Legislative Assembly THURSDAY SEPTEMBER · 2014. 7. 24. · ton~,ion, and I fail to Sf'O an-.:- rc - [PDF Document] (2024)

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 1913

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

T532 [AS~OE::\iBLY.] Pearl-shell, etc., Bill.

ThG SPEAI{ER CHon. W. D. Armstrong, Lockyer) took the chair athal£-past 3 o'clock.

P_\P;:;R.

Th,, fr,J]owiLg p ·.p''cl for ur.0 per ton, plus the bm•us fO!"th" seascn of 1912?

"3. \Vhnt action do the Governn1cnt intnncl taking in then1attr'T :o ensun-' th_lt tho full amount of tho incr:.ry fc.•~'R_::unva.:ys-

" 1. Is it ,c fact that his depart c1ent arc cli'-,•harging n1cnfron1 tho Ip"wich

orkshop-", f'3r'')ciallv n1ouldcrs, "\Yhilst at tlL sa-, ' .__intl'f :, ;_, r Ict7ing con- r to pri' .. 1l0 firm 1 f DY1J-::,...C2l'' 'ill r" •.:,· of the eng-ines that have been previously madei·1 the shop:

"2. If so, what is the reason for this? Hat! it btl'ndiscoYcrcrl that these things ec.u1 be rnadf' cb:',1p::..-r bycontract than by da- labour?"

The SECRETARY FOR R\IL\VAL"S (f:!on. W. T. Paget, Jia-l:a:;)repli

Great TV estern Railway [25 SEPTEMBER.] Act Amendment Bill.1533:

GREAT WESTERN RAIL"\YAY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

SECOND READING-RESul>fPTION oF DEBATE.

Mr. GRANT (Fitzroy) rose to speak.

The SPEAKER: Order ! Before the hon. member speaks, I \vish toexplain tho posi-tion ·which has nrisen in cOnnection ·with thismatter. Thdo i' no Standing Ordm-deolim', with the quection ofrderring a Dill to a Select Com>nittce during the second-n1clinc:- ~-t·::t~,) of that Bill, nor can I discover any practicegoverning this position. \Vhat has hap;F :ted is the first instancein the hi&toi·,-- Cf this Parliament that during thesecond-re~ding stage a Bill ha~ been referred to a Scl0ctCommitte-•. This action tem-porai·ily remove. the Bill from thepaper. The report of the Select Co•nmittcfl having bi'Bn present- dto th~ Ilouc-J, that auto-matically placed the Bill in tho pocitionwhich it pre;-ious ly occupied on the bus in•·. o-paper. Han.mc,nbers will su that tho information fodhcoming from the be!eotConrnittec to the Home through the report which tl"c' hnve pr<;rnted would not be available for debate by han. members who ha vospoken, as, according to the Standing Order:J, any hon. n:tcmbcrwho spoke before the- t re-port " 's pre ,cntcd will be c!Pb:trredfrom speaking again, and so fron1 u·~ing the information whic;1that report has brought forward. '1.s there is no Standing Orderd0:tling with tho matt•"r, and as I ha,e no practice to guide me, Ipropose to take tho s;•nse of the House as to whether thepre-\'ious SpeakerS on the second l'F

153± !Jr,'ai lVcstern Baizw,~y [A,.;SE:\IBLY.J Act Amend:,;n?Bill.

I ask

[25 SEPTEi\iilER.] 1535

quiry. I know the Rockhampton newspapers haYe been publishingstrongly \Yarded articles in favour of further inquiric One nov. J·paper, cvido_ltly "~\ 1)icing public opinion on tho tnattBr, i,'3 ·s.sking for the appointment of a U,oJ .tl Commission to inquireinto the whole question of building railway extensions in the\Vestern country, and I think that the request is ah eminentlyreasonable one. It is 1uo~~ unfair to ask tho Hous.2 no\v tJ tak.~upon itself tho rcspon .. ibility of pa.e,ing this Bill authorisingthe deviation to Eromanga in view of the fact that there is such acon-flict of opinion as to the wisdom of makin,; the exton ion inthat direction. I think that l 1te delav-if delvv will be ouasionedl v t:lC .appoint1{1cnt of a"'Royal Cornn1ission~y,·J::1 bewarranted. I do not think that a railway to E1·orr1f111?'a if: ofso urgent a ch,·~racter that no further inquiry should be made intotL"· proposal. A.~ a matter of fact, if a Royal ·Cornrnis~.ion or~orne other cornputent belly woe forthwith appointed, thoprobabilitit•s are th.,t thov could rc~ort to tho Hou,o and then.~cc:;:~:try approy3J could l•0 given for the build in·; of therailway and the ••·ork commenced ju·ct a; coon ns if this Bill ispasse?d no-_,_. and the \·,ork L)Hllllenc>"d in the usualcour~>J., becJ..u,,::\ \":orL has been goin.

c p .rt of DU~-~ railT-.-,:y policy----thf'ro ~lo-!L-1 b-:'furthnr :inqr:.iry, and I ~,yould urg-e npon th0 Go\ Cl'21-

Hl :~i the hun -:ring up of the propc.·1l so tl1at furtLcrinqni:::ieo: n1ay b~~ nw.de. ~~he-: c-.:.-!,d( r;ivnHl the Cel!truldistr:.f:-. ~:enel~:-lly, and I am her' to YOIC'' th0 Olllninn·, Oimy constituents allwttcr. As I • -1id prP\ iou ly, on n1atters ofgreat. na-tional i~J'l)()~ 0 .~nc0 \Ve ,.r0 :dl ~\n-trahans, butInau'-'1''1 in T\ hich PYerv district L:ts the to b::v-e V>'hatis itJ 0->'--n '\YO ought to for onr right~ ar, 1 the right-s ofO'.lr c "'r -~itucn~i' .s. I 1vant to Fay C1at the

hole rc:::t< r is OllO for further inquiry. 'vVe know thattlwm is a diH'erenco of opinion l_.,?t'"('E'n the CtJn1mic;:s1onerfor TI2.ilways and th,- :.'Uni.-ter, and I an1 Rom(_ J_in1'"'3wonder-ing '' l- v it is th,_tt is hrhind the Commis-sioner in hisdP

1536 [ASbEJ'\IBLY.] Act Amendment Biil.

flr . s t~ at is c·1 ·::ccerned. I have gone lhl'OCl~h tho cddcncrc ·,ts of evf~rv di:- ~ ri,~t i~ Inr rig-ht to SI"Ntk. and itn1ie-ht be thOJf.'ht that !110mbcr' had talked me over, and lln.t·~-hat I s ~id on a previous orcasion wa., not n1v ~wcse·~~oninion. }~ ou -~vill notice, ~Ir. Spr d". r, th2~ it is a:maioritv re;JOrt. I wr in tl : minorj·i ,-. I thin.k the 0videnn;l,,t '",. had. aTJd the evid0nce thd th~ CcrP1n1~:>·~. bnt ifwe take the straight '"''::tY. "\vi (!1 vi 1 roct·1., r, o ,viiiget there 60 or 70 ~h,n·L~·r, '·•1 that thC natural port o' thatn:,rt of Qnr 'Island. if the via r,,cta is h'''lc r.n.j tho bordrrlire is ox-t0 '·(h- L y,~ill Lt: B1.·i":ha~, l. But if v0u lmild th1 t Fr::.;' +1 TohrnJory froP1 (;h;:·J!ville yen 'i-vill not CC'n'TV!' th::t tr,~dr-· f0r QUE'f-':J:,_ 1~1 "' ~1. Th!1 only ront0tha1- \Yill con'•,{' YO it l" :-, . ., 1' l 7n0. In the n1c ·~n-lin1e. I r-1 ,"]'1 \ _11,.~, con'+rtPJ f1rp lin0 t0 J"·o· ··n.t?.·~fn~· ·nr-P-pr tf' pr ,ln '.'::.) ~•n '''!.i1~~-fP."J th ~1 HL(1:-·0-ttin~ f:tcir P< ,,:~[' to DHlrk-~" t -!"o th" hP-.{ Hlvnnt':.n·r rF t 11 )'fll~J lyp; r.nd the- Sfu-!-I th:~k ~~":.P n{; it is not neccb'ary for the House tD t"Lrry out thv.sen,~omnH:mdations-particu!arly if thy are political Royal Com-m'''ic1S-and they a1o valueless. If you t r" going to h;,.vo a RoyalCommission, let. L bo coLlPO'·C'd of r~:p-.-- ts fro-·n t:_,Gvurious d( partmm~k~. I an1 ~orry to ha,~e kept tho l-loT.;0 solong, Lut I a1n quito convinced I a:·l right, ulthouY b I run in aIninority-H~·lt we slv::n71d 7ivo tho R;.:.ihvav Conunis~ :l'Wr \,h:.-t he asks. Ther0 are "other rail-

Wa}.-3 l~. -id0·cc the }~roman7a Ii~e which ''ant .;,, Yiations-there is tho one to Springvah h-·oln Blnckall.

The PRE}li\U: \Vinton.

