Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Council

WEDNESDAY, 15 OCTOBER 1919

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Adjournment. [15 OCTOBER.] Copartnership, Rtc. 1383

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

WE!ll\ESDA Y, 15 OCTOBER, 1919.

The PuESIDEK1' (Hon. ·w. H"-miltonl took th0 c·hair ar. half-past 3 o'c·lock p. m.

QCESTIO:\ WITHOUT :'\OTICE. l'OolTlOl\ WITH HEGARD

RESIGXATIOK OF .:VfR. FOR BARCOO.

1'0 l'RE~liBRSHIP­RYAX AS ME11BRR

Ho;:;. A. G. C. HAWTHOR!\: It scenes to m•' that tlw Council should haYe som., infornuttion regarding the present position. and I would like to ask the Minister a ques­tion >Yithout notice. Are we at present with· out a Pr·cn1icr ln the State of Queensland"! lf so, what is it proposed to do to meet the pref:·ent ~:_'rnergPncy ·: I hope the hon. g-entle­ntan will giYe ns some information, as I comidn that this Chamber and the Legis­latm·p generally should be afforded some infonnatioJJ with respect to the prt:>sPnt J•o--ition.

Th" SECHETARY FOR MI!\ES (Hon. A . • J .• J ones) : In rpp]y to the hor1. gentleman, I Yrish to state that the Acting Prernie1· gaxe the' infonuation in the Assemblv last PYf'ning. l-Ie announced the-:! r·esignat~on of ::lir. Rnm, tlw Premier. as member for Bart'oo.' I lllH \" say that l\1r. R.yan will l'Pnlain PrPmicr 'of thi6 State until h8 resigns. The countr)· is not without a Premier, as the Hon. :\Ir. Tlwodore is Acting Premier.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: There is no such thing as an .-\cting Pre1nier under our Constitu~ tion.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The Ho:1. Mr. Theodorc has been Acting Premier during the absence of the Premier, and the oul)· announcement made last night _,·as of the 1·esignatio11 of Mr. Ryan as nwmber for Bar<.:oo.

Ho!l. K vY. H. FOWLES: It i• impossible for anvo11c but a member of Parliament to lx· Pre,Jnier.

L.\:'\TD ~-\C1'S AMENDMENT BILL.

THIRD READJXG.

Ou the motion of HoK. P. J. LEAHY, the Bill was read a third time, passed, and ord<•red to be transmitted to the Assembly for tlwir concurrenC'e b.Y n1essagp in the usual form.

COl'ART~ERSHIP AND CO-OPERATIO~ BETWEE::\ EMPLOYERS A!\D EM­PLOYEES.

RESfDIPTION OF DEB.\TE.

On the Order of the Day being called for tl:tP r~'BUnlp~io~ of a~journed debate on Hon. \\'. 1'. Tavcor s motwn-

·' That. in the opinion of this Council, cor<trtnership between employers and ,•mployees, wherever practicabJ.c, and eo· operation between workers, should be en· couragcd, because they promote an >.'quitablc distribution of the profits ario· ing thercfron1 among all those engaged in industrial enterprise~·,."

Ho:-:. H. TUR!\ER said: I rise to make a. few l'Nnarks in support of the motion sub­mitted bv the Hon. Dr. Tavlor. I think tlw nwtion .i~ a very good one. "I havo conferred

If on. H. T1trner.]

1:384 Copartnerdhip, Etc. [COUNCIL.] Appropriation Bill. No. 2.

on the subject with a large number of em­':loycrs. and it would be har-d to find 1 per c·pnt. of the employers who are not in favour of giving a fair deal to the employees.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: They ar€ all in favour of that.

Hox. H. TURNER: I have here a state· nwnt which has been prepar€d by an em­ployer, and I have shown it to a number of other employ€rs, who all regard it as a very fair statement. I may say that it is prepared on the basis of a limited liability company with a paid-up capital of £40,000. but the principle would apply equally well to a company with a larger or small€r capital. The statement reads-Pro Forma APPROPRIATIOX ACCOUNT OF NET PROJ.'IT

OF A. LDIITEll C'O~IPANY WITH PAID~UP C'A.Pl'l'A.T•

£40,000.

To Dividend, 10 per cent., paid to shareholder~ in

£ s. d. £ s. d.

Company, £40,000 .. 4,000 0 0 ------ 1,000 0 0

. , Balance of ::\et Pro!lt, ±:3,154, divided as under-

Two-tenths to share­holdero' Special lte-~erve Account fur Capitalisation at a intme date 630 16 0

Four-tenths to Reserve Fund for future ex-tension ot business .. 1,261 12 0

Three-tenths for (livision as bonus on salaries (~arnecl durin~ the year by labour mlll brains (~ee footnote) . . 946 4 0

One-tenth to carry for­w;:rd ac~:'1nnt, but not to bf' brought Iorward iHto uext year's Profit and Loss Account, but to acenmulate (see footnote) 315 8 0

l,~- ::\et Prc11H t ra11:--1erred rrom Profit a.wl Los.-:. Accmmt

_Vute.-

3,1:>4 0 0

£7,154 0 0

7,1:J4 0 0

£7,154 0 0

Tllf' three-tenth bonn~ for lalJour au~l brains (brains. of course, means mana~er~. tlirectors. &c., that are c,liHlnctinu: the oven;]Q:ht and dirediolt ot' tlte business) shall he clividett at a percentage Oll all salaries or wages enrneJ by labour and bn1in::-; on the present year's accounts. The amount ::;o earne(l in t,his Pro Forma Account \Vas £7,-!08: therefore, £046 4s., a:-:; above ... .,ppropriat~d, woul:l be equal to ~-t bonus on their t·"·rnings of 12t per cent .. le.·lYinu: a. ,,mall balmwe to carry to their next year's account. In the eYeut of nny employee's death, or leaYillg the ..;ervice in the interim between the periods of balancing:, tlle a.motmt. to be con1puted at the follcnv­iHg balance as to what. \YH,:l'> due to him or her.

The one-tenth carry fonvard ac{'cnmt sltall (when the snn1 has be('ome sufficiently laru;e as ma~" he agreed upon be then capitalised same a~ the share­holders' three~ tenth:-; and shall be diYidetl into share~ betweeii labour and brains in the proportion of illdiYidnal earnings (lnri.ng the pr.riod it has been accumulating.

P.S.-Thr only trouble in my mind is--In \Yhat position do those employees stand who ha Ye left the employ during the pPriod that the amount has been accruing'? I think that the division oi shares ::;honld c1ppl.v to only those employees '\Yho have been iiYe years in the service.

Hon. members who think the matter over 'hould cnme to the conclusion that that would Le a. wry fair and equitable division of profits. I have ven much pleasure in sup· 1 ~o rting the 1notion.

Question put and pas,ed.

[Hon. H. Turner.

WORKERS' HOMES BILL

THIRD READING.

On tlw motion of the SECRETARY FOR MINES, the Bill was read a third tim€, passed, an-d ordered to be returne-d to the AsS€mbly by message in the usual form.

APPROPRIATIOK BILL, Ko. 2.

SECOND READING.

The SECRETARY FOR }IINES: Th: amount set down in this Bill will cover ex­penditure on the several services for, approxi­mat€ly, six weeks. The sum aske-d for is based upon the Estimates for 1918-19, and no money for ~PrYices other than those prm·ided for on the Estimates for that vear will he expen-ded from the appropriation· now sought. The appropriations from the various funds are-Revenue, £800,000; Trust, £250,000; Loan, ±;250,000-total, £1,300,000. As detail.s of the financial operations ci the State for the last year hose been available to hon. gentle­n1en for some ti1ne, it is unneceb3ary for me to make reference to the aeeounts for that year. The Treasur€r has already intimated that the Financial Statement for the current year will be presente-d at a very <Oarly date. I beg to move-

That the Bill be now read a sE:cond time.

Hol'!. A. G. C. HA WTHORK: I am pleased to be able to say that on this occasion we are in a better position than we were \Yhen we discussed the last Appropriation Bill. 'vve have new the Auditor-General's report befone us, and I must say that the" repmt does that officer the Yery greatest credit. He has pre­sented to the State a fearie" anrl critic-eel report. -.Hon. A. A.. DAYEY: Does it d·) rlle GoYern~

ment any credit?

Hox. A. G. C. HA W'I'HOR:\': Ir does 1wt.

Hon. G. l'AGE-HANIFY: That j, a mattc1· d opinion.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORX: 'vVell, uat is n1y opinion. and I think it is the opinion of the majority of mE:mbers of this Council, and I am surE> that it is the opinion of thr majority of the people of the State of Queensland. \Vhat -do we fmd from the Auditor-General's report with regard to the Financial Statement made bv the Treasurer last year? We find on page' 2 of the report that the Auditor-General says---

" On the 20th August. 1918. ,,-hen t)1c hon. the Treasurer submitted to Parlia­ment his Financial Statement dealing with the finances of the State for L"' vear 1918-19, he stated. inter alia--- "' Sum1narised, the .:nticipated resuh:3 are-

Total rf'vcnue on account 1918-19 ... £9,118,663

Total expenditure 3 ,o_ count 19'18-19 9.111,281

Surplus £7,382' .,

:\'ow, what was the result', The Treasurer o-ot from re<enue £9,415,543 7s. lld., and he ;pent £9,587.531 10s. lld., showing a ·deficit of £171,988 3s. The Auditor-General further says that the Treasurer went on to say in his Financial Statement-

" :'\'othing has been included in th<'

App1·opriation Bill, No. 2. [15 OCTOBER.] A.ppropriation Bill. ll-o. 'l. 1385

above {•stimate for the anticipated l'Cccipts under thP rdrospectivp clauses of the new taxation Bills. It is expected that under 1 hesc danses £214.000 additional income tax and £120.000 additional land tax \vili he received. This money will be applied towards liquidating last year's deficit."

That \\·as the pretence under which the Trea­surer came to both Houses of Parliament and asked for increase.d_ incotne tax and incrcas0d land tax. He said he \\'ould put the a1nounts rf'ceived from those increast·ll taxes towards tnaking good the de!1cit of the year L>efore. \Vhat does the Auditor-C Pneral say upon this point? H c say6-

" The mnount of £313,507 16s. 10d., which was actually recPived frorn this ~our(·c~ and 111ade ul) as folJo\YS: ---

Income tax Land tax

£ 193.564 119,943

.~. d. 7 8 9 2

£313,507 16 10

was not applied towards the reduction of the previous year's dPficit. but n1erged into the rccnipts of the CoJI&oliJat<•d Hevcnue Fund for the past ~·ear (1918-19). Had these collections been applied in the manner indicated hv the Treasurer. the deficit on last year;s tran:-.action;;: would have amounted to £485.49.5 19,. 10cl.

"The accumulated dclicits in the C'on­'o]i,cJated Rcn'IIUC Fund at 30th .JmH• la't

£ s. d. On account of 1917-18 409.451 13 5 On <!ccount of 1918-19 171,988 3 0

Total £581.439 16 5 for which. so far, no provision haci been 1nade."

There the Trcusnrer has tlistin<'t1v trone back on -..rhat be said last vear. whe.n J10 stated that lw was going· to use the £313,000--tlw receipts from income tax and land tax--for the reduction of last year's deficit. and not for the current vear's rcYenuP. The result is that the accou'nts really show a deficit of £485.495 instNd of onlv · £171.988-which is an absolute mi· tppropriation of fm1ck The Anditor-Gencra.1, on ·•age 6. Q.·oes on to say-

" There is now a world-wide demand for economy in respect to public expendi­ture, and, in Yiew of the deficits of the past three years. together with the in­formation conveyed by the figures in general, appearing in thQ report, it is obvious-if the financial stabilitv of the State is to he maintained-that the 1-(ravity of the present situation and the risk in regard to the future, call for thoughtful reflection."

\Ve find in this Appropriation Bill that there is no thoughtful reflection, no study of the position, no reduction in the expendi­ture, and no attempt to stop the extravagance of th~ preBcnt Government. In view of the fact that a Labour parte· came into power as a party who w-ere going to br-ing our finances into a sonnd con~lition and reduce the dreadful extravagance of the Denham Government. and general!~- show ({ueGns­land how to run a State profitably and economically, it is interesting to look at the present position. I have in my hand a copy of a pamphlet \vhich \\as i,C'ued by Messrs.

E. G. Theodore and J. A. Fih'l:lly in the campaign of the Labour party at the elec­tion in 1915. At that time the present Government, with Mr. Ryan at their head, who were then in Opposition, went. to thf} country and preached the doctrine of cheap food, economy, and the restoration of the finances to a sound position. Here are some quotations from th':): statements made by those gentlemen in that pamphlet-

" Finance is a subject that is approached by the uninitiated with awe and reverence. It is f'nshrouded in darkness and myst(lry, and none dare try and penetrate the maze, unles;; it he the banker or the big business man or the politician."

The pamphlet goes on to say-

" But finance in the home is diffetent horn national finance only i;, the magni­tude of the latter.

" If the bread-winner earns £3 per week and spends £4 per \Veek, hE) is on the way to insolvency.

" If a man bor-rows £5, pays back £7 to the money-lender in interest, and still owes £8 for the original £5 borrowed, he is a fool. EvE_!ry man and tvoman will admit so much.

"\Vhen the principle is applied to public borrowing, no one seems to notice that the same rule should hold good."

Apparently the Government have gone back on that statement. Thev do not consider that the sam<' ruies should hold now.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: That was only intended to get thPITI into office. rrhey are in llOW.

Hox. A. G. C_ HAWTHORN: There is one thing quite certain, and that is, tiJ.at, if the people of thl;) country are sane and sound, as I consider they should he, the position brought about by the Government. \\·ill make them feel very strongly about the \my in which their finances ai·~ being carried on, and, if there is not a 1·evolution at the next eh•ction. I shall he surprised. This pamphlet is subscrihe·d to by two men who are in the present l\IIinistry-th~ Hon. E. G. Theotlore and the Hon. J. A. Fihelly. Mr. Theodore is at present Treasurer and Acting Premie1· of the State-thP man who has t.he whole control of our ·finances-and Mr. Fihell:v is Secretary for Railways. What is :Mr. Fihelly's attitude with reg-ard to the railways, which show a loss of £1,400,000 on the operation' of last year: He says. "'What does it matter? '\Ye do not want the railways to pay; we are going to spend the money, a.nd we are going to make the land tax and other taxes pay for the losses on the raihyay." The pamphlet further says-

'' Loans rnay be very n-ecessary for reproductive works, hut is it any wonder that our debt amounts to £52,000,000: that onr debt per head of thP population i..s over £80 ':"

[4 p.m.)

·what. is the pres~nt position. v..fter the Labour Government have been in power for four vears '! The debt is not £52.000,000; it is £65,581.120 odd, as shown in tht• Awditor­GeHerars rcpo1·t.

~\t the pre~cnt tin1e, after four yeal'~ of

Hon . .A. G. C. Hawthorn.)

1'3SG A opr(ation Bill, 7:-.~o. 2 .. [COUKCIL.] Appropriation Bili, So. 2.

Labonr administration, our debt IS £93 12s. 10d. p~r head. They go on to say~

" Do you know that a man and wife a.nd fitmily of four owe £490 ""

After four years of Labour administration, financial administration particularly, a man. i1is wife. and a family of four owe £561 17s. Is then· a place on c·arth which can show a record like that? I say that this should be sufficient alone to put any Government out.

HoNorRABLE ME,IBERS: Hear, he·ar !

Hox. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: What did they say regarding the Philp Government, "·ha were absolute misers compared with this spendthrift Government?

Hon. I. PEREL: There was no war on, and they did not have the influenza, either.

HoK. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: The hon. memb<·r must have the influenza to make an interjection like- that.

Hon. I. PEREL : I should think I would aftc ,. lisrening to that sort of thing.

IIm:. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: It will give the people of Queensland influemm, too, when they_ realis0 it. The authors of this pamphlet conhn}IP--

" Thar is Liberal finance. What do you think about it'! Could you conduct vour private affairs on such a ridicu-ious and have any respect left 9 "

Have· the Govnnment or their supporters in the Covw il g-ot any rbpcct '! \Vhcn they had no rc"ped, or should have had no respect, for a Government that ran us into debt of £80 per hPad, wh"t pretence of respect can they have for a GovL rmnent that runs us into a debt of £93 per head : Then they say~

'· Pcrl1aps you now see 'vhy finance is ~qpposPd to L{'· a very abstruse question. It \Yould not do for tlw a veragc man and woinan to irnagino for a rnomcnt that they could cDmpn'hend its subtleties and unravel ite m~·steries. They might find that thNe are not any mysteries at all."

Evidcntlv the' have found that there are no n1:vsterie~, and have g·one straight ahead-

" For instanc,-,_ in one loan connected with a certain Australian State not 1,000 milP>' Queensland, an item appeared for cab £207. Is that instructive?"

How much have t:.c• Government paid for 1notor hire and runnlng motor-cars ~t I sup­pose there-. e.rc fiftv motors in Queensland belonging to the Government. They have certainly got a. very large number here, and ontside· Brisbane they have a large number as welt, rmd thc expense of them must be something terrific. Then we have Mr. Fihelly. ,-ho subscribes to this pamphlet, anrl in it adY< /·atf':-: financial r&duction, going to Rnglnn{1 on & trip which has brou~ht v:-. nothing '" a. result. It has brought this result, perhaps, I admit~that he· has said that we· do not need to make the railways pay. A m;m who went to England osten.sibh to finrl out \Ya.ys o£ running thmn economl­caJI~~ C01Y!('~ back and says, "\Ve .do not need to rn<du· them \Ye will make the tax-payc·r pay ., costs the taxpayer £1,800 for that trip of Mr. Fihelly and his f'ntourap:-t'.

An Ho:-.10T:RABLE ~\IE!11BER: \Vhat would you do! '

Hox. A. G. C. HA \VTHORN: Wh0n I am :Hin istcr I .,.j]J say what I will do to makp

[ Hnn. A. G. C. Hawthor11.

them pa.y; but, at any rate, I take this to mvseH~that when I was Trt>asurer the Tail· w~ys did pay.

An HoNOURABLE 11EMBER : The men were starve-cl.

Hox. ec\. G. C. HAWTHORN: They were not stdrYed. ThC're vras no '' go slow."

Hon. A. A. DAVEY: No I.W.W.

Hox. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: No. 2\o O.B.l:.~nothing of that sort.

Hon. F. CovRTICE: Your conditions made them.

Hox. A. G. C. HA WTHORK: The con· ditions between employer and employee were very much more- friendly then than at the present time, and I regret to have to say Jt. The employer and thA employee in those days could get on well together. There was no third party~an intermediate agitator to work up strife amongst thcn1. Those days, unfor­tunately, are gone, I am afraid, for ·ever. and I am Yery sorry to say it, becaus.e I think it i;- one of the· most hopeful of s1gm w1wn we see the relations between employer and .-mployec--bctween capital aud labour~ on a friendly footing. It is no uso trying to work up class hatred in the vvay it is being don;• by the Labour party. It is no use downing or attempting to down capitalisn1. IV e all recognise, or should recognise, that capitalism is bound to be there as long as labour.

Hon. H. C. JOXES: Not at all. Hox. .-\. G. C. HA \\"THORN: They arc

both necessary. One cannot get on without the other. This pamphlet, which I must say is Yery interesting--

Ha!'. H. C .. JoxEs: A very good onE' at the tune.

Hon. T. M. HALL: It fooled the people.

HoK. A G. C. HAWTHORK: It fooled the people, eYidently. It says~

" The De·nham Government arc fond of talking of its surpluses. The word surplus sounds pretty and im·iting. It arg-ues sound and careful government. And, generally speaking, the ordinary elector does not analyse finance sufficiently to see the· imposition of it all.

" \~· ould you be surprised to know that the deficits of Liberal Governments since Quceusland was made a separate colony ~that is. from 1859 to 1914~have amounted to £4,219,708, and that the much-talked-of surpluses have• only amounted to £2.600,843? Of this surplus the Morgan Labour Goycrnment was responsible for one-half.

" That means a total dt·ficit of £1.618.865.

"Do vou know that from 1900 to 1914 the dcfir:its amounted to £1,163,893, and the surpluses to £714.623 '? That is in fourteen vears an accumulated de·ficit of £449.270. •'•

What do we find with the Labour party? In four vcars of Labonr administrati011. accm'ding ·to the Au,ditor-General's report, page 3. they had deftcits totalling £834.933, and a surplus of £34.791. which was left to t:1em bv the Denham Government; so that in four· v<'·ars thev had accumulated deficits of £800.142. a:; against a Liberal Govern· rrcnt's deficit in fourteen years of £449,000. about which thev make such a song. And yet these arc the~ people who were eDrning in

Appropriation Bill, J:.v"o. 2. [13 0CTOBEH.] Appropriation Bill. !'Vo. 2. 1387

·(.o ,t; aighten un the finance-s of the country! Wh_, on the. railways alone. they ha;·c

umulated deficits of £3.694.968.

The SECRETARY FOR MIKES : \Ye increased .ot '\Yagcs of sweated servants.

Ho:-:. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: The pamph­abo says-

" During thP last fourtc·en years, sea­'ons have been good and the country prosperous. y,,t this so-caller! good Government ha-s been on tlw wrong sidE' of the ledger a 11 the time.''

Her·· is this GoYernment. which has had .,.;ood f'easons and an inflated income all the t:nH)-thev haYe had an income up to £9,000,000, as against the greatest income of th,, Denham Government of £7

0000,000--and

v•'r they accumulate these deficits of £300.000 in four years.

H•)ll. A. A. DAVEY: They will be absolutely l :~,;;ol n~nt in nvo or three vcars. if tht::~Y are

L'd to rcn1ain. ~ ·

}bx. A. G. C. HA \VTHORX: They go to say-

" Lot. u~ take the figures for '"Tunc, 1914-Decen!ber, 1914, which arc the latest a ,·ailablc, to sec Liberal finance in its true light once more. ~-\Ithough reYenue increased b~~ £36,000. and tn., StatP GovernnH·nt refnsed inerea~P.~ to publif' ~f'l'Yants, the expenditure out of TC\"f'TIUP

e lone for the six months rose bv £160,000 oYer that for the correspondi-ng period nf the prPvious year.

'· rrhe f::~xpenditurc out. of r:rrust Funds rose by £100.000. and the expenditure out ,f Loans by £117,000."

is the terrible tale they tell, but what "~" find that they do? Last year the

<·xp•~'nditurc out of revenue as compare-d with Lu' prenous yem· increased by £686,598. TLi.s is shown on page 4 of the Auditor­C,PlL"ral' s report. I give my references for rh"'" tigures to show that 1 am speaking v,-ha t is absolutely- corre£:t. and not in any way attempting to deceive the Council or the public. On that page of his report. the Auditor-General shows that the expenditure last war was £9,587,531, as against £8,900,934 in the previous year. or an increase for that v\'ar of the amount I have mentioned. The ;,,qwnditure om of Trust Funds increased bv £100,000, we are told, in that six months of the Denham Government. Their own ex­penditure out of Trust Funds last year in-

by £93,980. They say that the ox-out of loans incrPasc•d in that

period bv £117,000. This Government in­cn'a><'rl the <'XIH'nditun' out of loans by £908,092, and yet they talk a bout a small increase of £117,000 in the six months by

frightful Denharn Governw.ent : Why, ·· out-Denhan1" Denhan1 everY time.

and Denham were fools compared with thorn in the expenditure of pnblic mot<<':'<. They may have ladled it out by the shovelful, but this Government have ladled it out by the bucketful. (Interjections.) That i.o th<e feeling that hon. members and thmr , .. upporters have-that their Government are t' he complimented upon ladling it out in thi' way. Yet how did the~~ rail against the Liberal Government that ladled it out ,~, :t. much milder fashion than that? Then L:ct:.v go on to say-

,, It re an erninentlv fair and just '~taten1E'llt to rnake tliat the result is

due entirely to the wanton recklessness and astounding extravagance of the Denham-Liberal Government."

I wonder what any reasonable, sane, un­biassed man would call the expenditure of the present Government. Would it be" reck­less"? "R.eckless" is no nftnie for it, if Denham's was only reckless--

" No matter how vou look at Libera!. finance jts blunders" are arnazing anf~ appalling."

They have gone one better every time. Hon. I. PEREL: \Vould you not have done

what they have done?

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORX: You would. no doubt. You are supporting them.

Hon. I. PEHEL : \Vould not you •

HoN. A. G. C. HA WTHOR"': 1\i o. Hon. I. l:lEREL : rrhcn VOU are not a good

business 1nan. "

HoN. A. U. C. HAWTHORN: I have showed that when I was Treasurer we had surpluses every year.

