Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 26 JUNE 1918

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Questions. [26 JUNE.] Questions. 525

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

WEDNESDAY, 26 JUNE, 1918.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. W. Bert.ram, ll:laret) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

QUESTIONS.

RENNET FOR CHEESEMAKING.

Mr. BEBBINGTON (Drayton) asked the Secretary for Agriculture and Stock-

" 1. Has hie attention been called to a report that certain. samnles of rennet eold to dairy companies for oheesemaking, at a price leoe than landed cost, have proved to be mixtures of pepsin?

" 2. As cheese made from pPpsin seldom attains the richness of flavour in cured cheese made from pure rennet, will he protect the industry by compelling all casks. jars, or bottles containing rennet sold to factories to be labelled as such; all other mixtures to be sold as mixtures, not as rennet ? ''

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE (Hon. W. Lennon, Herbert) replied-

" 1. No. Since this question was asked, inquiries have been mad<J that have not resulted in any definite information.

"2. Legislation would be required to carry this into effect. The matter will have consideration."

BARALABA STATE COALMINE. Mr. PETERSON UVormanby) asked th'l

Minister representing the Secretary for Mines- ·

" Will he state when he expects to be able to commence operations at the Baralaba State Coalmine?"

The ACTIJ\'G PREMIER (Hon. E. G. Theodore, Chillagoe) replied-

" Boring operations are still being con­tinuerl in order to ascertain the best position to sink shaft."

SOLDIERS' PROXIES. Mr. PETRIE (Toombul), in th'l absence

of Mr. Fry, asked the Assistant Minister for Justi~e-

" Will he permit representatives of the rct•Jr~ cd eo;dicrs to in"pect the cables received from England in connection with proxies given by members of the A. I. F. abroad in connection with the recent eleccion, including those received too late for use?"

HoN. W. N. GILLIES (Eacham) r<;plied­" No."

STATE PRODUCE AGENCY.

Mr. BEBBINGTON asked the Acting Secretary for Railways-

" 1. Do all the employees of the State Produce Agency pay rail fare, or travel on free pass?

"2. Has permission been granted any employee of the State Produce Agency to inspect or take copies of addresses of consignees from railway consignment books?

" 3. Does the Railway Department consider consignees' addresses confiden­tial, or are other members of the com­munity allowed to take copies?"

HoN. J. M. HUNTER (Maranoa) re-plied-

" 1. Full fares are paid. "2. No. " 3. Yes; but it is not always possible

to suppress certain members of the com­munity of an inquisitive turn of mind."

CoNTROL OF RAILWAY DEPARTMENT.

Mr. PETRIE asked the Acting Secretary for Railways-

" 1. When does the term of appoint­ment of the present Commissioner for Railways t-.rminate?

" 2. Is it a fact, as rumoured, that upon the termination of his appointment the Government intends to reorganise the management of the Railway Department in such a way as to abolish the commis­sionership, and replace it with an under­secretaryship immediately under Minis­terial control?"

HoN. J. M. HUNTER replied­" 1. 31st October, 1918. " 2. The Government's intention will

be disclosed at the proper time."

SUNNYBANK RESUMPTIONB.

Mr. ELPHINSTONE (Oxley) asked the Secretary for Public Lands-

" 1. Have the late owners of the land at Sunn:vbank, which has been resumed for soldier s~ttlement purposes, been paid the purchase prices in accordance with the decision of the Land Court?

" 2. If not, when can they expect pay­ment?

"3. \Vill interest be allowed on such payments from the dat~ of the Land Court decision ? "

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. J. H. Coyne, Warrego) replied-

" 1. Yes; such as have made applica­tion, and proved that they are entitled to receive th.; compensation, and delivered up their deeds. ~

"2. See answer to No. 1. "3. No."

ATTENDANCE AT PUBLIC MEETINGS.

Mr. BEBBINGTON asked the Home Secretary-

" 1. Has his attention been drawn to the letter written by Mr. Cuthbert Butler, hon. member~ for Lockyer, to the chair­man of a peace meeting held in the Brisbane Domain on 16th June last, a fncsHnile of which was published in the Brisbrme ' Daily Mail' of Sunday, 23rd June?

526 Wages Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Wages Bill.

"2. Will h'f inform the House whether there is any regulation of the Health Department in force which prevents per­sons from attending public meetings or other public places while suffering from­(a) bronchitis; (b) dengue fever; (c) influ­enza?"

The HOME SECRETARY (Hon. J. Huxham, Buranda) replied-

" 1. Yes. "2. No."

PAPERS.

The following papers, laid on the table, were ordered to be printed:-

Report by the Under Secretary for Public Lands under the Closer Setclement Acts, 1906-1917.

Report by the Under Secretary for Public Lands under the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act of 1917.

POPULAR INITLi.TIVE AND REFEREN­DUM BILL.

THIRD READING.

On the motion of the HOME SECRE­TARY, this Bill, read a third time, was ordered to be transmitted to the Legislative Council for their concurrence by message in the usual form.

WAGES BILL.

SECOND READING.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. E. G. Theodore, Chill·zgoe): This Bill JS also one of those Bills which have hew :m two previouR orcas!ons diRcusse:l in the Legislative Assembly, and which, with the indulgence of hon. members, I will again explain, because it contains, no doubt, a good deal of technical matter which requires explanation. And, no doubt, it is also neces­sary to refer to the necessity of this Bill. The measure is designed to take the place of obsolete legislation which exists at present with regard to the relationship existing be­tween masters and servants, and in order to bring up to date the legislation designed for the puruose of protecting wages that are earned by workers. The Masters and Servants Art is obsolete. H is an old mea>•ure; I think it is dat<>.d 1861, and was drafted at a time when there were assigned servants. No doubt it performed a use­ful function in those days, but it is now absolutely out of date. It is of no use to anyone, and, as a matter of fact, imposes a disability upon certain workmen. It is one-sided in its operation in regard to agree­ments which are made under the Masters and Servants Act. There is what has been

described by one of the judges of our Supreme Court as a lack of mutuality-a want of mutuality-obligations put upon one party and not upon the other. To give just one concrete instance of what I mean by that: under the Masters and Servants Act, where obligations are obviously intended to apply to both parties, the penalty for a breach of the obligation is not the same in both cases. A worker may, in default of finding thEJ penalty, if the penalty is by way of a fine, be imprisoned ; whereas, on the other hand,

[Hon. E. G. Theodore.

penalty by way of a fine against the em­ployer, if the employer is a company, in case of default, could not carry imprison­ment. Therefore, a breach of the law on the one hand may result in imprisonment of the offender, and in the other case it could not possibly result in the imprisonment of th<> offender. Throughout the Masters and Servants Act there is that lack of fairness and mutuality which one would expect to find in legislation governing the relation­ship of employer and worker, or " master and servant" as they are described in the original measure. There is another feature of the Masters and Servants Act to which I think it would be well to give attention, and which is being dealt with in this Bill­that part of the measure which relates to the making of agreements or contracts of service between employe!" and employee. It is possible under the M asters and Servants Act at present for an agreement to be entered into between an employer and em­p:ovec, which confers upon the 0mployer the- right to terminate the hire at any time, but which doe, not give a simi1ar right to the e··11plovee. The emplovl'c Play have to serve the full term of thD i)eriod of hire. It may h<> six months, twelve months, or any other period. l}nless he rompletDs the term he may be mbjcct to a f"'vere penalty. In the same ag-reement there may ~e a provision that the employer can termmate the agr<>e·nent at a week's notice. Such a.gre~ments as that have been in force in Queensland in the past, and have been sev<>rely commented on bv members of the judiciarv. The present Bill will make better provision for agreements in connection with the employment of worker~-agreements re­lating to .the hiring of labour-and will bring about, I think, a sch(!me of fair play where the penalties will be on a similar basis and the obligations will be mutual. We do not intend to throw the whole of the onus or obligation in regard to thPse matters on the employer; the employee must bear h;s obli­gation also. In the past it has been one­si-ded in the other direction. One of the principal parts of this Bill is designed to protect wages which have been earned by a worker in the employment of a contractor, or in the employment of an ordinary em­ployer. We have on the statute-book a Wages Act, but it is not compreh~nsive enough nor up to date. The principal c;auses in this Bill are taken from the New Zealand measure, and full consideration has been given to legislation bearing upon this point in order that we might get the moot np to date and most workable legislation that is in existence at the present time. The clauses dealing with the protection of wag-es relat­ing to the rights of a worker who has been employed by a contractor, relate to the pro­tection of his wages against anv moneys whieh are due to the contractor if the con­tractor is in default in the matter of paying wac:es. The elastic provisions of this Bill will only operate where defH.nlt has occurred. If the contractor meets his obligations to his workers as the monevs become -due, I hen he is under no obligation and no penalty; but if he fails to pay the wages as they fall due, a worker has certain remedie.9. In order to recover his wages he may attach anv monev in the hands of the employer w];:ich may be due to the contractor in con­nection with the work done: and under certain circumstances, if the employer him­self is negligent, or careless of the interests

Wages Bill. (26 JUNE.] TV ages Bill. 527

of the workers who may be employed on the contract, then the employer carries cer­tain liabilities also. If the empl-oyer has been careless enough to advance money to the contractor without se~ing that the workers employed in connection with the contract have been paid their just due, the employer in that case renders himself liable. But th!)re is ample protection to an employer who uses ordinary precautions to safeguard hi'm from any imposition. I think members will recognise the necessity for having a provision such as I am referring to. Now, it has occurred often in Queensland that contractors have failed to meet their finan­cial obligations, and have left the workers who wnre employed in the contract withont the money that was due to them, either through mismanagement or through causes which can be ascribed to worse things than that. In the future the worker, at any rate, will have ample protection if he likes to r'lsort to the protection given by this measure. I may say, in connection with this, that the Govern­ment itself is always careful to see that no moneys are paid to a contractor until it is satisfied that amplE) provision has been made to pay the wages that are due, under the cxmtract, to the men who are employed. That is the proper thing, and I think most employers do that. Occasionally we find that workers are deprived of the money they have earned because the moneys have been paid to the contractor and squandered by him.

