Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Council

WEDNESDAY, 8 APRIL 1908

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

648 Goondi1vindi to Talwoocl. [COUNCIL.] Parliamentm·y Billa.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

WEDXESDAY, 8 Al'HlL, 1908.

The PRESIDEXT (Hon. Sir Arthur Morgan) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

PARLIAMEXTARY BILLS REFEREN­DUM BILL.

SECOND HEADIXG.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN­STRUCTIOI\ (Hon. A. H. Barlow): This Bill is a complement of the Bill we passed the other day. It is a Bill to amend the Constitution of QLwemland by providing for the submission of certain parliamentary Rills to the electors of Queensland, and for purposes consequent thereon and incidental thereto. Unless the question is raised, I do not propose to go into the legal as­pects of the matter. I will content myself with simply outlining the Bill. Clause 2 interprets the meaning of "The Elections Act," "Elec­tion," and "Referendum Poll." Clause 3 pro­vides that-

(1.> l'or the purposes of this Act a Bill shall be deemed to have been rejected a first time whenever snch Bill has, during a session of Parliament, been passed by the Legit:olative A,.,~embly and transmitted to the Legislative Council for its concurrence therein, and the Legislative Council before the close of tbtJ session has cither-

(a) Rejected or failed to pass such B1ll; or (bJ Passed such JHll with any amendment or amend~

ments in which the Legi::dative .\ .. ssemby does not concur;

and br reason thereof the Bill has been lost.

Hon. F. I. POWER: Does that mean if we do not even have a chance of discussing it?

The SECRETARY FOR PFBLIC IN­STRUCTIOX: If it is purposely procrastinated until the end of the session. The clause then goes on to provide that a Bill shall be deemed to be rejected a second time when the Legiclative Ass~mbly, in the next Eession of Parliament, has

Parliamentary Bills [8 APRIL.] Riferendum Bill. 649>

again passed such Bill, or a Bill substantially the same, and transmitted it to the Legislative Council for its concurrence therein, and the Legis­lative Council, before the close of the session, has eithPr rejected or failed to pass the Bill, or passed the Bill with amendments in which the Legisla­lative Assembly does not concur, and by reason thereof the Bill has been lost. Then clause 4 states-

(1.) ·whenever a Bill has been twice rejected lly the Legislative Council, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation published in the Ga ', tte after the close of the session in which the Bill was rejected a second time, direct that the Bill so rejected shall be submitted by referendum to the eleetors; and a refm·endnm poll shall accordingly be taken thereon under this Act at t·he time appointed in that behalf.

And it goes on to provide that the Bill shall be certified as correct by the Speaker of the Legis­lative AR,embly, and be transmitted hy the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly to the Home Secre­tary. Clause 5 provides that the persons entitled to vote shall be the elect.•re, and no other per­song, Clame 6 provides that the Governor in Council may appoint a tit person to be the returning officer to take the poll, with such assistant returning oiiicers as may be necessary. Clause 7 provides that the right to vote, and the mode of ascertaining such right, shall be the same as at elections of members of the Legislati' e Assembly. Thus the duties of the assistant re­turning officers are defined, and >,he endorsement and return of the writ is explained in clause 9. Clause 10 provides that-

If the referendum poll is decided in favour of the Bill, the Bill shall be presented to the Governor for His l\1ajP"ty's assent, abcl upon receiving such assent the Bill shall lJecome an Act of Parliament in the same 1nanner a.s if it had been passecl by both Houses of Parliament, and notwHhstanding any law to the con~ trary.

Hon. B. B. MORETON": Would the Ministry go out if it does not get passed ?

The RECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN­STRUCTION: I do not think so. Power is then given to the Governor in Council to make regulations for carrying the Act into effect. And it is provided in the last claut;e that the expenses incurred in the execution of the Act shall be defrayed out of moneys appropriated by Parlia­ment for the purpose. As hon. gentlemen are aware, the object of the Biil is to prevent, as far as possible, any deadlock between the two Houses. It is e.Jso a subHtitute for a penal dioso­lution of the Legislative Assembly. A dissolu­tion of the Assembly to affirm l1nything is a most umatisfactory proceeding. All sorts of issues come up at a general election, and it is impossible to get a clear verdict upon any one in particular. Under this Bill there will be no mistake about the particular question put to the people, and no mistake about their answer. I think it is a natural way of overcoming diiiicultiee, and so far from weakening the powers of this House, as I Sltid on a former occasion it \\·ill materiallv strengthen the House, because the people may so.y that their views coincide with those of tbe Legislative Council. One factor of that kind would do more to strengthen the Legi,lative Council as a branch of the Legi,lature than all the arguments and bickerings and disputes we have had in the past. It would be a deliberate declaration of the people that tbey concurred with this House in the vote they had given on the matter in question. I do not think I need say more at present. I submit the Bill as a reasonable compromise, and move that it be read a second time.

* HoN. F. I. PO\VER: I intend to support this Bill a:; being the outcome of the amendmeRt of the Constitution we have recently passed. At the same time I would not vote for the measure

if I thought, as has been onggested, that it meant ultimately the abolition of thio House, because I think that would be a very great misfortune indeed. When we come to think of the work that has been done by this Chamber, we can safely pay that it will compare very favour­ably with the work done in another place, and we may say the same when we compare the calibre of the members here with the calibre of the members in another place. If that be so, we have members who are just as capable as, if not rru.re capable than, the average man who represents a constituency elsewhere. Anrl it is only fair to say that this House has always exerci8ed a very wise and prudent in­fluence in the legislation of the country, and I certainly would oppose any measure if I thought it ultimately meant the abolitionofthisCharnber. As I have already said, I think the Bill will be the means of strengthening this Chamber. At the same time, I say, at the risk of being accused of inconsistency, that in my opinion the Bill is unconstitutional, although at the same time if it is constitutional f sincerely trust it will pass. I will bdefly put my reesons before the Council. These two Legislative Chambers were appointed under the Order in Council, which may be found in Pring's Statutes, volume 1, page 238. The first ordinance provides for the appointment in the s>Lid co'ony of Queemland of a Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly, and the next em­powers the Council and the Assembly to make laws "for the peace, welbr<>, and good govern­ment of Lhe colony in all cuses whats,,ever." It seems a diiiicult thing to me to reconcile a Refer­endum Biil with that ordinance, which is con­firmed by the Comtitution Act of 1867. I cannot conceive how it can be construed to mean that if this House twice rejects a measure-which it has probably never had an opportunity of discussing, either because it has come up at the end of the session, or has been interfered with by a dissolu­tion, or any other reason-such measure mal:' ~e submitted to a referendum of the people. ls 1t constitutional? If it is constitutional, then I take it that if the two Houses were to fail to pass certain measures that were put before them -either one or the other, or both-the whole legislation of the State cr111ld be left to one individual. I presume that is the logical out­come of the proposition. If you can refer measures to the body of the people, you can refer them to one individual. The Rill prmides for our rejEction or failure to p•ss Bills which may never have been discussed, whic 11 through some piece of political jugglery we may have been debarred from discussing; they are to he re­ferred to the people. If that is a correct inter­pretation of the Comtitution that they may be referred to one individul--

The SECRETARY FOR AGHICcLTURE: They must be passed by the Assembly before they come here.

HoN. F. I. PO\YER: I am aware of that, but I am not discussing the proposition so much as the legality of the proposal ; and we are as much an integral part of the Legislature of _the State as the other ()hamber under the Consl!tu­tion. Yet this may be taken out of our hands, and th~ final decision plac'd in the hands of one individual-say, the Governor, the Chief Justice, or anybody you like to name. I take it the hon. gentleman is bas_ing his opinion npon sec­tion 22 of the Order m Council, but I do not take the same view that he does. That section provides that the Legi.lature "shall have full power and authority from time to time to make laws altering or repealing any or all of the pro­visions of this Order in Council."

The f3ECRETAHY FOR Pt:BLIC INSTRUCTION ~ That was repealed.

Hon. F. I. Power.]

ti50 Parliamentar,y Bills [COUNCIL.] Riferendum BilT.

HoN. F. I. POWER: No: you have not repealed that.

The SECRETARY FOR Pcnuc IxsTRCCTIOX: The Act of 1867 repealed the Order in Council except two sections.

HoN. F. I. POWER: But they did notJ repeal the appointment of the two Legislatures, 'That was re-enacted.

The SECRETARY <'OH PUBLIC INSTRL'CTIOX: \Ve contend that the re-enactment was an indepen­dent construction.

HoN. F. I. POWER: Assuming you are correct, there is nothing in the Constitution Act which g-ives the power straight away to abolish either Legislature.

The SECHETARY l!'OR PcnLIC IxsTRL'CTIOX: You mean that change and abolition are two different things.

HoN. F. I. POWER: Two different thing-s altogether, otherwise a majoTity of either House could absolutely wipe out the Constitution. It is quite true that this Order in Council gives power for the time being to make laws altering or repealing the provisions of the Order in Council, but I do not think that. can be properly interpreted to mean the abolition of the very source from which we take our authority. Pro­vision is made for the creation of two Houses, and the advice of those tw0 Houses must be taken before any measure can b8come law.

The SECRETARY POR Pl-BLIC IXSTRUCTION: In 1867 they could have crPated a one-chamber Legislature.

Hox. l<'. I. POWER : I do not admit they could, because the words "all or any" wonlrl not, in my opinion, go so far as to wipe out the very basis on which the House is estab­lished. I ha,•e brought these matters forward as a nmtter of duty. I thought it was the proper thing to do so, and I hope that nothing wip tran~pir<;' to prove that we are doing any­thmg wh1ch 1s unlawful. I am not offering any opposition to the Bill, and have no desire to be factious in any shape or form. I have very little further to say in reference to the measure. The Council, on a former occ1sion, agreed that this was a good means of bringing about a com­promise so a,s to prevent deadlocks between the two Houses. But I think that, under the present circumstances, the Bill should either be sub­stantially amended or rejecterl. I havP the very strongest objection to the words "failed to pasq such Bill," because I can see that if they are literally interpreter! it may mean that we have failed to pass a Bill, although we have neyer hnd the opportnnit y uf passing iL The Attorney­General, in another place, distinctly "aid that if a dissolution occurred before the Bill was pre­sented it wonld be tantamount to a failure to pass or a rejection. That might happen twice, and a referendum would then be taken upon a measure that this Chamber never haLl a chance of discussing at all. I do not think the Chamber should coment to any such course as that being adopted. The only thing, I think, that might qualify those words is to be found in clause ~. which "~ys-~Vhenevur a Bill has been twice rejected by the Legis­

latrve Council, the Go•ernor in Council may, by procla­mation published in the Ga, ~tie after the close of the s~stlion in which the Bill was rejected a second time, direct that the Bill so rejected shall be submitted by :referendum to the eleclors.

