1. If, following on his achievement of iast Saturday morning entirely destroying Parliament as a deliberativ-e body, it io his intentiDn, as. is ruYI1oured, in future, when an important measure open to criticis1n is on the business-paper not only to gag it through nJl its vital ~tagcs in one all-night sitting· but, under the plea of f'aving time, also its second rc·ading 'and Committe-e stages throug·h on one vote?

"2. In view- of what happened on the morning referred to, would not the ru,ult be the same?

" 3. Further, do not such tactics by supprecsing all criticism by the people's elected representative' reduce Parlia­ment to the position of merely being a recording n1achine for the decisions of oubide irresponsible organisations and entirely destroy its functions as a con­stitutional legislative body?

" 4. Does he realise that under his party's rule Parliament is degenerating into a farce and that the people of Queensland are left entirely without pro­tection of their rights and privileges against despotic attacks by a minority of their number?"

The PREMIER (Hon. E. G. 'l'heodore, Chillagoe) replied-

" The hon. member, apparently, is very much annoyed that the Government, for the purpose of overcoming obstruc­tion on the part of the Opposition, have made use of the machinery provided by the Nationalist party when in office. 1t is a very unusual proceeding for an Opposition to hold up a Government Loan Bill."

Mr. CoRSER: We never held it up. The PREMIER :

" More particularly is it obnoxious on their part to stonewall such :1 mea­sure''--

Mr. CoRSER: You bludgeoned it through. (Interruption,)

'l'he SPEAKER : Order ! Order !

Hon. E. G. 1'heodore.J

Jlinist<Tial StatemEnt. [ASSEl\IBLY.] Jiinisi'rial StateMent.

The PRE::'JIER: " Owing to the obstruction on the part

of tlw Opposition the Government had no option but to resort to the po',\~crs that the N: tionalists put in the Standing Orders \V hen tho..,_- v. ere in office ,J __

Mr. FLETCHER: You might as well have no Standing Orders.

The PREMIER: " ~\ne! utilise the Standing Orders in

orcler to pass through this Houcc certain businof-:s \vhi(.h was ne< cs2arv in the intorcsb of the State." (Interi·uption.)

The SPEAKER : Order ! Order ! The PREMIER :

" In further reply to the hon. m cm ber I would remind him, \··hen he c.,u. atten: tion to the fact that some of the clauses ';ere put throngh, as he sa0 s, without aebate, that that is not at all oinguJ,ar. \Vhcn this party was on the other side discussing an Elections Bill affecting the electorates and the freedom of the people the National party, in a most brutal manner, gagged through about twenty clauses without discussion."

GOVERN:\iENT LOAN FLOATED IN NEW YORK.

Mr. DUNST\N (Gympie), \\·ithout notice, ,,_,ked the Premier-

" Is it his opinion that the remarkable succl>s of the Quc0nsland loan in America, with its proof that Queensland's credit and the Queensland Labour Gov(~l·nn1C'lt's administration are deen1cd quite ''mntl by unbia ·s0d financial a_uthoritie,, for.m the rsrcatost justiftca· tion of h1s action, as Prcn1ier, -~..vhile in London, in 1naintaining the self-govern­ing rights of this Stat'c against domina­tion a ~d dictation bv rcrtain financial interests at homo, and also a condemna­tion of the unp::triotic action of the Philp delegation in endeavouring, for political purposes, to injure the cn dit and hold up the governmental activities of this State."

'I'hc PREMIER replied-" I think that I can a;;-roc ,.,-ith th0

ho~. n1cmber's · uggcstion thnt th0 jn _ tifi­C~(hon for the Govcrnrnent't:: nrtion in resisting the dornination and djctntion of ea~liLtE«<t!c infiuen{'e in London. and for the att:tudc my coll0:>gues and I adopt·•d in hnldin~ that tlw Opnooition bovcott in LoP:1(~n :~a~ cnginectPd frnn1 l;olltic,.l rnot1v. ', lA norno out hv th1' suecc; .. :; of the lean in Xc'·' York. ·I shr>ll have an opportunity, I hope, to r0fcr to thr matter at gro:1ter length later on."

P,\PER.

The following paper w" laid on the table, and orc!ered to be printed:-

Rogul~tions dated 28th Soptr·mbor, 1921, hemg- the Plague Hegulations of 1921 for the Control of Goods Traffic.

~IINISTERIAL STATEMENT. GOVE!:N:.IIEXT LOAX FLOATED IN THE UNITET

STATES OF AMERICA.

The PREMIER : I ask permission to make a statement.

[Hon. E. G. Tlzeodor~.

The SPEAKER : Is it the pleasure of the House that the Premier ho allowed to make a statement'!

GOI'ERN3IENT ]ifE}IBERS: Hear, hear! The l'HEMlER: The Government have

be~n approached upon several occasions v;ith fJrorJosals for obtaining our loan require· ments in ..:-\merica, b11t up to tho present \VO

have hnd a disinclination to brPak a ·.\,.ay fron1 the tradiliona; channels for borrowing over­sons. I-Io'\vevcr, a.s t~e London financiers, inlluenc<'i apparently by political considcra· tiom, had made np their minds to keep us off the London market, and recognising the fact that our full requirements could not be met locally, we decided to accept an offer from Am0rica made to us through the Com­monwealth Bank. When Sir Deuison Miller '' aR in Brisbane a couple of n1onths ago we diccn-scd very fully with him the matter o[ borrowing from the Unit'd States, and it was npon hiB advic:~ that \VC eventually decided to issnc the loan there.

The National City Bank of Now York, ono of the large't and mc,t influential banks in America, offered to arrange f<Jr the under­writing- a.nd floating of a loan of 12,000,000 dollar,. The cost to the Government for unden riting charges, brokerage., advertis­ing, etc., is 4 dollars per cent. The term of the loan is twenty years, the issue price 99 per CPnt., and the nominal rate of interest 7 per cent. per annum.

For the whole of the term of the loan a sinking fund 11rovision oporr1tes. For tho first fh·e years the sinking fund payment is at the rate of 100.000 dollars per quarter, and the amount is to bo ucled to purchase bonds in the open market at a price not exco . .,ding par. After five years, that is com­mencing January, 1927, we have to pay quuterly a sun suffiri":nt for the purchase, a.t a price not exceeding 102~, of 1/60th Df the total amount of bonds outstanding at 3l~t Dec-,mbcr, 1926, and thu6 redeem the full amount of the loan in twenty ye:crs. This rneans that provided ·; c can purchase at not e.bovc par, we sha!l rcde<•m 2,000,000 dollars of the lc~n during the i1rd five yc;;rs, and t.hoe bal" nee, 10,000,000 dollars, during the n'':xt fifteen years, at a price net exceeding 102t <luring the ldter period.

An,) unapplied mane:.· of the sinking fund not used for purchase of bonds by the end of each quarter will revert to the State. Of course, holders of bonds cannot be compelled to eel!, and it may hrrppen that even at the premium rate (102~), if money should ch~apcn, holdLrs may prefe1· tD retain the bonds until near the end of the term of the loan, in which case there might bo only a comparatively small proportion of the loan redeemed at 102~.

It should be cl0ark understood that the f'inking fund payment must be used for the purchase of the outst,>nding bonds during the quarter in 'Yhioh it is paid, otherwise it reYrrts to the State.

Both princi p 11 and interest of the bonds arc to be pai-d withont any dedudion on t._f'count of Con1mon\vealth or Statn taxes.

'l'he above sets out the main points of the C'ontract a.groen1ent.

As already mentioned by me. the loan is a straightout dollar issue, and int,·rBst and ,,inking fund paym£·nts are to be made on thv dollar basis, thus ensuring to Queensland th•J incvibble impr<Jvemcnt jn the rate of dolhr exchange over a period of twenty years.

1\!linisterial Statement. [11 OCTOBER] Government Loan Bill. ]2U7

It is cetimatcd that the cost of the loan \vill work out at well under 6 per cent.

HDn. w. H. BAH)[ES : More likely n per ront.

Tho PR1~l\1IEI{,: I n1ake tho 1Shtten1cnt dcliboraloly, and crr1phasise it for the sa.kc uf th0 hon. gentleman, who seems to be pessi­mistic regardin6 the matter, that it is calcu­lated by the advisers of the Treasury and b:y the Covcuwr of the Commonwealth Bank, that the co,t of tho loan will work out at well uudcr 6 per cent. for the whole l' 1ricd.

The Con1monv. ealth D1.nk, in com1nonting upon the oJier of the Kationai City Bank, shto'c-

" In view of the fact th 1t the British Colun1bia1.!. GoYernrncnt have recently l sued a loan in ?\e1v York at a.n efff'c­tivo rate of interest of '7~ per. cent., whilst tho Frcnc\ bond issue was mado at 95 at a nominrtl rate of n per cont. bqt actually yielding 8 per cent., the prcf'ent offer to the Queensland Govern­nlCnt appears to be quite a favoura.ble cne.n

It is intondr d to offer the Imperial Go­vernment the first call upon tho amount of tlro loan, we acceptiug sterling in London for the dolhrs at the current rate of n:chan1;c. The not proceeds of t.ho loan will be, a,pproximately, 84~ per c"nt., m· 11,370,000 dollars, and if we wore to sell the dollars at the oxclunge rate quote:! in the Press as obtaining ~·osterday-namclc·, 3.81 dollars-we would get in sterling £2,984,252.

GovEnx-,r::::x•r l\1L:>,UEHS: I-Icar, 'hear!

The PRE"-IIER: If the not proceeds were converted i:~t.o sterling at the nonnal rate of c·xchango-namely, 4.866 dullnrs to tlw £1

· -tl1e return would bo £2,336,621 only. The oxchanc;o rate varic-5 fron1 dav to da'-, :-tnd it is po·c.ible the rate ma.y be lower than 3.81 dollars when wo cell.

l\Ir. Fr,ETCHEH: Have you any information tbnt the dollars have been sold?

The PREMIER: No, we shall arrange tlwt

The loan will be imostod for us in London and drawn upon ac required. \V e will effect transfen to tho State of portion of the money and will thereby, jlrobabl:y. make a ft:rther profit, as the oxchang•' is still against Au,tralia, although the rates are much easier than sorne fe,v months back.

I do not desire to elaborate the matter any further at this stage, b<cond saying that. a.~ a consequence of the succeBsful placing of this loa,n in Now York, it is not, ncct'Yssary now, nor is it considered by the Government to be wise to go on with an i,gue in Queens­land.

GOVERXl\IENT J\fEMBERS : Ho::tr, hear ! Tho PRr~JIER: If ciroum,tances in

QucensL,_nd at a later time indicate that, ,,ithout any interfcrPnce vvith business or enterprise or industry in Qucen.-land, moneys can be obtr.inod here for the financing of dc1initc schcm~s of development, this matter will be consid01-cd on it' merits at a later da.to. GOVERN~fE"T ME>!BERS: Hear, hear! Th· PREMIER : But it is not likely that

any issue 'sill bo 1nade for some months to come,

Mr. CoRSER: Twelve months? Mr. HAHTLEY (to Opposition members): You

are flattened out.

GOVE:RNJ,IENT LOA:\' BILL.

THIRD READING.

Tho 'I'REASURE:R (Hon. J. A. Fihclly, l'addinylon): I beg to move-That the Bill be now read a third time.

J\1r. VO\VLES (Dalby): I called "Not fmmal" to thi·. third re~ding for two rea­sons. One is what happened during the second reading of the Bill and while it was in Committee on Friday night last.

Mr. GLEDSON: Saturday morning.

Mr. VO\VLES: Saturday morning, too. I consider that tho injustice which was meted out to the Opposition on that occasion justifies us in criticising the Bill; because

e wore not permitted to offer criticism dur­ing the Con1rnittee stage, nor vv ere we per­mitted to exercise the undoubted right of the Opposition to move amendments.

Mr. BREXNAN: How many hours did you shncwa!l?

The TRNSUREH interjected.

Mr. VO\VLE:S : I do not '·'ant to listen to the hon. gentleman. I had too much of him on Saturday morning last. (Government laughter.) I saw a good sample of what justice there is in hirn and in the Prernier­nil. \Vhen speaking during the Committee stage, I foreshadowed an amendment which we considered was necessary in view of the ,,trc11g·t> attitude taken up by the Premier, the Treasurer, and the Agent-Gencr.ll in Lo11don; in viow of the rnystcrious criticisn1s and remarks which were appearing in re­spect of applications which were said to have IJcen made in America for loan n1oney, and also in view of the fact that we know that in the past it has been the practice of the Government to expend money in antici· pation, and then come to this House to vali­date that expenditure by legislation. vYc considered there should bo some limibtion of the amount of money that may be spent in. 'lny ono :year by the Government out of tfus loan money. vVhen an hon. member sought to move that amendment in Com­mittee he was denied the privilege of doing so by the Premier moving in a Yery arbi­trar?,- rnan:ner that certain drastic artion s.hould be taken by the Committee both to depriYe the hon. member from moving his amendment and the Committee from debat­ing it.

Tho TREASUHER : Surelv, you know a Loan Bill is not a Committee "me.asure?

Mr. VOWLES: If it is not a Committee measure, wh;· is it ,,ent to a Committee? 'I'he Committee agrees to a resolution, then the matter is debated by the House, and then it is referred again to a Committee of the 'Whole, when we have the opportunity of moving amendments. I say our privileges were denied us. \Ve brought forward objeo­tiom in this Chamber, not in a hostile way, but in order that our position might be defined.

Mr. HAHTLEY: You did not bring forward any reoson against the BilL

Mr. VOWLES: We stood up for what we considered were the rights of cm Opposition, which we nro supposed to protect. not only for the present, but for tho future. We claim that, although one hon. member was dealt with for a breach of tho Standing Orders on that occasion, there were more

Jfr. Vowfpg_l

1268 Government Loan Bill. [ASSElVIBLY.] Government Loan Bill.

serious breaches in the rulings of the Chair­man than tho breach for which that member was punished.

The SPEAKER: Order ! I would point out to the hon. member that he is not in order in proceeding on those lines. He is rn~;king a roilection not only on tho Chair ]Jut on the House.

Mr. VOvYLES : I am not reflecting on the House. I am simply giving an outline of \""hat took place, and giving a reason "hy the deb:1te which \vas prevented on the second reading should continue on the third reading of the Bill. I remarked that one hon. member was dealt with bv thio House for standing up for his undo~rbted rights. Of course, the will of the majority pre­vailed.

The TREASDRER : You had very bad luck on that.

Mr. VOWLES : I do not care whether I had goocl or bad luck. I am now adopting exactly the same attitude as I did on Friday night. I say that justice should always be tempered with mercy; and, if there were any right in the Premier to take the action he did he should not have taken such drastic action against a man who was standing up for his rights. The hon. member for Murilla can fmd solace in those lines of Shakespe:lre-

" Thrice' is he armed who has his quarrel just,

And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel,

\Vhose conscience with injustice is corrupted."

That, to my mincl, is where the Premier stands in this matter. He took an action which was one of injustice.

The SPEAKER : Order ! Mr. VOWLES: The hon. member has the

solace of knowing that the public arc behind him, and, though he was dealt Yvith, it v. as for standing up for his undoubted rights.

Hon. members stood up in their [4 p.m.] places and sought to move amend-

ments, but the Chairman did not hear them. I drew attention to an occur­rence on one occasion vrhen the hon. member for Enoggera w:ts speaking, and on anot•her occasion when the hon. member for Bulimba sought to get the floor, both hon. members addre<•••ing the Chairman in the usual way.

The SPEAKER : Order !

Mr. VOWLES: I am telling you what happened, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order ! The hon. mem­ber is not in order in proceeding on those lines.

Mr. VOWLES: I would not be in order if I were adversely criticising the Chairman, but I am telling you what took place so that there will not be a repetition. If we have a Chairman who cannot hear hon. members, he should not be there.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. VOWLES: That is the position. The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. VOWLES: We do not mind that happening once, hut it is not to happen frequently.

The SPEAKER : The hon. member is not in orcler in reflecting on the Chair as he is

[Mr. Vowles.

now doing, and I ask him to withdraw what he has said.

1Ir. VOWLES: Withdraw what? The SPEAKER: That the Chairman Is a

deaf Chainnan.

Mr VOWLES: Well I shall sav that he is not deaf. \Ve have had som• e,;:planation -but a bald ono-o£ the details of the loan floated in New York by the Pr<;. •icr. It is a strange thing that almost Juring _the last forty-eight hours there have been clemals of th, negotiations in America for loans by the Agent-General in London, . whilst ~he Prerr1ier ha.::; given so1ne rnJ ;;:;be no us v0rsron of the matter to the public Press. Vvhen tho ne,vs carno hero on Saturday 1norning that a cable had come from America stating that this loan had been floatccl--

A GOVERNoiENT ME1IBER: You were all dazed.

1\Ir. VOvVLES: Were were not all ·clazod, because we had the news just as quickly as t,Le Governn1ent.

The TREASURER: No.

Mr. VOWLES: As a matter of fact, we had it a little before, because I took my information to the Premier fully fifty seconds before he got his. The Premier makes a song of some explanation as to why we should break awav from the ordinary channels of borrowing_.::_that is, in the old country; hut. we know that on his way to England he attempted in Ameriw to raise loans before he was turned down in London, as he claims, as a result of the Philp delegation.

The TREASUREH: You are quite wrong th,ere.

Mr. VOV\'LES : I am quite right. I know that to be so. I know he was negotiating in America before over he went t.o England, and the trouble was that he could not get the money at a rcawnablo price on account of the exchange, and he is able to do it now onh- because he is able to work 1t through ·the Commonwealth Dank on com­mercial linos.

The TREASDRER : Do you agree with that? :iYir. VOWLES: With what? The THEASURER: That it is on commercial

Iincs. Mr. VOWLES: I say you are getting the

1noncy on co1nmercial lines now, 'Yh::roas yo~ could not get it before. 'Iher~ IS no senti­ment in hon. membcro opposite so far as the old country is concerned. W <; are told in a statement· rnade by the Prom10r 111 thrs Chamber to-day, composed o~ all sorts . of figures rates of exchange and mterost, whwh ,ve a;e supposed to assimilate in a few seconds, that we are getting the money. at a cheap rate-under 6 per cont. I tnmk t.he prucnt rate of money in the old country i~ 5& pc·r ~cnt., ~D that we shJ,ll be losi~g ~ per c ·nt., which will amount to a consider­able sum on a loan of £2,400,000.

The TREASURER: The Common wee; lth Go­vernment are paying £6 12s. 6cl. for the " Diggers' Loan."

J\.Ir. VOWLES : The following wire v:ns received from New York on Friday:-

" The Queensland loan was oversub­scribnd twic.l within an hour of its first· offer."

The TREASUREH : It shows the confidence they have in us.

Gov rnment Loan Bill. [11 OcTOBER.] Gocct?U;Wil' Loan Bill. 1269

Mr. VOWLES :-" The stock was afterwards sold on the

Exchange at 99~."

That i13 altogether in contradistinction to what the Premier told us-

" The newspapers point out that Queensland paid almost 1 per cent. inter­est more than the Canadian pro,inccs."

The TREASURER: That is qnite wrong.

J\1r. VOWLES: And the question of ()'<­

change does not cxiot to the same extent between the United States of Amoriccc and the Canadian provinces a·· it exists between the United State. of America and the Com­monwealth of Auetralia. I sincerely hope that '\Ve aro getting this n1oney at a reason­able rate, but I would like to hear fudhcr details of the redemption se hem e. I venture to say that nobody knows what the figur0s we ha\'e heard mean, becousc we }mye had no opportunity of pcnFcing them. \Vo haYB to pay our interest periodically. Arc we going to pay the present rd" of exchange from the Corntnornvealth to An1erira, or are v;,'c going to pay on the value of Australian money in Am cri' a to-day? If we aro doing that, then we arB going to lose about 4s. in the £1 in exchange on interest payn1ents.

Mr. HAHTLEY: Don't be a " little Quc?ns­landor." Chuck it up and ld the Dill go through.

:Mr. VOWLES: Juct imagine the hon. member terming himself a big Queenslander 1

We know a iitt\e about hi doings. lt is rmposs1ble for anybody in OppcJition to critici,·e intelligent], the fio-nrcco road by th-3 Premier until f]o has h~d an opportli­nity of stud:.-ing them. Anoth,·r qur-~ion that arist·:l is ho~v tl-:.is 111onov is b1 be utili:~cd, and what return we a're going to get out of this 7 per cent. loan. \Ye are told that it is proposed to ittvest some. of it ir1 certain railwa,- de\'elopment propo·-.ds, of wlll<:h v_-c arc told b:· the reports uf the rospmBible ofllcer:s that at toast ono is not going tD rctnrn 1 per c;ent. after pavnw Jt of intorest on the cost of constructio1l and rnaintc;nanco? The rncn''Y is ~;oi:ng i·J be used m what appecn· to be '· :•·ild-cat" s"hcmcs. \Ve han' onlv to look at the Inker­nian Irrigation SchernC to see how n1oney is bc:ing wasted. ...-Mr. I-IAHTLEY: I to D point of order.

Is the hon. rnornber orGcr in di:•-cu incr the Inkermrrn Irrigation Scheme on the third reading of a Bill to authori:~--· tLe raising of a loan'

Mr. VOWLES: I am t dking about the expenditure of th•· loan monev. \Y c arc to~d by the A uditor-Gcneral that .. the estimated cost of th<tl scheme w:>s £130.935, but that it is no'v going to coct £392,361, or £249.000 in excf-HJS Df the original estiinate. That in1mediatelv causes us to ~,,_ onder ·whether we aro gct'ting value for the 1noncy tha.t is expended in thc·<e undertaking·s. Similarlv with our railv. ays, the Irvinebank treatmen't works, the limB pulveriser, the smelters at Chillrrgo8-nothing eho but an accumulation of debt running into hundreds of thousands of pound' of money which is taken hem the Loan Fund, and on which we ~hcdl haYc to pay 7 per cent. if they are continued in the fnture. Arc th<J Government, justifwd in following· a policy of drift Me! spcn3ing n1oncy borro\" cd .at '-uch high rates on schc1ncs "\Yhich, instead of being re_productiYe, are a drag on the co1n1nunity?

\Y c want~d to amend this Bill to limit the amount of cxpenditurc and make the Govern­ment. define the works on which it ·wa' to be incurred. If one peru ,os tho report of th·-- Auditor-General, one must come to the concluoion that things arc not being ca.rricd out in a businees-like "aY. HB advises us, in Yio·~' of the financial pOs'ition and what is ahead of us in the wav of renewals of loans, to carry on in a busi1icss-liko way. Are we then ju~tified in carrying on in this \VJ..Y and

. born:nving n1on0,T.· at an r·xtravaza~t rate ,,f inh~rc-·t for thE' purpo~-~ '! Anyone \Vho looks through the Auditor-Genend's ro}lort and !'tudics our loan po-:ition n1ust CLl.:Jo to the con< lusion that the pr-:~ition is truly dc-;perate.

J\Ir. HAr:TLEY: Put the Auditor-General's report in " l-Iansard."

