Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Council

TUESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 1890

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

i82 Pastoral Leases [COtrNC!L.] Extension Bill.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, 11 November, 1890.

Message from the Governor-assent to BilL-Pastoral Leases Extension Bill-second reading.-:r\iessages from the Legislative Assembly- Supreme Court Amendment Bill-first reading-leave to member to attend select committee.-Valuation and Rating Bill-·committee.-Prisons Bill-further consideraw tion in committee of the Legislative Assembly's amendments.-Acclimatisation Society and National Agricultural and Industrial Association Bill-second reading.-Tramways Act of 1882 Amendment Bill­second reading,-Adjournment.

The PRESIDENT took the chair at 4 o'clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR. ASSENT TO BILL.

The PRESIDENT announced the receipt of a me'lc9age from His Excellency the Governor, intimating that the Royal assent had been given to a Bill to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of information relating to the defences of Queens· land.

PASTORAL LEASES EXTENSION BILL. SECOND READING.

The SOLICITOR-GENEHAL (Hon. T. J. Byrnes) said: Hon. gentlemen,-The Bill, of which I move the second reading, is entitled a Bill to amend the Pastoral Leases Act of 1869. Under that Act leases of different sorts were authorised by the Governor in Council, The new leases under the Bill were to be for a term of twenty-one years. Hon. gentlemen will know that we are now in the year 1890, and therefore some of the leases that were granted under that Act have already expired, and some are about to expire. The matter, I believe, had the attention of the late Government, and it has also had the attention of the present Government, It is necessary that some le;;islation should be brought in in order to deal with those runs the leases of which have expired. Now, there is a legal point in connection with this matter, a point that has given rise to a certain amount of doubt as to the position of the people under the Act of 1869. I do not wish to go at great length into this legal question, although I think it is only fair to the House that the point should be referred to, so that hon. gentlemen may under­stand the position exactly. Before the Act of 1869 was brought into force, there were anum­ber of different tenures for land in different parts of the colony, and there were various holders under those different tenures. "When the Act of 1869 was brought in, there was an option given to the persons who held the then existing leases. Under section 5 they were given the option of surrendering their leases, and, under clause 6, they could get a fresh lease. That was with regard to persons who held existing leases. With regard to persons who applied for leases for the first time, they were

provided for under section 7 and the following sections. Their lease was for a term of twenty­one years. Under sections 40 to 45 of the Act the question of the renewal . of leases was dealt with, and some doubts have been expressed whether, on the construction of the statute, the persons who obtained leases for the first time under the Act of 1869 had the right of renewal, There was an opinion taken by the late Govern­ment, and in some aspects it would appear that those persons had the right of renewal, but I tl1ink the better opinion is that the right of renewal only applies to the persons who had existing leases at the period when the Act of 1869 was brought into force. I may point out that sections 40 to 45 are classed under the head­ing of "renewal of leases within the unsettled districts." Section 40 says :-

Hit shall be lawful for the Governor, on the expiraw tion of any existing lease, or promlse of lease, to grant to the holder thereof a renewed lease for fourteen years of the land held by him, or such portion thereof as shall not be required to be resumed for sale or other­wise lawfully withdrawn from merely pastoral occupa~ tion." That gave power to the Governor in Council to grant renewed leases to persons who had existing leases at the time the Act was brought into force. Section 41 prescribes the procedure by which the lessee was to get his renewal. But, under that section, the words "existing leases" are used, so that there is some doubt as to whether the Act did not intend that persons who obtained leases for the first time should have the option of renewal. Looking at the whole of the Act, I think the better opinion will be found to be that the question of renewal only applied to those persons who had existing leases, and who wereonthosegroundsgiven a renewal. They could either surrender their existing leases and come under the Act of 1869, or they could maintain their existing leases and on their expiration could get fresh leases for a period not exceeding fourteen years. If section 41 was to apply to leases that were taken up for the first time under the Act of 1869, it would practically give the lessee, under the Act of 1869, a right, in per­petuity, of renewal, at the end of his lease ; that I do not think was the intention of the legis­lature. The present Government have con­strued the Act as I have already pointed out, that is to say, that persons . who had the right of renewal, under the Act of 1869, were the persons who had lellses in existence at the time the Act came into force. For the per· sons who got leases for the first time, the period prescribed by the Act was twenty-one years. The Government have adopted the view that twenty-one years was the period intended under the Act of 1860 ; and as that period has expired in a number of cases, and is expiring in other cases, there is a necessity that there should be some legislation on the point, At this late period of the session the Government do not propose anything more than a temporary measure. By section 2 hon. gentlemen will see that it is provided-

" In any case in which the term of any lease granteQ. under tbe provisions of the Pastoral Leases Act of 1869 has already expired, or shall hereafter expire, the Governor in Council, on. the recommendation of the Land Board, may authorise an extension of the term of the lease with respect to the whole or any part of the land comprised therein for such period not exceeding five years, and on such conditions as to rent or other­wise, :ts the Governor in Council on the recommenda­tion of the Board may think fit, and at the expiration of such period may again exercise the like powers, and so from time to time as may be expedient."

Section 3 says-" When the term of a lease has expired before the

passing of this Act, an extension of the term shall not be granted except upon condition of payment by the

Pastot'al Leases Extension Bill. [11 NoVEMBER.] 1ialuaiion and Rating Bill. 183

lessee an advance of rent, at an amount to be fixed by the Land Board, in resper·.t of the time that has elapsed between the expiration of the term and the granting of the extension." Then by section 4 it is provided that there shall be no leasing again under the Act of 1869. And section 5 says that the right of pre-emption shall not apply to any extended lea ,e, These leases do not come under the Crown Lands Act of 1884, and therefore it is neces.<ary that there should be some legislation with respect to them: At thid staae of the session it is too much to ask for thoroug'h legislation on the point. \Vhat we propose to do is to give the lessees a fredh le;;,.se, not exceeding five years, on such terms as .the Land Board may think fit, and before that tm1e has expired the whole question will, no doubt, be dealt with. The 6th clause providEs that there shall be no re-leasing under the .A.ct of 186H. \V ell, if the interpretation that is to be put upon it is correct, there can be no re-leasing, because the period for which the leases had to run has ex­pired. With regard to the abolition of pre­emptives that, of course, does not require much explanation. The pre-emptions are already gone by virtue of the Act of 1884. This question seems to have escaped the attention of the legislature at the time the Act of 1884 was passed and hence it is necessary to deal with it now. 'Shortly, the position is this : The Bill gives lessees a right to a fresh lease not exceed­ing five years, and in the meantime there will be plenty of time for legislation on the subject. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said: Hon. gen­tlemen,-There is one matter I wish to call atten­tion to, to which the hon. gentleman has not referred, and that is the fact that although the Land Board were appointed with specified functions, and although they were given full powers under the Act of 1884, there is no amendment made giving them powers under this Bill. Apparently there is no corresponding power under this Bill given to the Land Board to carry out the provisions of the Bill. Under the Act of 1884 the Land Board had the power to summon witnesses, n.nd to examine them on oath, and by that means they collected material by which they might form a correct judgment on the different matters that came before them. But their functions do not extend beyond the Act of 1884, and the districts of the colony to which that Act applies. Now, we have this measure referring to land which is outside the extended schedule of the ·Act of 1884, and yet we have not given the Land Board the extended powers which they posseBs under that Act. As to the legal ques­tion to which the hon. gentleman has referred­the position of the lessees under the Act of 1869-I do not know that I can quite accept the view that he takes of it. I can state that the late GQvernment had this question before them, and that it received full consideration. On looking at it at that time, I looked at the whole of the Act of 1869, and asked myself this question: Was this Act of 1869 merely intended as a temporary measure, to expire within twenty-one years, or was it an Act inte_nde~ to regulate for the future the mode of admimstermg the waste lands of the colony? I do not think there is anything in the Act which will show the intention to apply it merely to the issue of a new set of leases, and Itthink it is an Act which was intended to be a continuing and self-acting system of dealing with the Crown lands of the colony, until some new mode of disposing of them was substituted for it. I think that the lessees were in a position to apply for new leases, and if the Governor in Council thought there were no objections, then uew leases could be issued under the Act of

1869. I think we are bound to accept the Act of 1869 as a permanent addition to the legislation of the colony and one which is not expected to run out at the expiration of the first set of leases. The 41st section specially says :--

"It shall be lawful for the lessee of any run, at any time not less than three months prior to the expiration of his lease, to apply to the Chief Commissioner of Crown Lands for a renewed lease of the run or runs com­prised in such lease, and t'UCh renewPd lease shall be grm1ted to him for the term of fol~rte~n years _fro!ll the 1st day of July neare-;t the expuatwn ?f h1s former lease of such run or runs, or of such portwn the~·eof as it may not seem to be expedient to resume, subJect to the fOllowing conditions." So that there was special power given to the Governor in Council to decline to is-me a lease if the run was required for any other purpose. On this abstruse question, as the hon. gen.tleman says, different viewd may be held by different people. I think it would be a very senous course for these les:lees to attempt to resist the passing of a measure which would, at any rate, settle the question on some fair and proper basis. . I see that lease' may be given for a further periOd of not more than five years, and I beheve that pro­posal is one which is, on the whole, so far as I have been :tble to hear, acceptable to the .outside lessee~. If that be so, of cou~·se there Is. very little objection to be urged agamst the passmg of this Bill.

Question put and passed. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved that

the committal of the Bill stand an Order of the Day for to-morrow. '

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE: If the hon. gentleman intends to propose any amendments I hope he will circulate them in time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL : Certainly. Question put and passed.

MESSAGES FROM THE LEGISLATIVE A8SElVIBL Y.

SuPREME CovRT A~!ESDMEST BILL.

The PRESIDENT announced the receipt of a message from the Legislative Assembly, . for­warding, for the concurrence of t~e C~mnml, a Bill to le,~en the costs of proceedmgs m and to amend the law relating to the Supreme Court.