Mr. PETRIE: Will the wages have to be paid by cash or can they be paid by cheque?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I am coming to that. Cheques are allowed in certain cases. There is another protection for wages earned by work(lrs which is pro­vided in this Bill ; that is, there is no power to attach the wages of a worker if the wages do not exceed £2 10s. per week, and ev(ln where they do exceed £2 10e. per week the power only extends to the balance of the wages exceeding £2 10s. per week. That protects the worker and his family in rPgard to his earnings up to £2 10s. per week, no matter what the debt is or what th'l judg­ment is against the worker. Until the amount earned by him is over £2 10s. it cannot be attached by garnishee or any other order.

Hon. W. H. BARNES: £2, I think it is, in the Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Well, I made a mistake. I see it is £2 per week, in clause 17. I beg the hon. member's pardon. I think hon. members will recognise the justice of that provision. It is designed wholly in the interests of the workers' family, because the worker has to live. He may have incurred a debt through unfortunate circumstances; through no fault of his own-sickness, or some other reason, such as being out of employment-and it would be an awful thing if a man, as soon as he has secured employment after a. period of distress, should have the whole of his earnings attfl.ched in satisfaction of some debt. \V e do not want to protect the de­faulters, the men who wilfully decline to meet their obligations; but we owe, I think, an obligation to the workers' family, and the worker himself, to see that he is not made practically the subject of persecution. That

kind of thing could easily occur if we made no such provision as that which is contained in clause· 17.

Hon. W. H. BARNES : The Government employees are not exempt.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: In the original Bill, as submitted last year, Crown employees were not referred to at all, and it was taken that no garnishee order could apply to them. After some discussion in the Committee stage, I took up the posi­tion, which was acceptable to the Committee, that we should make the provision which is now embodied in clause 17 applicable to employees of the Crown. Now, part III. of the measure is one of the most important parts of it-relating to the truck provision. The system known as " truck " is prohibited. Monev that is earned by a worker must be paid in cash only, except where provision is made in that part in regard to payment by cheque. The member for Toombul asked whether pa:/ment by cheque was prohibited. It is not prohibited; it is permitted under certain circumstances. Where it i, the usual mode of payment, it may be continued as long as the worker is notified that it is the mode of payment. That measure of pro­tection, I think, is necessary. I understand that the present situation in regard to that matter is that a worker can claim to be paid in cash, and can refuse to take a cheque in payment. of his wages. We don't want to lessen this protection in that regard by the Bill that we are considering now. I think the provision that has been made in regard to the payment by cheque should be con­sidered satisfactory. I know that many large employers in Queensland-in the pastoral, the mining, the sugar, and many other indus­tries-find it is convenient to pay by cheque. It is just as convenient to the employer as to the employee, and there is no inconvenience so long as the cheques are not crossed.

Mr. SMITH : It is a bad thing for the employee, in some instances, to be paid by cheque.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I am speaking about those cases where it is convenient. In most cases of large employers where wages are paid by cheque, it is a matter of convenience to both employers and employees. But there are some cases where it is a matter of direct loss to the employee, especially if the cheque is drawn by a man whose financial standing is not too great and where business people have a reluctance to .accept such cheques, and men may have inconvenience in negotiating it; also, where it is drawn on a bank which is distant from the place where the money is paid. That is a hardship, and we should not compel men to accept, as payment for work done by thr,m, a chPque which might be considered doubtful. That is why the option should be given to the man at the time of his engage­ment as to whether he should work under those conditions.

Mr. BEBBINGTOX: Ho must stand in the same position as he stands now.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Yes, in some respects he will. At the pre­sent time a man can refuse to accept a. cheque for his wages. In future, so long as the employer notifies him that the usual mode

Hon. E. G. Theodore.]

528 Wages Btll. [ASSEMBLY.] Wages Btll.

of payment is by cheque, he m,ust accept a cheque. Naturally, a man who is very doubtful about the financial standing of the employer will stipula,te that he will not engage under those conditions. It has come before my notice that a man was paid in the Blackall district a sum of money due to him for a considerable period of work. I think the cheque was one for about £70; and until he got to Blackall, a distance of about 70 miles, he did not find that the cheque was valueless. He had to put the matter in the hands of a local solicitor. After notice had been served upon the employer the full amount was paid, but it put the worker to considerable expense and delay and the payment of a lawyer's fee. '

Mr. VowLES: They get cin.mages for that, don't they?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS, W-: .don't want to have such .a condit:on pre­vailing, by whiCh every time there is a default a man has to seek remedy from the civil courts and ask for damages. \Ye can easily understand what that will le:td to. It would be an absolute loss, anyhow, to the worker, even if h0 got judgment, because there are roets to pay, and there would be delays, and, altogether, it would not be worth while. Where the amounts involved are small, many

workers would not seek that [ 4 p. m.] remedy. I think it is better that

we should continue as we do at present, and lay it down that wages must be paid in money unless there is a mutual understanding between the cmplDyer and employee that a cheque may be accepted in payment. That is provided by this Bill. In such cases, wages can be paid by cheque, but the cheques must not be crossed, and any exchange must be added, and they must be drawn on a bank in Queensland. That is only a reasonable provision. Deductions are allowed against wages due to a worker for rent under certain circmnstances, for medicine and medical attention, or for fuel, tools, or material supplied in certain cases. That is all set out in Part IIL of the Bill. DeductiDns may also be made for hay, oorn, and provender supplied for horses or beasts of burden used by the worker. Their con­tributions to a friendly sDciety may be de­ducted by arranfe·nent between the employer and e'llployee. Deductions may also be made from th0 wages on a<'count of any advance made to the worker for fare or anv travel­ling expense paid to bring the worker to the place rf employ'1lent. All these deduc­tiom may be ellD\ved, but no other deductions are allrwed. The wages must be pf1id in full in mrney. That is a necessary protection which is due to the worker. It was over this provis'on that this Bill came to grcef in " another pl "ce" on two previous occ>1sions.

Hon. vV. H. BARNES: How would you deal with contra accounts?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The worker who buys anything from his employer ''1USt stand in the same po•·ition as an crdinarv customer of that employer. Suppose a m;m is employed by a large drapery cstablich'1'ent, and that man is also a cuo-tornnr of the fir·n, the value of the goods he purcheoes nnn"t be deducted from his wafrS und···r this Bill. The wages must be raid in full. and h" must pay his acc0unt fDr <roods nurchased in the ordinary way. If the wcrkrr fail. to settle for tho g<Jods

[Hon. E. G. Theodore.

purchased, then the power of the establish­ment must recover the a .nount due in the· Petty Debts Court in the usual way, jmt th<> same as he would have to recover it from an ordinary customer. This Bill does not prohibit a man from dealing with the ;firm for whom he works at all.

Hon. W. H. BARNES: I can sec where it might be a hardship on the employer.

rhe SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS' I do not think it would be a hardship on the employer at all. An employee may be hard up and may not have the means to provide a fortnight's provisions for himself and family. It is quite easy for him to get a fortnight's provisions from the man for whom he is working, and then, at the end of the fortnight when he is paid his wages, he can pav his account out of that monry. The employee must settle for the amount of goods he purchased, and if he does . nDt the same remedy lies against him as agamst any ordinary customer.

Hon. W. H. BARNES: It is hard to say what remedy the employer will have.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The hDn. member must see the ncce,sity fm· having the provisions which we have included in the Bill. Just because some slight incon­venience might be caused to one case out of 10,000, that is no reason why w~ should continue the evil which is existing m Dther countries at the present time. and which also exists in Queensland to a certain extent. It is nD use blinking our eyes to the fact that, although the truck system is not l.argely prevalent in Queensland, it does e.xist all the same. I do not want to mentiOn any names, but I could quote cases where it does exist in Queensland. There is a large store­keeper who has branch stores in many parts of North Queensland, and the workers have to take part of their wages in goDds. U nfor­tunately, the goods supplied are not supplied at the real and true value of the goDds. It is a kind of imposition.