:IIr. VO\YLES : I wculd like to put the hon. rncmbcr •omc\vhcr_'. I-Iis proplr plare would sec1n to be un ;\ ?·Y lnn1.

~Ir. CoLLIKS: I rlse to a point of order. Is the hon. n1c1nbor in order in refc::'ring to tho hon. n1f 1nber for Fit:trov as ono Y ho ··hou]d be i11 an asylun1? "

Tho SPEAKER: The hon. member is not in order, and I hope hD will withdraw the C'\:pr{'f:·jon.

~.Ir. VO\VLES: I withdraw. ~Ir. FERTIIC'KS: I-I0 -is thinking c~ his client~

"\\·ho ha Ye gono t.J gaol. All his di0nts go to r;aol on account of his inability.

:.fr. YOWLES: I ask that the hoE. mcm­L':r be n1ade to withdraw that rmnark.

The SPEAKER: Tllf' hon. member for South :Grisi)ano i.s not in order, and I c- ~k hlrn t.o ,withdraw his ren1ark.

2\Ir. FERRICK',: Onl:v some of it. The SPEAKER: 'l'11c hon. me nber must

withclnnY. :\Ir. FEHIUCKS: I withdraw.

:Yh. VOWLES: It was on],- the interjec­tion of an irrcsponsib~e individual.

1\J r. FERRICKS: J us'u :::~ ,, rc",p.ansibL a3 you y:crf' in connect1on \\ jth \V an do --vale. (Go­YerurrH~llt laughter.)

Mr. VOWLES: Jus!- \Yait until we gc t the report on the State Ent.eqn·: -,.;s. \Ve will give ycu something about th;. t. I \Yant to placc on record the cxcppt'on v hi rh the Oppc,ition take to the tre.,tmcnt meted out to us on Fl,iday nig~tt and Snturda.': !ll~~n·Inng. ~: ou. Si~·, sa:v th-at I cannot cnhCJse the action of the Chain.an. but at any ra-te I can put it on record that \Ye cbim that the undoubted rights of the Opposition were infringed in nut'ny respects, 1and that we desire to protest against that infrinL.nin~nt; anJ that is one of the reasons why I oppose the third reading of the Bill, a--- it atl'ords me ono of the only few opportunities I shall hav~ of objecting to what has taken place.

Mr. TAYLOR (Windsor) : The Treasurer ~tated that it is an unusual procedure for discm-;ion to take place on the third reading of a Loan Bill. Probably it is, but I take it that we are d~aling at the present time with an unusual and extraordinary set of circuln­stances. As the leader of the Opposition stated, during the early hours of S'aturday morning the Opposition ,,-ere not given the opportunity of fairly and honestly criticising the Loan Bill during its second reading. Only four or five hon. members of tho Oppo­sition had spoken when the Treasurer moved -" That the question be now put " ; and

Mr. Tay!or.]

1270 [ASSEMBLY.] Government Loan Bill.

that proc0dure was followed during the rest of the mght. and the Bill was practically bludgeoned through without discu"ion. The .Opposition claim as a right that they should have be on allowed to discuss the Bill.

Mr. CoLLINS : This GoYernment intend to govern.

:i'>Ir. TA YLOR: One rr a'on why we are opposing this Loan Bill 1s bcc;:cu··c the GoY('TlliYlent represent a mlnorjty of the people d Qucenslan'd. Of the number of votes caot at the last c I cction, hon. members· on this side of the I-Iouse obtain-)d a n1ajority of 20,000.

:Mr. PoLLoc;;:: What ha, that to do "ith this Bill?

1\Ir. TAYLOR: The Go,-crnment went to the cou11tr·;· on 9th October last with a majority of twentv-thrce or t;Ycnty-four and they came back with a majority of onlc four, and jn the great n1ajority of cases hon. rncmbcrs opposite cr:rne back \\ ith reduced n1ajoritics ;:_ - cornparccl with the preceding ·election.

GOVE'ccl!kENT M.E~IBKi:S: 1'\o.

:f>1r. TA YLOR: Another re-ason hv VIle

oppose the Bill iq because of the ha~mful m a ladministration of the finallC(''; of Queens­land during the six years that the tabour -Governn1ent l1avc occnpic·d the Govcrnrno~-..t benches. Tho Trea 'urer c· ti1natcs that the an1ount \Yhich he cxpr~ts to receive in re,·enue for 1~21-22 i' £12,270,688, and he estimatn the expenditure at £12,735,727, :::.luX<'· iHg deficit -on the year's tran;..::tctior-_. of £465.033. Although the Treasurer is receiving surh a splendid r-:venuc, he esti­mates that ho is going to have a deficit of £.;65.038. This is an additional reason whv this House should withhold it.. anction -t(, this Bill. The Auditor-General points out that since 30th June, 1911. th<' puhlic debt of the State has incr<'rrsed by 72.44 per cent. Surely it is time that ,_-e cried a halt in connection \vith loan expenditure, and it is "Certainly time that the 1.'rcasnrer exercised a more c~r0ful guiding hand oYer the finances of this State. I take it that lue is rcsponsiLle for the exp .nditure of moneys connected with every department, and, instead of allowing his colleagues to overstep the Estimates, he, as Treasurer, should exercise control, or it is time that the Government fl:'IH' place to another which would nrop"rlv conb'ol the affairs of the State. Dl!'ring the cec-md rf'ad­ing of the Bill hon. members on this side ~~cl not only the .desire, but the right, to <:tJscuss the BilL The Gm·ernmcnt are now asking sanction for a loan of £9,185,915. 'What is their record of expenditure of money during the years they ha,-e occupied the Treasury bcnche.? 'Thn printing and -distribution of "Hansard " for propaganda purposes last year cost £2.372.

The SPEAKER: Order !

::\Ir. TAYLOR: Thoro is a Ios- of £13.792 ~m the State trawler, and the sorrv part of it 1s that we have still p;ot the trawl er and are trying to sell .it, according to an answer to '.' question the other day, at a loss of £7,000. 1f a buyer can be got. The chances are that. bv the time the vos·-el is sold \Ye shall have to accept a loss of £15,000 o;- £16,000 There is the loss of £10,656 on the "Douglas Mawson," the loss of £7,249 on the St.ate a rsenio mine, the Ios,, of £1,387 on the BaraJaba Coal Mine, the loss of £2.259 on the V en us Battery, the lo s of £4,049 on the Bamford battery.

!Mr. Taylor.

The SPE~\KER: Ord•Jr! The hon. member mnst discu'" the Loan BilL

Ylr. TA YLOR: Those arc ''Xpenditures of ! Jall n1onc·y, nnd I an1 trying to point out reasons why this Bill should not bo passed. The 1naladrninistration of the State's finances by the prec;;eut GovcrnnH:-nt during the time they haYc been in control is a rea:Jon. 1vhy ~anc~ion should not bo gi,rcn to this Bill. There is the ]o,s of £40.000 on the \Yarra Coal Mine, the loss of £48,07:> on the State smelters, the lo:;s of £28,950 on the In·ine­bank State treatment worlu-, and the loss of £~72 on the. Ininebank store-a total cf £159.261. Then '''O have the loss of £6,500,000 on tlH~ railways during the six ye,LI'J the Governrnent have been in po1-r"r, ·which, a.ddt J to tho lo~ses I havo just detailed, ci,es a total o£ £6,659,261.

Th0 THEASURER: \Vhat about that £1.000.000 a month?

:y[r. TA YLOR: Afte1' gi,-iw; credit for the jurpJuses, the ac,_-umulatcd deficits amount to £763,478, which, added to the a mount of £6,659,261, give a total lf'2-S of £7.422,741. We arc asked to pass th0 third rcadiEg of this Bili to give a G·vcrnrncnt with a record such as that nuthcritv to raise n1one:/ within and ·without tho StatC in order that rt rnay be E~uandcr._:d in the futuro <1,'3

it has bcd1 in the pP.:.t. On nC'rusing tht~ .\uditor-Gcneral's report, we find that, up to 30th J un0 last, tho amounts lent to local nuthoriti0s and other bodies is £7,281,521: th·~t) I take it. is money 'Yell in\·l tcd. Of that tt111ount the local authorities owe the GoYornmcnt £1,627.202, and arrears fur iutore~t and redemption. onl,y an1ount to £17,244. or a little owr 1 per cent. Yet a short tirnc ago the Premier, in cri6cising the /ocrt! authorities with regard to the' expe-nditure of loan n1oncy on thoir 'vork.::, with a 'c. aye of the hand, said that they were rea; lj not worthy of any consideration.

The PREMIER: 'When did I sav that the,• WfTe not \YOrthy of any consldcrition? ~

Mr. SrzER: After the late local authorit · elections. '

Mr. TA YLOR: ThE> hon. gentleman made ~o1ne rofcrcncc to pC'ttifog-g·ing local authori­ties, and discounted a, far as possible tho ncti,·ities and usefulness of local authoritic·-. The lm·al authorities and other b~dieo arc in arrears tn the amount of £147.071, or a little over 2 per cent. That includes thP Metropolitan and Ipwich \Vater and Sovvera.frO Board.

The TREASURER: No, we ha ne capitalised tha.t.

Mr. TAYLOR: A depubtion waited on the Minister in Charge of State Enterprises yesterday in connection with electric lip;ht. 'I'ho Government were willing to go to New York to borrow money, but they were not \villing to adYancc the ncct·~sary n1oncy to metropolitan local authorities to provide elec­tric ]ip;ht throug.hout their areas. The Go­verntnont say that it is a matter of polic>·· and there i, no hope of an Order in Council boi nq- i,·,ued in order that the work can be c ... rric~1 ont. Can you ima;;inc a narrower or 1210ro parochial spirit than the Govern­ment aro exercising at the prc-;ent time in conn,,:r:tion Vi,-ith this matter? 1-Ierc are areAs cry1ng- out fm· a system of E'lertric l10hting, ancl here is a company willinv, to do the '' ork. The Gov!'rnment sa:c that they are there to :;afep;uard the int2rests of the public. Exactly so. \Ve are here to safeguard, as far

[ll 0C'l'OBER.] Government Loan Bill. 1271

as wo possibly can, the interc,ts of the public and see that they are attended to and carried ~n1t_ in a busir.esslike at:d prop0r 1.vay. Surely 1t 1s a grave confc,,wn of \Yoaknoss when the Government confb.; that they are not in a pc it:ion tD draw up an agreement with a local c llllJ>any to supply eledric light, which ag,rcomcnt wili adequately safeguard the runhc mterests. The local authontws haYG 110L power in themselves, and thc~,~ have to ~ubmit to the Government-be it Labour, chtwnal, or Country partv.

The 'l'REAScRER: ·what is wrong ith that? Mr .. TA YLOR: There is nothing wrong

\\lth Ji, A local authority has to ''nbmit anv agreement \\·hich it choo;;os to make with any <'c:mp;my or body of rwoplc in connection w1th a ,scheme such as, this for the approval of the GovcTnmcnt, and the GO\·crnmcnt have then. cycry opportnnity of sa !"guarding the JJubhc Interc;;:ts in f'VfH'Y po,siblc \Vay. Unun­ployrnont is rarnpant in our rniclst. Here IB an opportunity of relieving it to a. certain extent.

~-fr. HARTLEY: Here Is a better oppor­tunity-pacs tho Bill.

~d1·. TAYI.OR: Unemployment may be reduced, but tho Govcrnn1e1t and their su.p­rwrters '"~lY, "No, v.-o V. 111 not give this atethority. Wo will not allow £30,000 or £40,000 ~o b.e expended in establishing an electnc hghtmg syftem in vonr area. The local authority is the body to c.:rry out the '~i ork.n

'l'lw TREAS1;HER: Y on know ven well that the \Vindsor council, likf' the \Vv~num coun­cil, h;cs been spoonfed by the Go'vcrnment.

Mr. TAYLOR: I think we are epoonfeed­ing the Government. For every £1 the Government have lent the \Vindsor council the council has paid interest "nd redemntion m-cry year according to agreement, ancl will contmw- to do sD. I cannot understand the Treasurer cayiJ!g that v c are 'poonfod in currying out, 111 that particular area, the rwcessary works for the betterment of the town and in the intcrc ts of the health of tJJ() community.

The TREASuRER: You know verv well that the \Vindsor council have received" more than any other suburban council.

l\Ir. TA YLOR : And W<l have spent the money better than any olher local authoritv. 'rho fact that we have had rnoro moans th~t ihe Government have evorv ('onfidence in the Windsor council or it ~vould not have given the money. They knew that it was a local authority that deserved· well of the Government, rrnd that. it would honour its engagements and do all it could for tho betterment of the town.

[4.30 p.m.] One• hon. member referred to the Inker­

ntan irrigation scheme, which has a direct irdluence on the expenditure of our loan money.

1\fr. COLLTXS: \Vhat is wrong with tho Inkcrnun irrigation schcn1c '?

Mr. ']',\ YLOR: There is only this wrong about it-that it was csbma.ted. in the first place, to cost £130,00~. but the Auditor­li-cpC'l al. in h:is last report, saJ s that it is gomg to cost £392,000. That is three times t:,c original e:'>timate of the cost of the work. S,~TilDbody is to bla1n0 in C'OYlllOCtion with the matter.

'1_1hn TREASURER : I \\ill take a rccon1Jncnda­tion from you. \Vhom would you sack?

:'vir. TAYLOR: I would sack you for a start. (Laughter.) Kotwithstandiog what nny rv'Iinjster Inay do, the Treasurer IS directlv rc,no·'sible to Parliament and to the pe~ople 'Of Queensland for the expendi­ture of public money, and it is his dttty to get progress reports with regard to works being carried out with loan rnoncy, and to sr:J that tho money is being judiciously expended. and that the e~tirnates are nut being exceeded in the shameful man'Jcr the ost.irnate is being exceeded in regard to that particular work.

I was pleased to hcqr the Pr,.mier say that, for the pre.:;;ent at all events. he doL3 not thiuk it ncces.~a.rv, nor is it J('cirable, to ask the people of Queensland t-J contribute VJ the proposed loan. The people of Queens­lu:Jd haYe done rornarkablv W-...!ll during the last tweh-e n1onths in the w·ay of contributing t lO<llY, and other c.xp:.__lH:liture, and they ;::,re pretty well bled white.

:'vir. Hu:TLEY: Do you wa11t to bleed the p ·ople of \rindsor white b~, giYing tbo Electric Light Company an Order 1n Council?

Mr. TA YL01(: The people of Q:~:•cnsland hlYe eo otributcd a locul lo-u1 of £2,000,00.J and abnut £1.250,000 to a Federal loan this vcJ..l'. The incon1e tax contributions for th·• :Year 1920-21 amounted to £2,410,170 and tho land bx paymrnts for the same period to £459/48. The total co~Jtribution, of the people of Queensland durmg the last twelve months to loans and taxation amoua'ed to no lc8S than £6,119,618.

The TREA,SURER: \Vhat do yNl <lcduce fnm that?

ivlr. TA YLOR: I am only giving you the figures.

The 'I'REASFl.ER: \Yhat is your argument? Mr. TAYLOR: I wam to argue that the

peonlo of Queensland hanJ contributed mor·c this~ year bv way of loan and taxation than has "ever been · contrihutrU before in the history of the State, and this at a time when lJlHiness 'va:, never ~" ors0, and inron10s are falling in ever.'~ direction.

The TREAS1:RER: How many people pa,1· this ta'\"ation?

Mr. TA YLOR: I do not know how many. The 'l'REAS1:RER: On!:,- 20,000, odd, people. Mr. TAYLOR: I think tlwir contributions

are \Vondcrful. I think the reasons v. hich I haYe given this afternoon are a1nply su[Iieie~t t\) ju;;:tify hon. members on this side 1n

opposing tho Bill. \Ve haYe had Western ~.l,ustralia quoted in the House on so,-eral or:casiuns as beir~g a ::!:ocking C'xarnple. \Vostcrn Australia had a deficit of £686,000 for the last financial Year. a Sinking Fund contribution of £342,2'77. and inter; ,t on the Sinking Fund investments of £~60,761, mak­ing a total increment to the Sinking Fund during the year of £803,000. Those payments to the Sinking Fund exceeded the year's deficit by £116,113. The total deficits of Western An,,traha to the 30th June, 1921. amounted to £4.773,430, against '·' '1ich they had a Sinkinll' Fund amounting to £6,848,826,

hich is more than £2,000,000 greater than the Sinking Fund of every other State in the Commonwealth combined. Those flgures speak for themselves, and show plainl:v that, a.lthough \Vc,tern Australia has been held up to n·, as a shocking example. it is "-11 example which the Government of this State mig-ht well follow. Sinking Funds are estab~ lished in order to redeem tho public debt and

Mr. Ta11!or.]

1272 Government Loan Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Government Loan Bill.

to put a break on Trc:tsurers who are apt to hold up the development of t·h State. 'We b,, to0 reckless in their expenditure. I think. had ~n example of a globetrotter-Lord if we want a shocking Lxample of reckless l'\orthcliffe-who is controlling the Press of expenditure, all \Yo have to do is to point to half the world coming here and telling us the TrcftsurN of Queensland at the present that we want immigrants in order to fill onr time. empty spaces. The workers of the Stat·e are

Mr. HARTLEY (Fitzroy): It is , ... ·,lly n.stounding to sec the df ,pcrate condition tho Opposition arc in .at the present time. It shows the extreme length to which they will r"O, not in th,\ intorosts of the ~ountry, but m the interests of themseh·es and the little eotcrie which influcncu them, and which generally finds tho funds for their political earup:ti~·'lS. Can anything be rnore pitiable than to lH!,1r the :- 1 \'0 argu111ents put up this ::ft,•rnoon-that LJ rna.ttcr on what tcrn1s this rnoncy has bce:-1 secured, or what it

to Queensland, they arc still opposd to i hire! reading of the Biil. They failed in Loi1don to C"'St the Government by defam­ing the er· dit of the State, and they failed to unseat the Government on the appeal to tl:c dertorJ on the right of tho Goyern1nent L) r.ai'<i rnonc:v on their o\vn t<rn,s and their det2l'm!n:t~1onu not to bart0r awav the herit­age of tho State to London J 8ws. Those vita 1 i::-,;~nes "·ere put before the ele:. .. to1-1, and the GoYc1·nn10nt camo back to power 'vith a dear al!rl definite Pndor.~cincnt. (Oppo·,ition lan:chtcr.)

}Jr. BEBBTKGTOX: You have not got an endorsetncnt.

Mr. HARTLEY: If we have not got an endorsement, who has got the endors< mcnt.? There are various sections on the other side which can never come together ev·en on the question of whether a Supply ·day shall be a Supply day or not. I claim that this party has a majority. It has h~'en putting its legislation through ever since the session commenced. It has a majority of votes, because no parp:y on the ?ther side got as many votes at tms party d1d. Ha.-ing· failed t.o defeat the Government at the hnstmgs bY their miserable " little 'l.ustralian " tactic"s on the London mone:· market, hou. members oppo~ite should now have the decency to accept the position and let the Bill go th~·ough. !'he leader of the 1\ at.ionali~t party sa1d that 1t was hme v, e c:tlled a halt in the expenditure of loan moneY. Does ho moan to say that we should not go on with the development of the country 9 A phenomenal slump has taken place in the markets and in tho industrial and n1anufacturing centre::J of the world. and in a L s-.el' degree in Queen"land. Does the hon. memb r say that we should stop development work becathe we shall have perhaps to pay ~ per cent. more for loan mon,.,y? ='i'othing would be mor·e dis;.strous to the State t.han to cease development work when th<J whole of the world i.s calling for our products, when in a short bme this countrv from wl1ich we have borrowed this money_:_- ..

Mr. SIZER : You reckoned a that the world's depression is eve~~ kno1-vn. and no\v you say crymg out for our products.

moment ago t.he greatest the world is

Mr. HARTLEY: I did not say any such thing. I did not say that the depression is the greatest we have ever had. I said that there has be·en a phenomenal slump in indus­t.ry and manufacturing all over the world, and tLat it is so to a lesser extent in this State. When the world is calling for our products, in spite of the slump-for our coal and wool-hon. members opposite want to

[JI~ .. Ta.ylor.

not going to be fooled by that. The obtain­ing of this loan will play an important part in a Yery efficient form of immigration. If we can develop our natural and agricultural rc'_ourcc~, immigrants will con1o w'ithout. any incentive from brother Northdiffe.

An 0PPOSITIO)ol MEc.!BER : A comrade !

:Mr. HARTLEY : I would not call him a comrade. Ho \\as never a corr1rade of n1ine. He is a little tinpot man who tried to enslave half the soldier, in England, ar,d then tried the same thing here. He was ,frightened that, if he did not drive them to the point of conscription, we could not win the war. No Queenslander would over call him com­rade'. Ho has been pr·eaching the need of preparedness by filling up this country with the off .courings of the old country-that is ,~.rh;,:; his irnmigration ;.chcme amounts to.

:Mr. BEBBIXGTON: No. Mr. HARTLEY: Vvhilc he is preaching

that because of a 1nenacc in the near East, her·' is a country which has f·teppsd in and lent us this money. Why? Because Ameri­cans understand to a grel'.tor extent than cny tinpot "little Englander" the need for pre3erving Australia in t·he Pacific as a white Australia. I am convinced that this financial transaction between this State and the U nitcd Stat-Js of America will go a long" ay towards binding the two nat.ions with one ·bond to etand in defence of the "·hite race in the Pacific. I have no doubt that it will be urged that we have bt,en unpatriotic in going away from tho homeland to get thi• money. Any man is cnt.itled to place that int.·•rpre­tat1on upon it if he likes; but we are justified in the action we have taken by the opi"ion which has been expr·esscd in London. There is not the slightest doubt about that. I am sorry the small financiers cf England should have been fooled and guided by the dnpid delegation which left these ohorcs into d ~sccnding to the plane of refusing us money because of c~ rtain political action which had been taken in this country.

Mr. CoRSER: Do you think thnt is why you did not get t·ho mone.y?

:\Ir. I-IARTLEY: Yes, I do. Does the hon. member not think so? I will quote a very good opinion by an outside authority, pub­li·hrcd m the "Courier "-the organ of the delegation that attempted t.o, and did, defame the credit of this State. It appc ns in the issue of yesterda:,-, and reads-

" Opinion in the city on the subject of Queensland's borro\ving innovat·ion varies. The strongest opponents of the State's alleged repudiation, while admitting that ]' Ir. Theodore had no option but. to go clsQ-;,vbr>rc, bccau:.o ho could not borrow in London on any practicable terms owing to t.he s ·rious view taken bv linanciers and investors of his alleged 'repudiatory legislation, point out that borrowing in New York is opposed to the Bl·itish Empire's interests, which demand the c:1rliest possible r·eduction of indebt-edness to New York. :More moderate opinion holds that the London financial wire­pullers have gone too far in identifying themselves with the State's politin, and conducting a. deliberate campaign, the

Government Loan Bill. [ll OcTOBER.] Govanment Loan Bill. 1273

result of which damaged not only Queensland's credit but that of the Commonwealth also."