Now, the words ''or failed to pass such Bill " are left out there, so that perhaps, after all, it is the

[Hon. F. I. Power.

intention of the Bill that any measure shall be t.wice rejected by a vote of the House. If lthat is so, I am perfectly satisfied to leave the Bill as it stands, and it will be necessary, therefore, if that is admitted, to take out the words "or failed to pass such Bill" in both places. Clause 4 goes on further to state-And a rererendum poll shall accordingly be taken thereon under this Act at the time appointed in that bebalf. The publication in the Ga:;:etle of' such pro­clamation shall be conclusive evidence that the Bill as la0t reJe<?.ted is the same Bill or substantially the same Bill as the Bill rejected in the session last but one pre­ceding, and has been twice rejected by the Legislative Council.

It does not use the ~xpression "reject or fail to pass." I think it would be most inequitable and unjust if Bills were treated as having been re~ jected when they had not been before the Cham­ber.

Hon. A. NoRTON: They might be brought in the last day of a session.

Ho;;. F. I. PO\VER: Exactly so; and by some jugglery it might be arranged that it would be impossible for the Council to pass them.

The SECRETAitY FOR PGBLIC INSTRUCTIOX : The expression in the Federal statute is "rejects or fails to pass."

Hox. F. I. PO\VER: That does not make right.

The SECI\ETARY POR PcnLrc I:>sTRUCTIOX : It is a very high authority.

HoN. F. I. PO"\YER: No doubt it is, and probably this is copied from the clause in the Federal Act. U that be so, why does clause 4 afterwards leave out the words "failed to pa~s"~

The SECRETAHY FOR AGRICCLTURE: Rejection is clefi ned by clause 3.

Hox. F. I. POWER: Even if that is so, the words "failed to pass such Bill" are surplusage. But I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman's view of the matter. I think it rp.ads rather the other way. It does not define what "rejected" means. It says, "the Legislative Council, before the close of the session, has either rejected or failed to pass such Bill." I do not care whether it is in tl18 Commonwealth Constitution Act or anywhere else. It strikes me as absurd that an appeal should be made to the people on a measure that has never been before the Coun­cil, and I hope the Council will see the wisdom of amending that provision. I understood the Minister to say, in introducing the Bill, that under snbclause 2 the Speaker would Sflttle the exac\ question to be decided by the people.

The SECREI'ARY FOR PL'BLIC INSTHL'CTION: He would certify to the Bill. His certificate would place the matter beyond doubt, and the Bill would then go before the people.

HoN. F. I. POWJ<:R: That does not provide for the exact question to be settled. Many people might npprove of forty-nine clauses out of fifty in a Bill, e,nd if such a Bill is submitted to the referendum how are yon going to get an ex­pression of opinion on the disputed clause~

The SECRETARY 1'01\ PL'BLIO INSTRUCTION: The referendum is upon the Bill.

Hox. F. I. POWER: How can they vote upon the Bill if they strongly disapprove of one clause only? There is no provision by which a decid~d yes or no may be recorded in relation to the one disputed clause. I believe that under the Constitution of Switzerln.nd a clear-cut issue

[8 APRIL.] Riferendum Bill. 651

is always put before the people. I think the referendum in itself is not a thing which should be used under all and every circumstance. I hope it will be very seldom resorted to, because I can see that in many cases the real and true issue will never be properly settled by the people. I am not at all sure what the result of referring legislation to the people will bee in many ca•es. I asked an hon. gentleman recently how he would vote in the event of an intricate question of mining law being referred to the people, and he had the c~ndour to admit that he did not know how he would vote. However, I think this is the best a.ttempt that could be m:tde at settling possible difficulties, but I think the Bill requires considerable ftmendment so as to arrive at even a better methed of settling disputes be­tween the two Houses than by referring the whole of the Bill to the electors. In other respects I shall be glad to support the Bill.

* Ho:-~. M. JE~SEN : I understood the Hon. :Mr. Power· to say that if this Bill meant a step towards the abolition of the Council he would op[Jose it. That argument could he used

with some reason against the Bill [4 p.m.] already passed, because, by the

abolition of the two-thirds clause, it has madA the abolition of the Council m"re easy. This Bill, however, certainly does nob deal with ttholition, and, to my mind, it is not intended as an abolition Bill. I thoroughly believe in it. It will give this Council a repre­sentative character to a certain extent. If a Bill was passed by a large majority in another place, I, regardless of my own opinion, would not oppose it. But if, under this new regime, I believed that a majority of the people would support the rejec­tion by the Council of the Bill, I would have no hesitation in recording my vote against it. I do not believe that hon. gentlemen will lightly embark on a dispute which leads to a Bill being referred to a referendum of the people, because, whichf,ver IIouse sustains a rever:3e, will lose a certain amount of prestige. The hnn. gentleman objected to the words "failed to pass." I freely admit the strength of the hon. gentleman's argu­ment that some jugglery might be resorted to to prevent a Bill pa>'sing, or discussion might be indulg-ed in which would lead to its succe~,sful postponement. Those matters have had careful consideration under the Commonwealth Con­stitution.

Hon. F. L PowER: And they have altered that in several places.

The SJWRETARY ''OR PcnLrc IxsTRUCTION: 'There it is referred to a8 the ''proposed law."

Hox. :\[. JE~SEN: I am inclined to agree with the hon. gentleman thftt this Bill is not constitutional, but the Bill having been passed, :<nd having been presenter! for the Royal assent, 1f there is any don bt a validating Act will be passed. Such Acts have been passed before. :!<'or instance, there is the 1907 Act, a valida­tion of certain laws whic.h have been assented to in the past, hut which were subsequently discovered to require the Royal assent. Con­seque_ntly_ I do not think there is any doubt that a vahdatmg Act w!ll be passed. I realise the stren:::th of the legal argument of the Hon. Mr. Power, when he. says that if any question could be referred to the people, it could be re­ferred to one individual. Or it might, if con­stitutional, be referred to the Under Secretaries for their decision. I hope the Bill will be agreed to, because it will be an undoubted gain to arrive at finality in regard to disputed measures. I do net think the referendum is likely to be called into requisition very frequently.

HoN. E .• J. STEVEXS: I listened with very considerable interest to the remarks of the Hon. JYir. Power, who has shown that he has taken a great deal of trouble in considering this im por­tant Bill, and he has opened up the subject in a manner that was not expected by hon. gentle­men, and in a manner which will prove of great usr, to us in drawing attention to the more vit:1l points in the Bill. Iu connection with clause 3, subclause (n), I can easily see the object of put­ting in the wor·ds "or failed to pass." 'l'hat was to prevent a Bill being stonewalled in this Cham­ber. And I think this a very fair provision to make, if somewha~ qualified. If we take the extreme view that members of the Council will stonewall ll Government Bill, it is equally fair to believe that the Government, on the other hand, might take the opportunity of bringing a se"sion to a oudden close, and that the Bill they desired to pass would be handed to us for consideration at the last moment. Some modification of those words might be made, and although the words I have to suggest may not meet with ap[Jroval, still I think they would place the Council in a fairer position. For instance, I would move that after the word "or" in subcla.use (a) that the follow­ing w"rds be inserted: "having had reasonable opportunity and having failed to pass such Bill." The words as they stand at present are too ob­scure and certainly require modification. At any rate the matter is arguable. I think the Bill should also be altered in another respect, and that is in regard to the time that should elapse before a measure is introduced a second time. For inRtance, wn can imagine a case in which a general election has taken place and a rnaj ority have been sent back to snpport a certain policy. A Bill has been introduce i by the Government, passed in the Asoembly, and sent in the usual course to the Council, and the Council reject it. Political feeling may he still running very high, and Parliam8nt may by prorogued. In the course of a few weeks a.nother sef:sion 1nay be held and the same Bill may come back to the Le,dslative Council. \Yell, [ think that the object to be attained is that there maybe further time for pnhlic consideration of a measure in order that ParliamPnt may gain some idea of public opinion. \Vhen a measure is rushed through the Legislature, neither Parliament nor the public have an opportunity of considering whether it is advisable that it should become law, and I think there should be a provision that six months should elatBe from the time the Bill is rejected by the Council hefore it is again presented to the CounciL The amendment I would sug,;est wonld read as follows :-At the end of cbuse 3, I would insert a provi,o to this effect: "Provided that no Bill shall be presented a second time to the Legislative Council until at least six mouths shall have ela]Hed from its rejection by the Legislative Council." The object and meaning of that amendment is very clear, whether it. is acceptable or not. Another point to which I would draw attention is that there should be a limit fixed to the member of members of the Legislative Council. It wPuld do away with a lot of angry feeling, and a great lot of political trickery and intrigue in future. \Ve know the trouble that "'"" caused in the paso, and it would be obviated hy fixing a limit. The number at present is forty-four-a very large number in proportion to the number in the other placE:. To prevent any disa:::reement I would suggest it should be provided that the number should not exceed forty-four. I am not cert:'tin the amendment can be introduced into this Bill.

Hon. M. JENSEN: It would require a separate amendment of the Constitution Act.

Ho:-~. E. ,l, STEVE~S: I intend to support the second reading of the Bill. It is the comple-

Hon. E. J.Stnens.l

652 Parliamenta1:1J Bills [COUNCIL.] Referendum Bill.

ment to the Bill we paRsed the other day, and it would only he fractious opposition to oppose it after having passed that.

HoN. G. vV. GRAY: I also intend tu support the second reading. At the same time I think there i,, a great deal in the question raised by the Hon. Mr. Power. Something should certainly be inserted in suhclause (a) of clause 3 to meet the objection. I wnuld ask the Minister if I am right in my reading of clause 2, that the Bilb must be rejected in two separate sessions of Par· liament?

The SECRETARY FOH PcBLIC lNSTRl.'C'l'ION : It says so.

HoN. G. vV. GRAY: A measure might come up at the very end of the se•sion, when w<· have more work to do than we can get through pro· perly. \You'd that also come within the categury if we decided we had nut time to consider it?

The SEcREl',\RY FOR Pcnr,rc INSTR!.'CTIOK : That is clear.

HoN. G. \Y. GRAY: That still further em­phasises the Hon . .i\Ir. p,"'wer's contention that the clause should be expanded. I fully agree with the principle of the Bill. It will adjmt in an amicaLle way the differences which have so often arisen between the two Houses. The referendum is to a certain extent a protection to this Fl ouse. The Hon. lHr. Stevens wants the insertion of a time limit within which a Bill may bed< cided upon. I think it would be an improvement to the Biil if it provided that measures must be before the Council for a fort­night. That would be a safeguard if it is a very important measure, and it is only very important measures that would he rejected. I would sug­gest that when a Bill is referred to the people it should he accompanied by a statement showing the difference of opinion between the two Houses.

The SECRETARY FOil PUBLIC lKSTRUCTION: There is no occasion for that. They will have learned all about it from the newspapers or from Hansarcl.

HoN. G. \V. GRAY : But a large majority never see Hcmsard or the Brisb>tne newspapers; and certainly, to enable the people to come to a correct decision, some statement should be cir­culated showing what had given rise to the drfference of opinion between the two Houses.