Hon. H. 0. JONES: You starved the public :-:crvants.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHOR"': You cannot sav that. The public servants and everybody plse were more contented then than under the present Governm.ent.

Hon. I. PEREL: That is caused by honest judges giving decisions for fair pay for :1

fair day's work.

Hox. A. G. C. HAWTHORC\: Had the Government done what they said they would do, and secured cheap living, cheap food. and reduced the cof"t of necessary commodi­ties, things might haYe becn better. But they have not done so. The returns show distinctlv that food and the cost of living are 60 ri'er cent. clearer now than they were. In "'ew South Wales and Victoria they are 45 per cent. and 32 per cent. higher, as against 60 per cent. in Queensland. In no place has the co6t of living gone up so high as in Queensland, and there is no place with mor<' unemployed than Queensland, and no place with a bigger comparative revenue. The pamphlet goes on to say-

.: Finanm-~ js the basis of goYf!rnnlent."

How ha vc they treated it as the basis of goYernn1ent ·: ThPy ha Ye knocked fina.ncP and cvorvthing else on the head. They have ~one in for unlimited borrowing. They have ~bandoned sinking funds, wiped them out. and imposed gre .. >ter taxation than any other State. Fancv a State like this being £93 per hf'ad in 'debt ! It is. a scandalo_us posi­tion for any State to be m. Yet this IS the Government which savs, "Finance is the basjs of govPrnmt~nt. ~It is also the tPst of Governments. Apply it to thP financial re­cords of the two parties who are now befortl vou." That is what I ask the public to do ;,t the present tim.e. Apply it to the two parties now before them-the Liberal and the Labour party.

Hon. I. PEREL: They :Ho applying it a!i right.

HoK. A. G. C. HAWTHORl\': Thio> pamphlet goes on to say-

" The financial record of the Liberals is the financial recklessness that spells national bankruptcy. Let the elector_s ponder over it well, and compare It wrttl that of Labour."

Then they wind up-" ·v·ote for sane finance aud progr,.-'33

Hon. A. G. C. Hawthorn.]

J3S:~ App,·opriation Bill, So, 2. [COUXCIL.J Apptopriation Bili. So. 2.

by supporting the La hour candidate in ~·,·ery electorate."

Hon. R. Su·:r);ER: That is good advice.

Hox. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: It is good · dYic<', but those are not the people they f'hould have Yoted for. If ever there was mad finance and reckless plunging, it has 1:Jeen by the present Government, and the 'ooner the people of Queensland take that 'ort of thing to heart and determine, as I hope they will do at the next election, that r,hev will have no more of this reckless ex­penditure, no more of this unlimited extrava­_l!ance, the better it will be for Queensland, ~x·canse the longer it goes on the worse it ··cill b.-. and the harder it will be for those who mccePd the presPnt Government to live within theit· incomP. There are two or three rhings in the Auditor-General's report that -hould be 1rought under the notice of hon. g-entlemen.

The SECRETARY FOR l\1r"ES : Tell us some ·,i the good bits.

Hox. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I have not lJL'cn able to find any good bits. I find that en connection . with unforeseen expenditure alone. the Audttor-General, on page 14, Q"ives '--Oinf' ycry interesting inforn1.ation. He shows that m 1909-1910-the time when the Kidston (~oye-rn!nent wa~ in power-the unforesE;en "xpend1ture, winch. to a certain extent, is 'mavoidable. was £274,157. There must be come 'mall amount of unfore•.een expenditure t~tat 1s not absolutely provided for in the "''~stnnates; but what do we find the present Goyernment spent Iast year? They spent in nntorcsc-'en expend1h1re no less n sun1 than £1.046,475.

Hon. A. A. D.WEY: Is that because they have no fore>ight •

Hm:. A. G. C. HA \VTHOR::\1: On page :6. the c\uditor-General IT08S into the ques­tio:l of thf' total ca~h b~1ances. l-Ie shows how thP total cash balances on the 30th J um•. 1919. were distributed. He showo a ·,e; credit lwlanc,, of £953,061 19s. 8d., and Fay:'--

,, To anive at thi3 balance. allowance has to be made for the denosit of . f:1.000.000 placecl at call with the Trea­Huf'r by the Conunissloner, Queensland GoV('rnrn~nt Savings Bank; w·erc this <Hnount excluded. aggregate ca~h balance •·ould show a debit of £46,938 Os. 4d."

Thl' only thing that ~aYed the Govcrnn1ent ~l 1' 1 gard ~o .their cash balanco.s IYas getting

<lw Comm1sswner of the Government Sav­ings Bank to put to thPir credit £1,000.000 '' call. :\Tow. on )laiTP 31. the Auditor­(;cncral giYe.s :-3orne pa~tirnlars vvith roO'ard tl) Hoyal Cornn1issions. This j~ the Gov:'ern­~!teDt. rnind you: that ,,-as going in for ··co11orny-no recklessne-ss and no extrava­~·,mce likP rlw Denham-Philp Govern­·nents indulged in. But what do we find t l1cy srwnt on Ro·ya] Com1nissions alone? They appointPd the of their me m hers to be Ro:ral_ Commi->ioncrs for the purpose of JlHIHinn~; J.nto proposed raihYays. and they :.J_'t"' ha~Ti:1g a good time generally flying r·ound ;ne countrv-their Pxpenscs paid and :re·' rides. and \\;hat did theY cost the State ;::~t year? The Auditor-Gellcral sa:>;s-

" The expenditure during the past :car on au:ount of the seYeral Royal Comrnissions was ,-ts detailed here­under··_

AMi the; he gives the total as £2,660 16s. 3d. J-Iow ·do we find that arnount was spent ?b

[Hon. A. G. C. HaUJthorn.

and who n·l'f,s the benefit of this expenditure?' \Ye find ~here arc ftve Royal Commissioners --:'\lr. Sropford. Mr. Payne, Mr. Gilday, :VIr. H. J. Rpm, and Mr. Collins-all mem­bers of tlw Labour party-all members of the party that went in pledged to give cheap food. The countrv was to be put on a sound financial basic. an:d yet five of their members got during last year-how much? Why the" are Jiying as well as Mmtsters used to hve ;,, the old davs. I do not know what the pre~Pnt Ministers arc getting.

The SEcRETARY FOR MEES : You bww \YC' are getting· lPss than you got.

Hox. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: We fmd that the Hon. :'\Ir. Fihelly got £1,800 extra. last ~vf'ar.

Hon. IY. H DE:>IAJNE: iYir. Denham snent more than th~t on his ::\orthern tour. ·

HoN. A. G. C. HA \\'THORN: That is absolutely wrong.

The sicRETARY FOR MIXES: Why don't sou u1oYe for a return giving t~e. oxpense:s of prescut ::'\linisters and past Mm1sters.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I find that in an~wf'r to ~1r. Gunn's question in the Aset.-mbh· on this question of the Royal Com­mission 'the Chief Secretary said-

" The total expenses incurred by the Public Works Commission during the ]a,t financial year was £2,660 16s. 32. The amount paid to each member v,·as sd out as follows :-Mr. Stopford, <£258 65.: :VIr. Payne. .£260 Ss.; :\h_ Gilda'<". £262 10s.: Mr. H. J. R: an, .£266 ·14s. : and Mr. Collins, .£226 16s."

But that \\·as not all that they got. Hon. R. SDJNER: Out of that they ha Ye to

pay hotel r>xpenses.

HoN. A. G. C. HA WTHORX: Adding that an1ount to their salaries, tlus is how it work' out: Salarv and allowance for {'HCh Ineruber of the ~Lcgi:datiYe As~Pn1b1y £324. That is .£300 for salary and £24 fo:­allo,;-ancc.

The SECHETAHY FOR :MIXES: Out of that £2 2s. a day they have to pay all their hotel cxpeuscs .

IIox. A. G. C. HA \YTHORN: I am in this act. In addition to that tlwy gc.t the bonus to wipe out this Counml-I hope it will haYe no result. It has had no result so far. and I am absolutely certain that, when the question is put before the _!Jeople again, v1c ·wi1l get a rcn.e\va1 of then con­ridcnce and will be retamed by a great~r majorit.'· than ('Yf'r. They got £200 in t;hat connection. TbPY also got from the Puohc \Yorks C'otnn1isslon an allo\Yance of £532, making a total for last year of £1.056 ior each of those fiye rncmbers-£1,056 for < ach ll1(•nl ber of the Roval Co1nn1ission. This 1s th0 'GoYt·rnmPnt that can1e in p1edged t.o r>conon1v: pledged to ft.nancial ref.orrrL and pled~·ed to do everything thev posstbly could to 6ur Queensland on a proper financed ba-.is. :'\ow on page 40 of. the Audttm· Gc•neral's repod" we get particulars of the \Varnl State coalmine. The Auditor-Gew·,,:i sa ~s-- ~

· " The debit balance of the aboYe :n t.hP Treasury books at 30th June Ja~·'1' \Ytt~ as fo1lo\YB:-

Loan Account Tru::-.t Account

Tot.a1

£ s. d. 37,419 2 10,033 17 ::;

47.453 0 0

Appropriation Bill. So. 2. [J .j OCTOBER.] Appropriatio · Bill. Jlv~o. 2. 1389

AnJ it took them three years to find out that the \Van·a State coalmine was abso­[ut.eh· no good. Th~n. on page 57, the Auditor-General deals with the railwavs. He lh':tds his remark>, "Business L'ndertakings, Department of Raihvav,~." and he shows ·lv1t the deficits were as· folJmys :-

" 1914-15 (the y~ar w.hen the Government were in power}. c-urplus; 1915-16, £508,244 1916-17. £737,388 deficit:

Denham £48,651 deficit: 1917-18.

£1,028.008 deficit; 1918-19. deficit."

£1.421,328

he sa;.-6, " The succcssi ,.c deficits during past four years totalled £3,694,968."

Hon. A. A. DAVEY: They ar~ getting worse every year.

Hox. A. G. C'. HA WTHORI'\: The :VIinis­t ·:· says there is no need to \Yony-'· \Ye do IWt \\'ant to make them pay. vY e will make the fat man pay for that." Then. on page El. we find particulars of the Roma oil bore. 'The· Auditor-General says-

" During the past financial year the sum of £3,602 2s. 1d. was expended in boring operations."

\nd he shows the total expQnditure to date · c-onnection •vith the bore as being· £24.055 12s. 6c1. It has got down a depth -r•f 3. 705 feet. w that it has eost «lrrwst £7

foot to go down that depth, and to get n0t hing. They have lost their drill now. ;wd the:v will have to put down another bore to get the present bore opene-d-a most ·hsurd position. On the arsenic mine at

.Jibbinbar they have spent £9.258. and for that expense, so far as I can see. there has !J,,en no result at all.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : There has been o. n~sult. Do you expect to get a n:lN.ult ont c-f a minB before you t;lquip and develop it?

HoC\. A. G. C'. HAWTHOR:'\: Those arc .'nmo items showing the way in w.hich this Gov~rnmcnt. arc throwing avyay the n1oney "f the taxpayers-the money of the perc;ons whom they got in to protect from that ter­' ible Denham Gm-ernment-that reckless GoYernment \vhose reck1cesncss was a n1ere t!eabit£: compared to the recklessness. and Pxtra vagance of the present Government. Th<>n the worst feature of it is that they bek againBt an:v criticism by the Auditor­GonNal. Dealing with the spQcial standing •O.f'eomlt for the lime pulveriser, the Auditor­C·c>r:eral, ou page 51 of his report. says-

" The prof1t and locs account for the period SBptember to December. 1918. reveals a loss of £411 17s. 6d .. and shows that it cost £447 to produce 29 tons of crushed limestone, or approximately £15 Ss. per ton.''

.t-bP Auditor-lieneral darN! to criticise that, t:d :::ays-

,; In a letter I endea.Your0d Yery lJJ·ief1y but fairly to 6et out-

(a) The procedure adopted in fmanc­ing the enterprise in connection with the manufacture of pul.-erised lime.

(h) Th~ f,nancial result of t.he opera­tioni' up to date of the inspector's report; and

(c) Asked that before any new under­taking involving- capital expenditure \va::: ~-~ntered upoll. the requiremf!nts of the Au-dit Act be complied with. "Thf' l'ndcr Secretary. I note. has

minuted th~ last paragraph-

This will be attended to in futuc·e, as desired by the Auditor-General. " On the first page of my letter, how·

ever, I also observnd a minut<; by you--

That is the Minister-to the following effect :-

The Auditm·~General IS . critiei,-ir,:; 1natters which. in 1ny oplniOil 1 ar~ outside the scope of his duties."

What is hB there for, if it i6 not to criticise public <;xpenditure '! 'rhen he goes on-

" I need hardlv sav that I am unabie to agree with th8 vie\.v expressed in your n1inute. Failure to criticise, or state my opinion in regard to. tJ, public account that has been irregularly initiated or utilised woul-d, I consider. be a derelic­tion of duty on my part.''

Then the Mini&ter made a minute that the Auditor-General was f'riticisimg son1ethin.t:; that was out~ide the scope of his duty. In a memorandum d.ttecl 7th August, 1919, he said~

'' I have read vour 1nen1orandurn of the 4th instant, and eannot see rny \vay t,o withdraw mv minute of the 26th ultimo. A criticism 'or opinion with regard to a public account is, of course, entirely withiu :vour pnwince. but I cannot see that it was \Yithin your duty as Auditor· General to include in your n1inute on the Special Standing Account of this department evC>n a quotation of a privatB offpr for the supply of pulverised lime. 'I'hero might have been a dozen simila:· offers. and the determination of them is purely a departmental matter: in the particular case 1nentioned~ it was one :ir:_ which therr- wa~ no business, a:Dd it was. relegated to obscurity. Consequently, it had no relation to any aetion taken by me. and, therefore, did not concerrc the Auditor'General."

That shm',, that. when the Auditor-Genera[ criticises an expenditure vvhich he considers is absolutely irregular. the Minister turns

ronnd and says, ''You have no [4.30 p.rn.] right to do that; -don't -do it in

future.'' I am very glad that we have an Auditor-General w·ho is prepared to stand by his guns and do his duty by criticis· ing <'VC'l'y account that come_, before him from the Treasurv o1· any other department. I think all these items will show that the Go­vernment arc ;,till unrepentant. They are like the Germans: thev have learned nothing from their bad financing. Their financing i,, far worse than that of the Denham or Philp Governments. which they criticised so sen~relv at the last election. and which they pr01;1ised they woul-d reform. The Auditor-Gcueral's report showe that there has been a rcckle~s extravaga,nce under this GovcrnmC'nt far worse than has ever occurred

'in Queensland before. The Government have had bigger inc-omes a:nd far greater expendl· t.ure than an,- prevwus Governments: but they han' made 110 attempt at aJl tD JjV\'

1vithin their incon1c, and. if this g·ot_.·~ nr.. it will lead to what they said the linall'~irL, of the Dcnhan1 Govt~rn111ent v,:as leaditF?: to--namely. national hankruptc:.·. -

Hoxoc;R\BLE :\IE:llBEllS: Hear, hear:

The SECRETARY FOR YIINES: vVe had t.-, rcctif~· your mistak<·~-

Qucst.ion--That the Bill be now reati a ~0rond time-put and pus:;;{•d.

Hon. A. G. C. Hawthorn.l

l3!l0 Postponement of [COUNCIL.] Orders of the DaiJ.

CoM~liTTEE AND THIRD READJNG.

The Bill was passed through these stages without amendment or debate, and ordered to he returned to the Assembly by message en the 1gual form.

POSTPO::\'E~1ENT OF ORDERS OF THE DAY.

PosiTION WITH ItEGARD To PREMIEnsnn'.

Un thf' Order of the Day being callod for 7.lw second r<'ading of the Constitution Act Anwndment Bill, No. 2,

The SECRETARY FOR MINES said: I beg to move the postponement of Orders of the Day 3 and 4 until after the considera­tion of Orders of the Day 5, 6, and 7, to ;.,llow us to go on with the second reading of the Elections Act Amendment Bill.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Ordm· of the Day No. 3 is the socon<:l reading of the Constitution Act Amendment Bill, No. 2~the Bill which JH'Opose6 to increase rnornbers) salaries. The ::\1inister now proposes to postpone that Order d the Day. although a number of hon. members came hen• to-day prepared to speak <m the Constitution Act Amendment Bill, and to listen to what othN' had to say. \Ve, on this oide. are prepared to go on with the Bill, and unless the Minister can give "'llle strong r<'asons why there 6hould be >omc alteration of the programme, hon. mem­bers on this side are not likely to consent to it.

The Sc~CHETARY FOR lYIINES : \Ve postponed Orders of the Day :·esterday.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: I admit that is so. We very rarely object to the Minister doing these things. \Ve desire to assist him as far aS possible, but he has not given any valid reason why we should dC>part from the pro­gramme laid down for tho day. There arc hon. rrwrn bcrs hen· ready to speak on the Constitution Act Amendment Bill, but the Minister apparently wishes to postpone the com,idPration of the Bill until aftc•r tPa in • xpectation that ,ome of those members will Jlot be present. I strongly object to the alteration of the business-paper.

HoK. E. W. H. FOWLES: This seems to he thr; proper place to speak of the larger matter that is before us, and that is whether Parlia.1nent is not bringing some discredit on itself by proceeding with any business whatever at the prescmt time.

'l'he SECRETARY FOR ~1INES : \Vhy?

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: The present position is quite unprecedented in the par­liamentary history of Queensland. If we can believe what has been said in another place• and in the Press, Queensland has no Premier at the present time.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: That is not so. Hon. T. NEVITT: A similar situation has

c.ecnrred in England.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: has not occurred since the­parliamentary government ~ixty years ago.

Such a position introduction of m Queensland

The SECRETARY FOH :VIIN<S : There was a Secretary for Mines in Queensland who had no scat in Parliament.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: It is quite possible for a man living in England to be IJ mE'mber of the Queensland Parliament.

[Hon. A.. J. Janu.

The PRESIDE~T: Order! The quesriccn before the Council is the postponement d certain Orders of the Dav. The- hon. membE'l" should haw discussed the question he is dealing with when the Appropriation was before the Council. He conld then have gone into the whole matte·r.

Hox. E. VI. H. FOWLES: I wa•· procec,J­in6 to give reasons why we should not p:to­ceed with any business at all, becanse we have no head of the Government to look to at the present time. Consequently. rhc Council should suspend business. We hav& done a fair thing by the Government in pa-;s­ing the Appropriation Bill. I have no doubt that the Hon. Mr. Leahy and myself could have kept the debate on that Bill going until midnight.

Hon. P .. J. LEAHY: vV e conside·red the con­venieiH'(' of the :M~inister. I 1vas going t,o spBak on the Bill for an hour myself.

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES: The hon. gentle­man might have made other hon. membc•rs change thci1· minds if he had spoke-n for an hour. Vv e have passed the Appropriation Bill out of deference to the Government, who waut th£' money to go on with. \Vc have a Prcn1it~r at the• present time \Vho is not member of the Queensland Parliament.

The PHESIDENT : Or-der ! The hem. gentleman must recognise that a considerable amount of other business has been donn be-;ides the passage of the Appropriation Bill, and no objection ,,-as taken to the tran:;ac­tion of business nntil now. \Vhen the Apprc,­priation Bill \ovas u.nder consideration~ the hon. gentleman wonld have be•en quite in order in dealing with any question affecting the administration or the conduct of the Government. He neglected to avail hin1seH of that opportunity, and he wants now tc initiate a debate on a different question altogPthcr. l rulP that the hon. gentlcn·""' is not in onk·1· in continuing his pr('~r_·nr line of procrdun'.

Hox. K \Y. H. FO\YLES: f shall proccd then to gi Ye rea sons \Yhy we should not cecd with am· businhs at ail. \Vith all deference to 'the Chair. I must take <XC!l­

tion to the rernarks 1nade with ref.Pre>nct· t ; mvself. \Vc definitely allowc•d the Appropria­tion Bill to pa". All the other matters pre­ccJ.ing that bnsino~;;: ,,·ere purely forn1a1-thcy 11·cre third readings in both cases. Nuw '''e conw to YtTy contentious business indeed; and this 'SPPms t.o m,-. the 1nost appropria-te time to 1 aise the question whether we shouhl go ahead with any business at all, anti I was giving reasons wh.r it is an affront to the Council and an affront to Parliament--

The PRESIDENT : Order ! I must that tht• hon. gentleman is out of order pursuing that ]inc of argun1cnt. The Hon .. Dr. Taylor's rnotion was not a formal n1otion, a.nd no oh.iect.ion \Y.a.:: taken to proceeding with it. The question now is that the tvot Ordc•rs of the Da:v rnentiorwd should be po~i­poned until after the considPration of anothc>.r Order of the Dav. I consider that the lilF of arguntent tbe 'hon. gcntlt~Inan is adoptin_:~-< is out of order. and I rule that his r<'marks are not i11 order.

Hox. E. W. H. FO\YLES: The motio:1 [.,_­the Hon. Dr. Ta3-dor \.Y.as priyate n1C'I11l}'f..._'::_·~~ businc.-js. not. GoYerninent business, aiHl a1I the business done this afh}rnoon "\vas pri.,_·rd'-~ rne1nbers' business or else formal busine:;:'-.

The SECHEHRY FOR J\1IeiES: ~o; ther<c the Appropriation Bill.

Po3tpoilcment of [13 OcTOBEH.] Otr1r:rs of the Duy. 13\H

Hox. E. \Y. H. FO\VLES: Tlw _-\.ppropria­tion Bill was a 1ncasure which W(-' could either throw out o1· accept; and, out of courtesy to rho Government, the Council passed that Bill because members ·did not wish to hold up ~upplie:". ~ow we cotn-c• to a n:ry ctmt.e11tious matter of business. and this is the most appro­priate place to c:1ter a prot{'st againn this ( 'ouncil going on with Hl(Y further bn~inc ss. I \YU'" proceedillg to gi' e 1uy reasons for rnaking such a prot{'St. and. \\·ith all due ddcrPYlC2 to tlw Chair. I hold that those reasons are exactl~- in place, because. if \Ve

arcept the JYiinistor's motion. we shall go on with further business. and then it will be futile for any member to object. I object to the Council ·doing any businPss whatever under present circun1stances.

The SECRETARY FOR ::..fiXES: I can explain 111~- reason for n1oving the po~tponernent of r ho>e Orders of tlw Day.

Hox. K iN. H. FO\YLES: If the Minister ('an exillaln that lHattPr, tlwn he should ex­plain it to the CounciL

Th" SECRETARY FOR ::VII:\'ES: Speak­ing iu rPply--

Thc PRESIDE.c\'T: Order! If the hon. _!2C'ntlen1an spPak.s i11 rPp1y to the speeches made on this motion, no other hon. gentleman f·an speak after-war·cl:.-:.

Ho~. A. G. C. HA WTHORJ\i: Bofore the ::Vlinistcr speaks in rc;p]y, I desire to say that, in n1y opinion. the ho11. gentl.en1an, when he mon·cl the motion. should haYe stated why lw wantt-d to postpoll8 these Orders of the JJay. This Council has on all oc~asions met rhc. :VIinister reasonablv when he has shown gny n.ecessity for a1h:rjng the programn1c ()f busincs3. But no\'\'. "\Yithout any reason at all. he say, that he wants to put lower down on the paper a Bill dealing with a most important alteration in the Constitution.

Hon. T. M. HALL: And we have a full House l!crP, too.

Box. A. G. C. HA \YTHOR:'\ : The motion is ~JO imn~.,rtant that we see a full attendance of mc;mbers on both sides of the Chamber­an attendance which I ~upposc ''VE' have not had this se~Gion.

I'he SECRETAHY FOR Yli~ES: Y on will not g~\-e rnL' ally t!n1e to fonuulate my reasons.

liox. A. G. C. HA iYTHORN: Wlwn the lwn. gentleuwn 1nakes a proposal of this kind he should have hi3 reasons ready. and the ctatement he now makes is practically an achnission that he ha:=; nu reasons. for mak­ing thco motion. I hope the Bill in question will be dealt with as SlJeedily as possible. It proposes to make a very important .altera­tion in the Constitution, and we want to know the r<'asons and tl1e justification for introducing th0 HilL and the sooner \VC get at it the better it will be in the intcrf'sts of the State.

Hox. R. SU::Vll\ER : Tlw opposition to this motion is practically an attempt to take the busim.•ss out of the band·· orthe Gov<'rnment.