FIRST READING.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said: Hon. gentlemen,-! move that the Bill be now read a first time.

Question put and passed ; and the second reading of the Bill was made an Order of the Day for Tuesday next.

LEAVE TO MEMBER TO ATTEND SELECT COMMITTEE.

The PRESIDENT announced the receipt of a message from the Legislative Assembly, re­questing that leave be given to the Hon. W. Aplin to attend and be examined before the select committee appointed to inquire ~nt? the Towns­villa Gas and Coke Company, Limited, Amend­ment Bill.

The HoN. W. H. WILSON moved-That leave be given to the said mcmbm· to attend and·

be examined, if he thinks fit., and that a message to that effect be transmitted to the Legislative Assembly.

Question put and passed.

VALUATION AND RATING BILL. COMMITTEE.

On this Order of the Day being read, the President left the chair, and the House went into committee to further consider the Bill.

On clause 13-"Mode of making valuation"­Question-That the words proposed to be

omitted stand part of the clause-pnt.

184 Valuation and Rating Bill. [COUNCIL.] Valuation and Rating Bill.

The HoN. A. C. GREGORY said he had already explained that if the clause was carried it would be necessary to make several amend­ments of a conRequential character in the Bill. He would' particularly point out that the 29th section said-

" No general rate made in any one year shall, in the case of municipalities under the Local Government Act of 1878, exceed the amount of three pence in the pound of the value of the ratable land upon which it is made, and no such rate made in any one year shall, in the case of divisions under the Divisional Boards Act of 1887, exceed two pence in the pound of such value." The object he had in bringing forward the amendment he had moved, was that as endow­ments were to cease after this year, the local authorities should be in a position to incrQase their rates to a sum that would bring in an amount equal to what they were receiving at present. They found that under the Act under which endowments were paid, the Governor was limited in passing his warrant to the amount of £1 for £1, whether in the case of divisional boards or municipalities. The endowment of £2 to £1 was to cease, and the amount to be paid would be only .£1 for£1. He wished it to be clearly understood that it was not his intention to deprive the boards of the power of being able to collect an amount equivalent to what they would be entitled to under the endowmentsystem. Another matter to be considered was in regard to clause 41, which proposed to increase the amount able to be levied under special rates from 1d. to 3d. That ought not to be done, because, even if they granted rating powers sufficient to enable the boards to meet the loss of the endowment, there was no reason why they should increasethepowerto levy special rat~s, which did not carry any endowment at present. Therefore, the arguments in favour of giving increased power in regard to general rates did not in any way apply to special rates. He had heard it urged that many local authori­ties would be unable to pay their debts unless the special rates were increased to the present amount ; but there were sufficient powers under the present Acts to deal with such cases. In fact, the Colonial Treasurer could, in the event of a local authority not paying the debts due to the llovernment, both prirtcipal and interest, actually proceed to rate the land in the same manner as if he constituted the local authority. Therefore there was no neceseity for a provision of that kind. There might be some small unim­portant pob:its in connection with the question of valuation which he had not referred to, but they did not require consideration at the present time. He thought their only course of procedure would be to continue the existing law, at least for the present, until the other part of the machinery of the Bill came into operation, and the country better understood and -considered what view to take of the whole question, and in another year's time Parliament would be in a far better position to legislate, if there were then any necessity for it.

The HoN. J. S. TURNER said he disagreed with the proposition embodied in this clause­namely, the exclusion of improvements as a basis of valuation, and he therefore desired to say a few words in support of the amendment of the Hon. Mr. Gregory. On, the second reading of the Bill, the hon. the Minister in charge of it explained that its object was to grant increased power of taxation to local authorities by way of compensation for impending loss of endowment ; but he gave no prominence to the very important fact that the measure would greatly lessen their power of taxation in respect of one class of rate­payers at the cost of another and more numerous class. The endowment for the loss of which it was proposed that the local authorities should be at

liberty to compensate themselves by increased direct taxation was-as he understood-£1 for £1 of the general rates heretofore received. Le.t them see how the scheme would work. The maXl mum of general rates under the existing Act w~s 1s. in the £1 on the annual value, and the maxi· mum of special rates also 1s. in the .£1: When reading in Hcmsard the debates whwh ~ook place upon the Bill in anot~er place, he n?ticed that it was repeatedly explamed that 1s. m the .£1 on the annual value under the present system was practically the same as ld. in the £1 on the cccpital value under the proposed new system. But was that so? It appeared to him that the statement was alike erroneous and delusive, only correct at all, in fact, in respect of unimproved lands in divisional boards and country lands where the annual value was reckoned at 8 per cent. and upwards on the capital value. In the case of improved city and suburban land, where the annual value was estimated at 5 per cent. on the capital value ls. in the £1 represented a fraction of less tha~ five-eighths of 1d. in the .£1 on the capital value, and by clause 29 of the p~esent Bill they were asked to increase th~ :n.aximum more than threefold in the case of diVISions and exactly fivefold in the case of municipalities. Of oourse some of that increase was intended to meet the reduction in consequence of the pro· posed abandonment of the taxation npon im­provements ; but he failed to see that the:y had any right to lighten the burdens of one sectwn ?f the community at the cost ?f another, and. It certainly would be more eqmtable to apportiOn the double taxation necessary on the existing basis, which included improvements and treated all ratepayers alike. In the matter of doubling, however he referred only to the general rate, because 'as the Government did not grant any endowment on special rates he did not see what need there was for the existing special rate maximum of 1s. in the £1 to be interfered with, Yet in the proposed new arrangement a maxi­mum in special :·ates equal to 2s. 6d. ':'as submitted for their approval. He would give two or three instance• of the injustice of taking off taxation on improvements and placing the taxation on the land only. Take the case of a property in one of the minor streets of Brisbane, say, land valned at .£2,000 and a store or a~ hotel on it valued at £4,000, total £6,000, whwh, at 5 per cent., gave an annual value of £300, and the limit of the tax thereon by the exi~ting Act was £30, being 1s. as a general rate, and 1s. as a special rate. Under the proposed new system the owner of the property could be called upon to pay 3d. in the £1 on the .£2,000-£25, and 1~d. as a specialrate-£1210s., or £3710s. altogether, which would be only one-fourth more than before, while double was needed by the local authorities. That owner would be eased off to the extent of the difference at the expense of the other ratepayers. Another person might own another piece of property of similar value, fenced, but not otherwise improved ; and his p~esent taxation in respect of that at the maximum wonld be .£2,000 at 5 per cent., making £100 annual value ; 1s. in the £1 upon that £100 for a general rate and ls. special rate would amount to .£10 in all. But under the proposed system he would be called upon to pay £37 10s., or nearly four times as much as before, while the other was let off with an increase of one-fourth. The effect of the proposed abolition, of taxation on improvements would also be very unfair in con­nection with a numerous class under thA divi­sional boards-namely, the holders of small blocks of land carrying improvements of rela­tively much larger value. A very common case was that of a person with an allotment valued at £50, and a cottage, etc., valued at £150, in all £200, the annual value being on a computation

Valuation and Rating Bill. [11 NoVEMBER.] Valuation and Rating Bitz. 185

of 5 per cent., £10. Under the existing law the maximum taxation raised on that property would be 20s., and the maximum under the proposed system, on the land only, would be 14s. 7d., or 5s. 5d. less than before. But a person holding a fenced allotment worth £200, instead of 20s., as under the old Act, would be liable to pay £2 18s. 4d. under the new system, or nearly three times as much as before. There were hundreds of working men wh<!> had ob­tained land with the intention of building cottn,ges thereon, and why should they be called upon to pay extra taxation because others of their class who had been already enabled to build their cottages were eased off ? To his mind that was unfair, and the more so because the outlay of the local authorities was chiefly under­taken for the benefit of improved properties. He would support the amendment.

The HoN. B. B. MORETON said the Bill was in somewhat of a unique position. They had passed the second reading of the measure, and he presumed that the principle of the Bill had been agreed to, but the Hon. Mr. Gregory had moved an amendment which touched a vital principle in the measure, and inserted a new principle altogether. The Hon. Mr. Gregory had stated that the correct way to ascertain the capital value was to ascer· tain the annual value, but his amendment dis­tinctly stated that they must first ascertain the capital value before they could find the annual value, so that the hon. gentleman was attempting to introduce a system which, he said, could not be mrried out. He agreed with what the Hon. Mr. Macdonald-Paterson had said, when speaking of capital and annual value, that one necessarily in­volved the other. The Hon. Mr. Gregory seemed to have forgotten that the very clause he was bringing m insisted upon the capital value being ascertained before they could find the annual value. The Hon. Mr. Thynne stated in his remarks that it was impossible to ascertain what was the unimproved value of the land, but he thought the hon. member himself had several clients who leut out money, and he was perfectly satisfied that the hon. gentleman obtained valuations for those clients, showing the value of the land and of the improvements separately, and he was satisfied that those valuations were fairly correct. If the hon. gentleman could do that, he was sure that any local authority would be able to obtain experts sufficiently able to decide what was the capital value of the land. Of course, hon. gentlemen would know that he was likely to agree with the clause as it stood, because it was actually a land tax. He had stood up in another place, and had stood up in the country, as an advocate of a land tax, and he was not likely to go back upon his views. He would make reference to one remark made by the Hon. Mr. Macdonald­Paterson, who said that when he was a member of the Government he strongly urged upon that Government the advisability of diminishing the local government endowment, first limiting them and then diminishing them gradually for a period of eight years, and, at the end of that time, they would receive nothing. He (Hon. Mr. Moreton) was a member of that Government, and he must say that his memory was not retentive enough to remember such a suggestion ever having been thrown out at any time. Another objection raised had been that there had not been time for sufficient con­sideration of the measure, not only in the Council, but also in another place. That might be so, but, at the same time, he had spoken to a great many members of the other Chamber who had supported the measure, and they seemed to be very well versed in connection with it, and he doubted very much if they would alter their views, whatever might happen in the Council.