Hox. A. J. THYNNE: While lam in entire accord with the principle of the Bill, I think it needs amendment in certain particulars. For instance, a certain stipulated time should be allowed to the Council to consider a Bill, and I would suggest that a Bill of such importance as to be referred to a referendum should be sub­mitted to us at least a month befo~e the close of the ses"ion. On the other hand a Bill like the Local Authorities Bill, containing 200 <•r 300 clauses, cot!ld not be pr<•]Jerly comidered in a month, and therefore that term would not belong enough. Again, several Bills might be sent up from the Legislati•·e Assembly which we might not have time to cocsider, and which we must either pa!<'3 or reject or retnrn in u mutilated form. It should also be provided that the secrmd rejection should not be less than six months from the first rejection, otherwise in the event of two sessions following one another very closely-as has occasionally happened-the public would not have an opportunity of forming an opinion on the subject. Perhaps it would be advisab~e to insert the words "not less than six months from the close of the preceding session." \Vith those amendments all difficulties would be done away

~II on, E. J. Stevens.

with. If they were going into the referendum they ought to take advantage of the experience of those countries where the system was in operation. In one of the States of America where it was in vogue, a copy of the Bill had to be transmitted to every elector in the State, accompanied by a statement compiled by the· supporters of the Bill, and another statement compiled by the opponents of the Bill, each with­in a certain limit of space. If either the suppor­ters or the op!Jonents wanted to increase the space they had to pay for it at a proportional rate. The Bill ought to provide something of that kind-giving power to the Governor in Council to make a regulation for transmitting to the electors a copy of the measure in que.•tion and all the reasons for and against it. The electore would then have proper material on which to form an opinion. I trust the J\Iinister will consider the suggestions that have been made, because, in my opinion, the adoption of them will help materially to improve the rr1easnre.

* HoN. A. l'\ORTOX: I do not even pretend to like the Bill, became it is an admission that the Constitution under which we have lived so long will not work, and that we must refer matters to the p .ople which the two Hous<''- ,,f Parliament cannot agree to. However, I am not going to enlarge on that point. '\Yhat I want to point out is that this B1ll is bad because it is based on the assumption that we look upon our Constitu­tion as not sufficient for the purpose for which it was framed-that the two Houses cannot, with­out some alteration of the Constitution, carry out the purpo,;e for which they were established. \Vith regard to what has been said about trme being given for the comideration of imp.lrtant Bills, it is a well known fact that at the end of every session there is a rush of Bills which we are expected to pass almost without considera­tion. Look at the list of Bills which have been put before us during the last week. I defy any member, who has his own business to attend to, to thorougly grasp the bearing of them all. And many measures are not properly considered in the other place, and are sent up to the Council to be put into shape. Tlmt hos happemd ses­~ion after session ; smnething has be8n over­looked, and we are asked to remedy it. The Land Bill now before us is a case in point ; we have not only to pass it, but to put it into sh~pe by inserting a number of amendments wh1ch the Hon. Mr. Barlow has :tlready circulated. What I say just shows that a Bill very often. pas,;es in another place without ,;ufficient con-

sideration. It is sent up here, and [4.30 p.m.] we are bustled along in order to get

things through asquicldy as pJssible, and it is impossible to give it that consideration which it ought to have. l'\ow, during a general election there is often a very great deal of heat and misrepresentation displayed, and ~n inc~m­iug Government is apt at times to act m an 1f!1· pulsive manner. A case has been known m which Bills passed by the outgoing Government have been immediately repealed by the new Government. l'\ow, if time is not al:owed for due consideration of measures the effect may be this : A Bill may be passed in another place, and even those who >tre responsible for its introduc­tion may find out that they have overlooked some important point. It. may not be discovered in the Legislative Council, and after it has been passed it may be found that it is insufficient for the purpose the Government had in view ; and it may be necessary the very next se•sion to introduce an amending Bill. I think, therefore, that in every instance sufficient time should be given to members of this House fJr the full con­sideration of every detail of a measure.

Parliamenta?'!J BiUs [8 APRIL.] Riferendum Bill. 653

The SEOREfARY FOR PUBLIC IXS1'RUOTIOX: This is an exceptional sesJion.

HoK. A. NOR TON: I do not care whether it is exceptional or not. That does not make a Bill any the better. If we want to pass a good measure amending the mode of procedure between the t1vo Houses, we have no right to consider whether this is an exceptional session or not.

The SECRETARY l!'OR PUBLIC IN8TRUCT!OK : \V e Tegret having to put pressure on the Council.

HoN. A. ~ORTON : The pressure is alwflys put on this Chamber. A Bill may be rejected by this House, and a special session may be held shortly afterwards to rush the measure' through agam. It may b" sent up here twice, and if we do not mannge to get it through then, in a verv short time it would lapse, and then it would go to the country and be submitted as if it were a Bill which had been practically reiectecl. I think there is a good deal that onght to be fully considered in this Bill. And I have not heard one member who would justify the necessity for hunying this Bill throngh this session. I think we should let it stand over until next se,sion. Thn Hon.l\Ir. Barlow says that this is an exceptional ,es;ion, and I think that is an exceptional reason for giving hon. members who wish to conscien­tiously d·o their duty an opportunity ot studying an import,nt measure like this. I<'ancy hurrying a measure through Committee which has for its object the amending of the Com:titution. Is there any justification for asking us to expedite the second reading and for puttin!l" the Commit­tee stage of the Bill through to-m~~row?

Hon. F. T. BHEl'TNALL : They want to pnt the Committee stage through to-day.

Hox. A NORTOX : I do not know what is Bxpected, but I do think it is a very improper thi~g to hurry a Bill of this natnre through in a sessiOn snch as this 1s. Let the Bill stand over until we have due time to consider it in all its aspects before we meet again. X othing is likely to arise before next session which wonld necessi­tate the reference of any q ue,tion to the people. And, after all, what does a reference to the people amount to? How many of the people wonld understand the snbject referrod to them. \Vhat proportion of the electors during the last general election fully uw!erstood all the subJects referr~d to them? There was as much misrepre­<;entatwn at the last general election as there has been at previons elections. Subjects have been presented to the people from a number of points of view, and so it would be under a measure of this description. I object to mem­bers of this Chamber being asked to pledg-e themselves to a measure of this kind without due -consider,ttion. And I object to it more espe­·cially after the very lucid explanation of the Bill which has been given us by the Hon. Mr. Power. He has shown us that there are very good reasons why we should not rmh the Bill through. \Ve should look rather foolish if it was passed, and we found out afterwards that it had been uncon­stitutionally pas.<ed, and that the Royal assent was refused because it was passed-unconstitu­tionally passed. I do not wish to put •my ob­stacles in the way of the Government getting on with their business as quickly as possible. \Ve certainly have not been guilty of any obstruction so far. But I do think the representative of the Gover~m:ent rni"ht ask his colleagnes in another p_lace 1f It would not be worth while, under the Circumstances, to refrain from pushing this Bill forward so fast, and whether it would not be wiser to a!low it to stand over until next "ession.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE (Hon. '£. O'Sullivan): I would like to say a few words on the question raised by the Hon. Mr.

Power and subsequent speakers in regard to the constitntional\ty of this measure. I quite agree with those hon. gentlemen who have said that the Hon. lYir. Power has delivered a most lucid speech, the hon. gentleman having pnt his opinions before us in a very fair and logical manner. The Hon. Mr. Jensen, who is recog­nised as an authority on legal qnestions, seems to take the same view as the Hon. JYir. Power on the question of the constitntionality of this measLJre; but, as I do not see the matter in the same light as those bon. gentlemen, it may be ad vi sable to say a word or two in regard to my view on the question. Now, as I understand the argmfient of the Hon. ::\Ir. Power, he baseR it on this : That the Order in Council, which will be found in volume I., of'' Pring," page 238, makes provision for a Council and an AsRembly, and giYes power to make laws through the medium of this Assembly and Council. The hon. gentleman draws the cunc!nsion from that that it is repugnant to the terms of the Constitution to abolish the Council or imp~ir its power in any way. There is a great deal in that contention, if it were not for section 22, which provides that we may alter or repeal all or any of the provisions of the Order in Council. So what the Order in Conncil d'les is this: It establishes a Legislature consisting of a Legislative Council and a Legis­lative Assembly, and gil·es that Legislature power to alter or repeal all or any of the provi­sions of the Order in Council itself. And if we have power to alter any part of this Order in Council, surely we have power to repeal that part which rrovides for tbe Constit.ntion of the Legishttiye Council. In pursnance of that power we have already repealed parts of the Order in Council, and therefore it ~eemq to me that no distinction cm be <lt·awn between that provision providing for a Legislative Council and any other provision in the -Order in Conncil. 'l'h en this argument was raised that that construction may lead to an absurdity; that imtead of pro­viding for a referendun1 in which the whole of the ]Jeople would be called upon to decide, it might leave the decision to one person. I do not think, however, that that argument has much weight. Take the provision by which members of the Legislative Assembly are elected. The provision in the Elections Act practically says that electors elect certain members. It is quite possible that in carrying out that provision only one voter miRht vote for a member. It might be a.n absurdity to suggest that, but it is a possible contingency. It s~ams to me that, although that absurd result might be brought about, that would be no reason for not .;tttaching a clear meaning to the provision of the statute. I go so hr as to say that the power p-iven to alter the Council is so great that this Legislature could pass such un absnrd law if they liked to do it. But, in ghing us this power, the home Govern­ment trusted to the common sense and discretion of the people, and took it fur granted that they would exercise their power in a reasonable way. It is quite possible to im~gine that the Legisltt­tive Assembly and Legisla•ive Council mig-ht exercioe their power in a ridiculous way, and leave the making of laws to some official or some individual. But the possibility is so remote that I do not think it was ever contemplated.

Hon. A. J. THYNN!c: You think Parliament might appoint a dictator.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: Yes; the powers given are so wide that that might be so. The Logislature might appoint a dictator to run the whole State, bnt no one con­templates for a moment that such a misuse of power would be made.

Hon. F. I. POWEH : It might not be a misuse; it might he a very good thing.

Hon. T. O'Sullivan.]

654 Parliamentar.1J Bills [COUNCIL.] Riferendum Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: Just c,o, There might be circumstances under which a dictntorship would be a very good thing. The point I make is that no restriction has been placed on onr powers under the Order in Council. The real restriction is reliance on the good sense and moderation of the people in exercising- theit· power through the Legislatnre. As the Hon. Mr. J ensen has pointed out, this constitutional question is not of great importance, because if there is any defect in the constitu· tionality of thi' measure it could be remedied by a validating Act, and no doubt it would be. Some question has been raised as to the diffi­culty of pbcing a matter before the people by way of a referendum. I do not anticipate so much difficulty as some hon. g·entlemen who have spoken. I base my opinion on the fact that a very much more complicated measure, the Federal Constitution Act, was put before the people by me[l.ns of a referendum, and there was no difficnlty in getting a verdict.

Hon. F. I. PowER: How many understood it?

Tho SECRETARY FOR AGRICL'LTLRE: I would not care to hazard an opinion about that.

Hon. F. T. BnENTSALL: And how much would it cost?