Hon. W. H. BARNES : A ca.se of that kind wDuld be a hardship.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: That is juet what this Bill is designed to prohibit. When we previously <fiscuesed thjs Bill there was a misapprehensiOn that thrs provisiDn woul.d prohibit a man from dealing with his employer. That is not so. A worker can dleal with his employer, but his wages must be paid in full. The payment for the goods supplied must be paid in the ordinary way. With regard to agree·nents where there is no definite term s•et forth in the agreement, whether mal or written, tl:!,e agree'llent might be terminat•ed at any time by either party, but where there is a definite term stated-say for six months-then a week's notice DU eithler side is sufficient to terminate the agreement. There are penal­ties provided for a breach of the a greerr,lent. and these apply to both the emplover and emp'oyee. There is a provision for the pro­tection of the wages Df th'e worker in con­r.ect'on with the mortgage. r a mortgagee forecloses on any land on which wages ar<> st.'ll ow'ng, then the m"rtgagen is liah'e for the wages. In cases where work'ers cultivate the land or improve it, or in connection with crDpS where work has been performed, and over which there is a lien, in such cases the

Wages Bill. [26 JUNE.] Wages Bill. 529

wag"les must be protected and a claim for wag-<'S must be hold against the mortgagee if the mortgagor has failed.

Mr. GRAYSON: Quite right.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Wages due by a mining compan.,- or a min· ing concern in \Vinding up a cOmpany are also protected. This clause is taklen prac­tically word fm· word from the Mining Act, and if this Bill becomes law, the provisions of the Mining- Act in that respect will be repealed. I think that, so far as the main provisions of the Bill are concerned, they can ble more fully explained and discussed in Committee. I have outlined the main provisions of the Bill.

Perhaps I should mention that although this Bill will repE·al the Master and Servants Act and the several Wages Acts which are now in force, it does not J'epeal nor pre­judicially affect any of the provi ions in the Contractors and \Vorkmen's Lien Act. That Act "as designed to protect wages in certain circumstances, but it does not clash with this Bill, nor does this Bill overlap or repeal tho functions of that Act at all. That Act will continue.

Mr. MACARTNEY : This Bill co\~ers the same. ground, _does it not?

The SECRETARY FOR P"CBLIC WORKS: It does not cover the same ground. The Con­tractors and Workmen's Lien Act relates only to certain work that has b•een done, such as the construction of a building or the develop­ment of a mine or quarry. and it relates to the protection of the monevs earned bv the contractor who contracts to do the \vork. It is the money due t.o thle contractor that is protected under that Act, but under this Bill it is the money due to the worker that is protected. Under the Contractors and Work­fi{.'n's Lion _\et tho contractor is prot.ec~ed by giving him a lien o\ or the work performed. This Bill gives the right to attach rr.oney in the hands of the employer for the b'enefit of the worker. This Bill puts the worker in the first position, and the other Act puts the contractor in the first position according to the work performed. At the present time thBre is no power for the worker tJ attach monley in the hands of an employer where the work has been done. Let rne state­this case: SupposE' that an employN has l<'t a large contract for the construction of a building and employs a large number of men. If that contractor fails through mis­management to meet the wages due to the men under this Bill, the men can attach any money in the hands of the employer in satisfaction of the wages tha.t arc due. Under the Contractors and \Vorkmen's Lien Act there is no such provision as that. In the· case of the other Act, if a contractor com­pletes the contract. and is not paid for it, he has a lien over the work perforrr,ecl. Both measur'es have entire1y different functions, and give different power and different pro­tection. This Bill does not override or clash in any way with the provisions of that Act. Both classes of protection are necessary. one to protect the contractor, and th'e other to protect the worker. However, the~e thine;s can be more fully explained when the Bill gets into Committee. I think the measure is a highly desirable one. It is necessary to give proper protection to the workers. I might point out that such a measure n s this is much more necessary for the protection of

1918-2 L

those workers who are not organised, and it is not so necessary for the workers who are strongly organised.

Hon. W. H. BARNES: What is the position of an employer who pays the contractor the money due to him in advance?

'l'he SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: That is provided for in clause 12. If an em­ployer pays a contractor in advance, then the employer shall not be ontitled. to be credited with any such payment agamst the war-es due to the worker. I think that is a ve1:"y reas.-mable proviclion, because if the work is clone for the benefit of the emp1oyer, then it is only right that the worker should ,., coive his wages. I beg to. move that the Bill be now read a second ttme.

lloxorR\3LE ~.,,.,lBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. VOWLES (Dalby) : I must congratu· late the hon. Minister for Public Works for the lucid way m which he lws explained the provisions of the .Bill. (Heat, hear!) I wish other Ministers woul-d take an example from him and expbin their Bills in a simple v. ay, too. (1-kar, hear!) The Minister tells us that the Bill is to make better provision for the paymcmt of wages due to workers and othe1· incidental purposes, and further, that it pro­poses to repeal the existing Acts of Parlia­ment of 1861 and the two Wages Acts of 1870 and 1884 in their entirety. It is import­ing into our legislation new provisions which have been taken directly from the ::.Jew Zealand laws. On looking through the> \Vagc> Protection Act and the Contractors Lien Act of New Zealand, I find that prac­ticallv everv section in this Bill has berm taken directly from it. But while there seems to be a very keen desire on the part of the Government to make provisions for the worker-I think the Ministc~ said that the Masters and Scrva•nts Act showed there was a lack of mutuality between the ma,ter and servant--the hon. gentkman b:v this Bill is bringing about just the opposite position to the picture which he painted. He showed us :Chore were dra<tic remE'dies ag-ainst the workers or serv->nt'· under th•• Misters and Servants Act for breaches of thet measuro. and that they were liable to penal sections if they did not pay the fines imposed upon them. There seems to be a.. v0rv keen <lesirc on the pRrt of the Government that, if a workman makes a breach under r lmost every condition. thore will b,, no p<'nal con­sequence nthrhcd to that breach, but that penal consequ<>nce attaches in every instance as far as the master is concerned. If a worker undPr the 1861 Act makes certain hr< aches-for instance. if he agrees to enter hired SE'rvice and fails to carrv out his ser­vice, or refuses to enter into his service-he can be fined. and if he does not pay the penalh· there is levv and distress and. in <'!.<'fault. imprisonment. In almost cverv instancP this man g-ds monAy under thP pl·e­tence of entrrimr into emnloym ent. and after he g;et.s that monrv he doE's nnt do his work and that mew shnuld be punished At an~ rato. ns far 11q the mostpr is ('onrernr>d in PVPr0' inshnrc wherp he makes a breach. there is a fi11e avo inst him. And it g-oes fu•tr•e1· then him. It may go to the mortg-ag-ee. too, rnd the nenaltv is followed un nnder the .TnQtif'p. Art. ani~ mnv finlQh. n0-:sihl,~. 1n +ho 1mnrisonm~nt of th8 indiviA11nl. R'"'frq~ringo to the mortg-agee. I would like t1H' M1nistcr

Mr. T'ot!>lP ... ]

530 TV ages B1ll. [ASSEMBLY.] Wage1 Rill.

to consider this: Under cert<1in conditions the mortgagee is bound to pay wages, and I would like tD know whether under this mea· sure there is any penal cDnsequence as far as the mortgagee is cDncerned? That did not exist under the Masters and Servants Act. but I am unable to find anything in this measure by which that result will be obvi<1ted.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS : Wages are recoverable.

Mr. VOWLES: Wages are recoverable against the mortgagee m certain instances. The mortgagor is liable to imprisonment. If the worker desires to go past him, and pur· sue the mortgagee-as he can under cert<tin conditions-there was a special protection for the mortgagee under such circumstances in the Masters and Servants Act that does not exist at present. We are told that the penalties wero not equitable, that in certain instanccq companies were the offenders. and these companies could not be prosecuted. I do not see how you can attach a company and put a company in gaol under any condi­tiDns, but there are many ways in which the -eonsequences of a breach can be evaded by the worker. The simplest way to do it was to go insolvent in forma pauperis, and that was the end of the penalty as far as he was concerne<d, and wPII he kn<'w it. That was the practice as far as workers were concerned when big penaltic; were imposed against them-it was cheaper to go insolvent. The Minister referred to immoral contracts, and how services were terminated on agreement, and further said that one man had the right to keep his employee there for many months. and the other man had no correspondincr right to terminate the agreement. I cannot see any inju<tice in that. If a man sigued a contract-it only existBd in connecton with written agreements-if he cntprs into a con­tract in cold blood. then he should stanrl up to his rC!!ponsibilities.

The SECRE'rARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: He enters into a contutct without knowing· tlw conditions of employment in many inst~nccs.

Mr. VOWLES : If a man signs a contract. he surely reads it?