It had also been said that it was not the measure that the Government had brought down, but, at the same time, it was the measure which had been passed by the representatives of the people, who were more nearly in touch with the taxpayers than members of that Com­mittee. The Hon. Mr. Thynne also said,, in one portion of his speech on the second read­ing, that "he might oompare the operation of the Bill in regard to city and business properties to the effect that had resulted from the opera­tion of the Land Act of 1884 in regard to country lands." He presumed from that that Mr. Thynne meant that by the passing of the 1884 Land Act the capital value of country lands had actually decreased. But if they re­ferred to what was going on in England, they would find that the value of the land there had gone down materially in value, and yet there had been no 1884 Land Act there. It was not the Land Act of 1884 that had brought down the value of land, but the fact that prices for produce grown upon the land had gone down so that they could not get such a large income from the land as before. The question was, what would be the revenue, under the Bill, derived by the divisional boards in the country districts? He had a list of three or four. In the 'l'aroom division, which was a pastoral district, the pastoral rents under the present Act, at a rating of ls. in the £1, produced £291 in rates ; and under the present Bill they would produce £245, at the minimum rate of ~d. in the £1. The Raw­belle Divisional Board received £380 at a rating of ls. in the £1, but under the pre­sent Bill they would receive £317. Then the Boulia Board, under the rating of 1s. in the £1, received £524, whereas they would receive £436 under the present Bill, which was certainly a a slight decrease; but he had given the maximum rates under the present Act, and the minimum rate> under the proposal before them, so that the boards would not lose anything at all. The question would then come as to the proposed endowments. He was rather inclined to think that the endowments in the past had led divisional boards into great extra­vagance. He had seen work done around Bris­bane which was altogether unnece,sary. In the Oxley district, close to the railway station, he saw some work going on in the shape of filling up a hollow and cutting down a little hill or a road, the traffic upon which was almost nil. Then they came' to another objection, and that was that the large landholders were to be smothered by taxation, while the smaller men would get out of it. He did not think that that was an objection that should be urged in that Committee. Anything they could do to relieve the burdens of the smaller working men ought to be agreed to whenever they had an opportunity of doing so.

The HoN: A. J. THYNNE said he did not anticipate, when he spoke on the second reading of the Bill, that any hon. member occupying a scat on the front bench opposite would stand up and plainly and distinctly advocate the passage of that measure on the ground of its being a system of land tax. He did not anticipate it, but he was very pleased that the discussion had brought out from an ex-Minister, and one who was evidently in the confidence of the present Govern­ment, the distinct announcement that he advocated theBill as the first step towards a land tax. He did not think that many of the hon. gentlemen who formed the present Government would thank that hon. gentleman for his candour, because it involved the swallowing of a great many awkward pills, and the withdrawal of many public expressions of opinion. He felt pleased that it fell to his lot on the second reading of the Bill to warn the House of what was being put

i86 7Taluation and Rating Bill. [COUNCIL.] Val1tation and Rating Bil1.

before them. He was very much pleased to find that an old experienced politician such as the Hon. 11r. Moreton had made such an avowal as to the true character of the Bill before them. He thought Queensland had suffered quite enough by being chosen as a field for political experiments, and it was time for the people to put their foot down against being used as subjects for those operations in future. He thought the people of Queensland were more inclined to allow their business to be carried on on well-known, well-regulated principles of political economy than upon mere speculative theories, of which they had no instance in the world of their being successful. The amendment of the Hon. Mr. Gregory was one which should commend itself strongly to the Committee, especially in view of the character which had now been conferred upon the Bill-that it was the initiation of a new experiment - and he thought it was about time that they said that the experiment should stand OYer for a time, and let them deal with the ills they knew of rather than seek ills that they knew not of. The hon. gentleman seemed to have taken rather to himself, as a defendant of the Land Act of 1884, his (Mr. Thynne's) criticism of the effect of that Act; and he had s·ought, as an explanation of it, a com­parison of the decrease in the capital value of land in this colony with the decrease in the capital value of land in Great Britain. The hon. gentleman seemed to attribute the decrease of the capital value of country land in this colony to the decrease of prices ; but where was that decrease of prices?

The HoN. B. B. MORETON : You your­self said so.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE : The decrease in price of produce. Of course the capital value was accompanied by a decrease of prices in the land, but he took it that the hon. gentleman's argument with regard to England was with reference to the decrease in the price of agricultural produce. 'Where had been the decrease in the price of agricultural produce in Queensland? He granted that if the price of produce in (,lueens­land had materially decreased, that would be a very important factor as regards the capital value of land. Maize was now cheaper than when land sold at £1 or 30s. an acre, and all round the price of agricultural produce was as high as it was fifteen or twenty years ago. But the fact was that the proportion of the population engaged in agriculture had not increased. The inflow of people like those introduced by the late Mr. Jordan had not continued, and consequently the agricultural population had not incren.sed in pro-, portion to the general population. Of course he did not follow what the hon. gentleman said in regard to the Hon. Mr. Macdonald-Paterson, but would only make general observation.> in th>tt rPspect. It might be that matters were discussed in Cabinet which some members might not have heard of. They might not have been considered by all the members of the Cabinet. It might be that the Hon. Mr. Macdonald·Paterson and his colleague discussed the matter referred to between them­solves and with other Ministers ; there were many ways in which a matter might crop up without coming before all the Mini,ters. In reference to the hon. gentleman's surprise that the Bill should be amended in such a way as to affect its principles, he would point out that the debate on the second reading was exceedingly short. He (Mr. Thynne) contributed a few remarks, and spoke freely and plainly on the subject, but he was not replied to by any mem­ber of the Government, and the debate came to a sudden conclusion. In what he had said, he

had, at any rate, laid the foundatiun for amend­ments touching very substantial matters in the Bill, if the Committee thought proper to accept them.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: You objected to the Bill in toto.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said : And he therefore left it open to the House to reject the Bill in toto if it thought proper.

The HoN. W. F. TAYLOR said the Bill, to a certain extent, came up to his ideas of what land taxation should be. A step in the right direc­tion was being made in the taxation of land values. He could conceive of nothing more inequitable than the tax on improvements. Improvements had gone on in spite of that, but he maintained that greater improvements would be made if the tax on improvements was abolished. It was quite unnecessary to call attention to the unfairness of taxing improvements while adjacent land was unim­proved wai~ing for the unearned increment, and was not taxed to any~hing like its proper value. The instance given by the Hon. Mr. Turner was a good one. He quoted the case of an allotment worth .£2,000 on which .£4,000 was spent, which brought in £300 a year, and was taxed at the rate of .£30 a year, w bile a similar piece of unimproved land was taxed at the rate of .£10 a year. Now, he asked, was that a fair thing; was it fair that the energetic man who improved his land should be taxed, and the person who was not so enterprising, or who was too mean, should escape taxation?

The HoN. A . .T. THYNNE : Or too poor. The HoN. W. F. TAYLOR said if he was too

poor he should sell his land to someone who could make use of it, and not retard progress by waiting for the unearned increment, That reminded him of what was often done on gold­fields. A find was made, and the ground rushed, and claims pegged off. Men of energy and enterprise went to work, and sunk their shaft, and while they were doing that a number of lazy fellow; stood round day after day holding their claims, and doing nothing until they discovered whether the others struck gold ; if they did, they went to work; if not, they abandoned the field. It was very much the same with the owner." of land who did not improve, but held on year after year in the expectation of growing rich by doing nothing at all. He thought it was high time that. those people were made to pay their fair share of taxation, and he was glad that the Bill provided to a certain extent for making them pay it. He should cordially support the Bill.

The HoN. A. C. GREGORY said the hon. gentleman said that under the amendment the person who did not improve his land escaped taxation. Now, under the existing law the un­improved values were jus~ as highly taxed as the improYements. He would give an illustration: He had a property in a certain street in Bris­bane. On half of it he had built a house costing £1,000, and on the other half an office costing £200, and the mnnicipal rates on the two halves were exactly alike. That showed that the unim­proved property was mnch more highly taxed than the improved property. He could give another illustration : A property that he knew of had five tenements erected on it, and paid a cer­tain sum, and the next allotment, which was not nearly as good, was taxed at a far higher rate. Therefore the hon. gentleman's argument fell to the ground, because a practical illustration of the working of the law was far better than any theoretical illustration. The divisional boards would be in exactly the same position if the Bill was passed as it stood as if the amendment was agreed to, the only question

Valuation anrl Eating Bill. [11 NoVEMBER.] iTaluation and Rating Bitl. 187

being an adjustment of the maximum amount that might be levied. It was proposed to double the rating power, and he thought that unreason­able in the present condition of the colony. At any rate, by retaining the existing law they re­tained the machinery which had enabled local authoritiestorateunimprovedland at a higher rate than improved land. Improved land could only be rated at two-thirds of the annual rent, while unimproved land could be rated up to 10 per cent. He certainly thought on the whole that it would be better to continue the existing law rather than adopt an untried system.

The HoN. A. H. WILSON said he would like the Chairman's ruling as to whether the Bill was a money Bill or not. He was in doubt, l'LS he was sure many other hon. members were. If it was the fiscal policy of the Government, they · had a perfect right to alter and amend it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Certainly not.

The HoN. A. H. WILSON said he thought they had, and he thought the Hon. Mr. Thynne spoke truly when he s:tid there was no great hurry for the Bill. It might be left over for twelve months, so as to allow the country to consider it. However, if it was a money Bill, he considered they had no right to amend it ; not because of the reply received from the Privy Council, becausi) he considered that was obtained in a way that was hardly fair.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No. The HoN. A. H. WILSON: That was his

opinion ; but leaving that out of the question, he thought if it was a money Bill they should not alter it in Committee, because they had a perfect right to throw it out on the second reading. He felt very diffident about giving his vote until he obtained the Chairman's ruling.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said he thought they ought to dispose of the Bill without again bringing up the constitutional question. So far, that matter had been settled, because two amend­ments had been passed, and it would simply delay the progress of business to enter into further discussion on the constitutional ques­tion. He had given a complete answer to that by pointing out that the House of Lords amended the Local Government Act of 1885, and the amendments were accepted. He took it that it was the wish of the House that they should exercise their own judgment, and if the constitutional question was ever raised it would be time enough to deal with it. The Hon. Mr. Moreton had referred to several pastoral divisional boards, but he would point out that in the case of boards of that character, the Bill practically made no alteration as regarded the form of rating. Two very different forms of argument were applicable to pastoral districts, and those districts which comprised town and suburban land.