:':L-. Gl':\N: Wint,Jn; a.nd there is another one in the ~orth.from thr- Duchc

Great Western Railway [25 SEPTEMBER.] Act Amendment Bill.1537

is the doYiation· of this Great \Yestorn line from the originalobjective at Tobermory, 25 miles to the north or 50 miles to thewuth. I have held upon previous occasions when this 1natter wasunder discussion in the IIou· e that the ·conservation of thatlarge amount of trado that Queensland should ~ 'f ure for ihu_,:ffor all tin1c in the South-west< rn portion of the State canonly be accomp lishcd by a line to that part;cular district.Deviating this line to Eromanga 1vi:l not t-end in thes1ightC',j'!; dt'gror itnagin-ablo to gd any portion of that trade.They "·ill bc> imt a' badlv off for railwav com-InunicatiOn ifthe lin8 is run to Erou1~nga as they would be if the lino were leftwhor* it jc, to-cla,·, so it v;ould be absolutely of no u'e to theSonth-w .,tern district, or for tho g~tting of the traffic which weshould get from that dishict for Queensland. In their final rcnort.tho Select Committee state that they cannot !lLJ.k,-_, anyrecornmendation to the Hou"e, and tho reason thcv make norrcommendation is that thev had not suffi-ci,,·.Jt infor:~ation toenable~ them to do so. If the S -ion. A Bill could then bintroduc·'d, based on the recommenda-tion of the Commission, whichI suggest should he annointed. The Hoube would then have somethingto go on; at tho present tin1e the,, have absolut>Jiy nothing.There is no doubt that thoro ic a .-ery good reason for han.members who have said it is not a fair thing to certain portions ofthe State to make thic; d0yi,1tion to the J'\ orth, bLcause thegco.;raphical position of the district sugg,,sts that that tradeshould go to some other port th'm to Brisbane. But I am not takingup that stand on this question. The stand I an1 taking up inconnet.,tion \vith the deviation is this: That if that immensetract of country in the South-" estern portion of Quc,Jnslanti isgoing to be properly settled, and the wealth which it will produceu~ili,ed for tho benefit of tho people of Quc(mRhlld. you are notgoing to do it by dc":iating the line to Eromanga. The only way isby a deviation-if not quite to Thar-gornindah, at least in thatdirection as far as possihle, and then to c xtnnd the line further\Vest. I agree that if a line were to branch off from Beechal Creekto Thargo-mindah it would be somewhat longer than a Iinfl fromBeechal Crook to Eromanga, but 1t would not cost a great deal more.I believe that- the country would be better served if there was abranch line from Beechal Creek-at the point where it crossc·sBeechal Creek, and where the Southern deviation would branch off-to_\davale and no further. It there was a branch line con-structedfrom that point, I believe it v, 1uld •erve every purpose in the \Yestern district for n1any years to come.

:11r. HARIHCilE: \Vhere?

~1r. COYXE: From the point where the lino is going- to crossBe.echal Creek; that is on!_; 12 miles above Bierbank. If theline

1913-5 B

were deviated to Thargomindah, and out to the \Yi!son, by thatmeans you would open up the whole of that large tract of countrywhich is held by two men, employing very little labour, andproducing no money for the benefit of Queensland. EYorything whichis nroduccd in that South-western portion goc~, aw::v- into thoSouthern States. \Ve cb not send our goods over our lines to keepthat plnco going; wo g(•t no benefit what-c\·or. ThC'J:

1538 Great W estfrn Railway [AoSEl.1BLY.] Act AmendmentBill.

fact that the final report of the Select Com-mittee was Dnly amajority report-that is to say, that he had made up his mind thatthe Eromanga route was the prDper route to adopt. Both routes arein my district, and in taking the stand I am doing I am bound tomake enemies for myself, but not-withstanding that, even if myaction should be the means of thrmving me out of Par-liament, I amprepared to dD what I think is the right thing in the matter. Isubmit that tho hon. member for Carnarvon was wrong when he was ina minority with refer-ence to the fmal report of the SelectCom-mittee. If hon. members will look at page 4 of theCommissioner's report, they will see that I was in a minority inanother case, but that I happened to be righb: Although the othermembers of the Committee were against me, yet the stand I took upwas the right one in that particular case. The hon. member forCarnarvon said the dis-tance between Thargomindah and Sydney andbetween Thargomindah and Brisbane is about equal. The hDn. memberwas quite correct in that statement, but a good por-tion of thetrade of that district now goes to Sydnev.· and it will continue togo to Svdnev unless we offer the people some in-ducem(mt to sendtheir produce to Bris. bane: and if the suggestion I have made isadopted, we shall g-et that trade for Bris-bane and Queensland.From what I know of the people Df the South-western district-and Ithink I know them as well as any rrian in Queensl.and-I think theyare suffi-ciently patriotic to render all the assistance they canto .secure their trade to their own State by supporting- a railwayif one is built down there. There is onl v one other course that Icould agree to, and that is. that th0 lin

Great Western Railway [25 SEPTEMBER.] Act Amendment Bill.15~9

awav from Rockhampton the \Vindorah line will" take trade toRockhampton that at pre-,cnt goes to Charleville. Look at thestations round Windorah which at present .send their wool toCharleville. Hammond Downs, Bulgroo, and all those stations at thopresent time send their wool to Charle-'Ville, but they will nevercontinue to send . their wool to Charleville, because they are afew miles from \Vindorah. I am surprised that the people ofBrisbane have not taken a keen interest in this matter before now.'They should try to look after their own busi-ness, but theybPlieve-as we all do-that each port is entitled to its own trade.\Vhat is going to happen? vV e are told that Ero-rnanga is nearerto Rockhampton tha.n to Brisbane. It is not a question of whetherit is a few miles nearer to Rockhampton. If you take the stuff toRockhampton from that part of the country, the railage might be alittle le,s, but you will have to ship it back here by steamer, andthe extra expense we uld make the total cost f'reater than if vo urun the wool straight from Eroman7a to Bris-bane. I mostemphatically challenge any bon. member to show me that by runningthe line 20 or 25 miles further north it is in any way going todamage Hockhampton.

1\Jr. AD4MSO'-': The lc~ding merchants of Hockhampton say itwill take trade from the Central district.

Mr. FORSYTH: I am surprised that any man with common senseshould talk like that. The question we have to consider is this:What is the distance from tho~e parti-eular stations I havereferred to, to the IWare,>t point on this particularrailway?

Mr. ADA>ISON: The Windorah line may not be finished for thenext thirty years.

Mr. FORSYTH: It is not a question whether the \Yindorah linewill be finished -,,·ithin the next thirty years or not. The lineis going on from Blackal! t-o Windorah now, and no doubt in time itwill bo taken right on, and that trade ronnd Windorah must ofnecessit_,.. go to Hockharnpton; and, bo,id•'S, the whole of thatbusiness is l:oing lost to us now. I did not hear anvonoccm-p!aining about that. Some hon." members nre biassed becausethey think Rockhampton is going to suffer-they say take this linea£ far south as possible, so that Rockhampton should get the fullbenefit of the business which at the present time goes toCharle-ville. That is ridiculous. What we want is n fair deed. andI mo~t emnhatically assert that all the evidence of the SelectCom-mittee, with the exception of the evidence of one man, mostassuredly supports the extensiOn to Eromanga. The hon. m west fromCnnnamulla to Thaq;ominclah. That line would benefit the whole ofthe people in the south-we;t and would be infinitely rrKrcim-portant than a line to Tobermoi:y.

Mr. CoYNE: Would you support a line from Cunnamulla toThargomindah?

Mr. FORSYTH: If the Government brought in a line from Cunnamuilato Thar-gomindah, I wonld support it. Such a line would doinfinitely more good than a line to Tobermory. It is a mostremarl

1540 areat TVcrtern RaillDay [A~SEJ\IBLY.] Act Amenc'mentBill.

Mr. FORSYTH: Norlr'y is much nearer to Cunnamulla thanThargomindah is.

::'vir. CoY~E: Korlcv is only 18 miles. from Thargominclah."

Mr. FOHSYTH: Even if it is 140 miles west of Cunnamulla, thehon. gentleman speaks of it as being very good sheep coun-try, sohow is. it that they have not got sheep thor''? 1Im,· rs rt thatthe:7 have not goue in for sheep there long ago, ~s 140 n1ilts isnot :::o verv far from a ra1hvay, ··~pecially when we cons!der thatthere aEe stations north-we't of tnat whiCh are 2o0 rniles frorn arailway~twice the distance that Norlov is from a railway-and yetthey are growing sheep and sending their wool in by teams toCharleville? A great cry has beP-n ra;, ud that this deviation willtake trade a" a,. from Eockhampton. I defy anyone to p"rove that itwill take one ounce of trade :\Way from Rockhampton. As a matter.of fact, it ill inorca>e tlF amount of trade to Rockhampton, cothat thoee hon. members' "rgumcnts do not apply at all. The han.m,~mber for \Varrego said that no more coun-trv wo:J.ld bo oncncdup by deviating the line 25 miles n'orthward. I think it will ononup a ·yrrv large a1nount of country. There are a lot of cattlestations to the we

Great Western Ra>lway [25 SEPTEMBElt.] Act Amendmmt BUZ.1541

:?IIr. PAYXE: If the han. member will look at the man he willsee that a railwav from Cuimamulla to Thargomindah would be asection of the border railwav. I do not .agn'o with those hon.members 'who talk al•ont f;\ucnsland retaining the tradB of tho·south-western district. Thev grow cattle in t,hat part of the:ountry, an'd ~o long as tho lo to command the trade of thedistrict. 'Iho cattle han' always gone South, to Syd-ney andAdlaide, and thev will go there so long- as those markets ar~bettor than the Brisbane market. Our onlv hone of attract-ing thetrade to this port 'is by making the market btter here than theSouthern market'. Cattle can traYel to market on 'foot in any kindof docent so&son and thev do not want railwavs to moye them afmv hundreds of miles. · It has been said that th.:; building ofthe ~ailway to Eromanga is gomg to mterfere with the CentralRailway and that it is going to take away trade fro~ Rockhampton.It would be only a fair thing if the hon. members who make thatstate-'"'!ent: mentioned a few of the holdings in the ·dibtrictwhose tr~de now goes to ~ockhampton. I am satrsfiod that the lme isnot going to intorfl'l'C with the Rockhampton tmcle at all. If Ithought that would be the Pffect of building the line to Eromanga Iam doubtful ":he~her I wo':ld support th~ proposal. But It Is notgomg to deprive Rockhampton of any trade which geographi--callybelongs to that port. Tho hon. member for Rockhampton said that, atthe present ra~e of progress, It would take twenty or i.~Irtc·:~·ears to complete the Blackall exten-siOn, and I admit that it isgoing ahead verv ~lowly. But the trade from Eromanga and nghtawa:;· out to \Vmdorah has alwavs gone to ,Charlevil1c. . I havepreviousiy st:1tPd on tne floor of this House-and I chal-h·ngc anyhon. member who knows the ·cotmtry to contradict thestatf'ment-that no wool from any station below Jundah but GalwayDowns has

1542 Great W £ all the trade o( that Cunnamulla line will betaken away from it and will go to the bord~r line. That line, Icontend, must remam useless becau ,e it will be easier and cheap~r·to go to Brisbane by the v~a recta, when It· is built, than byCharlevillc. That alone shows that the buildmg of that !me !n thatposition was a ven· great mistake mcleod. I hope that theGovernment will take the macter of getting more ir;formation int?co?-sideration now. It is easwr now than It will be wh•m this routeis passed, and I think it will be a fatal mistake not to do so. Ihope that the Government will take the matter into consideration atthe present juncture, with the object of endeavouring to getinfor-mation that will enable them to build the lin" in the properplace.