Hon. P. ,J. LEAHY: ThC' :'dinister fixed the lnl'iness la···t night hirnsdf.

Hox. R. SUMNER: Yes, but circum,tance; may ari.~e to jusb£~7 an alteration in the pro­pl'amJJlf', a.nd a ~in1ila1· proce.dure to that now follo-.,n'd has been takf•n on prcYious oeca.~ions.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTilOHX: Well, give us the reasons for alteriug tlw bu~ines!3-sheet.

Ilox. R. Sl.-11?\ER: I do ltw, ;,,uw th,, reasons. But I do know that the reasons given by the Hon. Nir. FovdC'~ nppo;::-;iug the 1notion are not the same as reasons given by the Hon. Mr. Hawthorn. The Ho11. Mr. Fowlcs obj·eded to any bus!• e·,s at all br-ing Jone. I think that 1nembl•rs of tho ( ~ounci 1 should trust the re pre ,enta ti YO of the GoYCl'nlncnt, and, if ile nr t llrt~pal'cd to go on -h·ith the busine.ss in ord_t'l_' in -.,vhich it appl':'ars on the paper, lnu. JJl•'H! 1~',0.r-~ should acquiesC{'.

The; SECRETARY FOR :\liNES: Spnak­ing in reply, I wish to sa> that I ha,-o no desire that this motion should debated at any gre.1t length. Probably fault that this debate has taken place. myself the blame for not ha,-i::g n•asou for postponing these u.so the Dav. ~lv rt~ason for doiw.r ~o 1 desired to "'meet the hon. mernLPrs on this . as other occaAions endeavoured Ycnienl'e of hon. Inernbers

Hon. P. ,J. LEAHY: \YP Ill"'· YPniPnce too.

have on the con-

yonr con-

The SEC'RETAR Y FOR '>IlS i·:S: wa' going to say that. Onl.v .~h·-;h_•rda~'/ ho11. gcntlcnwn \Yere generous -Pnough to let 111e n iter thu bw;incss-sheet. I t tke the blame for Hot <;;.tating 1ny reasou!'l this 1notion when I submitted it to the My rea~on is that sotnc hon. g,t•:ltlemen 011 this side intimated to 1110 a fc\Y du·;s ha~k that they are dc~i rous of Sp(~aki ng- dn ·-tbe Ineasure. I ha"~ frequently held up dw tmsiHess of the Council to give hon. gcntlcrnen an oppor­tunity to speak on a matter which was under con~ideration, and on one OCf'.l~~ion I altere.ci the order of the business in order to give the Hon. :VIr. Fowk~ an opportunity to speak. Hon. gentlemen on this side '"ho desire to speak on this Bill will probably not be here to-day. and for that reason I think the second rt'ading Df the rneasure 1night Le postponed.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: \Vo "·ant to go on with it; we have c:o1no here speciallr for it.

The SECRETARY FOR :\liNES: Then hon. gentlemen opposite n1ight. agrr P to an adjoumment of the debate. if noc,s,ary.

Hou. P. J. LEAHY: That can he considered later.

The SECRETAHY l•'OR J\IIIXE<S: l have t'ndeavoured, "" far as possible, on all or-c,'L3ion<;j to rneet. the con vcuiene.~ of hon. gentlemen irrespective of the side of the Council ou which they n1a:v sit, and the reason I ha-ve giYon \.Yas n1y genuine reason for asking for the postponement of those Orders of the Day. In ;·act. I may oa-: that onE' hon. gentleman vvho j.s de~irou~S qf -;peak­ing on the Bill js ou the train dw JH:l\sent time.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: This d,,; :tt>· "'" ~·o on for some titnc·.

The SECRETAHY FOR !N'K>": lf wo go on with tho debate, tht-'n ge-ntle;11en \Vill probably agre<~ to the <H.ljou.rn.l:nn:;:t of tlw debate later on.

I-I on. P. J. Ll'UJY: \Ve can .~t",_: 'nv.v thing:=:. will dmelop. I suggest to the Ministnr that he shou1L1 not press the u1otion.

The SECRETARY FOR ~\IINl<'S: Will the hem. gentleman agree to thP of the Bill to a latu period of

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: No; "'" with tlw Bill.

Hon . .A.. J. Jone.~.J

on

1302 C'onstitutio>1 Ar~ [COGNCIL.] Amendment Bill, J'..'o. 2.

Tlw SECRETARY FOH ::'11!:\'ES: \Yell. on the undet6tnnding that hc11. gelltlen1en will agree to the postponDment of the dehate later on, if necessary, \Yith tllD lH'l'nli.ssiou of the Council. I will wit1tdraw th1' Inotion.

}lotion. by leave. withdrawn.

CO:\'STITCTION ACT ),ME:\"DIIEXT BILL. i'<o. 2.

!-\Eco~n Rr,DJl\G--RESF111PTlO:-< or llEB.\TE.

HoN. E. \Y. H. FOWLES: The Bill before us is one to increase the salaries of n1muber::i of the Legislative Assembly from £300 to £500 per annum, and also to mcrca;;e the salaries of the Chairrnan of Con11uittees of the LcgislP-tive Uouncil an<;! th~ Chair11w11 of {jorr1n1ittees of the Legislative A~sombly from £500 to £700 per annmu. \Ylt,~tt>ver may be the fate of this Bill. Wl' can. at all events, eongratulate the Gon~rnn1ent 011

bringing in ·a. 6traightforward rnoas1~re de?-1-inrr with the salaries of members ol Parha­tn;nt on this oc.easion. Hon. gcntlenwn will l'Cffif'tnbcr that on n previous occasion an iu­crcaoe of salary to the extent of £200 per annum 'vas tac;ked on to an AplH'opriation Bill, nnd 1ras dragooned throngh both Houses -·throwrh this Chamber on the pl<>a that 1t was i1nPo8sible for us to alter a rnoue:_v: BilL On that occnsion it carne as a .)urpn~t~ to everyone to learn that this Council agreed to such" a. tncthod of increasing the salaries of m<>ml,er· of the. Legislative Assembl•· under the very thin and flimsy dieguise of " £200 allnv·la!K'€'. I feP] sure that hon. gentlemen will remember the vehement l'rotec,t which 'va& en tend b~- this Conncil -again~t such a method of cloir;g things. vVithout painting th0 matter any blackPr than is necessary. I feel sure that C:.vC'l'VOllP ,,-ho has had tin1c to cou­sidcr the· nosit;on the Council took up on that occaBion lnust hano· 11iSI h ~a.d in shame OVL'l'

that blaek pa~<' in the history of. the Council. We arc all, of course, entitled to our ""'n opinions on· thab subject. Hon. nlPnlbers 1n this C'hmnber may hano voted for the allow. ancc for verv O"oOd reasonfl., :Jnd other· hon. n1en1bcrs rnGy t"have vote-d against it for probably equally good reasons. and we must not ascrib0 sinister motivf's to anybody 1n the matte,·. But it came as a thunderbolt to Jti large ntunher of hon. rnetubers in thj ,, Chamber and to the public: outside that th<' Coun<:>il shcmlcl agree to that rnethorl of incroosin~ thP s.a]Drics of 1nent110rs of tb0 Asscmhh·. W0 roust take it that we muet

. give to every vote given here the [5 p.In.1 ::.arnc (·rcdit that WO giYf> to OlJl'

nwn vote.s in the matt<>r. 1 YOlf>d upon that. occasion ac·corrling· to my conscience. and I t•akc it that f'YN\' hon 111Plnher---I wjn not fl.a~- every tn('ln1lPT on this side. but c•vcry 11101nbcr in tlF~ Counei1-vvou10 ,~ote Dn 1nattcr like that according to his con~ienc0. At all f_n;ents. it canH-' as a surprlf'e to and was not receiYf'd _Yery ·well hv the people of Queensland. It nnght. perhar;s, b·" truthfnlly said now that if that YOtP w ~ takt·n again at the pr0sent tim0. probably <:. v"n diffC'rPnt reslllt >Hluld ensue. Hmvev~r, ther~ is no justification for that. in our opinion, and there is no justif!cation fo1· the Gov('}."Dl":"lent"s bringing in an inrrea:;f' in that wa>·. _-\ party that delig·hts o:· shnuld -delight ln ~traightforv.Tan_1 measurp:;. nntl doP' not fc·ar the daylight or the searchlight on any of its e.ctions should <:>ntainly ;1ot have

~Hon, .A. J. Jones.

tacked on au allDWallCC' of tlwt kind to a11 Appropriation Bill.

1-lon. \Y. B. DE~L\l};E: Yon ha YC: got it straightout no\Y.

Hol\. E. \V. H. FOvVLES: We have. This Bill certain]" comes be{ore us without any camouflage. ~]though, like most Bills, includ­mg another that is coming before us soon, it is difficqlt to find out just where the pro­vi,ions fit in in the original statute. But it ir. a straightout roque.st, and I hope every hon. member will give carc.ful consideration to the clauses of the Bill. One obvious thing that strikes evervone is that hand in hand with this measure WC might Certainly have expected a measure to reduce the number of members of Parliament. I suppose that action to that end might be taken unde; th.e Popular Initiative and Referendum Bill 1f it is passed: but it comes somewhat as a shock to find out that our handful of people here in Australia, le,., than the population of London-6,000,000-need 686 members of Parliament to look after them. ·

Hon. E. B. PuRxELL : Are you including the Councils '1

Hox. E. W. H. FO\YLES: Yes.

Hon. E. B. PURNELL : You could knock them out. It would be less then.

Hm.:. E. \V. H. FOWLES: We have the· machinery for 100,000,000 instead of 6,000,000. \V e set up the machinery before w.e got the people to work. According to Knibbs's "Official Year Book," page 911, we have 686 members of Parliame-nt ruling over this empty continent. In every other State, I think there was a reduction of members of Parli~mcnt at the time of federation.

Hon. A. G. C. HAW1'HORN: And it was promised. here,•. too.

HoK. E. W. H. FOWLES: And it was promised here.

Hon. E. B. PURXELL: Who promised that'

HoK. E. W. H. FOWLES: Well, I did not. at any rate. I have quite enough of mv own sins to answer for. In fact, the n,;mber of members has been increased. bc·cause in tbs Council it has been jumped up from thirty-nine or forty to forty-five to fifty.

Hon. Il. C. ,JoxEs: We rub this out altogether next yPar.

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES: The hon. mem­ber doe,, not seem too anxious at all to rub it out except in speech. \V e have here too many,' even comparing Queensland with J:er nei<rhbours. I do not know what populatiOn ~ e~- South Wales has, but it is probably a little more than 1,750,000, and yet they have practically the· came Parliament.

Hon. P .• J. LEAHY: New South Wales has practically 2,000,000-nearly three times our population.

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES: Yes; Sydney alone has 800,000. Yet they have ninety members and we ha Ye seventy-two. It might be point~d out that a very fair comparison can be made between Queensland and New South "'ales. becau~e they have•. the same crowded capital and the same Wide extent of countrv. Perhaps Queensland has a little greater extent of country and is more eparsely populate•d. Therefore there would bP lcsb n~ason for thP san1e n1nnb<:'r of rnt_•rnbers of Parliarnent.

t onstitutioJ, Act [!5 OCTOBER.) Amendment Bill, No. 2. 139::>

Hand in ::and with this measure we might .d~D havo expeded that we would have a Bill for tho redistribution of electorates, so that the anomalies created in that direction wnuld be removed.

One question that will rise incidentally in connection with this Bill is whether then• should not he a·differentiation in the payment uf members, whether the countrv member' ohould not get more than the town members. Although tlw country member has to sevm· hililsclf from his own busine;., ond come.down ltere .and \vaste two or t'hrec days doing Hothing, especially in the mornings, coming lwre, perhaps, for two or three hours in the afternoon, nevertheless, the town 1nember has continuous call-: on his pocket. Everybody knows where ::\-lr. So-and-So lives, and he is tapped generally for money in a way in which the country member is not.

An HONOURABLE MEMBER: He has to travel longer in his electorate.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: I take it that the country member has very few calls on his pocket when in town. He may have some call'· in the immediate vicinity of his e.Jec­wrate, but evening it up in that way, we might say that the expenses ·he is put to are pretty well the same as those of a town "'ember. But no such Bill come·s in with this Bill. There is no hint about a reduction of members or a redistribution or a differ­<'ntiation of salary. The same abnormal differences between the electorates arc to -cDntirnH•, a.nd the same amount of increase is proposed to be given to members whether the·y belong to the country or anywhere else.

If we notice what is going on in the other States, we find that increased payment wa'' -denied in Tasmania. Parliament turned it down peremptorily. \V ,,stern Australia also turned it down. South Australia turned it down. In New South Wales the-y haV:e £500, and so they have not asked for an increase. I am not abreast with what has been done in Victoria. I think :Mr. Bowser's economv party came in there. '

Hon. P . .J. LEAHY: It has not been raised, at all eve-nts.

The SECRETARY FOR :YII~ES: What rs the pl'escnt salary?

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES: I have the salaries all here. The present salary for the Commonwealth is £600; for New South '\'Vales, £500; fo,- Victoria. £300; Queensland, £300 each per annum ancl £2 per month f~~n· postage and telep;ratns, according to .. Knibhs "-he does not say anything· about £2.500 for the Public \Vorks Commission. or anything like that. In South Australia it is £200 ; .in Tasmania, £200; and Western Australia, £300.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: And all those States have reduced the number of their members since federation.

Ho~. E. \Y. H. FOWLES: I am just g-iving these facts so that we may not be led astray at all. They are to be found on pages 928 and 929 of the "Official Yea1· Book." ·with regard to th0 actual numbe1· of mernbPrs of Parliament. in the Common­wealth there are seve.nty-five; New South '\Vale", ninety; Victoria, sixty-five (fewer than our own, although with a population of 1.500,000), Queensland, SO\·enty-two: West<:>rn Anstralia. with a vast extent of territorv ruled with difficulty, fifty: and Tasmania, ;, compact isle, thirty. WB do not know what

1919-4 P.

they have in Port Darwin, whether they have three or 3,000. They have evidently turned themselves into a laughing-stock for the civilised world.

I \Ye might also consider one or two other

questions before we come to the m<Lin ques­tion. It mig·ht be well asked by the elector·, of Queensland whether this question has been hdore them.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Yes, through the members. A good many members advocated increases in salary.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Very few I read of. Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: They did it

under their breath. HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: There are two

ways of looking into the question. The Governrnent surely need not refer every question to the electors, if they think it is a fair thing. If they thought it was a fair thing to do, any Government. with a c_laim to independence or a shred of conscrence would bring in the measure and stand or fall by it. If they believe it to be right and good for the people-and politicians say they arc the people-let them bring it in and stand or fall by it at the next election.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : The fate of tlw Government would depend on every measure.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: On everv measure. As a matter of fact, the Goven1-ment may pass many measures that h~ve not been before the people. Exigencres, Prnergcncies, new conditions arise, and the Government must face them. As a matter of fact-just to be quite fair to the Govern­nwnt~wc believe that reference was made in several speeche~ to the increase of salaries of members. and we also believe that by that a !!-wise, all-powerful Central Political Execu­tive nwmher' had a free hand given to them to votP themselves any salary they liked. I believe that £500 was put as a limit at one time, but that was ruled out, Hncl the members of the Assembly have abso­lute!,- carte blanche to do what they like, ''' far as their ex.ecutive is concern0d. That i6 what is reported. at any rate. If we go t0 a similar case in the Federal Parliament, wr• find that the question of raising their ,a]aries from £400 to £600 was never beforP the c·lectors, although I believe four men, including Ml·. Chanter and two senators, refused to take the monev, and some of it is left there still. "

Hon. H. C. .J ONES : They went back and chew it afterwards .

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: At any rate. I believe that three men did not, and I believe that five members of the Assembly have not drawn their £200 allowance-lVIr. ::\l[acartne:v. Mr. Gunn, Mr. Roberts. Mr. Moore, and Mr. G. P. Barnes. Probably, that is the reason why there is a very funny clause in this Bill to the effect that if the allowance is not drawn it goes into the Go­Yernment poor-box. Clause 3, for instance, reads-

" Provided further that anv monevs pavablo to a.ny member under" any pr'o­Yision of this Act which have not been drawn b:v him before the expiration of seven days after the sixteenth day of :\I[ arch in each year shall revert to the Troasurv and become part of the con­solidated revenue, and such member 6hall no longer be entitled to payment thereof."

Hon, E. W. H. Fowles.]

Constitution Act [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bill, ]'..~ o. 2.

It ought to say, "Any n1oney that is not drawn that was accruing up to the 31st December in the previous year." It has no limit there at all.

An I-!OXOURABLE ME;\IBER: They will draw their n1oney, all right. "

Hox. E. vV. H. FOWLES: There is £800 waiting at the Treasury to-day and no one claiming it. I believe Mr. G. P. Barnes is uno who has not drawn the allowance, Mr. :\1acartney is another, and Mr. Brennan, of Toowoomba, another, and Mr. Roberts another.

Hon. H. C. JONES: Mr. Brennan? (Laugh­ter.)

HoK. E. W. H. FOWLES: Perhaps it is :\lr. Vowles, of Dalby.

Hon. P .• T. LEAHY: Fancy a Labour mem­lwr uot "hawing the allowance! You ought to apologi-.e to Mr. Brcnuah for saying that.

IIox. E. W. H. FOWLES: At all events, there arc four members who have not dra\111 it. I do not know whether those amounts ,,-ill come under the provisions of this Bill or not. But what happened when the £400 ''·as lifted up to £600 in the Federal Parlia­ment 1 Not a word of outcry about it. The very best reason that can be found for grant­ing this -allowance is the fact that the present Government :fwvc put up the cost of living. and £300 four years ago would go just as far as £500 to-day. As agaimt that argu­ment, there is the fact that members of the present party when they were elected eighteen n1onths ago, "vcre elected with their eyes open ·on a £300 basis. There is not the >lightest doubt about that, and they accepted the job on a £300 basis. Of course that would not bind t-hem not to accept an in­c-rease within the folTowing eighteen months. It <ill depends on the cost of living: and. as the Hon. Mr. Hawthorn pointc·d out a little ·while ago, the cost of 1i·ving has gone up 60 per cent.-just about the amount of the pro­posed increase undrr this Bill. Two hunch·cd pounds on £300 would be about 66 per cent., so that it will just -about cover the increased east of living which has been largely brought about by the preS<'nt. Go1·ernment. Another question that will sug·g·est itself to hon. gentlemen is this: Do the Government pro­pose to increase the salaric~ of everybody in the State on the •-a me lines?

An HONOURABLE :\1f;~lBER: \Yhat about our f:<1la ries?

Hox. E. W. H. FOvYLES: Probably the Government will double them in their out­burst of generos1ty. It mav very well be claimed that this Council. in dealing with· 435 <lmendments ·durino; last session, did mo1·e work than the AssemblY, which dealt onlv with 130 amendments. ~nd that this Hous'e is the House, after all, of free discussion.

Hon. \V. R. Cu.nJPTOX : The home of democracy.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: The home of <lcrnocracv and open talk. It may be said, and no doubt it would be near the truth. that this Hou,,e did more work last session than the other pl<ice did-more conscientious work.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORK: And blltter "\York.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES : At any rate, they did more in quantity and probably quite equal to that done by the other House in quality. As one -hon. gentleman sap;. t-hflre ma.y be put forward a plea of payment

fHon E. W. H. Fowles.

of n1cn1hers of tlw CounciL I under~taJJ-d that it is quite in keeping with the Labour party's platfol'n1 not to S\veat anvone.

l-IOKO"GRABLE ~1DIBERo: Hear, h~ar ! Hox: E. \\". H. FOWLES: It is really

refreshing to get the support of hon. membere opposite.

Hon. T. ::'\EYITT: You will get some cou­nrts directly if you keep on in that strain.

lioN. E. W. II. FOWLES: I understand it is not their intention to sweat anyone, al!d while they are working the horse "-hy should the;-· not feed him·: That is one qucstimL Of course, in reply to that it might be said that the Labour party are pledged to abolish us root and branch: send us out in anotlw: unfit ship and drown us. But that would be no arg·ument ag·ainst the salary. They might say, "Vi7hile you are there be paid, and w,• will abolish you all the quicker," and t!wy might use the fact of payment of member­as a weapon for abolition. Then ~ve e:on1f­to another question that ought to be con· si-dered in connection with this Bill, and tha'· is the question of economy. The Government are racing to bankruptcy pretty fast: fast a· than that motor-cor which was going along and the pas:-cnger said. "\V,hat cernE:'tory an?< \Ve passing?'' The driver replied. '"Oh, ir i-z not a ccn1ctPr~·. thosc are the 1nilo post.;;.·~ Another qnestion ie this: With the call cconomv should we not throw out this altogether? The reply tD that would that seventY-two membf'rs at £200 each is a mere matter of £14.000. which is <t mere d1·op in the huck<-t to the rate of progre"; of the prc·srnt GoYernment. Now '\\'8 co:rne to thf' heart of the question, and it is this­and this is rather a good place to di6euf--; it bccau;:;p lYe f! J"C free h0rc fron1 any persona] feeling· that mig·ht exist in another place·: ..t'\re the scrYicp~ of n1P11111crs of the Lc~:ls1:=!­tiw' Assembh- \YOrth £500 a vear each to thP country? · ·

Hon. L. ~IcDox.\LD: Undoubtedly.

HoN. E. W. H. FO\\'LF;S: Th·1t is a qnc>''­tioll each on0 n1ight ans1ver for hin1seH. \Ve lllust rcmcn1bcr that politics is becominp: <~· p~·ofcssion in these days, .and that it is ine;.·ir­able> that all members within the next te-n vcars will be naid: that we will have a Cor.1-~1lssionPr in;;:.i~tinp.: that each nu1n sheJ1 b~ paid for what hf' cloc'e. The ho,nitals will l:w nationalised ancl eYcryone will bP paid to ]a.rge extent,.

Hon. G. S. CrRTIS: Xo voluntary senicc.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Very little yo1untarv scn-ic.P. and men1hcr.s of Parlia­ment will be paill along with the other'·· Everv n1m11ber of Parliament, if he gives him­self to his duty. will be Dai-d by the public, and the public will say he would b; rather foolish not to ac-cept 11ayment for hm wor'·. <1nd as far as thr Asscn1bh· is roncC'rnt'd. there is not the slightcPt sha-dow of -doubt iD n1v 111ind that an increase in salarv shon\·1 be made to it-. memhers. -

Hm;ouRABLE ""-fnmERS: Hear. hear!

Ho:-~. E. \\-. H. FOWLES: £300 now would not go the length that £200 did four years ago. Whether it is to be £400 a year ~r £500 a vear is a. matter for more detail discussion. 'but there is no doubt that 'a inrrcase is dur in that direction.

Hon. F. T. BRENTXALL: vVe have nothing to do with money questions here.

HoK. K W. H. FOWLES: We have noth­ing to do ,,-ith them except that this Bi:l

Constitution Act [ l ii OcTOBER] A,memlment Bill, No. 2. 139:>

is a money Bill, and we have to throw it out or pass it as it is. We ought, in all fairness, to consider the position of some of the mem­bers in another place, who live at the other end of Queensland: who have election ex­penses every three years; whose first year's salary has to go to pay their election debts; who have to look fvrward to the next elec­tion; and who make very, very little out of their £300 a year.

:f!:on. P. _J. LEAHY: Does not the party pay then electron expenses?

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: I have no doubt that there are gentlemen in this Council who have had experience in that direction. The Hon. Mr. Leahy probably did not get in for nothing when he so success­fully represented an electorate.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: The Labour party pay the election expenses of their m em hers.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: I do not know whothm they -do or not. No doubt, the Hon. Mr. Step hens can say that an election costs something, as he has had ~ome experience.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: You have had some experience, too.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Yes. and oven when you get defeated it ccsts something. I forget what my election expenses were. It does not please me to rem.ember.

Hon. W. H. DEI>TAINE: A very painful recollection.

HoN: E. W. H. FOWLES: A payful re­collectron, at any rate. It was "pay in full " for me. Everyone knows that £300 a year IS a very small salary.

Hon. R. SUMNER: It is 11ot enough.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: It is not enough, if you look at it fairly.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Compared with the other States, it is.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES : Compared with the wages that arc paid in the other in­dustnes at the present time, £300 a year is a very small salary for a member of Parlia­ll!ent. Out of that £300, how much is given away? I suppose even·one who has had the experience of being 'a member of ~>arliament will say that at least one-third 1s g1ven away.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: If they get an increased salary, there will be more demands m.ade on them.