The HoN. A. H. WILSON said a hint had been thrown out by the Solicitor-General that the Bill contained the fiscal policy of the Go­vernment, and that the Bill would not he allowed to be interfered with. He should like the country to know whether they were dis­cussing a money Bill or not. It was all over the country that the Council were altering a money Bill, and had no right t<J do any such thing. He should like to have a ruling on that particular point. It could do no harm, and it was well that they should know whether the Government regarded it as a money Bill, or merely as the fiscal policy of the Government.

The HoN. F. T. BRENTNALL said suppos­ing the statements, and the inference to he de­ducted from the statements of the Hon. A. B.

Wilson were correct, were they to understand that even although the Bill was recognised as a money Bill the Council was not competent to discuss it, and were debarred from expressing an opinion on it? The hon. gentleman wished for the ruling of the Chairman as to whether it was competent for them to discuss the Bill. ·whether they could amend it or not, it was their absolute duty to discuss it. But he would not enter on the question whether they had a right; to amend the Bill. If no such -right existed he regretted it very much. It had been inti­mated that it was their duty to accept the Bill because it had come from another place after deliberate consideration, and he might add after deliberate amendment in another place. Had it come to this, that they must pass the Bill without expressing an opinion on it or letting the country know what their intelligent convictions were on such an important subject? There were some of them who had been held hack, perh<>ps, by considerations which ought not probably to in­fluence them when it came to the consideration of a critical question at a critical time. He felt something like that himself. He had felt that loyalty to the supporters of the political party he had been associated with restrained him from speaking as freely as he might otherwise have done ; but it had been intimated to them on a previous occasion that it was their duty to act sincerely, and not from any party motive, and it was his intention, so strong were his convic­tions upon the unfairness and injustice of the measure, to act sincerely and honestly, and out of his own convictions, without any regard to party­ism whatever. He was not going to admit that it was properforthatChamber to allow a bill of that character to pass, simply because it came to them from another Chamber. He believed that taking that Chamber man for man, there was quite as much intelligence in it as there was in the other Chamber. He believed that the majority of members of that Chamber were as much in touch with loc.al government business as any equal number of members of another place. He had himself had "onsiderable experience of local government for some time past, and was therefore competent to form some opinion on such a measure. The measnre not only affected his relations to a local govern­ing body, but very materially affected his position and his obligations as a ratepayer within the area governed by that local authority. He was pleased to hear the Hon. Mr. Moreton admit that it was a land tax, and, he thought, a land tax in disguise. That was hi• opinion of it. The legislature rejected the land tax three years ago, and they had rejected the property tax more recently ; and now they were expected, as a matter of course, to adopt that mea~ure, which was a land tax in another form. The present proposal would be found he thought more severe and oppressive and invidious than either; and he would ask hon. members to consider it in all its applications as to the permanent welfare of the colony. A great dPal had been said about improvements, and it had been recognised by all that there should be no check upon enterprise; bnt he had noticed that whenever a man who owned an allotment built a cottage costingeither£50 or£100, or £150 he clamoured at once for a road. It was the erection of improvements that necessitated the outlay of municipal money, because if the land were lying dormant there would be no necessity for the improvements. Improvements were not regulated by taxation ; they were regulated by the necessities of business or residence. If a man found it desirable to improve his property by the erection of buildings, he had not hitherto sat down and calculated what would be the amount of the taxation, but whether the buildings were necessary for his own

188 Valuation and Rating Bill. [COUNCIL.] Valuation and Ratin!J Bizt.

convenience or profit. It would be a great mis­fortune to the colony if it came to be recognised that it was a crime agaimt the interests of society for a man to invest his money in a piece of land. That, however, seemed to be the ten­dency of some of the arguments that had been used in support of the clause. It had also been stated that the Hon. Mr. Gregory had proposed to extract the vital principle from the Bill. But hon. gentlemen who had stated that could hardly have ·read the Bill as it was introduced into the Legislative Assembly. The amend­ment was simply giving back the vital principle to the Bill as it was first introduced. He maintained that was so to the extent of three-fourths of its extent. They were simply dealing with the amendments that had been made in another branch of the legislature, with which their judgment was at variance, and it conld be no improper use of the functions of that Com­mittee to bring back the Bill to something like the shape in which it was first introduced into the legislature. What was the necessity for a measure of that kind? Everybody admitted that something had to be done ; but he did not think the measure before them was the best remedy for the pre~ent state of affairs, The quality of true statesmanship was to provide an im­mediate remedy which would not be a per­manent injury. He should not have ventured to express an opinion upon the matter were he not convinced that the tendency of the impetuous legislation in which they were indulging would be to the permanent injury of the colony. The remedy they should seek should be one that would not victimise any particular class. But whatever retarded progress, or prevented people from investing money in real property, was not conducive to the best interests of the colony. They had been told that the Bill should be passed, bec<mse it was part of the financial policy of the Government, but he thought its operation would be disastrous. His own impression was that that hasty legislation in which Parliament had been indulging during thalast four or five weeks, had a tendency to retard the progress of the colony by discouraging commercial enterprise, and the investment of money in the colony in real property. 'l'hey all knew that something had to be done, and the man with the least resources would jump at the first and easiest remedy. It required no in­genuity, but only some audacity, for a young spendthrift to pay his debts by drafts upon rich; patient, and indulgent relations, and that seemed to be something like what the Government were proposing to do. They were making heavy drafts upon that portion of the community which was supposed to be the wealthiest. He also objected to the Bill on the ground that it was unjust at a time like that to ease off any section of the community from its liabilities, in order to place the responsibility upon another section of the community. In any cl'tse it was a direct blow at economy and frugality, and he was not yet sufficiently advanced in modern political economy to have come round to the opinion, that for a man to practise economy, be frugal, take care of his shillings and pence, so that he might invest his savings in a little bit of land-even if he might have to wait patiently for the unearned incre­ment-·was committing a crhne against society. Such legislation was a slap in the face to any enterprise. They were not supposed, in that Council, to discuss money m"tters, and therefore he must not presume to make any suggestions <ts to what would be the best method of meeting the present difficulties, but there was a conviction in the minds of many persons that there were other means of helping the country at present, that would fall much more lightly upon the

community, and have a less ill-effect upon the future welfare of the colony than the legislation which was now being proposed. They h"d been asked in all sincerity to consider the Government proposals in regard to the financial policy which was to pull the country out of the quagmire into which it had unfortunately been run ; but he thought it ought never to have been run into it. He thought that judicious administration, with a due regard to the rela­tions between income and expenditure, during the past seven years, would have !'Voided the difficulty in which the country was at present. Although he was prepared to go as far as they had gone, and a little farther, with the Go­vernment in their financial policy, he did not agree with that policy in some of its details, and he could not agree with the power it was pro[>Osed to give to the local authorities to oppress some classes of the ratepayers. \V ere they not legislating, to some extent, under the influence of a Treasury panic? He thought they were, and if they were legislating in a panic, and the legislation now before that Chamber was not absolutely necessitous, there was something in the arguments, to which objection had been t"ken, that the Bill might stand over for another twelve months, in order that they might see whether, by a revival of trade, such drastic legis­lation would not be rendered unnecessary. The Hon. Mr. Gregory said that he did not wish to deprive divisional boards of an increase iu their rating power, and he thought that, seeing that the endowment was to cease, it was absolutely necessary that local authorities should have some increased power ; still it was not necessary that they should have an oppressive power. It was not necessary that they should have the power to render property, in some cases, not worth hold­ing, and that would really be the effect of the Bill. He was pleased to hear the Hon .. Mr. Thynne refer to the opinions of some modern theorists, which seemed to be influencing legislation in this colony. Why should the intelligent capable statesmen, some of whom there undoubtedly were in the colony, bend before the breeze of any modern opinions, simply because they were new opinions? Let them think for themselves, and not draw insidiously into their legislation the opinions of any charlatan who might develop novel opinions in regard to land taxation. There was a danger of their doing that. Then it had been said that the extreme power of rating proposed to be given to local authorities was not likely to be exercised, and it had been urged that if the local authorities did inflict any in­tolerable burden upon the ratepayers, the latter could have their remedy nt the general elections. But it did not require very much consideration to perceive the fallacy of those arguments, and the legislation needing such excuses was not highly creditable to intelligent legislators. To clothe local authorities with powers which it was hoped they would never exercise, was a perver­sion of common sense, and an outrage on pru­dence. It had been admitted that the 3d. rate was oppressive, and why should they give local authorities power to oppress to that extent ? He insisted that there had been no demand for that increased power. If it were necessary for the Treasury to be served to the extent of the abolition of all endowments after next year, let the Treasury be so served, and let the local bodies stand upon their own legs, and do their own work with their own money. Let them learn to spend their money in proportion to the income. He thought they had hitherto been too much coddled and encouraged in the ex­penditure of money for the benefit of posterity, and for which the present generation had to pay; that was an unjust principle. The longest period for repayment of any loan was thirty years,