The SECRETARY FOR PcBLJC \VORKS: H" reads the contract.

;v1r. VOWLES: The principle is wrong. and if a man signs an agreenwnt to do a certain thing, the law should not relieve him of his responsibilities.

Th0 SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC vVORKS: A man nHty sign a contract with an employer for a certain ~age with keep, and when he gets on the JOb he finds the keep not fit for hu1nan consumption.

:Mr. VOWLES : Those cases arc very few and far between.

The Sr:oRE'rARY FOR Pum,rc \YoRKS: TIIerc are such cases.

Mr. VO\VLES : Provision can be made for them. This is onlv to meet the case of a man with a g-rievance, and most of this legislation is framed, unfo1·tunately, not for the benefit of the public. but for the wasters •vho want to evade their responsibilities You find away out in the haokblocks certain men arc always causing- trouble. and if less

[Mr. Vmvles.

encouragement were given to those men, and they were put off the place, the conditions of employment would be much better.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: In those cases the empiDyers do not pursue under the Masters and Serv.ants Act.

Mr. VOWLES : They are only too glad to get rid of them, and their brother em· ployees are gla-d to get rid of them as well. The Minister, in outlining this measure, said that the Master and Servants' Act was obso­lete, and he dealt mostly with the cases of assigned servants. I cannot agree with him in that. If you look at the definition of " servant " you will find that servant does not refer to an assigned servant. It says " the word 'servant' shall include a li agri­cultural and other labourers, shepherds. watchmen, stockmpn--''

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Agri­cultural labourers in those days were very often assigned servants-convicts in some cases.

Mr. VOWLES: It also included "miners, gardeners, vine ·dressers, split sawyers. fencers, shearers." You would not call a shearer an assigned servant.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WoRKS: Fiftv years ago many assigned servants were em­ployPd.

Mr. VOWLES : Fifty years agD is not to­day, and we are dealing with present condi­tions. I think you will find that there are very few assigned servants to-day, and the Act of 1861 covers every servant who comes within that section.

The SEORET.\RY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: It IS

obsolete.

Mr. VOWLES : I -do not think that it is obsolete. There a.re some very good sections in it, and I notice that there is a very strong desire on the part of the Government to leave some of them out. With rpgard to the protection of wages, we have the Contractor.; and Workmen's Lien Act that makes ample provision for the protection, under certain conditions. of workmen's wages, and I do not think any person woul-d like to have legis­lation the effect of which would be that a workman's wages would not be protected. The man who does the work should be pro­tected under all considerations, and if you go back to the history of all the old Acts of Parliament, you will find, more pa.rt.icularly in regar-d to insolvency, that special proYi· sion is made whereby the wage~ of workmen -I think it is up to three months-are a prior claim. Thev st-and with rates and taxes, and ar<' a prior elaim ovPr all othPr claims in the <"'tate, so that that principle has been in existence long before a Labour Govern· ment came into existence.

Mr. BRENNAN: Thev have to wait thre0 months to get it. -

Mr. VOWLES: They will have to wait thr0e months under this Bill to get it if a man goes insolvent. The same principle will apply. and there will be the same delays, if it does take three months. It does not, as a ruk. The procedure now is going tD be very similar to that under the Contractors and Workmen's Lien Act, and if a workman thinks there is any doubt about his con­tractor, and if his wages are in arrears twentv-four hours, he turns round and gives the employer notice, and all wages then due. or which may become -due, are attached, and

Wages Bill. [26 ,JLTNE.l . - Wages Bill. 531

thev remain attached for seven davs, and all other workmen who put in a similar cl.aim within seven days are protected. The ell)­ployer, of course, has an opportunity of get­ting out by paying the money into court. That is as it should be, and I do not think anvonc would sav that the v;'Orkman under those conditions should not be protected. As regards the {)ther side of the question-that is. th0 remedy as against the \vorkman: \Vhen this measure was brought in on two previous {)CCasions, I remember there was a verv hard battle by members of the Opposition 'to get the Government to recognise the principle of the garnishee. Through our efforts this Bill reads now that workmen's wages can be garnisheed over and above £2. The public sc•rvant is brought into line with the ordinary "' orkma•1, and that is verv desirable, too. It was rather a farce to 'think that simplv through some technicalities or fictions. that the Crmn1 would not permit the Crown to be garnishoed, and that tradesmen were unable to get protection from a public servant >imply from the fact that he was a public '*'rvant. It wa' through the efforts of th<:' Opposition that that was brought about. It not only rof<'rs to public servants as such, but to other Government employees. I have known of scandalous cases, more particularly in connection with the class of workmen on railwav construction, who run what is known a., " the boarding house." He collects his money from the employees for the board •upplied to them, and very seldom pays th0 grocer, and VH'Y often get,, awav as soon as pay day is over. ,

Mr. O'SULLIVAN: He was not protected.

Mr. VOWLES: He was not protected. but he is protected to some extent now, because the Railway Department can bo brought into line with an ordinary person, and the money can be got under those conditions. vV e are all agreed that is right, and that 1s om' of the good features of the Bill.

As regards the truck provisions, this i< following the New Zealand Act, but it does not go as far as the New Zealand Act. The principle is that wages must be paid in cnsh. without any deductions. Although the Bill say'< that very distindly, it immediately goes awav and makes deductions. I think it will J'oqll,irc a1ncnding as far as that is con­<'erued. Certain deductions are allowed, but thes<' deductions should be broadened, and <hould include other subjects that are not included here. If vou look at the ::'\0w Zealand Ac+., you w'ill find that, just as it does here, it includes medicine, fuel. m;;,tcrials, tools, appliances, or imple­ments. Then it goes on to speak about money 'Upplied to a man for felling scrub. and we include prickly-pear. I think that should include all elasses of bush work. It also talks about hay, corn, or other provender to be con;·umcd bv anv horse br other beast ,.y burden cmploy'od by the worker, and in t hP 0ase of the employer it refers to rent and food supplied and used by the workman at his work. But it does not go this far; the l\lcw Zealand Act says, "It shall not apply to ecamen or persons employed in agricultural or pastoral pursuits." I cannot >'£'<' why, if that is good enough for New ;l;ealand-and we are following the New Zealand law in almost every, detail-we

should not include as one of the exceptions money paid to seamen or persons in con­nection v. ith pastoral pursuits.

The SECRETARY FOR Pt;BLIC WORKS: I think, as far as oversea sean1en are conrerned, that they would not come under the jurisdiction of this Act.

Mr. VOWLES: What about the coastal seamen?

Tho SECRE'rARY FOR PuBLIC V'loRKS: If they arc sol0ly Queensland employees, I do not S<'!' why tlwy should not be protected by this B1ll.

Mr. VOWLES : At any rate, that is one of the things left out of the Bill here. With regard to the question of truck, a good deal of controvcrsv arose when we last discussed this measure- on the qu0stion as to how money was to be paid. Und<>r certain con­ditions, where an engagement has been made and the employee has bppn told _that it is the custom for wages not to be paid by cash but to be paid by choquo, the employer shall be entitled to pay by cheque, but there is a limitation as far as cheques are con­c<>rned. Payment can only be made by cheque in Queensland.

The SECRETARY FOR PGBLIC '\VORKS: Drawn on a Queensland bank.

:Y1r. YOWLES: I am quite sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from your knowledge of Queensland, more particularly of the border country. you will know that it is a great deal more convenient for m<'n who have their banks acrocs the border in Kew South \Vales -wh<'re there is practically no border line­it is only an imaginary line-it will be a great inconvenience for them if thev must have• ready cash to pay their men. The only wav it can be obviated is to have a bank in 'QuDensland on which they can draw. If we arc living in the Commonwealth, surelv that c·lause should apply to a bank in the Commonwoalth.

Tlw SECRETARY FOR l'rBLIC 'WoRKS: The trouble is a man may draw a ch<'que on a bank in Sydney or Melbourne.

Mr. VOWLES: They may draw ono on Ton·cs Strait or Birdsville, which would be more inconvenient. I know that when a good deal of •York was going on in my district in connection with the sinking of artesian bores, every cheque, as far as that was concerned, was drawn on Cunnamulla.

Tlw SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: It would n0t be drawn on Torres Straits.

Mr. VOWLES : Why not? The SECRETARY FOR AGRTCl:LTURE: Because

there are only a few people there.

Mr. YOWLES: Therp mav be a bank there. Take the case of a man in Mun­gindi, :\'cw South \Yales, and his bank is there and his property is in Queensland. Ho cannot pay his workmen by a cheque drawn on a bank at Mungindi.

'l'he SECRETARY FOR Pt:BLIC WORKS: In ninetv-nine cases out of a hundred such an empl~yer has a bank account in Queensland.

}fr. VOWLES: If that is so, if his account io in Brisbane, or he draws on ono of the

big financial institutions here, it [4.30 p.rn.] will be better for his workmen.

Do people in the country have bags of gold? vY" see where there is a

Mr. Vowles.]