Hon. F. T. BREN'£KALL : Pay them on results.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: If you pay them on results, a lot of them would get nothing.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: "\Vc have to consider whether £300 a. year is a fair thing to pay a man for twelve months' work in the mterests of the public.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Parliament sits onlv about five months in the year. ·

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES : This Council probably _works six months in the year, but the men m the other House who give them­selves thoroughly to their public duties would be working ten months in the year.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: They are playing billiards half the time. '

_HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Those who give themselves seriously to their duties will probably find that they have more work to do when the House is out of session than

when it. is in ses,ion. I know one of the members of the Legislative Assembly alleges that he writes at least 2.000 letters a year, which is fairly strong.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: He IS a modern Ananias.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Every hon: gentleman knows that there are expenses ot no light kind, which a member of Parliament has to pay. Then we come to the question which has been raised as to whether it would not be fair to raise the salaries of all public servants if we are going to raise the salaries of members of Parliament. The reply to that is that the salaries of public servants have already been raised.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Not all of them.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES : The railway men have had their salaries raised. The men engaged in almost every industry in QueenE­land have had their salaries raised bv the Arbitration Court. ,

Hon. W. STEPHENS: Our officers have not had their salaries raised.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: We made a mistake last year, and we do not want to make anothPr mistake this year.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: I do not admit that I made a mistake last year.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: At all events, we are supposed to have made a mistake last year. I am just pleading that we do not want to make a mistake this year for want of a fnll discussion. The salaric:; that are paid to teachers ha vo been mentioned by the Hon. Mr. Dunn, and no ono can com.e to any other conclusion than that the salaries paid to them are too small. But while muscle h;is come out into the arena, and has demanded extra wages at the point of a strike, and has got them, the teacher who works with his brains under trying circun1stances, involving special qualifications and a lot of patience-· and he must be temperamentally fitted, too, if he is going to a successful teacher-i< simply grinding away on a miser &blc pittance at the pl'r:-5ent ti1nc.

Hon. E. B. PFRNELL: \Vhy don't thee' organise?

Ho:-:. E. W. H. FOWLES: They are orgamsmg at the present time, and it iH only because of a feeling of courtesy and decent manliness that prevents thon\ from going on strike; they cannot leave the youngsters -without any teaching, just t(t

roarn about all the tin1e as ~f there wen, pcnna.n('nt influenza.

Hon. E. B. PTJRKELL: Theu is something deeper than that that keeps them.

Hox. E. \Y. H. FOWLES: The something deeper is that they are a divided body. There are hardly any dozen teachers on the same level. There are so many little dif. fcrences in L- .. aapitation allowance and living allowance, so many little diYisions and classe', that thcv are not a united body. But thev will be ;witcd verv soon, and the Secretarv for Public In,truction will have to meet a strong deu1ancl for pay conuncnsurate \vith wages paid ont,ide the serYice. I hope the-:," will be succ<>ssful. Then "'' c-1me to the final question of whether the Council ha-; any power to amend this Bill. There is one vcn obnoxious clause in it. That is the rctrosp~ctive clause. The Bill provides that the extra salary of £200 a year must be paid from 16th March last, and it comes to

Hon. E. W. H. Fowles.]

l386 u_,,e•-oployed Worker.,; Bill. [COUNCIL.] [';,employed Workers Bill.

thi, that, if the Bill were passed in its present form, the salary would be £500 from the dav the members of the Assemblv were dectc<f throughout the whole term of three years. I du nut know wh~· that retrospective -elausc wa-8 put in, but it is a very obnoxious prOVISl011.

Hon. p_ J_ LEAHY: It is a wonder thev <:lid not go ba<k to the previous Parliament.

HoK. E. W. H. FOWLES: I do not sup­pose the Governnwnt in their wildest dreams f'Yer hoped that that retrospeetiYc clause

would be nassed bv this Chamber_ [5.30 p.m.J To my nlind, it 'largely vitiates

the Bill; and, if the Government wish to pa's the Bill in any form whatsoever. it may be taken for granted that the Council will set its face against any such retrospec­tive provision. That clause. I take it, will go overboard at once.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: You know thev say we cannot amend a money Bill. ·

Hon, P. J. LEAHY: The Minister would object to our amending it, and there is only one other course.

Hon. T. NEVITT: Haven't you amended money Bills before now?

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES: It is bevond ·doubt that this is a money Bill; there' was 'ome doubt about all th" others, At all event~, the Bill is now before us. \V e are only half way through the session, and it will be some time before the electors pronounce theil' opinion a-s to whether they arc in faYour of the increase in 1n£~1nberS' salaries or not. I would suggest to the Government whether they might not take a referendum of the people on the matter. and at the same time tak<:· a referendum on the number of n1Pn1l:wr~ Anot.hAl' DOlll'~P that mie-ht be "'ggested would be this: The time is ~apidly ripening ~vhen the question of parHa1nontarv representation, the question of pavtnent, thC. question of the number of Ine1nbe;s, and the -question uf their dutic;; should be con­sidered; and, instead of going on muddling ;·ear after year, squabbling with respect to the amendment of money Bills and all that kind of thing, we ought to put the machinery of Pa-rliament in order. I would suggest the appointnwnt of a Roval Commission of half a dozen nwrnbe1·s fror{, ea<'h House of Parlia· Inent to IrHtkC' recommendations with regard to tlw number of members of the Assembly, w:th regard to proportional representation, w1th regard to this Council and its position, and the emoluments of members and oflicers. Either of tho,oc suggestions should meet with the. appmval of all who ha VB given any >-erJOus consideration to the matter. For mv part. I cannot vote for the Bill in its preser:t form. (Hear. hear!)

Hon. T. NEYITT: I be~ to move the adjournment of the de-bate. o

Question put and passBd.

The resumption of the dBbate was made an Order of the. Day for Wednesday next_

UNEiv1PLOYED WORKERS BILL

SECOND READING-RESUMPTION OF DEBATE.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: This Bill has ooen debated at considerable length, but, with the exception of a limited number of persons who ar0 prepared to support this or any other prop-Jsal that emanate' from the Go­Yernrn('nt party, I think there is very strong

[Hon. E. W. H. Fowles.

objection indeed to the Bill. It practically throws upon a limited number of employers the whole <·ost of finding work for the unem­ployed. It is pertinent to consider what number of unemployed we have in Queens· land at th<J present time, and what was the number of unernploved four and a-half years ago, when this Go~·ernment first came into office, whether the number ha~ increased sincf~ this Govern111ent assurned office, and, if "''· whether the increase is owing to any action on the part of the Government, or vvhether lt is owing to sorne other cause. I -do not think there can be much ques­tion that thenJ arc unemployed at the pre,ent time; it <'annot be seriously doubted that the numbel' has increased since tht) present Go\".£>rnrnent carne into powee, and that there is a comparatively large number of unemployed at the present time as a direct result of thB over-taxation imposed by the Government, and the way that those Pilo·aged in the various industries in the co~ntrv ha Ye bN•n penalised; because, if you t~ke money from a man hy over-taxa­tion .or in other wa vs, he ha-s so rnuch less with which to find. employment, with the result that there is a larger number of people thrown on the unemployed market. I have looked into this quBstion to some extent, and I cannot find a similar Bill on the statute-book of any countrv in the world that has a pa rlia,;nentary • gove:·nment. _ I do not know 'vbat thev rnav haYc 111 countrres without parlian:entary go,;ernment. I know that some 6,000 years ago in !'ncient Babylon, in the time of Khammurab1, he made laws dealing with wages and possibly something of thib kind, There was no Labour party in those days, but, according to tablets of clav that ha,·e been deciphered, Khammurabi dealt with the wages conditions, and pos­sibly something of this nature. But I _cannot find in the historv of any country, ancient or rnodcrn anY lr~islation identical in prln~ cipl<· with this. ~I know, of course, that. in GNman v there is a statute dealmg w1th unemploy<'d. and also that therr' j, one in Switzerland. But in those t'vo eountnes the fund for the pa vment of the nnem)Jloyed i' contributed in c'qual proportions by the employers, the workers, and the Government. ThPre no such Act in England, but thE'y have an Act establishing a system of in"urancc against nnernployn1ent, and there the em­ployers contribute one-third towards the fun'd, the Go,,ertuncnt one-third. and the workers one-third,

Ho1L T_ NEVITT: And where have mch f'Cherne.~ b(\\_·n :3uccessful?

HoN. I'. ,J. LEAHY: I do not know that anv of those schenlCs hnvc been successful i but I am quite certain that they have been a great dPal more successful than this scheme will be_

Hon. T. NEVITT: You don't know. This has not been tried yet.

HoN. p_ J. LEAHY: The hon. member says that I will not know whether this will be succcssf ul until it has been tried. If that remark is carrie-d to its logical conclusion, it means thttt everything that js submitted to us in this Chambe•r must be accepted by us. because we do not know whether it will be a good thing or not until it has been trie-d.

Hon_ T_ NEVITT: That does not follow at all.

HoN_ p_ J. LEAHY: That is a r-eductio a-d absurdum. I take it that most of us in

Uuunployed Workm·s Ba!. [l5 OCTOBER.] Unemployed Worke ·' B".ll. 1:397

this Chamber have some common sense and some experience, and we know that, if you harass the employers-the men who employ men to carry on the business of the country -you will ultimately intensify unemploy­ment. If there were• such a law as this in any other State in the Commonwealth, it would not be so indefensible as it is to ask us to pass this Bill at the present time. But if we pqt on the employers of Queensland the burden which this Bill will impose upon them, how are the employers of Queensland going to compete with the employers in the othe·r States in which there are no such charges'? I say the employers of Queensland will be unable to compete ; and the result will be that they will suffer, and ultimately there will be more unemployment than there is now. Then, again, is there any strong reason why. the employers should bear the whole of this burden? Has not the worker some obligation himself in the matte•r? We know that a large number of men are get­ting very good wages at the present time, and have been for vean. \V e know that many of them are• single men; probably there 1s a larger number of single than of married men, and they spend all their money in varions ways. Many of those people are in " better position to make provision for them­selves than many of the employers, because all employers are not wealthy people. If w0 look at the question on the broad ground of equity, this Bill must be condemned, because it is an unfair and dishonest Bill. I do not want to refer to the clauses of the Bill, but certain of them give extraordinary powers to the Government. Clause 16 is one of them. Most of us have some recollection of the dragnet section in the Sugar Acquisi­tion Act. and of the fact that under that '"ctio;1--which was put in for the purpose of enablmg the Government to deal with cer­tain commodities, principally manufactured "rti?les-the stock of a Western Queensland station-owner was comn1andeere{l. Such a thing as that was never intended when the Act was passed. Yet the powers conferred by that section were small and trifling com­pared with the wider powers proposed to be g1ven by the Govern1nent bv clause 16 of this Bill. If that clause were passed the Goyern1nent would have povver to make 'regu­latwns and Orders in Council. under which they c?nlcl :do anything they ·liked without <'onsultmg either House of Parliament That is one of the. most undemocratic pr~posals that wac ever mcluded in anv Bill submitted to a lcg·iolative body. It w'ould eu"ble the Government to rise superior to Parliament, and to do almo~t anything they liked without <'onsultmg Parliament. I could go on indefi­nitely .instancing provisions which condemn the Bill. Whilst the principle of finding money for the unemployed may be deo;irable under certain conditions, the wav in which it is proposed to be clone in this Bill is a bsolntely bad. Of course, it mav be said that the Coqncil can pass the second reading of the Bill and amend it in Committee· but it seems to me that this is a Bill that 'is so utterly bad that it is impossible to make anything of it in Committe<>. If we were to amend it. in . Committeel we might raise senous constitutiOnal questiOns, which there is no occasion to raise, particularly at the present JUncture. After careful considera­tion, the more I look into the Bill the more reason I find for condemning it, and I have come to the conclusion that the•re is only

one thing that cen be done in j nstice to the Pnlployer-s. and <'vcn to the working classes themselves, and that is utterly and com­pletely to reject it. With that object m YJGW, I beg to move-

" That all the words after 'be ' be omitted, with a view to inserting the \\·ords · yead a second titne this dav six 111onths, for the follovving rt"l..ftSOHR: _____::_

'' • 1. This Bil1 gives unlirnited pOIYer to the Government after the first vear to make annual levies on employers who proYide employment for the workers, anci it exempts from liability to contribute the GoYernmcnt and all its State enter­prise':_, which arc in competition with en;ployers.

" '2. It enables th<> GoYernment to raise what are practically forced loans from a certain number of the employers.

" '3. It is a harsh and drastic inter­ference with the present system of local g-overnment, as it compels local authori­ties to raise large sums of money, and deprive'' ratepayers of their present right of voting- in connection with loans.

"' 4. It authorises the Government to legislate by Orders in Council, and the wide powers thus conferred on the Go­vernment would be subversive of the principle of parliamentary responsibility.

"' 5. The incidence of tax ttion should be properly ascertained and defined b:c the Legislature, and should not be left to the discretion of any out,ide body Ol' individual.

" '6. The Bill would offer such oppor­tunities for individual oppression as should not be placed in the hands of any Governr:nent or unemployn1ent council.

" ' 7. Tlw proposals in the Bill <J.re in realitv a tax on industrv, and would placec · QuPensland employers in a verv unfair position by increasing the cost o1' production in Queensland. to the advan­tage of their con1petitors in the Southern States.

'' '8. The Bill, if paS'ed. ;nuld di<­C'ourage industry, force ernploycrs to r<•duce the number of employees. and iut<'nsify the unemployment difficulty.

"' 9. The Bill is crude and unworkable. and is not capable of amendment on fair and just lines. An amendment pro­viding fo.r equal contributions from the employer, the worker, and the Govern­ment 'would be outside the scope of the Bill. To mnke this and other necessary amendments would lead to a serious Constitutional difficulty between the two Houses.

" ''10. In no British country is there a similar law in operation. Statutes deai­ing with unemployment exist in Germany and Switzerland, but in both these. countries the unemployment fund is not raised, as in this Bill, solely from one class. Jn Great Britain there is a svstem of insurance under which the employers, worker:;:, and the Govern111ent contribute equally.

"' 11. The Bill would injurioctsly affect a large number of workers. and would penalise those employers who are do in::;· most towards finding employment.

Hon. P. J. Leahy.l

1398 Unemployed Workm·8 Bill. [COUNCIL.] Unemployed Workers Bill.

" ' 12. This C~mncil is sympathetic to­wards the gemune unemployed workers, and will be prepared to favourably con­sider any scheme for dealing with them on an equitable basis; but it is not will­ing to hand over to any Government drastic powers which might be tyranni­cally exercised, and which would irritate, harass, and penalise a large section of the community.' "

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I had hoped to adjourn the Council bv 6 o'clock, but I risP now to oppose the amendment.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORK: Why •

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Because want time to think over the amendment.

Hon. l'. J. LEAHY: \Vhy do vou oppose it before you consider it? ~

The SECRETARY FOR :::\Hl\"ES: Because want ti1ne to consider it. l-Ion. gentle­

n:en will surely give n1-e tirr1e to con­·5tdel' the an1l~ndment! lion. rnembors on tl1is side are dcs.irous of talking upon this Ycry Important BJ!l.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: \Vhat is to stop yon tdking'!

The SECRETARY FOR ::VIINES: If the President rules that a full discussion can be taken on thE' Bill, it will be all right.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: The amendment is wide enough to cover it.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : I am surprised at the amendment submitted by the hon. gentleman. It is not the first time that the hon. gentleman has moved a similar amendment to the motion for the second reading o; a Bill. The hon. member pro­posPs to delay th" consideration of the Bill fnr si' months, but I contend that it is a llleasure of such importance that it cannot

ait ev' six months for consideration. Hon, P. J. LEAHY: I think the longer it

waits the better for the countrv-that is in tl1is form. · '

The SECRETARY FOR :::\111\'ES: I differ from the hon. gentleman.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Well. bri1w in a. !)raper Bill. o

Th" SECRETARY FOR ME\ES: I am ;;atisfied that this Bill is of such a character that it will give immense relief to the workers of Queensland.

Hon. )\.. G. C. HAWTHOR':\: It would give the Government a tremendous lot of money.

The SECRETARY FOR MIKES: I '"!'okc at length on the measure in moving the s:cond readmg, and I believe I then gave Llffiment rea,ons whv the Council should

pass the BiJL ~

Hon. P .. J. LEAHY: I thought there might be somethme: in the Bill until I read vour c-peech, and~then I made up my mind to Yote ag_-a1nst 1t

The SECRETARY FOR :Mil\iES: I am verv H)rry that my speech had that effect upon the hon. gentleman, but I remember that on one ot~asion he told me that my epeech convinced him that he ~hould vot'e for a tnotioiJ.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: That was a very nu nor "'-latter.

[Hon. P. J. Leaky.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: During the dinner adjournment I had an opportunity of stu.dying the •amendment and perusing the reasons given why it should be carried.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORK: And vou are withdrawing all objections? •

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Indeed, 1 do not. I am more convinced than ever that I am right in opposing it. The first of the hon. member's twelve reasG>ns is that the Bill gives unlimited power to the Go­vermnent after the first year of making annual levies on employers who provide employment for the "1_0rkers. The Govern­ment also have an obligation under this Bill, as I pointed out in my second reading speech. for they would have to come to the aid of the fund or provide sustenance allow­ance if it were insufficiently subscribed. The Government take that obligatio.n.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: They take no chances. They will see that the employers "ante up.''

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Not only that. but the Government also provide work under this Bill.

Hon. P. .J. LEAHY: At somebody else's expense.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: And the Government continually have to provide other <:mploymcnt, without this Bill. The Government to-day have to meet unemploy­ment right throughout the State. I pointed out previously that the Government for a considerable length of timQ kept a sufficient number of miners in the Cloncurry district, and when the smelting works were rccady to start, the Hampden Company could come along and get 800 men who would otherwise have been dispersed. The Government took that responsibility, to the benefit of the men and the smo::lting industry of the State, and the company operating in that district. I have here the shorthand notes of the large deputation of employers which waited on the Secretary for Public Works and Acting Premi~r, who was in charge of this Bill in the other Chamber, and in reply to the very same argument which tbe hon. member gives as reason No. 1, he said-

" So far as the Crown contributing in cash, he pointed out that if this fund was insufficient, the Government would have to come to the aid of the fund. That was why they must consider that the GoYcrnn1cnt "\Yas taking on a definite vbUgation undrr this schcnlf'."

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: "'o; t.hat is a ridicu­lous reason. They are taking no obligation. becaus<: the GoYernment can impose any amount they like after twelve months.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The :Minister went on-

" The unemployed sustenance would be paid although the sustenance, fund itself was exhausted.

"Mr. Pritchard: ·would it not leave the power open to increase the rate?

" The lVIIKISTER : It might be an argu­ment next year for incr"asing the levy, but in the meantime the Government might have to incur an expenditure of £50,000. They must recognise that that part of the schem<: would not be operated

Ununployed Worker,, Bill, [15 OCTOBER.] Unemployea Workers Bill. 139\l

harshly or , unf,airly, If the unE:mploy­ment counCil did operate the powers in a way that was unfair an<! harsh-what a howl there would be throughout Queensland. "'o Government could live."

I, think that is a very SP.nsible remark. T,he lTovernment are not out under this Bill or any oth~r Bill, to commit political suicid~ by operatmg any provisions in a harsh rnanner.

Hon. P. J, LEAHY: But you would make the employers squeal?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I think I have proved that th" Government have an obligation under this BilL

Hon, P, J, LEAHY: The Bill does not •·ccognise any obligation,

T,he SECRETARY FOR :VIINES, The ~ill do,es, and the Government recogu'ise an odigatiOn, And then the hon, mernbQr says ~~ the second reason that the Bill gives tne , Governmer:t the opportunity to raise wha r are practically forced loans, Under a Bill like this the Gov<:rnment must have extraor-dinary powers. Those powers may not be used.

-Hon. P. J. LEAHY: ThC' powers in tlw Sugar Acquisition Act might not be used.

The SECRETARY FOR ;\;liNES: We h;~ H' on our statute-book many Acts under which th., Government have power to do certain things, but they are not done, They are not operated har,hh, As a matter of fact, we have in r:rany' of our Acts very ilevere penalties which are rarelv enforced. There may be no need to oper~te manv of the cl a uses of this BilL '

Hon, A. G, C. HAWTHORX: What is the good of putting them on the statute-book if you are not going to operate them'; '

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The hon: me!llber knows that there are many ;ectiOns m many Acts which, if not ;nopera­bve, arc practically ncYer operated. They are necessarily arbitrarv in their character and necessarily harsh. as I have quoted ir: the case of i>•malti,,,,

Hon, B, FAHEY: The Customs "\et par­ticularly.

The SECRETARY FOR MI:'\E:-;: Yes. It is very rar<Jly necessary to put into force some. of those provisionB, which mav app~ar arbitrary and a little bit hush, 'The thrd reason the hon. member gi;·~s is, that rt lS a harsh and drastic intcrf•.:·r~.:!nce 1:vith

present system of local government, a'S compels local authorities to raise large

sums ?f money apd depnves the t,1t'epayers of their present right of votmg m connection W!tll loans, I would like to point out that the ratepay'lrs, while they are rate­payers of local authoritie6, also have representation in Parliament-thev are still electors of the Stat<J of Queenslancf Further than that, they have as cl€ctors a broader franchise than under the Local Authorities Act<, I would like to quote subclause (6) of clause 8 of the Bill to prove that what the hoiL member says in that reason is hardlv correct- · ~

" If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that bv reason of certain relief work being 'com­menced or carried out hv the Treasurer or by a local authority' or othei: local

governing body at an earlier· time than it would otherwise have been, or that owing to some other good and sufficient cause t,h~ expenditure will reslt!lt or has resulted in a loss, the Governor in Council may by Order in Council declare the amount of such loss, and thereupon the Treasurer or the local authority or body shall be €lltitled to b<;l paid the amount so certified out of the fund!'

Hon. P, J, LEAHY: Yes, but that is purely optional on the part of the Government.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: But lots of things ar€ optional in Bills. The hon, member says that practically no provi­sion is rna<le in the Bill for loss, but that elause shows that there is, so that it is not harsh on the local authorities,

Hon, P, J, LEAriY: I did not say that,

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : The hou, member savs that it is a harsh and drastic interferen'"cc -vrith the present systcrn of local government,

I-Ion, P, J, LEArn:: Yes, that is quite true,

The SECRETARY FOR ?III:\TES: I differ from the hon, member, I say that that l'iause is snfficient protection for the local authoritle''·

Hou, A, G, C. HAWTHORX: No protection at alL

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The hon. member is an expert in local authority 1.vork.

Hon, A, G, G HAWTHORx: Yes, and I will tell you my experience, Som€ of the people in Ithaca wanted to borrow £14,000 and it was put before the ratepayers, who turned it down, The Government said, "Whether ~'On turned it down or not you will have to take £14,000," and they made them take it,

ThC' SECRETARY FOR ME\ES: Pro­bably the Government took a broader view thaii the local authority, Anyhow, that has nothing to do with this BilL The fourth reason given is that the Bill authorises the Government to legislate by Order in Council, an,J the wide power that is conferred on the Government would be subversive of the prin­ciples of parliamentary responsibility, JIIIar.y Acts giYe the Governor in Council power to legislate by Order in Council or regulation, and many have been passed by hon, members oppo,itc, That reason could be urged against half a dozen Bills that we ha Ye introduced in this Chamber,

Hon, P, J, LEAHY: Vie haYo never given you such powers as are asked in that clauee,

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: If the hon, member will look up the measures, he will find that he has supported Bills g'iving the Governor in Council power to legislate bv Order in Council or regulation, and the Council has passed them, The hon. memhe1· gives twelve reasons, but the fact that he giYes quite a number does not prove that t,hcY are sound, "'umbers in this instance ~n: not good argument. It wouid probably be better to give one g'ood sufficient reason,

Hon, P, J, LEAHY: Each one is sufficient to condemn the BilL

The SECRETARY FOR :YHNES: If th<> hon. 1nernber had givPn one good sufficient reason he rnight ha vc been able to conv-inre

Hon. A. J. Joncs.]

1400 Unemployed Workers Bill. [COUNCIL.] CI,W1ployerl 1¥orkn·•5 Bill.

the {kluncil, but the reasons he gives are yery fiimsy. In his fifth reason, he refers to the incidence of taxation. I take it that he rneans t.he (tSSessrnent, -whioh, in my opinion, is properly defined under the Bill. The hon. member knows that it is defined as properlY as it can be in a Bill of this character.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Yes, but it is of such a ood char act er.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Why, the Bill is of a worse character than the Go.-ernment.