HoN. R. PHILP (Town.,ville): I quite believe that the Housecannot get too much information about a railway, and when this-linewas fir,,t proposeJ I caid then v hat I sav now, that the lineshould not have gone to· Tobermory at all. It ought to have gonewest from Charleville. I think the proper· line is dircet fromCharleville to Adavale· and Adavale to Windorah.

Mr. HARDACRE: Then you would bump up-against the extensi~n toBlackall.

HoN. R. PHILP: I think a great mistake· was made in building theline to Blackall; the line should have gone fromLongreach-south-west.

Mr. HARDACRE: Hear, hear!

HoN. R. PI-HLP: That would hav-e been' the proper line-theBlackall line only com-petes with the W0;tern line. It isastound-ing how careful the han. members for Rock-hampton are abouttheir trade ; nothing is to ]:}n taken from Rockhampton. The line·to Blackall has taken trade away from Bri&. bane.

Mr. GRANT: That is a district that ilL geographically nearerRockhampton.

HoN. R. PHILP: You talk about geo-graphy! How far is Townsvillefrom Long-reach? Townsville is nearer Longreach• than isRockhamDton. but the Townsville people have suffered for years.

Mr. GRANT: You took the trade from· Rockhampton by extending theNortherTh line to Winton.

Gnat Western Railway [25 SEPTEMBER.] Act Amendment Bill.1543

HoN. R. PI-IILP : The Winton line was built long before it wentto Rockhampton, and the Townsville people conserved the trade theyhad there by that railway. Rock-hampton wants to pillage the tradefrom Brisbane which is now coming here. You cannot name a stationfrom which the trade that is now going to Rockhampton will come to~risbane; bu~ I could name plenty of statwns from whwh the tradewhich is now coming to Brisbane will go to Rockhampton.

Mr. ADAMSON: Will the Bulgroo wool go to Rockhampton?

HoN. R. PHILP: It will be cheaper to send the Bulgroo wool toRockhampton than Brisbane.

Mr. ADA)! SON : Will you send it?

HoN. R. PHILP : I could not tell that, As far as I can find out,the Commissioner for Railways has made inquiries on this route.From his report it will be seen that he visited almost everystation on the route from W allal tD Eromanga and all the peop~ewho will have to pay 'the 3 per cent. defiCiency say, one and all,"Build the line to Er~manga." Should not those people, :"' ho willhave to pay the deficiency if there 1s any loss, be considered?

_Mr. GRANT : What abo;>t the people who wlll have to pay adefiCiency on the Win-dorah line?

HoN. R. PHILP: I make no secret of saying that th line should gofurther west, and not south from Blackall. All the Rock· hamptonpeople think of is to get more trade for Rockhampton. What dothe'l' care about Queensland? •

Mr. GRANT: They are no different to other people in thatrespect.

HoN. R. PHILP: I do not think so. I think the Brisbane peoplehave been asleep.

Mr. ADAMSON : Why don't all the lines go straight west? 'rheonly line which goes straight west is the Central line.

HoN. R. PHILP : The Rockhampton people have a line north toClermont, and south to Springsure, and south-west to Blackall. Theyhave lines all round the place from Rockhampton. They are notconfined to one line; and now they want a line built fromLongreach. I do not care if they get it. That portion of tradewhich has been coming to Brisbane for all time will leave it whenthe Blackall to Windorah line is built. However, that is not theques-tion to-day. The Commissioner has power now to make deviationsto the extent of 25 miles, but he says he wants to

1544 Great Western Railway [ASSEMBLY.] Act Amendment Bill.

exactly what we did before. When the Great Western Railwayscheme was first proposed, members on this side of the House whoknew the country well told the Government the line was going thewrong way; but, in spite of that, the Government went blindly on,and said, "Let us pass the railway first, and then we will send outofficers to find out which route is the correct one." What hashappened since then has shown that the Government were wrong, andthat the mem-bers on this side were absolutely justified in thewarnings they gave the Government. The result of the Governmentpolicy has been the expenditure of thousands and thou-sands ofpounds on railway construction about which there is considerabledoubt, especially as to the route adopted. The question we oughtnow to consider is not whether this line should go to Tobermory orEromanga, but whether we should adopt either of those routes. TheSelect Commit-tee have pointed out that the Commissioner forRailways told the Government that the railways going west shouldnot be linked up at the place where it was proposed they should belinked up in the first instance.

The Pm:3IIER: That is not the question now.

Mr. HARDACRE: The first propos.tl to build thi-; railway toTohormor>· was based upon a scheme for linking up 'the \\'esternlines from Tobermory to form the transcon-tinental raih.-ay. Thatwas one of the rea-sons why it was decided to build the Great\Vestern Railv. 1y to 'Tobermory. I'\ ow tho Commissioner tolls usthat the linking-up scheme is altogether wrong, and that the linesshould be linked np nearer thP oJy re-marks.

1\Ir. HAHDACRE: Nothing of the kind. I will road what tho hon.crm1tloman ,aid in his evidm1ce before the Commiuco. Tho hon.1\'entleman, in reply to a qw·-tion by ).Jr. HamJ!ton as to whetherthe report sn buiited by Mr. Evans entailed a review of trcwhoh> scheme, tho present included rep1icd " Yes it docs."I.ater on the han. gc;;tlcma~ sai

Gnut TV estern, etc., Bill. [25 SEPTEMBER.] Companie8 Act,nTTEEoF PROPOSED A:>!ENDMENT.

The PREMIER, in moving~ " That it is dcqirable that there be

inserted in the Companies Acts Amend-ment Bill a clauseproviding for the imposition of stamp duty on share ·warrants,"

said: Yesterday it was agreed to rescind the rcwlution that wascarried on the 27Ould undenbmd what the clause would be he wonldread it. It provided~

·' There shall be charged on t·very share v:arrant issued inQu.-cnf-land a stamp duty of an amount equal to three times theamount of the ad valorem sh.tmp duty \~

1546 Oompanie• Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

the measure, had suddenly decided to adopt certain suggestionsmade from the Opposi-tion side with regard to the imposition ofstamp duty on share warrants.

Hon. R. PHILP : They were not all made on that side.

Mr. THEODORE: The hon. member could not dispute the fact thatthe first sug-gestion of a possible loss of revenue under theoriginal proposal in connection with the issue of share warrantscame from the Opposition side. because the original Bill and theproposal about share warrants, which was considered in Committee onthe 27th August, would have gone through without any discussion onthe Gove,·nmcnt side of the House if it were not for members inopposition.

'The PREMIER: The first member who raised the question inCommittee was the hon. mf>mbi'r for Murrumba.

Mr. THEODORE: The Opposition mem-ber•· were tho first to ask fora postponement of the consideration of the measure with a view togetting revenue for the State by making proYision of additionalstamp duty.

The PRE;\IIEH : The ouestion we are con-sidering at the presenttime is the desirable-ncsD of inserting tho clause.

Mr. THEODORE: The proposal was to levy stawp duty on sharewarrants.

The PnE'liER: That is not the question now. That will come onlater.

Mr. THEODORE: Tho whole question was involved in whether it wasdesirable to insert the amendment in the Companies Acts AmendmentBill. It would be admitted that members on the Opposition sidepointed out the necessity of having a different scale of stampduties th.an was originally proposed, and the Pr8lmer had suddenlyconceded what was asked for ,by the Opposition although he had notgiven any reason fo~ the change of his attitu,de. The Bill wasintro-duced to facilitate certain business transac-tions on thepart of certain companies regis-tered m Queensland. The Premiersaid it was in order to meet the wishes of these comp~nies that theamending Bill was introduced .and hn wished to paos it. When it waspdinted out that by making provision for the issue of sharewarrants it might ,involve the St!lte in a loss of stamp revenue,the Pre-mier put up an argument against that suggestion.

The PRE'nER: I do not think it will make one half-pennydifference. It would not make any difference if we made it fiftytimes the value.

Mr. THEODORE : If it would not make any difference, then therewas some reason behind i he proposal for introducing it.

The PRJc:\!IER : It was introduced to dis-abuse :yo:-'rsuspici:ms !nind. You may hold the opmwn that It Will make adifference, but I do not.

Mr. THEODORE: The Premier"as intro-ducing the proposal toprovide for stamp duty equal to three times the amount of the advalorem stamp duty which would be chargeab:e on a deed of transferand he said it would make no difference to the revenue.

The PREMIER : It will certainly make a difference if sharewarrants are availed of in Queensland.

Mr. THEODORE : The Premier said that the . Mount Morgan Companydesired to avail themselves of the share warrants. The

[Mr. Theodore.

Premier said it would make no difference-to the revenue, but asa matter of fact the-Mount Morgan Company desired to do some-thingwhich would obviate the necessity of paying stamp duty.

ThGl PREMIER : How? Mr. 'THEODORE: The company would

issue share warrants, ,and would not pay stamp duty on them.

The PREliTIER : If they issue them in Queensland, they will payduty on them.

Mr. THEODORE: But the company would. net issue them inQueensland. They were getting the authority from the QueenslandGovernment to issue share warrants, but they would is•,ue them inEngland, and s

Companies Acts [25 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 154~

It was not for the Government to come down and say they weregoing to do a certain thing without giving some reasons for doingso

The PREMIER: We will deal with all that at the proper time.

Mr. HUNTER: They wanted to know why this was being done. TheMinister for Public Instruction moved a certain motion. 'I'hen heasked permission to withdraw it. Then he asked permission to moveanother motion. They were told it was going to make no difference.If it was going to make no difference, why not keep to theoriq:inal motion? What sort of way was that to do bu·c iness?

The PREMIER : They both mean the same thing.

Mr. HUNTER : It was the same thing, only done some other way.(Laughter.)

'fhe PRE)IJER: You cannot blow out your chests and say that youare saving the revenue, when you have not saved a coin.(Laughter.)

