Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 1905

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

818 Land Wonopoly l'a:r Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Questions.

Tm:RsDAY, 21 SEP'l'Eli[BER, 1905.

The SPEAKER (Hon. Sir A. S. Cowley, Her·bert) took the chair at half-past :J o'clock.

QUESTIONS. NATURALISATION AND THE Ji'RANCHISE.

Mr. 'rUR;'f~;R (Rockhampton NoTth} asked the Home Secretary-

1. Is it necessary for females to be naturalised before they are eligible to vote in State elections in Queens-land?

2. Are children born in Queenslancl before their varent:::: have been naturalised eligible to vote when they attain the age of manhood or womanhoorl in State elections in Queensland without being naturahsed~

The HOME SECRETAHY (Hon. P. Airey, Ji'linder·s) replied-

]. Yes; unless they are 1uttnral born Rritish subjects, naturalised British subjects, or deemed to be naturalised Bl."itish subjects.

2. Yes.

MouNT BAUPLE 0EKTRAL SuGAR->IILL.

Mr. REINHOLD (Br·i8bccne South) on behalf of Mr. Lesina, asked the Treasurer-

!. 1Vhat if~ the salary of the manager of tlle ~fount Banple Central Sugar-mill ?

2. Has he received any increase since Dr. ~1axwell assumed control of this mill:~

3. Have the w:.tgcs of any of the men employed as labourers in the mill been reduced since Dr .. Uaxwell assumed control of }Iount Bauple Mill?

11:fc0rae lnquir;lj [21 SEPTEMB EH. j at Charters Towers. 819

The PRE:\1IER (Hon. A. 1-lorgan, Wm·wick) replied-

1. £350 per annum. 2. Yes. :~{. I llave no knowledge of the wages paic11Jorore the

uull was taken OYer, but believe tiH:re has been uo :reduction~

SALE m· GOYERNMEXT LAND AT rLBIILTOX.

:VIr. RELl'\HOI~D, on behalf of Mr. Lesina, asked the Secretary for Public L~nd ,_

1. Is it a fact that .{ of an aere of land at the Hamilton, being part of the land aetplircd for harbour purposes, has been ref garding the nntttet·s th.J,t wt:re iuve'~ti~atud at tl1e satd p:1lice inquirie~, and becan-.:.A I also thiuk the bench aTrived at a.

rong concln"ion whtn f" 1)116idering the circnrn-stance8 that led to the de:1th of :\lr. 1IcCrae. 1 have not been ai)1t'-l t() cnnv,ince the department th

820 ~'11c0rae Inquirp [ASSEMBLY.j at Charters 1'owers.

and that the markR on the ground were the tracks uf a man who bad dragged the body. Aspinall went on to say-

He requested Johns.on awl Kirkbricte to remain. and he went in Hnd reportetl vcrball~· to Senior Sergeant :J'IcGruth thrtt, there llacl been tonl play attached to J\1cCrae's t1eath. _-\.t 7 next mormng ::\IeGrath antl others vicw(~d place. .:~spinall :showed ·'print of

McCJ•ae Inquiry [21 SEPTEMBER.J at Charters 'l.'owers.

js manifest that :3icCrae would not, in the ·first place, have mr!lmtecl hi, horse on the off-Bide, and it is very unlikely he would have used a shin-tapper. He must have had a saddle and bridle, and they have not been di~covered. The evidence appears to me to show that the camp has been robbed, and it alw points to murder. ~~fter it leaked out that Constable Aspina!l suspected foul play his life was made a mi,ery by his snperior officer. Several charges of insubordination were made against him, and after the ;:.econd inquiry ,,n inquiry w11s made into those charges by Police :Magistrate Francis. Every man who had given evidence in sup!Jort of Aspinall's theory was looknd upon with suspicion. I am informed that from the moment Mr. :b'rancis landed in Townsville he "·as con-tinually in contact with Inspector Lamond and others, whom he should have avoided until after the inquiry ; also that when ::Yir. Francis, Inspector Lamond, and others reacl1ed Charters Towers, Sub-Inspector Sweetman met them with the police wagonette. They went together into the :Exchange Hotel, where Sub-lnspectc>r Sweet man was staying. l am also infonued they remained there some hour' while Constable Aspinall was left in the cold on the pLttform w1th his luggage. At the police inquiry Constable As pin all was in the box nine or ten clays. In order to protect hirmelf he engage j a solicitor at, a cost of £3 3s. a cln.y, which cftme to a total of some £31 10s. I am led to understund, on good authority, that while Aspinall was in the box during those nine or ten days he was subjected to very cruel treat-ment by Police J'IIagi,trate Franc1s. He was brow-beaten, abused, and insulted by him. These are 80lllt> of tbe C')lnplinients paid by J\1r. }'ranci:-5 to Asp in all while in the v.,itness-box: "You are a perjurer and a liar;'' "Yr n will be in gaol yet, Aspinall, for perjury ;" "You are a bloody liar." Th

822 [ASSEMBLY.] at Cha1·ters To~ve1·s.

was common knowledge, and that Police JIIIagis-trato Francis was wrong ·when he assumed that }..,oley went to ..:\.:--;pinall ancl volunteered to give this evidencf

Deilr Larry, -Yoars tr1 hand, anU I \\"ill do as yon ai':k; you have rny decpc..,r :-;ymva.t hy X o donbt:'on hftYo been wronged: but how on carti1 did yon not vrove him the liar:: You had the woman tltt ". SertrranL Ki.ug lntew a.ll al>ont it, and Clcary, Todd. N-;ity of reviPwinf{ the whoh! casA th::tt aro.::'e out of this uufort.una.te lnquiry. I belie\ e the production of that evidenr:e is neces~ary in the intere~":>tR of ju~ticP, for tbe r:afety of the r·ubijc, and in thP interest.~ of the Police Force. To prm·e that Constable Kiw; pe1 onated .Folf'~~ ancl that he knew this woman, I cho.ll reed four atlidavits. l shall re,\d them to let bon. lW:>mbert: see for thent~:mlvet-~ that I have en.n~e for comp]aining of the \Vant of eddence on thi;.;. matter. Here is a copy d the affida,·it signed by :!Ylich •el Foley-

I, -:\1ic~har~l Foley. of Boundm·y ~trePt, Cha•·trrsTower.'1, in the St:-Jte oi Queen ~land. cx·p'-'l!ce COli::> table, hcinf{ dnly sworn, mak': oath and say;.,::; folim-y,, :-

1. I am an CX·l'Ol1:c-.lable of' the Police Pnrce llfQnccn~land. havin:.;; joinetl tllB force in the year BUn.

~. In the yelll' 180~ I was tran~fened from 1i.oek-hampton to Clmrters Towrr8, where I have lJeen rc~itlcnt. ever since.

3. I li:DO\V l'olicc Constable ,Jame-.: King, aud bee .. n10 acquainted n·ith him on his transfer to Charters rrowers about four year.s ago.

4. I am a manicrl man. having a \Yife and two chil(lren living, the eldest of whom is live y, ars of a~e.

5. I lmow Ex-Constable Georp:e Ch~rle.;; j_spiuall, and hecame acqnainted with him in South Brisbane abont eight years ag-o. :wd renewerl that acquaintanceship on 11Je trant\fer of the said Geor.c:c Charll"' ~1spinall to Clmrters Towers about four year~ rtgo.

0. :-.hortly after the said Constable J~- King came to ChHrters 'l'ow-en, [ receivcrl thre~> 1'lPYeuLl letters addressed to me as •· Con~table Foley which 'iYere m a womau·s han(lwritin~ aud signed ... :nary Dwyer."

7. Tlw~e lr-tVrs t'ont-tined suggbtions that I shonld meet her, tlw ~.airl :nary Dwj er, by appointment made by her at the ho~pital gates, Gill ~treet, Charters rl1owers, anti al~o at :.'\lillche-.ter.

8. I could not undc1·:-nnn\l the receipt of these letter~ nor the matter of their content~. as the person, ::.\lary Dwyer. purporting to sign them. \Yas qnite unknown to m0) and I did not respond to the inYitations to mC'et her.

9. In or about the month of .Tune or Jul\T, 1902, I was standing tnlking to Senior Sergutnt :.\Io~·lan, a police officer stationed .tt Charters Towers, opposite l!,arrell and Co.'s premises in (__i-ill street, when a woman came up to me anrl said. "I be;~ yonr pardon, arc you Con-1'table Foley ~" I replied, Yes, my name is Constable Foley." She said. "Did you get my letters?" I said, "lrt:nt is yon1' name F' She replied, ".JI~T name IS ::nary Dwyer." I said. "I got three letters." She said, "I w:cwt the:n letters back; they are not meant for you. I know the man they are me:mt for: I found it out a few tbys ago. The name 1s Constable King, and he is statione1l at Qncenton.'' I said, ,, I can't return the letters; they have been destroyed." .She also said, "I am going to repm·t him." Senior SP"rgcant .\foylan, who 'vas present, said,'· Come on into the station." and they both went into the offiee. and I subsequently saw the senior sergt.,tni, ::\1oylan, take something down in writing.