Valuation and Rating Bill. [11 NovEMBER.] Prisons Bill. 189

It had been proposed to extend the time for the repayment of other loans from fourteen to twenty-one years, and from five years to ten years, all within the average term of one generation, and he did not see why the pre­sent generation should have to make the roads in the districts throughout the colony perfectly passable so that posterity should have the bene­fit. He thought it was extremely likely that the power proposed to be given would be used, and the Bill was really offering inducements to people to lay themselves out to nse those powers. It had been suggested that the im­propriety of conferring this power upon local authorities might be condoned bv the proba­bility that they would not use that power; that they might be trusted not to use it, or if they did use it they would be punished at the first opportunity. He was not sure that it would not be used, or, if used, that it would be punished, and that argument could hardly be the conviction of the hon. gentleman who U8ed it. There were some temptations to use that power. At the first blush he was disposed to feel strongly inclined to the simple proposition in the amended Bill than to the more complex character of the present Yctluation clause ; but, on reflection, he was disposed to think that it wonld be sufficient and more judicious to let things remain as they were for the present, and not, under the condition of serious difficnlties interfere with these matters, when there had been no demand for such inter­ference. They might give increased rating power if they pleased, but they should not alter the basis of valuation. He had said before that the clause would act invidiously, and in some cases disastrously, and he maintained that that would be the case. He had heard numbers of people making complaints about the prospective burdens that the Bill would lay upon them. One gentleman brought him his valuation papers for the last five years; fir,t, under the south ward oft he Brisbane munici­pality, and latterly under the South Brisbane Municipal Council. His rates had risen during that time from £2 13s. 4d. to £1113s. 4d., and if they gave the South Brisbane Municipal Council power to rate up to 3d. in the £1-and he wo•1ld not trust them not to rate up to the full extent of their power, because they had shown a dis­position to indulge so largely in making improve­ments that they would spend all the money they could possibly get, wherever it came from-that man's rates would be increased to £21 13s. 4d. In that way they would be making the posses­sion of property a sort of social crime. But take the case of a piece of city property worth £50,000, and let at a rent giving 5 per cent. per annum. Eight per cent. upon the capital value of that would be £4,000, and the annual rate, at ls. in the £1, would be £200, but rated at 3d. in the £1, the annual rate would be £625, and by special rates amounting to £312 10s. the income of the owner of that property would be reduced to about 3 per cent., that was, if the property was subject to no encumbrance; but supposing it wa; mortgaged up to half its value at 6 per cent., which was not an unreasonable percentage, the owner would then have, out of his £50,000 worth of property, only the sum of £62 10s. to live upon were it not that the exemption of improvements f~om rating would increase his credit balance. That would be the effect of that increased power of rating, and he did not think that that would encourage people to inve'lt in property; it would have directly the contrary effect. He objected to the increased power of rating, because it was un­necessary and unfair, and impolitic to confer such powers upon local authorities, when it was urgently hoped that the persons entrusted with those powers would never use them. He felt very strongly upon the subject, and he would rather see the Bill defeated, even if it was an integral part of

what was called the financial policy of the Government, than see the country inflicted with such burdens as the measure proposed to inflict.

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

CoxTENTS, 9. Hon. Sir A. H. Palmer, and the Hons. W. H. Wilson,

T. J. Byrnes, B. B. moreton, J. Swan, W. F. Taylor, 0. F. Marks, J. T. Smith, and J. 0. Smyth.

NoT-CON'l'E~'l'S, 19.

The Hons. A. J. Thynne, A. 0. Grcgory, J. F. 31cDouga!l, T. J\Iacdonald-Paterson, H. C. Wood, F. Clewett, \V. Perry, J. S. rrurner, A. Raff, P. ::U:acphersm1, J. Cowlishaw, E. B. Forrest, J. D. )facansh, F. H. Hart, W. Aplin, J. Deane, "\V. D. Box, I~. lJ.\ Brentnall, and A. H. Wilson.

Question resolved in the negative. Question-That the words proposed to be in­

serted be so inserted-put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. The Ho~. W. H. WILSON said that after

the division which had just taken place, no doubt the hon. gentleman who had moved the amendment would like to propose certain con­sequential amendments, and as those amend­ment8 had better be in print and placed in the hands of hem. gentlemen, he moved that the Chairman leave the chair, report progress, and ask le11ve to sit again.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said the hon. gentleman was putting too much upon the Hon. Mr. Gregory. The Hon. Mr. Wilson was in charge of the Bill, and the Committee having amended one portion of the Bill it was the duty of the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill to make the necec,sary amendments to carry out the wish of the Committee. It was not quite the function of the hon. gentleman to throw the responsibility of the Bill upoa the shoulders of a private member, and he trusted the representa­tives of the Government would take the necessary steps to model the Bill in accordance with the wishes of the Committee.

The HoN. W. H. WILSON said the Hon. Mr. Gregory had intimated that it would be neces­sary that certain consequential amendments should be proposed, and, of course, they expected him to move them. He (Hon. Mr. \Vilson) cer­tainly could not think of doing so.

The HoN. F. T. BRENTNALL said the repre­sentatives of the Government 8hould proceed with the Bill, and the consequential amendments would follow as a matter of course. Thev would be moved, no duubt, by the Hon. Mr. Gregory, who had moved the amendment which had been carried, and then they would be printed and the Bill would be so much further on in its progress through the Chamber. They had better proceed with the Bill.

Question put and passed. The Hon8e resumed ; the CHAIRllfA~ reported

progress, and the Committee obtained leave to sit again to-morrow.

PRISONS BILL. FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN C01IllfiTTEE OF THE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY'S AiiiEND~!ENTS. On this Order of the Day being read, the House

went into committee for the purpose of further considering the Legisl:ttive Assembly's amend­ments.

On clause 14-" Regulations "-in which the Legislative Assembly had moved the insertion of the following new paragraph :-

"The comptroller-genm·al may, with the approval of the ::\1inister, make rules for the internal manage~ ment of any prison with respect to any matters not provided for in the regulations."

190 Priaona Bill. [COUNCIL.] Prisons Bill.

~he SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the pre­cedmg. part of the clause gave the Governor in Counml power to make rules and regulations whilst that paragraph gave the comptroller: general power to make rules on matters of minor importance by regulations subject to the approval of the Minister. At first sight it appeared to clash with the remaindet· of the cl a use but in reality it did not. The Hon. Mr. Thynn'e would bear him out when he said that many things came before the Governor in Council which should not. He had had to approve of a set of rules with regard to bathing at Townsville, where a bathing-house had been erected on a pub~ic reserve, and by-laws had been framed With regard to decency in bathiJ:!g, and so on. They had to be sent down to Bnsbane for the approval of the Minister from whom they were sent to the Cabinet, and then they had to receive the sanction of the Governor in Council. In small matters of that sort it would be better to have some sup­plementary powers by which the comptroller­general, or some recognised official, could make rules and regulations dealing with minor matters and submit them for the approval of the Ministe~ in charge of the prisons. He therefore begged to move that the Legislative Assembly's amend­ment be agreed to.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said on looking at the amendment he did not think there was very much either of good or harm in it. At first he had been apprehensive of harm resulting, and that wa,s why he had wished the clause to stand over for further consideration; but he saw that the present regulations would remain in force until they were repealed, so that practically the comptroller-general would be greatly restricted, and therefore he would not oppose the amend­ment.

Amendment agreed to. On Legislative Assembly's amendment in

clause 22, line 30, omitting "may," and inserting "shall"-

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that made it compulsory on the comptroller-general to hear complaints, and did not leave it to his discretion. He moved that the amendment be agreed to,

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said when the Bill was going through the House a year or two ago, a great deal of discussion took place on that clau~e. The Hon. the President drew attention to the duty of the inspecting officer, which com­pelled him to hear complaints of pri§oners. He was af~aid the alteration would give opportunity to troublesome prisoners to impose an immense amount of labour on the comptroller-general.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he thought it ought to be incumbent on the comptroller­general to hear complaints from prisoners. If time did not permit him hearing them on one d:>:y, he could adjourn the inquiry until next VISit,

The HoN. A. ,J, 'I'HYNNE said the next section provided that the comptroller should " on every occasion hear all compbints." That was e. duty which he could not possibly perform.

The HoN. A. C. GREGORY said his own experience was that the alteration would impose duties on the comptroller which he could not perform.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said he thought they had better insist on the clause as it origin­ally stood.

Amendment put and nersatived. On Legislative Assembly's amendment in

clause 24, lines 46 and 47, omitting "comp­troller- general subject to the approval of the Minister," and inserting "Governor in Council"-

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved that the amendment be agreed to. He thought it would commend itself to hon. gentlemen. The Governor in Council ought to exercise patronage in the way of appointing prison officers, and not thP comptroller-general.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said the clause as it originally stood was very much better. It gave the comptroller-general power within the regu­lations to select officers, and it would be better if he had that power, so long as there were satis­factory regulations laid down for his guidance. He thought it a pity that the change had been made.

The HoN. F. T. BRENTNALL said it was more in harmony with the legislation which had taken place during the last few years in the appointment of Boards of Commissioners for the control of the Civil Service and the Railway Department to put the power in the hands of the corn ptroller-general.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said one of the subsections of clause 14 gave the Governor in Council power to make regulations for the selec­tion, appointment, promotion, punishment, and dismissal of officers. That paragraph was quite unnecessary if it was to be left to the Governor in Council to make the appointments.

The•SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he must press his motion, because, as the Hon. Mr. Brentnall had pointed out, he had taken from the hands of Ministers the appointment of offi­cials, and prison officials were specially exempted from the operation of the Civil Service Act. The Civil Service Board were chosen for their fitness to select officers, but the comptroller­general was not chosen for that purpose. He saw no reason why that official should have the patronage in his hands.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said appoint­ments made by the Governor in Council could only be made at stated intervals. Suppose the day after an Executive Council meeting had taken place the superintendent of a gaol died, what would become of the gaol?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The appoint­ment could be made by a flying Cabinet.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said while the necessary steps were being taken the gaol might be thrown into a state of confusion.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The appoint­ments made by the comptroller-general, even as the Bill passed that House, were subject to the approval of the Minister. What more diffi­culty was there in getting the approval of three Ministers than of one ?

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said the appoint­ments should be made by the comptroller­general in the first instance, subject to approval, which could afterwards be obtained. The Go­vernment should not run the risk of making such a change. -

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there was no change at all, because the way in which those officers were appointed now was the way pro­posed by the Bill as amended. He thought it would be a very improper thing to allow a subordinate official like the comptroller-general to appoint officers.