532 Wages Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Wages Bill.

bushranger at large in New South Wales. Quite probably that is in anticipation of this legislation, whereby country people will be compelled to keep large sums of money hoarded up.

Th0 SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS : There is no bushranger in this Labour State.

Mr. VOWLES: No, they are all on the Government side. Then again, as regards banking f>XChange on cheques, there is an alteration which, I think, is wrong. All that is required under the old Act is that the cheque should be payable with the bank exchange. Now the rate on amounts under £50 is 1 per cent., and over that sum 1~ per cent. on the value of the cheque. This exchange is considerably in excess of banking values imposed under the Masters and Ser­vants _\et of 1861, when high ratee did e:>.ist, and only then where the cheque was drawn outside the State. To impose 1 per cent. ex­change on a man by Act of Parliament is altogecher excessive and wrong.

Now, if ycu look at the old Act, you will find that provision was made there, first of all under section 5, whereby a workman or servant. if he wilfully or negligently spoilt or df',troyed any goods, wares, work, or materials for work, committed to his charge or care, or wilfully or negligently abandoned o" lost or injured any cattle or other pro­perty belonging to his employer, brought upon himself certain consequences, one of which was that an order could be got against the wages which were coming due to him for the <1mount of goods which he destroyed or lost, or the cattle which had been lost. Now, under the law as it will be if this Bill be­comes law, there is no such remedy, and if a man wilfully destroys goods or material, or if valuable stock are given into his posses­sion to drive and he loses them through his own carelessness, he must get his wages just the same, and you have to turn round and institute civil proceedings against him. You cannot hold that money and pay it into court and make a deduction against it. He muc.t get the whole payment and you can whistle so far as the damages to your pro­perty are concerned. :2\;ow, we should not encourage that sort of thing. The law should bo to protect the owner of property, and it should also prevent malefactors from doing the things set out in that section. The Legis­lative Council introduced an amendment when the Bill was last before them which, to my mind, is a vrcry desirable one. It is ,;ome­thing which is cut out of the existing law, and it is that •,; here persons trade on false certificates <>r discharges, or where they im­personate one another, a remedy should be given against them. That does not exist at present. We find the first attack on the Masters and Servants Act happened when the Industrial Arbitration Act was going through. Th>f•rr~ vras a certain st ,"tion ther0 which stated that it was an offence for people to harbour deserters or to incite per­scns to descrticn. That was cut out, and, a'· far a.e I could soP, it was done fc r a j::..•r­tieular purpose. We know a reason for it. We know that there is such a thing as gentle pCJ·~uasion and intimidation, known as "peaceful picketmg.'' We know that. as the law stands to-day, that can go on. 'rhat principle was in the Masters and Servants Act and was taken out. To-day, if you have a man in your employment who is a good worker-or a good servant as thcc; case may

[Mr. Vowles.

be-and another person comes along and induces that person, by offering higher wages, to leave your employment, he ean do it with impunity. Why should that be? It has always been an offence in the past to inter­fere between the master and servant under those conditions. We are going to sanction it and bring about that bad state of affairs.

Mr. O'SBLLIVAN: There is nothing morally wrong with it.

Mr. VOWLES: I think there is. Mr. O'SULLIVAN: No. \Vhy should not a,

man better his position?

Mr. VOWLES : I think it is wrong where people go out of their way to interfere with tho relationship of master and servant, more particularly under the present condition& where there are regulated rates of wages. As long as the conditions are equal there should b0 no interference. In the future men will be able to come along where there arc large numbers of employees and be able to intimidate them; picket their homes, otand outside. follow thE)m about the place, and hold them up to ridicule and contempt. There will be no remedy against those per­sons under our laws, and we will have to suffer. I say that that should not be, and any legislation which is cutting ant those beneficial rights which exist under the :Masters and Servants Act is not lcC"islation calculated to be for the public good. In this measure also th<;~re seems to me to be the liability of a great conflict between this Act as it will be and the Industrial .\rbi­tration Act. There is this section which was in the old Act, which gives powE\r to a court. That court is not even a court of petty sessions, but is any justice. It gives power to that court to inquire into, adjudi­cate upon, adjust, and settle in a summary manner all questions and disputes arising between th(l contractor and employer, or be­tween workers and the contractor or em­ployer, or between the workers inter se. It gives them the right to summon bc:fore them and examine the parties and their witnesses, and they m o.y vary and rescind all such orders and give all such directions respecting the matters brought bQfore them as they consider necessary. It would appear to me, after reading the New Zealand Act, that th~t provision >cas e'llbodied in error. In the New Zealand Act it rcfqrs to previous sec­tions, which make it intellig-ible, because it hns a bearing on previous orders and matters v·hicb arR referred to. Unfortunately in this Bill those matters ar~ left out. We had that section which is in contradistinction to our Arbitration Act of 1916. I would Jik£> to point out, too, that when the New Zea­land Act was brought into existence they did not have any Act corresponding to our Industrial Arbitration Act. Therefore, it was necessary there. Does it not seem silly that when all these matters have been already dealt with, and have to be dealt with in a particular way under our 1916 Act, a se0tion should be embo·died h0re which is Dither over.lapping or is contradictory.

:Mr. BRENNAN: Under section 40 they can vary and rescind their own orders.

:.fr. VOWLES: It bnys the court shall haw power to inquiro into, adjudicate upon, and adjust. Woll. if you look at the definition cf "court," it says, "The court in which any pl'Oceeding is taken under this Act : the term includes the judge of 1my such court,

Wages Bill. [26 JUNE.] Wages Bill. 533

the police magistrate, or justice in any matter in which such magistrate or justices has or have j urisdicticn."

Mr. BRE};:-l.I.X: Vary and rescind its own orders, if fresh evidence is obtained.

Mr. VOWLES : When the Bill was before us last time I said there was a. vagueness about this portion, and I don't think it has been cle:tred up. There are several minor matters which probably will be a better subject for Committee, but one of which I would like to refer t<J here. It is the matter which was referred to by the Minister as the rPmlt of a query by the hon. member for Bulimba ; that is, with regard to the rights and powers of an employer in respect of goods supplied to a workman. There are many cusb, particularly in the country, where goodc. can be got from an employer where there is no other person to get them from, and where it will be a hard state of affairs. not for the person supplying them, but for the person who cannot get them. It w!JJ be an illegal thing, if you supply goods to your employee, to take the money out of his wages. It is not likely that a man is going w risk his goods under those con­ditions, and he will not sell them. I am referring to stations where they keep stores. Tho section says-

" No employer shall have or be entitled to n1aintain any action in any court against any worker for or in respect of :lilY goods sold, delivered, or supplied to sNch worker by such employer whilst in hiJ employment as or on account of his wages."

It is not likely that there is going to be a <lefinite understanding that those goods will be supplied as on account of wages, because that would be absolut~ly illegal. Unfor­tunntel.y, the goods have to be supplied, and they wrll have to be booked up separately. If the employer hands over the money in cash or by cheque, he cannot deduct, or retain from it. the amount that is coming for tho'e storm. He has to put the man in the position that he can put that money in his pocket, when he is going away, and say, "'I won't pay you for them."

The Sr~'RETARY FOil PcBLic WoRKS: He is only running a weekly or fortnightly account a.t any tirne.

Mr. VO\VLES: \Ye have a case cited by the :Yiinister himself where a man ran up to £70.

The SECRETARY FOR PeBLIO \VoRKS : That was '' agQS.

Mr. VOWLES: Exactly. Well, how long did that take to accumulate!

The SECRE'rARY FOR l'UBLIC \VoRKS: The ~mployer could settle it in a week if he wanted to.

Mr. VOWLES: Our experience is that as long as e.-erything is going well between master and servant, the master is allowed­particularly in the back country-to hold money until such time as it is want<>d.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC \Vomcs: The employer must protect himself.

Mr. VOWLES: He can ask the man to take it, and the man says, "No, keep it until I want it."

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: He can say, " I will give you a week's account. I will pay you at the end of the week, and you must settle up."

Mr. VOWLES: How inconvenient it would be. Would the workman want to have fifty­two cheques lying about? vVould not he want one at the end of twelve months?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC \VORKS : If he is emploJed by the year, with keep, it would not apply.

Mr. VOWLES: It does not matter how he is employed, the practice is for the men's wages to accumulate. They don't want to draw them until they are going away.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Those men are usually employed with keep. In such cases therP is no trouble.

Mr. VO\VLES: In many cases, many ordinary workers do that. It is not a ques­tion o: keep, because a man is entitled to deduct keep.

The SBCRETARY FOR PUBLIC \YORKS: Then, there is no hardship.

::vrr. VOWLES: I am talking ahout other goods. Surely the hon. gentleman knows that on station", where they keep all classes cf goods the worker purchases other articles besides tobacco and clothes. With regard to those deductions, do they include the case where a familv man is there? Does it in­clude the cloth.ing for his wife and children? I think it does i1ot. I think it is only as far as the man himself is concerned. The emplover is entitled to deduct from his chequ~ the amount of tobacco and clothing supplied to anv worker, but was he entitled to deduct the· amount of clothing supplied to his family?

l\ir. BRENNAN: Workers have no encum­brances.