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: The ,. lSO is no doubt a serious item, but that does not affect the question with which I am dealing. The hon. gentleman points out that a Bill might contain fifty clauses, and that only one clause might be taken serious objection to. I take it for granted that, if the electors did not believe in any one clause of a Biil, they would Ray, "X o." In regard to amending clause 3, it i" perfectly clear why the words "failed to pass such Bill" are inserted. Otherwise the door for evasion would be opened so wide that we could drive a coach and four through the measure. If the Legislative Council favours an amendment of the clause, I would point out that the amend­ment of the clause sugge,ted by the Hon. 1\Ir, Thynne is one that cannot be objected to on the ground of ambiguity. It expres"es exactly what the hon. gentleman means. I say that because one of the suggested amendments by the Hon. JYir. 8tevens would import the words "reasonable opportunity" into the Bill, and I express my strong objection to words of t.ho.t kind being intro­duced into such a measure. \V hat is' 'reasonable" is a! ways a matter d opinion, and we should have to invent a, tribunal to settle what is reasonable. Then there is one other point which has been raised in regard to a six months' interv"l be­tween two rejection-- There is only one objec­tion to that, and that would be thA.t we could not hold an exceptional session. There might be some me~sure urgently w:tnted by the Government, and which they desired to send to the people•, and until a six nwnths' interval had elap-ed we could m>t have a special session calkd to deal with the matter. I hope the Council will take a wide and reasonable view of this measure, and see the advantage of passing it into law.

Hos .• T. DEAXE : The portion of the Bill to which I h,1ve the greatest objecLinn is that provirling for the reference of the whole of a Bill to a referendum. The chances are that we may agree to forty-nine dauses oub of fifty, and we quarrel over one clause. I think it would be quite sufficient to ~end that one clanse to the people instead of clouding the issue with the whule Bill. I heard from a great many sources thltt the issue was very much clouded at the late election. There were so many conflicting issues that the real question in regard to the Upper House

[Hon. T. O'Sullivan.

was lost sight of. I think, therefore, we shmtld only submit to the people the one matter upon which we disagree. Reference has been made to the neceseHy of allowing a reasonable time for the consideration of a measure. I think that could be got over. It would give the Council reason­able time if we had forty-eight hours in which to consider a clause, but it seems to me, judging by the way in which business is rushed throng h the Chamber, that there might not be a p<msible chance of getting to a clause until the last moment. I have seen important meaHures going through here, and hon. gentlemen watching the clock to see if they could get through them before their trains left. \Ye certainly should have at least forty­eight hours to cmsider even one clause. A reason­able time should be allowed for the consideration of a Bill, and that time should be defined, I agree with the Bill generally, and am very glad to support it. \Vhen I first heard of it I said it was an exc'lllent suggestion, anrl I have not changed my opinion since. The trouble will be to get it in proper form, but that can be easily got over.

HoN. W. F. TA YLOR : There is a good deal in what the Hon. i\Ir. Deane said about the whole Bill being sent to every elector. \Vhy, for instance, should the whole of a Bill like the Local Government Bill, with it.s ;jQO clauses, as to which we mav have differed from the Assembly on one or' two only, be sent to every elector in the State. llhny of them would never read it, and those who did would be puzzled to know where the difference between the two Houses c:>me in. That is a matter that requires consideration. Another thing that struck me as wanting is that no pro,ision is made that a Bill introduced in the Council, and rejected twice by the A'"embly, shall be referred to the people. The reason why Bills are not introduced oftener in thrs Chamber is that they have little chance of being passed in another place. Some time ago I introduced a Bill into the Council which passed three consecutive st:>sions, and each ti1ne was rejected in the Assembly. The fourth time it passed. It is almost impo"'ible for any Bill of a public nature, introduced here bv a private member, to pass the other place un1ess the Government take it in hand. In the case I refer to, the Go­vernment took it in hand, and pas,ed itafterit had been rejected three times l'rovi>ion should be made for cases of that sort. They may arise, and Bill,; passed twice here, and rejected twice by the Assembly, should be ref~rred to the referendum. Another point is as to the majority reqni4•ed to pass a Bill. A simple maJority is provided for, and I do not think a simple majority should decide upon a Bill which may affect the Con­stitution. 'l'his House might actually be aboli,;hed by a majority of one vote. I would suggest that measures dealing with the Constitution "houlcl be passed by a two-thirds majority of th8 electors. In that case we should be pretty safe, and need not fear being abolished at any moment. Those are the c•nly objections I have to the Bill. Perhaps the intruduct!on of the referendum into this State is a little premature, but we shall see how it works, and if necessary it can he amended in the future. It is rather a knotty point referring Bills to electors who may never take the trouble to read them. I am afraid the t'OX pnpHli would be greatly that of people who can do little more than read and write, and some of whom are what are known as "wasters" and ought never to have had the franchise. And yet thue people are to be asked to vote on mat.ters affecting th8 welfare of the community. \Ye must bear these things in mind, and make such provisions as will safeguard the Constitution.

Parliamenta1'!/ Bills [8 APRIL.] Referendum Bill. 655

HoN. 'N. V. BROIVN: I am going to support the second reading of the Bill, but I think it wants a few of the amendments which h»ve been suggested. I agree with the snggestion that thA Council be allowed a certain time to pa"' Bills. A Bill might come up on the last day of the session, and a special session might be called immediately afterwards. The question has been raised about sending a whole Bill to the people, when, perhaps, only a cl a me is in dispute. While I see the difficulty, I can also see that it wonld be exceedingly inconvenient to submit only a clause. In fact, I do not think it would be pos­sible, because the public could not be expected to understand the bearing of a clause. At the same time, as the Hon. Dr. Taylor remarked, people could not he expected to read a Bill of 200 or 300 clauses. According to paragraph 2 of clanse 4, the Bill is only to be published in the Oazette as it passed the Legislative Assembly. How could the people know what the intentions of the Council were with regard to it? Surely some of the reasons for the dibagreement should be made public.

HoN. P. MT.:-RPHY: I approve of this measure. It provides very wisely for the settle­ment of differences between the two Houses, but it would certainly te improved by some of the amendments which have been foreshadowed. Although many of the measures to be ,,ubmitted to the referendum will not affect the Constitu­tion, and might safely be passed by a simple majority, it might be wi'e to make provision that Bills seriously altering the Constitution­such, for instance, as a Bill to abolish the Council-should not be passed by a simple majority; a certain proportion of the people should ,-ate for it before it became Jaw. I belie1·e there is a provieion of that kinrl in Switz,erland, where the referendum has been found to work verv well indeed.

* HoN. F. T. BREXTl'\ ALL: I want to refer to one or two points on which the Bill now before us bears upon the Uonstitntion A~t or the Order in Council. \Ve have had the subject brought before us this afternoon hy the Secretary for Agriculture, who referred to the clause enabling the Legislative Council and the Legi~lative Assembly to make laws for the welfare and ~~ood government of the State. That has not been altered or l'Ppealed that I am aware of. If it was convenient to quote from the Order in Council on one side it should not be inconYenient to quote from it on the other side, and if it applies on the one side, I do not see why it should not be allowed to apply on the other side. The hon. gentleman <juoted from clanse 22 just as much as suited his argument. Of that I do not com­plain; but I would have been pleased if he had continued his quotation. Three or four lineo, further on the clame goes on to say-

Except so mncb of tlle same as incorporate~~ tht cn­aetments of the fourteenth .rear of Her .:\Iajesty, chapter 59, and of the i'.ixtll .re·n· of Her Jlajcsty, cllapter 76. relat,ing to the giriug and witllholding of Her ~Injec;ty's a~scnt to the Bills, and the reservation of BiUs for the signification of !Idl' }f,,jesty's pleasure-and so on.

The SECRETARY HOR Pt:B!.IC IXST!lt:CTIOX: That was repealed by the Imperial statute pa<eed laot year.

HoN. F. T. BRl'~NTN ALL: These very ques­tions are reserved in the Act passed last yenr.

The SEC!lET,\RI POR AGRICULTCRR: This Bill will be re'"r>ed.

HoN. 1<', T. BREXTNALL: \Ve have altered the ]Jrovision that Biils of this kind shall be re­served for His }Iajesty's assent. \Ve have already clone it. l do not go beyond that, but I take my stand on that fact because it is a fact.

Then, with regard to the constitutional aspect of the question, I repeat that I cannot see how constitutionally we can take a me,.sure out of Parliament before Parliament has finally dis­cuesed it, and submit it b,v referendum to a vote of the people which shall be fi:ml and conclusive. That is taking legislation out of the hands of Parliament and putting it in the hands of the entire electors of Queensland. But supposing a Bill passes the A"'embly and comes here for the concurrence of the Council, and the Council refuses to concur and 1nakes some amendn1ents. It goes back to the Assembly, and their con· currence with the amendments is refused. It comes here again for reconsideration and again we insist on our amendments. Then it goe" to the country under this Heferendum Bill.

Hon. F. I. POWRB : Kot necessarily. On th<7 ttdvice of the Governor in Council.

Hox. :F. T. BREJ'\TNALL: I do not think there is likely to he any disappointment for those who wish to send it to the country. As far as my illlperfect comprehonsion of the snh­ject goes, t1 Bill which has not beeu rejected, Lut in which amendments have been rejFcted, may be submitted to the country. I ask if that is not legislation by one section of Parliament only? First of all, one House decides that a Bill shall pass in a certain form ; the other House says, "\Ve want certain amendments." The Assem~ bly says, "\Ve refuse to accept your ameud­ments," and thus we arrive at the position of one Chamber insisting on its own views and submit­ting the Bill to the country. Later on the country may refuse to confirm the action of another place, and may agree with the action of the Council. That may be possible, but I should not have very much hope of it in the case of a Bill like the \V ages Boards Bill and some other Bills we have had before us even this SBB,ion. Now, in the cac,e nf this Referendum Bill. ~upposing we were not Ull<Anirnous abnnt it and there was a majority against it, which is mo,tunlikely seeing that everyone whohasspoken has said he will vote for it-but supposing we had a majority ag~inst it, and we refused to accc•pt it without amendment, and another place refused to accept our r.mendment, it would come back to us; and, if we insisted on our amendment which the other place still refused to agree to, there would be one se:::;sion gone. Now, before this year is out we are told there will be another session of Parliament. The Referendum Bill might be submitted again, and we might fail to pass it. It wonlrl then have to be submitted to the country at the enorn10us cost which an apr:eal to the country must always involve. Kov.r, unle.ss s:on1e of the suggestions which have been made here this afternoon are accepted, there would be nothing to prevent thi•, Bill, if rejected now, frorn coming- on again this year, and po,,ibly being passed l>y both Houses. I am onh" putting a byp"tbetical case, but I put it to illustrate how the matter may work out. Then, o,gain, the legislation is brought before us with certain objects. I refmimcl the other day from making any reflection upon motives or objects, but there are ultimate objects, and it was expresfily stated not more than two days ago that tbe passing of a Bill which we have already passed amending the Constitution Ac' 1 \vill enable another place to wipe the Council out hy a bare m>1jority when it thinb fit so to do. That has been expressly stated by someone who meant what he said. That is one reason for holding back assent to this kind of legislation. \Ve know how assiduously there has been circu­lated throughout the State statements in regard to this Council, in order to incite popular objec­tion to it, and we know how effectual that attack has been. In "all probability, if in the present

Hon. F. T. Brentnall.]