'l'ho SECRETARY FOR MINES: The assessment is well known-£2 per head for the first year.

Hon. P. J. LE·\HY: After that an un­limitt>d amount.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : After that the council which is constituted under the Bill would have power to levy an assess· ment. Anybody who understands this Bill, and knows how it would operate, knows that there would be a reduction rather than an increase in the assessment, but this legislation is somewhat experimental, and just as the Jnsurance Commissioner would find a diffi­culty in fixing his premiums for ·any one period. Eo is it difficult to fix an assessment under this Bill. He might be -able later on to reduce premiums. probably might find it necessary to raise them a littlE', and so ther<> is the precedent for this clauS€. Premiums in fire and -,.yorkcrs' compensation insurance arc fixed, not by the Government or Parlia­ment or either branch of the Legislature, but bv the Commissioner-one man. Here we h'ave a council of five men, who -would g·o thoroughly into the matter.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: There is no pmp<'r comparison between the two things.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: There is. If the hon. member followed his argu­lnent to its logical conclusion, ho would agfee ~hat all premiums in life an-d fm> and workers' compensation insurance should be fi":e<~ by Parliament and not by the Com­Inissroner.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Peopl.e are not com­pelled to insure their lives an-d property in the State office.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: They are compelled to pay workers' compensation ]'remiums. Apply it even to that argument,

and I think it would be an un­[7.30 p.m.] sound principle, and it would be

· very cumbersome if Parliament had to fix the premiums for workers' com­pensation insurance, just as it would be un­sound and cumbersome if they had to fix the payments under this Bill. Under those cirenmstancPs vve would \Vant an arnPnding Bill every year. The hon. gentleman, in the .::tYYf'nth n~ason he gives, says-" The pro­posals in the Bill are an attack on in­dustry." I differ with the hon. gentleman there. Further than that, he says-" It would be unfair competition by increasing the cost of production in Queensland to the e. dvantage of their competitors in the Southern States."

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: You cannot dispute that.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I do. And I go to the extent of saying that if you force employers to have sufficient employees to work their in-dustry or factorv to the fullest possible extent, it would "have the

[Hon. A. J. Jona.

opposite tendency; not a tendency to increa~r:. the cost of production, but to r<·duce the cost uf production.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN : If you put £2,000 a year extra on a man's business, _it­must increase his cost of production, as m competition with ~ew South \Vales and Victoria, where there is no such tax.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Many of our private enterprises are not paying because they are not worked sufficiently.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Do ~·ou think the Gc­Yernment would work them any better than private enterprise can work them?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I think the Government are working a good many of their industries successfully.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: They are losing on most of them.

The SECRETARY FOR MIJ';"ES: They are not losing. except on one. Had I thought it wise to reply to the Hon. Mr. _Hawthorn on the Appropriation Bill, I certamly wo~ld have quoted the figures in connectron wrth State enterprises. but if I had done so 1t would have caused a lot of debate, and we would probably have been discussing the Appropriation Bill now.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHOR:<i: Is the \Van·a coalmine paying?

The SECRETARY FOR MI:\[ES: The IV arra coalmine is closed -down; and the \Varra coalmine has not been the huge loss that hon. gentlemen think. The hon. gentl:­man this afternoon said that the State arsemc mine at Jibbinbar cost £8,000. That was fo:t equipment and plant only. I may tell the hon. gentleman that it cost more than that. The plant cost £8,000. and tJ:te development of the mine cost about a s1mrlar amount, or in all about £17,000. If the hon. g_entle­rnan knows anything about that partrc~rlar industrv he will know that you must put _on the ne.cessary plant and eqmp the mme properly before you can look for any return.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORx: That is "·hat you did at Vlarra.

The SECRETARY FOR MI::-iES_: I _am dealing now with the State arsemc mme. \Ve have spent £17,000 on the State arsemc mine at Jibbinbar, and are now JUSt startmg to produce.

Hon. A. G. C'. H\WTHOR:\: Like , our 1Jnln~rised lln1e.

The SECRETARY FOR :MINES: We are able now to announce to the people of Queensland that providing arsenic is used for the eradication of the prrckly-pear pest and used to eradicate the cattle tick pest, we are able to reduce the price by 25 per ce"L We can reduce the price to that extent, and then make a profit. I am here to mak~ ~hat statement without fear of contradictiOn. Further than that, with the plant to wh_rch the hon. gentleman alluded in a laughrng manner, we are to-day producing at -!ibbin­bar three times the quantity of arsemc that has been used in Queensland in prickly-pear clearing in any one year.

Hon. B. F.mEY: With success:

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Yes, with sucC'ess. It is the first- tinH) in d!B

history of Quecn~land that LU1~'one hr:;·,

Unemployed Workers Bill. [15 OcTOBER.]

a Ucmpted to interfere with the arsenic monopoly in Australia.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN : Prices are clearer than ever.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Can you run the arsenic mine at a profit?

The SECRETARY FOR J\'II:\ES: \Ye cun.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: You have not done so yet.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: No, but we know what we can produce each month. The hon. gentleman says that the Bill would discourage industry, and force employers to reduce the number of employees, and thereby intensify the unemployment evil. How on earth the hon. gentleman can give that as a sane reason why this Bill should not pass is beyond me. 'l'he very object of the Bill is to increase employment, and if you increase employment in all industries, how would it discourage industry? Would it not have the effect of encouraging industry?

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: The industries could not stand it.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: What has an industry to stand? A paltry £2 per year per employee. Take a firm with ten employees; they would have to pay for the first vear £20.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: What would they have to pay for the second year, and afterwards?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: That would be about l!d. per day increase. Is that going to cripple any mdustry? Will the hon. gentleman tell me that the payment of a pn•mmm of l!d. per day by the ~·n1ployers to prov1Je fo1· an unernploy1n-e11t lllSurance fund will eripple any industry?

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: That is onlv for the first year, and you know it. •

The SECRETARY FOR MIXES: I do not wish to repeat the argument that I used on the second _reading of the Bill, but I did quote one particular industry-probably, it is the mdustry I knO\v most about. In one mine in _Queensland each employee working m the mme created a profit for the employer ef £560 for the year.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: \Vhat about the mines that lose?

. The SECR.ET~RY FOR MINES: Mining 1s a speculative mdu"try, I admit. It should 110t be so m connection with mining for use­ful metals, but, unfortunately, it is. If a rna? earns for a _company £560 a year profit, 1s 1t any hardsh1p on that company tD pay a paltry £2 a year towards an unemploy­m~nt ins::'rance fund, so that the employ~e w!ll rece1ve some remuneration during the months or days that he is unemployed?

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: In how manv instances d_oc..; ~ n1in?owncr n1ake a profit ·like tnat? That IS an 1solated instance.

The SECRETARY FOR :m::'\ES: The p~rticular mine I quoted io the ~daunt Perry nune. That profit was rnadc for one vcar and immediately aftenvards thev closed down. A . mine does not keep ojJen very long after It ceases to pay. The nmth reason g1ven by the hon. gentleman is that there is no contribution bv the workon; under this Bill. Expressing an individual opinion I £ay that there should be no charge npon \'\'ages.

Hon. G. S. CURTIS: Then thev should have no representation on the council.

The SECRETARY FOR I;HNES: Under the \Vorkers' Compensation Act. who pays the Jll"em ium '! The employers pa v the premiums an!d not the, workers. Under this Bill, and it is sound in principle, we suy that the premiums should be a charge against the industry and paid by the Pmployei·s.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: The nYo ti1inrrs arc quite different; a man does not ,~~ilfullv rncet "·ith an accident. "

'l'he SECRETARY FOR lVHC'iE:::i: There uro not very many wilfully unemployed people in this State. I certa.inly have a better opinion of the Australians than to think that there is a very large uumber of them who are wilfully unemployed. Unfortu­nately a great many men are unemployed through no fault of their own. V\'hen a man is willing to work he should han' the right to work, and if you refuse to give him the right to work then you should gin' him the right to live.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Who is depriving them of the rig-ht to live'!

The SECRETARY l<OR JYH::s-ES: Hon. gentlemen are by refusing to pass this Bill. This Bill will minimise industrial unrest in this State. The tenth reason given by the hon. gentleman is, in mr opinion, ;, wry flims.) one. He sai.d the Bill should not. pass because there is no kg.islation of this kind in Great Britain. \Yhv should we not pa&i something uew: If this Govern­ment desires to intrnduce something of an original character, it ocloes not say that it is not a good rneasure. The ia.st reaf'on given by the hon. gentlcmau is, of cour~,;, the usual reason that this Council is sympathetic to the genuine unemployed workf'r, and will be prepared to favourably consider uny scheme for dealing with the unemployed on <tn cquit· able basis, and so forth. If the hon. gcntle­Jncn were sincE' re in that tit a tenH'nt tlwy would not moyc that the }\ill ;,,. read u second timP this day six months

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: \Vhy .don': you read t.ho patagraph which explai1,1~ why ~t V\:as. not taken into Committee.

The SECRETARY FOH. ::VII); :SS: Which puragraph'?

Hon. T'. ,) . LEAHY: The which explains why it cannot be

The SECRETARY FO.R ~.II.'\IES: I gave hvelYe reasons n1entioned by the hnn. gentle­nntn and if his followere had anv sympathy witl/ the workers of Qtu~ens1and vthey would have passed the second reading of this Bill and c·ncleavourcd to imp,:ove the Bill in Com­mittee. Instead of doing that the hon. gentle­Inan comes along with the usual an1e-ndment, and mo\"€S that the Bill be read this time six months, which means that it will l-,e put aside at any rate for twelv0 n:.onths.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: \Vhy don't _you re-ad the clause which explains why it is not taken in Co1nmittco '( You deliberate!~· passed ov-er that.

The SECRETARY FOR :YIIKES: I did not. There are only tweh·e reasons giv£~n,. and I think I have dealt with the twelve.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Is there not a reason saying- that certain amendments would be outsid" the scope of the Bill. and rpfcrenee to the constitutional difficultiu ·: I do not. remember _vou reading that.

Hon. A. J. Jone8.]

H02 Unemployed TV orkers Bill. [COUNCIL.] Unemployed Workers Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The hon. gcntle1nan can11ot argu-e that this Bill could not he amended by the Council; that it is not competent for the Council to amend the Bill.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORX: You would argue that.

The SECRETARY FOR ::\IIXES: I would argue that way if the hon. gentleman attemptc>d to deal with the financial clauses of the B1l!.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: If a bx was put on the GoYernn1cnL would you uot argue that it was again~t the Constitution?

The SECRETARY FOR :\fiNES: Not nnder th,· l·uling you gave yesterday. (Laugh­ter.}

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: You would not acce•pt that.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: In my second reading speech I gave my arguments. I regret very mtjch the action the hon. gentleman has taken.

Hon. E. w. H. FoWLES: vYhat about "Injury to one is the concern of all" ? Should not the whole community carry th0 burden of the unemployed?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The Government ar() carrying the burden at the present time. If the hon. gentleman we•re sincere in his statement that he has sympathy with the workers, he would have treated the Bill in an entirely diffe-rent manner.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: I am perfectly sincere.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The object 0£ th· Bill is to cr,at<· constant ernployrncnt, '!n~l .the pffect of passing it ·would b ' r,-) rr-; n11n:nse TWYPrt.v a nrl crime.

Hon. \Y. STEPHEKS: It would absolutelv increase it. ~

The SECRETARY FOR l\liNES: It stands to reason that, when vou have a vast number of unemployed in" a State like Queensland, they are more te-mpted to do wro1~g. To repeat a quotation I made when movmg the second reading of the Bill­" Satan never tempts the person whom he finds employed at useful work." If yol! have a large number C?f unemployed, poverty, drunkenness, and cnme are the natural corol­lary. On the other hand, if men are use­fully employed, you will find a reduced amount of industrial unrest ; the·re will be less drscontent, and less cause for strife and fewer industrial upheavals.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORl\: There has been more of that under the present Government than under any previous Government.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I will edmit th<tt there are other methods than that proposed. by . this Bill for creating <>mploymem. For mstance 1t can be done by increasing production, 'by the establish­ment of secondary industries, and the ('ncouragement of our primary industries. This Bill is introduced with the sole object of dealing with the difficult problem of prm·cntmg unemployment.

Hon. W. STEPHEKS: It will only increase it.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The Hon. :Mr. Leahy has not treated the Bill nor th·: intentions of the Government as i hP .I- deserve to be treated in this branch of the Legislature. The Bill should at l('a~t .haY~ pas~~d its. second reaJing .stagP, and 1n lornnlltteP, 1f hon. members had

[Hon. A. J. Jones.

reasonable amendments to submit, the Government would have been only too willing to accept those amendments.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: They always are.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I accepted the hon. gentleman's amendments yesterday.

Hon. T. M. HALL: Not in a money Bill, though

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Not in a money Bill; but this is not altogether a money Bill.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORK: You would raise that point at once if we tried to amend it.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I know other hon. members want to speak, and it would be very l!ngenHrous for me to take up the whole evening in replying to the Hon. :Mr. Leahy's speech and to the numer­ous arguments that he brought forward for postponing the second reading for six months. If the hon. gc·ntleman knew the keen disap­pointment th<tt will be felt by the workers throughout Queensland, I am sure he would hesitate about taking this drastic action.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: You cannot speak for the genuine workers.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I would appeal to the good sense of hon. members opposite and to their sympathy, and ask them to do something for the workers of Queensland by defeating the amendment and allowing the Bill to pass its £econd reading stage•.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: You are invited to bring in a proper Bill.

HoN. G. S. CURTIS: The Government should hav<' assumed the responsibility for finding work for the ljnemployed, instead of endeavouring to throw the responsibility upon private employers. The question of the right to work is not altogether a new one. It was discussed in England many years ago in the time of John Stuart Mill, the great econo­mist and philosopher. He expressed the oninion that, if the GovernrnHnt made them­selves responsible for finding work for ,every­body that required it, they would have to place some restriction upon the increase of population, some restriction upon the· mar­riage rate, and perhaps pass laws to .enforce emigration. You would never imagine that a Bill would be introduced in any country requiring employc;rs to find employment for all the unemployed. There seems to be a large number of unemployed in Queensland, and the Government are mainly responsible for them. The policy they have pursued since the·y came into power is the chief cause for the large numb<Jr of unemployed there arc in the country. The Government have declared their hostility to capitalists over and over again, and this unfriendly attitude towards private enterprise is largely respon­sible for the existence of unemployment. I wouJ.d emphasise that the obligation is upon the Governme•nt to bring in a right to work Bill based upon sound economic principles.

The SECRETARY FOR MIKES : This is a right to work Bill.

HoN. G. S. CURTIS: It is not based upon equitable or economic principles. For instance, it is proposed to give representa­tion Oil the· unemployment council to the

Unemployed Workers Bill. [15 OCTOBER.) [)nemployed Workers Bill. 1403

t>t,>nlovcc~ who are to contribu.te nothing to the. fu.nd. To my mind, that is most unrea.­eDnable Under the council as proposed by the Bill, the employers would be absolutely at the: mercy of trade union influence and tlEc influence of the caucus. The employers of labour would be compelled to engage men ·1 fH'tleYer they WC·re required by the council h do so. That is a most unreasonable pro­vioion. It means that manv men who have become employers by reason of hard work n.nd thrift are to be compelled to maimain

number of men whose great object in life i., not to do any work at all if they can help it. Under the Bill the employer will be c1mpelled to find work for those men, even ·i; it means carrying on his industry at a loss. It is most unreasonable for the Ministm- to wg·grst that this Col!ncil should take the r:•lponsibility of passing the second reading ; f the Bill, and then undertake the further :·e:,ponsibility of licking it into shape in Committee. That would be· a tremendous t , -!c Why should the Council undertake it?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I did not say 7.~.at. I said that we would accept any r<' .t.'onable amendment.

HoK. G. ::0. GCRTIS: The thing is so i:cherently bad that it is not capable of proper a .. endmcnt. (H£·ar, hear!) The only thing t . do with it is for the Government to with­draw it and bring in a proper Bill providing work for the unemployed upon sound and

" nomic principles. (Hear, hear !)

Hox. T. :\'EVITT: I should have expected fwm hon. members on the other side a little !tl-·)l'P considerate treatn1{c~nt for a Bill of this

than it lw" recei Hd. This is a vcrv que,tion. and a question that shoul~1

L~· treated in a fair and in1partial n1anner; b;w no Hretch of i1nagination can a.n~T­

<•L • sav that th<' Dill has received the con­.· ;•ration to which it is Bntitlcd'!

HrJll. P. ,T. LEAHY: It has n•ccivccl the ·L~tnw::'t consideration.

HoN. T. ::'\EVITT: The hon. gentleman o ,- upied five or six n1inutes in dPaling \vith this in1portant nu=-asure.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: I spoke for hventy r:.inutc:3.

Hox. T. XEVITT: The hon. gentleman <'o.l not epeak for anything like twenty " i:mtes. His speech showed the amount of interest that he has in trying to solve the d:tfic·ult problem that is dealt with by the Bill.

Hon. P. ,J. LEIHY: I touehcd on all the e;;;.;..,_·ntial points, and the atnendnw·nt is a · ;>e··eh in itself.

Hox. T. NEVITT: No doubt the Bill goes occ the beaten track.

H•)n. \Y. STEPHEKS: There is no doubt ~t;):)ut that.

Box. T. :'\JEVITT: Tlw lion. :\Ir. Lcahy q:,;oted "\vhat was done in othPr countries where the contributory basis is different; but in none of those cou:ri~tries haYc their experi­ruents been successful. l-Ion. nH~n1bers on tfte other side should be prepared to give thl' Bill a. fair trial. It is worthv of a trial. S0me of the clauses may be rath~r arbitrary. ThP incidence of assessn1ent n1ight be altel'ed in 8uch a way as to spread the responsibility over the community; but what I wish to

point out is the scant consideration that the Bill has so fa.r received.

Hon. \Y. STEPHE:>:S: You can't say that" I took the Bill home and read it for a whole night.

HoN. 'I'. 1'\EVII'T: The Hon. Mr. Fowles is the only one on that side who has dealt with the Bill in a practical manner.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Cannot a man consider a Bill without speaking on it'!

HoN. T. NEVI'l'T: He can; but hon. members have given so little consideration to the Bill that they ha.-c decided that it i, valueless, and that they will throw it out.

Hon. \Y. STEPHEXS: That is so. The Bill is an absolute fra.ud.

Hox. T. NEVIT'l': I maintain that the Bill deserves more consideration than it has received.

Hon. E. \V. H. Fowr.Es: How do you ex· plain the existence of so much unemploy­ment under a Labour Government'!

Hox. T. NEVITT: The Hon. Mr. Leahy said that the Bill was going to be a failure; but he did not give one solitary reason why he thought it was going to be a failure. I have not had an opportunity of going through the reasons that the hon. gentleman gave for not proceeding with the Bill. If the hon. gentleman had h·eated the Dill fairly. he would have given hon. members an opportunitv of perusing· his reasons so tha!> thPv would be able to deal with them. But without any warning he brings forward an amendrnent in which he gives twelve reasong wlrc the Bill should not be gone on with. I n;a.intain that un<Jnplovment is a condition which result~ largely fro~n our social <.Hgani­sation.

Hon. L'. ,T. LEAHY: From the present GoYernrncnt.

Hox. T. "'EVITT: For that organisation the cornnlullity, i:lfl a. whole, is re . ..;ponsible.

HONOUHABLE ME)IBERS: Xo; the prcsem Gove1'nn1ent are responsible.

HoN. T. NEVITT: Is this the only State where there is any unmnployrnent?

Hon. A. G. ('. }LnvTHORN: There is more here than anywhere elsP.

Hox. T. :\'EVITT: 'Throughout Australia. -in fact, throughout the whole. civilised world--there is the same trouble w1th whiCh we arc confronted here.

Hon. A. G. C. ll.\WTHORK: Xot to the same {'xtent a~ here.

Ho;,. T. NEVITT: The other day the Hon. Mr. Brentnall said that it was not tlw fault of this Government that there was anyone out of work.

Ho;,ouRABLE lYIEliiBERS: Hear, hear!

Ho;;. T. XEVITT: That statement was supported by the I-I o~t. Mr. Fowles; y~t in the ·• Courier" vou will f1nd advert1sementa asking for ei11ployuwnt for 1,500 soldiers in Queensland. Is it the fault of those men that thev are out of work'! The Hon. Mr. Brent· nall said it \\'as their fault-not the fault of the Government.

Hon. P .. J. LEAHY: There is not that num­ber of soldiers out of \York.

Hon. T. Nevitt.]

1404 Unemployed Workers Bill. [COUNCIL.] r.:nemp/oyed Workr•·., Bill.

HoN. T. NEVITT: Some hon. members opposite say that it is the fa.ult of the Go­Yernment; but the Hon. :i\fr. Brentnall said that it was the fault of the men. Which "'·e we to believe?

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Brentnall sav that advertising fo~ 1vork?

Did the Hon. Mr. 1,500 soldiers >vere

HoN. T. NEVITT: No, I say so; and the hem. member will find the advertisement in the '·Courier." The Hon. ::Vlr. Brentnall '"id that it was the fault of the men them­selves that they are out of work, and the Hon. :\fr. Fowles said the same thing.

lion. I>. J. LEAHY: In many cases it is.

HoN. T. ::-.JEVITT: In some cases it is: hut does that apply to those 1,500 soldiers for whom the Repatria.tion Department are advertising for positions? If hon. members opposite had a little more of the milk of human kindnes:;; running through their '''ins they would have given the Bill more •consideration than they have.

lion. E. \Y. H. FOWLES: I have a whole <TPa n1ery in 1ny veins.

lioN. T. NEVITT: Then it is the tim0 the hon. gentleman let a little of it out and p:a.vp someone ehe the benefit of it. Unem­ployment. being a national problem, must be dealt with by the nation.

Hon. :K W. H. FowLES: Bv the Federal Parlian1ent? V

lioN. T. NEVITT: Y0s. in some respects even b_v tlw Federal Parliament. But the Ff'dcral Parlian1cnt are not taking the in­

terest in the question that they [8 p. m.] should take, and the State Go­

-, . . Y-e1:nn1ent, reeJising tbe re::;ponsi­tnht,__ are trymg to the best of their abilit.-­t,o alleviate the trouble by introducing this BilL \Yhat are the cans0s ·of unem]lloyrncnt'

Hon. P .. J. LEAHY: The present Govern­ment.

HoN. T. NEVITT: Tra-de fluctuations {orm one cause for unemployment. Seasonal occupations are another great trouble.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: \Vagts are made 'o accord with them.

Hox. T. NEVI'rT: Not at aiL A great number of ahearers and rouseabouts get only three or four months' work in the year. Are the wages thGY receive for those three nr four months' work sufficient to carry them on for the rest of the twelve months?

Hon. E. \V. H. FowLES : They are not }oafing the other nine months.

HoN. T. NEVITT: If this Bill had got the consideration from hon. gentl~men that ;t is entitled to, we should have had organisa­tion on the part of the Government and the local authorities which would have pro­vided work for those people during th~ slack ·"'ason. and in this way the work would have been distributed in a fair and reason­able manner. That is the intention of the Bill, and the least hon. g<;ntlemen could ha.vf' done \\as to have given it fair con­•ideration, to have allowed it to go into Committ-ee, and to have introduced amend­ments of a beneficial nature. Th~ sugar ·industry is another industry in which the (JCcupation is seasonal. During the best of eeasons men do not get more than six months'

[Hon. T. Nevitt.

work, and during the prese!;t aeason, in the majority of cas~s, they wlli get less than six 1nonths' \vork.

Hon. \Y. STEPHENS: 'The men have to work in the field after the mills are closed.

HoN. T. NEVITT: How many men wor~ in the field compan;d with the n_umber o~ men engaged in cuttmg and crushmg ea!'~. The hon. gentleman knows that tw_o-thnds of the men employed during the ~uttmg and crushing sE'ason are put off durmg the _off season, and that not more than one-thn·<l of the mPn are employed in the fields. The same rmy;arks apply to the wheat harvest; Then we have to consider the effect;; oi .droughts and floods. We are suffermg frc>rn a drought to-day, and that 1s ,·en· largely the cause of a good deal of the unemployment.

Hon. A. H. \YHITTIXG!LUI: It is finding employment.

HoN. '1'. NEVITT: I admit that it is tlnding some employment in certain dnec­tions, but the hon. gentleman J;;nows that the damage eaw;ed by the drought IS far mere than will be compensat11d foi· by the mcreasul Pmployment given by pastorahsts.