That is tho London opinion-evidently an opiriion on which the "Courier " plac·es so1ne weight. H go'' on to say-

" A high authority with a long and intimate association vdth r'\nglo-~'\.ustra­lian finance informed a repre• entative of th•· Australian Press Association that American representatives have been long ·endca vouring to establish financial rela­tions with the dominions, but heretofore unsuccessfully, although more than one Australian State appeared inclined to negotiate. Eventually, as thB result of numerous consultations of London finan­ciers wit.h the don1inion"·' advisers, it was generally understood that as long as London was prepared to financ" the dominions the latter were not prepared to assist enterprising Americans to trans­fer the world's financial centre to New York.''

Tho consensus of opinion is that the dele­gation put us in such a position of isolation that they forced us to go to another part of the Empire-or what once was a pa.rt of the Empire, but which was alco forced into a position of independence by these very ::,a ~n; tactic·.

GOVERNMEXT ME1IBERS: Hear, hear! Mr. IIARTLEY: ,Just as the American

States declared for independence because of an undue and improper interference in their internal affairs, so we have a similar instance of the first Australian State--

Mr. KING: ·which you perpctuat.ed in th•· Local Authorities .. \.et-taxation without representation.

:'vir. HARTLEY: I cannot understand the hon. gentleman's interjection and I do not o0e that. it has a bearing on the subject. But I say that the attitude of the delegation and of the Tory Press in Queensland has had the 0ffect of making the first br ~ ak between an .\ ustralian State and t·he Empire.

?vlr. EDWARDS: That is a condemnation of th~· GoYernrrwnt.

l\h. IIARTLEY: No, it is not; it is a condemnation of the little narrow-minded body of politicians v.·ho oo~Jd not -ac that in at.tcmpting to \Vl'cck this GoYornn1c11t they " ro dama8ing the credit of the State and of the Commonwe~lth and i1king the risk of shifting the whole financial relationship from ono between QLwensland and London to one botw0en QLwcnsland and :New York. I haYc pleasur·c in supporting the third rea·d­ing of j.hc Bill. It would be disastrous if the advice of the leader of the K ationalists were followed and we were to stop the expenditure of loan money. \Ve cannot place men in work if we do not continue develop­ment. I want to make one more point which has a very important bearing on t·he matter, and that is the attitude of America towards this Queensland loan. I believe they recog­nise seriously and gravely the position they will be in if Queensland were menaced by ,Ja.pan. They realise that, while we have in Queensland big r·esources to ·develop, it is to their interest to help us in th:;tt development, ber.:tw·e the day may come when it will be a question of whether the American and Australian navies or the J apanece navy shall obtain supplies of coal from the St.yx RiYer at Droadmount, the Dowen field, or any other Queensland coalfield.

HoN. W. H. BARNES (B11limba): Since we met la";t week thole certainly have been developments, and the Premier himself has recognised it. As reference to the loan flouted in America hrrs boon permitted, I think that I have a right also to refer to it. The Premier stated tho.t the loan floated in Amerir-1 was going to cr·'t 6 per cent:, and I interjected that it ;.robably would cost 7!z per cent. Although I had not ·Cen them at the tin1c, I notic'J fro1n quotations in the even~ ing papers that what l stated will be pretty well borne out.

The PRE>IIER: What do they know about it'

Ho;-;. W. H. B"\R:\'ES: \\-hat an absurd thing for the Premier to say ! Do nDt the financial editors of the big papers in the old country know something about finance'!

The Prm1rmn: Not unless thev know sCJme-thing about the terms. ·

HoN. W. H. DARNES: They state dis­tinctly thnt it is going to cost a.bout 7~ per cent. They make another statement-that, \\hen the loan is paid off, it is going to cost Quccnoland £250 fo1· cYcry £100 wo receive.

The PnE1IIER: That is absolutely ridiculous. HoN. \V. II. DARNES: I would prefer to

v. a it ,·~nd sec what the n_ ".ult is going to be. \Ve are going to know a great deal n1ore a.bout it before the t\Ycnty years arc over. 'This Government, or some other GoYernmcnt, v·ill have to pav the piper for what has hap­pened. Quite ap:ut from that, I think this }louse has a right to consider the bigger question. The hon. member for Fjtzroy reff,rrc t1 to the tic-. 'vhiz-·h, as a result o£ this, \v-ill be brought about bt>t-. ~~- ~n ~\m erica and ..-\lb~ralia. No 1na.n c<tn object to good rela­tion cxif.ting bctwe<m the peo;,les of the earth. I that deliberately. But, after all. there been broken a connecting link between ourselve" and the old land.

Mr. BRENKAN: Cut it out. HoN. \Y. H. BARNES: The hen. gentle­

man would like to ha"' it cut out. That is \vhat is behind the moYPme'lt. Th:1 fact rcmdns that tLe_._c: he l ,'(''1 a Link broken.

:\h. HARTLEY: \Vho ;, r: sponsible for bre~k­ing that link? Your dcle:;atim1 broke that link.

llox. W. II. DARNES: Hon. gentlemen on the other side apparcntlv are beoorning verv n1uch alar;ncd. I ha \TC to:d thern the trnth, and a-pparently thC:~V do not like it. I repeat that priuetrily Lw object of the Bill is to 1nnke it caPv for tl"·~ Governn1ent to be Jcsd dcjJcndent On P L.rliatnent. I am prepared to admit that the amount which has been borro\YCd in J1_n1orica has bron author~ if:l~d under a previous .Act. But the Govern~ mcnt have introduced this Bill and have not included in it, as thev r hould hav.e done, provisions for the distribution and collection of the mone;:.T. There are 1nany rca:ons why that should be amplified and stressed. I do not trust a Government '.>-ho put throu_.rh with the gag an important Dill representing nearly £10,000,LOO. Arc we not ju>tificd in : aying that they will continue to plnnge in the way in which they hwe been plunc;in,; Lll their na.rlian1entarv life? Then"' should be S{Jl1l0~ thing- in the ·Bill to limit the amountr which the Governn1ent \Vill be allo\veJ to ra:8e in any one year. The hon. mombe1· for Port Cm·tis went to consitlcrab!e trouble in fram­ing a very importDnt arncndrncnt .. Jong thoso lines. That arncndmcnt was. di:'.tributcd, and it was not even read out to the Committee.

Hon. W. H. n<~rnes.]

1274 Government L '!Wt Bill. [ASSEJ.\IBLY.] GoveTnment Loan Bill.

The Committee did not have an opportunity of dealing with it. Thorcforo we have a right now to point out some of the things which happened during the period when we were denied the oportunity of criticising or amending the Bill, as wo had a right to do.

Th,:, Premier cannot deny the [5 p.m.] st.1.toment whieh has been made.

Did the hon. member for Port Curtis get an amendment r0ady some. day.; beforehand for the purp0ses of obstructiOn ·1

Mr. CORSER: Printed at the cost of the State.

HoN. W. H. IL'\.K\'ES : If the Prcm:er thinks the object of this side is to block every­thing, he is making a mi-takc. The object of this side was to improYe the Bill and saferuard th~ inter. --,ts of QuLCl?oland. Surely we have a nght to do thnt, cc_:ugcd as o are vvith a responsibility tl; th(~ people of Queensland.

1'he PRE.JIIER: You vvcrc stonB'\Valling a Loan Bill. -

HoN. W. H. BARKES: We ,,-ere not. \Vhat was the dcsperab' hurry of the Premier and bis colleague~ in tksiri::g to run through at the point of the " gag" a Bill of such great i1nportance? Surely the1o Hlust ha Ye been some ulterior motive?

rrhe l1REJ\~IEH: \Vhy are you stone-walling TlO\V 1

HoN. \V. H. BARNES: I am not ston_­walling. I want to point out that the Biil is going to lay 011 the people a burden of increased taxation. \Yt·re -we not right) seeing that the conditious of the money rnarkE-t rnay improve, in seeking to prevent the Governmt'nt from floating tho k-1!1 in one lump ! Tho burden on the people ol Quc•msland has born brought about by twu forces-one the war and the other the reck­less ad.ministration of Queensland. No 1nan is going to take exception to any load he may have to carry as a result of the war­wo have to stand up to what :\Ir. Fisher said at the con1n1encernent of the war-that 1.\ o were in the war to the la't man and the last shilling-but we have to sec that the uncmployrnent question, for instance, is pro­vided for. When this Bill gees through it will bo anotftet· factor in putting the burden Orl fewer people, h~cause it 1nakcs provision that tho;e who subscribe shali be exempt from taxation; and. if you put th" burden on fe\Yer people. .YOU are going to n1ako it impossible for development to take place. 'The salvation o£ this C')tmtr.v will come along lines the reverse of the policy of this Govern­ment-on the lines of the policy which seeb to get people to come in and im-e··t thmr 1noney in enterprises which will rnoan tLc development of the country. Tlw result of the policy of the Governm'ont to-day should b' to rhtrict thG burden on tho people, to lighten the load, end live within our means. It has boon pointed out that alroadc' we o·n o £80,000,000 o£ loan money. Hero is another £2.000,000 raised in America, and the Bill pro vi des for another loan of appro' imatcly £10,000,000. If all thRt sum be raised in one year, onr loan indebtedness might be increased at once to £92,000.000.

The PREMIER: W'hy aro you stonnvalling? lloN. W. H. BARNES: Perich the thought

that I should stonewall ! I am pointing out the po.sition of Oueemland, and I h:1Ve a right to do so. \Yhat is the Plfcrt of exnen­diture like that? May I draw attcntio~ to the fact that the amount rn ised in tho Com­monwealth since 1915 is £239,852,770, and tlw

fHon. W. H. Barnes.

fltnonnt outstanding to-da:v is only about £7,000,0GO short of that. IV e !uno to bear our sharA of that, and rightly so. If this Bill passes and thesA loans are florttcd, our debt is going to increase abnorrnally.

The PREMIER : I move-That the <JLiestion be now put.

OPPOSITION MEMBERS : G :cg ! Mr. CORSER: Back to Russia!

Question-That the quutiou bo now put (j1-r. 'l'hcodoru's motion)-put; and the IIou,o divided:-

uir. Barber , Brennan , Bulcocl, , Collins , Conroy , Cooper, F. A. , Cooper, \Y. , Coyne ,, Dash

Dnnstan , Ferricks , Fihclly , Foley , ~;?rd: , uilday

G illi~s , Gledson , Hartley

AYES, 36. }lr. Huxham

Kirwan Land

, Larcombe , , :!.\f cCormack , 3lnllnu ,, Payne

Pease Pollock

, Hiorcht.rl , Hyan , bmith , ~tvpford

'l'heodore 'Veir

, Wellington \Vilson

'Tellers: :~fr. \V. , \Vin:~ta~llry

Cooper ana :J.ir. Fonh•.

-'fr. Appel , Barnes, \V. H. , Bcbbington , Brand , Cattermull , Clayton

Corser Edwanls

, Elphinsf.one Fletchcr

:; ~~~eri ,, .Tones ., Kerr , King

NoEs, 30. :.ur. Logan ,. 1'laq:: rl'gtt

:l\lfiA\Vlli ..\Iou1 e

, ::\ott , Petc·rson

PL'tr.ie Holocrts, .J. Ji ''

, Hoberts, T. [{ Sizer

, Swayne ., Taylor ·~ Yowles , Walker

1'eller-' _. Mr. Fry ,, \Varren

and Mr. Kerr.

Question-That the Bill be now road a third time-put; and the House divided:­

~Ir. Barber , Brennan , Jlulcock

Collins Conrov

, Coop·-~. F. A. , Cooper, IV. ,, Coyne

Dash Dunstnn

, Frrricko ,, Fihell:r , Foley

Forde Gildav

, Gilli-·, , Gledson

Hartley

AYES, 36. )Jr. IIuxham

Kipvan Land I,arcom }<~ M cCormack

,, ~lullan Pa•n,::. Pefi.se~ Pollock I~ iordan

, Rynn ~mith

, , ~topford ,,

1l'hPorlore> \Vpjr

, \Vellington \Vilson

'I.' ell et·;;;: ::VIr. Foley ,. \\rinstanlry

and }fr. Peasf:'.

i\<[r. Appel , BarnPs, \V. H. , Bchhington

Brantl , Cattrrmnll , Clayton

Cort:r:r , Edwards , Elnhinstone

Fletcher , Fry

G1·r~n .T onPs Kerr

, King Tellers: ldr.

NoEs, 30. :Mr. Logan , ::\[acgn•gor , l\1nxwrll

Moo re ~~ott

r. tprson " rrtrie , Hoherts, .T, H. C.

I?oL_rts, T. TI. '"'izer

" Rwayne Tav]or \.r o~;,drs Walker

,, \farrf'n Fletchcr and }fr. Sizer.

Government Loan JJill. [ll OcTOBER.] South Brisbane, Etc., Bill. 1:?75

The TREASLJRER: I moyo-That the title of the Dill be " A Bill to authorise the rais­ing of a loan for the public servic8 of tlw State and for other purposes."

. Mt": SIZER (~Yun~lah): Before that quos­tton IS )Jut I thmk 1t would bo very proper tf the title of the Bill was altered to read "Tho • Gag' Loan Bill," and I move an :tmendment to that effect. \V o have cst.lb­llshc~ prccr~dcnts such as 'L ill go down in the. htstory of the State, and I think it would Le JUSt as well--

. The PREMIER: I moye-That the que5-t,on be now put. (Opposition laughter and uproar.)

Quc•tion-'l'.hat the question be now put­put; and the House divided :-

:\Ir. Barbe~· Brennan

, Bulcock ., Col:~u3 , Conroy

l;oofPT }i' :\, :: Cooper: Vi ...

Coy ne ,, Dash , Dunatan . , Fr rric lcs

Fihel!y Folrc;;

, :Fordo

AYES, 36.

Mr. I:uxlwm

,, Payne L'c,~tJe

" rollock , lliordan ., Hvan :, ~1~n•ith

:'topfonl ,. Tht·c' iore

\fpir , \YP!lmgton , \Yilson

, Gilduy ,. Gill:es , Gh,dson ,, Hartley , \\ instauley

'Tellers: }fr. Dnsh and Mr. Hyan.

:ur. A 1 pel BnrnPs, \V. H. BdJGington Brand Cattrrmnll Cln.Yton CorSer Echvards Elphinotone Fletcher Frv

:: G~·~r--:n . Tonr·~

,, Kerr King-

NoEs, 30.

)Ir. Lf'gnn Jlal·grrgor i\lnx-..re11 .3\loore "\'ntt

, Pe~C'rson Pf'trie Ho1wrts, .T. H. C. Hobn·ts, T. g_ ~izrr ~" ~Vil·.:.t Tay t'~1r

.. \'on lt b

"\Yulkrt \~ fl.J f('TI

TellPrs: Mr. Brand and Mr. J.Jogan.

Rcc,olvcd in the affirmative.

Que,tion-Title of Bill-put; and th•• HotFC divided:-

:\Jr. Barber Drennn.n

,. Rulcock , Oollins , Com.JJ .. Cooper, F. A. , Cooper, W. , Coyne .. Dash , Dnn,tnn , Ferridcs " Fihelly ,. Fnley

FordP Gililav

•. GilliP; , GlC'dson , Harth'.'l

AYES, 36.

JUr. Hnxham Kirwan

, Land , , Larco m he

::\r[('C:ormack l\fullan

., Polloek " n iorclan , llyan

Sm•i1h .::<~a·1fon1

Th~odore

,, ,,.f'llit,~.rton

,, \Vilson .. \\'instanley

1'elleT!:!: .Mr. Conroy anU ::VIr. Fcrricks.

Mr. jppel , Barnes, '\V. H. , , 13e b bington

Brand Oattermull

, Clayton Con<Jr El1\V}ll'dS

, Elphinstone Fleicher

'XoES, 30. )fr. Logan

,. 1\i n.rgrPgor l\fn.xwc1l Moo re Kott .Petf'rE0n Petrie

,, Rolwrts, .T. H. C. ,. TiolJrrts, 'L H.

~izf'r Frv ~·w;l.Ylle

Grl'en T:· ;'for .lOUt'S \'o\'~'l ~· Kerr ,, \Ynlkrr

, King \V ~'trr{'n

'}\~Jlers: t.Ir. Clayton an cl )ir. Edwards.

Resolved in the at1irn1vlivo.

The TREASURER: I beg to move-That till· Dill be transmitted to the Legislative Council, for their concurrence, by 1nc"sage in tLc nsual form.

Mr. SIZER (Tunrlalt): I move the omis­sion of the \.vords " in the nsual fDrrn,'' with a vie•\· to adding the follo\vjn ·; >,vords. "thaJ. the Bill has r,ut been snffimcntly ·debated. haYin~· been introduced a.t 10.30 p.m. and gagged."

Th•' PREMIER: I bee- to mo1•e-That the qnP·:d.ion be no\v put.

Que tion~That the quc~tion be novv put­pEt; and the HoU5e divided:-

~Ir. Barber Brennan Bulcock Collin':l

, Conroy " Cooper, F. A. ., Cooper, W. , Coy11'~

Dash 1)unstan Ferrick~ l'ihelly Foley Fcrde Gilclay Gillies Glecl on Hart!ey

AYES, 36. :"ir. Huxham

, Kirwan Land Larcombe

, JtcOormack , l\fullan , Jlayne , Pr:tse

Pol1vck R iJrdan Hv n :-.;J1tith ~topford Th~'odore \Yl'ir "~e1ling-ton

\rilson Wimtanley

Tellers: }fr. Gledson and }Ir. Hartley.

NoEs, 30 . )lr . ...:\ppel Mr. Logan

Rarn;"s, VV. H. 11acgregor Bebbington Maxvvell Bruncl , Moore CattPrmull , Yott

, Cla,yton , Pcterson Cors<!r , Pdrie :Echvards Hobe:..'r.s, .T. H. C.

, Elphinstone Jlobertc T. H. Fletcher ~L,:er Fr-: , :-:wP ync GrCcn , Taylor .Tolll_, Ymvl·" Kf'rr , '\Valkrr King \'rarren

Tellers: Mr. Clayton and Mr. Kott.

Resolved in the affirmative. The Bill was ordered to be transmitted

to the Legislative Council, for their con­currC'ncc, by nlGS~:tge in the usual forn1 .

CITY OF SOLJTH BRIS'BANE LOAK ACTS AMEKDlVIENT DILL.

PROPOEED INITIATION IN CO'\.DIITTEE-N[OTION THAT THE SPEAKER LEAVE THE CHAIR •

The TREASURER (Hon. J. A. Fihelly, l'addina'on) said: Mr. Speaker,-! move­

" That you do now leave the chair."

Hon. J. A. Fihelly.]

1276 City of South Brisbane [ASSE:\1BLY.] Loan Acts Amendment Bill.

Mr. VO\YLES (Dalby): Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like a[;ain to draw your attention to the way in v. hi eh t!Je Opposition were treated the last tim,_ \YO \Ycrc in Con1n1ittee, and to enter nty pro­tPst against that treatment. I wish to say that, if we do not get "·hat we con·ider just treatment ao an Opposition, we will protest against it in the \ray we did on Friday l. st.

Hex. IY. H. BAR"\ES (JJulim ba): I also d( ,,ire to prote2t against the treatnwnt ~., i1ich the Oppocitio:n recei•,'"cd the other night, knowing that :,ou arc a Inost irnpartial Speaker. I a1n sure you arP a\vare uno~­ciall: of what happened ··,·hiH the Loan Brll ,~. 'tS going through Con1rnittco the other night, although ofticjally you are not a,_~, arc of it.

The SPEAKER: Order ! The hon. mem· bar is not m order iu proceeding on those lines.

Hoo:. W. H. BARXES: .\m< adme:.ts were .o:nught to be lllOY0d by 1ncmbcrs of the Opposition, but, unfortunately, tho Chairman of Con1n1ittcc developc·d a. deafness 'vhich prcYcnt,'d that being don(.

The SPE~\I(ER: Order ! HoN. \V. IL BAR:";ES: You will quite

nnderstand that that is the positiun Eo far as 've are conccrne.J-I think it was apparrnt to vou-,vhen \Ye 'vc·rc in Con1111ittec, and vou~ \vent and inter\·icwctl the Chairn1a11. Prcstnnably to nutiLtain the high dignity of the House and to >Cc that the Chairman Jnade no 1nlstakc.

The TRE.\ScRER : Chair ! Question-That the Spc ,ker do now lc.·ve

the chair-put and pnsced.

IKITIATIO;<; IX CO}D!ITTEE. (]fr. Eincan, Bri lwnc, in the chair.)

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

introdu~ed to enable the council of the Citv of South Brisbtme to raise by debentures a sum of £105,000 for th' purpow of redeeming debentures issued under the South Brisbane Municipal Loan Act of 1897, and to make proviccion for eny further loans proposed to be raised b3· the said council "-

said that he might anticipRte questior:s on the Bill b,'< saying that under the late Gm·ern­ment the Cit:: of SoP+h Brisbane was given authority to rai<e £105,000, which amount would fall due next y£'ar, and no provision ·was n1adc for the rene\val of the loan. The Bill merely propoced to give the South Bris­bane Council the orclinarv authoritv that other local authorities had, to have' thoe.3 dcbcntureo renewed, and also further authorit7 enabling them to borrow, so to epeak, off their own bat. The:: cnuld issue debentures and nf'gotiate with any bank, the Government merely holdin"" th." counter-signing authority. u

Mr. VOWLES: At this juncture he did not propose to say anything against the Bill, •rhich he took it was brought forward to enable the South Brisbane Council to carrc· on their finances, and, as they pro­bably understood their busineso, he did not think it "·ould be proper for him to criticise the Bill.

Mr. FHY (Eurilr·~ 1: He did not think thG Committee would raise any objection to the

[N r. V owles.

Dill ~·oing through. The money was required fm· canying out >Yorks to ·help the unem­ployed, and also to get the councrl over the difficulty in connection with banking arrange· ments. He had plea'mre in supporting the Bill.

Mr. TAYLOR (Windsor): He supported the Bill, which, he look it, was a tribute to the South Brisbane CounciL Thev had had several tribu! es paid to the financial abilitv of local authorities f1nd other out.ide bodie; in carrying ont their arrangements.

Th. TREASl'RER: Do : ou know that we have guaranteed their overdraft 'I

l\lr. TA YLOR : 'l'ha t was very good of the hon. gentleman, but his guarantee was not worth much. (Laughter.)

The TnEASURFR : It is worth so much that the bank accepts it.

TUr. TAYLOH: He was glad to see that the South Brisbane Council were able to can .. ,. out their activities so well that the Go· vern'ment had sufficient confidc1cce in them to introduce the Bili, which would have the support of all hon. members.

The TRE.'"'SDRER: It was necessary for him to speak in view of the comments of the hen. member for l'.'indser. He had no wish to reflect on thP business acumen of the aldermen who conducted the affairs of th0 Cit·; o{ Brisbane, but the Government had haci to guarantee' their account vvith the Commonwealth Bank for the la't three wec ks, in order to tide the council over it-, troubles.

)h. FRY: He would be plea' •cl if the Tr( :tsurcr would infonn the Com1nittce how that position had been brought about.