Mr. HUNTER: He would come to the question pres·-·ntly, and hemight have some-thing interesting to say. If it made nodiffer-once, they were only wasting time, and the motion was onlyabortiye. It was very clear that a proposal was made to permit theissue of share warrants on the basis of the payment of s"''mp dutyon a value equal to three times the nominal value of thewarrants.

The PRE~IIER : That is not the question.

The CHAIRMA::"-1 : The question before the Committee is a motionaffirming the desirableness of inserting in tho Compae1ies ActsAmendment Bill a clause providing for the imposition of stamp dutyon share "·ar-rants.

The PREMIER: Perhaps the hon. member objects to the payment ofstamp duty alto-gether.

Mr. HUNTER: They were told that it was now proposed that theduty should be either on the basis of three times the nominal valueof the share warrants or else on three times the market value atthe time.

The PREMIER: As indicated in the motion to follow the one nowbefore the Committee.

:Mr. HUNTER: 'l'he Opposition had pro-t< itc>d against thefirst proposition of th,e Go-vernment on tho ground that therewuuld be a considerable loss of revenue,

The PREMIER: If the share warrants were issued in Queensland,there might be a con-siderable increase in revenue.

Mr. Hl~NTER: The Govrnment chould see that the share warrantswere issued in Queensland.

The PREMIER: Certainly, if the:y ask for it.

Mr. HUNTER : Not because they asked for it, but becauseParliament said they should be issued here.

The PREMIER: You don't understand the questwn.

Mr. HUNTER: If it was impossible~and they knew it was impossibleunder the pre-sent Comnanics Aot~to issu,, share arrants inQueensland, and it was now proposed to make it possible, theGovernment should see that they were issued in Queensland and thatthe duty as paid in Queensland.

The PREMIER : If the shares are held in London, we cannot makethem como back to Queensland.

Mr. HUNTER: They should not be al-lowed to attach the great sealof the company to shares transferred in London.

Mr. MuRPHY: There are 120,000 shares· held in Franco.

Mr. HUNTER: He knew that there were' e.harcs held in London, andtho proposal was that they should pay stamp duty in England.instead of hero.

The PREMIER : \V e do not get one pennJ uf the duty paid inLondon now.

Mr. HUNTER: They should insist on the: share warrants beingissued in Queensland.

Tho PREMIER : That Is not the question before the Committee.

Mr. HUNTER: It \vas the question they v,antcd the Government toface. The Govern-rr,ont had power to say that they would not amendthe Companies Acts unle;,s the com-pany was prepared to iss;w all .share war-rants in the State. The OppositiOn opposed the previousmotion so that the Goyermnent might do something like what they nowpro-r-osod to do.

l\'ir. IL\RDACRE : The GoYcrnment were· now prepared tointroduc·3 the amendment in the Bill in the form suggested bymemb~rs of the Opposition. It was really a questwrr of amending:th8 Stamn Duty ~ct rather than one amendinr: th~ Compame; Act. The·trouble was that while the GoYernment pro-posed to do wl{at wasright in forr:r, they Wf:lro going to do s.o!-lleihin.g wrong ~nsub-stance. The OppositiOn pomtod out m con-nection with tho otherproposal that what was being dono \vould enabk~ a certajn com-_pany to evade payment of stamp duty, and· this motion was brought mfor the purpose of prcyonting tho kakago which the Oppo-· sitionside had pointed out \muld take place'· under the firstproposal.

The PREl\IIER: Do you oppose this motion?.

Mr. HARDACRE: He would c,ertainfy oppose it if it was not goingto do any good. Tho question before the Committee was theconsideration of the adYisableness of imposing some stamp duty onshare war-rants, but at the present time there were no, share\varrants in existence in Quf'cnsland,_. and it should be a part oftho s!'hemo to• insist on share warrants being Issued 1nQueensland, so that stamp duty would_haYe to be paid hero.Apparently the parncular company which had been r~ferrcd to wasgoing to issue ,,hare warrants m London, m:d there "-ould he notransfers of shares regis-tered in Queensland.

The PREMIER: Thev can onlv i,'

Companies Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. HARDACRE: Not if the shares were b ansferred th('re, butsome Mount Morgan sharEs were being transferred in Queensland.

Th3 PREMIER: 'rhon tlwy must pay tho full >~lamp duty.

:VIr. HARDACRE: :\Tot if they were al-lowed to i>sue sharewarants, because the .moment th~,- could 1ssuo share warrantsthe·,· could issue them in Great Britain.

Tho PRE:\!IER: You don't understand the quc8tion.

Mr. HARDACRE: He did umlor-tand tho -question. They were goingto grant a ya]u-able concession to thi' company without anyreturn.

The PREMIER: This is the law in Xew South \Vales andVictoria.

Mr. HARDACRE: They were proposing to give a valuable concessionto the com-pany.

The PREmER: That is not the question. The question is whnther itis wise to impose 3tamp duty.

Mr. HARDACRE: They were now intra· -clueing an amendment.

The PilE}I!ER : \V e are not ; the amend. .ment is not beforethe Committee.

Mr. HARDACRE : They were in Commit-toe considering the proposedimposition of stamp duty on share warrants. There was

a company which was asking for [7 p.m.] share warrants, and itevidently

was not going to pay stamp duty . at all. They should impose astamp duty on share warrants, no matter where they were.issued.

Th0 PREMlER : Are not share warrants issued in England 1

Mr. HARDACRE: That was so; but there were two things in GreatBritain which he .thought tho Premier did not see. There was thestamp duty on the companies in Great Britain issuing sharewarrants-that was, on the companie,, and not on the sharew.ar-rant8. He contended that wherever the par· ticular company wasestablished it should pay stamp duty to the State in which itexisted. Furthe-r, in Great Britain, they imposed a stamp duty onthe negotiations that took place after the isoue of the war·rants.

Tho PRE111ER: That may be all very well when we get intoCommittee on the specific ·~lut::.. Tho _only question now iswhether it 1s Wlf.·; to 1mpose stamp duty or not.

Mr. HARDACRE: 'The Premier had out. lined a clauc,e whichimposed a stamp duty on tho warrants only, and he wa·; in order inso::ing what he thought should be done as against what the Premierproposed.

Tho PHE11IER : Then vou can move an amendment 11 hen the timecomes.

:Mr. HARDACRE: \Vhat were they there to consider 1

The PRE:HIER : Tho desirableness of in· sorting a clause toimpose a stamp duty.

Mr. HARDACRE: They were consider· illg·-

" The desirableness of inserting into the Companies ActsAmendment Bill a clause providing for the imposition of stamp dutyon share warrants."

He ,., as perfectly in order in considering whether tho companywas going to evade ·the payment of stamp duty, because it cmcantthat they were going to issue the

[Jfr. Hardacre.

warrants elsewhere, and our law ·would be of no avail. If thestamp duty was on share warrants, and the latter were going to beissued outside the country--

The PRE}IIER: Then you have no control.

::\1r. HARDACRE: 'The stamp duty in that case would be useless.He was saying that thev were giving a 'aluable concession, not onthe .bare, but to the company. The company was here, and the stampduty should 'be on the company and not on the share '\ arrants.

The PRE1IIER : vVho owns the shares, the company or theindividuals 1

Mr. IL\RDACRE: ~ever mind that. Thev had no control over theindividual, because the share warrants might be issued to anindividual who held them in Great Britain, which was outside ~hescope of their power, and so ho was gomg to ~sc~pe paying any duty~t all. He _wa.s pomtmg out what existed m Great Bntam, and he didnot think the Premier understood it.

The PREMIER : He did. He rose to a point of order. The questionbefore; the Committee was the desirableness of mtro· clueing aclause into the Bill to impose stamp duty on .share warrants. 'Theywere not comidering the spe01fic duty that was to be imposed, butwhether it was wise or not to impose it.

Mr. HARDACRE: On what 1

The PRE;yHER: On share warrants . ·when they came to thequestion of how much should be imposed, then would be the time todiscuss it. The Bill had passed its second reading, and all theclauses except one had been agreed to-the one in which wa< thequestion of how much the stamp duty should be. They wore thenproposing to discuss what tho duty should be, and the hon. memberwas not in order in discussing the amount at that stage.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Leichhardt is going awayaltogether from the question before the HDusc, .and he JS not inorder in discussing what was to be the stamp duty. The onlyquestion is the adyisableness of imposing a stamp duty 0n sharewarrants.

Mr. HARDACRE: Had he in any way discussed the particular duty 1Not at all. He was di.ocussing the question whether the duty shouldbe on the company as well .as on the share warrants. Neither was hedis· cussing the Compani,,,, Bill. He was dis cussing what wasbdore them-a propusul to put stl1mp duty on share warrants.

The PRE~IIER : On a Bill which has already passed the secondreading.

Mr. HARDACRE: He did not want to put tho duty on the .oharewarrants which "ere not there, but on the company which was.

The PRE}IIER : The Bill we passed says " share warrants."

Mr. HARDACRE: They were not in order in discussing the Bill, andhe was not doing that. He was discussing the object of theproposal. He wanted to point out once more that the duty should notbe on share war· rants, becaLlse they might be issued in GneatBritain, and they would have no control over them. But if they putit on the com-pany, which was here within their province, they hadcontrol. In Great Britain, exactly the same stamp dut-y was on thecompany.

Oo1npan 'eJ ~--icts l25 SEPTEM)3ER,] Amendment Bill.

It was true that it said " on the issue of share \Varrants," butit \ttav, upon the com~ pany which is,ued the share warrants andhad to pa:: stam[J duty on the number issued, not on the'individual who got them. That y;a-.; a V(•ry in1portant diffProncebot\veen the proposals. If the:· put it on the com· tnny. th "Y hadcontrol over the company which existed in Queensland.

ThP CHAIRMAN": Tho Dill has already pas:>c--d it ,_r,~ondrcadiHg. and tho question is whether it is desirable to insBrt aclause impc· ing .tamp duty on share warrants only.

:vir. HARDACRE: To show that he "iS in order, he proposed toan1cnd this pro~ posed al""'nding clause·. He moved thoin-DL'rtion, af:cr "on," at the end of tho f=.Pcond line, of "an:,- company which i,,,snes share 1Yarr~tnts."