Hon. A. H. WHITTINGHDr: I know what I am talking about.

Hox. T. NEVITT: And I know_ wha.t I am talking about. In some inclustnes, such as the pastoral industry, no doubt, employers in individual cases have to employ a great deal more labour in drought time than they do during an ordinary S<Oason.

Hon. A. H. \YHITTINGH.nr: You did r.ot say that before.

HoN. T. ?\EYITT: If the hon. gentleman did not know what I wanted to convey t.o the Council he should have done so. \Vork­men are unable to do anythmg to help t~en:­selves when they are struggling as . mdJ­~,idt;als. and we \V ant the (j-ov~rnment ~ ')1: lectively to assist them. That 1s the ob]Ec, of this Bill.

Hon. \V. STEPHENS: You want the eHJ­

ployer, not the Government. to do It.

HoN. T. ='lEVITT: The Governm"nt m·e the largest employers of labour in Queen'­land.

Hon. \'Y. STEPHEXS: And they contribute nothing.

HoN. T. 1'\EVITT: They contrib~1te Hry largely. If the unemp_loyed counCil _whH,

1h

is proposed to be est::bhshed under this B,"l understand the busmess they are to '-'~ 011trusted with, I firmly believe that tlwy will be the means of preventmg a good dE)a.l of the unemployment that we. have s_uffer~d from in the past. All that IS reqmred to correct a good many of our unemployment troubles is organisation. Frequently, as hon. gentlemen know perfectly . well, corr~pames in Queensland have advertised m Bnsban<>, Sydnev, and :Melbourne for workmen, when there \vere any number of men a-:a!lable :n different patts of Queensland. Under thi<; Bill that kind of thing will be stopped. h people in any particula~· part _of Queensland require la hour, they will be m close toueh with tlw labour bureaus. ar.d the la!Jou:· will be brought to them.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES: Yc·:J La vc laho: r bureaus to-day.

Unemployed Worker.s Bill. [15 OCTOBER.] Unemployed Workers Bill. 1405

Ho:-;. T. NEVITT: But there is no coun­e[l to go between them and the employer of labour. and there is no provision to pre­v>e;nt the employer of labour from sending Dnt to another State for workers to flood the labour market, which has been done hun­<.i.reds of times in this State. Unemploy­ment can be fought fairly effectively by col­lectiv!J action, but it cannot be fought by individual action. The man who desires work scarcely knows where to look for it. Fnder this Bill every man will register hi> name with the unemployment council, ·nd if thcrr' is anv work available in the co:mnunit:· he· 'vill i:w put into touch- with it.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: Would the Go­vernment pay the entrance fees of those men t·> the \Vharf Lumpers' Union?

Hox. T. );EVITT: ·when t.hat question ,,,,m~s up for decision I shall be prepared to <iiscuss it. bnt it does not ariSB under this Bill. I a1n not now discussing unionism, bnt I am dealing with a Bill which has been introduced with the be't of intentions, and I hopC' that hon. members will treat it ·'2riously. I do not say it is a perfect Bill. Inde~d. I do not say that any Act of Par­I ia.ment i,; perfect. But this is a fair and humanitarian attempt to try to alleviate the unemployment suffering that we have experi­c-nct'd in the past. Th~ Hon. Mr. Curtis, v hen he spoke a short time ago, said the GD\"Crnn1ent shoul·cl bring in a "R.ight to \York Bill." If the hon. gentleman had read this Bill. he would haye found that it gives r iw l'ight to a ~nan either to work or to get ;;u.-;trnanre allo"\YU-ll<=:P. \Vhero is thPrP anv-thing wrong with that propos~I·? ·

Hon. G. S. CuRTIS: I said the rig.ht to work for the State.

HoN. T. NEVITT: The State is the largest employer of labour in Queensland, and the l;overnm~nt carry the biggest portion of thP burden in connection vvith unerrtployn1cnt.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES : ·what will the .St<Jte contribut(• under this Bill• Thev will f,JrCC' loans on local authorities; that 1s all.

Hox. T. ?\:EVITT: On an average, during the last ten years thq Government ha,·e spent two and a-half millions of loan money per '"mum, and they have advanced money to (ocal authorities. Is not that carrying a g-reat deal more than anvbod;· else will carrv under thi;; Bill? ' · '

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORX: They get it b 1clc

Hox. T. :-.:EVlTT: But thqy are respon­~ible for raising t.he money. If the local autboritic·s ba.d not the Government behind th·•nt the~- ··oulc! uot go into the open market and borrow money.

Hon. VC ~'TEPHENS: Yes, they couLd. Bris­tJ,ane get" n1oncy in that ·way, and any of the1u could.

Hox. T. ;.JEVITT: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly vcell that. taking the wholo uf thP local authorities throughout the J,,ngth and breadth of Queensland, they could not get advances through the banks. But I -,,·ould ,,,sk: \Yhat have other countries done in trying to solve the unemployment prob­km: 'What ha Ye they don<' in Belgium? All towns in Belgium carrying over 35,000 of a poulation have some scheme for the 3.1]e,·iation of unemployment. In Ghent. ·tht• ~cheme is controlled by trade unions,

who are subsi.dised by public funds to the extent of from 30 per cent. to 100 per cent. The public funds are controlled by a counci I. which consists of members of affiliated associations and rnen1bers of communes. who are paid 4s. per sitting. That is the scheme which is being tried in a great manv of the cities and towns of Belgium. And what has been the result? In no individual town o:· city has the scheme been absolutely suc­cessful. In some cities and towns it has been. the means of helping the unemployed, but 1t has not got to the bedrock of th<> problem. The Bill we have now under consideration goes considerably further than the Belgian ~cheme, and the promoter of this particular scheme thinks it will have a fair chance of meeting the troubles we suffer from.

Hon. vV. STEPHENS : Who is the promoter?

HoN. T. ::\'EVITT: The Treasurer. who is the father of the Bill. ·

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: vVel!, we disagree with him : we think he is wrong.

HoN. T. NEVITT: You haYe given us nn reasons to show that he is wrong.

Hon. P . .J. LEAHY: I gave more reasom than he gave.

HoN. T. NEVITT: The Belgian schenhl is an inBurance schen1e, .and those who principally benefit under that scheme are textile and metal workers. There is no re­'triction as far as residence is concerned. as there is in this Bill, but there is a restric­tiou that a person must be a member of onn of the unions for twelve months before h., can participate in the advantages of the 'chcmc. Tlw result has been that the scheme has dealt with about half of th0 average unempJoym'cnt in Belgiun1. That is ~omething, certainly, but it is not enough.

Hon. E. vV. H. FOWLES: That scheme tbrows the responsibility on the unions.

Hox. T. ?\EVIT'I': No. that is not so. Xobodv but a member of a union can get the benefits conferred by this scheme. but the State subsidises thC' contributions of the 1mions to the {'Xtent of from 30 per cent. to lOO per cent.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: What authority are you quoting from?

HoN. T. NEVITT: "Unemployed Insur-a nee."

Hon. P . .J. LEAHY: By whom?

HoN. T. ?\EVITT: By I. J. Gibbon. Hon. P. J. LEAHY: What is the date'

HoN. '1'. KEVITT: 1911. But it does not matter whethe,. it was before the war or aftel' tho war. It is the principle I am dealing with. In the neighbouring duchy of Luxemburg practically the same scheme prevails.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: That is only a smaH place.

Hox. T. NEVITT: Well, I will take a huger country. Some of the department·. 1ll

France give assistance to the municipalitit::s. As earlv as 1903 the French realised tha~ the une'inployment question was one which should be tackled by the 'Government, and that that was the only way in which a solu· tion was likely to be found. Every other known form was tried and found a failure .. The Goycrnment came to their assistance, and certain!!- improved on old oonditions.

Hon. T. N.evitt.]

1406 Unemployed Workers Bill. [COUNCIL.] F;; em played W orkera Bill.

As early as 1903 the Committ<Je of the Cham­ber of Deputies recommended that unem­ployed insurance should be facilitated and Eubsidised by the municipalities, but not by the State. The Government recognised that the workmen were not in a position to find the \Yhole of the insurance allowance, and the (; oYernment at that time did not think that t~hey were justified in contribu~ing_ towards it. but thought that the mumcrpaht1es and citv councils should do so. That scheme remained for a little time, but it was found that oven with that snbsidv the funds were not sufficient. So the Government saw that thev had to come to its rescue. and further sub.sidised it. The schctne continued up to the time of the war. From 1914 we have little or no information of unemployed insurance schemes on the Continent, because they were practically dormant.

Now I come to a little country called Holland. The same scheme, to a •rery con­~iderable extent, was in vogue there, with the exception that the Government subsidised it up to 100 per cent. The Government realised from the jump that the whole of the responsibility should not lie upon the trade unions themselves, and Raid, " For every £1 you spend in alleviating distress or unen1ploym.ent, \vc will give you £1."

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: There was a Government subsidy.

Ho:<~. T. J\"EVITT: Hon. members have treated this subject with contempt-kicked it out of the back door. Surclv it deserves more consideration than hon. m:ombers have given to it ! Germany has had several systems in the different towns and cities. In Strassburg, Heidclbcrg, Miilhausen, and Lcipsic subsidies are paid v,~ithout variation at the rate of 10e. for every £1 spent by the in-:,uranC'e people. That schernc is the clos0st approach to the scheme drafted in this Bill. In Germany, th0 labour bureaus arc kept in close touch with the insurance people, and \Yhen n1cn are declared on the insurance funds they are able to tell the insurance people where the labour can be placed. That does exactlv the same as our unem­plo,ment council \vill do in conjunction with the Labour Bureau in Queensland. The great fault in Germanv has been that the scheme has dealt with onlv one-half of the unem­ployed. The oth0r" half, who were not in trade unions or insurance schemes, had the full force of the unions, the labour bureau, the insurance people, ranged against their 15etting em.ployment. In other words. they had to take fourth place-three men had preference before any of them came in, again showing that the G0rman scheme was a failure.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY : They are all failures, n1ore or less.

Ho:<~. T. NEVITT: Hon. members are not game to put a scheme into operation.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: The German scheme is not a failure. It solved the ques­tion of the unemployed, but not the question of the unemployable.

HoN. T. NEVITT: It was a failure, so far as the unomploy~d question was con­,erned. I know that In every country there is a. number of unemployables, physical derelicts. In Denmark, both the State and local authorities subsidise the funds, which, in all cases, are managed by trade unions.~ There, again, the man who is not in a trade

[Hon. T. Nevitt.

umon is handicapped to a very considerable extent. In other words, so long as there is a trade unionist out of work, there is no po'<­sible chance for another man to get place-d in a position. In :\'m·way the State subsiclis~~ the trade unions to the extent of 30 neY cent. or 40 llf'l' cent., but recoYcrs it £r~or~1 the local authorities. so that in reality it contributes nothing directly. In Switzerland, the city of St. Gall was the first place, I think, in Europe where a compulsory scheme of insurance was brought into force.

Hon. A. G. C~ HAWTHORX: The German scheme is compulsory.

Hox. T. :\'EVITT: I do not think so. ).1y authority, '' Unemployment Insurance-A Hecord of Hesearch in the Department d Sociology in the University of London," hy I. G. Gibbon. says otherwise, and I presume it is a reliable authority, equal to, if not better than, that of the hon. member. The compulsory scheme ended in failure, for various reasons. In the first place, only those who \vere likelv to declare on t.he funds, or what are knOwn in insurance pa.r1-nnce as bad risks, took advantage of :-c. Those persons in whose occupations there was very little unemployment, such as pest. office employees and artisans, did not bf­come members. and the risks which were covered were so great that the scheme broke­down of its own weight. The Bill before ''" preYcnt' anything of that kind. There may be difference of opinion as to whether the assessn1ent is right or othor,vise, but soundness of the underlying principles of Dill cannot be denied.

Hon. E. vv·. H. Fowucs: Why should there be unemployment at all?

Hox. T. '\EVITT: The hon. member f!ae. said seYeral times this session that there should be no unemployment. I have already rcmark0d ,hat there is unemploym.er:t throughout the length and breadth of the world. so that there is no Government that rnccts the hon. rnemher's standard. So >re

rnust §.to out of the boatcn track and t to find a wlution for ourseh·es. In town of Basle, as far back as 1899, a schemtJ of compulsory insurance was adopted, and finally passed the Great Council by fort"­six votes to twelve. A proposal in the Grc c::; Council that it should be submitted to the referendum \\'as rejected, but, fortunateiy for the people at Basle, they had on their statute-books provision for a referendum. They got the required number of signatuno, and demanded a referendum. The scheme was turned down by the people by 5,458 to 1,120. The electors numbered 16,000. That is a rase where the Great Council were w stubborn, like certain hon. members in a division taken in this Chamber yest.etda:-, that they insiswd in having their own way against the exprc .. s wish of the people, and when the matter "as sent to the people, tlwy turned it down bv a majoritv of practicallv five to one. '\ ow I come to Italy, the las~ of the European countries I propose to deal with.

Hon. K \Y. H. FOWLES: This is a tOJ.H round the \\'orlcl.

Hox. T. '\EVI'l'T: I have Q'iYon this suD­jcct oome little thought and~ consideraticn,. and I \Yant to giYe hon. members and the country the henPfit of the time I have givf · t to it. Books of the class I have mention<>od are not 3-vai1ab1e to ov~ry person in Queen:.~ land, and I am oatisfied that quite a nun.l::-er

Unemployed Workers Bill. [1.5 OCTOBER.] Cnemploycd Workers B .•. 14U7

''"ill appreciate the remarks I am making, bPcausc they will give son1-c idea as to the eonditions in Europe and how Governments ha Ye trc·ated this quPstion. In Venice they tried a peculiar scheme. In the early stages, in 1901, the principal income was from large private endowment, increased by contribu­tions frmn honorary n1e1n bors, and gifts from philanthropic people. As the y·ears passed those subscriptions from honorarv mmnbers and gifts from trades people, busi;;ess people, and wealthy people dwindled, until the scheme turned topsy-tuny. The Government thought it vvas a very good thing, and so they contributed a subsidy.

What was the position in Great Britain bcfor·e. the National Insurance scheme came into operation? The only benefits that could be go11 by unemployed were the out-of-work pa,·ments made by about 100 different trade unions. I think in 1910, or at any rate a vear or bvo before the insurance scheme was brought into operation, those trade unions were spending on an average £1,000,000 per annum in out-of-work pay, and on top of that friendly societies \H'l'e spending on the average about £100,000 per annum in distress

pay. All friendlv societies did [8.30 p.m.] not pay that, ' but it was

about the average for several vears before the insurauce schcrr1o came into ~-ogue. Now what brought the insurance sdwme into existence'? It was ··imply be­cawc~e this was too heayy a load for the workers of Britain to carry, and the Go­yernnl'ent, realising that the workers were doing all that lay in their power to try and o.-crcome the .diflicultie' under which they were labouring, and that they were not .-ucc·eeding as well as thev deserved to suc­ceed. bmught the insur;meo -cheme into operation. ·It was in operation for such a short time before the war that I have not been able to trace what benefits were derived under it, because in all countries unemployed insuranc"J schemes have becu lying dorn1ant during- the period of the war. '

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORX: It was ycry ·~uc-ee~qful during the few years it was in exi::-tence. ·

Ho:.~. T. NEVITT: The faults of the .'chemG I have outlined are such as to warrant anyone who is going to handle this subject going off the beaten track. because the beaten tracks, as far as VI{' know then1 to-day, have not been a -:ucccss.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTIIORl\: That is not r'Ol'l'f'C't.

Ho:.~. T. NEVITT: With all due deference to the hon. gentleman, I say that not one of t hcrn has been a success.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHOIC\: The British s.ysten1 of national insuranc-e has been a ~UCCC!<,S.

HoN. T. NEVITT: Far from it. There 1-1 as a. Yery large nun1ber of unen1ployod in Great Britain at any period vou like to take after unemployment insurance was brought into force. I admit that things were mnch hetter under that sch<eme, but it did not get dowiJ to the root of the CYil in the way we propose under this Bill. Bv no stretch of the irHagination can the hon. ientlcrnan say that any scheme that has been in fore• for only twph,,~e Inonths. or two :vears-I go further and say e¥·en f1Yc years-has been a success.

Hon. A. G. C. HA WTHORl\ : You cannot say that it was not a success.

Ho::-:. T. 1'\EVITT: Events have proved that it was not a success; none of them have given relief to the unemployable. This Bill attempts to do that; it attempts to get at the unemployabl(', such as the Hon. Mr. Fowles mentioned a little while ago.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORX: Thc·cmgh the e1nployer.

Hox. T. :\"EVITT: Not throug·h the em­ployer in this case, because the unemploy· able will not get any sustenance allowance. They will be put on the labour farm and therefore- the employer will not contribute to their support except as an ordinary tax­payer. Again I say the hon. gentleman is wrong. In all cases that have been quoted, whether the Go,-ernment gaye a subsidy or not, e·ventually the Government have had to come to the rescue in order that the scheme could be carried on at all. The Government have assisted them over the stile, and have improyed the conditions more or less in all instances, but none of the Fchemes can be said to have been successful. In other words, not one of the schemes have been of any Yalue when tre·ating with the unemployable. The struggle against unemployment has to be won, not by way of iusurance, but by prcvcntiYe n10<::~snres, such a::-:. the regula­tion of production, a general economic policy, and better education. This Bill proYid<)s for that. Whether it will be a success or other­wise it is impossible to say, but on the face of it it is well worthy of a trial, and I am very much disappointed that hon. gentlemen are not prepared to give it a trial. ·when· ever a man is unable to get work through lack of technical knowledge, there is a clause in the Bill which will enable the council to put that man into one of our technical col­legH, so that he may get the technical know· ledge necessary to enable him to compete with his fellow-men, whatever trade or call­ing he may follow. Then, again, the regula­tion of apprenticeship will probably help workero to find employment. That is what I again wish to emphasise. That is one of the great benefits. Everyone on the other side will admit that under this Bill at least the council will have power of telling a man who was wanting work where work was t{} be got if there was any work to he got in l£uecn.•land.

Hon. P .. J. LEAHY: What is Bureau doing now? Is not business?

Labour their

Hox. T. ='JEVITT: The Labour Bureau has done very useful work up to date, but Ifs work could very rc·asonably be extended with adYantage, not only to the workers. but to tlJC whole community. It has been shown that the risk of unemployment varie~ very much. :Hen engaged in the building trades, I suppose on the average in European coun­tri~s, at least, are out of work from three to four months in the year owing to climatic conditions. Now, Govc·rnment employees are rarely out of work except through sickness. and therefore you can quite understand that Goverument employees are not going to con­tribute to the insurance fund because thev are rarely liable to go on the fund, whil'9 building trade employees rush the insurance bee a use, for three or four months in the year, they are out of work. Then, in the majority of these schemes the workers do not get any ach·antage until they have been OL\t of work for a month. Unde·r a majoritv of the schemc1 a man has to be out of work a

Hon. T. Nevitt.]

1408 CM!llp/oyed Worke1·s Bill. [COUNCIL.] Unemployed Workers Bill.

month bei<ne he can declare on the funds, which is another very serious handicap. A man has to live during that month, and the family has to be provided for. I will give an illustration that I remember very well. In the year '83 or '84 there was a very hard winter in the town I came from, and the building- trade was stagnant. In fact, out­door work was stopped, as the ground was frozen for 7 or 8 feet in depth. The• result was that a number of men who could not -got work-they were not loafers-yoked them­'clves to four-wheeled lorries; drew those lorries empty 14 miles to a salt works. The men went to the salt works and said they were prepared to bny salt, but the salt works 1'''oplc said, ·'No; put as much on your lorrio> as you can." These men then loaded the JorriPs and dragged them 14 miles back to tht' town and sold the salt in order to tn and !td cl crust for their wi.-es and fafnilit::-. '~

Hon. P . .J. LEAHY: What has that to do with Queensland's conditions'!

Ho". T. NEVITT: It has a lot to do with {~\H'PJis:ancrs cunrlitions. t t.hought hon. gentlemen woul·d have given this Bill more consich~ration than they have, because the .<ame conditions pre.-ail to a certain extent in Queensland. Though we have not hard winters to put up with. we certainly have droughts and floods which bring about almost similar conditions to those to which I have referred. I have known men in Queensland -as good men as any who have ever be.-en in this Chamber-who have been unable to get work. ][ la.ve been in that unfortunate position myself. Thirty odd years ago I could not get work in Brisbane. and I went to the far North of Queensland-as far away as I could get. Unfortunately, I arrived there in the wet season, and no work coqld. he obtained. and I had a pretty rough time for two or three months until the wet season was ewer. H a Bill of this kind had been on the statute-book I would not have had to ~uffer those privations.

An HoNOURABLE GENTLEMAN : The Bill is not cquita ble.

Hox. T. NEVITT: If the scheme is not eqnitable, it is the duty of hon. g.entlemen to point out where it is not equitable, and to sec wbether we cannot make the Bill a better one than it is. Again, where the· compulsory scheme of insurance has been in yoguc, a great number of the casual workers, rather than eontribute to the insurance echeme·. emigrated to other countries. That shows that a compulsory scheme of insuranca alone ic: va 1ueless, because it does not meet the case. The voluntary scheme failed for other ree.som, as it only got those· who were likelv to be thrown out of employment most freqt~entiy. Those who were always in work or invariably in wod{ would not join, and therefore the voluntary scheme was a failure. Then, in connection with the middle course -that is the scheme where the Government "ranted a subsidy through different unions­failure again took place for a similar re•ason. If a man did not belong to a trade union, he had n< opportunity of getting work so long as a trade unionist was out of work.

. Hon. E. ~V. H. :rowLEs: Your proposition 1;:; a co1npu~sory sc11eme.

HoC';. T. NEVITT: Not a compulsory RC:beme of contribution; it is compulsory on the council to provide work if a man is out

[Hon. T. ]'{ evitt.

of work. and if they cannot provide him with work they must provide him with the necessitim of life to keep body and .soul together.

Hon. P .. J. LEAHY: The whole compulsion is on the employer, whether he can afford it or not.

HoK. T. NEVITT: I have already stated that it is a ·debatable question as to whether the· assessment is equitable or otherwise.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: You say the Bill is a good one.

Hox. T. NEVITT : I say that the under­lying principle of the Bill should have reeoiYed th0 :::crious consideration of hon. gentlemen.

Hon. ~L G. C. HAWTHORN: There is only one principle in it-le.-y on the employer.

HoK. T. 2'\EVITT: If there is only one principlP that principle is to help the men to help thernseh·es, and it is the duty of hon. t:(entlemen to assist in that regard. This Bill says the industry should carry the responsibility. and I am going to .qu_ote ':n authority that will confirm the pnn01ple m this Bill. On page 39 of "Unemployed Insurance,'' by I. G. Gibbon, it F-.ctys-

" One of the most interesting proposals made in GermanY, not only because of the high source h:om w,hich it issues, bnt also because of the principles on which it is based, is the scheme suggested by Dr. Zacher, formerly an official of the Imperial Insuranec Office. He considers that unemployment due to strictly indu-.­trial causes is a risk analagous to that of industrial accident.

"In German~· employers have to form then1sel \?es into associations, and have themselves to provide the premium, to secure to their 'li.-orkmen insurance against industri<tl accidents.''

Hon. g·entlemen on the other side opposocl that scheme when it was introduced in the Queensland Parliament.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORC';: That is workers' compensation, pure and simple.

HoK. T. NEVITT : Exactly. This article continue"'-

" Use the same associations, with COil·

tributions onlv from the employers. recommends I)r. Zacher for unemploy­ment due strictlv to industrial cause;; as distinguished f;·om unemployment due to personal 0<1uses and excludmg· also seasonable unemployment, which he does not consider to he strictly a matter for insurante.

"Unemployment of purely industrial orig·in, he contends, which i~ '.an ine.-it­able consequence of cap!tahstJc produc· tion. can only be mitigated-perhaps rt can be supp;C'"ed-by an insurance of which thee contributions <tre paid by the rnasters of industry."

Hon. P .. J. LEAHY: That is the Dpinion of oa solitary German.

Hox. T. NEVITT: It is the opinion of one of the greatest authorities on unemploy­ment ineurance schemes in the world at that time .

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: This Bill does no.t deal with insurance against unemployment.