The TREASURER: I did not brine; it abont. J\Ir. FRY: The Treasurer mi,,ht inform

rhe Committee that t!w position had been brought about he' a.· different reading of the Act.

The TRE.\SrRER: 1\o. we g·uarantcod their o,·erdraft. Aldcr!nan Gclston, a North Bris. banc alderman and one of you1' sup~)orters, said that the labJ MaYor l.laxwcll had in •·ix mon'ths cpent the who'!e year's revume of the cit,- of Brisbane.

J\Ir. T. R. ROBERTS (F;ust i'oo,onomba): The Treasurer said the Government h:'d had to guarantee the overdraft of tll8 South Brisbane Council. Ho assmned th t was neces­sary becau c of tho dela.v in calling Parlia­ment togdher this year, auJ th'lt, if the Bill could have been brought before the Chauber at an earlier date, there would have bf'cn n0 need for the TreaFurcr to " thro'v off" in the way he had done.

The 'l'RF\SUREl': I did not 1.1.iso the matter. J\Ia3 or Faulkncr will be displc:. oed with you people. :vlr. '1'. R ROBERTS: He wac' satisfied that

Mayor Faulkner \\ould be able to justify his position.

Mr. VO\VLE::; : If it had b0eh nccr·ssary for the Govern1nent to step in and finance the South Brisbane Council, ho took it that it was only a temporary acc.omn1odation-

Thc TnEcSURER: Quite so. Mr. VOWLES: And probably the result

of F<Jme inaction on the part of the Govern­ment. This wa'> the time to find out what the real factg were in the intere,ts of the pub1jc,

The TREAS'GHEH: In deference to the leader of the Opposition, he would repeat that £105,01)0 worth of dehBntures were falling

Ins-1·i&e.t Stock, Etc., Bill. [ll OcTOBER.] Contractors, Etc., Eill.

duo next yBar, and the Council had no a.uthority to get a r·enewaL The;~· \\'Ore intro­ducing this legislation to enable them to h~vo the dcbcnturBs renewed. Outside of tha.t, he would not have touched upon the matt• r. Ho thought the South Brisbane Coun­ciL like other councils. were v:eli able to look after their own offair.s. The hon. Inen1-bBr for 'Windsor had made some rm.larks about finan<'·C, and in reply he jw,t said that the Government were guaranteeing the over­draft of the South Brisbane Council with the Commo!lwealth Bank.

Question put and passed. 1"~he Hou.f:~~ rf,.;urncd. The CnAIRMAl'< reported that the Committee

had ecme to a resolution. The resOlution was agreed to.

FIRST READil'<G. The TREASURER rn·c,onted the Bill and

n1oved-" That the Bill be now read a fir,t

time." Question put and passed. Tho "econd reading was made an Order of

the Day for to-morrow.

GOVERi'\:&1ENT INSCRIBED STOCK ACT AMEi'\D::WENT BILL.

INITIATION IN Co~IMITTEE.

(Jir. Kiru•an, Brisbane, in the chair.) The TREASURER, in moving-

" That it is desirable that a Bill be introduced to amend ' The Government Inscribed Stock Act of 192~' in certain particulars"-

said: This also was a Bill en which a second r,.1.ding· speech might be made now. They nwrely V; ante cl to makQ transactions in in­scribed stock more convenient for probate, stJmp duty, and liko purposes. .1_~1_ n1inor or a widow could get moneys of, say, a father or husband from the Savings Bank, but in·cribed stDck could not be transferred in the same '\vay. Up to a certain ..1mount they "\vere Dffei·ing facilities for transmi"ion of the stock if TC[.;:esentutions \Yere lTiado to the rfreasnry.

Mr. VOWLES: Up to what value? Tho TREASURER: Xot exceeding £100,

I think; the same as applied in connection with the f'avings Bank.

Mr. VOWLES: I think it is £200. The TREASURER: He thought the leader

of t.he Opposition was right. They were simply making i.t law that a will need not be mcde or proved, and probate need not be produced, before the transmission of the stock to the next of kin.

Mr. VOWLES (Dalby) : If that were the only principle in the BilL there would be no object-ion to it, so far as the Opposition 'vcro concerned.

Question put and passed. The I-Iouse resun1ed. The CHAHC\IA::-i rBported the resolution. Th,~ re~olution was agreed to.

FIRST READING.

The TREASURER presented the Bill, and moved-

" Th.ct the Bill be now read a first time."

Question pnt and passed. The second reading was made an Order of

±!10 Day for to-morrow.

COi'\TRACTORS' AXD WORKl\'IEl\'S LIEX ACT A:11E:'\D:VIEXT BILL.

IxiTIATIO:-~ IN CmDIITTEE. (Jir. Eirwan, B1·isbane, in the chair.)

HoN. \V. FORGAl\ S~\iiTH (};Iachy), 111

n1ovino--~ ~ That· it is d ~sir able that a Bill be

introdured to amend th.> Contractor/ and ·workmen's Lien Act of 1906 in certain particulars"-

said that the object of the measure was to pi'Otect subcontractors. At the present t.ime in man:. industries the principle of subcon­tracting \Vas C'J,rrie.d on extensively. Particu­larlv was that the case in connection with building operations. It was the usual prac­t.ice £01' anyone requiring the performance of work of that nature to call for t0nders and for a contract to be let to one individual for the who!· of the work. That man, in turn, let subcontracts to plumbers, paint.ers, and other tradesmen in regard to work which was necessarY in connection with the build­ing. Under, the Act of 1906 the contractors were protected ; that was to say. they had a lien m _•r the• land on which the building was being erected, and on the completed building, or portion of the building·, which was cam· pletcd. There also was protection in respect of the workmen's wages under the Wag·-'3 Act. But, as the law exisl•cd, subcontractors had no protection of any kind. It was pro­po.ed in this measure to give them that protection which eve1-y reasonable-minded person would admit they had a right to get.

Mr. PETRIE (1'oombul): He was very glad the Minist.er was introducing a Bill of this naturr•. He ren1mnbered on one occasion the Gcvenunent rnmnbers were against pro­tecting the subcontractor. It was pleasing to Opposition members to know that they had now chang(;d t·heir minds.

Iron. \V. FoRGAN s~nTH: The provisions contained in this Biil were passed by the Legislative Assembly in 1906, and were rejected in the Council.

::Wr. PETRIE: He was glad to know the Bill was now being introduce·d. Subcon­tractors in the past had not been protected cts they ought t.o have been.

::\Ir. VOWLES (Dalb!f): It seemed that the GoYernm nt were quite prepared LD do justice to everybody except the Opposition. He agTeed that the principle of this measure v. as sound. They should prot-ect every worker against any injustice.

Mr. SIZER (Kundah) : The Opposition had att'Ompt 'd to affirm this principle since he had been in the House. He remembered moving an amendment designed to protect '''.1bcontractors in the way now proposed, and tlH Go,, ernment. refused to accept it.

GOVEHN11ENT 1\llE~IBERS: In what Bill?

Mr. SIZER: He vould look it up. He thought it was in the Wages Bill. Members opposite then were less reasonable, and refused to pa:: any heed to the arguments he had put forwar·d. Subcontractors should thank the> Oppo,ition for having mad:e the Government realise the necessity for this provision. It had taken the Government two c·ears to >·"" what the Opposition saw in the beginning. It was not an isolated case. In a short space of time, although the Government accused the Opposition of being devoid of initiative

},{ r. S1~zer.]

1278 Contractors, Etc., Eill. [ASSEl\IBLY.] Supreme Court Bill.

and ent.erpri~e, they ·would bo adopting ~orno of the principles which the Opposition had been advocating.

Mr. P AYNE (Jiitchc.U): The ::Yiinister was absoiutolv correct in saying that thcso pro­visions '~'ere in t.he original Bill. lie '.vas iu the House at the time, and he remembered that particular clam·· being· struck out of the Bill by the Upper House. The hon. member for :!\iundah had made a bald statement that the Government party had refused to prot·ect suh"ontractors. Thcv had never objected to that principle. Unfortunately, in 1906 there \Vas in the Upper House a majority of Tories, like members on th · Opposition benches.

:\fr. T. R. ROBERTS (East 'l'oo1coomba): He could not under,;talld t·he action of l he Legislative Council in 1(L6, but it was rca''on­abl< to assume that they had some good rea·,on. \Vha!; \Vas exercising his rnind wa:) th statement of the l\Iinist 'r that t.here would be a lien on the land. Ilc proposed to withhold any statement of his intPntion in connection with t.his measure until he had seen the Bill, because he realised that the person who owned the property h"d some rights, and he \Vautcd to be quite s:tt~~fie? th.: t in this iustance thcr·e was not. the possi­bility of a similar occurrence to that which thGy had witne~s~cl in the last fevv v,:eeks, wh(en they had a painful experience of what the law could bring about. The:, had socn where twice t.lw amount of the contract ha<l b~en eaten up in law costs, and only last we0k there v, as an appeal, ilnd the jud;pucnt in the fir:t c.tS(~ had hf']!1 :::rt a~id~'. 1-hf' jud•n). stating that the architect w;;s rig·ht. He could understand thc··e various questions arising in connection with c0ntract 'vork. 1-Io had been interested in contracting, and, whilst h2 realised that the subcontractor had rights and should be prot,··~tcd, ho was 1nore conct•rnPd at that particular 1nomcnt about the intere<ts of the person who had let the contract.

Hon. W. FoRGA;o; S:.nTH: Supposing a con­tractor undcrt1kes t•o put up a buiklin;· on a piece of land and the owner of that land fails to pay the contractor for the house he has erected, do you not think the contractor has the right. io sell that property in order to rccou p himself?

:Mr. T. R. ROBERTd: If it were only a matter of th, person who owned the land refusing to pay, the law at present gave the contract• r th, right to sue, and there was no n.c·cessity for the Dill. The principal Act as

iLtroduocd in 1906 bv the Kidcton [7 p.m.] Government, and piioted through

the House by Mr. T. O'Sullivan, then mNnber for Warwick and now Mr. Justice O'Sullivan, and, as that Bill contained ~irnilar pro vi', ions to tho~e foreca~t by th0 Minister, he did not anticipate that there worild be any more objection to tho Bill vt that stage than there was in 1906, when it received the support of both side·.

:Mr. IvlAXWELL (Too11Jong): He was glad that the Minister had decided to introduce the measure, and he presurncd it \vas the outcomR of a deputation that waited on the hon. gcntlcn1an Eome few weeks ago from the ~:lastor Plumber"' Association. It was a. vcr, fair proposition, a~, it protected not onl--,7 'the workn1cn but also subcontractors. The position in which subcontractors were placed to-day was a Ycry serious one. If

[Mr. S·iur.

they took the t ·yo branches of the building trade those last on the work generally were the l;lumLers and the painters. Generally, the painters were the la.st on the '.··ark, and, in f\)tl10 instances, if there Yi~as any n1one~ left, the painter or the plumber received pa vmont, but, if there wa 9 no n1onoy left, th~n they were iL a very difficult position. He "\Vas very glad to --ee such a n1,~asure introduced, as it would give protectjon to a v0ry- deserYing section of tho corrnnunity.

Mr. GILDAY (lilwm): He had the honour a cour1lo of v.;~ecks ago of introducing a deputation in regard to the measure from the master plumbers of Brisbane to the Minister. He might mention that a pro· vision similar to that contained in the Bill was embodied in the \Vages Bill introduced by the Government some time ago, but. Hnfortunatoly, the L_-;--l;per !Iousc threw that provision out. In the past a subcontractor had absolutely no redress whatsoever from the contractor, and instances had been brought uuder his notice \vhere even big contractors had deprived the subcontractor of his righb. He was not going to say that applied particularly to big c.mtractors, but re-cently there had been a good deal of com­petition in connection with the building of houses-wooden houses particularly-not only in Brisbane but in other parts of Queensland. Contractors had taken on the job of building houses at uch a ridiculously lw.,· price that the or;ly way in which they could save them­selves was by depriving th' subcontractor, who wa, generally the plumber or painter, of the amount which he should havo received. The Bill would g·ive protection to the sub­contractorsJ and a provision such as that shorlld have been enacted ycs.n ag-o. He was very pleaced indeed that the ;\Iinistcr· had f:cen the necessity for such a provhion. and also that he had acted ''> promptly on the requc·st of those subc<:.:ltractors anc! introduced " Bill which would b,, appreciated bY <'Ycry fair-minded person.

Question put and paesed. The HorLc resumed. The CnArmrAK reported that the Committee

had comf· to a resolution. The re.,olution was agreed to.

Fms·r P.EAnr;o;G.

I-Io;o;. W. FORGAN SMITH presented the Bill, and moved-

" That the Bill be now read a first time."

Quc•tion Pl!t and passed. The s0cond rca·ding was 1nade an Order

of the Day fot· to-mOJTO\Y.

S"CPRK\IE CO"GRT BILL.

ConDIITTEE. (Jir. J{ir1''an, Brisbane, in th(' clut,ir.)

Clau'3e 1~" Short title, construction, and comm"''lremtnt of Act''-

l\Tr. ?IIACGREGOR (.}In·thp·): The clause provided that the Supreme Court Act should be r·.ad as one with the .Judicature Act. Th re \YCro. quite a number of other Supr .eme (',mrt .\cts connech·d v;ith the subjects dealt ,-.·ith in the Bill, and an :cn1endment uaking the Bill apply to those Acts should be in:.: rted. He therefore moved the insertion, after the word " with," on line 7, of the­words " The Supreme Court Act;, 1S61 to 1903, and."

Supreme Cow·t Bill. [i l OCTOBER.] Supr,'me Cuw·t Bill. 1279

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He pro­po.ed to accept the amendment, as it as an improvement to the Bill.

Oo•FOS!TlON 1\1E1lBEF'l: Hear, hear!

:VIr. BRE)Jl\AN (1'orn1 Jomba): There was 1~0 necessity for the "I I car, h; ~·.rs 1'' frorn the other side, n ~ the amenJrnont was not a very 1naterial one:. Clause 12 repealed certain chusc of tho Supreme Court Act of 139:J, and. therefore, it mu t apply to that .Att. Although the amendmsnt might be ~1cc:-ph --1, there v··as re all·. nothing serious lll ]t_,.

A1ncnclment agreed to.

J\lr. MACGREGOR moved, as a con6e­quontial arncr.o·dn1ent. the insertion after the word " Act," in line 8, vvherc it first occurred, of the words-

" 1vhich la"t-mentioned Act is." Amcndn1cmt agreed to. Cl a use, as amended, put and pas·,ed. ClanFD 2~" lntcrpretation"-put and

pa:,socl.

Clause 3-" Abolition of District Courts"-

1\f,·. MACGREGOR moved the insertion after line 5, page 2, of the fullmving words-'-

" Such repeal shall not affect or invali­date any acts or things done or proceed­mgs taken under the authority of the repealed Acts."

The ATTORKEY-GEKERAL: V'l ould not the Acts Shortening Act cover that?

Mr. MACGREGOR: It really did but it s<;emed to he the practirD, as ;,; the Magistrates Courts Bill to insert the words specially. '

The ATTORNE:Y-GE~ERAL: I am prepared w accept 'the emendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Hon. J. l\Iullan, Ji'lindcrs) moved the omission of the v;_ord " ac.tions': in line 6, page 2, with a VlO\V to illS<:rtrng the "",Yords '' proceedin crs

rivil and criminaL" He had consulted the Parliamentary Draftsman with the result that it was thought that the 'word "proceed­ing:" . ;~vould cove~· " acbons. a pp~als, maLters, referred to 1n the an1endmcnt mrcu­Iatcd by the hon. meubor for l\ilorthyr.

Mr. NfACGREGOR: I think so, too. Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GEKERAL moved, as a consequential amendment, the omi,sion of the \vord "causes," on line 7, page 2, with a viow to inserting the \Vords " proct::cdings civil and crin1inal respectively."

..-:\mendment agreed to.

Mr. l\IACGREGOR moved the insertion, after the worJ " Act," on line 10, page 2, of the words-

" and subject to this Act according to the provisions of the rcpoalod Act~. which shaii for that purpose be deemed to cor.tinuc in force not·,·ithstancling such repeal."

That would make it quite clear th:tt the procedure under the r0pca!cd Acts would be available as well as the procedure under the present measure.

The ATT()RNEY-GENERAL: The amend­n1ent was an irnproven1ent.

Amendment agreed to.

On the motion of Mr. IviACGREGOR, con­sr:qucntial amendments on lines 11 and 20 were agreed to.

Mr. M \CCREGOR: For the reasons he lwd gi' en on the Heconcl rc1ding he thought it inadvinblc to abolish District C'ourts. Thu District Courts Act v. a· pas,cd in 1891 after very careful cor,.sidoration, and had be• n a very nscful .\et. It provided very c!J-'LP la;, indeed, bcc'use it was well known that successful suitors were not adequately remunerated under the scale of foes allowed, and it enabled justice to be brought rapidly tu the dishnt parts of the bt<1tc.. He, there­foro, propos• d to vote against the clause.

:!\Ir. DRENXA='J (Toowoomba): It was true that thr, District Cour 1 bnd gi\~on a great deal of a- ,istance to litigant, for scnall claims, l ut the Supremo Court W<. s now going to do the sa.rn" thing, a!!d an} action under £200 1q1s going io be dealt v~ it.h 0~1 a scale of costs equal to those of the District Court. subject, of course, to ,-ariation by the Rules o£ r~ourt. The hon. lll('lllber \Vas not COll­

sistcnt with his own argwneut when he asked that the District Court should- be retained . .Litigants would be able to obtain as "peedY j "~,tice in the Suprenw Court at a low cos~. The nsc of Lumiey v. .Levell and \YilS<Jn, "hich had recently been tried i;o the Supreme Court, was for an amount of ·£170 2s. T'hat ca~e was still before the Full Court, aud the taxed costs between party and party in the case amounted to £655 lOH. lld. up to the time of the appeal to the Full Court. Such a thing would not be possible under the Bill, as it was proposed to limit the costs in the Suprcn10 Court, in the evcut of a caR~ in·volY­ing sueh a s1nall amount being hoard in t.lL_;

Supreme Court, to the costs which tl1ey could g-et in the Dio;trict Court. The cas :·s· "hi eh wore trit•d in the magistrates courts ·would be • :J<,cdily determined. Of eo m : .. c there would be no juries in the magistrates courts, but there v. as no necessity to haYO a jury ut alL

Some of the most inmorbnt trials in the w:>rld .had been heard before judges alone. Jud::rf'•, who kno\V their \vork. with counsel and witnesses who wore practical n1cn, vvcre well able to arrive at a decisio" without the a.ss.istanco of four men a3 n. jury. _,•;~Jany a tunc those four men wore prcjudic ocl. A j urv \Yas not al\:avs honest. He \\vuld like to sec the juri~s "'wiped out in civil case•·. Let them take the case of Isles, LovD, 1.nd Com­pany, in \vhich the ciairn ·vvas for a con1n1is­sion of £500. Tl10 costs in that case wne 7:1Xed at £1,186 1s. 9d. Hon. members opp'?sito had missed tho whole point in con­ncctJon with the Rill. The Govcrntncnt want0d to have speedy and effective deter­mination of proceedings-not long drawn-out cases in which the banisters had wealth v clients. If c_ases could be quirklv determined, there w0re hkely to be more litigants.

J\:lr. VOWLES (Da/ 7>.'1) : Thl'v were asked to got a ,•my from the nlcl-c'·tabllshcd practice both in criminal and civil matters. ~nd to a('ccpt aR a substitute a.1 unkno\vn quantity. The District Court had been accopta ble to suitoL, in the past, more particularly in the c-·)untry, and it 1neant a savjng of a great cleo] of expense. He had more experience than the hon. member for Toowoomba in District Court matters.

The TREASL"RER : He boat you in three cases, any,vay?

Mr. Vawk\' .. ]

128() [AESE:'IIBLY.] SwpNnw Court Bill.

Mr. VO\VLES: His rxoeriencc had been that there ;,\as a :::trong diSir.clination on thu part of country people to come into the superior courts. The re.v ,-Jn was that in th~~ vast there had been a g1c,1t deal of doubt U':; to when their '·u1ts were likely to conunenc ~, with the l'Loult that litip;anto, hgethor with th- ir vYitne:<ws-broug-ht dovn1 fron1 the -country ut gre::tt cxpclFC on the fir.·t d·1y of a sittins--probably hung a}Jont Bl'i;b;::,nc for a fortnight or a rnonth h"foro their cl'"' can1e on ~,for hearing.

1\fr. loilENNAN: That will be "Lppcd now.

Mr. VO\VLES: That could be ovorcv.ne by certain _case~ boin~ set -do"' u for ~~-f'arir;g a1j a certain time. rhC'rO '\\aS "Ohdng at present to indi•::atc definitely when a cas. would be heard. He contended that !o al cases should be tried first) and then duo notice should be givc'n as to -vvhich country cases would be taken, p;iYing litigants in such cases twentv-four hours' notice. The )lractice> ir1 tho past ~had been f;r a (\!SO to drop sud­denly, .and the partiec, never knew when they would bo called upon to be rcad~v. rrhcy should be able to overcome that di!Jiculty.

Mr. BRENNAN : How? Mr. VOWLE.3 : By fixing the dates. When

questions relating to bills of costs and taxa­tion of costs were brought before that Cham­ber, th,· person who mentioned the total amount of taxation never told them that a large 11roportion of that an1otn1t was not for legal expenses at all. As a nlie, one of the heaviest ite_ns \Vas witncJs:::s' expenses. Ho did not see that the '"tablishment of the magistnttcs courts wa, going to give to suitors the bcnef1ts nO\V re ,_:ei vccl under the District Courts. He could not see hmv the Crown Law Office could justify the daim that the magistr<Ltc1 they had to-day were competnnt enough to handle tedmical matters in all cases involving a value of £200.

l\h. BllEN~.fAN: The prcoent: m~g·istratcs arc not broken~down squatters, as they wero in the past.

Mr. VO\YLES: ThPv had not had the legal learning, and they had not had the practice. He knew th,. clac. of cases that were dealt with in the magistrate, courts. lie knew the clac;s of cases that the hon. rnember dealt w1t'h in Too-o;voombu. I-Ic also knew the cases dealt with in Dalby. They cou),d not expect magistmtcs reasonably to deal with the District Court actions, for the simple reason that they had not the experi­Lnce, e;thcr in legal learning or in practice1

of the class of person ho was put on the District Court bench. The District Court judges were barristers, who had bcon in active practice~mcn with a good deal of expericnce~and the magistrates had to get that experience.

Mi~. BRENNAN: rrhc jur:T settles every case.

Mr. VOWLES : And yet the hon. member hed said that there was no occasion to have a jury. The juries 1-vore judges of faet. and tho jud!4'" were the judges of law. Many casch which <' tme- before the rnagj,,,trate,5 courts were matter'o that could oulv be dealt

with by ordinarily ·intdligont [7.30 p.m.] people. There were many in-

volved caseR which 1nagistrates, '.nd even judges, could not handle unle·,s they had a practic., l knowledge of the matters involved, and there '•hould be power to !Jave a case submitted to arbitration.