Amendment agreed to. Assembly's amendments in clause 24, lines 49

and 50, and in clause 27, lines 15 and 21, agreed to.

On Legislative Assembly's amendment in clause 27, line 21, omitting "or Minister-"

The HoN. P. MACPHERSON said he would like to know why the words had been struck out, It seemed to him that the comptroller•

Prisons Bill. [11 NOVEMBER.] Prisons Bill. 191

general mip:ht not be in the way, and it would be necesF<ary for the visiting justice to report to the Minister direct.

The SOLICITOR- GENERAL said the comptroller-general was the medium of com­m\m!cation between the visiting justice and the Jl.hmster. The object of striking out the words was to ~ake the visiting justice report to the person w1th whom he was immediately in contact.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said there was along discussion on that clause, and thesenseoftheHouse was that it was desirable that the visitin~ justice should have freedom if he thought p~oper to repor~ direct to the Minister. To fulfil his funct1ons properly the visiting justice should not be regarded as an official under the control of the comptroller-general. Ordinarily his cor­respondence would go to the Minister through the comptroller-general, but he should not be a subordinate of the comptroller-general. He should see that the prisoners were fairly treated. and his <;~uty was to report on the comptroller: general JUSt as much as on the conduct of a ;~arde~ .. He ,~bought, therefore, that the words,

or Munster sl:iould remain in the Bill. The SOLICITOR-GE:NERAL said he would

not press the amendment. Amendment put and negatived. The amendment in clause 27, line 24 was put

and negatived. ' The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved that

!he a~endment of the Legislative Assembly, the msertw_n of the following subsection in place of subsectwn 9, clause 24, be agreed to :-

.'' ~Ie shall fro :m time to time 1nake such reports to the ~1n1st~r as may be required by the Governor in Council, Including a return of all punishments inflicted bv his order and by the order of the superintendent sincE: the :preceding report."

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said he was sorry the Hon. vV. F. Taylor was not present, because the matter dealt with had been discussed by him when the Bill was before them on a former occa­sion. The idea was apparently to drop the monthly reports, and substitute a general report which might never he made, or might be so mad~ as to be of very little use. The other system was bett~r, even if the visitit:g justices did repeat a cry tor necessary alteratwns and improvements with tiresome repetition, which was better than co?'1Plete silence upon the subject. Some of those pr1so?~ would have been in a very much better cond1tror: had the visiting justices been required to. send m repo~ts every month. He did not thmk the alteratwn was an improvement but he should take the sense of the Committee ~pon the subject.

The HoN. B. B. MORETON said he rather agreed with the Hon. Mr. Thynne, that the clause that left the Council was better than the one that was sent back. It was far better to have it distinctly stated what the report should consist of.

The HoN .. T. MACDONALD-PATERSON said he agreed with the observations of the two previous speakers. He thought the Governor in Council would instruct the Under Secretary or !he clerk to copy out what was provided for m the clause they proposed to omit. He was in favour of the retention of subsection 9 o-iving the Governor in Council power to ask f~; such further information as he might require which was provided for in line 57. '

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he would not press the matter. It would be better that what the visiting justice should report upon should be stated in detail.

Question put and passed.

On the motion of the SOLICITOR­GENERAL, the Legislative Assembly's amend­ments in clauses 28, lines 46 to 50, and 53 and 54, were agreed to.

On the motion of the SOLICITOR­GENERAL, the Legislative Assembly's amend­ments in clause 29 (the omission of subsections 1, 2, and 3), and the amendments in lines 9 and 14, were agreed tn.

The SOLIOITOR-G ENERAL moved that the amendment in lines 15 and 1G, in which the Legislative Assembly had moved the omission of the words "with or without irons," be agreed to.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said he did not wish to advocate the use of irons unnecessarily; but he would like to know whether the super­intendent was given powers for self-protection in the case of mutiny ? In clause 28 power was given to the superintendent to inflict punishment for minor offences, but in major offences a prisoner taking part in a mutiny was not liable to any punishment until he was formally convicted by justices. He would ask the Solicitor-General whether that was a proper position to leave the superintendent in? He had no power to put men in irons, or to take any steps to protect himself and the officers, as well as the buildings, from mutinous prisoners. He would like the hon. gentleman to say if sufficient caution had been taken to provide for the neces­sary power of the superintendent. The matter might have been overlooked.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the first subsection in clause 28 gave the superintendent power to deal summarily with any prisoner dis­obeying orders. He should say that it woald be almcst an inherent power in the superintendent to arrest prisoners in case of a mutiny, and keep them in a cPrtain part of the gaol11ntil they could be tried by the visiting justice. He could not think of any special clause in the Bill dealing with the question except clause 28.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said that if the superintendent intended to treat a mutinous prisoner under clause 28 he would escape punish­ment under clause 30, because he could not be punished twice for the same offence. He would suggest that the hon. gentleman should postpone that amendment, so that they might have an opportunity of looking more closely into the matter.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said so far as he could see, the clause prevented the superin­tendent adjudicating in those cases. The diffi­culty, as he understood the hon. gentleman, was that no power was given to the superintendent to deal with a mutinous prisoner or a prisoner otherwise misconducting himself pending his trial by justices. He could not see any specific power provided in the Bill, unle'''' it came within the general power of a superintendent to arrest any man who misbehaved, and keep him in prison pending inquiry.

The HoN. P. MACPHERSON said there had been a clause dealing with the subject, but it h"d been struck out by the Assembly.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the hon. gentleman was mistaken. The Acsembly had not struck out the clause he referred to, but had transported it bodily into clause 28.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said he w.ould suggest that the hon. gentleman should postpone the consideration of that clause, as they might deal with the question in clause 31 by omitting the word "minor" in the 42nd line, or they might insert a new clause if they had time to consider the matter.

On the motion of the SOLICITOR­GENERAL, the clause was postponed.

192 .Acclimatisation Society ana [COUNCIL.] National Association Bill.

On the motion of the f'lOLICITOR­GENERAL, clause 30 was also postponed.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved that the Assembly's amendment in clause 31 be agreed to. Visiting justices had power to sentence prisoners, and so had two or more justices, of whom a police magistrate should be one. As the section had stood, it might be taken to mean that only sentences imposed by justices should be cumulative, and that the sentences proposed by the visiting justice should not be cumulative, and the Assembly's amendment made it clear.

Amendment agreed to. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he did

not intend to proceed further with the Bill that evening, as there were some Bills he wished to be read a second time, and therefore he moved that the Chairman leave the chair, report further progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Question put and passed. The House resumed; the CHAIRMAN reported

further progre~s, and on the motion of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, the Committee ob­tained leave to sit again to-morrow.

ACCLIMATISATION SOCIETY AND NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION BILL.

SECOND READING. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said: Hon.

gentlemen,-This is a Bill intended to deal with the dispute, if I may call it so, of long standing between two of our public bodies. The facts of the case are bmiliar to all. Both the Acclima­tisation Society and the National Association have done good work in the past, and I hope they will do so in the future. This ques­tion relates to the tenure of the land on which the operations of those two bodie3 are carried on. With regard to the Acclimatisation Society, the recital of the Bill shows that they had a deed of grant issued to them of two portions of land. It appears that one portion they subsequently leased to theN atiunal Association. The National Association desire to have the fee-simple of the land vested in them, and hon. gentlemen can well understand that desire. They have incurred great expense; they have become a large body, and we know they desire to erect substantial buildings suit­able for their purposes. Before they do that it is necessary that they should have the title to the land vested in them. Now, the suuject of this Bill has been for a long time under public dis­cussion, and came before Parliament last session. The late Government introduced a Bill for the purpose of dealing with the question, but owing to the dispute between the two bodie~ the Bill was dropped. I think we may say that a compromise has been arrived at. There are gentlemen in this Chamber, as there were in the other Chamber, who object to a Bill of this sort, not on account of what is contained in it, but on account of the principle involved in it. There is no doubt in this case Parliament is dealing with a grant to a public b:Jdy. They are dealing with the grant to the Acclimatisation Society, but hon. gentlemen will see that in this case they are dealing with that grant in a way that is fair and equitable to all parties concerned. The long recital sets out the history of the case as it stands to-day, and this Bill proposes a remedy. The remedy suggested first of all is that there is to be a surrender to the Crown of the land concerned ; secondly, that there is to be a surrender of the lease which certain persons hold in trust for the association ; then upon that surrender of the land and lease new deeds are to issue, one to the Acclimatisa­tion Society, and the other to the National Asso­c~ation ; but the deed of the Exhibition lands

will not issue to the trustees free of charge. It will be subject to a rent charge of £750 per annum for a period of twenty years, in favour of the Acclimatisation Society. That was thought to be only reasonable compensation to the society, because they had been in receipt of an income from the asE.ociation for a long time past. Instead of the present arrangement under which the society derives so much from the association and so much from the Government, they are now to get a rent charge of .£750 on the land, the whole sum to be paid by the association. That is a compromise that seems to be satisfactory to all persons. The other clauses of the Bill are merely subsidiary. The time of payment of the rent-charge is provided for in clause 4, and clause 5 provides for the registration of the rent-charge. It gives the society all the rights of a registered mortgage.

The HoN. P. 1\fACPHERSON: Not quite.