10. Abont three or four days after, I was in charge of town duty, at the corner of Gill and ::uosm~m streets, and Constable .Tame.'-' King, who was in uniform, came to me and sn.icl. "Gool'i morning-, Folcy,'' and I said, ,, Good morning, King .. , He ~aid, ":J.lal'Y Dwyer re-ported me to the senior sergeant." I t'aid. ".\Yhat d_id ~he report you fur~" He repl1ect "I we ut wu 11 l?et' 1n your name. TIJe senior seq:;cant has been spoakmg t? me about it, and as mnch as said, ·Go and apologise to him.' I'll never take your wtme again. Jo'or God's sake don't saY anvthing more abont H. If J pn don't pre~s it the ~eni(lr sergeant won't go any further with it" I said, •· WhaL llid yon want to take my name for~" He said, "I didn't thillk it \Yas rtny lurm at the time, and I'll never take anybolly's name again.') '1'118 inciaent then ended.

11. In or ahont the month of lilehruary, l90fl. I was called to give cvidenee in a tlcpart.rncntal pfJlice inqui~y, held at Charter~ TmYCIR before one ChristopllerF1anc:~. and there deposed on oath to the facts mentioned in paragrapllt'> 9 and 10 of this aflidavit.

12. Other tllau testifying eo tlle facts mentioned in paragraphs 0 awl 10 of this affi(1 avit, I had no interest or concern in the ~aid inquiry. there being no charge or complaint laid against rne oi ~my description.

[21 SEPTEllfBER.J at Charters Towers. 823

J :-3. ~hortly aftel' the termination of the sH,ifl depart-1nentalpolice mquiry I was smmnarily disHlll:i~ed from the Polir:e Poree, and. on iuquiry as to tlto c~msB thereot, wus adYised it was consequential on the re}Jort of -~Hr. Christophcr l''rancis.

14. I llave stnce read in the column~ of the n,·is!Jane Cow·ier and _Vor/!. ·.·n Jlml · and J:·c "liii(I 11ele{J,'fiph what purport to he extracts trom the report furnished by 2\Ir. Ctristopher .Praneis on the :-;ai

824 [ASSEMBLY.] at Charters Towers.

The night before I gav·c evidence in the departmental inquil'y. defendant came to the fence and

J!IcC1'ae Inquiry [21 SEPTEMBER. J at Chm,ters Tuwers. 825

Isn't that the proper way ?J It was nAver the case at a pulice departmental inquiry before. The police magistratt> aairl hP knew th .. t S(lineM body was perjuring himself. P,ir. TounR: You ha.ve nut snown thac any blame ought to be attached to him.] A mfln who used the lanf!uage he is said to have used is to blame, and hB is thoroughly unfit fort he position he occupies. I Mr. .T. LEAH¥: You ought to be able to prove that he did use it before yon get np and make an accusa-tion of th>tt kind.] The hon. member who interjects has no roon1 to complain on that score. I feel that an injnstice has been done, and I ask the Home Secretary to cm fine himself to the one case of Constable Foley, and the evidence I have adduced. I know it is usual for Ministers to accept the word of their Under Secretaries ; but I ask t~e hon. gentleman to go through the p~pers himself, and see what conclusion he will come to. l hope I shall be able to aer. the evidence productd, became I belieYe that if it is produced and i" read by hon. members there will be ::t sufficient number of mernbers 0~1 hoth sides of the House who will be prepared to indnce the Government to reonen the case. I rnove the nwtion standing in n1.V namE'.

The HO:\iE SECRETARY: The hon. mem-ber has dealt wiLb this matter at such lenath and in snch a way, that he compeLs me to,..., re~ capitulate the whole of tbe eddence given at tbe variou;; inquiries. If I did not do that it would be absolutely impo,sible for me to justify the attitude t"ken by the Commi,,ioner of Police, by the officers who helrl the various in-quiries, and by the department generally. lam afraid, therefore, that T shall have to trespass on the patience of tlw Home in my reply to the hon. member. I would remind the hon. mem-ber, whPn he ash:R n1e to have cnpie~ of the whnle of the eYidence and correspondence in connection with this matter laid on the tftble of the House, that tlle aforesaid evidence and cor-respondE-me·- forrn a n1a"s of doclnnents 2 feet high, that thee· weigh 32~ lb., and it would cost thP dflpartment sornethin•: like £50 to get them typed in proper fonu to be laid on the table ,,f the House. So I thi11k the lwn. member will see that there are certain obstacle' in the wnyof h:tving his desires fulfilled. And he wants this done so that hon. members may have an opportunity of mastenng the whole of the details. All I c"n say is thftt if hun. nwmbers do nw.ster the details we will not be tmuhlecl with their presence in the Hom.e for the rest of the •.e"i· ;n. As the hon. 1nen1ber has said. thi;:; inquiry ha~ ariseu owino· to cer'ain things thu,t tmnspi;·ed after the fimf ing of the dear! bodv of a c•wtain ,John McCrae and the following 'is a p1·ec;s ()f the proceeding~ a;:; furnished to rne by the Oom1ni::;sioner of Police:~

On 23rd ,Jnly. 1!101-, the dead bo11y of ,Tolm ::\'IcCrae, aged ~·lxty-tllrcc yPar:'i. was fonnd iu a gorge. 12 feet deep all(l di~tant :100 yards froltl l1is earnp 'at Gaine-~ Creek. near Charter.-: Towers. Tlle bodyr was in a sitting· posit on. and mnell rh. ompnsccl. On tlle matter 1wing reported to tl1c Charters TO\Yers poliee, Constablt; Aspinall was desplLtched to t.lte creek, bnt through lailnre to make fnll inquiries did not tlnd the bod\' until the i'ollowin.g day. He theu reported at th'e sta.ti011 that he u~nected foul pln,:-.'. '\. police party, consisting of ~enior Serg-eant ::vrcGrath. Serg-eant King (C.I.B.), ConstablP::. Cle:.:~r.\', IIC111'.f, Aspimtll. H1lly Hamilton-a competent tracker-and nndertakers arrivrd at t.he sef~nc on 25th .Tnlr. After an exhaustive examination of the sunonnflinis, the 1JOlicc, with the exception of .\spinal], concluded the cleee:tsed had bPPll thrown from bis horse and drag;;ed b_\' his foot in the right ~tiTrup a distancH of lOO yards to the gorge. De'1th was caused by extensiYe fracture of the skull.

No. 1.-0n 7th Augnst Aspinall further reported the (:;

tl26 [ASSEMBLY.] at Cllcwters 'l'owers.

i~ also signifiP-ant that AspinaU's statements were not puhlisheU un1 il six weel\:~ after the incidents. com-plailwd ?f, pector "lh' thon_gllt the mnn \Vas mur-dered." . . . was l.:r pt flurub

JYicCrae Inqni1·y [21 SEPTEMBER.] at Clwrters Towers. 827

substantiah the charge a:;ainst Senior Sergeant :J.'IcG-rath of neglceting inquiries in the )1eCr:u· ense, ga,ye evidl~nce which could only be chara.cterbed as ·• unblushiug pcrjnry.''

A charge prefrrrecl :qptlnst Constable Shr han (liide :No. ~.)) of l.ibri( ,Hing CYidenee ·was also proved, an cl ::\1r. :Pranci~ ob.-•rv ·i that this together with Con6table::; .. \spinnJl. Finn. ulHll•'oley {p. had formed an improper c 1tllbination, and he was convinuJ thflt their continucLncc ia the force "\Vas n mcnac~ to the liberty of }Jerson \Vlio might innocePtl\' become~ the snbject. of iwplil'y. He adtled (p. ~ ~) that. Con-stahlcKing apparently r! ·rnired trainiu~ uuller a strict officer.

As a re~nlt cf tllnt report, th8 fonr ronstahles alJOYe-mentionc;d were dbmls~ed by me, and l:onf.ltalJle King was transtcrrell to Brisbane at his mvn expLn~e.

No. '2l.~S0me months before my appointmpnt as CommisBioner ol' Poli(•e, Hnh-In~pcetor :-;,yectman recommended l~olpy ~tnd Sht-ohan for tmn::;fpr on account of ~heir l':.:trtiality to,va.t'd~ A:OltT oF A~PI!'IAI.L.

Finn (pa

8:~8 lrlcCrae Inquir;IJ CASSEMBLY.] at Charters Towers.

is also worthy of note that A~pinall's '",:Jlicitor, at the reopened ilHtnil·y in January, wa~ engaged by two of the proprietor::; {p. 173. Xo. 22) of the l!.~"·enmg '1' legra]Jh.