Mr. HARTLEY: A £200 case might be more simple than a £5 case.

[M1·. Vowles.

~lr. VOvYLES: It might l "· or it mig·ht not be, and it was where it might not Le that the danger vvas going to ari~ e. They had r.ow th2 privilege of having a, jury of pr.actical n1cn to ·decide with regard to tho fac~s.

The "'\TTGHNEY-Gn;ETI\L: You will still hav,· that privilc~f'.

Mr. VO\VLES: In the SuprLinc Court. II \\·as going a littlP bit outside the .·cope of the Bill and rnaking· a co1nparison \Yith regard to n1agistrates courts. There ·would lm no jury in the magistrates courts. If he took a case to the Supremo Gourt because lw dcsiv j the facts to Le hancllcd by " practi<cal jUl'v, an.J the other party had it remitted b.2ck to the 1naglstraH court., ho was in1n1e· cliatcly Llcprivod of the rif:ht of having it tried by a jur-" of practical men. II" Lacl lnul ea ·os in \Yhich he. wou1d far F-ooncr have submitted the facts involved to any two practical men in the -trcct than to any judge on the bench.

The ATTORXEY-GEXERAL: You would still be n blc to submit the ca~c to a jury.

J\Ir. VOIVLES: How could he submit it to .a jury in the n1agistrates court?

The A1'TORKEY-G!:XER\L: You IJ('ed not go to the m~;:;istrates court.

:\h. VOWLES : Ho had to go to tlw Supre:ne Court, and the other party could haye it remittrd to the magi:-tr'ltes court.

The ATTOR?\EY-GExERAL: Xot nDcessarily.

Mr. \ OWLES: Yes; and that would deprive him of his rig·ht to put the nwttor before a jury of practical men.

Tho ATTORKEY-GEXEHAL: You have made a mistake there.

Mr. VO\VLES: That was hie opinion. He could not see that they were gaining nny .advanLcz,e by abolishing the Distric' <:courts. Hoar1ing the Bill in conjunction with the ::VIagistratcs Courts Bill, he '":.s 'OlTY to think thc,t, inst< ;cl of cheapening the btw, they \C,'l'_.>_'C going to bdng about an expcn:,iYc method of !4etting justice.

Jlh. J3REXXAN: Ko. Mr. VOWLES : In th.Jse cases which could

ho l"Ct.littnd back from the Supreme Court. they \Voulcl not got the benefit, of a jury. The re·,ult woul·d be umatisfactory, and there might be an appeal. \Yhat ''as the good of st,1rting out to limit the costs of an action if they vvTcre going to cotnpel the suitor to <;G through three actions instea.d of ono to gc.in the end dE.,ired 'I He was opposul to thr~ principal of the clatbe. He ,~id not think it was going to work for the public good, and for that reacon he woul·cl vot0 against it.

Mr. KI~G (Lngan) : .He wished to express his disa]Jproval of the abolition of the Dis­trict Courts, which in the past had prov~<l me ful and cffecriw', in addition to which they had been cheap.

Mr. BREKNA"': How often have they been U~f'.d?

:Mr. IG"'G: Very frcquently. Many liti­gants with a claim of £50 or upwards prc· fcnod to have their case tried by a qualified n1an--bv the.t he n1eant a Distri~t Court judg0, ~vho had practised as a barrist·:-'r and haJ a lot of experience before going on tlw bench. These litigants \Yould prefer to have their cases tried by a District Court judg·n rather than by a police map;ictrah. Hn ;,dmittNl that the police mag·istratcs, both now and in the past, were excellent men

Supreme CoUJ·t Bill. [11 OcTOBER.] Supreme Co'Jfrt Bill. 1281

within t:heir limitations. In the ordinary oourse, the actions tried in the small aebts courts beforB magistrates were simply actions of contract or of tort, which were not difficult cases, but there were many other classes of actio.11s in connection with which police magistrates had not had any experi­-ence.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: What about the ··wardens 'vho dce.l vvith casE:~ involving largo amounts?

Mr. KING: Thev were men who -specialised in certain things.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: So do police n1agistrates.

Mr. KII'\G: The actions whiC'h would be tried before police n1agistratcs in future would be altogether out of their accustomed ground.

Mr. IIARTLEY: What 1s the di!Ieronce between £200 and £50?

Mr. KI:c\G: If it WBre simply a question of >Contract or a tort, police magistrates were quite qualified to deal with it, but there were actions outside of that class altogether, in which the magistrates had not hail any ·experience. Under the District Courts Act, the litigants had the rig·ht to a jury, which was most useful to the judge on questions of fact. The judge found on the question of law, and, if the fach and the law were in favour of the plaintiff, he gc\'e a ver~lict for the plaintiff. He had had an action where the jury found on the facts in favour of the plaintiff, and the judge gave a verdict for the plaintiff, although the law was against him.

Mr. BREXNAN : That is one case in a thousand.

Mr. IG~G: He remembered the cc:sr·, " Heiress 1·. Bell," m w hi eh the then &crctary for Public Lands, the late Hon. J. T. Bell, was su~d by a man out in the backblocks in connection with an occupation license. In that case the jury found for the plaintiff on the facts: but Mr. Justice Real gave a verdict a v,ainst the plaintiff because th~ law was against him.

Mr. BllENNAN : How often do you fmd that?

Mr. KI:c\G: They found it happened some­times. At the present time the Small Debt" {"ourt n1agistratcs were l1oth judge and jury. They found on the facts and on the law, and gave a verdict accordingly. If a man >vanted to commcncn an action in connection with a claim of under £200, under the new order of things he was supposed to start it in tho magistrates court.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He can if he likes.

Mr. KING : He might go to the Supreme Court, and want a jury. The judge of the Supreme Court ha·d power to remit the action to the magistrates court.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: \'\'ill he not trust the judg-e?

Mr. KING: If a man had a right to a jury he should get a jury.

The AT'fORNEY-GENERAL: He will get a jury later on if it is a proper case for a jury.

Mr. Kil'\G: The judge might say he would not allow a jury, and rl'mit the case to the magistrates court. A man's rig·ht to a jury should not be interfered with.

::Mr. HARTLEY: What about the defendant?

1921-4 K

:JVlr. KING : He had the same right. The defendant v;as debarred from getting any jury in cases of £200 under the Bill. Under the District Court Act he had the right, whether the plaintiff asked for a jury or not, to have a jury.

The ATTORXEY-GEXERAL: It would bo extremely ur,likely that a judge would turn n rnan down if his case was a fit and proper one for a jury.

:Mr. KING: It might be unlikely, but suitors should not be doprived of their right to a jury. District Courts had done excellent work, and the costo, incarred in them had not been exceptionally heavy. Most of the costs incurred were in respect to the pay­ment of witneeses. Those expenses would go Oi1 just the same.

Mr. HARTLEY: The delays have been very aggravating in the District Court.

Mr. KING : There should not be any delav. V\'hy not have the District Courts held" where the cause of action arose instead of bringing those actions to Brisbane 1

Mr. HARTLEY: The judge is generally absent in Brisbane.

Mr. KING: The~e had been no unneces­~an delay. T.bev h~d heard the hon. member f01-"l'oowoomba complaining about the delays that had occurred in the Small Debts Court. There were greater delays in the Small Debts Court than in the District Court.

The ATTORNEY-GE:-!ERAL: He might com­p]a.in of dcla;vs running into ~ay~ in the Small Debts Court, but in the D1stnct Court it amounts to months.

Mr. KING: In the magistrates courts there was a tremendous congestion of work, as there was too much work for them to carry out.

Mr. BRENNAX: No, that is not right. It is badly arranged.

;\fr. KING: It would be worse under this Bill.

Mr. KERR (Enoggera): 'l'he Government proposed to substitute magistrates and regis­trars for judges and juries.

The ATTORNEY-GENER\L: You are quite \Yrong.

Mr. KERR: That was, more or less, what the Bill meant. It was said that the Bill was going to cheapen law. In the Arbitration Court there were two methods of procedure, one of which was a nund-table conference. In only one case had the matter been settled in the first instance; it had always gone to o. jud~e. People who had claims amounting to £200 would no.t be satisfied with the deci­sion of a ma~istrate who decided both the .facts and the law. Thcv would immediately appeal to the Supreme Court, and litigation thus would be more expensive than it had been in the past, when the appeal was to t~e District Court. The Attorney-General sad that the charges in the Supreme Court ;vould b~ exactly the same as they now were m the District Court. According to the Bill, there were no charges in the District Cou,rt •. so how could thev be the s1me 1 The cnmmal jurisdiction or' the District Court was going tc be exercised solely by the Supreme Court, a.nd tl1o civil jurisdiction was going to be , >erci".ed by the magistrates court. From the commercial point of view, that should not bo tolerated. Points of insolvency law, common law, and contract law, where the claims ranged up tD £200, should be dealt

JJtt·. Kar.1

1282 Suprem~ Court Bill. [ASSE~BLY.] Supreme Cottrt Bill.

\\ ith by a judge and jury. The Attorney­General had stated that the law was reserved for the rich. He did not know how the hon. gentleman could make such a statem<Jnt ac; ~hat. The law had. always been equally available to evervone m British communi­ties. This procedure which was proposed \.-ould not be any Improvement. In reply to ~?e leader . of the Oppositi~m, the Attornc'y­ueneral said that th~ registrars, who were allege_dly responsible for saving expense, were mtelhgent men and had a good deal of kHowlcdge. The law should not be inter­p,re_ted by men without technical knowledge. 1_1-ns measure reqmrcd concmtrated atten­tion, and should be debated to the fullest extent. Having been gagged throngh its earhcr stages, it was no wonder that the clauses were being debated now. There was provision that a writ of summons should be issued out of the registry and sl1ould have annexed thereto a short statement of claim a.nd every appearance to such writ shoulcl shortlY state the defence.

'l'he ATTORNEY-GENERAL:· ·what clause are you discussing?

Mr. KERR: He was discussing the aboli­tion of the District Court. Instead of b~ing given a. higher court, they were being given one "hlch WG!.dd be presided over by magis­tr'_ltes and regJstrars. The Attorn0y-General sa1d there had been shadow-sparring. Such was not th~ case. He also said they were g01ng to _rohcve judges of such trifling casPs. By tcrrnmg the smaller caseo trifling ones, tiP hon_. gentleman was coming into conflict. with hls prevwus statement that the law >•-as only fm: the rich .. The men who brought snch cases d1d not c?nsider they. were_ trifling, and t.hey were -desirous of bemg g1 ven the best. court. Instea~ of having a police mag1strat_e ad]udica.tmg on both facts and law, a htlgant should be able to have a judge to dem_de the law and a jury to decide the facts of the case. Ho trusted that the clause v. ould not be included in the Bill.

Mr. MOORE (Aubigny): This was not gmng to cheapen law. His experience of magistrates had not been altogether a satis­factory '?ne. If it ha_d been known that they were ~omg to be ra1sed in status, a higher ~ducatwnal standard would have been Imposed, and they would not have had ordinary indivi-duals selected.

Mr. BRENXAN: All these magistrates have passed examinations. ""

Mr.. MOO RE: Those who had passed exammatwns had only a limited jurisdic­twn, but ~hev were going to take on the work of D1stnct Court JUdges. There would be a considBrable nun;ber of appeals. They had not had appeals m the past, because it h~d _not been worth while. But, with a juris­·chctwn up to £200, 1t would be worth while for people to appeal. There would be a consider.able number of appBals from the m':gistrates. courts, because people were not gomfi to s1t down tamol:v under what thev conSHlered to be an inju>tice. The District Cour.t served a very good purpose, and it was a mistake, when they had a court serving a. good purpose, to do away with it and substi­tute somet_hing which, to all appearances, was not gomg to be nearly so cffcctivt'. Thov sh?uld not put litigants in the position of bemg forced to appeal to a. superior court simply because they considered the one which they were appearing before was not satisfac­tory. If litigants wBre satisfied that the

[Mr. Kerr.

men presiding over the lowPr courts had passed an examination of a sufficiently high standard to show that they were competent to undertake the work, then there would be more satisfaction; but, when the litigants felt that they had only pa·,,ed an inferior sort of examination, they felt that they were !lot getting justice, .and comc(juentl:v they would want to appeal t-o a higher court. That would make law considerably more cxpensin; than it was to-day.

Mr. BRENNAN (Toowoom.ba): The mag­istrates court had power to submit any matter to arbitration, and in any important matter the magistrate himself would suggBst that it be submitted to arbitration. Unde1· the Bill, a policB magistrate would have yower to act as an umpire with two arbi­trators, similar to the procedure in railway appeal case~-~, \vhich had given every satis­faction. In clause 11, subclause (9) the Supreme Court had power to remit a matter to the magistrates court, and any action commenced in the magistrates court might be taken to the Supreme Court. That showed that the Bill was a fair onP. If an impor­tant tochnical point arose. it could be taken from the magistrates court to the Supreme Court. If a ma.gistrate could adjudicate in ronncction with a case involving arnounts up to £50, he could also .adjudicate in matters involving up to £200. It was known that rabbit boards in the past had issued Supreme Court writs for claims of 12s. Just imagine issuing a Suprenu~ Court lVrit for a cla-im of 12s. ! That had been done because in the past the rabbit boards and other institutions could not recover again,t the land. Those things had been going on, and no complaint had been made by hon. members opposite. Now that the :\lagistratcs Court Bill would give the right to C\:ecute against land as well as against goods, thoQe c.-,ses would be taken to the magistrates court, which would be the most simple way. After all was said and done, how many appeals had there been in regard to small debts case,,? They did not get one in 500; hut, when there was an appeal in 99 per cent. of crrs.'s the appeals were dismissed and the magi,trate's decision llpheld by the judge on a qnestion of fact. The Bill was one step towards legal reform, and just as gre~t a reform as the Govern­ment going to America to borrow mone;, when they could not got it in England. The Bill would bring law within the ambit of every person who said he had a right to fight a case, and time would prove what it n10a.nt.

Question-That clause 3, as read, stand part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided:-

AYES, 36.

1fr. Barber Bertram

,, Brennan Bulcock Collins Conroy Coonec, F. A. Cooper, \V. Coyne Da-h Dnnstan Ff'rricks Fihelly Foley Forrb Gilday GilliPs Gletlson Tellers: }fr. Giltlay

}j r. H artle:v Hnxhan1• I~ and

, Larf'nmb~ ,, M cCormack , Mullan ,. Payne

Pease ., Pol!ock

Piordan .. Ryan , ~'mith , Ftopford , Th('odor~'

\\""f'ir , Wellir.gton

"\Vilson \Yinstanlcy

and Mr. Hartley.

Sttprerne Court Bill. [ll 0C'l'OBER.] Supreme Cotrrt Bill. 1283

:Mr. Appel , Barnes, G. P. , Barnes, W. H. , llebbington

Brand Cnttcrmull

, Clayton Corser Edwarda

, Elphinstone Fletcher Fry Green .Tonrs

, King-Kerr

~OES, 31.

i\ir. Logan

, ~:;,~~rigor , l\ioorc , ~ott , Pek::::son , Petr.ic , Hobt,rts, .T. H. C , lloberts, T. H. , Hizer , Swayne , Taylor ,, Yowl•.'.;; , WalkPr , \Yarrt'n

Tellers: :Mr. Kcrr and }fr. Sizcr.

Resolved in the affirmative. [8 p.m.] Ciause 4-" Judge.,"-

Mr. MACGREGOR (M. Nthyr) : Claus-e 4 was a ve1·y l{Jng clause and he had dealt with it at length on the second reading. Unfortunately, his criticism had not been reported, and it would be necessary for him to go through it again. The f1rst subclause was f?r the hcnefit of. one judge only, and comm1t.tcd the Comm1ttee to an illogical position, besides being unncc0ssary. B7 the decision of the Privy Council in the. McCadey case the l'resi·dent of the Arbitration Court held Supreme Court. judge status only so long as he was an Arbitration Court judge­that was, for seven years. The provision did not seem to be necessarv because of the aboli­tion of the bench as at present constituted· but the Committc" were asked to declare t~ be a fact that which the Privy Council held to be not a fact-that was to declare that the commission given to the' President of the Arbitration Court was for life. The clause declared him to ha•:c been appointed, "as lf he had been appomt.ed under section 3 of the Supremo Court Act Amendment Act of 1903 to fill a vacancy in the number of judges of the Supreme Court." That Act provided that the number of judges should not be less than four nor more than f1ve; but from 1916, t.he dat ~ of the presentation of the commission to the President, there had been five Supreme Court judges, so that the Committee were being . asked to perform th2 imposoible by declarmg that, although there were always five judges, there nevertheless was a vacancy ; m ot.her words, that the five judges v ere onlv four judges. He therefore moved th~ omission of subclause (1).

The ATTOHNEY-GENERAL: He did not propose to accept the amendment for the reason that it was clearly the int~ntion of Parliament, in the Industrial Arbitration Act to make a judge of t.he Arbitration Court ~ judge of the Supreme Court for lif.e, and one of the strongest advocates of that proposal was the then leader of the Opposition, Mr. Tolmie.

Mr. SrZER: He is not here.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: His old policy was there.

Mr. VOWLES (Dalby) : It. seemed to him that the clause was altogether unn<ceessarv. Ho could not see the object of declarii1g that something was the fact contrary to what was found to be the fact by the decision of the courts. They were also asked to stultifv themselves by saying that five had alway"s

been six. It had been said that it was alwa:·s the intention to give the President of t.he A.rbitration Court the status of puisne judge of the Supreme Court. The law did not say so definitely, and provided that he had that status for a limited time only, and not for life.

The PRE1!IER : We are putting that right.

Mr. VOWLES: But they were stultifying themselves. The Supreme Court Act of 1903 said that there could not be more than five Supreme Court judges. Five judges had been there all the time, and they were asked now to sav that those five should have be8n six, merefv to validate t.he action of the Govern­ment "or to give them some glory for a Lgal vv1n.

HoN. W. H. BARNES (Bulimba): He agreed with the speeches of the hon. member for Merthyr and the leader of the Opposition. The cl a use certainly should not be in the Bill. It seemed perfectly certain that the primary object of the clause was to validate something which they all knew was illegal and did not exist, namely, that one judge, simply because he hc·ppcncd for a time to be an Arbitration Court judge, had a life t·enure of a Supreme Court judgeship contrary to the decision of the Privy Council. He "as not there, and i:; vYould not Le right, to makn any remarks about any particular judge, but it seemed t.o him that the primary object was to put someone in a position which legally he did not occupy. Other judges had been practically thrown on the scraphoap by a previous Bill, but thev wore now to mete out to another judge exactly the opposite t·reatment. It w~s a ca·e whore the Government had stopped m in a way which was manifestly unfair. They had had at the bar of the House one of the senior judges-a man who had risen from a carpenter's bench-pr·csenting his case in a most marked way to hon. members, but apparently they had refused by a majority to 1 isten to the request he made. On the other hand, they were placing a judge permanently on the Supreme Court bench contrary to the decision of the Privy Council. The Minister was seeking to get behind the decision of the Privy Council.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Nobody had a bett-er right than Parliament to do what we propose to do.

HoN. W. H. BARNES: The hon. gentle­man know well that the main object of the clause was to pnt upon the law an interpre­tation which the Privy Council had declared to be illegal.

11r. BRENNAN: You are wrong.

HoN. W. H. B \Rl\'ES: The hon. gentle­man stated thnt he was wrong, but let him got up and tell hin1 'vhcre he was wrong.

~fr. BRENNAN: Sit down and I will.

HoN. \Y. H. BAR:KES: He was quite sure that no legal lights in that House wore able to compare with the hon. member for 'l'oowoomba, if they took him at his own valuation.

Mr. PEASE: He wins his cases.

HoN. W. H. EARNER: He; honAd his friend had not been giving the hon. inember a case.

Mr. PEASE: I did, and he won it.

Hon. W. If. Barnes.J

1284 Supreme Court Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] SupremP Court Hill.

HoN. iV. H. BAUNES: It must han> been '" particularly good caso if he won it. It v, as verfectlv c:ertain that that clause was introduced f~r a specific purpose.

Mr. BUEl\"NAN (1'oo1roomba): The hon. member for Bulimba challenged him (Mr. Brennan) to show the hon. member he was 11 rong. They found by that clause that the President of the Arbitration Court had bcct1 declared, according to a contention raised in that Chamber, to -haYe always been a judg" of the Supreme Court. That was the declara­tion according to the subclause; and that was the intention of the House at the time the Act was passed. He would quote the late leader of the Opposition (:VIr. Tolmic) from " Hansard" for 1915-16, page 1208, as £ollov,6 :-

'·Hon. J. ToLllllE mond the omission of lines 23 to 28. which proYidcd for the appointment of the judges of the Ar bitra­tion Court fo!' a period of seyen years and declared them eligible for reappoint­ment for a further period of sc,yen years. with a view to in~erting tho following:--

The President and each judge of the Court of IndustriaJ Arbitration shall hold office as President and judge of the said court during his or their good bcl1aviour, notwithstanding the demise of His :M-'j Pity or of his heirs and suc­ce~sors. any law, usage, or practi<'~ h?reof in anywise notwithstanding, pro­vided alwaYS that it shall be lawful for His :Majesty, his heirs, and successors t 0 remove any surh judge or judges upon the address of both Houses of the Legis­lature."

It was the intention of the leader of the Opposition at that time to make the Pre­sident of the. Arbitration Court a judge for all time durmg good behaviour. That was the intention, but it was turned down bv the State Full Court and by the High Court"; hut the Privy Gouncil declared that he was a judge of the Supreme Court for the period that he held the Presidency of the Arbitration Court. According to subclause (5) every District Court judge automatically became a Supreme Court judge, and the subclause under dis­cu"ion provided that the ProsidPnt of the Arbitration Court had always bc0n a mem her of the Supreme Court. He would get no sr:ecial benefit by that, because the Bill pro­nded that no pen~wn was payable to the present occupants of tho Arbitration Court bench or future judge of the SL!preme Court. No bendlt would therefore be gained Ill- the Prc•,ident of the Arbitration Court th,:ough his being appointed a Suprc1ne Covrt judic. It was only a declaration that he had always been a judge of the Supreme Court. As "it was proYidcd that there ,hould be not more than seven judge9, tho only v ay to make the President of the AI·bitration Court a judge of the Supremo Court \\as to ha vc a special proYision, and the only ay to mako that pwYision was to say that he had alwaYs boon a judge of the Supreme Court. l"nd~r sub­c\!!._use (2) the Governor-in-Council might declare that the other Industrial Court judge should be a judge> 9f the Supreme Court and when the judges were less than seven. to declare an Arbitration Court judge to be a Supremo Court judge. The whole thino- was quite clear. "'

llion. TV. H. Barnes.

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted (Jh·. Jlacgrc!Jor's amendment) s~and part of the clause-put; and the Commtttee divided:-

:VIr. Barber Bertram BrennnH Bulcock Coli in, Conr•JY

, Cooper, F. A. ., Cooper, W. , Coyne

Dash ,, Dunsta.a

Fcrrickr:; ., Fihelly , Foley

Forde Gilda,. Gillies Gledson

Tellers: :>Ir.