HoN. T. NEVITT: If it had the fair run to which it is entitled, it would give a good

Ur.e:nployed Workers Bill. [15 OCTOBER.] Unemployed TVorkers Bill. 1409

deal of aesistance. The Hon. Mr. Hawthorn went through the clauses of the Bill more or lr>ss in detail; but I intend to show that be did not give them the consideration to v; hi rh they are entitled. Subdauee (2) (a) of clause 4 provides that the council may-

,, Inquire into the causes and extent of mwmployment within the State or any put thereof."

J, that not a good thing· to do? Hon. E. \V. H. FOWLES: You C{tn do t·hat

without the Bill.

HoN. T. NEVITT: But without the Bill ;vou cannot rectify the trouble.

Hon. E. \V. H. FoWLEf': \Ye all know the -causes of unemployment.

HoN. T. NEVITT: ParagTaph (b) reads: The council tnay-

" Inquire into and consider what are the rnost effective rneasure<S to be taken for te-1nporarily or pern1anently reducing· or eliminating unemployment within the State or any part thereof."

IIaYC \VC got any machinery at the present tim<> that will do that? I sav. no. For that a lone, thP Bill should ha~·e the support nf h<m. nwmlwrs opposite. Paragraph (t) ]JroviJos: The Council n1a?-

.. Obtain and disserninate infornu:ttion on all rnattel''3 connc-ctr-d \vith inrlustriaJ occu~Jation::: and thP cnllings of \Vorl<f~rs, \vith a Yf'i\\. to improving the indus­tria I r.-'lationship bctwC'E'll \Yorkers and f'ntployel·' and 1csseni ng the Pvi]s of llllPI11pl<~:n11Pl1t."

The lion. ::vfr. Cm·tis would almost agree wit.h that. Yet ho turns round and kicks out the Bill which mak<es proYision for that.

Hon. G. S. CGRTIS: The trouble is that it will he controlled by a Labour GoYcrnment: "{lnd you kno\Y \vbat that nLeans.

HoN. T. ;'\;EVITT: That reply should b{> .o;ood news to cny friends in the other Cham­ber, hecauw' that means that the present c:-overnn1ent are going to renlain in power for all time, and that the hon. member thinks that the people of Queensland are not likely to place another GoYNnment in power. p,aragraph (d) provides: The counc·il may--

'· Consider and report to the Governor in Council upon the inclustrial efficienc:· of thC' comn1unity-----"

Hon. E. \Y. H. FowLES : You do not >nu:t voluminc1s reports to do that. 'They want a job.

Hol>:. T. NEVIT'l': That is the onlv waY vou can find out whether thev "Want· a joh ;.,r not. Hav<> you any m<lchinery at th0 llresent time for fmding out the industrial pfficicncv of the communitv •

Hon. =~· G. C. HAWTHOR;(: Yes. the Luhom DPpartment.

HoN. '1'. l\'EVITT: So far as I know, the Labour Department have nothing to do with industrial efficiency.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORX: The.v arc '-upposed rn rnake inquiries all round.

Hox. T. ::\!EVITT: They are supposed to a&'ortain where labour is <lvailable and where ,. ork is to be found. But wh<~t has that to do with industrial efficiency?

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHOR:.r: They have to fmd out what a man can do. and where there l." work for hin1.

1919-4 ~

HoN. T. NEVITT: They do not go into the question of whether a man is efficit>nt o,· otherwise.

Hon. E. vY. II. J>'OWLES: \Yhcre IS our educational system?

HoN. T. NEVITT: Our educational systf•m is doiug something; but it does not go far enough. This provides that, whereYer a man is found to be inefficient industrially, he 1s

to be m<~de efficient. V\'e have no machiner/ at the present time whereby that can be done. Paragraph (e) reads: The council may-"

" Consider and report to the Governor in Council upon the working of the State Labour exchanges. and make any recom­~nendation deemed ncc~ssa;:~v for the1r 1mprovcment and extension.

Is not that a good idea? When the Bill was previously under discussion thP J;Ion. Mr. Beirne said that the assessment of .£2 per annum on the employer meant the· difference between a profit and a loss.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: It might mean that in n1any busine''-'l:if'~.

HoN. T. NEVITT: The Hon. Mr. Beirne is a very capable hnsin"ss man, hut, with all duo deference to him and the Hon. Mr. Hawthorn. I say that no business is carric;d on in which the employer only mak.es .£2 per annu1n out of each en1ployee 111 h1s "0rvice.

1-Ion. P. .J. LE_\HY; Then• are n1anv

busiuessl's that are carried on at a loss. .

HoN. T. NEVITT: My retort to that is that where a business is carried on at a loss the loss is only temporary. and with a viev. to making a very handsome profit at a later date. The Hon. Mr. Beirne said that no l1usinpss rnan \vould oStart a secondary In~ dustrv under this Bill. simply because for ,very. employee he will have to pay .£2 pe1~ annun1.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: .£2 for the first year, and Jnm·e after\vards.

Hox. T. NEVITT: The hon. member is onlv asSLtming what h0 would do if he had cha.rge of the administration of the Bill.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: \Ve know what your Govf'rnnlCnt are ·doing.

HoN. T. NEVITT: An assessment of £2 per annum per employee will have little or no effect upon any employer. Mark the words, "little or no effect." I do not say it will havB "no effect." In New South \\'ales we hexe seen within the last W<lnk

•that the Arbitration Court have awardc;d a living wage of £3 17s. 6d. per week. That is not the minimum wage in that. State.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: That is the recommendation of the Board of Trade.

Hon. E. W. H. Fowr,Es : That is for two and a-half chiJ.dren.

HoN. T. NEVITT: The Hon. Mr. Beirne said that employers in Queensland would he so handicapped by the assessment that they would not be able to compete with em­ployers in the Southern States. Under that award, the employers in New South 'Wale" will be handicapped as against the employers in the other States.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: The award in the clothing trade is an award of the Fe'deral Arbitration Court, and it applies through. out the Commonwealth. That award affecto the Hon. Mr. Beirne's business.

Hon. T. Nevitt.]

l-110 Unemployed Wotken Bill. [COUNCIL.] Uiie:nployed Workets Bill.

Box. T. ).JEVITT: Subclause (10) of clause 5 teads-

u Not\Yithst,anding anything herein con. tained, in anv case in which the Min­ister is satisfied that it would be a hard­ship ou an employer to enforce from him pay1nent in full of an assessment in an.v vear, the JYiinistcr mav in favour of such c·mployer remit the \~·hole or such part of snch assessment as he in his discretion thinks proper."

U a business man has had a bad year, and ho can satiefv the Minister that he has had a bad year, the Minister has the power under that cl a use to relieve him from payment for tho as,sossment fm· that year. That shows that the Bill has taken into consideration every interest. Then suhclause (6) of clause 8 provides for the relief of local authoriti0s. Tlw Hon. Mr. Hawthorn, when speaking on that matter, put the thing very differently. If a local authority considers that, through bc•ing instructed to carry out work at 'an inopportune time, the result has been to iucrease the cost of that particular work, they can get relief.

Hon. A. G. C. HnvTHORK: The Ylinister n1ay giYc relief.

Ho:;:. T. NEVITT: The hon. gentleman '~'l'Dt so far as to say that there "\Vas no rciief at alL

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORX: The Minister Ycry likely will not giv" it.

Uox. T. NEVITT : The hon. gentleman was n6t fair in his criticis1n, and misrepre­>entcd that provision.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I said that the 11inister may giYe relief.

HoN. T. ?'!EVITT: The hon. gentleman clid not say anything of the kind. I made a note at the time of what he sai·d, and that is "hy I am replying to him now.

Hon. E. W. H. Ji'OWLES: That position means that the Treasurer can recoup himself.

Ho>r. T. NEVITT: There is another clause which makes provisiou for local authorities doing their work at a time whcn there is less Y'.-ork in or-dinarv aYocations, ::;uch as shear­ing. sugar work: and harvesting. \Vhen men arc bu~y in thosp occupations, the local authorities will not be spending their money. Thc> same thing applie' with respect io GoYernn1cnt \York.

Hon. A. G. C. H.\WTHOR:>r: Again at the discretiou of the :\Ji nistcr.

HoN. T. ).JEVITT: -:'\o, the unemployment eouncil will recommend to the Minister; and, if t.he council give sound reasons 'vhy this should not be done. naturally the Minister will accept the advice of the council, othenvisr; what is tbP good of the council'?

Hon. A. G. C. H.nvTHOH:>r: But will he accept the advice of the council?

HoK. T. ::\EVITT: The council will con­sist of men whose dutv it is to make the Bill a ;;ucce>S. ·

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Thev cannot compel the Yrinistor to do anything.

Hox. T. NEVITT: :Nobody can compel a11yone to do anyt'ling ag·ainst his will.

Hon. A. G. C. HAW'fHOR'I: The Minister will compel the employer to pay whatever he likes under the BilL

Ho;;r. T. NEVITT: There are a thousand and one things that the Minister or the GoYernment can do: but is it reasonable

[Hon. T. Nevitt.

to believe that thev will do all those thing"? Are the Gover;nnent '· ballv" idiots? (Laughter.) •

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHOHN: Yes. Hox. T. :\'EVITT: Will they be so foolish

as to inflict upon employers a burden that they know well cannot be borne by the employers. and that they know will come back upon themselves? It is absurd to put up " Aunt Sallies" of that kind for the purpose of knocking them down. Coming now to the question of secrecy, the Hon. Mr. Hawthorn said that the Bill would violate the secrecy with respect to income tax and land tax returns. I say it will do nothing of the kind.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: It increases the number of people outside the Income Tax Departnwnt who will know what is going on in that department.

Uox. T. NEVlTT: And they are swocn to secrecv in exactly the san1c \Yay as t1.1e incon1e t'ax officers are sworn to sccrc<:~y. And does tlw hem. gentleman mean to cell this Chamber that we cannot rely upon thcoo

n10n when thcv are sworn t.(J

[9 p.m.j s<'uecy-that the men who cOJJ·

Hitute the une1npluyn1ent couno.l will so prostrate their position that the~' will spread broadcast the information they obtam fron1 the Con1n1i."'sioner? It is ridiculous to offer such arguments to this House.

Then, I come to the question of farms. Th0 Hon. :VIr. Fowles said that provision dPaling with thio aspect of quef3tion rueans the druggjng ~f the unc:w-:_ 1Jloved, a .. nd that 110 n1an should be out ~-It ~vo{·k in Queensland.

Hon. E. \'\. H. FoWLES: \'\hat are ye et going to pay tltc n1en on tho&e labour fanns?

Hox. T. :'\E\TTT: What they are entitk:! to. Thoee farms arc practically for tlP unompluyable. I would go so far. as to that if a man will not \York, neither he eat. I helieYP in using drastic measure" ''"he11 \H' ha n: ~uch conditions to fight against.

Hon. E. \\". H. FOWLES: You would l~i; him drink, all right '1

Hox. T. :'\EYITT: I will le ne that matter for the hon. gentlf nan to deal with, as h, ls an authority on that particular qucstiG"l. My hon. friend. } 1h· .. C_urtis, said t~~t. 1:by aYeragc ruan does not hke work. \\ 1th u;l due resprc·t to the hem. gentleman, I sa: that the average man does like work. Thet·' mav b{' a few n1en \vho do not like \Vork. but th0.,hon. gentlemau does not know much aboJ.;t Queensland or Australia if he says that the average n1a.n dors not like work. It is a. libel on the workers of Que~nsland or . .\m·­tralia or annvhNe else to tell them rh,,t tlwv do not fikP \YOrk.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Some of them don't.

HoK. T. -:'\EVITT: But the hon. gent.l<'­lnan said the •· average 1nan ., does not lik,? \Vork.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: He did not say th:,t, surely !

Hox. T. ::'\EVITT: He did, and "H"':'­sard '' will ]>1'0\'P it. The labour farm-; wi11 JH'OYidc \\·ark for those indiYiduals 1vho a~ 0 unable to obtain employment. This Bi1l corrects quite a number of failures of di£­ferent. schemf's. which have be0n establishe,l in different parts of Europe, or it makr; an attempt to correct those failures. I ha',, ~hown that in no place \vherc schemes h;~..-e been started tu d0al with unemploymu .. t

Unemployed TV orkers Bill. [15 OCTOBER.]

have they been an absolute succe". This Bill endeavours to correct the causes of the failures of those schemes, and I contend that if we can evolve a scheme which will solve the unemployBd problem, or enable us ~o handle it better than it has been handled m the past, we '·hall do a good thing for the whole of the community.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: This Bill will not solve ihat problem.

HoN. T. NEVITT: I say it will. The Hon. Mr·. O'Shea said that no artisan or tradesman beliBves in this Bill, but he never· offered a particle of evidence in support of that statement. He also said that he would do all he possibly could to assist the unem­ployBd. Th€ hon. gentleman and his col­leagues in this Chamber have a peculiar w_ay of showing their practical sympathy wrth the unemployed. There is only one way <;>f dealing with this problem. A good economiC principle is to tax all forms of capital alike, and to make the· openings for the fresh a.pplication of capital alike in point of attraction all round, so that the landowner will have no motive to lav out his capital in other directions, because" as regards build­ings, soil, and improvement.:;, they \vill be) economically the same. That is a good, sound economic principle, and it is an argu1nent in favour of the money to finance this scheme being drawn from the income tax and land tax sources. I go so far as to say that it is debatable whether the fund should be pro­vided in that direction or in the wav men­tioned in this Bill. In conclusion, I ~Yish to quote a little poem. I know that some hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly my friend, the Hon. .Mr. Leahy, are authorities on poetry. I am told that the hon. gentleman is an excellent singer, and poesihly he may get this poem set to music. It is c•ntitled ''Daddy out of Work."

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORX: h it by Ella Wheelc•r Wilcox?

HoN. T. NEVITT: No, it is not by Ella \Yheele1' \Vilcox. You will get the name of the author at the end of the poei>J. It reads as follows :-

" DADDY OuT OF \VORK.

" The man who belongs to our house, Daddy,

Came here to-dav for the rent. And he said some i:rasty things, Daddy,

To :Mummy before he went !

" She never tells nuffin' to you, Daddy, And never won't tell me why:

But waits till you are away, Daddy, And then she sits dmvn to cry.

''But whv do you hang down your head, Daddy?

\Vhy are you home all the day? \Vhy don't you go to your work, Daddy,

It is not a holiday "

"I'm tired of drippin' an' salt, Daddy, And treacle upon my bread;

And why don't you give us some milk, Daddy,

But only water instead?

"Who is the big, nasty Vend, Daddy? Who is the Capitalist?

If I was a man like you, Daddy, I'd hit him wif my big fiet.

"-Louisa Lawson.)'

Those are the conditions t!mt this Bill is trying to correct and rectify.

Hon. P .. J. LEAHY: 'fhat poetry is in keep­ing with your speech.

HoN. T. NEVITT: The author of tha;; peom has a little of the mil\< of human lnnd­ness running through h~r ve1ns, a:r:d we wanr, if possible, to try to get somethmg of that milk of human kindness runnmg through the veins of hon. gentlemen opposite. I sincerely hope that the amendment will be . d.::featcd, that the Bill will be allowed to go mto Corn· mittee and that we shall trv to make 1t a better 'Bill "

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: You admit that there is sornB roorn fo:r irnprovement, then?

Ho". T. :'\EVITT: Yeo, there is sonE room for improvement in the Bill.

Ho;.;. W. R. CRAMPTON: The introduc· tion of the amendment moved by the !()ado: of the Opposition no doubt seals the fate er one of the most important Brlls, m m_Y estl· mation that hac; ever been d1scusoed m this Chamb'er.

Hon. P .. J. LEAHY: And on<: of the most mischicYous.

HoN. W. R. CRAMP'ION: The hon. gentlen1an has never :1et tried to convin~e this House that the measure rs a mis­chievous one. He did not brin,;- any evidence to substantiate any statement made by hrm in introducing his amendment. Hon. mem­bers seem to forget that the very adva?tage~ that would be gained by. the abohtwn or mremployment quite outwerghed _all t?e diE­advantages they apparently see m thrs par­ticular Bill. They forget that, no matter what the cause may be, if we s,hould be Buccessful in abolishing unerp.ployment, we elrall enter upon an era of industrial pros­p~rit-y. There is no _doubt that any man who has studied economiC questions knows. pc.r­fectly well that while we have to mamta1;1 in the wav we do an army of unemployed, sirnply fo1~ the want of scicn~ific .reor?anisa­tion, the progress of the counr~ry 13 reta1:ded. It is for that l'('ason that 1 ant desnou..: of SC'Ping thl~ n1easurP gi~,-~._.n a fair and just trial. I ha Ye. heard hou. yH:-.rnber:-5 spc_ak of returned soichers. and •)t the neces~n~· for doiug b-ig· things for rt'turm'rJ soldier>. As a rr.a ttt r of fact, 1n a ln1o:;..t <:Yl·r .. ·· Bill that has berm introduced into thrs Chamber thev have tried to introduce a clause whereb'y preference will be given to returned soldiers. Thev forget that to-day. according to our own Pro?s, and according to the statistics that arc grven to us by the Dcpa~tmcnt of Repatriation, we have between 1,500 and 2,000 soldiers on the unem­ployed market. Work must be f~und for those men. Hon. members opposrt~ have hailed these very men and the •:orkers generally as brothers and. comrades m war time. when death was bemg dealt out, bu<­as aliens and outcasts when it comes to the distribution of life. That is the position taken up by those members who have con· <l<'mned this Bill. Thev have made nu attPrnpt to solve the que~tion of unenlploy­ment. All they have done is to talk about the levv of £2 that is going to be made upon industry. They say it is !)Oing to

erippl~ indu6try, to retar? local r:rdustr:y, and to have a damaging efl'ect upon mdustry generally, and increase the number of unem­ployed in the State. But they have broug,ht

Hon. W. R. Crampton.]

[COUNCIL.] [Jnemployed Workers Bill.

absolutely ne evidence to back up this state­ment.

Hon. E. Vi/. H. FOWLES : Don't vou think tho State should contribute its share, too?

HoN. W. R. CRAMPTON: We are en­~leavouring to show that the State is pre­pared to contribute, and will contribute its shan; in solving this problem. The State will undertake a very great responsibility. The responsibilitv that hon. members claim will be carried "by industry generally, and loeal authoriticos in particular, will not be a real rt".ponsibility, if we are able to bring about that necessary scientific reorganisation of industry which is aimed at in this par­ticular measure. I am merely appealing to hon. members to give the Bill a fair trial-to give it an opportunity of showing wh~ther or not something can be done under its pro­visions to all.eviate the distress that is very often caused by unemployment in Que~ns­land. The Hon. Mr. Fowles, in dealing with the Bill, mentioned a system which is operat­ing in Germany; and he dealt with that system rather <:xtensively. As a matter of fact, the hon. gentleman, as the previous speaker has said, is the only member on that side of the Chamber who has endeavoured to deal with the Bill in anything like a fair way. I think his calculations were wrong, and his deductions were warped; neverthe­less ho did try, unlike the deputy leader of the Opposition, to point out what. from his standpoint, were the weaknesses of this Bill. In d<~aling with the German system, WP have to remember that it is purely a scheme of unemployed insurance. This Bill goes Yery much furthP.r. In Germany they have the capitalistic system fully developed, whereas in Queensland or Australia generally the system is only partly developed. We cannot do in Australia, or in any partly developed industrial country, what t,hey were able to do in Germany years ago. The conditions are altogether different, and to introduce a measure on th~ lines of the German insurance schemG \vould, in my esti­mation. not 1111 the bill. I feel that somP­thing of th character of this measure is required to do jnstic<; to the great problem that rrl! of us are so anxious to solve. The hon. member also dealt with some of the causue of unemployment according to his view, one of which was the drink ques­tion. Of rourse, it is a favourit~ subject of the hon. member, and he claimed that drink was the cause of a great amount of poverty,

·and consequently a great amount of unem­ployment. ·while I have no desir<e to go docp]y into the drink question, still I do claim th<1t ha'· 110 relatlon~hip ro thi;:; que~tion ar

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES: ~ot with unem­ployment'

Hox. W. TI. CRAMPTON: No. Hon. E. IN. H. FowLES: Would you rather

employ a drunken or a sober man?

Hox. \V. R. CRAMPTON: I am not deal­ing with that phase o£ the question. I am endeavouring to show that these persons are nnemploye.d not because of drink. but from >emc other reaeon. I take the production of the <·ocmirv to be .a hundred. out of which wag<'8 ~re, say, forty. Out of that forty trw employees will drink telL Then comC's the> qutstion, " Are those men poor, "re they unemployed, are they wallowing in poverty because they spend ten out of forty,

[Hon. W. R. Crampton.

or because they only receive forty out of the hundred they produce?"

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: They do not produce a hundred. There are other elements.

HoN. \Y. R. CRAMPTON: They do pro­duce it. \Yhllst I am particularly anxious to see the que5tion settled, I cannot allow that remark to go unchallenge·d, because I do know, as m-ery other student of economics knows, that men are hard up when they are hard up, because they receive an unfair proportion of what they produCl'.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: You said that they produ"e it all. :\<Ianual labour does not produce it all.

Hol\. W. R. CRAJ\.lPTOK: I am not say­ing anything about manual labour. I say that labour produces all wealth.

liOKOl.'RABLE 1\IEMBEllS : N 0.

HoK. \Y. R CRAMPTO~: What else produce~ \Yealth '?

Hon. E. \V. H. FowLES : Rain, for one thing.

Hon. \V. STEPHEXS: Good seasons.

Hm.-. \Y. R. CRAMPTON: What wealth would \YB have, rcgardle<>,s of seasons, if labour powpr was not applied to the raw material·: Absolutely none.

Hon. E. \Y. H. Fowu:s: You must have the raw matNial.

Hol\. W. R CRAMPTON: To the hor1. rnember I \n1uld rccon1n1ond an e-conomic ov·erhaul. I a 111 quite satisfied that his know­ledge of economics is on a par with a South Sea Islander', understanding of eugenics.

Hon. \Y. STEPHEKS: If I did not know more about business than you I would shut my mouth.

Ilox. W. R. CRAl\!IPTO::\: I ·did not hap­pen to be speaking to the hon. member, but I Yvould. like to ~;av that he is in the habit of throwing the se yCry dirty insinua t.ions eveu to rnernbcrs \'v·ho haYc made no reference to him. I have made no reference to the hon. member since I have been in the Chamber-1 do not wish to do so-but the next time ho insult' me, I will giYe him something pr·etty hard back. Kow, I want to bear out what the Hon. :\<lr. "'m·itt has bai·cl in rL•gard to the discussion of this Bill. The Hon. }1r. O'Shea came into the Chamber-rushed into it. He sat down, he picked up a Bill. Twenty minntcs afterwar·ds he began to speak,' and he said he had given it no con­sideration at all; he had just made a few notes and he ;vas going to give us the beneftt of what he had read. He entertaine-d the Council for :-:onH~thing like an hour and a-half. and I must complimt-nt him on th0 wav in which h<' handled the various clauses. seeing that he had given them only some few minutes' consideration. At the time, I did wish that the hon. member had had more time to consider the Bill ; then perhaps he might have been able to find one or two ·decent features in it. As it was, he found not one decent feature. He condemned the Bill lock. stock. and barrel, and on his own evi,denco he had .walked into the Chamber, picked up the n1easurc. gone through it, and within twent,- minutes was able to got up and deal with eyery clause of the measure, and con~ demn eYery clause.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHOllK: That shows how poor the Bill was.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: And it shows his capacity.

Unemployed Workers Bill. [15 OcTOBER.] ['"employed Worke, · Bill. 1413

Ho;.;, W. R. CRAMI'TO:::-.J: His speech Yeally was Dn all-fours with most other speeches delivered by hon. members on the other side of the Chamber. They could see nothing but the levy of £2. They could not see anything decent in the Bill, and not one word of sympathy came from them. Then we reached the climax when the leader of the Opposition introduced an amendment to kill the Bill absolutely.

Hon. R. SuMNER: That it be read this day six months without considering the matter.

Hon. P, J, LEAHY: It is because we con­sidered it that we ·did it,

H<'JN. W. R. CRAMPTO::--i: The Minister, in my opinion, gave excellent reasons why we should adopt the Bill as it wa' intro­ducccL He quoted. amoug· other things, the call of the workers at Cloncurry. I do not want to go over that gTound again, I merely refer to the matter to show that the Government are and alwavs were anxious to do something to alleviate the distress caused by unemployment. In Cloncurry the various n1ines for some reason or other closed down. The men were thrown on the labour market. There was nothing for them to do. The pastoral industry in that particular portion of the State could not possibly absorb that number of men, and consequently they faced starvation, and possibly woul<d have gone through many days of tribulation in that district had it not been for the attitude adopted by the Govern­rncnt, who carne to their rc~cne by giving ~£1 10s. to a n1arricd Inali and ~£1 to a single man in order to encourage prospecting or gouging in order to keep the n1en together ,;o that thcv would be able to re-enter the mines or \~'arks that had been closed the moment the employers decided to reopen them. \Vas not that a good thing for the Cloncurrv district? What would have happened otherwise 1 One of two things, Either the mines would have had to bring· men at their own expense to the district, if the men were not willing to go there of themseh-r~s, or by advertising in the various papei·s throughout thn State, bring along a big army of men which would leave a sur­plus after the n<'cessar:-· labour had been Png.agcd. The coutcntion of the Government, as shown hy their action, was economicaliy "ound.