Mr. VO\YLES: I know there are plenty of encumbrances with some of them. In my opinion, goo·ds supplied, such as boots and clothing for tho wife and children, could not bo deducted.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC '\VORKS: It is not specifically set out in the clause. It does not say for his own use.

:Mr. VOWLES: What is the intention? I say a man is placed in a very peculiar posi­tion if h~ is not entitled to de-duct money or, those conditions, and has to turn round ami sue. When friendships are broken up and a man is leaving his employer he very often stands on his particular rights, and that is •.vbere the employer falls in. \Vhen wr· are legislating we should legislate not to give one sedion of the community an ad­vantage over another; we should legislate so a•. not to interfere unduly with existing conditions.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLlC \VORKS: There is ample provision to recover that debt.

Mr. VOWLES: What has he to do? He had to go to the nearest court of petty ses3ions and issue a summons, and then he has to find the other man, who has probably gonP in the opposite direction, and then he has to get a judgment against him and that will be the end of it. He could not get at the wages, because the man could take his cheque away in his swag.

The SEcRET.I.RY FOR PuBLIC WoRKS: You are speaking of a family man. He could not take his family away in his swag. (Laugh­ter.)

Mr. VOWLES: The class of man I am speaking about has no goods and chattels, and is going to some other place probably,

Mr. Vowles.]

534 Wages Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Wage. Bill.

and the employer has to take all those risks. I say it is wrong to put a clause in the Bill to give a man an opportunity of evading his lawful debts, because that is what it amounts to. \Ve should make provision to protect the other party, and give him an equal remedy, provided he acts with ·discretion and caution in the supply of goods to the person he employs.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Do you think w:tges should be paid for in goods?

Mr. YOWLES: No. I do not; but where a worker gets goods for his own convenience, and the convenience of his family, he should pay for them, and the man who supplies them should be protected. I do not say that that should be so for luxuries but for neces­saries, esf)eciall.v in the back country. From my expc>rwnce m the back countn· I know how harshly this will work. It is ~~t for the benefit of the employer, but for the benefit of the employee, and there is no correspond­ing right. It is exactly the opposite of mutuality. If there is a lack of mutuality in any Act, it exists here, the only distinc­tion being that the re•nedy is on the side of the employee.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC ·wORKS : The obligation is on the employer to pay wages, and, consequently, the chief penalties are against him.

Mr. YOWLE.S: Such an .Act of Parliament as t~is will apply principally in the country; 1t w1ll not apply in the towns. I believe it was understood in this House by some per­;;ons when the Bill was going through on a former occasion, that a firm like one oi the big drapers in Brisbane would not be able to supply goods to their workmen. They would be able to do so, but . they would ~1mpl0 be takmg the '-ame bus111ess isk as they would with any other person they give cred•t tu. They need not give that credi·· ; they could send that customer sornew h·~re else. \Ve all know that stations and L'irr property-owners in the backblocks keej', stores. not for their own convenience lut for the convenience of their employees: and under these conditions tl,ey can be defrauded of their property, and I say that t,lut slwulJ not be so. 1 think I have dealt with m'l3t of the matters which are of any importance in the Biil, but there is just one matter I wouk~ like t? r.dm to .before finishing, and that 1s '' prmCJple whJCh does not exist ;n the Bill. but which, I think, should '•c• included, because it will make the Bill better. In the case--

" \Vherc an employer in satisfaction nf his ]iability under this .Act pays wages due to a worker of a contractor emplo) ed by such employer, for work performed by such contractor under a contract with such employer, theu in the event of such contractor bccomin5 insolvent or com­pounding _with his creditors, or, being a compa;:ty .m respect of which proceedings for wmdmg-up have been commenced, such payment will be deemed to be and shall be treated as a preferential daim agamst the estate of such contract in the sanH' nutnner as if such -wages ·were due to such worker."

'I'he wages due to the worker or contra,to,. should be treate-f! as a preferential claim. [ should like the Ministc'r to consider the que,­tion of making provision for that in the ei!l.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: \Vhen, did you quote that from?

[Mr. Vowll's.

Mr. YOWLE.S : It is a new clause put in by the Upper House in the last Bill. My further remarks I propose to hold over until tho Committee stage of the Bill comes he­fore the House.

HoN. W. H. BAR)!ES (nulimba): I should have thought that some hon. member on the other side would have answered the very excellent speech of the hon. member for Dalbv, because I am quite sure this is one of those questions every hon. member wants to look at all round with the view of trying to do a fair and square thing by all parties interested as far as poo~ible. I am quit<> c<'rtain that every membl'r sitting on the Opposition side of the House is out to endeavour to see thqt the man who is a worker get' a fair deal in connection with matters which may crop up to his detriment, and I am quite sure that, in addition to that, there is a dE'sirc on the part of the Opposition that any Bill ,,hich is introduced should not only receiw thoroug·h consideration at theil­hands. but that an honest effort should be made 1 o make that Bill, as far as it is possible. a suitable Bill for the conditions which it is seeking to deal with as far as employer and employee are concerned. I would like to say, most emphatically, that I have no sympathy with any employer, nor any e.mploye'.', wJ:o is not prepared to do the nght thmg m re--pcct to their relations. No ·doubt that. in the past, unsatisfactory conditio'ns have been responsible for a good deal of the trouble exist­ing to-dav in the relations between employer and empioyee. I would like to congratulate the :Minister t1pon the vPry full ""phwa­tion which h<' gave in connection with the Bill. and in regard to that, I may say t-hat I took the opportunity of follmying the advic<> o_f the Home Secretarv. I d1d not regard 1t as good advicr• at' the time. and. probably, I was not wise in followinff it. but I took hl.:; adYirc. and to-dwv Vf'l'V ca.;:unllv read throuo:h thr Minister's addre.<s last 'session on this particular measure, and I find that he, to-day, verv fully and thoroughly traversed, very larffcly, the same ground which he traversed last vear. I gather that the Bill before us is one primarilv to deal with what the Minister calls ob -olete legis­lation. The Minister evidently regards the present l\1a sters and Servants .Act as some­thing which has probably served a upeful purpose. and to-day, at any rate. has. to some extent, lost the value which it had when it was originally introduced. I suppose he would agree. too, that there has been an evolution going on in regard to the relations between employer and emplo~·ee, and pro­bably something which may have been con­side~ed as absolutely fair at one period in the life of the State that evolution has chang-ed to-day. I think it is very singular, and I believe that the Minister will agree with me, that though that Bill was intro­duced so many years UffO, it still contains excellent provisions that have been of mani­fold advantages and few disadvantages to the majority of the community. Theo Minister referred to the rJUr--tion of the lack of mutuality in the present l\f asters and Servants Act. I want. on the second reading of the Bill, to point out that it does seem to me there may be a danrrer of causing the pendulum to swing too far the other way and that thP difficulties he seeks to provide for in this BilL which very largely has come from New 7-ealand and Kew South Wales Acts, may be difficulties which. to some' extent, are going to be created in another

Wages Bill. [26 JU:NL:] lV ages Bill. 535

direction. I am quite snre that no one in this Chamber this afternoon desires to see fresh differences created. I again say that, in my judgment. one of the things necessary in connection with the affiairs of Queensland to-day, and it will become more and more apparent as the days go by, is that friendly feelings should exist between all parties, whether they are masters and servants or em­ployer and employee, because no State, and no community, can prosper, in my judgment, to the fullest extent unless that condition of things exists. Where there is friction, and where these difficulties are cropping up which do crop up sometimes and cause irrita­tion, I am quite certain that cannot be regarded as being in the interests of the community generally. The Minister drew attention to the fact that in the old Act agreements were one-sided. I followed him very carefully in that, and I think the hon. member for Dalby has shown that agree­ments, after all, may be n,bsolutely necessary in the conduct of business. If I m a v use an illustration, I take it that if the 'Minister engag-ed someone in his department for a period to carr:· out some particular work and it was an engag-ement that was definite and about which ther<' could be no mis­understanding, the Minister would not l'('gard it as being quite a fair thing if whilst the work was just at its height and whilst the very best had been given up to that period by the person concerned, through some moans the agreement was broken off in the middle without the completion of the task. I think the Minister would agree that that would pl>tce the department at a very serious disadvantage. If I, as an individual, choose to make an agreement. surely, if the conditions under which I made it are satis­factory, thcre is a moral obligation on my part to see that that agreement is faithfully carried ont, anrl. if it is not, surelv it is detrim0ntal to the best interests of 'all the partiec;, b0c1nse Wf' do not want to create in Quc<'mland an incre<tswl feeling of mis­truot b<>twe<>n the parties concerned. Then I say it is absolutely essential that a feeling of confidenc<' should exist between all parties.

Thf' Mini·,ter referred to hiring [5 p.m.] a«reem<'nts in that connection.