The PRE1IIER: \Vill vou make it clear \\hat it nwan,--theso m~call fully paid-up shares?

Mr. IIAHD~\CRE: \Yas not a co:·>pany different from a share?They were going to confer vn a com!1any in Queensland tho YaluabloconcC',sion of tho nowor to issue .sha.ro ,., UlTants. I-I0v.-anted- to n1ako that cr.mnanv nav for tho valuable concession"hich 1t g'nt,· so that whether it issued the share warrants in orout of Qucen

[550 Companies Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

as to what a share warrant was, and from a .misreading of anarticle in the " Bulletin." A share warrant wa3 nothing more orless

.than a document issued, with no name to it, to a person who wasthe holder of paid-up . "hares in a company. The shares must bepaid up. What on earth was the use of taxing a company on a thingin which they

.tlO longe1· had any interest? Mr. HARDACRE: Of course theyhave.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN-STRL:CTION: What interest couldthey

·have in paid-up shares? What had the com-•pany to do with fullypaid-np shares 1

Mr. THEODORE: Pay dividends on them.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN-STR17CTION: Certainly they paiddividends -on them, but they did not care twopence to w·hom thrypaid those dividends. The com-pany simply said to a person desiringto .have share 'varrants, ''There arc your paid-up shares, we issuea warrant for them," .and that warrant enabled the man who held itto go round and obtain any advanc~s he liked on it.

Mr. HARDACRE: Who pays on the issue?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN-.STRUCTION: On what issue?

Mr. HARDACRE: The issue of the share war-irant?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN-STKCCTlON: The share warrant wasissued to the man, and the holcler of it paid duty -on thetransfer. The man who got the share warrant paid the duty on itjust the same ;as anybody to whom scrip was transferred paid stampduty. Pcrh:Lps one or two words .on something which had recentlyoccurred might clear the atmosphere a little. The duty on theEnglish share warrant was thre'l -times the ad valorem stamn dutycharge-able, if the consideration was the nominal ·value of theshares. By a schf du le to tho Stamp Act of 1891 the duty on anass;gn-'ment of a marketable security was ls. for every £10 orfractional part of £10. The :hon.· member for Leichhardt said thattouched the share warrant.

:Mr. HARDACRE : There are two duties-one -on thn issue and oneon the transfer after-wards.

The SECRETARY FOR P'l~BLIC IN-STRUCTION: The hon. mm duties inGreat Britain-first of all: a duty on the issue of share war·rants, which was chargeable on three times the nominal Yalue, andunder the 1891 Stamp Act there was ls. stamp duty on transactionsor negotiations of foreign share warrants, which was doubled bv theFinance Act of 1910. The hon. member had only to look at section 76of that Act, which made the matter quite clear. That clauseprovided that-

" Stamp duties on marketable com-modities, share warrants, orstock cer-tificates shall be double those payable in the saidschedule as the case may be."

In Great Britain, the responsibility rested on the company whichissued the share war· rants, and not on the individual, because theindividual could not issue share war· rants.

Mr. MuRPHY: The individual will have to pay the stamp duty.

Companies Acts (25 SEPTEMBER.) Amendment Bill. 1551

Mr. HARDACRE: Nothing of the kind. How could the individual bemade to pay the stamp duty when he did not issue the sharewarrants?

The SECRETARY b'OR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION : 'They are issued tohim.

Mr. HARDACRE: Suppose a company issued a number of sharewarrants which were not taken up?

Mr. FoRSYTH : They will not issue them until somebody appliesfor them.

Mr. HARDACRE: Of course they would. 'The stamp duty should be onthe issue, and -as the company only could issue, there-sponsibility rested with the company, and that wa·' where GreatBritain got the stamp .duty, and that was what he wanted to dohere. They were enlarging the Companies Act, which gave increasedpowers and made .the companies more valuable, and therefore thecompanies should pay the stamp duty, no matter where thetransactions took place.

The bell indicated that the hon. member's full time hadexpired.

Mr. FORSYTH said he could not under-stand the argument of thehon. member at .all. At the present time, companies had no 11owerto issue share warrants in Queensland, but the board in Londoncould transfer shares on the London register, and who got thestq.mp duty?

Mr. HARDACRE : Great Britain. Mr. FORSYTH : Of course they did.The

register in London was under the control

1552 Gonopanzes Acts [ASSE:l\1BLY.J Amendment Bill.

Mr. THEODOHE: If it had not boon withdrawn, it would now bebefore the Committee; but the motion authorising the Committee toconsider the amendment had been rc--einded, so that it could notnow be before tho Committee. The only question which had been nutfrom the Chair was "That clause 2 st.tnd p:.>rt of the Bill,"and if h by.

" If a share warrant is issued without being duly stamped, thecompai!y is.,uing the arne, and also evl'ry r Ir. Theodore's)moving his amendment. Hmvevcr·, the Standing Orders madepro-visio!l for moving amendments in another-way, and he thought he~

Companies Acts (25 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1553

desirous of taking adYantagc of the clause, and in that case adistinct gain would be made by the Treasurer of Queensland in theamount of revenue he would receive for stamp duty. And although thePremier, when he WaS in ch:crge of this particular am~ndmcnt, saidhe was not prepared to allow the Opposition .to plume thcm,,':lveson having SIH•'d tho mtc "'"ts of Queensland and the Treasury, hecould not but admit that, what-ever uifvarr;m~; might bc•comcfashionable. 'The Treasury would beneftt (o tho extent of thecliffcrcJK,, bc'twc ''1 the duty on lhrc' timYoulcl be to taketheir tran,action to Great Britain, and, having got share warrants.give tho purchasers share warrants instead of shar0s, and pay nostamp duty to Queens· land. It had boon pointed out that a com-panywhich iHued share warrants >Yas liable for a ponaHy on everyshare thoy issu< :! which was unstampod. In that case, it made acompany responsible rather than an indi-vidual, and they ought todo the same thmg in connection with this clause. ~ew clause (hfr.Blair's) agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, put and passed. TheHon,•e resumed. The CHAIRMAN re-

ported the Bill with an amf,ndmcnt.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLic: IN-STRUCTIOK: I move that the Bill, asamended, be now taken into consideration.

1\,k THEODORE : Through certain cir-c*mstanc"s I have not beenable to propose an amendment in the Committee stage of the BilL andI now nropose to submit to' the consideration of the House anamend-nwnt in clause 2. I move t.hc insertion, after " is~ue " online 12 of the clause, of " in Queensland." I desire to restrictthe issue of share warrants in Queensland alone. It may be saidthat, if the proposal is' carried,

Mr. Theodore.]

1554 Companies Acts, etc., Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Stock, etc.,Bill.

it will result in somewhat of a hardship to the Londonshareholders, or shareholders living outside the State ofQueensland, in Queensland companies, who desire to take advantageof the provisions for the issue of share warrants ; but I maintainthat, as the negotiations in share warrants in Queensland companiesaffect the interests of Queensland, 100 far as the interests of thecompanies are

Stock and Farm (25 SEPTEMBER.] Produce Agents Bill. 1555

Mr. HUNTER : Without in any way V'.'ish-ing to prevent theintroduction of such a. measure, he still thought that before theCommittee was asked to consent to IPgislation of this description,or of any description in fact, it was the duty of the JHinister incharge of the motion to inform them what were the reasons whichrendered ;.uch a mea-sure necessary. Surely there must be sc mereason why they brought in this nwv,·ute! ·were there some evilsexisting th-tt they should prevent? Could the hon. gwtleman

tell the Committee "hat it was - [8.30 p.m.] going to prevent?To c0me

down to the Committee with a bald proposal that it was desirableto do something, without telling the· Committee why, was to ask theCommittee to sign a blank cheque. The Committee were entitled tofurther information. What was the object of asking permission tointroduce a Bill if it was only a matter of form? The permis-sionshould be obtained for some substantial reason. Was there somecrook work going on amongst the agents in the city? If theGovernment proposed to introduce a Bill "'tablishing a produceagency and to work the business themselves in the interests of thefarmNs of the State, he could under-stand it would be of someas,istance to the producers of the State; but the Bill was toprevent something that was happening, and the Committee were nottold anything about it. The Minister should take the Committee intohis confidence and justify the action of the department in askingthe Committee for permission to introduce a Bill of that nature.This coming to the Committee and asking permission to introduce acertain thing was becoming a farce. The hon. member for Herbert hadstated the other night that it was a waste of time. It might not bea waste of time, as there might be some sub-Btantial reasons forthe introduction of the Bill, and hon. members wanted to know whatthey were. The Minister should state roughly what the Bill proposedto do. What were the evils it was intended to suppress? \'i'hatwere the benefits it was going to con-fer on the farming communit"?It was not sufficient for seven men to constitut-e them-selv!'Sinto a Cabinet and decide on a certain thing and the othersixty-five members were to rep1ain as dummies and say, "Yes, it isall rtght. Whatever you propose must be good." He did not believethat everything emanatmg from the other side was good, and thoseother sixty-five members could be truste-d to have sufficientcommon sense to know whether a proposal of that kind was a goodthing or not.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICUL'rURE: He had already explained whatthe objects of the Bill were, and he had also stated that therewere certain reasons for protect. ing farmers from unscrupulousagents in this city, and in other centres. He could give a specificcase. That was the case of Mr. Izatt, who, he thought, was asupporter of the Labour party.

Mr. COYNE: He was one who was discov-ered.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: He was, and it took a great dealof trouble to discover that man, and the Bill was to prevent such athing happening. It was to try and prevent unscrupulous agentsselling produce at 8s. 3d. per bag and sending account sales for7s. 9d. per bag. Another good reason for the Bill, which he couldgive the hon. member for Maranoa, who

was always prating about the farmers, was that the farmerswished that the Bill should be introduced. When the Bill was beforethe House, he would give all the information he could. It was not along measure, but it was a measure of the utmost importance to thefarmers. Under the regulations, al'l agent would have to show towhom goods were sol-d., what he got for them, and all about them.He sincerely hoped that han. members opposite would consider thathe was not bringing the Bill in for the fun of the thing or towaste the time of the House in any particular. His only object inbring-ing the Bill forward was to try and assist the farmerswithout inflicting any great hardship on the produce agents.