I thought the charge hall been proved, and Chief Inspector Ur

JfcCrae Inquiry [21 SEPTEMBE!~.J at Charters Towers. 829

of things existing m non g the police of Charters Towers that was hi,;hly detrimental to the dis-cipline of the force ancl highly dar1gero11~ to the Rafety of the public. Plr. KEI

830 McCrae Inquiry [ASSEMBLY.] at Charters Iowe1'S.

-anyt.hing of thttt kind occnrred. On the other hand, 1 think, when a member of Parliament, holding the reBponsible pr'"itinn he dnes, wants information about Gornething thal:. occurH in the district, it is thf, duty of the Minister to g-ive him that information. If the body of people th,tt he represents want inforn1ation, that is qnite n. different thing to reviewing a decision by the court, and I think they are entitl..,d to see the evidence or any other papers. ]Nir. KENNA : It is his undoubted right.] [The Hmm :'\ECRE'l'AitY: 'l'bat is nut the purport of l1i' motion."] f.\lr. Bumww,;: I moved the motion hecanst• l could not get it.] I under"tand from the Minister that he has arran>(ed that the hon. member can see the papers, a.lld, ns far as I can gather, our titne might have been better de,·oted to something eLe if he had shown the hon. member the papers. l :'lir. BuRHOWS: I want Crtnstable ICing'~ evidenee.] ~eh ere rnay be a case \\rhen:. ~mnething- higher is depetrding npon it, and it nuty be undesirable in the public interests that the Minister shculd dis-close the evirlence, but, as final jndgment has been given in this crt~e, I see no rea:-:nn why the papers should be kept back. [The ATTOR:"EY-Qg;..,gnAL : There wr're cases pending at that tjn1e ---they n1ay cnrue on y :.t; th~y are threa.cened ca"es.] \Vas this a sl.ar chaH~ber inqniry, or wh"t was it? [Mr. LE~I:\A: Yes.] [The A't"rO!tNEY-GEXER,\L: Con, table :Foley \\as suing--] Th1t \Vas a 1>r1vate afl:1ir; it waM not a crii11lnal matter. \Vt-, are not coul!erned with private actions between priYate ci:.iz-;n~ of the State, we arH only concErned in criminal matters of the Crown. [The ATTORNEY-GEN>;H,'.L: He W

JicCme Inquir;lj [21 SEPI'EMBER.] at Charters Tmcers. 831

the bar business?] I am not blocking- anything, and have only ~poken two minutPs by the clock. I say again, the refns>tl of the Hon. the Home Secretary, or of hi~ officers, to givR thiR inforn1a-tion is endorsed by the hon. n:emher for Bulloo, because he followed the s:tme practice in the old dark day~ when thP coa,Jition Government occupied these bt'nches. [The HOME t:lECRErAHY: l refused the p:tpers because certain leg-al pro-ceedings were pending-.] Th leg-al proceedings that were penaing amounted to this : that a charge was made against a man, and he \Vanted that information to df'fewl hirmdf. \Vhen a se:rious charge waR pendit!g over the head of an innocent man, what right had the department to say to the hon. member for Charters Towers, "You shall not have this information." By their action 11-inisters were arrogating to ihern~ se! ves the right to say that the Ministry shall govern the country wlely, and that ordinary me1nbers are a n1ere nonentitv. I have a com~ plaint to make against this Governruent in this connection. They have !aiel on the table docu· ments called for by a redolution of this House, and those documents do not contain all the papers asked for.

The SPEAKER: Order! I must ask the hon. memlwr not to depart from the question before the House.

Mr. L:E8I:NA: I merely rnPntioned that fact to show how the l\J~inistry suppress information, and that is one reason why I supported the hon. member for Brisbane X orth, JYir. Cmnernn, in publishing a certain document recently. \Vhy should not the hnn. member for Charters Tnwers, or any other member who dpU ase of 50 acre::; of grnnnd-~5 acres on each oide of those beautiful falls. Tile lessee was never asked, and although his

Hon. R. Philp.]

832 Oust if Unemplo,yed Relief. [ASSKMBLY.] Land Monopol,y Ta.T Bill.

lease is in exis~ence they ga\'e thP le1·,.;e to Romebody ei,e. [The PRKi\I!ER : \Vh:tt are you :tllnding to?] To a lea'e given by the present Governrnent.

=vrution, by leave, withdrt'Lwu.

COST OF Ul\'K\1PLOYl,nJ RELIKF SINCE }'OUJ\'DATIU:'i" O.F COLONY.

:\fr. LJ

Land ~~Ionopoly [21 SEPTEMBER.] 'lax Bill. 833

1\Ir. MACARTXEY thought the hon. gentle-man •hould give a fuller explanation, showing where the agent was protected under the Income Tax Act.

The TREASUREll : Clause 13 enacted that the provisions of the Income Tax Act, relating, amongst other things, to "the appointment, powers, dutie~, and obligations of agents and taxpayers," should be "applicable for all pur-poses relating to the tax under this Act." Sec-tion 23 (iv.) of the Income Tax Act provided that an agent-is personally liable for income tax payable in respect of any income if, while such tax remains unpaid, he

(a) Alienate.:;, charges, or disposes of such income; or

(b) Disposes of or parts with any fund or money 'vhich comes to him after such tax is pny-ablc, from or out of which fnncl or money such tax could lAgally have been paid;

but, save as by this Act is otherwise proYided, shall not lJe personally liable for any such tax.

That amply covered all contingencies. Amendment (Hon. R. Philp's) agreed to.

Hox. R. PHILP asked the Treasurer to explain the 3rd paragraph of the clause. Some people were under the impression that once an estate was called a "landed estate," it would always have to pay the tax. That was not his opinion ; but apparently, nnder that clause, if a man held an estate for a day he would have to pay the tax. If he held it for one month, and then sold it, he ought to get a refund of the tax in respect of the other eleven months of the year.

The TREASURER: The provision was based upon the principle of the Local AuthoritiEs Act-that the rate was payable in respect of the land, no matter who owned it. If a purchaser neglected to make inquiries with reference to the rates due on a piece of land, he becmne liable to JH,y those rates after he became the owner. There was this difference-that in this case the mere fact of land being sold did not make the estate exempt from taxation. If a man owning 3,000 acres worth £ti,OOO sold 1,000 acres, if the Com-missioner did not get the tax from the owner he would not be entitlAd to any tax at all, inasmuch as the original owner would only bold 2,000 acres, which would be free from taxation, and the pnrchaser of 1,000 acres would hold less than the minimum taxable area. Once an assessment was made, an owner conld not escape payment of the tttx by selling a portion of his estate. [Hon. R. PHILP: He oughb to be entitled to a refund.] The provision was inserted for the purpose of preventing evasions by making the land, once it was as,oesRed, responsible for the payment of the ta" for the year.

Hox. R. PHILP: That this Bill was a very crude measure was admitted by the Treasurer himself. This provision w'" t ',ken out of the Local Authorities Act. Of course the tax was always on there, whether a man sold or not; but under this monopoly tax, when a man ceased to be a monopolist he should not have to pay the tax on the land ; he shonld only pay it for the time the land WP'< taxable. The t '"was payable as from the first July ; but suppose a man com-menced to cut up his land now, and was able to effect a sale next July or August, it would be a great hardship if he had to pay a twelve months' tax. [Mr. MACART:'IEY: "\Vhen the object of the Act was fulfilled.] He ought to get a rafnnd, or pay only the proportion due. There ought to be an amendmenb to that effect.

Mr, SOMERSET: Under the Local Autho-rities Act an owner, when he had sold a portion of land, notified the chanf\'e of ownership to the board, and the rate notice next year was sent out

1905-:1 F

to the purchaser. He thought instead of a refund th8 vendor in this case ought to pay a p1·o ratd tax for the time the land was taxable before the ,,ale took place, and an amendment was neces-sary in this direction.

Mr. PAGET: The Treasurer, in introiucing the resolutions in connection with this tax, said that any landowner who did not desire to come under its operation had only to cut up his htnd and he would get rid of the liability. For this one year it was absolutely impossible for him to escape that liability, or in any subsequent year for the first year. However desirable large landowners were to cut up their estates they could not escape the liability for this year, and therefore the Treasurer, whatever happened in the future, must geb his £45,000 this year. He agreed with the contention of the leader of the Opposition that it would be wise for the persons administering this Act to take into consideration the desirability of remitting the taxation on estates for the portion of the year after they were cut up. That would be only jnst, and would certainly lead to the more speedy cutting up of these estates.

The TREASURER explained that if the whole ektate was sold during the currency of the year, then the purchaser and the seller would require to arrange between themselves as to who were liable for the tax. If none of them paid the tax for that year, it would remain c first charge upon the estate. In that respect, this wonld be the same as the local authority rate. It did not matter whether the present owner paid the rate or not ; if he sold it to some new owner without paying the rate, then the rate remained attached to the land, and the pur-chaser became responsible for it. The proYision rectuired to be made here was for selling a portion of the estate, which wonlcl alter the amonnt of tax payable. [Hon. R. PHILP: That is all I said.] He had seen the Parliamentary Draftsman, who suggested the addition of the following proviso to section 3 :-

I>rovidecl that the Commissioner rna~ on its being shO\Vn to his satisfaction 1 hat a sale of a part ot' the estate has been nu

834 Land Monopoly [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Bill.

The TREASURER admitted that there was something in what the hon. member said with regard to the responsibilities placed upon agents, particularly in the case of a mortgagee; but the owner might be absent and the mortgagee present, and the mortgagee's interest in the land might be a larger proportion of it,, value than the interest of the owner. If the owner coulcl not be readily got at, it was only a fair thing· to go to the mortgagee in determining what value should be put on the land. If that was not done, someone might make '" return which would result in the land being taxed more than it was worth, which would be injurious to the mortgageP. Rurely it was better that the mortgagee should make a return of the value of the land than to leave the valuation to the Commissioner. As to this being a hardship upon the agent, it seemed that such a thing should be a part of his ordinary duties, and he pre:mmed that in such a case the agent would consult his principal before sending in a return.