656 ParliamentaJ·y Bills [COUNCIL.] Re[e!'endum Bill.

state of public feeling an appeal were made to the country whether this House shonld be abolished or not, it would be a moot question what the result wnuld be. That I attribute to the resentment which has been worked up by agitation. ln my judgment, the abolition of the Council would be a calamity to the country. I do not care very much whether I stop here or not. I have reached that time of life when I like my ease, and, except that:the interests of the country are very near and dear to me, I do not care much whether I am inside or outside the Council. But so long as I am here, and ba ve substantial interests in the country, I »m going to do what I conceive to be in the be"t interests of the country, and do my duty as a member of this Chamber.

HoN. B. J<'AH:EY: This strikes me as being a lawyer's Bill, and one wfiich can be most achan­~bgeously dealt with in Committee. Great objection has been taken to the constitutionality of the Bill. After the passing of the Constitu­tion Act Amendment Bill, this measure strikes "le as constitutional, and whether it will receive the Royal assent or not, because it has not been passed hy a lwo·thirds majority, must be put entirely on one side. I am under the impr·es>ion that the Imperial authorities would assent to this Bill the moment it is pr8sented for sanction after having passed the Constitution Act Amendment Bill. I am in favour of the Bill because it is essentially a democr" tic measure. And well­regulated democracy, after all, is, in my judg­ment, the best form of government that we know of-it is government by the people-hut not that spurious democracy we have at the pre­sent. In regard to the abolition of the Council, I am of opinion that if the 'l uestion was referred to the country there is very little doubt that common sense would prevail, and that the answer would be an emphatic "No." But there would be a great danger in referring such a question at the present moment to the country, because the present position of politics in Queensland is uniq ne in the history of the State. \Ye have in existence the three-party system, which, so long as it exist", will not allow the country an opportunity of expressing its honest opinion. The only remedy I see for this state of affairs is the formation of a fourth party, and the moment a fourth party makes its appear­ance in another ]Jlace, I have no doubt that genuine democratic government will commend itself to the country. I am prepared to admit that the hon. gentleman at the head of the Go­vernment is a democrat. He has shown it.

The PRESIDENT: Order, order !

Ho~. B. FA HEY: At all events, the Govern­ment are not in a position to impress upon the country their democratic views, and until there is a termination of the present three-party sys­tem I do not believe we will secure that demo­cratic legislation which the country wants and should have. Now, in regard to this Bill, it will be a matter for grave consideration on the part of any Premier whether he will send anv party question to the country for its decision. He may by the decision g-reatly run the risk of losing prestig-e, and if this House does not maintain its position in a reasonable manner·-and I must confess that I cannot say that it has always done so in the past-it also may lose prestige. There are certain e,sential alterations that should be made in the Bill when we reach the Committee stage, but when it becomes law it does not follow that the Premier is going to send every question upon which he differs with this House to the country. As for sending a complete Bill or a particular clause e>f a Bill for the decision of the country, that io a matter for consideration in Committee. And it appears to me that sending

[Hon. F. T. Brentnall.

one portion of a Bill to the country may very likely restrict its information for a correct deci­sion. Cases would arise where it would be especially necessary that the whole Bill should go tu the country in order that the electors might see the complete bearing of the question at issue. After the lucid explanations we have had of the measure from the Hon. Messrs. lYI. J t nsen, A. J. Thynne, and F. I. Power, and their clear exposition of the law, I have nu doubt we will be able to come to a sound opinion. I intend to support thA Bill.

* HoN. J. T. ANNEAR: I wish to say a few words upon this rneasnre before it goes to a'vote. I trust the Minister in charge of this Bill will take notice of the very important sugge"tion made by the Hon. Mr. Deane, and that is that only the disputed portion of a Bill should be submitted to the electors. Hon. gentlemen will have noticed that it is only a few weeks ago that a very important Bill w:1s before this House which was talked about a great deal in the country, but only one clause of that Bill was comidered by the people. It appears to me that subclause (2) of clause 4 leaves it to the Legislative Assembly to decide when a Bill may be submitted to the people. I think a provision should be agreed to that a committee consisting of both Houses should decide what question is to be submitted to the referendum. 'l'hat seems to me a fair proposal and one which should meet with general approval.

'l'he SEcRE'rARY FOR PcllLIC INsTRVCTlON : They may differ, and what then?

HoN. J. T. ANNEAR: The question would not be submitted until they came to a decision. I would suggest the other House have a majority of one on the committee. 'Ye have had in­stances of conferences having been held between representatives of both Houses on '.•ery important questions, and those conferences have been suc­cessful. I think the people who should settle this question are the elgctors themsel Yes, hub I am of opinion that there should be a fixed majority vote before this measure can come into operation. Like other hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, I intend to vote for the second reading, but I entirely approve of certain sug­gestions which have been thrown out in regard to necessary amendmentx in the measure. 'Vhen the Bill reaches the Committee stage I trust the proposed amendments will receive due considera­tion, and will be embodied in the Bill.

Ho:-<. A. ,J. CARTER: I do not intend to occupy more than two or three minutes in saying what I have to say on this matter; but it is such an important Bill, and alters so drastically our existing method of procedure, that I think it is the duty of hon. gentlemen to give expres;;ion to

their view>'. Up to the present we [5.30 p.m.] have had to cc•nsider measures that

have been passed by another place; and when we come to consider the composition of the other place with regard to the electors, we see that the tribunal we are now asked to submit various measures to will be a very much more satisfactory tribunal so far as we are concerned. To show exactly what I mean, I would point out that while 15,540 returned twelve members, 16,5/0 returned only three, and 66,704 dou?le voters returned twenty-two. I cannot concerve how any democrats would submit to the present system of electoral distribution except for purely personal reasons, bec,mse I find that the 66,704 double voters returned five members of the Opposition and seventeen Ministerialists. Three electomtes have under 1,000 electors f'ach, nine have under 2,000, nineteen have under 3,000, ten have under 4,000, six have under 5,000, two have under 6,000, and one has under 7,000. In

Testators' Family ::s APRIL.] Jiaintenanr·e Bill. 657

n1any instances the representative~ are elected by a very small number of elec;ors ; in otherB it took nearly three times as many to elect a single representative. :For that reason this Council has very rnnch less to fear in referring measures to the tri lmnitl of the people than fre>m an Assembly ~lected on such a very undemocratic basis.

Question-That the Bill be nuw read a second time-pnt and passed.

The committal of the Bill wa• made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

PROPOSED ::-mw RAILWAYS. :.\IE~SAGES FRO>I AssE~ITILY.

The PB,ESIDENT announced the rec-eipt of messages from the Legislative Assembly, inti­mating tbat they bad agreed to the following resolutions:-

DALBY TOWARDS TARA BRAXCH RAILWAY. 1. That the IIonse approves of the plan, section. and

book of reference of the proposed branch from Dalby towards Tara, ·western line, in length 52 miles 35 chnins, as l~id upon the table of tbe House on Friday, the third day of Apr tl instant.

2. That the plan, section, and book of reference be forwarded to the I.egisln.tive Council for their approval, by message in the usual form.

EXTEXSION Ol!' BLACKALL BRANCH RAILWAY. 1. Thnt the House flpproves of the plan, section, and

Oook of reference of the proposed extension of the Blackall Branch, Central DiYision, in length 4:1. miles 27 cbains, as laid upon the table of the House on Friday, the third day ol April instant.

2. That the plan, Recti on, and book of reference be forwarded to the Legislative Council for their approval, by message in the usual form.

Goo:I'DIWIXDI To TAr.woon RAILWAY. l. 'I hat the House a.ppro\~es of the plan, secti'1n, and

1Jook of reference of the proposed extension from Goon· diwindi to Talwood, in length 05 miles 55 chains, as laid upon the table ol the House on Friday, the third day of April instant.

2. That the plan, section, and book of reference be forwarded to thP Legishtive Council for their approval, by message in the usual form.

The SECRETARY FOR Pl"BLIO I::"<­STRUOTION', leave having been given, moved, without notice, that the plans, sections, and books of reference of the proposerl railways be referred to a Select Committee consisting of the following members-namely, IYie,srs. Camp bell, Carter, Moreton, Parnell, and the mover.

Question put and passed.

TESTATORS' FAMILY MAIN'l'EXAXCE BILL.

SECOND READING. * HoN. M. JEXSEN : I move the second read­ing of this Bill. Its object is to prevent a bus. band from disinheriting his wife and children, and abo to prevent a wife from clisin heriting her husband and her children. A Bill of this oharacter has been in force in New Z aland for the last seven years, and this is substantially a copy of the New Zealand measure. It has been passed three times in another plac8, and on each occasion without divi,ion; and on the last occasion the Government gave up a portion of their own time to its consideration. A cm­siderable number of the women of Queens­land are in favour of the Bill. They are very strongly opposed to the rights of a husband to absolutely disinherit his wife and children-to

1908-2 T

leave the children at the tender mercies of the world, and to allow the husband to bequeath hio money to some institution at the other end of the world. Hon. gentlemen will notice that the Bill does nGt propose an equal division of the property of the testator, hut merely that the disinherited children, or the hu•band or wife, is to have adequate provision ; and, therefore, it would be immaterial if the husband left, say, ten times as much to one child as to another, provided the child to whom the le.,er amonnt bad been left had mfficient maintenance. The court ha, power to attach any conditions it pleasH to the order it makes. And this is most imporlant. The court may refuse to make an order in f>tvour of any person whose character or cnnduct disentitles him to any benefit under this section, and this power meets the case of the drunken or rli~bonest person.

An Hoxm:RABLE GEXTLE>IAN: \Yhat ia a court? Ho~. M. JEJ'\SEN: These wmds are taken

from the Executors and Trustees Act of 1897. "Judge thereof" means a judge in chambers, the object being to make the litigation as inex­pensive as possible. The order ia to be made within the comparatively short period of three months. In the New ;/,en, land measure the period is six months. The objeGt is to allow the distribution of the estate as soon as possible. Clause 5 provides that no mortgn,ge, charge, or assignment of any kind whatsoever of or over such provision made before such order is made, shall be of any force, validit,y, or effect. This is chiefly to protect the children against the deoigning and cunning person who might try to induce the child to assign his provision. Power is given to the court to make rules that will supply the machinery for carrying out the Act. I think hon. members will agree with me that the best of all tribunals for th~ hear­ing of these cases is the Supreme Court. In order to commend tbis Bill to bon. gentlemen, I w1ll, if it gets into Committee, move two amendments, one of which I think ought to remove the greater part of the opposition to the measure. It was stated on one occasion by the Hon. Mr. Macpherson that the husband, bn,ving absolute confidence in his wife, might leave everything to her. To meet this case I will move an amendment providing that this Act shall not apply when any husband devises his estate to his widow, n,nd the net value of the estate is, say, £3,000, and the same as to the husband. This Bill will then be chiefly aimed ab strangers. 'rhe other amendment is not of much importance. It is to be found in the Victorian Act, and provides: "In granting or refusing any such application, and in fixing the amount of the provision to be made under this Act, the court shall have regard to whether the husbn,nd, widow, or children, or any of them, are entitled to independent means, whether secured by any covenant, settlement, transfer, gift, or other provision made by the deceased person during his or her life, or derived from any other source whatsoever." Hon. members will see it i~ only adequate provision that the applicant can obtain; and, if the applicant is already provided for, the applicant will get nothing. As to the necessity for the measure, I need not enlarge much. Most hon. members will remember the debn,te on the last occasion. I will only men­tion two instances. In Toowoomba, some years ago, I belie,·e a case occurred in which a man left the whole of his property to a society at the other end of the world. The society, I believe, was honest enough to return one-half or the whole of the money. Another corn· paratively recent case is that in which a man in the North disinherited his own wife and

Hon . .:Jf. Jensen.]