Mr. GILLIES: As this was the first Bill the han. gentleman hadintroduced in the Chamber, and as he had been associated with thefarmers all his life, he (Mr. Gil-lies) expected that the han.gentleman would have given han. members like himself someindication as to what useful purpose the Bill was going to serve.There had been a lot of talk about a Cane Price Boards Bill-a mostimportant Bill, because, after all, the sugar industry was the mostimportant agri-cultural in

1556 Stock and Farm [ASSEMBLY.] Produce Agents BitL

the stock and produce business. They knew that they haddishonest men in all walks of life. In almost every businc's inAustralia they had men engaged who were prepared to do a dishonestthing, and it was b0cause oi such men that it was necessary tobring in legislation to deal with them. This Bill was to supprc'lsor prevent those business tactics from being adopted in business,not only in Brisbane, but in other parts of QuN>nsland. It alsoapplied to the hon. member for Maranoa, who conducted the bucinessof a produce agent. It would also ar ply to men like Izatt. Thehan. nKmber for Maranoa would welcome such a Bill, just as anvother honest trader would welcome it. Tho honest man who wasprepared to do a fair thing by his customers would always welcomesuch a Bill. It was only the dishoncot man who would be affected byit. Leave to introduce the Bill should be given without theslightest hesitation. He had heard han. members opposite say thatcertain middlemen were not treating the farmers fairly, and theysaid that all middle-men were alike. He did not think tha.t han.members opposite could really mean that all middlemen were roguesand thieves. If thev did, they would have to condemn some of their0\Vll membrs who were carry· ing on husine,, as stock and produceagents. Because one or more agents, or one or more companies, worenot doing tho right thing b:r the farmer, it was not a proper thingto condemn them all. This legislation would give them anopportunity of discovering the dishonest men, and bringing them tobook, which was a difficult thing to do under the present ]a'' s.It was really safeguarding the interests of the producer, and hegave the Opposition credit for wishing to do that, as !hey werealways saying they wi"hod b do rt.

Mr. BowMAN: And the consumer, too.

Mr. MORGAN: If they safeguarded the interest,, of the producer,they would s.1fe· guard tho consumer, because under this Billrecords would have to be kept, and they could gd, they threaten0dto turn out the whole IIouse, and tear up the Constitution itself,if thcv did not got their own way, and vet they were satisfied withthis poor, weak, little b 'ctling of a Produce Bill, which merelyproposed to license produce agents.

The HOME SECRETARY: You apparently failed to seduce them into analliance with your side, hence these tears.

[.ilf r . .il1 organ.

Mr. THEODORE: Members on the Oppo-sition side would be sorry tohave attached! to their party such a crowd of han . .members· asthe farmers' party.

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS : Order, order ! Tho CHAIR:\1AN : The han.member is,

not in order in alluding to han. members as a crowd. (Oppositionlaughter.)

:Mr. THEODORE: These han. members-who had such high ideals werecatir-fied with. a mere sop, as was now offered to them by theGovernment.

Mr. BEBBINGTON: You don't know what it is.

The Ho~IE SECRETARY: \Vhat did your party oYer there offer themwhen you made over-true: to them?

::'lir. THEODORE: The Opposition made· no overtures to the han.members who con-stitutpfl tho farmers' party.

l\Ir. BEBB!l,GTON: You had nothing to offer .. "Mr. THEODORE:They had something

to offer to the class whom the farmers' party pretended torepresent, something better· than the proposal they had before themnow.

Mr. BEBBINGTON: A land tax, l\fr. THEODORE: His party hadsome·

thing more to offer than thH mere licensing of agents inBri;bane. One of the things-they offered was a Government produceagencv, which had been advocated bv the· lf'ad

·'Stock and Parm 125 SEPTE:v!BER.] Produce Agents Bill. 1557

members sitting in the corner opposite had ,tolcn, or hadattempted to steal, seYeral of the planks in the platform of theLabour party--

Mr. BEBBIXGTON : There is nothing in your })latform that is ofany use to the farmers.

l\lr. THEODORE : Those hon. )Tiembers would have an opportunityof declaring them-·sclves upon those principles. If they had nottho courage to put them before the House them•·0lves, hon. memberson his side would give them an opportunity of voting •One way orthe other.

Mr. HUNTER : After listening to the :Speeches deli yered on theother side, he was astonished at the moderation and the modesty oftho farming representatives on the other side, who claimed to havethe power to make or to destroy the Govern-ment. Thev would havehon. members be-lieve that, If this motion were agreed to, it wouldlead to tho introduction of a Bill which would protect the farmerfrom evib which it was known he suffered from. They wanted theCommittee to hPlieve that, by the payment of £1 for a license,produce agents were going to be more honest than they had hPenbdore.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE : Who ±old you it was £1?

Mr. HUXTER: He understod it was £1; but, whatever the amountmight be, it would not have anv more effect in making produceagents honest than the registration of firms had in rnaking otherbusiness rnen honest. It would certainly bring in a certain amounto£ revenue, but it was not going to benefit thP fan:lH'r one iota.\Vhen a nren sent his produce to a merchant in Bri,bane he knew"here it went, and, if he likerl, he could follow it nn and findout whether it had been dealt-with fairly or not. He ·did notaccept the general charges of dis· honesty which wore levelled atproduce mer-chants. Occasionally there might oo a dis-hone,t manamong them, just as there were in all walks of life. At the sametime, if the Bill would protect the farmer and secure for him abetter price for his produce, he was with it all the way, and hewould help the twenty-six joints in the farmers' party to get theBill through. (Laughter.)

A GovERN~!ENT J'vfEMBER: Come over here.

Mr. HD="TER: If there was to be any .,~oming over, it would haveto be from the other side. He had no intention of joining thegentlemen opposite. If he were over there, the Government wouldhave very little peace unless they treated the producer bettor thanthey were doing. He would not be satisfied with tho measure whichit was pro-posed to bring in. To test han. members opposite, heproposed to move an amend-ment. He moved tho insertion, aft•Jr theword " agents," of the words " for the establish-·m·mt of aGovernment produce agency."

OPPOSITION MEMBERS: Hear, hear !

Mr. PAYNE was going to support the ·amendment. It would be afine thing for the farming community in Queensland if they had aGovernment agency to deal with their produce. It was no new thing.Such agencies were in existence in other States 'in theCommonwf'alth, and they were pan-ning out well. If the farmingmembers on -the other side had the welfare of the pri-mary producerat heart, they would support the amendment

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE rose to a point of order. As theamen~mont would require a message from H1s Excellencv recommendingthe necessary ap-propriation to give effect to it, he asked theChairman whether the amendment was not out of order.

The CHAIRMAN: I am rather inclined to think that the amendmentis in order. I think it is covered by the order of leave.

OPPOSITION ME~fBERS: Hear, hear! Mr. FIHELLY: It appeared to himthat

they had not got enough information fn:m tho hon. gentleman incharge of the B1ll. Apart from that, hon. members like the hon.member for Murilla appeared to be labour-ing under a wrongimpression with regard to the wants of the farmers generally.

Lieut.-Colonel RANKI:N rose to a point ?f order. Was the hon.member in order m discussing the original motion? There was anamendment before the Committee.

Mr. FIHELLY was sure there was no point of order. If theyaccept~d the a'!'~ndment it must be incorporated m the or1gmalmoti~n, and he thought it would .facilitat!3 business if they w.ereallowed ": .little lati-tude notwithstandmg the opposrtwn of thehon.' and ga!Iant member who professed to lead the country party.The hon: member for Murilla appeared to be labourmg under a wrongimpression. The farmer. wanted to get the best price p

1558 Stock and Farm [ASSEMBLY.] Produce Agents Bill.

Mr. FIHELLY: He had better taste on that matter than the han.member; otherwise he would give him an instance on his own sidewhich would rather confound him in the same business. But he leftit alone. A person who wrestled with a chimney-sweep might win orlose, but he would get covered with soot. (Laughter.) He adviPedhim to keep clear of any man who had committed the Government's sinof being found out-a breach of the Eleventh Commandment.

The CHAIRMAN : .Order! Mr. FIHELL Y: He was astonished at_..tho

moderation of gentlemen behind the Govern-ment, at themoderation of the ex-chief of tho farmers' party, in coming down,not to do away with the grievances under which the agriculturalproducer laboured, but to en-trench the middlemen in their oldposition, to see that they got their dividends and that theconsumer paid the extra cost because of the parasites between himand the producer. He was going to support the amendment. He saw thedeputy lP:c1der of the flirmers' party, the hon. member forDrayton, on his feet, and he hoped he was going to follow andproduce the magic wand, the divining rod, so to speak, on the:\linisterial bench and find the water that the farmer wanted.(Laughter.)

Lieut.-Colonel RANKIN (Burrwn): There seemed to be somethingunusual about the debate. In past days, leave to introduce a Billwas regarded more or less as a formal motion. Now it seemed to beregarded as an opportunity for a full-dress debate, on which whatwere generally looked on as second-reading speeches weredelivered.

l\Tr. BoWMAN: \Yhy are you prolonging it? The CHAIRMA::\T :Order ! I ask the hon.

member to confine himself to the question. OPPOSITION ME}IBERS:Hear, hear! Lieut.-Colonel RANKI::\T: He submitted

that the very question which seemed to be troubling hon. membersopposite as to what the Secretary for Agriculture was introducingwas contained in the motion. The title and the objects of the Billwere given.

Mr. McCORMACK rose to a point of order. vVas the hon. memberaddressing himself to the amendment or the motion?

The CHAIR.\ IAN : There is no point of order. I understand thehon. member was leading up to the amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel RANKIN thought he wa' quite in order so far as hehad gone in lead-ing up to tho amendment proposed by the hon.member for Maranoa, and he wished to say that he thought that noBill had been introduced into tho Chamber under more favourableconditions than the present Bill. As a matter of fact, the gene,sisof the Bill was to be found in, perhaps one of the largestgatherings of primary producers that had ever taken place in theState.

The CHAIRMAN: Order ! The hon. gentluman is discussing the orderof leave. There is an amendment before the Com" mittee, and I wouldask him to confine his remarks to it.

Lieut.-Colonel RANKIN submitted that he wa.s perfectly in orderin criticising the amendmc'nt, in showing the desirableness ofsomething bettor.