Mr. Appel " Bnrnes, G. P. , Barnes, W. H. , Be b bin gton

Bell Brand C::tttermull

, Clayton C'Jrser Costello De~coTI Edwards

, }~1 phinstone Fletcher

, Fry Green Jones

AlES, 36. ., Hartlcy

)fr. Huxham I .. and Larcomlw McCormack

, 31ullan Puvne Pe~·"'e Poltock Iliordan

., Ilyan Smith

, Stopford The-odorP \\-PiT

, \Yellington \Vils.m

, "\Yinstanley Riordan and 3Ir. \Veir.

:\'OES, 3!. .. \Jr. Kerr , King

Log·1n l\T ar '~'ft'gor Maxwl'll Moore Xott PetPrson Petrie Roberts, .T. H. C. Roberts, T. R. Sizer Rwayn"" Taylor Vowl€'5 Walker \Varren

'l.'eller.s: l.Ir. Brand and Mr. Pcterson.

Re;olved in the affirmative. Mr. MACGREGOR !J[erthyr) moved the

insertion, on line 42, aftpr the word " Arbitration." of the words-

" but this subsection shall not confer or be deemed to confer on the said President the right to anv pemion to which a judge of the Supreme Court is entitled."

This amendment was merely in accordat;ce with a provision in a later part of. the. B~ll. but this was the proper place to brn;g It I';, if the Government '" 0re s1ncore rn then attitude with regard to penBions. Person­ally. he was against the abolition of pensions J.) judges. If the Government. wanted to make it quite clear that thev did not want a pension to attach to the fresh appointment, those words ought to be added to this clause.

The ATTOUNEY-GE~ERAL: He thought the hon. gentleman was wrong in saying that this was the right place to insert the propos:<l instead of in the later pa.rt of the Bill m v.-hich it appe>tred. Snbclause (3), which put the matter be•·ond doubt, said-

" Provided alwavs that the President or any ,Judge of the Court of Industrial Arbitration. whether appointed ~r deeme-d to have boon appointed by th1s Act or before or at or after the com­mencement of this Act to be a Judge of the Supreme Court, shall not _(~yithout prejudice, however, to the proviswns of subscdion five of this section) be entitled to any pension in respect of such office of Judge :0£ the Supreme Gourt."

It showed that the Government clearly ir.tended that no pension should be attached to the office. The provision was placed where it was on the adYice of the Parliamenbry Draftsman.

Supreme Cou1·t Bill. [ll OcTOBER.] Supreme Cowt Bill. 1285

Mr. BREi\:NAN ('l'oou·oom.ba): There was nothing in the contention of the hon. member for Merthyr; but there wacs a fear that i\1r. Justice ThlcCawley might get something by some means or other. All the time hou. members opposite seemed to be following Judge McOawley, who had presented his com­mic:-ioL to the Supreme Court, and borne the indignity of having to fight his case through to the Privy Council, which had decided that h0 had an appointment as a Supreme Court "judge during his tenure of office as Presi­dent of the Arbitration Court. Subclause (3) v:as ver:, clea1·, yet hon. members oppo­site desired to insert the amendment in the clause which gave n1r. Justice McCawl<'y power to be a judge of the Supreme Court, for fear that he might get some benefit. 1'he p1 ovision was in the correct place, as the hon. member for 11erthyr knew.

Mr. VOWLES (Dalby): It was astonishing how the hon. member for Toowoomba could always read wme sinister mea.ning into what Oppo:.ition members did. There was no mis­under:tanding about the clause; but, as the hon. member for Merthyr had said, it would be more conect to have the provision i'lsertod in that clau•-e than further on in the Bill. Mr. Justic<' McCawley would not r( eeiYc a pension, and, whether this pro~ vision was inserted here, a.s proposed by the amendment, or in another place, the fact rHlwined that there was no alteration.

Mr. MACGREGOR : The hon. member for Toowoomba was quite wrong in thinking that there was any attack intended on any judge. Mr. Justice McCawley had had a brush with the legal profession over the meaning of the Industrial Arbitration Act at the time, but that was all past; if Mr.

·Justice IvicCawley became Chief Justice, he hoped tha.t he would prove a. very good Chief Justice. He might say, in answer to the hon. member for Too\\·oomba, that he proposed later on to move the orni,.sion of this provision where it now stood in the Bill, showing that he was against the abo!i­tion of pensions to judges .. If the GoY<ern­mcnt wanted to carr,· out the principle of abolishing pensions, it seemed to him that this was the place in which the proYision should be inserted.

Amendment put and negatived. Mr. MACGREGOR: Subclause (1) pro­

vided that the President of the "\rbitration Court was to have a life tenure as a judge of the Supreme Court, as if he had been appointed to a vacanc.v; but subclause (2) provided that no other judge of the Arbitr 'tion CoLJrt should have that tenure. " unless the Governor in Council directs as hereinafter provided." That eeemod to be unnecessary. If the Government desired to give an .Arbitration Court judge a Supreme Court judgeship, it would be a very simple thing for the judge to retire from the Arbi­trcttion Court, and then accept a Supreme Court pcsition. That would do away v.-ith t!,i• round-about method of providing for a

lot of things which were unneces­[8.30 p.m.] sary. He proposed the omission,

on lines 47 and 48, of the words, "(unless the Governor in Council directs as next hereinafter provided)."

The ATTORl'<EY-GENERAL: He could not accept the amendment, as it conflicted with the iutention of the Government, which vas that they might appoint any judge of the Arbitrai ion Court to be a judge of the Supreme Court, providod there was a

vaca.ncy on the Supreme Court bench, either for the period of seven years or-if they so de;ired-until the appointee reached the age of retirement If a vacancy occurred on the Supreme Court bench, they might find there was not sufficient work to justify an addi­tiOnal appointment, and a judge who wacs doing· .Arbitration Court work could also be a. Supreme Court judge. It was a good policy and wculd mako for economy.

Amendment put and negatived. Mr. ::YIACGREGOR: According to the

argument of the Attorney-General, the Su­premo Court judge" \Yore to be chosen from the Arbitration Court judges.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Not necesmrily, but they may be.

Mr . .i.VIACGREGOR: This clause provided for it. For the pm·poso of confining the clause to the effect of the judgment of the Privy Council, he mo\ eel the omi·,3ion of all the words after " arbitration," on !in& 50, to the end of the subclause: "but, if then or thereafter at any time the Governor in Council so .directs by a commission, he shall haYe the ,.amc tenure of office as a jLJdgc of thB Supreme Court, and in such case his tenure of office as such judge shall not be contingent upon or limited to the period of his holding the office of Presi­dent or judge of the Court of Industrial ~.\rbitration."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is conse­quential on your previous amendment?

Mr. MACGREGOR: To a certain extent it was.

The ATTORKEY-GENERAL: It was not necessacry to argue thi; as cx<tctly the same principle was invoh-ed as that with which he had dealt in his previous statement.

Amendment put and negatived. Mr. MACGREGOR moved the deletion of

subclause (3)-" No pension." I-Ie thought it was a bad principle to abolish the pension for the j Lldgcs. Thos.e pensions were a portio;, oi the rcnlUtlCration, and fDrn1ed a very materia.! part of the rc\vard which men were given for acting as judges. They removeG' the necessitv for those men to consider what thev \Yould c do when their term expired anr1

allowed them frcedo'11 in man v wa vs to cor· ccntrate on their judicial wo~·k. ,Vhich .'vr;'! the highest work in the land and reqmrec1

the mo't qualified and most U"ccentrate,' attention.

The ATTOR:\'EY-GE::\ERAL: He did not propose to accept the a'1:e·cdment.

:Mr. ELPHINSTOKE: \Yhy not say, " I do not propose to accept this amendment or any others," and save a!l the di~cw:sion?

Tho ATTOR:'-JEY-GENERAL: If the hon. rrentleman had been in the Chamber all the time he would have found that h' had acce1;ted half the amendments which had been proposed by the hon. member for Merthvr. The hon. member for Merthyr had proposed ·that th<'v should accept the substance of this clause in another place, and he now proposed its deletion here. He would not sa v it \Vas inconsist,.,nt, because he thourrht he "understood the hon. m;,mber's reas;ns. As he had definitely announced on the second reacding on the Bill_ that they did not propose to provide a penswn for the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court, he must refuse to accept the amendment.

Mr. BREN~AN (Toou.·oombfl): The hon. member for Merthyr had proposed that the proYision that there should be no pension f01·

Mr. Brennan.J

l2SG Supreme Cowt. Bill. ~A.'lSEMBLY.] /:'Jupreme ('ourt Bill.

the President of the .\rbitration Comt dwuld be nut in boforo the subclau,e (2). Now the ·hon. member suggested the deletion of the dause embodying that provision. The Attorney-General had pointed out how incon­sistent the hon. member was. He >\ould quote an extra.ct from the "Daily Mail" Df 30th ~lay, 1916. The A ttorncy-Gcncral at that time (Mr. J. A. Fihclly) advised the public that he inhnded bringing in certain legal reform-amalgamation of the Supreme and District Courts hv the abolition of the District Courts, and the cr{'ation of Ma.gis­trates' Courts. Referring to the Attorney­General, the " Daily ~lail" said-

" He points out that there is no retir­ing age for j udgcs--"

An OPPOSITION MEMBER: You read that before.

?,lr. BRENNA)J: Good stuff was worth r._~prating. "Hansard" was reporting to­night and it was not reporting when he read it on Saturdav morning. It pro· ceeded- ·

" and he is clearly of opinion there should be one. It is one of the grotesque anomalies of a legal system based more upon prejudice and ancier:t custom than upon common .sense. that ·while men doing cmnparatively unirnporta.nt \Y Jrk undC'r the Government have to retire at a cer­tain ag.R hecanse of presumed failing facultin, His Majesty's judges are pre­sumed never to fail. The present Chief Ju-tice of Australia, for example, is well past the allotted three score years and ten. Had his positicn been any other than that of mprcme law dispenser of tho Commonwealth, he \Yould haye had to retire at lea:Jt ten y .ars ago. L~nder the present system, or dcplora ble lack of system, he may continue to ho Chief J ustico, and go on decidinil' the most involved Nses until he dies of old age. The absurdity of the position needs only to be mentioned."

So it would be seen that tlwre was no pension for High Court judges. The ouly difference here was that the Go,-crnme>nt said there should be no pensions for the judges and that they had to retire at sPvcnty ~-ears of age. In spite of that, h" thought t!wre v.ould he any number of applicants for the position.

Mr. VOWLES (lhliJ!!): The principle underlying the establishment of a pension was to create a spirit of independence in judges ~nd place them beyond all suspicion. It was also designed to give a ,,alary which would satisfy all their reasonable wants during the time they were occupying the po,ition, and afterwards, if they became nnfitted for their duties, to give them a suitable retiring alio\Y­ance. If the; took away the pri.-ilegc of the retiring allowance, which was the security which a man had to fall back on, then the\· were not going to get the Yery hr-·t men to come forward for the position in the future. M~. PEASE: Public servants do not gPt

pensiOns.

Mr. VOWLES: Under Secretaries and the ordinary public servants gradually got to the top of the tre~ by seniority or by m -rit, whereas a barrister left. a lucrative practice and pro babl:y forfeited twice the amount of his salary, at one stage of his career, in order to comply with one of the traditions of the profession-that, when called on to accept a position on the judiciary, he should take it if his financial position justified him

[Mr. Brennan.

in au~cpting it, oven if it meant a pecuniary loss. One of the inducements held out to him was that he was going to receive a retir­ing allowance in addit-ion to hi' salary. If they did not make tho position of a judge seCLl,re in respect of salary, then they could not possibly expect the best men to accept the position. Probably it was not the int.ention to get the best men as judges in the futur·e. The hon. member for 'I'oowoomha might, possibly. be appointed t-o such a position.

The c\TI'ORXBY-GE~ERAL: And possibly the hon. member for Dalhy.

Mr. VO'\VLES: 'The hon. mcmbrr for Dalby had no expectations in that• direction. He knew his own limitations, while the hon. member for Toowoomba did not. If they wante·d a judge of poultry they ah1 ays got the Ycry best man available, and they wanted the \'er:; best men on t.lw bench.

Amendment put and negativ,'d. Mr. ~IACGREGOR (Jlcrthpr): Subclaus_•

(4) provided that the permanent judges of the Supreme Court could at any time he required to act as judges of t11P Arbitrat.ion Court. The present provision in the Arbi­tration Act v, as that, in the case of sickness or in the case of a con~·e~tion of work in the ~\rbitration Court•, a judge of the Supreme Court mig-ht be < allecl upon to act as a judge of the Arbitration Court tcmporaril0 ; but to pnt. in a provision whcr'by a judge of the Supreme Court might be called upon at any time hv the Governor in Council to do Arbi­tration. Court work would verv much restrict the choice of judgce. There \\:as no compari­~on between the class o.f vvork in the Suprern2 Court and the work in the Arbit.ration Court, and. no donbt, a judge would much prefer to he in the Supreme Court, whcrP there was g·reatcr scop', than in the Arbitration Court. The provision in the Arbitration Act was mfficiont.ly wide to secure the services of a judge of the Supreme Court, if required, and to giye unlimited power to send a judge of the Supreme Court to the Arbitration Court, 1vas reserving the power of \vhat was practically punishment to the Governor in Council. and that should not he. He there­foro moved the omission of subclau&c (4)­" TT'ho map be required to act as judge of Court of Industrial Arbitration."

The ATTORNEY-GEI\ERAL: Arbitration Court judges would also be judges of the Supreme Court under the Dill. It was only proposed at the preseLt time t.o hav-e seven judges, including tho Arbitration Court judges, and if at any time there was a con­gestion of work in the Arhitrat.ion Court and a ,carcity of work in the Supreme Court, it would bo only right and proper that the GO\ 'rnor in Council should have nower to dirPct one of the Supreme Court fudges to do Arbitrat·ion \'ourt work instead of appoint­ing a separate judge. The hon. gentleman said he took exception to the GoYernor in Council having power to direct a jndge of th' Supreme Court to do Arbitration Court work: but he would point out that unless the Governor in Council had that power, a judge of the Arbitration Court might refuse to do the work. It wonld be remembered that Judge Higgins, of the Federal Arbitration Court, resigned his position ''" a judge of the Arbitration Court, and other judges might follow his example. 'I'hey might have a similar state of affairs in Queensland, and he wanted to avert that. He could not accept the amendment.

Supreme Court Bill. [ll OCTOBER.] Supreme Court Bill. 1287

Mr. BRENNAN (Toowoomba): He w·<mld like to refer to a letter written to the Select Committee on !·he District Courts Bill of 1914 bv Mr. Justice Lukin. His Honour's letter \Vas printed as an appendix to the report of that committee. At page 48, His Hono.ur 'wrote~

" Speaking for my;e!f as Central judg , I may say that for periods b~t.ween the Full Court in Brisbane, sometime;; six weeks at a time, I have practically no work at all. An occasional and purely formal adjudication in insolvency, the granting to the Deputy Curator of Intes­tato Est~ates of an order to adn1inister­purcly formal-or dispensing with the filing and passing of accounts which may be applied for at any time duriug a period of fifteen months, and, at remote intervals, an application which is not of a formal nature, make up the sum total of my work at· Rockhampton outside the criminal and civil sittings, which arc held four times a vear and take but a short period of time."

·what was wrong in asking, if there was a congestion in the Arbitration Court, a judge of the Supreme Court to relieve in t-he Arbi­tration Conrt? 'There was no punishment attached to it, and there was no -degradation attached to it. It was all high-class work, and he t-hought they should equalise the work as much as possible and economise as much as they could in that direction.

Mr. VOWLES (Dalby): A judge who took on arbitration work had to specialise in that work, and had to heGI,Omc conversant, not. only with the Arbitration Act itself, but also with the details of the various avocations and con­ditions which appertaine-d to them. That was one of the big objections they had to the present Arbitration Court judges. _1, man in that position should have an inside know­ledge of all the technicaliti-es of trade.

Hon. IV. FORGA:\ SoiiTH : There is power to call expert m-idence, and thev invariablv do where expert knowledge is ;,equir -d. ·

Mr. VOWLES: The Supreme Court judges had nothing to do with mat-ters that came before the Arbitration Court. Tbere was no appeal to the Supremo Court from the Arbitration Court, and a judge of the Supreme Court could not be expected to be conversant with the whole of the decisions and w·ith the whole of the details of the pro­clamations and rules that had been made from time to time affecting t-he variou> avocations.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It would only be a,, Bxceptwnal t!Hng, but the Government 011ght to have the right.

Mr. VOvVLES: Where a specialist was required a Supreme Court judge might not b" a spe~ialist, and the result \•ould be unsatisfactory to all per'•ons concerneJ.

Mr. MO ORE ("1 ubiony): He agreed with the leader of the Opposition. They had had a loi. of experience with a cr'rtain judge, and they knew what the rt ,ult was.

.Mr. DRENNAN: \Yhich judge wa•· that? Mr. :Y100HE: Judge Dickson. lie did not

have the neeessary experience, and he upset the whole o' the sugar industrv. It was a mist_ake .to put a Supreme Court judge to Arb1trat.Jon Court work. The wav in v:hich tlw Arbitration Court decided its" case~ was quite different from that of the Su•Jrcrne Cnurt. Evidence was not tendered i'n the

same way; the parties di-d not appear in th" same way; and the Arbitration Court judge was not bound by leg:Il technicalities, and had to decide only on e ,sentials. If a Supreme Court judge went to the Arbitra­tion Court, .he would find tho conditions exceedingly difficult, and would ha vo to get experts perhaps to help him in matters in \'' hich a judge of the Arbitration Court "-ould l•e well vcr'0d.. The great object in tb0 ~-\rbitration Court Y\ as to get sonH hody \vho was well u11 in the business, who could get the rnattor.through ac quickly a, possible, and the obtaining of an expert to assist the judge would take considerably longer, and cau·e delays, which were one of the greatest troubles with which they had to contend.

Mr. BRENXAC'<: You know that for weeks and weeks the Suprerne Court judg·~s aro doing nothing.

Mr. MOORE: They would have plenty to do if the present Bill were put through. The:. would be .. itting in appeal most of the time. In the Arbitration Court they wanted above all to haYO judges accusto1necl to the work, an-d with a comidcrable amount of acquired know}< dge of the Yocational trades on which they had to adjmiicato.

Mr. GLED:oO)J (Ipsu:if'h): It was amusing to hear the deputy leader of the Oppo.sition. Everyone knew that a judge of the Supreme Court, ot· of the District Court, or the Arbi­tration f'ourt, was not acquaintud with the technical intricaries of the industrif"S on which ho was adjudicating. He had to hear evidence on both sides and give a decision. H • ,,ould tell the hon. nwmber for Aubigny that no judge of the present ~i.rbitration Court, or anyone else, had been able to as''(til 01~ upse£ the provisions of the Dickson award. It stoo-d to-day.

Mr. SwAYXE: The president of the Arbi­tration Court "ent back on it afterwards.

Mr. GLEDSON: He confirmed the award, and since th<m it had been improved by other judges. At that time the farmers, led by the hon. rnemher for Mirani, wore not going to cut any canD or plant any 1nore .. :.1ne~thl'V v;,·e; e going to vdpo the indw;try ou~ oi QuePl!Sland a!to<rether. 'The hon. member tried to incit• them to revolution, but now he talked of hon. members on tbe Government side being rovclutionarie~. The clause must remain to make the Bill effec­tive. If they took it out tlw Bill-would be spoilt altoge-ther. It might be necc,sary to appoint additional judgu, not when a good Labour Govern1nent were in power and things 'vent along s1vimn1jngly, but \vhcn by '30ll1C misfortune the Opposition sot into IJower and everything was upset, in order to undo their work and restore order out of chaos in the country.

Mr. SW AY:\E (Jfiran:): The hon. mem­ber for Ipswich had made a gro's misstate­ment, \Yhich 'he could not allow to pas . Most certainly what the hon. member for Aubigny said 'vas corrert. There \vas a case 1.Yher8 the ordinarv lavvvcr was so ntuch at sea thB,t h0 did .. great· injury to a large industry. The industry \Yas hung up, the acr0agc '''-'as decreasing, and unless some~ thing had been done there would not have been much of the industry left. Judge MoCawley, he thought, for the first time in Queensland, reduced the award rate3 fixed by Judge Dickson.

Amendment put and negatived. 'Hr. .MACGREGOR (Jf rrthyr) recognised

that if the District Court was to be

Mr. lYI acgrPgor.]

1288 Supreme Goul't Bill. [ASSElVIBLY.] Supreme Court Bill.

abolished the; ould ha vc to do something with the District Co\1rt judges, but he did not think tl1e Government wore going to get the bc,t Supreme Court bench they could by making them Supreme Court judges. ?-Jo doubt, one or more n1ight 1r.u.ke excellent judge.' J but one or rnore 1night not be as good judge-. as t'hc:v could gE:t in other

places. lVlcautimc, he moved the [9 p.m.] insertion, before the word

"Every," in line 34, page 3, of the words "Subject to this Act.''

The ATTOR::"JEY-GE="'ERAL: Ho con­sidered that the amendment was not only unnecessary but undPsirable, for the reason that, if the VYords proposed were inst:rted, tlwy would make the judges subject practi­cally to rules of court. Ho Wa» sure that wa.> not the intention of thP hon. member. [£ they made the judges subject to the Act, they would be subject also to the rules under the Act. He considered that that would b'l th.' effect of the alteration.

Mr. ::YlACGREGOR: I do not think it IS possibk

Mr. DREX:IAN: The word", are not neces­sary.

The ATTORNEY-GEXERAL: As the hon. IllCmbcr for rrOO\VOOrnba said, thev were not nccef'~ary, as they woukl find, on fine 39, the words "subject to this subsection."

Mr. MACGREGOR: That refers to tenure.

The ATTORXEY-GEXERAL: He was not accepting the aJPendmcnt. fie would like to refer to the statement bv the hon. member that he wac• of opinion that the elevation of three District Court judges to the Supreme Court bench would not n1ake a very strong bench. '"

Mr. ::VlACGREGOR: I said it would not give us the best bench possible.

The ATTORNEY-GE::-;'ERAL: In deciding t') make District Court judges Supro·,ne Uom t judges, they followed a most excellent example. He would quote as appropriate the following from the "Law Times'' of 26th June, 1920. welcoming the a)Jpointmcnt of Judge Acton of the County Court to the Ili!'h Court- ·

"\Ve ane glad in the case of His Honour Judge Act on that a pr0ccdcnt has been creatocl for making the County Court a stopping stonc to the Hig·h Cuurt bench!'

It seemed to him that men who had b0en on the District Court bench for a considerable number of years w,_ re naturally qualified for th' Supreme Court bench. Such a qualifica­tion must surely bo acceptable. He believed that the District Court judges who were about to be elevated tv the Sunreme Court bench would do signal servicu 0:1- that bench.