658 Testators' ~Family [COUNCIL.] Maintenance Bill.

children, and left all hiA property to the wife of another man. Thi", I submib, is a striking illustration of the necessity for this Bill. I will only mention one other matter. It may be said there will be much litigation in connection with this measure. On this point I will quote an article in the "Commonwealth Law Review," on testamentary disposition limita· tions. It states-

That the principle ot limitation on the power of testa­mentary disposition can be so enacted as to ghre satis­factory results in actual practice is proved by the experience of New Zealand, whose Premier, in reply to an inquiry in 1906, reported that no excessive. ex­pensive, or vexations litigation had arisen out of the Act during the six or seven years th11t it had been in operation, that thirty-three ca~es hall been decided by the courts under it, and that there was reason to believe that a number of cases also had been settled out of court.

What will prevent litigation will be the fact that the solicitor making the will for the testator will always point out to him the danger of omitting from his will any provision for his children of good character. I sincerely hope hon. members will pass this Bill, bearing in mind the fact that in another place it has received approval on no less than three occasions.

* HoN. P. :MACPHERSOX: I regret the ab­sence of my hon. friend, Mr. Thynne, who, I understood, would be here to take part in the debate this evening-. As hon. members are aware, this Bill has been before the Hou•e on two occasions and been rejected hy the House. On the fint of those occasions I addressed the House at considerable length, and I can only repeat some of the arguments I made use of on that occasion. I sairl then this Bill was interfer­ing with the performance of the most pious duty which a citizen could fulfil-that of making the last disposition of his property, and that the House ought to be very chary indeed in passing legislation which would lead to such an inter. ference. I said that I objected to the Bill first because it was insufficient for the purpose and the objects which it contemplated, because a man desirous of benefiting any 1-articular mem­ber of his family could do so by a deed of settlement or gift, and that very likely, if this Bill were passed, that is what a man would do. I also pointed out that the Bill would be mis­chievous in its effects, and would introduce an element of uncertainty into the administration of estates, besides imposing upon executors an undue responsibility, and also furnish an incen­tive for legal proceedings. I also asked the House to be chary aboub imposing upon any judge the invidious duty of making a fresh will for a man or disposition of a man's property, after his death, upon ex pa?·te evidence-evidence which could not be rebutted by the only person who could possibly rebut it-the deceased. I also pointed out that if a man, on apparently good terms with his wife, were to exclude her from his will, it would furnish the very strongest evidence of insanity on the part of the testator, and the law at present, under those circumstances, could alter the disposition of his property. I ask the House not to pass the Bill, because of all the elements of uncertainty which it would induce, not only in the making of wills but also in regard to the duties of those who had to administer those wills. ·when the Bill was before the House on the last occasion, I read a letter from Mr. P. A. Blundell, t.he manager of the Queensland Trustee~, a gentleman who has considerable experience on matters of that kind. He pointed out how the operations of the company would be hampered as executors, if such a measure as this were passed. I do not wish to take up the time of the Council, and my opinion of it still remains unaltered, even in

[Hon. M. Jensen.

suite of the amendments foreshadowed by the· Hon. Mr. J ensen. I still oppose the Bill.

HoN. P. MURPHY: \Vhen this rr,easnre was previously before the Council, I gave my reasons then for opposing it, and I do not wish to take up the time of the Council now. I will only say, if there is one argument required against this measure it would be found in the argument of the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill­that in the experience of Queensland -dnnng the whole time Queensland has been a State­there must have been many thousands of wills made, and he could only quote two instances where men have given their property away from their wives and children.

Hon. lH. JEN~EN: I could quote many more.

HoN. P. MURPHY: I do not think very many have occurred. \Ve are all working for the benefit of our children. \Ve are all en· deavouring to accumulate so that we can leave it to our familie,.

An HoNOURABLE GENTLE>IA!-0: This provides against the bad family.

HoN. P. MURPHY: It is neceEsary to make some provision against the bad family, too. Surely, in the bbtory of Queensland, there have been more than two wives and families who were not worthy of getting anything from their husband~. The kecond claude provides "that should a person die, leaving a will without mak­ing adequate provision for his wife and children," etc. \Vh"t is the meaning of the word "ade­quate?" Does it mean .£2 or £200 a week?

Hon. l\I. J ENS EN : Th"t is left to the court.

HoN. P. l\1URPHY: It will lead to a whole lot of legal contentions and worries in legal suits as to what was adequate provision, and as to whether the widow or the children were worthy or unworthy. I think, in an important measure like this, which interferes with the dis­position of the property of a man-I think a Bill of this kind should be fathered by the Govern· ment of the day and not by a private member. They should take the responsibility of a very important alteration of the law in this way.

HoN. A. J. THYNNE: This m~asnre is one we discussed very fully last year, and the reasons given then apply to the matt~r just as much to-day. I think the Bill itself is so defective as to give difficulty and trouble, rather than" benefit, tu those it is intended for. No reason has been given that will indure me to alter the views I took last year. One of the things of which I think both the people and the profession have had to complain of is the formalities and expense which has been imposed upon adminis­trators and executors, especially in small estate,, and a Bill of this kind would undoubtedly compli­cate the administration of a small estate, and. keep it in a state of uncertainty until the period mentioned in the Bill had elapsed. That would be a continuous source of expense and irritation, and, considering the infrequency with which a, measure of this sort would be called into requisi­tion, I think it would be unfair that the general body of people interested in small estates should have the infliction of extra cost and delay im­posed upon them through the passage of this Bill.

HoN. A. H. P ARNELL: I would not like to gh·e a silent vote upon this question, because when it was before the Chamber in 1906 I fol· I owed its progress very carefully and was pleased to see it rejected. I look upon it in this way: A man with a small estate not amounting to" more than £200 or .£300 leaves it to his wife as a general rule, knowing that if it is kept in her hands the family will participate, and that it.

Testators' Family [8 APRIL.] Ma£ntenance Bill. 659

will be more likely to do good when adminis­tered by her. Then, again, a man may set his two sons up on the land or in business, giving them their proportion of the estate, and, if they are excluded from the will, what right have they to come in again or put the family or widow to the expen•e of litigation? The more I look at the measure, the more I disapprove of it. It may appeal t•) some persons as a humane Bill, but I am opposed to it from every point of view. I do not intend to give a silent vote upon questions that may come up for considera­tion in this Council, but I will endeavour on all occasions to expre•s my views briefly. I intend to vote against the second reading of the Bill.

HoN. W. H. CAMPBELL : In a matter of this kind the lay members of the Council cannot form an opinion upon the legal aspects of the Bill. ]'or that reason I think it should have been introduced into the Assembly either by the Attorney-General or by an ex-Attorney-General, or some legal gentleman of eminence. I do not think it is fitting that we should be asked to con­sider a Bill sent up here by a layman, although it may have the powerful advocacy of the Hon. :Yir. J ensen. For that reason I intend to vote against the eecond reading.

* HoN. F. I. PO\VER: I would like to say a few words in reference to the Bill, because it is a subject that I for many years have had very strong feelings about. I am entirely in favour of the principles of the Bill, although it may be nece;•ary to make some slight alterations in Committee. It has been suggested here that it would encourage a man to make a marriage settlement. That is so. That remedy is open to him now, and the remedy is also open to him now of willing everything away from his wife and children. So that I cannot see there is very much force in the argument that because we take one of these bad habits from him it is a bad thing to leave him the other bad habit. My experience in regard to settlements is that there are very few men who like to part with their property during their lifetime. As a matter of actual practice, a great many individuals have willed their property away from their wives ~nd children. It is not at all an uncommon practiCe. It may be that very few cases come before the courts and very few are known to the public, but I ~an assure 'hon. gentlemen that in my prac­tice I have frequently persuaded men not to adopt that course after some paltry domestic quarrel. It is also suggested that it is to some extent infringing the rights of the individual in regard to his property. \V ell, I do not think there is a great deal in that argument, for this reason : \Vhilst he is alive he is bound to con­tribute to the support of his wife and children. Why should that right be interfered with be­cause the life runs out ? It was only yesterday that I applied for a warrant against a man in New South \Vales who had left his wife and children absolutely destitute. It is pretty clear to my mind that the probabilities are that he will be arrested, and he will look upon it as a very serious interference with the liberty of the sub­ject. Whilst he is living we can make him •up­port his wife and children, and I do not see any infringement of the liberty of the subject in taking away that right because he dies. The Hon. JIIIr. Jensen has mentioned a couple of cases.

Hon M. JENSEN: I could mention more.

HoN. F. I. POWER: Every man here could mention more. I could mention one in particu­lar in which a man who had reached a consider­able age left his wife and children absolutely penniless without the slightest foundation, and

it cosh a lot of money and occupied three weeks to establish the fact. Litigation will arise in any case, and I think there is rather a proba­bility that less litigation will arise under thiR Bill. Testators will be advised that they are running a risk, and they will be careful to preserve the rights of their wives and the children they brought into the world. I can quote the case of a man who was only in receipt of £2 10,, a week as a miner. He pub more than half the amount into a mine, and his wife as a means of keeping the family, used to s~ll flowers and take in washing, which brought in a few shillings a weelt. She kept the household going while he speculated. That man died worth £15,000 or £20,000, and but for an accident he would have kept her and the family out of every sixpence because of some slight jealousy. An instance occurred some time ago in which a man was found under extraordinary circumstances with another man's wife. The result was a shooting case, after which he died. I believe his will left everything away from his wife, and all he possessed to his paramour. These are things that ought not to happen, anrl I do not think i~ is any infringe­ment of the liberty of the subJect to allow pro­ceedings to be taken after a man's death if we allow them to be taken during his lifetime. I think most men have sufficient confidence in and affection for their wives to le;,ve everything to them, the wife being more likely to do jt~stice to the family than any other person. _She IS more likely to know how they are gmng to turn out than he is. He may die while they are young and it is a very wise thing on his part to trust his wife. There should be no interference when a man leaves anything to his wife. There are many cases on record in which testators h~ve made their wills, leaving a discretion as to the character and conduct of the children to their executors, so that no harm is likely to accrue by leaving the same discretion to the Supreme Court. It has been suggested that this would throw a great onus on the judges. \V ell, they alretcdy have a great onus thrown upon them in regard to wills, and there is o~e thing very certain, that there are any number of lawyers who are willing to take the onus on the same terms. Taking everything into consideration, .I think it would be a wise thing to pass th1s measure. No doubt, a man, in spite of this measure, may make a marriage settlement, but that settlement will still be subject to be upset by the S_upreme Court. One t~ing is certain and that IS that no man has a nght to bring children into the world after marrying a wife and then because he takes a fancy to some othe~ woman, Jeave his property entirely away from his own family.