::\Ir. MACARTXEY : Take the case of a man who had three estates in different parts of the State. It was not usnal in such a case to employ what was ca,lled a "hPad agent." If a In>m bad one estate in the neigh hour hood of Toowoomba, he would probably appoint someone there to col-lect the rents, someone else in Rockhampton to collecb the rents of an estate in the Central dis-trict, and a third per,;on to act for him at Towns-ville in connection with an estate in that part of the State. But, under his clause, any one of those agents would have to make a return of the man's whole estate. There might be an agent, a tenant, and a rrwrtgagee, and each of these was liable to make a return. The responsibility was not fixed on any particular person; it was not stated who should be first called upon to make the return. It seemed to him that the thing was reduced to an absurdity by including tenants and mortgagees as agents.

The TREASURER: The paragraph the hon. member was di,cussing was related to r as it might be. His objection would be met if the clause was altered to provide that the tenant came in last. As it stood now the tenant might be the first man called upon. [The TRicASGRER: It is quite unnecessary.] He did not think it was unnecessary. He would a .. k the hon. gentleman to withdraw his amendment in order to permit of a previous amendment being moved. [The TREASURim: I would like to know what for first.] He proposed to put in a provision that if the address of the owner, mortgagee, or agent was not obtainable, then the tenant should be deemed the agent. [The TREASUREI\: That would come in after this amendment.]

Amendment (11Ir. Kirlston's) agreed to.

l\Ir. P. J. L}

Land Monopoly [21 SEPTEMBER.] Tax Bdl. 835

Commissioner to enceavour to find the owner first, or the mortgagee, or the proper agent? Hi3 amendment would only have the effect of falling back upon the tenant after the Commis-sioner had failed to find any of those persons. How was the tenant going to find the money to pay the tax? He did not know an instance of any tenant of a landed estate being likely, after he had paid hi8 rent, and paid his way, to have such a sum as he would b~ called upon to pay under the Bill. The amendment would not do any harm-[The TREASGREH: No more would the insertion of a page from "Pamdise Lost."]-and would make the clause more workable.

:\Ir. JBNKINSO~: By virtue o' the words "for the purposes of this Act," the tenant might be called upon to perform the duties of an agent described in clan-e -l ao weil '" tlw,,. iu clause 8. He might even ha,-e to say whether the land should be resumed by the Crmcn or not. There might be nothing in the contention of the hon. n1ember for \Varrego; things might never get so far as to call upon thE' tenant to p.1y the tax; yet they might happen, and the arnendment might be operative in isolated cases. It might also, when they came to subsequent clauses, pre-vent a good deal of damage being done.

:\Ir. HAWTHORN : This was the only clau,,e in the Bill where the agent was liable to

do anything. Returns under clause [.S p.m.] 11 were to be made by the owner

only, and clause 13 provided that the provisions of the Income Tax Act should be applicable to the matters stated in that clause. It seemed to him that under section 25 of the Income Tax Act the agent would only be liable for the p~yment of any money which actually came into his hands.

:\Ir. ,JENIGKSON: He thought it would be admitted that it was probable that the tenant might be called upon to pay the tax, and lines 11 and 12 of clause 11 referred to "the person making the return." If that person happened to be the tenant, how could the Treasurer put any other construction upon it than that the tenant might be called upon to perform much greater duties than he appeared to have now?

J'.h. P. ,J. LEAHY: The Treasurer ridiculed the idea of this land being resumed on account of anything the tenant might do, but line 10 of clause 11 said, ''give notice to the owner or the person making the return on his behalf." Then the Cnmmissioner mig'ht give notice to the same man who made the return before, and if that man would not make the return, the next stage would be that the Cnmmissioner would "''me in and cause the resumption. Did the Treasurer understand his own Bill?

The TREASURER repeated that the only person who made the return was the owner, or the Commissioner on his behalf, as they could see by referring to clause 6. [:\Ir. JVL'-CARTNEY : This clause is making the tenant the owner.] For the purpose of paying the tax. [Mr. P. J. LEAHY: It says for ''the purposes of this Act."] No ; for the purpose of paying the tax.

:\fr. P .• J. LEAHY: If the hon. gentleman would insert the necessary words to convey the meaning that it was for the purpose of paying the tax, he would withdraw his amendment.

:\Ir. MACARTNEY snid the clause clearly made the tenant the owner for the purposes of the Act. The Act involved the making of a return and the payment of a tax. It was quite true that the application of the income tax to some extent reduced the responsibility of the tenant as an agent. He was under the impres-

sion that the amendment of the Treasurer was a snfl:icient safeguard. Although, under the Bill as at first constituted, any tenant of 100 acres who was the agent for the owner of a big estate could be made responsible, the Income Tax Com-missioner would not be w stupid as to declare the owner of lOO acres the agent of a large estate.

.Mr. P. J. LEAHY: He thought the Trea-surer was treating the Committee with scant respect in failing to give logical reaRons for the attitude he had taken up. [The TrmASl'RER: There is no real danger.] There was danger. The tenant might be the agent for the purposes of the Act, and undoubtedly one of those purposes was that a return should be sent in. [The THEASGRER: By the owner.j It did not say that the owner was the only person. [The TnEASURER: :iYiy word, it does! 'l'hat is what it says.] Could the hon. gentleman show him where it said that?

The TREASURER: Clause 6 provided that the owner should make the return. [Mr. HAwTHORN: There is no responsibility on any-one else.] If the owner failed to do it, then the Commissioner would do it himself. They did not want the agent there at all. [:'I:Ir. P. J. LEAHY: Then what have you brought him in for?] To pay the tax. They wanted someone to pay the tax.

Mr. P. J. LEAHY ·, After looking at clause o he was not at all sure that the owner was the only person who might have to senu in a return. However, he would not press the amendment to a division, because he knew what the result of it would be.

Amendment (.ilir. P. J. Lathy's) put and nega-tived.

The TREASURER moved the insertion of the following proviso, to follow subsection (3) :-

Provided that the Commissioner may, on its being shown to his satisfaction that a sale of a part of the estate has been made for a valuable consiUeration. make a refund of such part of the tax as bears a just proportion to tbc period of the current year for which the \Vhole of the estate remains in the taxpayer's ownership.

Amendment agreed to.

Cla!lse, as amended, put and passed.

Clause 9-" Rights of tenants and mortgagees" -put and p>tssed.

On clause 10, as follows :-r_t'he tax shall be a first charge on the landed estate in

respect of which it is p~~.rable. and shall have priority over all charges, liens, mortgages, rates, or other encumbrance~• whatsoever, and, notwithstanding any change of ownership, the landed estate "ihnll continue to be llable for the payment of the tax so long as the tax remains unpaid.

Mr. MACARTNEY asked whether it was reasonable to make a tax of this sort a first charge on the land in priority to the rights of a mortgagee? That seemed a very harsh pro-ceeding, particularly in view of the fact that such transactions were entered into before there was any idea of the passage of such legislation. \Vas the Treasurer prepared to accept an amend. ment exempting existing encumbrances from the provisions of the clause?

The TREASURER admitted there was some-thing in the point raised by the hon. member, but the claims of the Crown must take prece-dence of all other claims,

Mr. MACARTNEY: It was all verv well to say that the rights of the Crown must take precedence, but that did not apply in this case. The hon. gentleman was proposing to create

Mr. Macartney.]

836 Land Monopoly [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Bill.

certain reservations in favour of the Crown, and he asked him whether it was fair to create right• which would seriously affect the existing rights of other perwns ?

Mr. P. J. LEAHY: Itwasfjuitepossiblethat the owner of an estate might owe a considerable amount of wages. Under the Masters and Ser-vants Act, under the insolvency law for a certain time, and under other statutes, wages came in as a first charge. There was no provision for that in the Bill, and he would ask the Treasurer whether he was willing to accept an amendment in that direction?

The TREASURER: Once they began to give precedence to any one of the numerous claims which might be made against an estate, they would upset the whole purpose of the Act. [Mr. P. ,J. LEAHY: ?\onsense !] So far as he was concerned, they were going to make Crown claims the first charge.

Mr. P. J. LEAHY moved that, after the word "encumbrances", on the first line of page 5, the words "other than wages" be inserted. He claimed that his amendment was absolutely just, and he asked the Committee to accept it.

Mr. HARDACRE: If there was anything in the amendment he would vote for it; but it seemed to him there was neither good nor bad, as it would ne1"er come into practical operation. [Mr. P. J. LEAHY: It protects wages.] It did not seem to him to achieve that purpose. If it applied to small parcels of land, which were sold in the market and divided up among the creditors, it would be a different thing ; but this Bill only proposed to deal with large landed estates, and the only thing that would happen, if the owners sold them, would be for them to go over to the mortgag·ee. In that case wages would not be a claim on the landed estate at all, as the mort-gagee would not be liable for wages. I Mr. P. J. LEAHY: It cannot do any harm, and it may do good.]

Question-That the words proposed to be in-serted (Jir. P. J. Leahy's amenclu!ent) be so in-serted-put; and the Committee divided:-

;,rr. Barnes Cttmeron Cribb Forsyth

" :Fox ~ Hanrnn J-enkinson

Mr. J. Leahy , P. J. Leahy , :J.1acartney

l'a.o-et :: Philp

Somerset Stodart

Tellers: 11r. Ivx and :J.Ir. Jenldnson.

xm~s, 1-2. ~fr. Airey )!r. Kerr

l1arber K1d --,ton ,, llartou J,and

J~ell Lcsina Blair ::\Iackintosh Bouchard )fnnn Bowm:1n Man.ghan Bridges 2\Iitchell Bn:·rows ., }forgau

, Co,Yap ,, Mulcahy Denbam , , Murphy Diblr\~ rayue

., Fudge T'lunkctt Crant Rankin (~ray:;on Relnhold Han1ilton , Ryland

, , Harda.cre Smart ., Uargreaves , Spencer ., Hawthorn 'rolmie · Joues , Turner

Kenna , Woocls 1'e/le;·s: ]fr. Hawthorn anclM:r. 3Iurphy.