The SOLICITOR -GENERAL : Almost, except that they have not power to sell the land in case the association make default. The next section deals with the powers given to the trustees of the Exhibition grounds to raise money by way of mortgage. They want to erect a substantial building and other neces­sary improvements and ihe money is to be bor­rowed from the Government on the security of a mortgage to the Colonial Treasurer. The other sections hardly call for any comment at all. They provide for the terms of the mortgage, and the last section provides for the particular pur­pose that the money is to be borrowed for. On the whole, I submit that this Bill will commend itself to the House. I know there are some hon. gentlemen who will protest against such a measure, and I for one think that their protest is entitled to a great deal of respect, but I think the House will agree with me that a fair compromise has beE'n arrived at under the circumstances. Each society gets the land on which it is at present operating, and the Accli­matisation Society practically derives as much revenue as it would otherwise. I hope they will both conduct their operations successfully, as they have done in the past. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

The HoN. P. MACPHERSON said: Hon. gentlemen,-I would like to point out with reference to clause 5 of this Bill that there is a proviso to this effect :-

"Provided that such new deed of grant of the Ex­hibition lands shall not be issued until payment by the association to the society of all moneys which shall have accrued due in repect of the said lease up to the thirtieth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety : And provided further that the Exhibition lands shall be subject to an annual rent-charge in favour of the society, to the amount of seven hundr-ed and fifty pounds per annum for twenty years, from the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and ninety, to the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and ten."

Now, this twenty years rent-charge represents the capital value of the Exhibition lands, and there is nothing in this Bill to declare the trust of that money. How is it to be spent? Is the Acclimatisation Society to be at liberty to spend that £750 every year? It certainly could not deal with the land in that way. I think there ought to be some provision that a portion of the money should be capitalised and held in trust for the Acclimatisation Society, because I do not see that the Acclimatisation Society answers to the fullest extent, as conducted now, the objects of the trust. Acclimatisation means the accli­matisation of animals as well as fruits, and I am not aware that they acclimatise animals.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They acclima­tised llamas,

Tramways Act of 1882 [11 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 193

The HoN. P. MACPHERSON: As regards the acclimatisation of fruits, this society is very little better than a botanical gardens, although I give the officers who have charge of the work every credit for the manner in which they manage it. I say that most Rincerely. In fact, it is wonderful what thev have done with the barren piece of land they "got from the Govern­ment. I think there ought to be something in the Bill declaring the trust of this money.

The HoN. F. CLEWETT said: Hon. gentle­men,-There is a clause in this Bill providing that the money shall be bnrrowed from the con­solidated revenue of the colony for the National Association, presumably in the same m11nner in which money is lent to local governing bodies; but when local governing bodies borrow money for public works they have to produce plans of the work, and submit them f<)r the approval of the Government. I do not see anything in this Bill providing for that in this case.

The HoN. J. T. SMI'l'H said:· Hon. gentle­men,-As one of the original subscribers to the Acclimatisation Society, I am very glad that this Bill has been brought in at last. It seems to me that the objects of both these institutions are objects which ought to be conserved and ad· vanced as much as possible. Both of them are doing extremely good work. The Acclimatisation Society is rather more than a botanical gardens, because it distributes plants and seeds from other countries of the world, and many articles which are admirably adapted for our use. The National Association has really reached such an acme of perfection that it deserves every con­sideration which this Bill affords to it. There is no question that it was labouring under very great disadvantages in consequence of not being able to procure the money necessary to advance its interests, and I know colonists generally are looking forward to the efforts which the National Association are about to make in order to make its objects more manifest than they have been up to the present time. It would be a great ad vant"ge to see these objects sustained in the manner in which they are intended, as people come from the ends of the colony, so to speak, to reap the advantages which are offered. I am glad the Bill has been intro­lluced.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said : Hon. gentle­men,-! did not intend at first to say anything upon this Bill. !think in theN ational A ,ssociation we have an institution which does most satis­factory work indeed, and which is to ,ome extent carrying out the functions of the Accli­matisation Society in the acclimatisation of useful animals. Year after year in the National Association shows we have samples of the best breeds of animal&, which are really most useful. A• was pointed out by the Hon. Mr. Macpherson, we are really now making a divi~ion between the two societies, one dealing with the botanical sec­tion, and the other dealing with the acclimati,a­tion of useful animals. I trust the Bill will pass.

Question put and passed. On the motion of the SOLICITOR­

GENERAL, the committal of the Bill was made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

TRAMWAYS ACT OF 1882 AMENDMENT BILL.

SECOND READING.

The SOLICI'rOR-GENERAL said : Hon. gentlemen,-Since the Tramways Act of 1882 was passed, there has been considerable improve­ment in the mode of tram traction all over the world, and there is a desire to apply some of these new methods to Brisbane and other towns

1890-o

in the colony of Queensland. In order that the companies may have the necessary facilities for so doing, it has been found that the old Tramways Act is hardly workable, and certain amendments will have to be made. In clause 2 it is provided that the council shall not include a joint local authority within the meaning of the Local Authorities (Joint Action) Act of 1886, which deals with a class of bodiE·s that have come into vogue since the Tramways Act was passed. There may be cases in which there is a dual authority exercised by the joint local board, and by the council within a certain area, and it has been thought necessary to define their different powees in order that there may be no friction between them. Then there is a proviso to the clause, which is as follows:-

H Provided that, whenever the district of a joint local authority constituted for the purpose of regulating the traffic within such district comprises the whole of the area in which a tramway of a company has been con­strncted, Huch joint local authority shall for the purposes of the fifty-fourth section of the principal Act be deemed to be the council."

The 54th section of the principal Act is that under which the council was authorised to make by-laws regulating the speed at which trams are to be driven along a street, and the amendment provides that joint local authorities are not to come under the definition of the word "council" except where the whole of the tramway is in the diBtrict of one local authority. Hon. gentlemen will see that this is a fair thing. Clause 3 is one that protects the public:- '

" \fhen a company obtains the concurrence of the conncil in the use of electric force transmitted by wires or cords as a motive power up:m the tramway, it shall be lawful for the company to erect and mainta,in in any street, along or acro~s which the tramway is authorised to be laid, such posts or pillars, of 'vood, iron, or other matr rial, as may be necessary for supporting the wires or cord::; tP·ad for transmitting the electric force, and to plal:e, suspend, and m:-tintain su;;,pended therefrom such wil·es or cords as may be nec\'8-Sary for transmitting such force." That is a power that they should have if they whh to go in for electricity as a motive power. Of course authority must be given them to erect posts along the street, otherwise they would be liable to be dealt with as an obstruction at the suit of any ratepayer. Then there is the pro­viso:-

"Provided that the pok·s or pillars shall be of such height and dimensions and at such distances from one another, and the 'vires or cords shall be kept at such a heig·ht above the surface of the earth. and the company shall observe such precautions to avoid the falling of any such wire or cord, and to secure the effectual insulation thereof, as the Governor in Council may from time to time prescribe."

In regard to clause 3, I will refer hon. members to clause 53 of the principal Act, which pre­scribes that the cars of the company shall be drawn by horses, or, with the concurrence of the council, by steam or other motive power. So that the principal Act gives them power to change the motive power, but it does not give the company pow,er to make any alterations that may be required in the road way before that change can be effected. Clause 5 deals par­ticularly with companie' which are already in operittion, and which decire to change their mode of traction. 1I nder the principal Act, before a company begins operations at all, it is neces,;ary that it must deposit a plan with the Minister, and in&ert certain advertisements, and so on, in order that the public may have full information that the tramway company intends to ask for power to construct tramways. If the company wishes to change its mode of traction now, they will be put to a considerable amount of expense in having to advertise and go through all the other preliminaries that the principal Act renders necessary before they can

194 Tramways Act r.if 1882 [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bill.

start operations, and it is intended by the clause that in cases where the mode of traction is to be altered, all those preliminary matters should be dispensed with. When a company has obtained the concurrence of the council it need not comply with the conditions prescribed by Part II. of the principal Act. vVith regard to clause 6, it requires very little comment. \Vhen a company is making alterations it is empowered to construct and maintain temporary lines. For example, loop lines may be required, and this clause gives a company power to make temporary lines whilst effecting alterations in its main lines. In reference to clause 7, I refer hon. gentle­men to clauses 41 and 42 in the principal Act. By those sections a hardship was im­posed upon the tramway companies, and a burden was imposed upon them that was not imposed on anyone else. If the levels of the streets had to be altered, a tramway company, under the principal Act, was bound to alter them at its own expense. \V e all know that if a ratepayer had the levels fixed, and they after­wards came to be altered, he would not have to pay; but with tramw,cys, supposing they have adopted the cable system, their road may be cement, and if the council alter the levels of the streets, it would be very hard that it should be done at the expense of the company. If a com­pany is induced to lay down a very expensive cement track it should not be put to the expense of having to pay for an alteration in the street level~, and under clause 7 the cost will have to be borne liy the council. Clause 8 deals with the question of fares. I would refer hon. gentlemen to section 58 in the principal Act, which provides :-

H The company shall, pursuant to regulations from time to time made by them subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to chars:e for the conveyance of every passenger upon the tramway any sum not exceed~ ing two pence per mile or fraction of a mile." It is rather a hardship that the Governor in Council may reduce the fares under the prin­cipal Act. A company may have svent a very large sum of money, and after calculating their fares at a certain amount in order to secure a cer­tain return, it is rather hard that the Governor in Council should have power to reduce the fares arbitrarily. Clause 8 provides that before the fareo are reduced the consent of the company must first be obt~ined. Clause 9 calls for no comment. It gives a company power to sell its undertaking, giving the firc;t right to the council to purchase. Clause 10 provide3 a remedy for what is contained in section 65 of the princi­pal Act, which says that if a company suspend operations for three months, or if resolutions are pa;~ed for winding it up, the council may remove the tr~tmway or take possession of it. Now, clause 10 provides in that case-