A1uendment put and negatived.

l\Ir. MACGREGOR (Jierth:;r) mtn·ed the omission of lines 44 to 59, pab·e 3, with a vie\v to inserting the \vords-

." .P_rovided that C'Ycry sJ:ch judge of DJStnct Courts who has. a,, a judge of Di,trict Courts and as a judg.J of the Supreme Courts, completed fifteen years of service, or who has attained the age of seventy years, shall be entitled, on his retir-ement from oflice as a judge of the Supreme Court, to a pension of five hundred pounds per annum."

Hf' moved the amendment for the reason that the District Court Act ga vc a judge of that court no more than a right to be paid

[Mr. Macgregor.

a pension ·of £500 per annum if he were permanently disabled after fifteen years' ser­vice. The clause as drawn would only con­tinue that right. The Judges' Retirement Bill was amended to make it more definite and to make the pension povablc even if there was not permanent infirmity upon a judge reaching the age of retirement.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There was vcr'" little difference between the proviso in tlw· clause and the amendment proposed by the hon. member. The clear intention of the Government was to provide pensions, but to place the matter beyond doubt and to show the bona fides of the Government, if that were r, ceded, he was prepared to accept the an1r-ncln1ent.

AIEendmcnt agreed to.

Mr. MACGREGOR (Jierthyr): There was a doubt as to whether the words in sub­clau'"o 6. " until tho number of judges has been reduced below seven," would carry out what the Government intended. It seemed to him that a further alt~ration chould be mad,~ in the qualification necessary for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court. At pr~scnt, before a man could be appointed as a judge in Queensland, he had to have a professional standing of five years; in England the period "as ten :vears, and in ~ew Zealand seven years. ·· Standing" meant 'imply from the date of admission. A man might be admitted, but might not practise; yet he could claim to bo put on the bench :~fter five years had elapsed. It "as generally recognised that the words '' actual prac~ice " should be used in those cas('-3, so that a man \vho wa.:; ele­vated to the bench would have some experi­ence of the matters on which :he was called npon to adjudicate. He moved the insertion, after subclause (6), of the words-

" Provided alwavs that a barrister or solicitor shall not be duly qualiGed to be appointed and shall not be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court unless he has been in actual practice for a period of seven years."

T'bc ATTORNEY-GE:'\ERAL: He was afraid that the hon. member was anything but convincinO' in his arguments in favour of an alteration in the present instance. Under the am(mdment the President of the Arbitration Court, who '"as undoubtedly an able man, would be disqualified.

Mr. GLEDSOX: That is the intention.

The ATTOR::"JEY-GENERAL: He was not suggHting that, but merely using it as an argun1ent.

Mr. MACGRCGOR: That is only one example.

The ATTOR="'EY-GENERAL: A solicitor or a barrister of five years' standing could become a judge to-day, and he could see no reason for the propos<>d alteration.

Mr. BREN:'\A::-;' (Too1coomba): The pro­vision under w'bich a barrister or solicitor of live vcars' standing could be appointed as a judg~ was <"ontained in the Legal Practi­tioners Act of 1881, and if it was good enough in those daYS there 'vas no reason why it should bo amended now. There had been several barristns who ha-d not been in practive five years or upwards who had been made judge'·

Mr. KING: There was only one-Mr. Jus­tice M0in.

Mr. VOWLES (Dalbp): He intended to support the amendment, as there was a

Supreme Court Bill. [ll OcTOBER.] Supreme Court Bill. 1289

question as to whether five vears' standing was sufficient. ·

The ATTORNEY-GEXERAL: We have been getting on very well.

Mr. VOWLES : 'l'he Attorncv-General bad merely referred to one ca'·e. •

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I gave that as an example.

Mr. VO\VLES: There w11s no intention to get at an~'one by the arnondmont. It \vas ~dvisa~l~ to make the tenn se-ven years, and, m add1t10n to that, ho should have been in active practice.

Mr. KIKG (Logan) : He was opposed to thA subclausc as it stood. There was a pro­vision further on in the Bill to allow solici­tors of five years' standing to apply for admission as barristers of the Supremo Court; but the appointment of men with that standing as judges would not conduce to a good bench. He did not think chat any solicitor should be allowed to Jlractisc as a barrister until ho had ]Jasscd an examin­ation in ]lleadings and on thB law of evidence.

Mr. BRE"':'-JA:!'<: He rose to a point of order. \7'," as tho hon. member for Logan in order? He was not discussing the clause.

Tho CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General referred to the matter, so the hon. member for Logan is quite in order in referring to it.

_Mr. KING : A solicitor who, under the pro­VISions of the Btll, became a barrister would then be eligible for ap]lointment as a judge. He thought that that should not be so.

Question-That the word3 proposed to be ~nserted (Jlr. 11!lacgregor's amendrnen,t) he so mserted-put; and the Committee divided:-

)lr. Appel , Barnes, G. P. ,, Barnes, \\. i:f. , Bebbington , Bell , Brand , Cattrrmull , Clayton

Corser ., Costello

DE<tcon Edwards

, Elphinstone ., Fletchcr , Fry ,, Green , ,/onrs

~\..lEH, 3-L :Jir. Kerr

King , Logan , :\lacgregor , ~laxwPll .. :11core , );"ott , Pctrrson

Petri<' , Hol- ·rts, ,J. H. C. ., Hobsrt.,, T. I:.

:-::izer ,, Rwayne , Taylc, , Yowles , \YalkPr

\\"~UTt'n 'J'el?ers: :J.fr. Fletcher and :J.1r. King.

}:fr. Bar1wr ,. Bertram

Brrnnan Bulcock Collins Conroy Cooper, F. A. Cooper, W. Coyne Dash Duns tan Ferricks Fihelly Foley Forde Gilday G-illies Glecis'Jfi

l\oEs. :JG. ll.:.r. Hartlev

Huxhaln_• , Land , Lare:oml·f' , ::\-TcCormack , Mnllan , l 1aync " rease ., Pollock , Hionlan , Hynn

8mith Ntopford

, Theodor· , \YPir ., \..Ydlington ., Wi!ecn ,. \VinstanleY

TellerR: 1Ir. Gilday and ~Jr. Ry<tn.

Resolvod in the negative. Mr. MACGREGOR (Muthyr): Subclausr>

(7) provided for the rate of salary to be paid to the Chief ,Justice. Ho thought the office was worth at least the salary which was beong paid at present. One had to remember tha.t

the Chief Jus6ce must have expensive robes. keep an expensive library, and pay a good deal of income tax. There would not bo tFuc.h left. out of £2,250 a year.

Mr. SToPrC.RD: Cut tho robes out.

Mr. MACGREGOR: It was not proposed that they should be cut out at prC' 0 P-ut.. In addition, seeing there waa to be no penRion, the Chief Justice would ha,ve to make some provision for the time when he retired, and that would haYo to come out of his income. HP moved the omission, on lines 9 to 14, of subclause (7)-" Salarp of Chief .Justice."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Ho could rcot. ac,:ept the emendment, as the Govern­ment considered that £2,250 would be ade­quate remuneration for the Chief Justice. He was inclined to think that the hon. gentleman's amendment was out of order, inasmuch -as, if it were carried, it would incr,,ase the liability of the Crown, and they could not d0 that without a further message from the Goverrwr. He was not pressing that point, however; but they would have the matter settled one way or the other. In i\'ew Zealand the salary of the Chief Justice prior to last year wa.s only £2,000, and they had since increased it to £2,250.

Mr. MACGREGOR: l'orhans it would simplify matters if he withdre,\· his 11mend­n1ent. ·Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. ClanBe 4, as amended, put and passed. Clause 5-" Constitut;on of Full Court,

etc.,'-

Mr. MACGREGOR (~'ricrthyr): There were two principles which required amending in that cla,usc. Firot of all. it was undesirable that tho Governor in Council should have the power of directing, on the recommenda­tion of the Chief Justice, as to the number of judges who should sit in the Full C'ou~t and the Court of Criminal Appeal; and It was undesirable that the Chief Justice s.honld have the power that it was pro]loeed to give him hy the clause. The Chief .Jus­tice had the sa,me jurisdiction and power as any of the other j udgcs. The only difference was that he was chief among his equals. These matter, ehould be determined by a majority of the judges. He ]JrDposed the omi:ssion of th-e :,yards--·

" in any particular case the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice, otherwise dirPcts by Order in Council ]Jnblishcd in the ' Gazette';"

and the insertion ol the words-" a majoritv of the judges of whom the Chief Jus bee shall be one othnrwise detcrrnine.''

The A'l'TORNEY-GE?>JERAL: He could noi accept t.he amendment. The hon. gentle­n•an proposed to allow a majority of judges to decide whether more thau three judges should sit on the Court of Criminal Appeal, and B.lso determine what judges should sit. It was much hotter to allow the rlause to nmain a,s it was. There would bo only seven judges in Queensland, "hich the Government regarded as being adegua to for the Jlresent r<~quirements. If they had an arrangement whereby the seven judges would come to Brisbane evcrv five or six \Yeeks t.o sit on tht' Full Cour\ North and Central Queens­Llnd would be neglected.

Mr. VowLES: They should have the righL to sit.

Hon. J . .ilhdlan.]

1290 Supreme GouTt Bill. [ASSE:\IBLY.] Supreme Court Bill.

The "\TTORNEY-GEC\I"ERAL disputed that point" They should have sufficient confidence in the Chief Justice to give him the right to say w.hether in any particular case more than three ju~gcs were required. It had been contended the othor night, and possibly would be contended again, that by doing this they would be 11llowing the Chief Justice to select men to determine an appeal from his own deciBion.

Mr. Knm: That is so.

The ATTORNEY "G EKERAL : He noticed that some legal neophyte in the news" papers challenged a statement he (Mr. Mullan) had made the other night that Lord

Birkenhead had the power which (9.30 p.m.] it was proposed to give to th''

Chief Justice in Queensland. In order to clinch the argument he h.td used 0'1 the second reading on that point, ho would quote from the " Law Times" of 23rd April last, which said-

" During the past week Lord Birken­head has shown his pNsonal concern at the congestion of busines; in the courts in an eminently practical manner by sitting in the divorce division and dealing with the defended list."

Ho >vould show lntN on that the Lord Chan" coilor had thB right to Belect judgcc and he might, aHd possibly would if he so do" oired, do that which hon. members oppooitc said the Chief Justice of the Supnme Court might also do. There v. as really nothing in it, nncl they \Yore follo\-:ing a very fine precedent in what they were doing. It certainly would make [or economy. Of course, unless the amount was excessive, expenditure should nc.t be considered in tho administration of justic0, but. still, if they could administer justice with due regard to economy, so much the better. It was a very expensive b1~siness to bring the ]\' orthern nd Central judges to Brisbane, and the Goyern­mcnt would certainly effect a considerable economy by the proposal in the Bill.

Mr. VOWLES (Da//;y): vVcre they to bl'lievc that the Central and Northern judges would never sit o~ the Full Court?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, but they would not sit unless the Chief J ustioe thought they were the best men.

Mr. VOWLES: Not unless the Chief Justice asked them to come to Brisbane?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: 'I'hat is so.

Mr. VOWLES: ThPv sl10uld ha ye the right to sit on the Full Court. The Government would have conflicting judgments if they were not care:Iul, if the Full Court were con­stituted on two di!Ierent bases.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: 'l'hev have two different seh of judges for the li;ull Court in New Zealand to-day.

Mr. VOWLES: It was not desirable. If they wn·e going to exclude the Central and Northern judges, they would penalise them to a groat extent.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : They won't be p~nali~ed, because naturally the Chief Justice will piCk the best men. Surelv you can trust the Chief Justice ? "

Mr. VOWLES: They could all trust the Chief J ustioe, but it would be far better if all the judges had a rigl1t to sit on the Full Court or in criminal appeal cases. If a case wa' of mfficient importance, they should be

fHon. J. Mttllan.

the judges themse-lves as to whether they should participate in the judgment.

Mr. BRRKNAN (Too1coomba): If the con­tention raised by the leader of the Opposition were adopted, they would have the ]\' orthern Supreme Court judge travelling all the year round. There was an article in the "Daily M ail" recently signed by " J u~titia," in which thP writer rderrcd to the fact that the Chief Justice had the right to select three judges. Furthermore, there wns nothing to preve'1t an appeal to the High Court, so that the• very fact of having seven judges and allov ing five of them to sit in the Full Court on trivial rnattcrs was only a waste of n1.oney. The clause as it stood was ven- sound and should be allowed to stand. --

Mr. IU="'G (Logan): \Yhen the Bill was before the House on the second reading he took stro:1g exception to the proYision gi~ring the Chief Justice greater rights than the other judgco. He looked upon all the judges as having equal rights. 'The· point rais.~d by the leader of the Oppo,ition was a gcod one. If thr ·r had a e.mall Full Court compc•od of three judges and they ''ere going to give a clecision all th~ other judges would h•' bound by that decision. The Northern and Central judges should haYc the right to sit on appeal cases. and, although it ''as going to be a ~Tcatcr expense to brin;; th(\W judge" to Brisbane to sit on appeal cases, it would be n1orc satisfactory to litigants in ge+~-ing a decision which represented the opinion of the full bench.

HoN. \Y. H. BARNES (Bu/imba): After all, the essential point v. as to make sure that they were going to get the ver.v best service in connection with any case that might come on. .Judges were human. and it was quite possible that anyone occupying the position of Chief Justice might unconsciously form a bias against some of the other judges, and the result v·ould be that certain judges only would be retained for certain work. at the instigation of the Chief Justice. There was a very serious loophole in that connection.

The ATTORNEY-GE"ERAL: Parliament has its "''tnedy if a judge shows bias.

I-ION. W. H. BARNES: That would bo a ver:y slow process. Parliament might find the remedy a very difficult ono, because they mig·ht have a biassed Minister, or a sym­pathetic Minister. Some of the legislation that had boon brought in by the Government had been brought in because t}lCy had been unsympathetic towards some of the men occupying a po,ition on the bench in Queens­lund. It was placing the Chid .Justice him­self in a YCr>· awkward position to have to •rlcct the judges who should sit on the Full Court, and practically to say that certain judges \'t ho \vere put -on onQ side were incap· able of doing their work. That would create a want of confidence in the minds of the public. 'I'he aim of the Government should be to get the very be-t men to o• •:upy the positions.

'Ihe ATTORNEY-GE).[ERAL: You ought to ha Ye the very bc't man as Chief Justice and trust him.

HoN. W. II. BARNES : There were some men who excelled along certain lines, and there should be the fullest choice made possible by the Bill, and it should not be left in the hands of anyone.

Mr .. FERRICKS (South Brisbane): These rderences to what might occur and the cast-

Snprcme Court Bill. [ll OCTOBER.] Supreme Court Bill. !~91

ing of imputations made one fear as to what had been the practice in the administration of just.ice during the time when hon. members opposite had held office. So far as he had been able to ascertain, the imputations wer·e · total!,. unfounded so far as the pre.S·ent Government WGro concerned. It had been repeatedly suggested !·hat there was a feeling of malice against members of the judiciary, and the hon. member for Merthyr had said that becau;' he (Mr. Ferricks) once came under a penalty he was actuat0d by malice against all judges. The hon. member was unfair to Mr. Justice Chubb by that remark because never during the course of the hear: ing nor since had he (Mr. Ferricks) ever mad? any roflcct.ion on the judge, because he adrmtt• d then, as he admitted now, that he was impartial and absolutely fair. (Hear, hear!)

Mr. J\LICGREGOR: I did not say anything about the judge. I said you were annoyed.

Mr. FERRICKS : The hon. member for Toowoomba had rightly said that since the i<1auguration of t.he High Court of Australia there had been a lessening of the work of the Full Conrt of Queensland, and that sup­ported the argument of the Attornev-General that three juJgcs chosen by the Chi~£ Justice would form a bench st·rong enough for the purpose.

Que··tien-That the words proposed to be omitt< d (J1r. JJi[acgregor's arnendrnent on dausc 5)-put; and the Committee divided:­

AYES, 36. l\fr. Barbt'r ,, Bertram

Drcnnan Bulcock Collins Conroy Cooper, F. A. Cooper, \V. Coyne Dash

,, Dnn&tan ,, Ferricks , Fihclly , Folcy , Forde .. Gilday .. Gillics ,. Glcdson

.J.lr. Hartlev , Hnxhai111

, Land ,, Larcombe

McCormack , ~Iul!an ,') Paync

I)efLse rollock

, Hiordan , H~van

~mith :-::topforcl

,. Throdorf' , \YPir ,, \.\T e1ling-ton .. \Yilson

TelleTs: )fr. Forcle , \Vinstan1ry and }lr. \Yeir.

)fr. Appcl , Barm~s. G. P. , Rarnrs, \V. ll. .. Brhl)i:n<ton ,. Bell " , Brand , Cattt'rmull ,, Cla;-·ton

Cm·ser Costello

, Dea( on , Ed'.vards ,, Elphinstone

Inctcher , Fry , Gn•0n

~OES, 34. :-t1r. KPIT

Kin.~ , Log-:n ., :J:IacgTr·;·or

}lax>vrll ,. )loore , Sott " Pet('YPOll

, Petri<> Holwrts .. T. H. C.

" Holwrts. T. 1:. , Sizer , Hwayne

Tavlor , Yo"'~les , \Valker ., \.Yarrcn ,, .Tones

'PelleTR: :\fr. Bebbington ancl }fr. DPacon.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Mr. MACGREGOR (Merthyr): The clause provided that not more than three judr-cs should constitute the Full Court. It wo~ld be a·dmitted that the three District Court judges were not of equal capacity to the other judges, and it was quite possible that any two of them might form a court of appeal whilst two experienced judges who were at present members of the bench might be 8it-

ting in the Central and Northern Divisions resp0etivcly. He did not. think that those conditions were g·oing to give them the best opinions on appeal. It was preferable to pro­vie!' that not more than five nor less than thr~e judges should constitute the court., and he therefore moved the insertion, after the word " than," in line 18, page 4, of th,, words '· five nor less than."

The ATTORNEY-GE:\fERAL: He had alrc tdy de,dt with that quc·•tion. As to the suggestion that perhaps the Northern and Central jLtdgos might be deprived of thtl privilege of sitting in the Full Court, he would point out. that it would be entirely in the discretion of the Chief J ustic" to pick whatever judge he likh:l, and, no doubt, if he considered the Northern and Central judges bot!er than the other judges, h• would call upon them. He could not accept· the amCIJd­ment.

li.Ir. VO\iVLES (Dalby): The chuse dis­tinctly said that not more than three j Gdges sb.ould constitute the Full Court or Court of Crimina.! Appeal, but it did not say that the court should not consist of lc•,3 than three. Surelv there must be some limitation! He thoug-.ht the Attorne::-Genoral would be wise in acceplinr- the uggestion of t.he hon. member for Mcrthvr aEd make the maximum live and the mini;num three. If the Chief .Justice \1'<1nted more than three judges, he v.culd then be able t0 ack for them. At present the cl a use tvas very uncertain, because und"r it only two judges might con­stitute the Full Court, and their decision would bind the other five judges.

J\11·. FRY (Ilurilpa): As a layman, he thought it was rig.ht that the amendment should bo e.cccpted. He di·d not profess to b<J a lawyer, but he professed to have a good deal of common sense, and he represented n, majority of the people in that respect. To have an appeal from one judge to two judge' only was bad. If a man was brought before a judge and that judge happene.d to be the Chief Justice, and he ordorcd a Court of Appeal comprising himself arid another judge. what would be t,hc good of the appe<1l? Ho thought such an appeal would be absurd, because the Chief JusLce would adjudicate on his own decision. He ttought the public would agree that that was bad, and he thought the Minister would be wise to limit the minimum number to three. It was in the iutere,ts of the public and in the interests o± justice. He was not prepared to a-ccept a position where a judge would sit on an appeal against himself. He was not inclined to think that a judge was not human and could not err in favour of his own opinions.

Mr. HARTLEY: That is a different opinion b the one you exprc"scd on the Judges' Retirement Bill the other day.

Mr. FRY: He v, as dealing with the prin­ciples of the Bill, and they must know that the amendment suggested was sound. They could not prove otherwise. They had to a ppe"l from one judge to two .i udges, a':d if the judge appealed against was the chair­man of the Full Court, what chance had thu "ppellant got? They might as well have no "ppcal at alL He thoug.ht the amendment of the hon. member for l\<1erthyr was a good one, and he thought the Attorney-General would agree with him on that point, not­withstanding the fact that he had charge of the Bill, and wa.s putting it t.hrough accord­ing to instructions, although he was not

.'-fr. Fry.]

1292 Supreme Court Bill, [ASSEMBLY.] Supreme Court Bill.

concerned very much with what the Attorney­General thought, but with what the public outside thought-the people who returned him to that Chamber.

Mr. MOORE (Aubir1ny): He thought the Attornm·-Goneritl might consider the desir­ablene•s" of agreeing to the amendment. It would only be making the position more cccure for litigants. The AttDrney-General had said the court might probably consist of more than three judges, and, if that was so, why not etatR it? If the Chief Justice wanted more than three judges, he should be able to get them.

The AT1'0HNEY-GENERAL: Are you aware that two judge'- may constitute tho Full Court at present?

Mr. MOORE: He did not think it was a good principle. They had not had an oppor­tunity of objecting to it. Thoro is nothing in the Bill to ca.y judges should not be five. They wanted tp Fee thitt the Chief Justice should select three, and, if he had a very important else and wanted five, surely he should be entitled to get five.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: And he can get them.

:'~Ir. MOO RE : How? The ATTOR:\EY-GEXERAL: It is provided that

the Governor iil Council may, on the recom­mendation of the Chief ,J uBtice, in any par­ticular case, grant more.

Mr. MOORE: Why not give the power in an ordinary clause?

The ATTOHNEY-GENERAL: Because they can be got in anotlwr way.

Mr. MOORE : W.hy not simplify it and put it in the clause? The Chief Justice should "urely be in the position to say how many he wanted. It was onlv because the amend­ment was moved from that side of the Chamber· that it was not accepted. He thought it was sheer obstinacy on the part o[ the Minieter that he declined to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived,

J\fr. MACGREGOR: Paragraph (21 pro­vided-

" The judges who shall from time to time constitute the Full Court and the Conrt of Criminal Appeal, respectively, shall he selected 111 that behalf by the Chief Justice."

He could not see any reason why that power should be given to the Chief Justice. It would be far better if it were done bv a majority of the judges. The same remarks h·J had made on his previous amendment "pp lied to this amendment, although the principle was not the Bame. He moved the omission of the words " the Chief Justice," on lines 22 and 23, page 4, with a view to inserting the words " a majority of tl:J.e j ndges, of w horn the Chief Justice shall be one."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He con­sidered that the amendment was unnecessary. In his opinion it would be far better for the ("hid Justice to select the judgeB for the Full Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal than for a majority of the judges to do so. He thought the practice proposed would work all right. In England the Lord Chan­cellor could appoint judges to the Court of AppeaL The system worked satisfactorily there, and it should do likewise here. He did not propose to accept the amendment.

[Mr. Fry.