Resolved in the negative.

Clause put and passed.

[Mr. Macartney.

On clause 11-" Right of Commissioner to question value"-

Mr. CA2'.IERON moved that after the word "Act," on line 17, there be inserted the follow-ing:-

A copy of the said notice, printed in large type, shall also be posted up on a prominent part of the eo;;tate for at least sixty days prior to the expressed date of its termination.

Briefly, his object in submitting that amendment was to make snre that 1nortgag-ees and others interested should know what was going on. and Ho be able to bring pressure on the mortgagor to induce him to comply with the provi"ions of the Bill.

The TREASURER did not take exception to the amendment, but the hon. member would see that the amendment which he had circulated

would protect n;ortgagees. [Mr. J. [8.30 p.m.] LEAHY: What are you going to

propose?] As the clause stood it provided that, where the Commissioner was dis-satisfied with the return of value furnished by the owner, he should send a registered letter to the owner asking him to increase the value. He (Mr. Kidston) proposed to provide, further, that any mortgagee of land might, by noticE' in the prescribed form, have his name recorded in the register as such mortgagee; and, in every case where the amount secured by the mortgage, with any unpaid interest thereon, was efjual to at least 75 per cent. of the value of the land appearing in any such return, such mort,;agee should be entitled to receive a copy of the notice to be given to the owner. The mortgagee might then, either by himself or in con-junction with the owner, agree or refuse to agree to the increased value. If he agreed to the increased valuation, he took the r8sponsi-bility jointly and severally with the owner for the payment of the tax. It was undesirable that the owner on the one hand should risk property in which, perhaps, the mortgagee had the larger share of interest, and it was unfair on the other hand that the mortgagee should make the owner pay a tax which the owner considered was unfair; so between them they might fix the increased value, and pay the increased tax. He did not think the public notice proposed by the hon. n1ernber was at all neeessary. The general public had no interest in the matter, and it was not desirable to expose a man's private bm•iness to the general public. If they protected the owner and the mortgagee, that was all that was re(juired.

Mr. CA::\IEROX did not think his amend-ment would tend to disclose to thA public the business of a private individuaL '['be amend-ment the Treasurer proposed to mol"e partially met his object, but not entirely, and he'' "JUld prefer to see his own amendment adopted.

~\Ir. l\IAC~~RT?\EY : With regard to the statement of the Treasurer that the mortgagee should have some protection, he would point out that the hon. gentleman's amendment, as ex-plained by him, did not protect the mm·tgagee, except so far a,; to give him an opportunit:\ of coming in and objecting to tbe increased Yalue the Commissioner askerl the owner to put on the land. He should support the amendmenlo of the hon. member for Kort.h Brisbane, though he thought it should be wider in its scope, and that it should provide that the mortgagee should ha\ e notice of the owner's v cluation, and be a con-senting party to it.

Mr. HA "\VTHORK: The amendment which the Treasurer intended to propose would go a long way towards accomplishing the object of the hon. member for North Brisbane, but he thought 75 per cent. was too high, because very

Land Monopoly (21 SEPTEMBER.] Tax Bill. 837

few mortgagees would allow advances to that extent on propertie". [The TREASGRER : On the values that will be sent in by owners?] They should presume that the owners were going to send in the true values. Fifty per cent. would be nearer the mark ; they would very seldom find mortgagees, especially trustees, advancing more than 50 per cent. of the value of properties.

Amendment (liir. Cameron's) put and nega· tived.

The TREASLTRER said he had not the slightest objection to reduce the amount from 7G to 30 per cent. [Mr. P. J. LEAHY: Why not notify all mortgagees, irrespective of the amount ef the mortgage?] Because the mortgagee did not come into the matter at all unless his interest wa'' so large that it would be seriously involved in the valuation of the estate. He moved that after line 17 the following paragraph be in· serted :-

Any mortgagee of land may, by notice in the pre-scribed form, have his name recorded in t.he register as such mortgagee; and in every ~ase where the amount secured by the mortgage with any unpaid intere"lt thereon is equal to at least seventy-five per centum of the \ttlue of the land appearing in any such return, snch mortg»gee shall be entitled to receive a copy of the notice given to the O\Vner as herein provided. A mortgagee so notified is herein referrell to as a notified mortgagee.

Amendment agreed to.

On the motion of the TREASURER, con· seq:1ential :tmendments were made on lines 18 and 22.

The TREASURER moved, on line 25, after the word "accordingly," the in,~ertion of the words ·• and the owner and notified mortgagee shall become jointly and severally liable to pay the tax."

::\Ir. P. J. LEAHY: The tax under a previous section was made a first charge on the land. What was the object of making the mortgagee liable"? l' nder this amendment wouh! it not be pos,ible to come down upon other assets the mortgagee bad, besides the land? If so, he thought it was unjust.

The TR EAS U.RER did not think there was the remotest possibility of any other assets the mortgagee might have being come down upon. It might be possible according to law, but the tax W

'838 Land 3fonopol;~; [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Bill.

in the purchase of these estates, it was only a fair thing that Parliament should be considered before the expenditure was entered into. It was too great a power to put into the hands of any Minister. .For all they knew it might run into £250,000.

The TREASURER: The argument of the hon. member was altogether fallacious. It con-veyed a misstatement that this extraordinary power was placed in the hands of any Mini,ter. It was in the hands of the whole Government, His l~xcellency the Governor included. [Mr. JENKINSON: \Ve all know that.] It was idle for the hon. member to trv to frighten the Uom-mittee with that bogey. [Mr .• JENKINKON: It is a Yery substantial bogey at the preeent time.] As a matter of fact, Executive matters of this kind Parliament was not suited to deal with. If Parliameut could do executive work then they would need no Ministry a tall. If Parliament could not trust the G-overnrr1ent to carry on executive business of this kind, then Parliament should put another Uovernment there that it could tru,t. The amendment was the kind of flapdoodle that was introduc-'d to tell hon. members to be afraid of their responsibk men. [Mr. J ENKINSON: Considering the way that you have been break-ing your promises in the past.]

:\1r .• T. LEAHY supported the amendment to a large extent. It wa:; not the first time the Government had purchased estates, but Parlia-ment had always restricted the amount the Government could spenrl in that direction. If the Treasurer's argu1nent were good, why could not the Government be trusted to spend £1,000,000? There was no limit in the Bill as to the amount to be spent in the purchase of estates. They might as well "ay. why not trust the Government to spend the money voterl in the Estimates without the sanction of Parliament, and say what s~lary every servant should get? That was a far smaller matter than what was proposed in the clause before the Hou.qe. They were there as the representatives of the people, and it was the special privilege of the Chamber that it should control the finances of the State-that money should not be spent except by the consent of the people's representatives. The people who professed to be democrats 1:re taking the government out of the hands of che repres8lltatives of the people. [The TREASl:RER: No, no !] There were cases where the executive Government must be trusted to a very large extent. He had some knowledf!e of that himself, and he knew that no Government could be carried on unless it was a Government they could trust. But the power which the clause proposed to give the Government was absolutely unlimited, and he did not care if the Executive included the best men in the House they should no be given a power of that kind. If the present Government wished to buy land under the exist-ing Acts it had to be certified to by the Land Court. [The TREASURER: That is not dealing with this particular point.] It was no reflection on the Government to say that the provision which applied in other Acts should also be made to apply to this Bill. For himself, be would not take the responsibility of saying that certain land should be purchased without having an impartial body like the Land Court to report upon it. He thought the amendment was too cumbrous in form, but he hoped the Treasurer would agree to the proposal to obtain the approval of the Land Court.

Mr. HARDACRE: There was a good deal in the point mised by the hon. member for Fassi-Iern. When the Agricultural Lanrls Purchase Bill was being considered, the members of the I,abour party supported an amendment to sub-

[ Mr. Jenk~:nson.

mit every proposed repurchase to Parliament, although.they failed to c"rry it. If eve_ry pro-pot>al to resume an e'tate had to be subm1tted to Parliament for approval it might have the effect of causing the owner to imagine that Parliament would not allow the Government to resume his land and he would not care. It would, never-thel~ss, be much better to submit every proposal to P::trliament, because it might happen that the resumed land would be no good to the ::ltate. [l\Ir .• T. LEH!Y: This would protect Ministers.] Yes. UndertheAgricultur,tl Lands Purchase Act the Land Court had to report whether an estate was suitable for the purposes for which it was r~quired ; .1nd, if they allowed the Gonrnment to resume estates without any such report, they miaht make mistakes similar to that which had be:n madP in the case of the Seaforth J~state. l\1i"takes might be madf' even if the Land Court made reports, \mt that was not so likely to happen nl'i if l\Hni~ter:-; \vere perrnitted_ to resun1e estates withont any report>1 at all. He trusted the Treasurer would accept the amendment or s01ne rnodificatun1 of it.