HoN. A. NOR TON: There are one _or tw9 points that have been overlooked durmg th1s discussion, I believe, with the Hon. Mr. Power, than it is a very right thing for a man to leave all his property to his wife,_ because he has a ri"ht to assume that she w1ll look afte~ the children. But that does not always happen. Sometimes when a woman is left with young children she marries again, and the children of the second marriage get more of the property of the first husband than his own children. I have known cases in which a very large proportion of the income derived from the property goes to the children of the second marriage.

Hon. F. I. PowER: ·would you give certain rights to those children to prevent that occur­ring?

HoN. A. NORTON : I only refer to that because of what fell from the Hon. Mr. Power. What I had in my mind was that this Bill do~s not prevent a man keeping his property from h1s

Hon. A. N orton]

660 Inspection of Machinei'!J [COUNCIL.] and Scaffolding Bill.

wife. A mn,n who intends to will his property to someone else can easily transfer it before death.

Hon. F. I. PowER: He is always too frightened of recovering.

HoN. A. NORTOX: I know a case of that kind. A gentleman living in New Zealand had fm island there which be considered very vn,lu­able. He thought he was going to die, and transferred it to an intimate friend who had been very kind to him. After that, be recovered,

but the friend kept the island. Life [7.30 p. m.] policie,,are often transferred to some-

one or other-notal ways to the wife. As a geneml rule, a man should be ab'e to dis­pose of his own property, and a woman, too. I confess I do not like the Bill, and never did, and I do not believe it will effect the object which the ban. gentleman has in view.

Question-That the Bill be now re8d a second time-pnt; and the Council divided:-

COXTE:'iTS, 8,

Hon. A. H. Barlow Hon. C. S. 3IcGhie II L. Groom " '1'. O'Sullivan

, A. Hinchcliffe , F. I. Power )f. Jensen , H. 'rurner

Teller: Hon. A. Hinchcliffe.

X oT-Co::--;nc.;Ts, 14. Hon. IV. Y. Brown Hon. P. 'Macphersou

, W. H. Camp bell , P. )1urphy , A. J. Carter ., A. Norton

J. Cowlishaw , A. H. Parnell ,, J. Deane , E. H. T. Plant ,, G. \V. Gray ,, E. J. Stevens

T. A .. Tohnson , A. J. Thynue Te/le;·: Hon. A. J. Carter.

Resolved in the neg~ttive.

WAGES BOARDS BILL.

l\1ESSAGE l'ROl\I .ASSEMBLY.

The PRESIDENT announced the receipt of a message from the Legislative Assembly, intimat­ing that they had agreed to the Council's amend­ment in clause 5 with an additional amendment inserting the words " other than members of the legal profession," in which amendment they invited t.he concurrence of the Council; and had agreed to the other amendments of the Council.

The consideration of the message was made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

INSPECTION OF MACHINERY AND SCAFFOLDIXG BILL.

RESlJMP'f!O~ Ol!' ColiBIITTEE.

Clauses G to 15, inclusive, put and passed. On clause 16-" Restrictions on employment of

females and males under certain ages"-

HoN. F. I. POWER moved the omission of the words "and no fem~tle" in line 35. He saw no reason why a woman should not have charge of an elevator. It was an occupation particularly suita.ble for them.

HoN. J. DEAXE: Lifts that were up to date did not require tu be wurk8d by r11an or woman. The passenger only bad to touch a button, and the elevator went up or down without any risk of accident.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: The only reason for excluding women was that it was considered a danger<>us occup~ttion, and if anything went wrong women were more liable to lose their nerve than men. Tbe same amend­ment was moved in the Assembly and rejected after a long discussion.

[Hon. A.. N orton.

HoN. B. FAHEY considered there was no fitter occupation for women than working a modern elevator, in which there really was no risk worth speaking of.

Hox. P. MuRPHY: He had travelled in v~trious parts of the worln, including America, where elevators were largely used, and never saw a lift in charge of a female. He did not think it w~ts a proper occup~ttion for women. He did not see anyt.biog the matter "ith the conditions of the c!~tuse, and he was certainly in favour of allowing it to remain as it was.

HoN. G. W. GRAY: His experience bad been that women were a great deal more reliable and careful tb~tn boys.

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

Co::-;ThNTs, 10. Hon. A. H. Barlow Hon. P. Murphy

, "\V. II. Campbell ,, P. O'Sullivan , A. Hinchcliffe " A. ll. Parnell " 11. Jensen " E. H. T. Plant , C. S. 3-IcGhie , H. Turner

Teller: Hon. P. Murpby. XoT-CON'IENTS, 9.

Hon. "'"·V. Brown lion. A. J. Carter J. Cowlisbaw J. Deane B. Fahey

PAIR. Content~ Hon. T. ~L Hall X on-Content-Hon. C. }\ ::\Iarks,

G. W. Gray A. Xorton F. I. Power E. J. Stephens

Tel!e1·: Hon J. Deane. Resolved in the affirmative. Clause put and pasHed. Clauses 17 to 62, inclusive, put and passed. On clause 63-" Regulations"-HoN. E. H. T. PLANT moved that the follow­

ing paragraph be inserted after subclause (v.), line 26:-

Reli'tricting and penalising unauthorised persons from being allowed to enter any engine.room while the machinery is in motion, and prescribing the conditions under which entering into any such engine-room may be permitted. That was a request from the Charters Towers Engine-drivers' Association. The danger of people cunstantly going into engine-rooms while

the machinery was in motion bad [8 p.m.] been discussed before, more particu-

larly the danger of winding ma­chinery. The attention of the man in charge was attracted by some peroon in the room, which caused an accident, and the engine-drivers were particularly anxious that that clause should be inserted in Lhe Bill. The amendment would give power to make regulations in reference to the matter. The penalty under the clause would be the general penalty provided at the end of the Bill-a penalty not exceeding £20.

HoN. F. I. POWER: He h'd badagooddeal of experience in machinery, and every effort was made to keep persons out. \Vho was the penalty to be imposed upon?

Hon. E. H. T. PLANT : The persons in charge of the engine-room.

HoN. F. I. POWER : He would like the hon. gentleman to explain the matter.

HoN. E. H. T. PLANT: The amendment simply gare ]JOWer to m~tke regulations. The in­spectors knew the condition of aff:urs, and they would make reasonable regulations restricting persons from being allowed in the engine-room while the machinery was in motion.

HoN. F. I. POWER: Who was going to pay the penalty for an infringement of the regulations? \Vould it fall on the engine-driver or the pro­prietor ? It would be very hard if the propr1etor or the engine·dri ver had to pay tl::e penalty.

Old Age Pensions Bill. [8 APRIL.] Old Age Pensions Bill. 661

HoN. E. H. T. PLANT: The Minister thought it would be better to provide for the matter by regulation.

HoN. F. I. PCHVER would rather make it penal for unotuthorised persons to enter an engine­roorn.

HoN. E. H. T. PLANT: The idea was that no person who was unauthorised should enter an engine-room.

Hon. :F. I. PO\\'ER : \Yho is to pay the penalty? HoN. K H. T. PLANT: The person who

break; thB regulation.

HoN. F. I. POWER: Would the hon. gentle­man object to the subclause reading-" Restrict­ing and penalising unauthorised persons, etc."?

Hon. E. H. T. PLANT : He haJ no objection. Amendment, as amended, put and paseed; and

clame, as amended, agreed to. The remaining clauses of the Bill and the

schedules having been agreed to without amend­ment,

The Council resumed. The CHAIRMAN re­ported the Bill with an amendment, and the third reading was made an Order of the Day for a later period of the sitting.

OLD AGE PENSIOKS BILL. SECOND READING.

* The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: This is a Bill to provide for the payment of old age pensions and for other purposes. In introducing this legishtinn we are following the examples set hy other States, where legislation on similar lines has been in force for ee\·eral yeare. The Bill is really a Committee Bill, and I do not propose to occupy much time in making a second-reading speech. I think my best plan will he to shortly !:tO oYer the different pro­visions of the Bill, leaving any discussion as to details for the Committee stage. The measure is intended to take effect on the 1st July next. Clause 2 dPals with the interpretation of terms which are used in the subsequent portions of the Bill. Of those terms I may draw the atten­tion of the Council to the word '' Commissioner," who is the officBr to be appointed by the Governor in Council, to aJjudicate on the claims of the claimants for pensions. I may also draw attention to the meaning of the word "income," and the simplest explanation of that is tu point to what is excluded from the term "income." It does not include "any pay. ment by way of benefit from any registered friendly society, or during illness, mfirmity, or old age from any trade union, provident society, or other society or association." The adminis­tration of the Act is under the control of the registrar, who is to be appointed hy the Go,·ernor in Council. Until that appointment is made, the Under Secretary of the Department of the Home Secretary is to act. The Governor in Council may also appoint a deputy registrar and such c lmmissioners, paymasters, and officers as he thinks nBcessary to carry the Act into execu­tion. Every person of the age of sixty-five years whilst in Queensland is to be qualified to receive a pension, subject to certain qualifications and disqualifications. The pension itself is to be absolutely inalienable. 'rhat is to say, it i" intended fnr the benefit of the individual and not for the benefit of his cr< ditors, The dis­qualifications are set out in clause 7, and may be broadly described as racial disqualifications. The qualifications are set out in clause 8, and may be deseribed as personal qualifications, and are under various heads-as to residence, char­acter of the claimant, and his conduct during a limited time prior to mttking his claim, and as to the property of which he may be in

possession. The person making a claim for a pension must be a resident of Queensland at the time of making the claim, and must .have resided in Queensland fnr twenty years, whether con­tinuously or not, and of that twenty years he must have resided in Queensland for five years immediately prEceding the claim. Then there arc certain provisions dealing with casual short absences fr~m Queemland ; but the fact of the claimant being out of Queensland does not, as a general rule, affect his right to a pension so long as be is able to prove that his home is in Queens­land, or that his wife and family are residing in Queensland, or are being maintained by him. Then there is provision for et sort of interstate arrangement >LS to persons entitled to old age pensions in another State coming to reside here. Then we come to the amount of the pension, which is to be £26 a year, or 10s. a week. There is a provision that that is to be diminished by £1 for every complete £1 of income possessed by the pensioner >Lbove £26. The diminution does not arise on account of any income that the claimant possesses until he is getting £26. He may have a private income of £26, and may get £26 from the Government; but if his personal income rises above £26 then he suffers a reduction of £1 for every £1 by which his income exceeds £26. Some men may receive old age pensions under such circumstances that their total incomes might be raised to £1 a week. \Ve do not penalise a man because he has a little property.