Mr. MOORE: He could net understand why the Attorney-General could not accept an amendment like that, The Government in their own party adopted the system of "selecting MinisterB 'by a majority of tlJo party and not leaving the selection to one individual.

[10 p.m.] Mr. HAR.TLEY: That is all right, but the

~.vhole caucus arc candidates very often. (L<1ughtcr.)

Mr. MO ORE: Was there anv advantage to be gained by allowing tL Uhief Justice tJ pick the judges? Perhaps it would. be ono of his own decisions which was bemv appealed ao·ainst. lie thought it would be far better to let the majority of the judges make the selection.

Mr. IIARTLEY: You admit that all j uJges arc hurnan?

Mr. :YIOORE: Yes: •but that was why they did not want an individual judge to select a bench for the Full Court. He could not sec that any BOund argurnent had been nr:::c>d for the retention of the clause as it stood.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: \Yhat danger is there in leaving the selection to the Chief Justice?

Mr. MOO RE: An individual was liable to be prejudiced, and he did not think it 1,>1.as a good thing· in connection ·with a court to leave the selection to ono man,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: vVould he have prejudices ou the bench?

:vir. MOORE: Probably; every individual had. A man would naturally pick those who were of his wa v of thinking, and that was a bad principle to have in connection with a court.

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted (Jir. 1VIacgrcgor's amt ndment) stand part of thr, clause-put; and the Committee; divided:-

}fr. Barber , Be1·tram

Brcnnan Bulcock Coil ins Conroy Cooper, F. A. Cooper, \V. Coyne Dash Duns tan Fcrricks Fihellv Foley ·

AYES, 36. 11r. H artley

Huxham• Lanr1 Larcombe "l\-J cCormr~ck

, J[nllan , PaynC'

Pease Pollock Riordan Hvan ~Srllith

, ~topford , Theodore

\Veir ,, \Ydlingi.on ,, \Yileon

Forcle Gilclav Gillie's G!rdson , \Yim;tn,nlry 'Pellers: }Ir. Bulcock ancl Mr. Conroy~

NoEs, 34. J\Ir. A ppel :Mr, Kcrr

, Barnes, G. P. , King , Barncs, \Y. H. , I..~ogan ,, Bcbbington , ::vrargre-gor

Bell , 1VIaxwdl Brancl ?!l oore Cattermull , Xott

,, Cln.yton PctPrson Corser Petric Costello Iloberts, .T. H. C. Deacon , Hobrrts, T. R. Edwards Sizer

,, Elphinstone ,, Rwayne , Fletcher , Taylor

Fry Vowles :: Green , Walker

Jones \V"arren Tellers: lVIr. Walker and Mr. Warren.

Rholved in the affirmative. Clause put and passed.

Supreme Court Bill. [ll OcTOBER.] Supreme CouTt Bill. 1293

Clause 6-" Constitution of districts, etc."­Mr. MACGREGOR (Jlerthyr): This was a

yery important clause, and covered a large number of questions. It was very unfor­tunate that the motion for a Select Com­mittee was not carried, so that this cle.use .could have been considered by expert officers of the court, who would have been able to give valuable evidence as to the practi­cability or otherwise of the constitution of districts as proposed. Hon. members had to remember that at present the Supreme Court held sittings at Brisbane, Rockhamp­ton, and Townsville; the Southern. Court went west as far ·as Roma and held its sittings at Ipswich, Toowoomba, and Roma, as well as at Maryborough and Bundaberg; while the Rockhampton Court sat at Mackay; and in the north Cloncurry, Charters Towers, and Cooktown were visited. It was found that those large centres of population provided the greatest number of cases, and <Jnly occasionally was there a case in which witnesses had to travel anY great distances. The clause proposed to divide Qneensland into a number of districh-it was not known how many-by joining two or more petty sessions districts. .At present there were 160 petty sessions districts. If only two were joined, it would mean eighty districts; if three were joined it would mean over fifty; if four were joined, it would mean over forty; and they would get down to the number of District Court districts-which was thirty. Even as :high a number as thirty would involve a tremendous expense in the way of new r~gistries, officers with Balaries, and travelling expenses of judges. He supposed it would mean the restriction of the initiation and trial of an action to the district in which the court sat, although there did not appear to be any such provi­sion at present. It was necessary there should be, in order to prevent people in the Southport district instituting an action at :--;-ormanton in order to vexatiously take a defendant up there.

Mr. BRENNAN : How could you take a defendant where the cause of action did not exist?

Mr. MACGREGOR: That provision had been omitted from the Bill. The District Court Act specially provided for it. In addition to that, there would be local pre­judice in the case of juries. The smaller the district, the more likelihood there would be of having a prejudiced jury not fit to try the cause, as they would have heard one side or the other, and, therefore, would not be as impartial as they should be. The power to remit would not be an improve­ment, as it would moan the expense of starting in a particular district and then having the case remitted to another district. Ho. did not think they would get thirt7 registrars who would be equal to the work imposed upon them under this clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Have we not registrars of District Courts in every place?

Mr. MACGREGOR: They would have very much more complicated matters to deal with, and they would require to have a good deal of learning before they would be equipped for tho duties of registrars of the Supreme Court. At present only a few District Court registrars would be competent to do the work of the Supremo Court under this clause.

Mr. BRENNAN: It is nearly all formal work.

Mr. l\L\CGHEGOR : That was an argu­ment for the omission of the clause. 'l'he presumption was that the clause was neces­sary. If they divided Queensland into thirty districts, they were going to have thirt.i registrars-thirty centres at which actions could star( and thirty places to \·.'hich the judges would have to travel-as the Attorney-General said-twice the num­ber of times they did at present. Between them, Supre1no and District Court judges held 106 sittings in the State, and some calendars provided an allowance of only one day for the disposal of cases. It would also be neces­sary to have some sort of library in each of those places. If a judge had to go to a district and hear and decide a case, it would mean he would have to carry a very large library of his own.

At 10.15 p.m., Mr. DuNSTAN (Gympie). one of the panel of

Temporary Chairmen, relieved Mr. Kirwan in the chair.

T'he ATTORNEY-GENERAL: How do they get on now if they have not libraries?

Mr. MACGREGOH: They adjourned to Brisbane if it were a very complicated case.

The _\TTORNEY-GENERAL: It would be cheaper to take the books out there than to bring the case to Brisbane.

Mr. MACGREGOR : At present they were not going to do it. Each district was going to be complete. The judge would go out, settle the case, have the orders drawn up, ami everything fixed before he left. There was an old adage that fools rushed in where angds feared to tread. It had a great application to things like this. Even the most gifted man at the bar or on the bench could get help and assistance by having a Select Committee and hearing tho evidence of District Court and Supreme Court regis­trars and taxing officers.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Can you not create as manv circuit courts as you like under the pres'ent law?

Mr. MACGHEGOR: Yes, but they did not do it. This clause was about fifty or seventy­ft v-o years ahead of its time in Queensland. It might be all right when they had an evenly distributed population and it was necessary to bring justice to every man's ·door. It mig-ht be all right if they \Yore starting the system, but the:· were going to interfere with an established system-the Petty Debts Court, the District Court., and the Supreme Court-going out from time to time. The number of towns at which the District Court sat was much greator in number than t-hose at which the Supreme Court held sittings. Ho had given a list the other night showing that the District Court judges went further and more frequently -to the towns than the Supreme Court judges, b cause cases which it was necesmry to have heard by the Supreme Court were fewer than t-hose involv­ing amounts un-der £200. It had been calculated by a writer in the "Daily Mail"­and he took it he had written the letter after consultat.ion with the officers of the court­that this was going to cost the Government an extra £16,000 per annum.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Oh, no! He is all at sea.

Mr. MACGREGOR: He was allowing a very small amount for travelling and a v-ery reasonable number of days to fulfil the circuits.

Mr. Macgregor.]

1204 Supreme Court Bill. [ASSElVlBLY.1 Supreme Court Bil ..

The ATTORNEY-GENER\L: He is entirely WTong. He overlooked the fact that there would be no trav ·lling on the part of the District Court judges.

Mr. MACGREGOR: Ho was onlv calcu­lating on the basis t>f the travelfing the Supremo Court judges would have to do.

The ATTORXEY-GENERAL: He is entirely wrong. He is out 50 per cent.

Mr. MACGREGOR: That was a hasty calculation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He made a mis­take of 50 per cent.

Mr. MACGREGOR: It was a case of a man who had giv 'n a reasone ble opinion, and that o'pinion should be examined.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He is working on false promises.

Mr. ;}fACGREGOR: That had boon a very big quest.ion. It was a question of juries, drawing up orders, costs of actions, local prejudices, and all those things. The clause should not be in the Bill, and he intended to oppose it.

The ATTORXEY-GENERAL: That was one of the best clauccs in the BilL If any· thing made for econon1y or law reform, c0rtainly t.hat clause did. In reply to the statement that ox pens cs would be enormously increased a a result of the creation of Suprc •no Court districts, he would state that for the presonJ·, unless in exceptional cases, the Supreme Court districts would be created at the places at which District Courts ·were now held.

Mr. 11ACGREGOR: I-Iov; 1nany Suprcn1e Court districts will you have?

ThP ATTORKEY-GENERAL: Thev would have at looast a number equal t-o the "number of placee at which District Courts were now hold, and 1 h, ro might be a few other tm• ns included. That would not involve any addi­tional travelling on the part of the judges. h certainly would mean that the Supreme Court judges "·ould have to travel more, but there would be no travelling at all by District Court judges. In no town would there be a less number of si'ttings than thoro was to-day. That. was to say, there would be as many sittings of the Supreme Court in the future as there had been sittings of the Supreme Court and District Court in the pa-.t. That did not n1ean there would be an increased f'Xpcndi­ture. He did not anticipate any considerable increase in the amount of travelling expenses of the judges. The only increas-e would be on account of the increased number of towns visitoo.

Mr. MACGREGOR: Have you mapped out the district-s yet?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No: but he ehould say that at the commencement the circuits of the Supr·eme Court would be those that were now covered by District Court judges, wit-h perhaps one or two additional towns such as Stanthorpe, and probably one in the electorate represented by the hon. member for Albert. The matter of creating Supreme Court libraries was a figment of imagination on the part of Mr. Graham. Mr. Graham was ent-irely wrong, and, if that gentleman would be good enough to go along to the department, in ten minutes he (Mr. Mullan) would entirely disabuse his mind on the score of costs. The Bill would make for economy. Everyone, so far, seemed to over­look the enormous decrease in expenditure as

[1'1-fr. ilfacgregor.

a result of t-he decreased number of cases that would go to a jury. Cases in the lower courts that now came before a judge and jury and took days and days would be settle-d in the future cheaply and expeditious!:. in the n:ragistratcs court""-. That vvould be an enormous saving to the community, and he had no hesitation in caying .that that clauce, like other parts of the Bill, wouH work excpedingly well.

At 10.25 p.m., The CHAIR~IAN resumed the chair. Question--That clause 6, as road, stand

part of the Bill-put; and the Committee divided:-

Mr. BarbE'r Bertram Brrnnan Bulcock Co!lins Conroy

, Cooper, F. A. Cooper, \V. Ooyne Dash Duns tan Ferrieks Fihelly Fo!Py Forde Gilday Gill it'S

Glrdson

AYES, 36. :Mr. Hartky

Huxham• Land

, , Larrom lJe , .McOormack

3iullan Paync Pc;1,st' Pollork Hiordan Hyan

, :-lmith ,, ~topfnnl

Theodorc , \\"t'il' ., \Vt'llingtnn

\Yils( n \Yinstanley

'l'ellers: :Ur. Fcrricks and Mr. Gilday.

llfr. Appel , Barnt>s. G. P. , Barnrs, \.V. H.

Bebbington BP!! Brand Oattrrmnll Clayton Corser Oostello Deacon Ed1Yards

, Elphinstone Fletcher Fry

NoEs, 34. l\ir. 1\f'rr

, King , Logan , .Macgregor ., ~lax-.vcH

Moo re "'ott Petprson VeiriP Holwrts .. T. H. C'.

, Holwrts, T. TI. Sizer fi\Yayne

,, Ta,-,·1or \~owlt's

Walkc'r \YarrC'n

,, Green .Tones

Tellers: }fr. Oostello and }fr. Kcrr.

Rewlvod in the affirmative. Clause 7-" District sittings are Circuit

eourts "-Mr. MACGREGOR (.o/Irrthyr): That

clcuse prO\·ided that the Northern judg-e and the Central judge should respectiv<ely reside in the Northern district and the Cen­hal district. He was opposed to that. \Vhy shoul-d there be any provision about the Central judg·o residing in the Central dis­trict?

;\fr. public

Mr. there judge

!IARTLEY: In the int0rcsts of the and in the interests of the State. MACGREGOR: He admitted that

was some reason why the Northern should reside in the :'\orth.

1\Ir. IIARTLEY: \Vhv should not the Central judge reside in the Central district?

Mr. :\!IACGREGOR: Because there was no work for him there, and he would be much

more useful in BrisbanP. The [10.30 p. m.] absence of any statement of

reasons for it made one ·wonder what thcv could be. He moved the omission, on lines 21 and 22, page 5, of the words-

" 'Ihe Northern judge and Central judge shall respectively reside in the Northern district and Central district."

SupTeme Court Bil!. [ll OoTOBEu.J Supreme CoUJ·t Bill. 1295

Mr. HARTLEY (Fitzroy): Ho intended to offer a very strenuous oppositwn to the amendment. It simply illustrated the eharge that had been made against the Government side of the House. As it now applied to the hon. mem?er for Merthyr, it ·Imply showed that spec1al influences were :tduating 'him. because he (Mr. Hartley) mterprcted the propos~l as a piece of special pleading on behalf of somB of the SouthcrH judges.

::V1r. MAOGREGOR: You are quite wrong.

:VIr. HAHTLEY: The evidence w.ts against the hon. mc.nbcr. If there was any­thing that had berm a great inconvenience to the Northern and Central divisions, it had been the .continual tripping up anJ down of the judges and their associates. In the interests of the communih, from the point of view of the administration of legal affairs and of ecOnomy, the judges should be corn~ polled to live in their districts. The hon. member certainlv could not hnve had the interests of the iitigants at heart in moving the amendment, because it wae well known that-in Rockhampton particularly, and some of the W cstcrn towns-during tho absence of YJ:r. Justice Lukin in Brisbane mattPrs had boon hold up for weeks and v.~eeks, and some­times for months.

Mr. Krxo : Can you cite any speciGc instances?

Mr. HARTLEY: Not off~hand. He had met the Attorney~General and the Premier, backed up by the written doclarations of most of the solicitors and two barristers in Rockhampton, asking that Mr. Justice Lukin bo compelled to live in Rockhampton, because business was held up by his continued absence. On the ground of economy the amendment could not be justified. The judge's expenses to and from Rockhampton wore a big item. The judges charged cer­tain expenses, but they did not enter details m vouchers; they charged at a certain rate for themselves and their associates.

Mt·. lifACGREGOR: Ministers are shiverin~ about that. (Opposition laughter.)

:VIr. HARTLEY: Why should not the expenses of judges be op'en to invBst.igatiDn the same as tho,"' of nny ::\1inister' Ho ,·entured to say that if thev were there would be much lnoro severe criticism of therr1 than had ever been IevDlled at those of Ministers. A judge could take up his quarters and have his meals at the Supreme Court in Rockhampton and charge £2 15s. 6d. or whatever rate he decided upon without an) voucher.

Mr. Krxo: What about Ministers?

;)lr. HARTLEY: Their expenses were open to inquiry. (Opposition laughter.) They ha<! been tabled time and again in re,ponse to questions. In 1919-1920, the total c.mount of travelling and other expenses of Mr. Justice Lukin was £379 10s., at a daily rate of £2 15s. 6d. for himself and his associate.

Mr. MAXWELL: That is not much.

Mr. H_\RTLEY: It was something- vclwn they remembered that h' \'1 as only 130 davs on circuit. His net expenses f01: the yein w0re £356, or about £2 15s. per day in addition to his salarY. It would be ~uch better business if ho lived in Rockhampton. "'io doubt. the saving in the case of the :Northern judge would be a similar amount.

The ATTORNEY-GEJ'\ERAL: The late l-Ion. T. tT. Byrnes, \vhcn introduciug thu Supremo Court Act of 1895, said-

" Under no circun1.::;t 1ncc;:, '' ould I bring in u Bill ·dealing with this subject unlc;.> on the distinct stipulation <tnd undQr••tanding that., '' hat0ver is done, there shall ah1 ays be one judge resident in Tovvnsville."

And in 1903, Sir Robert Philp, speaking on the Supreme Court Acts Amendment Bill, said~-

" There should be a Supreme Court judge permanently resident in Towns­ville; not temporarily."

During the visit of ono of his predecessors (Mr. Fihelly) to Rockhampton, a most. influential deputation from the Chamber of Commerce nnd the lawyers there practically demanded that Mr. Justice Lukin should always reside in the Central district.

;>,1r. FRY: Why do they want a judge? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: They had

just as much right to a judge as the Southern ·people. There had been too much centralisation.

Mr. VoWLES: Why should it not apply to the far West?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the far WcBt wanted a judg<', considerntion would be given to their request.

Mr. GREEN (Tou·nsville): He supported the remarks of thB Minister. He had no hesitation in saying that it was absolutely essential that a judge should reside in North Quc<msland, and the residents of the North would certainly fBel that they were injustly treated if the judge were withdrawn from there. There had been too much centralisa­tion in Southern Queensland in many respects, and, from the points of view of economy and the neco,sity for :having matters dealt with promptly, and taking into consideration the vast distances the Northern judge had to travel, he felt sure the Committee would realise that the clause should stand.

Mr. MACGREGOR (Merthyr): The hon. member for Fitzroy had made an unfounded assertion when by imputation, he said that he (Mr. Macgregor) was moving the amend­monts with the concurrence of the Contra! judge and that the Central judge had a special pleader in the House in himself (Mr. Macgregor). He had always been Yery careful never to speak to any judge on the subjBct of the Bills. It would be quite unfair for him to approach any judge.

Mr. liAR'rLEY: Do you mean to say that :~ou are not pleading in his interests now?

Mr. MACGREGOR: That is not what the hon. member said.

Mr. HARTLEY: That is exactly what I did say.

Mr. MACGREGOR: Judging from the tone in which the hon. member for Fitzroy spoke, Mr. Justice Lukin had a bitt"r 0nemy in the hon. member, and from what the hon. member said, he (Mr. Macgregor) also had a bitter enemy in the hon. member. The hon. member had said that the associates sent in vouchers without detailing the expenses. He had been an associato for two and a-half years to Sir Charles Lilley and for twelve months to Sir Samuel Griflith, and every penny of expenditure was shown in the vouchers. Even the purchase of a penny newspaper from vetty cash was shown in the

Mr. Macgregor.]

120() S~tpreme Court Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Financial Administration.

vouchers. Things must have changed and become laxcr since he was an a~,:;ociate if thP assertion of the hon. member was correct. At the same time he was certain that the associates returned vouchers E~lO\ving every item of expenditure incurred while the judges vvero on circuit.

Mr. HARTLEY: He did not intend to allow the hon. member for Merthvr to charge him with vindictiveness towards Mr. Justice Lukin. He was speaking in the interc'>ts of the communitv and he was not goi.ng to allow the comm~1~ity to suffer be­cause of the contemptuous manner in "hich the hon. member thought the interests of Central Queensland should be treated in favour of the tinpot place that the hon. member represented.

Mr. FRY (IinTilpa): He had asked the Atto~ney-General why the deputation waited on hts predecessor with the object of havino­a judge stationed in Central Queensland, and the reply the hon. gentleman gave was· "Why should they not have one. the sam~ as the people in the South?" That was not a reply to his question. There should be judges in Central and North Queensland if the people of those districts thought it was tony to have judges "tationed there. It was not argued that it was in the interests of economy. The Attornev-General should have replied in a courteou"s manner to his question.

Mr. DASH (Mundingbun·a): He would support the clause as it stood. Townsville was a very important centre and it was onlv right that a judge should r~side there. The sending of a judge from Brisbane on circuit to Townsvilie meant a big expense in allow­ances for himself and tiis acsociate.

Amendment put and negatived.

Jl.~r .. MACGREGOR (Mcrt!tyr) moved the om1sswn, on lme 23, of the words " Subject to the next succeeding provisio~." '!'hey "\V ere unnecessary.

The ATTORNEY-GEJ\'ERAL: The first portion of the clause read-

. ': Subject to the next succeeding pro­~·1s1on, the Northern JUdge and Central Ju?ge shall _also act as judge at all Cir­cmt Courts l1l the 1\' orthern Diotrict and Central District respectively."

That was subj ent lo the Chi of Justice being able to direct them to attend any court in Quoensl_and, and, therefore, it was necessary to rota m the words. Ho could not accept the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

l\(r .. l1L\CGREGOR (Merthy,·) moved the om1sswn, on lmos 26 to 32, of the words-

" As ~nd when directed by the Chief Just10_e m cases where in his opinion such dtrectwn, becomes necessary, every judge of the Supreme Court shall act a.g a judge in the Full Court or Court of Criminal Appeal or at any sittings of the Supreme Qourt (including any Cir­cmt Court) whether in the Southern Central, or Northern District." '

It was an c;bnoxious principle, and would not be found m the Now Zealand or English legislation. Anything of that sort should be done as a matter of request. The inde­pendence of the judges was involved, and it was not only a matter of sentiment. If those words were retained, other judg-es would go on the bench as servants of the Chief Justice. In domestic affairs of manage-

[ Mr. Macgregor.

ment, as they might be terme-d, they slwuld be submitted to a majority of the judges to decide. It was wrong that the Chief J usticc should direct his brother judges what theY wore to do. It would restrict the choice o"f judges, for, he ,felt sure, a gentleman '· ould think twice before going on to t.he bench to be a servant of the Chief Justice. ILl was not thinking of any Chief Justice. Under those circumstances, a judge would surrender his independencP, and he would be going on to the bench never being able to carry out his desire of being a Supremo Court judge in its full meaning. He sub­mitted that the words were unnecessary and wrong in principle

The ATTORNEY-GEKERAL: He could not accept the amendment, because what they were ·doing now \Vas, in his opinion. ,-ery d_esirable. There might be plenty of work m one part of Queensland and very little in another, and somebody ought to decide as to who should do that work. If the.y left it to everybody, it would be nobody's busmess; 1! they left 1t to all the judges, they_ would probably have some difficulty in gettmg tho work done. In England the Chief ,Justice could direct the judges to sit on a Court of Appeal, and there would be no harm in this provision. It was the natural corollary of what, had been done in regard to the Chief Justice arranging for the judges to sit on t.he Court of Appeal. '

Mr. VOWLES (Dalby): It seemed to him that the clause was wrongly worded and that it would be better if it read ";_s and ;dwn ' requested' by the Chief J usticc." The Judg-es should have a right to sit in the courts mentioned without being liable to be called upon at any time by the Chief Justice.

Amendment put and negatived. Clause 7 put and passed.

The House resumed. The CHAIR~IAN reported progress.

The resumption of Committee was made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

The House adjourned at 10.55 p.m .