He said that fairplay should be the dominating note-I do not use his exact words and I do not wish to misquote him-but the hon, gentleman said that fair­play should be th(e dominating note in all things that are done between the employer nnd employee. I heartily reciprocate that, because I think that fairplav is the one factor which should op"rrrte 'in connection with every matter, especially where vou are en!'aging me!', or whcre employers arc con­C('rncd. I wJ!l sav further. that where fair­play is not shown. then :vou are going to bring: about a condition of things which will be unsatisfactory. The ::'v'Iinistcr. in reply to an inquiry of mine in connection with the protection which was going to be given to the >vork<:'r, illustrated that if the worker'' had !'Ot into the hands of the contractor who was making default, assuming that the employer hA cl paid the contractor all the amount of the contract, even then the em­plover would still be liable for am· deficiencv in the wage, due to the workers.· That may be a very desirable provision, b~t I would point out that it is going to be a provision that will tend to harass 'the employment of men instead of helping them. Probably, it

will be an influence for hurting them in connection with their employment, because it is evident t<J me that one of the results of this legislation will be that a contractor's employer will be exceedingly careful about whom he gives a contract to. We know that there are struggling contractors, and when an E'mployer is going to give work to a contractor, he will give it to a man who is financially sound, rather than give it to a man who is struggling. We• will find that wherever there is likely to be any doubt, then the man who is financially strong will get the contract.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS : The employer can protect himself by seeing that the wages are paid.

HoN. W. H. BARNES: The Minister is quite right, but it might happen that the contractor will undertake to do a certain thing and find himself in the position that he cannot pay the men. Supposing there is a contract for £400, he might find that the full amount has been spent and that there was an absolute shortage. The position would be then that the employer would have to come along and make good any deficiency in the wages of the workers.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLTC WORKS: Surely you would not expect the workers to suffer?

HoJS. W. H. BARNES: Certainly not. I want to be perfectly under-,tood in that, and it is also the feelings of the Opposition. IV e do not suggest that there should be any l<•gislation which will penalise the worker in any way, but it is a fair thing to point out some of the difficulties which probably will crop up in connection with the adminis­tration of this Bill. We have to consider the administration of this Bill and how it will affect the parties concerned in the com­munity who come under its operations. Therefore, I think that the very provision to which the hon. member referred in his reply to my int('rjection will probably prove to be an instrument of considerable disad­vantage to thi' man seeking to improve his position in the community. I notice that provision is made for the employer to find out whethE'r the men have been paid their wages or not. That has largely to do with the subject to which I have referred already. It only emphasises what I have said. that any man who has got money to spend will not bother about men who are not finan­cially strong. He will say, " Why should I be bothered with men who are not financially strong? I will give it to someone else rather than give the struggling m.an an opportunity to make something out of it."

The SECRET.\RY FOR PUBLTC WORKS: No man should take a contract unless he intends to pay his workmen.

HoN. W. H. BARNES: With that I agree, but the Minister knows that many men in Queensland, and elsewhere, have been venturesome. and by their great determina­tion and brains, and not being afraid of work-and not belonging to the I.W.\V. -the result has been that they have risen along the line~ of difficulty and have achieved success. (Hear, hear !) We should not do anything to debar men of that descrip­tion from rising in the world. The Min­ister said that his Government were care­ful to see that they did not pay over any accounts until they were satisfied that the workmen had been paid. I did not know that there were any Government contracts

Hon. W. H. Barnes.]

536 Wages Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Wages Bill.

at all, nowadays. I thought that contracting, so far as the Government are concerned, had received lts quietus, and that all work for the Government was done by day labour. Apparently, there are still some contracts in Queensland, and the Governm<;>nt a~e careful to see that the rnen are pard therr wages before they pay the amounts over.

The SECRETARY FOR PcBLIC WoRKS: We have contracts for boring and drains.

HoN. W. H. BARNES: I am afraid that the tendency nowadays is to make the con­tractor get out where there is any chance of the Government doing it conveniently them­selves If the Government oon ·do any work in a thickly populated centre, t~e:v. will do it, but in the thinly populated drstncts they throw the onus largely upon the contractors. I know sufficient about the department myself to know thoat there are a number of contracts which must be entered into by the Govern­ment in connection with the Treasury De­partment, '!'ore particularly th~ water schemes whiCh have to be taken m hand. The T;easurer dwelt upon the fact that wao-es under one of the clauses of the Bill are" to be garnisheed, or may be garnisheed so far as Government servants are concerned. Provision has been made for workmen receivino- £2 per week-the Minister thoug-ht it was £2 10s. I do not think anyone will take serious exception to that dause, although it mio-ht onen the door for a desire on the n<lrt .";"f workers not to meet their obli!l"ations, There are workers and workers, and whilst some men will ncYer !\"et into trouble finan­ciallv. and while their home life will con­tribute to that stete of things. still there are other worke"s who 'vill sit down and say that thev ,,.ilJ not make an effort to get out of the difficulty they might get themselves into.

The Minister dwelt more particularly on the truck system. ,It seems .to me tha~ ~hat is a part of the Brll on whrch the Mrmster dwelt most. He pointed out that provision was made in the Bill that, except under cer­tain conditions, payment should be made _in money only. ~t s~ruck r;ne while_ the :M_ m­ister was delrvermg hrs second readmg speech that even there there might be a con­siderable disadvantage to t.he worker. In isolated places the Government may be plac­ing a difficult proposition on those concer1:ed in the matter. Take the case of a statiOn where there is no bank, and where tht~y are a long way from any bank. The hon, gentle­man knows that it would not be a wise thing to keep a large amount of money in a pl~e<' of that kind. It might be a very difficult matter for a station-owner or a farmer to provide money in cash with which to pay his employees.

The SBrRETARY FOR PFBLIC WORKS: Don't vou think that this provision will meet the situation?

HoN. W. H. BARNES: Probably it doe3 meet the situation, but it might create a very big difficultv. I have a sua;gestion to make to the Minister which, although not con­nected with the principles cont<lined in thio Bill, has a hearing on this particular pro­vision. I think it would be a good thing if the Gnvcrnment est a hlisbed more branchcJ of the Savings Bank, even on stations, than ace eetablisbrd at nresent. Thrrf' was a time that I can well remember when some members of the Onposition argued that it

[Hon. W. H. Barnes.

would be a good thing if th" Commonwealth Government had charge of all the Savings Banks but they do not ergue that way now. I am 'not referrino- to the Treasurer, but to other memhers on"' that side of the House.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: It would have been a good thing if the Savings Bank had been taken ov0r by the Labour Government, but not a good thin!\ if . it had been taken over by the N atwnalrst Government.

HoN. W. H. BARNES: I remember that there was a strong tendency on the part of hon, members opposite to hand over the whole of the Savings Bank, although, per­sonally, I never advocated it. It. would be a good thing from the standpon;t of the worker if more branches of the Savmgs Bank were created. The Savings Bank !s d9ing excellent work in Queensland, and rt mrght be enlarged with a view of trying to meet some of the difficulties that hr. ve been referred to in connection with this Bill. There is no doubt that difficulties will arise over this particular matter. The hon. gentl.e­man, in talking about the truck system, sard it was a very eas~' thing for a mal? to make provision against a \Yorker 'vho m1ght come alonO' and obtain goods from him. A person with" no monev might come along and get supplies from· the station. He might be absolutdv without the wh0rewithal to pay for the ,;ations which he gets. An emnloyer might be a hit dubious about givinv. him th_<' rations. and it might affrrt the worker detrr­mentallv. I think I am right in saying that it will "make the storekeeper on the station prettv dubious about engag-ing men tvhen they 'come to him for supplies.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WoRKS: Thev can be employed at weekly wages and keep.

HoN. W. H. BARNES: That will be one way to defeat the object of this Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Not to defeat it.

HoN. W. H. BARNES: Clearly the Bill goes in that direction. I an; sure, un!rss the administration an cl a pplicatwn of th1s mea­sure will o-o in the direction of not encourag­ing trust lwtween rmnloYer and employ!'e in that particular regard, that the ef!ect w11l be disastrous fro'TI the point of v1ew of the workc1·. I take it that no honest man who is reallv hard up-how mam- of uo have been hard up in our time ?-would for one moment take anv exception to a fair tb;ng- being clone if it would go to relieve his d;otrcss.

Tbe SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Surely in su~h a caso the employer would give credit?

HoN. \Y. H. BARNES : The Minister must know th:1t a man may only have the clothes h~ stand3 up in, and when he geh th~ £3 or £4, or whatever the wag-e mav be for the week vou cannot tie him up and say, "Yo;, flare not lea Ye this station until the amrnmt vou owP me is naid." Th~ effect will be to prevent suppli rs being given to needy men when they come along.

The SECRETARY FOR PcBLTC WORKS: I do not eee the diffirultit's that vou imaginE:. l\Iost station employees are paid so mnrh and keep. Tn tho;;e cases there is no difficulty whatever and in all other caoes the em­ployers '~ould give a week's credit.