Hon. F. I. PoWER: \Vhy should he not live on his £26 as well as the other man?

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICLJLTURE: The Bill was introduced in that way originally, but very strong objection was taken to the fact that we were penalising the man with a little of his own. If it was alleged that a man had an income of over £26 it might be very difficult to prove it, so taking the balance of convenience into consideration, it was thought advi.able to allow a margin of 10s. a week !Jefore any inquiry whatever would be made. Then there is a provision for reducing the incomP, if a 1nan happens to have any property, by a certain pro­portion on a sliding scale in proportion to the amount of capital which he possesses.

Hon. F. I. PowER: \Vhether it is bringing in inoon1e or not?

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: Apparently, whether it is bringing in income or noi. If a man possess capital which does not bring in income, he can turn it into income­producing capital, Then there are certain rules regarding the assessment of the value of ac­cumulated property, and the case of husband and wife is taken into consideration. 'l'he net capital value of the accumulated property of each should be deemed to be not less than one-half the total net capital value of the accumulated property of both. If the husband and wife are both receiving income, the property is to be pooled. Then we come to the method of sending in claims. Every person making a claim has to send it to the nearest commis­sioner. It is to be verified by a statutory declaration. If it is wilfully false in any par­ticular, the person signing the declamtion i& guilty of perjury. Then i[,e procedure to be adopted, when the claim comes before the com­missioner, follows, and is shown by clause 14. The commissioner is to notify the fact of the receipt of the claim to the nearest officer of police, and that officer is to make inquiries, and present a written report to the commissioner. On re­ceipt of that report, the commissioner is to hold an inquiry. It is to be held in court, but in pri­vate, unless for any reason the commissioner deems it necessary to hold it in open court. An inquiry then takes placa in the locality

Hon. T. O'Sullivan.]

662 Land Acts [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bill.

where the claimant residee, and the claim has to be fully investigated. The claimant is notitied of the day of investigation, but if the commissioner is satisfied that the claimant is entitled to the pension, be may dispense with his attendance. Then there are other provisions in that clause for obtaining evidence, and there is a useful provision that the strict rules of evi­dence are nob to be binding. I think the strict rules of evidence should not be applicable to investigations of that kind. Then there is a very useful power in subclau.se (7) of tlause H, by which the commissioner has power, if he thinks the claimant is unfit to be entrusted with a pension, to recommend that be be sent to a benevolent asylum or charitable institu­tion, and there at·e other provisions as to the finality of the decision of the commis­sioner in cert>tin cases. The investigation• having been concluded, the claim is forwarded to the registrar, together with the commissioner's notes of evirlence and recommendation, am! the Minister decides upon the granting of the pen­sion. I take it for granted that after the com­missioner has investigated an<i recommended the pension, the granting of the pension by the Minister is only a matter of form. Underclanse 16 there is a pr.wision for rehearing claims, and then follow provisions for the payment of pensions. The payment i~ to be made within twenty-one days after due date on personal application. The claimant must produce his pension certificate, and if be f"ils to cnmply with these requirements the instalment may be for­feited, although tr.ere is a subsequent provision for waiving the forfeiture. Clame 21 contains a very useful provision which is to the effect that any instalment of the pension ntay for the benefit of the pensi .. ner be paid to any minister of religion, justice of the peace, or person named in a warrant issned by the paymaster. The warrant rr•ay be i<sued hy the registrar when he is satisfied that it is expedient >O to do by reason of the og.e, infirmity, or improvidence of the pensioner, or any otlHr special circnmsta nee. I have known cases where that power would have been very useful indeed. Then there is a provision dealing with a pen,ioner who bFcomes an inmate of an asylum or hospital. The effect is that tbo pension ceases during the time be remains in the institution, but when he is dis­charged from the imtitution he can draw a four­week; instalment of his pension, so that he shall not be penniless when be leaves it. There i" a similar provision in clause 23 with regard to benevolent asylmu inmate,. Clause 24 deals with procedure as to payment of instalments by the paymaster. Then we come to clause 25, which deals with offences, providing under what circumstances a pertsion certificate may be can­celled, and what punishment may be awarded for certain breaches of the Act. Power is also given in a subsequent clause to cancel the pension if the pensioner is pro' ed to be of drunken habits. Clause 32 gives the Governor in Council power to make regulatiom, and the last clause d_eals with evidence. Those are the main provi­swns of .the Bt!l.. If hon. gentlemen require any further mformatwn, I hope to be able to furnish it in Committee. I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Questicn put and passed. The committal of the Bill was made an Order

of the D.•y for to-morrow.

LAND ACTS A::\IENDMENT BTLL. SEcmm READING.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN­STRUCTION: This is a highly technical Bill. It has been said that very few people uncfer-

[Hon. T. O'Sullivan.

stand the land laws thoroughly, and I am afraid I am one of them. However, I will go through the Bill with the light of the knowledge given me by the Under Secretary, who really does understand the land laws of the State. Clause 2 provides that no member of either House of Parliament shall be allowed to appear in the L~nd Court, whether as counsel, solicitor, or agent. The object of clause 2 is to bring the Act of 1884 into line with the Act of 1897 by permitting the Minister, instead of the (.}over­nor, to waive forfeiture. Clause 4 is intended to secure greater simplicity of procedure, and more commodious action to remedy a selector's grievance against the former occupier of over­stocking. \Vith regard to clauBe 6, it has been held by the court that a tendering applicant is only bound by his tender when there is a com­petitive application for the land. The clause will make a tender effective if it is made in conjunction with the ouly application lodged. Clause 7 relates to the condition of occupation of grazing homesteads. The benefits of section 122 have been claimed by selectors of grazing homesteads, When the proviso excluding agricultural home­steads from th~ benefit of the section was added, in 1905, the need for a similar provision in regard to grazing homesteads was overlooked. Clause 8 is intended to conserve rights which were unin­tentionally missed in passing the Act of 1905. Clame !J introduces a new system of perpetual leases. It provides that, when any land is pro· claimed open for selec~ion as an agricultural farm, it may also be proclairnPd open as a per­petual lense se lee ion, an cl the clause g-oes on to give the conditions. The next clau;e also intro­duces a new •ystem-that of free homesteads. These are not to exceed 1GO acres, and 10s. per acre has to bc1 expended on every acre in im­provements. The lease is to bo for five yeare, the rent a peppercorn if demanded, and the l"S3ee is to occupy the land continuously during the term of the lease. Then come clauses with regard to pricokly pear selection. The amend­ments propose to make the term of each class of prickly pear selection-frontage and infested­tifteen years divided into two periods of five and ten and ten and five years resp'ctively, the dividing of the periods being suited to the requirements of each case, shorter where the eradication and the purchasing price are respectively lower, and longer where they are greater. The selector caR shorten the firob period at his option by quickly effecting the eradication, and may shorten the second period at his option to three years by paying up the remainder of the purchase price, provided he has kept the land clean. All this is highly technical, and I hardly know whether hon. gentlemen are able to follow me. Bv clause 13 ~be limitations to conversion of selections which the Act of 1902 imposed, in that it confined the opportunity to selections acquired prior to the passing of that Act, and only permitted conversion to prickly pear infested tenure, are proposed to be removed. Clanse 14 brings town and subnrhan allotments under the perpetnal lease system. Clause 15 repeals the last paragmph of section 188 in order to admit of its re-enactment in a more suitable place after 1S8A. The intention of clame 17 is to prevent the speculative acquisition of land as prickly pear selections with a view to selling the timber on the land. It is known that land has been selected with that object in view. The proposed amendment will only prevent the dis­posal of the timber for profit, and will not prevent the destruction of the timber in the process of clearing. It will still be possible to dispose of the timber by sale with the permission of the commissioner. Where a man ta.kes up a selection for the timber on it, he has no inten­tion of becoming a selector.

AdJourmnent. [8 APRIL.] C&rrespondence re Fisheries. 663

Hon. F. I. POWER : If you will not let him sell it, what will you do?

The SECRgTARY FOR PUBLIC IN­STRUCTION: That is the opinion of the Lands officials. I know selections have been taken up with no intention of improving them whatever. Clause 18 gives power to the board

·to deal with offences. The need of this provi­sion has manifested itself in the prosecutions which have been found necessary under the timber regulations. The clause provides that-

In any such suit it shall be presumed that t.be plaintiff has the authority of the :Minister in the matter, but such presumption s.hall not be taken to prevent the defendant vro-ring the absence of or the limited extent of such authority.

The amendments in clause 19 only relate to the Special Agricultural Selections Act. Clause 20 is a necessary penal provieion omittfd from section 15A of the Act of 1902 when it was re­enacted by the Ad of 1905. Clause 21 proposes to confer on the Minister the power given to the Land Court by section 22 of the Act of 1905 and not exercised by that Court-where the court does not recommend the Pxtension of a lease the Minister, if he think. fit-, may do it himself. I think the House will be very thankful that this explanation has come to an end. Every one of these clauses is a matter for separate di~cmsion. I move that the Bill be now read a sec:ond time.

Hox. F. I. POWER: I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

Question put and pa""ed. The resumption of the debate was made an

Order of the Day for to-morrow.

INSPECTION OF MACHINERY AND SCAFFOLDING BILL.

VERBAL AMEKD~!ENT.

The SECRETARY FO:R AGRICrLTlTRE (Hon. T. O'Sullivan): I beg to ask leave to move, without notice, an amendment of clause 63, which was amended by the Hon. Mr. Plant and verbally amended by the Hon. J\lr. Power. The verbal amendment put in by the Hon. Mr. Power at the last moment made the clause ungrammatical. The amendment moved by the Hon. Mr. Plant, and further amencled by the ·Hon. Mr. Power, read "restricting and penalis· ing unauthorised persons from being allowecl, etc." I beg to move the words "and penalising" be omitted.

Quegtion put and passed.

THIRD READISG. The Bill was then read a third time, passed,

and ordered to be returned to the Legislative Assembly, by message in the usual form.

ADJOURNMENT.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN­STRUCTION (Hon. A. H. Barlow) : I am afraiJ we shall have to •it ta-morrow night and try and puoh the work on. There is some work which seems to be contentious, but I am sure hon. members will put their shoulders to the wheel and push the bueiness through. \Ve will sit in Select Committee on the Railway Bills to­morrow at 11 o'clock.

Hon. G. \V, GRAY: Are the amendments in the Land Bill important?

The SECRETARY FOH PUBLIC IN­:STRUCTION: They are sent to me by the Land~ Department to be moved.

Hon. G. \V. GRAY: Are they material altera­tions ?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN­STRrCTION: I have n"t had time to study the matter. I hope we will make some progress to-morrow.

Hon. G. \V. GRAY: The most contentious matters oug-ht to be taken first.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN­STRUCTION: I am obliged to hon. gentlemen for what they have done to-day. I move that the Council do now adjourn.

Question put and passed. The Council adjourned at two minutes past

9 o'clock.