The TR}~~\.SURER: The whole reason for the Government taking action in this case was because the land was manifestly greatly n"lder-valucd to escapg payment •)f the tax. \Yhere land was valued at approximately its real value, why should the Government interiere at all? 'l'h;,.; was the only power in the Bill to make it effective. It was in the nature of a penalty; and unless it was e.harp, simple, and direct, the ohject of the Act would to a great extent be nullified. Hon. members must further remem-ber that thi,; power was only to be given to :Ministers for three months, and it was therefore necessary to ;:;ee that the rnachinery was not made too cumbrous. [21Ir. Kmm : And you cannot shelter c,~ourselves behind the Land Court.] [:vir. H,\mLTON: As was done in the case of the Sea forth Estate. J As a matter of fact, a report was obtained from the Land Uourt before the Seaforth Estate was purchased. There was no more fatal tendency than for Par-liament or J\linisters to shelter themselves behind somebody ebe to e,,cape responsibility: [:\Ir. :FoRSYTH: You want all the informatwn you can get before resuming.] He premmed that anv Government would take ca.rf') before resum-in; an estate, that they were going to get at least th~ir own money out of it. If a Government acted in some other way it would be an excellent reason for turning them out of office. I-h did not think the amendment was necessary.

The ATTORNEY.GENERAL: The Land Court had nothing to do with this matter at all. The compensation payable in this ca"e was settled, according to clause 12, by the owner. They accepted the valuation of the owner. with 10 per cent. added. The owner was not likely to value his land too high. Then subsection (3) of clause 12 provided-

The compensation payable in respect ofimpron:ments shall, in case the parties differ, be settled. l)y reference to tlle I.~and Court. constituted by three members thereof sittingo together, who shallluLYB jurisclit'tion to hear and finally determine all questions relating thtreto, whether of law or of fact.

r;\Ir. FORSYTH: Th::tt is as far as impro\·ements are concerned.] 'rhen they had the power to valm· improvements. It seemed to him that no hardship would remlt if they took the value of the land as fixed by the owner, givirw him in ad-dition 10 per cent., and allowed the Land Court afterwards to settle points of difference and give him the value of hi" improvements. He contended tlmt the question of consulting the Land Court did not arise under clause 11 at all.

Mr. J. L:EAHY : Supposin!l' there was an e~tate miles from a railway in the \Vest, it might

Land J}fonopoly [21 SEPTEMBER.] Tax Bill. 839

be valued too low from the owner'8 or the public point of view, and it might be valued too high from the Treasurer's point of view, if he laid his hand on it. The point would be whether the •rreasurer had some persons willing to settle on that land, and he should have someone to report :-ts to the nuality and condition of the land. There might be a demcond for close settlement for agricultural purpose>, but the particular estate which he wanted to get might not be fitted for agriculture at all. The Land Court did two things-they gave a report on the nature and quality of the htnd-whether it wa' tit for a certain thing-and also what the value was. For the purposes of this Bill, they must have the report as to the character of the countr.), and where were they to get it if not from the Land Conrt? He was not arguing this matter from any party point at all. He trusted the Government would see itc way to make provision for this kind of thing, and get some expression of opinion that the land was adapted for the purpose for which the Government n1ight require it. Some hon. members had referred to what had happened in regard to the repurchased estates, bnt he con-tended that the Agricnltmal Lands Purchase Act, np to the present, had been remarkably successful. It was true the Seaforth Estate had not gone off, but there were a great many reasons for that. At all events, if there was any mis-take made about it, the people of JYlackay came out in a procession when ~Ir. Hume was up there to ask him to buy it, and told him it was sure to go off at a big price. He was not a member of the Government which purrha,secl thar est;ate, but he could say that when the late Sir ,J. R. Dickson, who was Premier, asked ])fr. Hume whether it was likely to be taken up, he replied that it would go off like buttered scones. [The SECRETARY ltrliamentary regulation or phraseology in an Act of Parlittment would stop that corruption taking place. Under ordin»ry conditions he could not imagine any Government resuming land under this Bill without making very sure that they were resuming an estate at a price they would easily be able to recoup them-selves. If the Committee were of opinion that the amount of money which should be spent far this purpose in any one year should be limiled, he had no ubjection to inserting such a pro,ision, but the proper place to do that would be in clause 13. But as to making it compulsory that before resuming land the Government should get a report from the Land Court, that would blunt the effectivenec,s of the purpose" of the c!ause, which was to put into the hands of the Government a power which could be held in terror-[Yir .. TE:\'KINSOX: To bully a rnan.]-to bully a man so as to make him afraid to very largelv undervalue his estate. He ad-mitted that there was some possibility of danger, but he thought the clause would be injured rather than hnproved by inserting such a limitation as that suggested. [:\Ir .• J. LEAHY: It is the present method.l K o; it was not the present method. ThP present method applied to the case in which the Government wanted to buy an estate, but this provision was not for the purpose of enabling the Government to buy an estate, but for the purpose of imposin"Q. a penalty, and it wae the only penalty in the Bill. [:\1r. J. LEAHY: You will not enforce the penalty for the purpose of getting into your hands lands you do not want.] The purpose of this clause was to give the Go-vernment an effective check against under-valuation. [}Ir. J. LEAHY : And something that may cost the country very dear.]

The CHAIR:\IAN: Order! I hope the hon. member for Bulloo will not continue to interject. vVhen the hem. member was speaking there were very few interjections.

Mr . • T. LEAHY: \Veil, I wa< talking sense. ~Ir. HARD ACRE: TLe more he li8tened to

the discussion t.be more he was convinced that some amendment of the clause was really neces-sary. vVe had now in force rather elaborate and complicated machinery for the repurchase of e,,tates for the purpose of subdividing them into selections, and he could see that this Bill was likely to be made a substitute for the Agricul-tural Lands Purchase Act. He did not think Parliament would be willing to give to any Government arbitrary power to buy back estates without insisting upon some provisions deter-mining what they should do with those estates, and whether they were worth the money to be paid for them. Provision was made in this Bill for ascertaining the value of the improvements on lands resumed, but something of the same kind should be done with regard to the land itself before it was resumed. He could under-stand that the Agricultural Lands Purchase Act could not possibly be made to apply in all cases,

Mr. Hardacre.]

i'l40 Land Mvnopol_y [ASSEMBLY.] '[ax Bill.

because it was only for the purpose of buying land that could be subdivided for agriculturdl purposes. The Bill would cover a large amount of land which would not be suitable for agricul-tural purposes after being resumed. It waH going to cover some of the far vVestern lands. It might cover forest land which would be unsuit-able for agricul~ural purposes. The only objection that had been ratsed to the amendment was that the clause was a penalty clause, and that it should be entirely in the hands of the Ministry of the day as a swift way of dealing out punishment if the owner greatly undervalued his land. It did not seem to him that providing machinery was going to take awa~· the power of penalty. The power of penalty lay in the fact that when the owner undervalu8d his land the lYiinistry could put the machinery into force at once. If the land was suitable for buying back, then it could be purchased with 10 per cent. added to the owner's valuation. It did not seem to him right that they should give to any Government un-restricted powers of that kind. This Govern-ment might not be in power for long, but that new method of reacquiring estates might be in force for years after the present Ministry had been displaced. They were now establishing- a new method of acquiring land, and there ought to bP some machinery to apply to those case~. He would not object to a proviso sayinrr that all the provisions of the Agricultural La~ds Pur-chase Act, so far as applicable, should apply under that sectiot.

l\Ir .• JE::\KINSOX: His only idea in raising discu,sion at that juncture was that the prin-ciple he had endeavoured to place before the Committee should be diECussed in all its bear-ings. He was anxious for a reasonable safeguard in the interests of the Statp. He quite agreed that it would perhaps be better, instead of ask-ing that the matter should be submitted to Par-liament. that it should go through the ordinary channel such as they had in connection with the Agricultural Lands Purchase Act, and he was willing to withdraw his amendment and propose that after the word ''may" there be inserted the words " after the Land Court, constituted of three members 'itting together, have reported favourably on the proposed resumption." His idea was to hav·o a discussion on the principle embodied in the amendment. He did not think it a fair thing that any :\linistry should have the power placed in their hands of spending· the money of the country without there being some control over them. In making the alteration that the matter be submitted to the Land Court they were putting the Bill on all-fours with existing legislation. It might be that later on the machinery sug-gested by the hon. member for Leichhardt might be incorporated at the end of the clause.

The CHAIRlVIA::\: Is it the plea•ure of the Committee that the amendment be withdrawn?

The TREAHGHER: No.