~Ir. HUNTER: You are trying to dodge it. Lieut.-Oolonel RANKIN:He was not· that

was not his practice. He was trying to 'show thai the measurewas welcome to all primary

[Mr. Fihelly.

producers, and he thought he was just a~& much in order asthe deputy leader of the Opposition when he said that all thosegroans and all those tears from the other side about the cloud ofindignation that was going to hurst were caused merely because theyhad ehown such a sympathetic interest in the primary producer, notin the dirr"1tion sug-gested by the amendment, but by theintro-duction of a measure that had been asked for by the farmersand the primary producers themselves. And he submitted that therewas no class of persons mort1 able t.:, say what the" required thanthe farmers them1elves. It \vas as a result of a specific requestthat the measure was being introduced, and he submitted that theamendment brought for-ward in his specious manner by the hon.member for JYiaranea was on all-fours with the attitude adopted byhis leader, when another measure of a similar nature, one of thesugar Bills, was before the House. It was tried to block and delayit on that occa-sion by the introduction of amendments, and now thesame tactics were displayed.

Mr. BoWMAN: Do you believe in the amendment?

Lieut.-Colonel RANKIN: He believed in the farmer himself, andthat was more than the hon. member did. He believed that they werefollowing along the soundest lines in giving the farmer what he wasasking for, and not by the scheme in the mind of the hon. memberfor l\laranoa. \Yith the de-tails of the Bill he was not going todeal, but he did say that the cause of the sore-ness shown by theOpposition which he had seen so frequently was that the party onhis side of the Honse had been so able to identify themselves withwhat was behind the mind of the primary producer and meet hisrequire· ments. (Opposition laughter.)

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarksto the amnd-ment which is before the Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel RANKIN submitted that the amendment proposed bythe hon. member for Maranoa was not a desirable on

Stock and Farm [25 SEPTEMBER.] Produce AgentB Bill. 1559

attitude of hon. members on the other side. They always adoptedthe same tacticB when-ever anything was brought in for the benefitof the farmers or the producer; they always tried to shelve it bybringing in something different-something that the farmer did notwant. The farmers' party did not believe in nationalisation; theybelieved in co-opera-tion--

GoVERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear 1 Mr. BEBBINGTON: Because thatbrought

out the good points of the individual. They did not believe innationalisation, and the dividing of their products v.·ithanybod:---They believed if the amendment "as pa,,ed, when thev cameto nationalise the whole of their products, they wonld have lessleft than they had at present. They preferred to de-velop their ownco-operative companies. They had two now in Brisbane, and there wasn0 necessity for any nationalisation. Thev felt that as farmersthey were just as competent to manage their o\vn business as anyState official would be, and just a little bit more, and theypreferred to trust their own farmers, and their own people, tomanage their own business. "Wiost of those gentlemen belonged toBrisbane, and if the local authorities of the towns did their dutyas they ought to do, they would do more in the way of marketing andbringing the pro-ducer and tho consumer together, but they dosireclto leave too much to the Go,·ernment. They neither provided marketsnor homes, nor anything else, for their people; they practicallyloft it all to the Government, and that was very little credit toany city authori-ties. If they did their duty, they would do moretowards feeding and housing the people within their bo_rders. Hon.members opposite talked about the farmer, and brought in

· amPndments and measures for him, and there was not a singbm.an amongst them who could milk a cow, or make a stack, oranything else connected with farming. (Laughter.) They did notunderstand the farmer, or what he wanted. There were 14,000 farmerswho asked for this Bill, and they were acting in their interests bythrow-ing out the amendment and giving them what thev wanted.

Mr. COYNE said the reason he was in favour of the amendment andagainst the original motion was this: The hon. member for Murillasaid that the object of the original motion was to license producedealers--

Mr. BEBBI:-;GTON: That is only one thing, Mr. COYNE: The hon.member for

Maranoa's opinion was that instead of allow-ing producedea!t•rs, who hud been described as rogues and vag-abonds by hon,members oppositc--

Mr. BEBBIXGTON: No. Mr. COYNE: If that was so, the only v.ay

they could safeguard the interestr, of the farmers was to acneptthe am.endment. He believed that was far preferable than causingwhat might be a combine of produce dealers, which the originalmotion would tend to make; because granting a license implied thatsomebody must grant tho license, and how did they know that it wasnot a gang of produce dealers that would have to grantlicense~?

Mr. MoRGAN: You grant auctioneers' licenses, and why not producemerchants or any other merchants?

Mr. COYNE: That was so; but they had not heard any storicJ aboutauctioneers being rogues and vagabonds; at any rate, they were

not supposed to keep the elaborate set of books that the hon.member for Maranoa referred to.

Mr. BEBBINGTON: They have to keep books. Mr. COYNE: The hon.member had to

keep books, and he had not got a license, The hon. member forDrayton said there were t'vo co-operative fanners' corr1panies inBris-bane, and found fault with the local authori-ties for notdoing more for the producer. All the tim.e the ho,n, member forgotthat he was in favour of thB amtmdmcnt, because it was only alesser degree of Government control he wag advocating, as againstthe full control b-; tho GovC'rnment under the hon. member forMaranoa's amendment. The hon. mem-ber for Drayton sejd there were14,000 farmers who had asked for the licensing of produce dealers.If they thought for a moment, and were not mislBd by membBrsopposite, they would proye their consistency by sending the wholeof tJ:leir pr_oduce to either of the two co-operative soCieties, orby forming more societies to deal with their produce, . Mr. MORGAN: That is coming. This Bill

will help. Mr. COYNE commended the amendment

to those who professed to have any sympathy with the farmers,because that was the only way the farmer would get the full resultof his labour, by sending it through Govern-ment agents.

Mr BEBBINGTON: No; there would bt nothing left.

Mr. COYNE: Tho hon. member forgot that the Government agentwould have to work for a certain number of hours per day, the sameas the men in our public offices, and would do the work of theproduce business very welL All the farmer would have to pay was hisshare of their wages, and he would get the balance for himself,which he could not get undm the BilL The only way for the farmer toget the full result of his labour would be to adopt the amendmentof the hon, member for wbranoa,

Mr. GRAYSON (Cunningham): It was quite amusing to observe thatthe farmers were finding so many new friends on , the Oppositionside of the House as had test1fied that evening. Only two sessions.ago mem-bers opposite said farmers were the worst employers in theState, and that they starved their employees; and now they werejumping over one another to show their sympathy with thefarmer.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! The hon. member knows very well thatthere is an amendment before the Committee, and I must ask him tokeep to that amendment,

Mr. GRAYSON: He knew that an amend-ment was under discussion,but, at the same time, he wished to reply to the arguments advancedby some members opposite. Of course, the hon. member for Paddingtonwas an authority on farming, and had had great experience in the£arming industry. (Go-v~rnment laughter.) That hon. member saidthat farmers could consign their produce by parcels post. He wouldlike to know how a fhrmer could send his chaff and maize throughparcels post. He believed that the object of the Bill was toprotect farmers.

The CHAIRMAN: Order ! Mr. GRAYSON: He was speaking to the

amendment. (Laughter.) The Government would be the very worstmedium between the farmer .and the consumer that the farmer couldhave.

Mr. Grayson. J

1560 Stock and Farm [ASSEMBLY.] Produce Agents Bill.

Mr. COY:.iE: Are you referring to this Government?

Mr. GRAYSON: No; to any Government that might be in power. Ifthey had an army of Government officials managing a produce agencybusiness in Brisbane, he believed that when the farmer received hisaccount sales he would find his returns were verv small indood. Ifthe amendment was cari·ied, he did not believe we should have anyfarmers in Queensland in five years' time-they would all be publicservants: He could not believe that the han. member for Maranoa wasserious in proposing the amendment, as the han. member was amiddleman himself, and he was positive that the han. member wouldresent any interfer-ence by the Government in the management of hisbusiness. He noticed that the deputy leader of the Opposition wasrather wrathful at the Goyernment for proposing to intro-duce thisBill.

'rhe CHAIRMAN: Order !

Mr. GRAYSON: He was speaking to the amendment. (Laughter.) Thehan. member for Chillagoe was wrathful against the Govern>11entfor introducing the Bill and thus taking away one of the planks ;fthe Labour platfol'm.

Tho CHAIRMAN: Order !

Mr. GRAYSON : Members who spoke on tho Opposition side of theHouse had wandered from Dan to Beersheba. How-ever, ~": would notcontinue. He hoped the Opposition would allow the Bill to beintro-duced, and he believed that when they had an opportunity ofperusing it they would not oppose it, as it would be found to beentirely in tho interests of the primary pro-ducer.

~1r. KIR\Y.\N (Brisbane): Han. members opposite spoke as if theywere the only persons compotE'nt to speak on this question. Thehan. member for Cunningham scoffed at tho idea c,f farn;wrs'produce being sent through post. Did the han. mc·mber not know thatthat was done in Canada and that tho Postmaster-General in thep~esent Fed

Stock and Faim (25 SEPTEMBER.] Produce Agents Bill. 1561

IENT :V1E]!BERS: No; that is not c·J·operation.

Mr. McCORMACK : It was co-operation . The CHAIRMAN: Order! Thequd heard the hon. member for Cooroora state that co-operation hadbeen a failure in Bri8bane. The hon. member said he had nothing tosay against the local people deal-ing in the business. The hon.member was quite right in sa~·ing that, because they wereconducting the affair on purely business lines. They were makingprofits; no ono would d.eny that. Most of tho hon. member,.oppo-site 'NE're men who had made money by ex-ploiting the nrimaryproduccr. There were an,· amount of them who to-day called them·s0lves the farmers' friends, and farmers' representatives. The hon.nwmber for Bur-nun adYocatt•d Covernn10nt interfcronco in almc,stevcrvthina. He said the Government should inteffcre to get caneprice boards for the farmers. He w:tnted Government inter-ff'rcncewhere it affected the sugar farmer, because he dared not doanything else. The hon. mc·mber might be againet it pf'rsonally,hut he had to sunport it, as he dared not do anything ols(' ' TheLabour party pro· posed to go further, and establish a depot,"·here the farmers could sell thPir goods, less cost of selling anddistribution, and the farmers' representatives refused to acceptit. Hon. members were against nationalisation ever,Y time, althoughit was in their plat-form that thev were in favour of State aid fortn'lny tt1ings

The bell indicated that the hon. member's time had expired._

Mr. STEVENS (Rosewood) opposed the amendment, because they hadhad ample evidence that .. State interference in matters

Mr. Stevens.]