HorL K \'\T H. FowLEs: That is State contribution. which is against the principle of the BilL

HmL W, R CRA}VIPTOX: But the hon, member and his friends say that the Govern­ment take no responsibility in regard to this question.

Hon, K W. H. FoWLES: ::-;ot under the Bill.

HoN, W, R. CRA}VIPTO?\: I am en­deavouring to point out that right through the plE'ce the Government havP taken responsibility and <Ire prepared to take fnrther responsibility when the Bill is made operative.

lion, A. G. C. HAWTHORX: The Pmploye.r does everything here.

HoN. W, R. CRAMPTO='J: The Hon. Mr. Curtis, in his usual sty le, also condemned the Bill. He did not go so far as most members, or deal with the particular feature of the measnre. Sufficient for him to know

that a levy to the extent of £2 per annum for each employee was to be made on the employers-and he wanted to throw the Bill out without anv further consideration. He also inti1nated ~ that trade unionism \Vas

responsible to a large extent f0r '~ltwrnploy­ment in Queensland.

Hon. G, S. CuRTIS: So it i,;,

HoN. Vv. R CRAYI:PTO?\: T!1e hon. mem, her 3dmits that that is so. Simph, becauHo unionists or "Workers-and to~day th6 unionists rcpre<;ent something like 93 to 94 per cent. of the workers-have got together and p<n:tly emancipated themselves from the set of Ill!

possible conditions that prevail.·d in ever: industry within e decade ago. the hon. m~m ber claims that they have bflcn respons1bl." for unemployment and that trade ~nionis.lll should he abolished, TraclP urnomsm will not be abolished in spite of our hon, friend and his wishes. It will go ehead and prosper ·end make thino's better in the future. At all ~vents, I lwp; so, The abolition of trade• unioniem. which the hon, member want,. means taking us back to those bad old condition~ fron1 which \'{(" been ( ndeasouring to nnanripate

Hon. G. S. CGRTIS: I did not say that,

Hm:, W. R. CRAMP'TON: I remember in thfl verv district from wbich the hon. member co~;1es, being compelled to work .for 5s. 6d. a da v in an industry that was ~akm,:: plenty of n1oney. In the export sectwn ot the meat industry, from one end _of the State to the other, men wern workmg for

'5s, 6d. )Wr day, ,and the employers were gettiug big export pnces for thmr meat at the other sidP of tho world. , Men \~er~ obliged to work in confinement m the fngH. zone for 5s, 6d, a day, and m every works in Qucen·,lancl were compelled to come back at night time at the bidding <:f the employer, whether early m the evenmg, or late ar night-in tbe middle of the mght on m.os~ occasions-and still work on at the rate ?t 5s. 6d. a day. Does the hon. member, m his advocacy of the abohtron of trade unionism. want to take us back to those conditions' Those are the conditions that prevailed in the meat industry less than a decade a«o. What did we find in another scction-i~1 the retail section? Why, we find

that the men were compelled to [9.30 p,m,] work on Saturday aftermoom;,

and were compelled to work on Sundays, and were paid at the rate of £1 10s. per week. That was the rate th~t was being paid in the meat industry in Brrsbane, and in other towns of Queensland, less than ton years ago T'hoso "\Yerc the conditions under which those men were compellod to work, and those were the conditions that were broken down by the trade unions that our friends want to abolish. In the sugar industrv as late as 1911, we find that from one en;l' of the State to the other, in every mill-there was no exception-men were working- under agreements that were forcecl upon thcfn by the millowners for £1 2s. 6d, a week, with a twclve-honr day, an~ the greatest opposition was shown by the fnends of those on the Opposition benches when unionism in Queensland endeavoured to break down those conditions, when the unionism of Queensland endeavoured to ameliorate the conditions of the m.en who were working under those unbearable terms. Those men wore fighting at that time for an ,~ight-hour day and £1 10s. per week,

Hon. W. R. Crampton.]

[COUNCIL.] r.:nemployed Workers Bill.

!Jut they were being denied that. Still the Hon. Mr. Cm·tis, in his usual style. con­demns trade unionism, and tells us that trade unionism i< responsible for the unemploy­ment that we are endeavouring to abolish, ;nJCl he wallt· us to go back to those old 1tnbeamblc conditions that prevailed in the 1·arly days of trade unionism in Queensland. ·well. \\'8 arc not going to go back. I could :;:ay a g-reat deal 1nore in conneDtion with trade unionism, but I do not want to take up the time of the Council. It was con­t .. ndcd this afternoon that the employees '~hould contr1butc something by ''ay of insurance against UlWn1ployn1ent; tantamount tu believing that we should undertake. or that we should adopt, the scheme in operation in Germany, where trade unionists, or the employees generally, do contribute some­thing to the insurance fund. How, in the name of goodness, could these men generally 1 ,. expected to contribute to the insurance fund, when we find that two of the principle industries in Queensland to-day can pay no more than £3 7s. per week and £3 12s. [•er week., The org-anised carters of Queens­l:lnd to-day are recei~ing £3 7s. per week for a fift.:·-two hour week, and the boot­<rwkors are receiving £3 12s. I ask in all fairness, how can these men be expected to

<- Jntribute to an unernployn1ent insurance fund? I ~.:1y jt is an utter impossibility. Despite the fact that the cost of living is so YPry, very high, that profitcering is rampant, and everything that can be done to increase the cost of living by those who have the 'eo nomic control of industry, it is contended that these men should contribute something w this unemployment insurance. A great deal has been said by the Opposition in con­nection with the unfair competition that will possibly be created by the adoption of this lllt'asure. It has been said that industries in the South will be able to unfairly com­pute with industries in Queensland? \Vhy '! \-\imply because the Government propose, as a 1ast resource, to levy upon the employers }Zenerally, under certain conditions, a paltry £2 per year per employee. It may not come

that, as, aftm· all, it will only mean about £120,000 a year. Surely to goodness we are prepared to pay that amount in order to go this far on the road to solving one of the c reatest problems that has ever faced the ,community! Hon. rnembcrB forg·et that her0 in Queensland this Government last :c~ar collected £400,000 in land tax. That of course, was a direct levv upon industrv i~ this State, but despite the" fact that thev" did wllect that amount, and that no other 'state .in the Commonwealth collects anything at ... ll from a land 1 ax, that did not deter men frnm operating in industry here. I venture to say that there has been quite as many

industries springing up since the advent the Labour Government during the last

fi,·c years as compared with the five vears ]Jrior to the coming into power of the Labour Governm_ent. and with the Government came the land tax. Still, hon. gentlemen talk a bout unfair competition. It is their desire en see these people kept down, and it is their desire to protect the industries to the detri­ment of the men who are responsible for i •rorluction. In addition to that we find -hat within t)Je last few days the' Board of Trade in New South Wales has fixed £3 ll's. 6d. as the minimuln wage. rrhere is Jcothing like that in Queensland. If the u rgnrne;cr FU":" forward by our friends O]l~w::::itc i" "-~n~;d, then vve will :';Pf.:> tho~e big

[Hun. W. R. Crampton.

industries in New South Wales transferred to Queensland almost immediately, because I venture to say that the adoption of a mini­mum wage of £3 17s. 6d. means a great deal m.ore than the levy of £2 per employee per year, even if that full amount is collected.

Hon. E. \V. H. FowLES: Has the New South Wales Government adopted that?

Ho~. W. R. CRAMPTON: The New South \Vales Government may not adopt it. It does not matter whether they do or not; the very tribunal that has been established by the New South Wales Government-the Arbitration Court-has already adopted the principle of the minimum wage set down at £3 17s. 6d., as made by the Board of Trade. I have a few figures here dealing with this question of taxation, showing that in America, where no such measure has been introduced, but merely for post-war pur­poses, they have struck a levy upon capital. Thi' item merely deals with the millioNaires and the multi-millionaires, but it shows to what extent they have introduced this taxatio11-

" Rockefeller, J. Frick. H. C. Carnggie. A. . Rockefeller, W. Armour, J. Ford, H. Vanderbilt. W. K. Harriman, 1\:trs. Astor, V. Schwab, C. M. Morgan, P. .. Sage, l\Irs. Russcll

Income. ,£.

12,000,000 2,250,000 2,000,000 1,750,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

800,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 600,000

Tax. £

7,000,000 1,420,000 1,200,000

960,000 800,000 64@,000 640,000 490,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 380,000

£25,000,000 14,880,000 "

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: Mrs. RusseH Sage is in heaven. (Laughter.)

Ho~. W. R. CRAMPTON: The estate is taxed.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Are those things in order?

I-Io~. W. R. CRAMPTON: Absolutely. I am showing you that the we·alth can be taxed. \V e can tax and go on taxing to a vreater extent than we have done in the past, so long as we direct it properly. I have taken eo me very inte·resting figures from the report of the Taxation Commissioner in Queensland. The total number of taxpayers in Queensland, excluding companies, is 26,320, with an income of £10,223,000, and taxation of £635,000, excluding the super tax . I am merely putting this forward to show that the employees cannot, under the present economic conditions, subscribe directly to an unemployment insurance scheme. Out of this numbN there are 2,938 pastoralists, who earn £4,945,000, and who are taxed to the extent of £389,000. The employees who paid the tax earned £1,192,000, and paid £46,000.

Hon. P. ,J. LEAHY: But you are not includ­ing the Federal taxation-the war profits tax. Ho~. W. R. CRAMPTON: I am not

including the Federal taxation, and I am excluding the super tax. The pastoralists paid 61.33 per cent. of the whole tax-the people whose interests hon. gentlemen oppo­site were so anxious to safeguard some little time ago when we endeavoured to allow the Land Court to fix the rents.

Unemployed Worker> Bill. [15 OCTOBER.) Unemployed Workers Bill. 1415

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: \Ye threw out th"' repudiation Bill.

Ho:-~. W. R. CRAMPTON: The employees paid 7! per cent.; but 11 per cent. of the pastoralists enjoyed 48 per cent. of the income, while 30 per cent. of the employees enjoyed 11.6 per cent. of the incDme.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: This 11.6 per cent. include·d companies with hundreds of share­holders.

HoN. W. R. CRAMPTON : Sixteen thou­sand seven hundred and twelve persons paid .£266,544 land tax on countrv lands. Of ~hese, 1,102 were pastoralist's, who paid £179,186, representing 7 per cent. of the taxpayers and 67 pe•r cent. of the tax. This tax. of course, applies only to freehold land, and is not paid by the majority of pastoral­ists, for while 2,938 pay income tax, only :, 182 pay land tax. Those are the people whose inte1·ests hon. gentlemen opposite were so anxious to safeguard some little time ago when we endeavoured to allow the Land Court to fix the rents on a fair and equitable· basi~.

This Bill, in my opinion, has five very important features, one of which is the unem· ployment council. I would like to briefly refer to that feature of the Bill, because I think adequate provision is being made whe·reby the great problem of unemployment c:;n be at least scientifically tackled. It has neYer bsen tackled in that way before. We have gone along in a slipshod, haphazard fashion, dealing with it piecemeal, but if this Bill is passed, and we can get the co­operation of hon. gentlemen opposite with the Government, then I belieye that some­thing substantial can and will be -done within a few months. The unemployed council does not look very much when referred to by hon. gentlemen opposite in the way they have cone. They condemn the idea of a Ministe•r of the Crovm being chairman of the council. Thev refer to the Director of Labour, a Gm·ernment servant, as being· a tool of the Minister. They said that the· employees ehould have no representation because they did not contribute to the unemployment fund, regardless of the fact that they produce all wealth from which all taxation is drawn.

Hon. P .. J. LEAHY: Thev do not produce• all wealth by a long way:

Hox. W. R. CRAMPTOi\: What I would recommend is an economic oYerhaul. I am oeti.,fied that hon. gentlemen opposite do not know the first principles of economics--

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHOR'S': Ditto.

Hox. W. R. CRAMPTOX: If the speech the hon. gentleman made· some davs ago is any indication. Hon. gentlemen~ opposite lamented the fact that the employers were to have only one representatiYe·, and that thev were to find all the monev. I am of opinion that the Minister is il1 the right position when he occupies the presidency of the unemployment council, because Govern­ment money will be involYed. and the policy of the Government will be invoh·ed.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: What about tne employe"'' money?

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: The employer finds all the money.

Ho:-~. W. R. CRAMPTOK: He does not find all the money. Is there no passing on process in connection with this matter?

Hon. vV. STEPHENS: Not in exports.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: You cannot do it. The world's market settles that. The bulk of the exports are primary products.

Hox. W. R. CRAMPTOX: That is so; but in all other instances it is £1,000,000 to a gooseberry that the· taxation will be passed on, or the greater part will be passed on, as quickly as it can be the moment this measure is passed. The fact that the Minister i3 0xpectc·d to safeguard the· policy of the Government, and to Bee that everv proviaion of the Act is sympathetically and democrati­vally administ<Jred, justifies the Government in placing the Ministe·r in the chair to pre­side over the deliberations of the unemploy· ment council. A judge of the Arbitration Court is introduced ll.ere. Who is better fitted for the position than the man who delve·s into, and who has some knowledge of, all industries-a technical knowle·dge of the proyisions of almost every industrial award made under the arbitration laws? Part of the duties of the Director of Labour is to investigate the matters connecte·d with this question of unemployment. In addition to what i3 provided here, I would like to see a free pass given to the unemployed, so that rne·n could go to countrv districts at a time when pastorali,ts and others only had a small amount of work to distribute.

To-day we know that in country districts then; are pastoralists and others who would ongagp a nun; ber of rnen for a fo\\T weeks: but, seeing that somebody is liable for the fares. they will not employ any labour. If you grant free fares, you could send, say, tQn or twelve men to an employer at Charle­ville, and the chances are that a percentage of those men will remain in the district, thus making labour in Queensland much more mobile than it is at the present timG, and <>~rtainly preventing the out-of-work men from concentrating in the coastal cities. That would be a good thing. By passing this measure, it will be possible to handle sciGn­tifically the unemployed question, and do a great deal to alleviate a great amount of the distress that is caused by unemp!oy­mGnt. The Hon. Mr. O'Shea was partiCu­larly anxious in his condemnation of the measure to point out its worst features; but he carefully avoided touching on any of the good features. He endeavoured to point out that it meant that, should a number of men be employed by a certain employer and one of them fell out for some reason or other, that man would not be regarded as continu­ously employing those men for the whole year. The hon. member rGad that clause in his own way; but he forgot to mention ihat all that was requin·d was for tlw Pmployer to prove to the satisfaction of thP Minister that he had continuously employed thos~ men, and it is unreasonable to suppose that the Minister would refuse to grant a rebate to t.he employer under snch conditions. There is a. clause which provides that, if an employer considers anything unfair, he may a pp~al to an industrial magistrate, just as appeals against an arbitration award are lodged with an industrial magistrate. Pro­Yision is made in paragraph (i.) of subclause (2) of clause 8 for the responsibility of the Gm·ermnent. Paragraph (iii.) in the "uno subclause contains an important provision dealing with the power given to the Governor in Council to compel an employer under cer· tain circumstances to find relief work. But where the employer is a company. that corn· pany is allowed to makf! 15 pet· cent. on the

Hon. W. R. Crampt(m.]

1416 Unemployed Workers Bill. [COUNCIL.] Unemployed Worker.:: Bill.

capital invested with a minimum of £10,000 before the Governor in Council can compel that company to employ additional men for a·dditional production. And in a good many cases companies will be allowed, under that clause, to earn 30 per c<;:nt: or 40 per cent. <m the capital invested, because they may not reach the £10,000 mark.

Hon. W. STEPHEXS: Is that a good feature in the Bill, from your point of view?

Hox. W. R. CRAMPTON: I am showing that the contention raised by the hon. mem­ber is an absolute bogey. An individual emplovcr can earn up to £5,000 before he is compelled to do the same thing. I hope that the SflCOnd reading of the Bill will be carried, and that in C'ommittee hon. members will make or suggest amendments, some of which may be adopted by the Government. By allowing the Bill to go into Committefl they will give us a chance of putting the measure into operation, and seeing whether or not WP can scientifically alleviate thP distress that is caused by unemployment. If the amendment indicates anything at all, it indicates that hon. members on the other side are going to kill the Bill straight away on the second reading, thereby depriving us of the right to do something that has never been ·attempted in any other country at any other . time. I hope we shall be able to frustrate their intentions, and that we shall be able to induce them to give us the opportu11ity of rr1aking conditions better in ((uePnslanrl for those who follow us than Wl' ourselYes have found them.

HoN. R. SUMNER: As a member of the Labour party, and one whom this Bill will affect to some extent, I may say at the outset that I intend to support the Bill. ~at that I think the incidence of taxation proposed is either right or wrong. but I believe that something should be done. The unemploy<:d problem is one of the oldest problems in the world. The Hon. Mr. Leahy rt'ferred to it as being 6,000 years old; but it is older than that. A former Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Dr. Kidston, once ;;aid that God Almighty could not S<Jttle the nnemployed problem. But why should the problem not be solved? vVhy should r:ot the best efforts of the community be directed to solving it? I hope it can be solved. The Greatest Teacher the \rorld has ever Been offered the best solution when He told of the owner of the vineyard, who asked the labourers, " vVhy stand ye her~ idle all the dav long?" And they replied, "Be­cause no ·man hath hired us." No man should be in the position that no man hath

hired him. Yet we say we are a [10 p.m.] civilis'ld community. When a

man, whether he is a journalist or whatever he is, has to travel from land to land to find work, there is something radically wrong. The Great Master has said, "Go work to-day in m~· vineyard." He said the same to one man at the sixth hour, to another at t.he seventh hour, and to yet another at the eleventh hour, and when the work was done he paid each of them the same wagfl, ld. per day. It was not the fault of those persons that they were em­ployed, but having been employed even for one hour only, they were 'lntitled to the same remuneration as those who had worked hard all day.

Hon. E. \V. H. FowLES : It was a case of freedom of contract-he had agreed with each man to employ him.

fHon. W. R. Grampton.

At th·e minutes past 10 o'clock p.m.,

The CHAIRiliAX OF CmrMITTEES took the chair as Presiding Chairman.

Hm:. R. SCM::-.iER: The Right Hon. W. K Gladstone gave the best example tha.t l have ever heard of freedom of contract. That ~reat statesman was introducing his Irish Land Bill for the settlement of the Irish ques­tion, and he was asked, "\Vhat about free­dom of contract'?" He replied, " Freedom of contract only n1cans for a great many people that they have freedom to starve." On one occasion when \V. H. Vanderbllt, the ~..\merican n1illiona.ire, was asked, "\Vhat about the public?" He said, "Damn the public." \Yhat die! that man care about the public? All his concern was to make mon<;y, no matter •vhat happened to the pubhc. .John Ruskin wrote one of his finest books, ·'Unto this Last," on a text taken from the parable to \vhich I have just refer:·ed--thc; parable of the labourer m the vmeyarcl. When one of the ia.bourers complained of the amount of his wage. the master of the vine­yard said, ·'Friend, I. do the;o no wrong.; Didst thou not agree with me ror a penny. Take that which is thine own .and go thy way: I will give unto this last even as unto thee.'' On that text Ruskin based his great work. That countrv is the richest that nourishe; the greatest 'number of ;:table happy beir:gs, and that man is the nchest, who. havmg perfected the function of his own life to the utmost. has alba tlw widest helpful influence over the lives of others. I think we are co1nino- neare1~ to that every da v of our Jives. ~John Stuart ::Y1ill, Ad~m S~nith, and other political economists admit that their schemes <tre based ·on selfishnes,,, but it appears to nH! that we are approaching a. better state of affairs in society. There haYe been many attempts made to solve the <:ne:n­ploved problem. Bismarck, when he mtro­duCed the German insuranC'C' schernc, took up the attitude that no employer or employee should contribute anything to the unemploy­ment· fund. but that the money should be contributed bv the whole State. But he \Yas opposed and 'beaten by the Agrariar: party. Bis1narck. autocrat as he \vas, sa.rd theY ~hould Dever al!O\Y the emplo:vees to contri­bute to the fund, but he was bezlten on that point. The hen. gentleman who has suJ::­mitted this anwndment proposes that the Biil should be read a second time this day six months, showing tha.t _members D,l?POs_ite are not prepared to consider the Bill m ahy shape or form.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: It is so lnd. we can't do anything Yvith it.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHOR"': \Ve can't ameHd it, because it is a mmwy Bill.

Hox. R. S'C::\1,:\;ER: This Bill is an honb~ attemp.t bv the Treasurer to deal with the problem c',f unemployment, and instead of h<m. members taking up the Rttitude they have by proposir:g this amer!dmen_t, theY should give the Bill every conSJderabon a.nd make an attempt to amend it. One could talk all night on this questi0n, but I suppoce it is no use to do so, as the fiat has gm.',e forth and hon. members will vote the BJJ! out. I hope the people of the community will remember that a~ainst this House. I would not have minded if hon. members had attempted to remed~· or alter the mode uf taxation proposed in the Bill. They have thrown the whole thing out, lock, stock, and

Adjournment. [15 OCTOBER.]

barrC'l. and said they will ha Ye nothing to do with it.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORl'i: When we amend it on other occasions you say, " Why don't you throw it out; you are killing it by arnendrnent ?"

At five minutes past 10 o'clock, th\l CHAIR· MAX OF COMMITTEES (Hon. W. F. Taylor) relieved the President in the chair.

Hoo:. R SUMNER: I am going to sup­port the Bill, and I really am sorry for the attitude which has been taken up, because something should be done to deal with this unemployment question. It is a big problem and has to be dealt with. The Bill may have imperfections, but I think it is one of the best Bills which ever has been evolved to deal with the unemployment problem. The only solution the Council can offer in the way of solving the problem is to say they ,,·ill deal with the subjeet in six months' time. If they do not deal with it, the peoplg who are outside the politicians will-and in a way which hon. gentlemen will not like.

Question-That the words proposed to be ornitte>d (Jfr. £eahy's a11u·ndme11t) stand part of the question-put; and the Council divided:-

CON1'ENTS, 16. Hon. R. Bedford

F. Oourtice \Y. R. Crampton VF. H. Demaine A .. r. ,Tones H. 0. Joncs 'l'. L. Joncs G. Lawson

Hon. L. J\'lcDonald F. J\'lcDonnell T. ~evitt G .. Page~Hanify J. Perel E. B. Purnell A. Skirving H. ~nmnPr

Tellers: Hon. R. Bedford and Hon. L. McDonald. NOT*CONTENTS, 19.

Hon. J. Oowlishaw Hon. P .. T. Leahy G. S. Ourtis C. F. ~larks A. Dunn B. B. )foreton B. Fahey A. H. Parncll E. W. H. Fowles E. H. T. Plant A. Gibson W. Stephens H. L. Groom .\ .. T. Thynne T. M. Hall H. Turne-r A. G. C. Hawthorn A. H. Whittingham .T. Rode] Tellers: Hon. A. G. 0. Hawthorn and

Hon. P. J. Leahy. Resolved in the negative. Question-That the words propos~d to be

inserted be so inserted Pir. Leahy's amend­ment)-put and passed.

Question, as amended, put and passed.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT. The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I beg

to move--That the Council, at its rising, do adjourn until Tuesday next.

Question put and passed.

ADJOURNMENT. The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I beg

to move-That the Council do now adjourn. The ftrst business on Tuesday next will be the second reading of the Succession Act of 1906 Declaratory Bill, to be followed by the second reading of the Queensland Govern­ment Savin~s Bank Act Amendment Bill, the resumptiOn of the adjourned debate on the motion for the second reading of the Elections Act Amendment Bill, the resump­tion of the adjourned debate on the motion for the second reading of the Popular Initia­tive and Rf)ferendum Bill, the second reading of the Sea forth Repurchased Estate Bill. That, I think, will be quite sufficient.

Question put. and passed. The Council adjourned at twenty minuies

after 10 o'clock p.m.

Questions. 1417