Ho:\'. R. PHILP thought the proposal was very reasonable. There ought to be some safe-guard if they were going to buy estates. At the present time there were safeguards, but they would buy no more estates under the Ag-ricultural Lands Purchase Act now. [The TREA~GRER: vVhy?] ·when speaking on the second reading he pointed out that they bad a good Act in the Agricultural Lands Purchase Act, and in reply the Treasurer, in his usual terse language, said the leader of the Opposition was moaning be-cause he pointed out that the existing Act for acquiring estates was a good Act. He said if they applied that argument they would never

[Mr. H ardacre.

improve or progress. It was evidently the opinion of the Treasurer that no more estates would be bought under the Agricultural Lands Purchase Act, but that land would be acquired under the Bill. If th-~twasso, then let them have the opinion of tho Commissioner on tho>:e estates, and the recommendation of the Land Court. Even if mis-takes were then made, the Government could pot be blamed, because they would have taken all reason-able precautions. On the other hand, if the matter was le.ft entirely in the hands of the Government to say when they would resume estates, he saw that grave errors of judgment might possibly occur. To avoid that, for the Government's own sake, let them take every possible precaution. The Land Court was always available, and if they did not buy oue year they could buy the next year. Tbe land would not run away, and by the following year the owner might see his way to increase his valnation or cut up the la>;d. But if the owner could not come to terms wtth the Commissioner, and the Government thought it wise to buy the estate, let them fortify them-selves with the recommendation of the Land Court. Any reasonable Ministry ought to be satisfied with such a provision. So far the Land Court's recommendations had been ex-ceedingly good ; but for them, no doubt, the present and past Governments would have bought a great many more estates. He thought it a wise thing to have some seeond 11uthority. The Land Court was independent of the Government, and the House would at all times be satisfied with their recommendation. No doubt Mr. Hume, who inspected the Sea-forth Estate, made a mistake, but after that the late Government redoubled their precautions by inoisting on the three members nf the court inspecting estates under offer to the Government,

' The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: At the present time the Land Court were re-porting upon an estate, and if that report was favourable it was pretty certain it would be purclmsed. His bon. colleag-ue would make a mistake if he yielded to the arguments from the other side in that matter, which were, he believed, offered in good faith, ::tnd with no desire to mutilate the measure. If they insisted on the reference to the Land Court, and espe-cially to the Land Court sitting together, they would .;eriously shatter the freedom of action of the Treasurer and the Commissioner in using that section as a controlling section over the tax-payer. They had just accepted an amend-ment which restricted the period of discretion of the Treasurer to three months. vVithin those three months the Land Court would have to make an inspection a,nd report, and the Govern-ment to come to a decision. The Land Court, in carrying on their duties, divided the State into three parts. One member dealt with the North, another with the Centre, and another with the South. Thev were sometimes all away in their respective districts at the same time, and the result would be that if they wanted to get the Land Court to inspect and report on any parti-cular estate at a certain time, it would dislocate all their arrang-ements made weeks and months beforehand. He was waiting for a report on the particular estate he had alluded tn. He had waited some weeks for it, and he did not know how many more weeks he would have to wait. But until the Land Court had completed their calendar of arrangements made months ag-o, he could not expect them to come here and go on with that work. And so it would be with the amendment suggested by the Opposition. It would simply be blunting the fine edge of the weapon it was essential the Treasurer should have in his hands if a measure of that kind was to be effective.

Land Monopoly [21 SEPTEMBER.] Tax Bill. 841

The TREASURER: He would withdraw his objection to the withdrawal of the amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Mr. JENKIKSO:c\ moved that after the word "Act," in line 2\J, the following words be inserted-" after the Land Court, constituted by three members sitting together, have reported favourably on the proposed resumption." It was dd visable that tbe whole of the Land Court should report, and that it should not be left to one individual member. The Act fixed a certain period of tbe year during which the return should be sent in, and it should be possible for the Land Court so to arrange their year's programme of work as to be able to be at a certain spot at a certain time. They might fix all their Southern engagements for those three months [The SEORKl'AllY FOil PUBLIC LA!"DS : \Vhat about the Centre and the North:] That could be arranged for with a little bit of judgment beforehand. There was nothing in the contention of the Secretary for Public Lands that the Land Conrt could not

fit in their engagements to make [10 p.m.] a report to the Minister, and that

was the only argument that had been adduced up till then as to why these matters should not be submitted to that court. The Land Court already fitted in their time for reporting on estates bought under the Agricul-tural Lands Purchase Act, and they could easily do it under the present Bill. [The SECRETAilY ~'Oil PcBLTO LA!"DS: They take months over it sometirnes.l But they found time to do it, and, although their engagements were tixed at the commencement of the year, they always found time to report to the JY1inister on these estates. Hon. members forgot that there was a vital principle involvEd in this, and that was that the clause was taking out of the hands of the repre-sentatives of the people the right to spend money. He maintained that it would only be a proper safeguard in the interests of the State if the amendment which he had suggested were accepted.

The TREASURER: He did not propose to discuss this proposal at any length, because they had still a long way to go, and as the matter had already been fully discussed, they might as well settle it at once.

JYfr. P .• J. LEAHY: It would be in the recollection of members that when the 1902 Act be(tl of the court for doing this work was not as limited as some bon. members believed. If any member interested in the question would turn up the clause he would see that a certain amount of time must elapse before this could be done. It wa.s not merely sixty d>tys that would elapse; practically a year would elapse. He was sur-prised that the Secretary for Lands. 3nd the hon. members who knew that the Land Court was not busy, did not see that there was practi-cally a year allowed in which it could be done. The Bill placed an enormous power in the hands of the Government. He thought he was right when he said thr~t under the Agricultural Lands Purchase Act the Government was limited to £100,000 in the purchase of estatAs, but there was absolutely no limit to the amount which

they might spend in resumptions under the pre-sent Act. [The TilEASCilEil : Yes, there is. \Vhere is the money?] The Act imposed no limit whatever. 'fhe fact that the Government might not be able to borrow, and the fact that the Act might destroy confidence to such >tn ex-tent that no one would lend the Government money, might be a limit, but the Act itself enforced no limit. If there was any reason to limit the amount under the Agricultural Lands Purchase Act U]J to £100,000, surely the same reason existed under the Act now before the Chamber. The very least they ought to do was to impose some limit to what the Government should lle allowed to spend. He knew of one estate on the Dr~rling Downs which, at a very low v:1luation, would cost £350,000 or £·100,000. At £2 an acre it would cost £300,000. He could ccmcei ve of a condition of things under which the Government might resume £1,000,000 worth of land in one ye>tr. Another strong reason why they shoultt day which wound up, "·will gladly resell all freehold property here at price it cost." That was from a man who had bought 150,000 acres. A man might put a value on his land, the C0m-missioner might think it too low, and the Government might be trapped into buying an estate which they would not be able to resell. Parliament had confidence in the integrity and the judgment of the members of the Land Court, and be certainly thought they should insist upon a report being made by those three officers before any estate was resumed. Xotwithstanding what the :Secretary for Public Lands said, he was satistied that the Treasurer would acquire land through the Bill. The hon. gentleman said so distinctly on the second reading. He had every confidence in the ability of the Commissioner, but he was very busy now, and, with all the additional work that would be imposed upon him by this Act, what opportunity would he have of going all over the country? He would have to get reports from other people, and Parliament should insist that its own officers should make those reports. He warned the Committee that, if they allowed the clause to go as it stood, that would not be the end of it. They might hear of cases in which traps were designedly laid to force the Government to resume estate~. To say that the amendment would blunt the edge of the Bill wa:s nonsense, because the Government could resume at any time. The Land Court bad always found time to make reports in the past, and they could do the same in the future. The people of the State would be better satisfied if the Land Court had to make reports. He was satisfied the Treasurer me>tnt to make this the engine for the repurchase of estates. There was no limit proposed. He

Hon. R. Philp.]

842 Land MonopoTy [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Bill.

might buy £1,000,000 worth in one year, and they might be landed with any amount of land which was unsaleable, This was not a party question at all, but it was monstrous to expect Parliament to allow any Ministry to resume land without any limit, and without the retcsonable precautions that were insisted upon in other CaS AS.

The PREMIER thought the hon. gentleman was anticipating dangers which were not likely to arise. It wtts quite the duty of the Opposition tn take up that position, but he would point out that the position under the Bill was very dif-ferent from the position when it was proposed to put the provisions of the Agricultural Land; Purchase Act into operation. In the latter ca~e there was no time limit, whereas in the present

Land Monopol:J [21 SEPTEMBER.] Tax Bill. 843

recommendations of the Land Court in regard to buying land under the Agricul-

[10.30 p.m.] tnral Lands Purchase Act. He hoped the Committee would not

allow the Government to play fast and loose under tl]is Bill, because he was satisfied that it was only under this Bill that the Government would buy land in the future. This was the opinion of the Treasurer, who had made up his mind on the subject, and Parliament would make a great mist:ctke in allowmg the Government to practi-cally do away with the Agricultural Lands Pur-chase Act.

The TREASURER was rather ]>leased that the OppositiOn were beginning to discover that their former fears about this measure driving cap1tal out of the country were all moonshine. They had at last discJvered that the danger of the measure was not to the landowner but to the suffering country-that the country might be robbed or penalised under the Bill. When the Bill was introduced, the leader of the Opposition asked the House to protect the landowners. and now he was mging that the country should be protc0ted. 'rhe Committee now understood the question fairly well, and he hoped they would proceed to a division.

HoN. R. PHILP: He was not now arguing the reverse of what he did on a former occasion, as suggested by the Trrasurer. He did not believe in the D11l, which was a crude, uncon-siderecl measure. The Treasurer, however, had seen some money sticking out, and he wanted to get :cts much as be could. There were provisions iu the measure under which the country might lose m

844 Land JJ!Ionopoly [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Bill.

(3, Each matter on which compensation is claimed;

(4· The amount claimed for lan

Land Monopol_y Tax Bill. [21 SEPTEMBER.] Adjournment. 845

of paying for these estates, the benefits to be derived from the passage of the Bill would be reduced.