1562 Stock and Farm [ASSEMBLY.] Produce Agents Bill.

of this kind did not tend to the benefit of the primary produceror the consumer.

Mr. BowMAN: Give us an example. Mr. STEVENS: They had an examplein

Perth, \Vestern Australia, where the State took over thebutchering business for the purpose of cheapening the price of meatfor the people of Perth; the result being that the price of n;eatwas raised ~d. per lb. in a very short tlme.

Mr. KIRWAN: You are absolutely wrong. Mr. STEVENS : The hon.member for

Cairns some time ago gave a convincing proof of the advantage ofco-operation over State management, and quoted the MulgravoCo-operative Mill as paying better prices for cane to thecanegrowers than was paid by the State central mills. If the.farmers onlv rcolised their own powers, as he had beel1 trying totell them for many years, there would be no need for this Bill. Upto the P~'"'*'":t they had not realised their powers, and 1t wastherefore desirable that they should be protected against dishonesttraders. He opposed the amendment because it was against theintere!>ts of the producer and the consumer

Mr. PAYNE could not understand farmers' representatives sayingthat the amendment was not better than the motion. If they analysedthe two questions, they would soo :that the motion was for thepurpose of rog1stermg an agency to deal with farmers' produce. Theamendment provided that the Government should handle the farmers'pro· due~, and just charge him the bare cost of handling. If theamendment were accepted, h2 could a'sure them that the Labourmem-bers would support any provision that the produce should behandled and sold just for thn bare expense it cost. He did notblame the agencies. In Brisbane alone they could seo the fineestablishments that had been erected by farmers' .agents during thepast ten years.

Mr. MORGAN: Do you believe in sweating the agents?

Mr. PAYNE : He did not believe in ~weatin>: the agents, buthe did not believe m the agents at all. He always recognised thatthe man on the land had got a good deal_t? contend with in the wayof climatic cond1twns, and pests of every description, and heconsidered that the primary producer should get the full result ofthe wealth he produced. The Labour platform provided for that, andth0 Labour party were per-fectly honest and conscientious inadvocating it.

Mr. BoOKER: What about the land tax? Mr. PAYNE : He did not wantto be

drawn away with reference to a land tax. 'fhr>y could talkabout that some other time.

The Hmm SECRETARY: Hide it! Hide it! Mr. P .\ YNE: He wassurprised to hear

farmers' rcJWf'sentatives sav that the amend-ment would not helpthe primary producer.

Mr. 'fROUT: The manager would want £5,000 a year. Look at thejobs the Labour Governmcmt found for men.

Mr. MonGAN: And it would lose £45 000 a year like theCommonwealth Bank did.

Mr. PAYNE : Every man was worthy of his labour. If they had aGovernment depot, there would be no preference given to any farmerat all as all would be heated alike. All the buildings now owned byproduce agents in Brisbane were built with the money which came outof the primary producer. He could not under-

[Mr. Stevens.

stand why the farmers' representatives. would not support theamendment, because thev could run the Government depot at bar'ecost, and no one would make anything out of it.

The bell indicated that the han. member's. time had expired.

Mr. PAYNE (continuing) said that there seemed to be a lot ofhypocrisy among. farming representatives on the other side, Invarious directions they advocated na-tionalisation, such as in thepurchase and distribution of seed wheat. That being so,. theyshould certainly be prepared to sup-port an amendment of such vitalimport-ance to the primary producers, seeing it would enable themto get the full results. of their labour. 'l'he hon. member forRose-wood did not believe in the amendment, because, in hisopinion, it would injure the· farmers, but he had not shown in whatway it would injure them. The system was in operation in otherparts of the world, and it was in force in several States of theCommonwealth, and in every case it was. an absolute success.Nothing that would benefit the primary producer should be leftuntried, and the system proposed by the· amendment would certainlybenefit the pri· mary producer. He hoped the Committee· wouldaccept the amendment.

Mr. BOWMAN (Fo1·titude Yalley) in-tended to support theamendment. To listen: to the arguments of hon. Jl1embers on theother .~ide, one would naturally suppose that nothing that had beendone by the State· had ever met with approval of hon. mem· hers onthe other side. If that were so, why had they established Statefarms; why had they erected grain sheds; why had they distributedseed wheat; and why had they erected cold stores in Roma street?The· system advocated by the amendment had proved successful in NewSouth Wales, Vic-toria, South Australia, Western Australia, and inNew Zealand it had been successful for years.

Mr. BEBBINGTON : It is not so successful as. co-operation.

Mr. MoRGAN: It has not been adopted in Victoria.

Thlr. TROUT : The hon. member for Dray-ton is a farmer, .andunderstands the busi· ness.

Mr. BOWMAN : And you are a butcher· and understand yours.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! Mr. BOWMAN: Well, what did the hon.

member want to interject for? The CHAIRMAN: Hon. members whoin-

terject are disorderly, and the hon. member is more disorderlyfor replying to the inter-jections. I hope hon. members on my rightwill refrain from interjecting.

Mr. BOWMAN: If the farming represen-tatives realised how thesystem had worked in other places, they would readily support it.The Bill might do a certain amount of g-ood, but it would be stillmore beneficial if the principle of the amendment were incorporatedin it. Anything that would' enable the produce of the farmer to besup-plied to the consumer at a lesser cost should meet with theapproval of hon. members Tepresenting farming constituencies. Theamendment would prove beneficial both to the producer and to theconsumer. Time after time in Queensland thev had had examples ofthe primary producer getting less than he was entitled to. He wasnot

Stock and Farm (25 SEPTEMBER.] Produce Agents Bill. 1563

disputing the merits of the Bill, but it would be considerablyimproved by the acceptance of the amendment. They heard nocom-plaints about the State manufacturing rail-way engines andrailway carriages, and dur-ing Exhibition week the Commissioner forRailways invited a number of hon. members to see what could be donein that branch of State enterprise. The success that had beenachieved in the wav of State manu-£ acturing could also be achievedin the direc-tion of State distribution. The Agricultural Bank hadbeen established to give cheap money to farmers, and hon. mllmbersoppo-site, time after time, advocated an exten-sion of thofunctions of that bank. The Opposition desired to add State producedepots to the list of the things undertaken by the State, and hesincerely hoped the amendment would be carried.

Mr. BOOKER (Wide Bay) was interested in the discussion, but hewould have been more interested if he believed that there was anybusiness in the amendment. If the amendment was accepted, it mustbe incor-J30rated in the Bill, and then it must be put

in operation, and he ,., ould ask l10 p.m.] where the Uovcrnmentwere to

find the enormous sum that would b

1564 Stock and Farm [ASSEMBLY.] Produce Agents Bill.

was that they >vere neYer unanimous. There would be 14,000different opinions, and that »as the reason why they wore allowedto be fie, 'Cod and gulled by members on the oppo-Site Sltle.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! The hon. member is not in order inin1puting motiYes to hon. members by saying that they fleece thefarmers. I ask the hon. member to with· ·draw the statement.

Mr. GILLIES woald withdraw the expres-sion if it wasunparliamentary. To justify h:;;; ,., .,, .. .,.l~< ,.,J~nnt rhn"'rtnt nf 11n:~nl•1:1·i,v .amongst tho farmers, ho would remind thiCommittee of the attitude taken up by the can~·growers with regardto the bounty and exciH:J-they were equally divided on thornatter.

The CHAIRMAN: Order ! The hon. mem-ber must coniine him,elf tothe amendment. I am. not going to call the hon. mom her's .attontwnto that fact any more.

Mr. GILLIB~S: They wore told there were t\vo co-operatiYosocieties in Brisbane and .~till it was nec•?ssary to introduce aJ3il! to deal with the middlemen. Co-operation had ·done a greatdeal as far as production wa" .concerned. \Vh ed that the alleged "Go-\-crnment stroke " was a myth, and that vv~rk was much cheaperand much more effective undc·r State control than under privatecon· tract. J'\either did this amendment involve tho enormouse:'Cpenditure which the hon. member for \Vide Bay contended that itwould-it simply mpant the affi~mation of the principle. It did notnecBssanly mean that depots would have to be established all overthe State, but it meant the creation of a depot at tho commencementas a trial, and there could be no doubt what the result would beThe hon. member for Rosewood was exceedingly unfortunate in hisopposi-tion to this amendment. He "cnt to \V estern Australia andattempted to prove that State distribution there was a failure. Hetald the meat being sold in the State of \Vestern Au,tralia was amuch higher price than under private enterprise. ETidcntly the hon.m

Stock and Farm [25 SEPTEMBER.] Produce Agmts Bill. 1565

Mr. LARCOMDE: He could not conceive of anything more apropos tothe amend-ment. He was attempting to prove that the amendmentreally proposed to do what the farmers of Queensland required. Thefarmers of the State in conference assembled decided to make thisDill a test one with the Government, urging that, if theGovern-mont did not introduce a practical Produce Agents Diil,their representative' should tum them out of office. Yet they hadfarmer,' representatives supporting the Go-Ycrnment in introducinga Dill which was nothing of the kind.

Lieut.-Colonel RA:-rKr:-;: This is the Bill they asked for.

Mr. LAHC0:\1BE: It was not the Bill they a "keel for; but it waswell known that the hon. member for Burrum wished to work inhar

1566 Stock, etc., Bill. [..A.SSEMBL Y.] S~tgar Growers'Employees Act.

Mr. HUNTER : The hon. member sup-ported the suggestion to thePremier to attach to the Agent-General's Office in London acommercial agency business, so that buttN and cheeoo might be soldthrough it, but yet the hon. member refused to give the sameconvenience to producers in this city. A produce agency controlledby ·the Government would do infinitely more good to the farmersthan the passing of a :Jaw insisting on the registration andlicens-'ing of firms dealing in produce. They were •told that thefarmers would have to foot the bill if the amendment were carried.Had he not to foot the bill all the time? Did he not foot the bill,nay all expenses-cartages, Tailage, rent, salaries-