" The discontinuance ill the working of an existing tramway for the space of three calendar months in pur~ suance of the powers conferred by the fifth section of this Act, or a resolution passed or order made !or winding up a company for the purpose of effecting or facilitating sucll sale as is by the last preceding section authorised, shall not empower the council to 1·emove or take possession of a tram1va; of the company under the provisions of the sixty-fifth section of the principal Act." That is only fair and reasonable. If a company is going to change its mode of traction it must necessarily suspend operations for a period of perhaps more than three months. This clauae empowers it to suspend operations. It also pro­vides that if an order is made for the winding-up of the company for the purposes of clause 9 that shall not cause a forfeiture, and shall not give the council power to remove the tramway or take possession of the works, Clause 11 calls for some comment, because there is a new power given in it, In the principal Act no sale or purchase

could be made, except to or by the local authori ties. Under that system no amalgamation would be possible between two companies. There might be two companies working contiguous to one another, and they might want to sell the one to the other, or to amnlgamate, and this clause will give them power to do so, subject to the con­sent of the Governor in Council. That, of course, is inserted to prevent any monopoly arising from the amalgamation of two companies. Clause 12, hon. gentlemen will sre, is an impor­tant clause. It dec>Js particularly with what is contained in section 84 of the principal Act. Under that section the council nmy purcha'e at any time after fourteen years, but this clause ex­tends the time to twenty-five years. That is only fair. If tramway companies go to all the cost of working either by electric or cable apparatus, it is neces~ary that they should' have a longer period than fourteen years in which to recoup themselves. This period of twenty-five years was arrived at by way of a compromise. The companies themselves said thirty years was a fair period, whilst the local authorities thought twenty-one ye,ars a fair thing, and so twenty-five years was fixed as a compromise. Hon. gentle­men will see it is only fair that they should get a longer period, as new works may be most costly. In fact, the substitution of the cable­system for horses in Brisbane will necessitate an expenditure of something like £200,000, and the company should have a longer term in which to recoup themselves for that expenditure. Clause 13 deals with a subject that it was high time to deal with. In section 84 of the principal Act, the council, when they chose to exercise their right of purchase, purchased without assuming any of the liability of a mortgage. That was unfair, because the council got the undertaking, and the shareholders in the company were still liable to the original mortgagees. Now, by this clause it is proposed to alter that, and in the event of a purchase being made by the council it is provided that-

" (1.) The principal moneys and interest secured by any such mortgage shall C'\'lSe to be a charge upon any of the property of the company, including its uncalled capital, ot.her than tllat purchased by the council;

"(2.) 1'he company shall be absolutely discharged from all liability in respect of the principal moneys and interest secured hy any such mottgage, and from all actions, suits, accounts, claims, and demands for or in respect of the same, or for or in respect of any such n10rtgag8 or anything relating thereto, anything in the twenty-fiftll section of the prmcipal Act to the contrary notwithstanding;

"(3.) The principal moneys and intere~t respectively secured by every such mortgage shall be a charge upon the property and revenues of the council so purchasing as :-tforesaid; and

" (4.) Such council shall be liable for the principal monf'y.s and interest secured by every such mortgage in the same manner a.s if an expreRs covenant in that behalf had been im·erted in every such rr.ortgage on the part of and under the common seal of such council, and as if every such mortgage had been made or granted by such council instead of by bthe company." So that if the council purchase a tramway that is under mortgn.ge they will be put in exactly the same r,usition as the tramway company, and it is only fair that the company should be free from all liabilitv under such circumstances. I do not know that the other sections call for any com­ment. Clause 14 provides that a compulsory purchase under the provisions of clause 13 shall not be deemed to constitute a breach of any covenant implied· in section 15 of the principal Act. That is merely consequential on clause 1:l. A company is to be exonerated altogether from liability, and the council are to assume that liability. Then clause 15 deals with the altered form of mortgage debenture which is necessitated by this change in the law. Hon. gentlemen will see the new form in the schedule, The debenture

PramuJays .Act of 1882 [11 N OVEM:BER.] .Amendment Bill. 195

holders are to be put in a better position than they are now. Hon. gentlemen will see that on the whole the Bill is intended to meet the grow· ing requirements in tramway construction. It was impossible for any company to make the alterations it required to make, under the principal Act, and therefore it hn,s been found nece"sary to give these new powers. Every power proposed to be given is absolutely necessary, and I think we were a little too timid when we first authorised the construction of tramways, and now that we see they are a great boon to the public we ought to give them every facility for the construction of those works, at the same time providing against their growing into a monopoly. I think the Bill meets with a great many required alterations, and therefore will commend itself to the con­sideration of the House. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

The HoN. A. J. THYNNE said: Hon. gentlemen,-I think I may fairly congratulate the Solicitor-General on the manner in which he has introduced this Bill. He has evidently gone heartily and sincerely into it, and is very much impressed with the importance of the subject. I agree with him to a certant extent, that it is a very useful and important Bill; but I think I must account for the unusually hearty way in which he has entered upon the discussion of the merits of the Bill by the fact that this is about the only Bill introduced by the present Govern­ment which is not prohibitive of enterprise in some form. This is the only one which en­courages it, and I am glad to see that there should be an exception to prove the rule in regard to the legislation introduced by the Government. There is no doubt this measure is very much needed. I f]Uite agree that, in consequence of the heavy extra expense, it is necessary that an extended term should be given, and I also agree with that part of the Bill which removes a doubt a> to whether tramway companies working tramways by means of electricity should be authorised to erect the necessary poles. 0 f course, it is absurd that the power to con­struct electric tramways should not also include power to use the electric force. It is very much better that that question should be settled for ever. I have no opposition to offer to this Bill. I am very glad to see that there is even one Bill which encourages some people to in vest money here, and I only hope that the effect of the dividend tax will not be to dis­courage the investment of this £200,000 on the tramways.

The HoN. J. T. SMITH said: Hon. gentle­men,-! am glad to be able to congratulate the Solicitor-General on the Bill before the House. I am one of the original shareholders in the tram way company, and if I have not derived very much ad­vantage myself, I think some credit should be given to those who carry out such projects. At any rate, the city has derived great advantage from the expenditure of the money raised for the purpose of constructing tram ways. The system of horse traction in many parts of the world is extremely lucrative, and shareholders have received very good dividends. Here, it appears, we are subject to certain fluctuations in the price of horse fodder, which really neutralises the whole of the advan­tages derived. I was very much struck, when I was in Melbourne on the last occasion, to see the extreme advantage which had arisen through the system of cable tractiop which they have adopted there. The cable system is carried out with singular perfection, and with great suc­cess to those who have engaged in the enterprise. The manner in which tramways have actually taken possession of the street traffic is wonderful. I visited Melbourne a few

· years before, when this system had not come

into vogue, and when the streets were crowded with vehicles of all kinds to such an extent that traffic was obstructed. On the last occasion on which I was there, the tram way system had become so complete that it took po·,,ession of the traffic, There was scarcely anything else but tram traffic. In the old times omnibuses were very numerous, but now there is scarcely an omnibus to be seen, and private vehicles are almost entirely given up in the heart of the city. The ladies visit the markets, and their shopping is all done through the instrumentality of the tramcars. The cars are extremely clean and nice in their arrang-e­ment, so that no one has any fear of contact with dirt. If we are able t() do something of the same kind here, and the same advantages arise, it will be an extremely fine thing for the city, especially considering that our streets are narrower than they are in Melbourne. If we can, to a certain extent, get rid of our omnibus traffic in the main streets, it would be an admirable thing. The various provisions made in the Bill seem to me to be those which meet the case. There is no question but that the company has been labouring under great disadvantages, and pro­bably would have commenced its operations long ag-o if this Bill had been before the country some time sooner. I hope the measure will pass.

The HoN. F. T. BRENTNALL said: Hon· gentlemen,-! can sympathise with the Hon. Mr. Smith in regard to this measure, for I too have been one of the unfortunate individusJs who entered into the tramway company, and stuck to it, because I do not quite approve of deserting a thing because it does not happen to pay at once. I have faith in it still. I differ a little with the Hon. Mr. Smith with regard to the suitn,bility of the system as pro­posed. to our streets. I only [hope that his anticipations may be realised, and that the system may prove to be eminently adapted for our narrow streets. My o.vn' opinion is that it is much more eminently suited for such wide streets as there are in Melbourne. I have no doubt it will relieve the traffic very considerably. I do not know that I should have said anything about this Bill, but there has not been anything said to indicate definitely what the new system is to be. Anybody reading this Bill would take it for granted th[tt the intention of the company was to adopt the electric motor system. It should be distinctly understood that the system which has been so highly eulog-ised by the Hon. Mr. Smith is the system proposed to be adopted here. That system will be practically under the f',ame management as the Melbourne system is. It will be managed by men who have had great experi­ence, and if it is mann,ged with the same success a~ in Melbourne, it will no doubt give a hand­some return for the capital invested. It will be something certainly to have £200,000 of capital invested in this enterprise, and I very cordially concur with the sentiments of the Hon. :i\fr. Thynne with regard to that aspect of the question. It is encouraging enter­prise, and the investment of money from outside the colony in a manner that will be gratifying, not only to members of the legislature, but to the general public. It is quite tnne that the trmrtway company was invested with additional power, or rather divested of s<Jme restrictions which exi"t. It is impossible for the gentlemen who have ta:ken up this enterprise to invest such a large amount of money in it unless they have somewhat more elasticity of opera­tions, and m<Jre certainty of protection, than is afforded to them now. It is, therefore, highly necessary that the time should he ex­tended in which the council might come in and purchase the propeJ;ty, ann :J.nother very usefu 1 clause will remove the power from the council to arbitrarily :fi.x the fares, I see by the Bill that,

196 Suspension of Standing Orders. [COUNCIL.] Pastoral Leases Extension Bill.

in making the necessary alterations, the tramway company, under clause 4, is to have power to remove gas and water pipes, or, with the ap­proval of the Postmaster-General, remove tele­graph wires. So far as Government property is concerned, the consent of the Po·ltrnaster-Geneml is nece!'sary, but nobody's consent, apparently, is necessary for the alteration of gas and water pipes. That consent might not be necessary, but I think there should be some protection given, some­thing- that shall compel the tramway company to rehy gas and water pipes to the satisfaction of the companies interested in them. I am very glad the Bill has been introduced, and I think we shall all agree that if this system be laid down and worked as efficiently as it is in Melbourne, it will pr01note the comfort of the citizens generally, and I hope it will prove a remunerative invest­ment to the tramway company.

Question put and passed, and the committal of the Bill made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

ADJOURNMENT. On the motion of the HoN. \V. H. WILSON,

the House adjourned at 9 o'clock.