The TREASU HER: The real purpose of the Bill was not to enable the Government to buy back estates, but to offer the owners a gentle inducement to sell them themselves. The power of resumption by the Government was only the motive force. No owner would know whether his estate was going to be resumed or not. As to where the money was to come from, it would come from any money in the possession of the Government, whether it was ordin:try revenue or loan money, or money derived from any other source.

Amendment (M1·. Kidston's) agreed to.

* Mr. SOMERSET thought the Committee did not understttnd him when he referred to com-pensation for the right of brand. If owners were to be compensated for improvements, they should ttlso be compensated for disturbance, and the right of brand might be a very valuable thing.

Clause, as amended, put and pas,ed.

Clauses 14, 15, and 16, put and passed.

The TREASURER: Before he moved the Chairman out of the chair-as hon. members were aware, a good deal of fear had been ex-pressed that this Bill would frighten away capital and do harm to investment in Queensland. The Premier had received a wire from the people in the old country, intimating how the financial proposals of the Government were being· received there, and it would probably interest hon. mem-bers if he read it. [Mr. FoRSYTH : \Vho is it from?] The Agent-General of the State. (Laughter.) [Mr. P. J. LJdjourmnent is to suit those hon. members. I am opposed to the adjc.urnment, becausP, as an old member, I know what has !Jeen the conse-quence before. I know that at the encl of the ser,.,ion, when 1nen1bers are unfit for work ovving to the hotwuather, they have to sit continuously, and I shall therefore .-ote against the adjourn-ment till Tuesday. Ho~. R. PHILP: A:, an older member of this

House than the hon. member for Barcoo, I think we commenced sitting four days a week too

soon. Look at the business the [11.30 p.m.] House has done this week! \Vhen

the hon. member for Barcoo was sitting on this ·.ide of the House it would hrkYe taken six weeks to have got a Bill like the one we have just dealt with through, and tl1en it would not have been as good a Bill as it is now. This House has practically 'at for more than four days this week. One day we sat sixteen or eighteen hours. 'l'he hon. member has done nothing except vote with the Uovernment, whereas every member on this side has carefvlly criticised the Bill. It would have gone through without any criticism if it had been left to the hon. member for Barcoo and his colleagues.

The TREASURER: I think there is some little misunderstanding about this matter. There is no virtue in sitting four days a week any more than in sitting seven days a week. The Yirtue is

Hon. W. Kidston.]

846 Adjournment. [ASSEMBLY.J AdJournment.

in getting the work through, and every member of the House knows that if we had not been adjourning now we should have sat till the same time to-morrow with just the same amount of work done as we have done now. The Opposi-tion had it in their power to talk over this Bill on amendment after amendment, and it would have been the easiest thing in the world for them to have kept the House sitting till to-morrow mght. \Ve ought all to be very well •,atisfied that the Bill bas gone through. Except for a very good and strong reason, indeed, it is a rather strong thing for an hon. member to attempt to take a mo,tter of this kind out of the ho,nds of the leo,cler of the House. [Mr. KERR: I am going to divide the House on it.] I have no objection to the hon. memberfor Bm·coo dividing the House on the que,,tion. [Mr. LE~I:'iA: The ,Estimates will be rushed through.] \V e are not going to have one minute less time for the Estimates if we adjourn now. \Ve shall have exactly the same time for the E3timates, and for the democratic Bills, if we adjourn till Tuesday, as we should have had if we discussed the business in hand till to-morrow, and then adjourned. It is perfectly competent for the hon. member for Barcoo, or any other hon. member, to call for a division when the Premier moves a motion of this sort. At the same time, hon. members quite under-stand what it, means. It is a 'ote of no con-fidence in the Prerr;ier. Everybody understands that.

:\lr. J. LEAHY: I should just like to say that it is no time for argument on a question of this kind at this hour of the night. I think the purpose of this debate will be met if the hon. member for Barcoo gets up and apologises. (Laughter.)

•· 2>Ir. BURROIVS: If my leader calls for a di 1·ision on this question I shall be found voting against him, and for this reason : I have in the past voted with the Government against my inclination-[Opposition members: Ob, oh !]-in the case of the special retrenchment. I do not like the idea of adjourning till Tuesday any more than the hon. member for Barcoo, and I realise that we ought to get on with the business of the House, and sit late and often for that purpose. I do not care if we sit every day from the present onward. I don't like to see this aJjournment, but evidently a contract has been entered into. I am sorry that has been done, but I am not going to assist to defeat the Government on a silly question like this; to divide the House on the question is absurd and ridiculous.

::\Ir. KE"NXA: There is one phase of this matter which deserves to be accentuated, and that is that the Opposition have waived their criticisms on the remaining clauses of the Land Monopoly Tax Bill if they were allowed a holi-day to-morrow. It is just as well that the country should understand that. [Mr. P. J. LEAHY: \Ve did not sa:' so.] The Treasurer has said that if we sat to-morrow we should do no more work, which means that hon. members op-posite havP foregone their criticisms of the Bill just pas.,,ed through Committee. I am thor-oughly in accord with the leader of the Labour party when he asks for further sittings on Fri-day. There are many highly debatable matters to be considered. There is the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill in the misty distance, and there is the \Vorkmen's Compensation Bill, as well as other measures. \Ve have not touched the Esti-mates, except one day last week, when they were trotted out as a sort of stop-gap. That means that important departments, which many hon. members desire to criticise, will have their Esti-mates forced through the House during late sittings, when large sums of money will be voted

[Hon. W. Kidoton.

at a time when members, owing to long sitting~ and hot weather, cannot bring that criticism to bear on them which they desire.

Mr. LESINA: The Treasurer has attempted to place members on this side in a very serious position when he tells us plainly that in voting against the Government we are practically attempting to defeat them-that if we take the business out of their hands it is a vote of want of confidence. I do not know any more im-portant matter upon which we could challenge the Government than their conduct of the busi-ness of the House. Onring the next two or three months we shall have fifteen Bills and a large amount of Estimates to get through, and we have, after all, a very few sitting clays in which to accomplish the work. Members on this side practically gagged themselves on the Address in Reply and .Financial Statement debates, the general belief heing that the Government were anxious to get to business, and yet time after time we adjourn on Thursday night. 'l'he conclusion forced upon me is that, as soon as Christmas Eve arrive~, there will be put into the waste-paper baskE't half a dozen measures of useful legislation. I have always objected to adjourning definitely at Christmas, but if we avoid Friday sittings the result must be that our bu,iness will fall into arrears. \V e already have on the business-paper the :Fertilisers Bill, Hawkers Act Amendment Bill, Land Acts Amendment Bill, Metropolitan Hospitals Bill, Albert River, Burketown, and Lilydale Tram-way Bill, Brisbane Traffic Bill, ·workers' Com-pensation Bill, Supply, and \Vays and Means; and I say, with a list of measures like that, and two other measures in our boxes, it is up to this House, if it is determined to do business, to insist that the Government should sit on .Fri-days, and not be scared by the Trea,;urer, who has come ont in the melodramatic character of a Czar armed with a club which he is prepared to bring clown upon our heads. I am not to be frightened by the Treasurer's threats, and I am going to vote against this propo~ed adjournment as a protest.

Mr. RYLAKD: I think the House ought to take the Premier's assurance that we will begin Friday sittings in earnest next week. Seeing that we have clone our work well to-clay, and are getting on so well with our platform, we ought to have a holiday. In S0uth Australia, in case there is a want ot confidence in the Government, they simply vote that the busine"s he continued or discontinued. I do not think it would be wise to vote that it be continued on this occasion. \V e ought to accept the Pre-mier's assurance, and if we have not got the work done by Christmas we will come back after Christmas and finish it.

Question-That the House, at its rising, do, adjourn until Tuesday next-put; and the House divided:-

AYES, 3-t 1Ir. Ah·ey Mr. J. Lea by

, Barnes , P. J. Leahy Bell , :Jiann

, Blair , 11itchell , , Bridges , ~'I organ , Burrows , Nielsen ~· Cowap , O'Keeffe , Denham , Paget ,, Dibley , Payne , Grant , J>hilp , Gra.rson , Rankin , Hanran , Ryland , Hargreaves ,. Smart

Herbertson , Somerset Jackson , Spencer

, J enkinson Stodart , Kidston , Turner Tellers: :Ur. Jenkinson am! ~Ir. Grayson.

SlwaJ·ers and Sugar Workers [26 SEPTEMBER.]

:Ur. Barber Bowman

, Fudge , Hardacre

Jones Ken m~ Kerr

XoEs, 13.

Jlr. I.~and Lesina ~fUJPabY irurpln:

" Reinh0lcl Woods

Tellers: Mr. Reinhold and :Ur. Woods.

Resolved in the affirmative.

PERSONAL EXPLANATIOX. :\Ir. SPENCER (1l[aranoa): With the permis-

sion of the House, I should like to make a personal explanation. My vote appeared against the amendment on clause 5, moved by the leader of the Opposition last night. I came into the Chamber when the bell rang, and the way the question was ]Jllt did not convey its meaning. I thought it was another amendment. Had I known it was the amendment on clause 5, as moved by the leader of the Opposition, I should have voted in favour of it.

Question put and passed. The House adjourned at six minute" to 12

o'clock.

----------

.Arcommodation Bill. 84'7