TV ages Bill. [26 .JUNE.] TV ages Bill. 537

HoN. W. H. BARNES: The Bill clearl:r says there shall be no deduction whatever.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Exc(lpt for keep. A man might be employed for so much per week and keep.

HoN. W. H. BARNES: I admit he may be employed under such conditions, but, generally speaking, the Bill is going to make it difficult for the man who finds him<lelf in <lifficulties. We on this side are always out to try and help in anything which is going to assi;t the genuine worker. Wr; have no "ympathy with anything that is done that would penalise the man who is striving to get on, and any comments I have made this aftnrnoon are rather in the direction of draw­ing attention to some of thos<;: things which may tend to hamper rather than to help the carrying out of the provisions of this Bill if it becomes law.

l\1r. WARREN (J1urrumba): I think the tendency of this legislation should be to make master and "man more equal. I believe that in the past they havo not been quite "Bqual. \Vhile there are very good points in the Bill, and on the whole it is a very good one, there are two or three clauses that would tend to put a man out of employment as far as thn country districts are concerned. I look at this Bill purely from a country point of view. Th<J man who comes along in thE' rountl':V looking for work is not gener­ally a man with a big plant behind him, and it would be advisable if the Minister would make some amendment in the truck clouses of this Bill that would allow of certain advances-for instance, for tools, to work­mAn.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: That is provided for.

!Hr. \VARREN: If vou advance a man £10 for tools, which is' very often done, as far as my reading of tlw Bill goes you can­not claim on the man's wages for that amount.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Yes, yon can if you advance for tools or imple­Inonts.

Mr. WARREN: I accept the hon. gentle­man's assurance in that respect, and 1 am very plca~E'd to know that it can be done. Anvthing that will stop this truck system ":ill he of benefit to the community and of benefit to the working man. After all, the working man forms the biggest part of the "ommunity, and it is a proper thing that all men who have the interests of their fe!Iow <Creature' at heart should look after the biggest number of people. We have no right to garnishee a man for any amount more than £2. I think the provision in that regard is a good one. and it will tend to do two things. It will protect the man who is honeet, and it wi:J stop this tick bu iness. Aft0r all. the greatest trouble in this State is the ;mm ber of people of all classes who go into debt with their eyes open. On account of those two thing-s alone I strongly snpport that clause, and all other good points in this Bill. I consider the Bill could b0 amPndPd with advantage in some· respects, but on th<' whole I have much pleasure in giving it my support.

GovER!DfENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! Mr. MOORE (.4ubign1f): In some respects

I think this Bill is going to make the posi­tion clearer. but is going to cause a great deal of inconvenience in many ways. There arc some principles in the Bill that I could not think of supporting. The main part of

the Bill is that dealing with the truck system. ThP truck svstem. as we know it in" the western part o'f Queensland, is abso­lutely essential, and in that connection I would like to quote the remarks of the Min­ister for Mines in the Upper House last year. He ~aid-

" It may be that in some instances it must prevail. It must prevail, for in­stance, where there are no shops, and very often it may be of convenience to the worker."

We know perfectly well that it is of great convenience to the worker in many instances. We know the men themselves require it, and theY are quite satisfied with the system of station stores at the present time. We do not find distrust, as a whole, «Jf the masters by their employeE)s in the western country.

The SECRETARY· FOR PUBLIC WoRKS: Don't you think the employer would trust his em­ployee with a week's rations?

Mr. MOORE: I suppose he would, but I do not see whv he should not purchase a week's stores and have it put against his wage,. How many instances do we find in connection with shearing sheds where the

· employee comes to the employer and asks thn employer to look after his money for him? He does ·not distrust his employer then; he distrusts the other employees. and does that for fear he will be taimn down.

The SEcRET"\RY FoR Pt:nLro vVoRKs: In manv cases the employer asks the employee to look aft<'r his monev for him. (Laughter.)

Mr. MOORE : I do not think so. These stores. undoubtedly, are a convenience. Un­fortunatelv, this Bill goes too far. The Government are too drastic in their regu­lrtions. It has been recognised in the western districts that some system of truck must prevail.

The SECRgTARY FOR AGRTCULTURE: It is abso-' lutely an abominable system.

Mr. MOORE: I cannot agree with the Minister. I do not think it is an abomin­able svstem" vVe know that the men them­selves ·appreciate it and take every advantage of it, and we know, as a. rule, that the station storekeepers treat them better than the storekeepers in the towns. The men can get thc·ir goods ch<''lper from the station store than they can from stores in the small country towns that they happen to be adiacent to" I certainh think the Bill is going too far when it ·absolutely prohibits the system as it does. I think the exemption clause which includes scrub fellers and prickly-pcnr clearers should apply to all bush workers. You have scalpers in exactly the same position. and you have fencers, vard builders. and well sinkers. , The SECRE1'ARY FOR Pl'BLIO WORKS: They can get tools and appliances.

Mr. MOORE : They can get tools and· anpli ances. but thev cannot get sufficient· t~ keep them when 'they go out splitting.

The SECRETARY FOR P1:BLJC VVORKS: "What do thcv want be, ides tools?

l\Ir. MOORE: They want an outfit. They want a tent. and very often they want explosives. There is another principle that I object to, and that is the dise1·imination a' to penalties. I do not think that discrim­ination ehould be there. It should be left to the court.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC \VORKS : There is no discrimination or harshness in the penalties.

Mr. Moore.]

538 Wages Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Wages Bill.

Mr. MOO RE : There should not be any discrimination. If an offence is committed the court should decide what the penalty should be.

The SECRETARY FOR Pum.rc WoRKS: A £3 penalty is just as severe on an employee as a £10 penalty against an employer.

Mr. MOORE : Surely the court has c.liscretion !

The SECRETARY FOR PUBf,IC WORKS: We are ;:lstructing the court. 'l'he penalties are dways inse-rted in a Bill.

"'.::r. MOORE : The penalty should be the same.

The SECRETARY FOR PcBLIC WORKS: It is not the same offence.

Mr. MOORE : I cannot understand the explanation of clause 40 given by the hon. member for Toowoomba. I cannot see how-

" The court shall have full power to inquire into, adjudicate upon, adjust, and settle in a summary manner all ques­tions and disputes arising between the contractor and employer, or between workers and the contractor or employer. or lwtvvcen the \vorkers inter se, and may summon before it and examine the parti!'H and their witn0sses, and may vary a.nd rescind all such orders, and give all such directions r0specting the matters brought b0fore it as it considers neces­sary."

I can understand that the Bill cannot limit the provisions of the Arbitration Act where an a ward has b0en given, but I cannot see why, when an award has not be0n given, and a dispute arises, that this court has !)0\.VPr to ~PHl.P cl]-:EmtPR ln nn~r rJld-r1r>t.

Mr. BRE)oi)oi'AN: I did not say anything of the kind.

Mr. MOORE: It seems to me that it is giving a big power to a court of summary jurisdiction, and I cannot see that a court constituted as this is should have such wide powers as are given to it. I can understand a dispute as to wages.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: What other dispute would arise between a work­man and an employer?

Mr. MOORE : It may be a dispute as to wheth0r one man was a unionist or not.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order ! I suggest that the hon. member leave the details of the Bill td the Committee stage.

Mr. MOORE: In the New Zealand Act it is put in a totally d1fferent place. In this Bill it is put right at the end, and what is the use of it? I think it has been put in that place for a purpose. It might be used for a purpose, and it is an unwise provision to have in a Bill of this sort. There is suffi­cient scope in the ordinary penalties in clause 44 to cover everything required. I do not think it wise to have Acts of Parliament overlapping each other so that the workers do not know where they stand, and the em­ployers know where they stand still less. I

certainly oannot support the Bill [5.30 p.m.] as it is. I certainly agree with

the clauses which make it clear that the worker can get the wages he works for, but there are other clauses that are ambiguous. There is a clauFe which refers to " a man employed for a definite period under a "l\'8ekly agreement." I cannot under­stand that at all. When you employ persons by the week you don't emplov thE>m for a definite period. You may employ them for

[Mr. Moore.

a ~eek, or two weeks, or as long as you want them. There is no definite period stated.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WoRKS: As long as they are not .employed by the day.

Mr. MOO RE: It is very ambiguously put, and may lead to a great deal of litigation. When you have a Bill like this to make the position clear to the worker and the em­ployer, it should be made as clear as pos­sible, so that there shall be no mistakes, and do away with litigation, as far as the worker is concerned in securing his wages, and the employer will know exactly where he stands in paying wages.

Mr. GUNN (Garnarvon): Of course, this Bill is an old friend, but there are one or two alterations in it since we had it here before. I think we are all agreed that the wage-earner is entitled to be paid in rr.oney in full. We don't want to see that he is taken down by some one who goes insolvent; who, when he presents his cheque, has it dis­honoured, or anything of that sort. I think thG whole House acknowledges that the man who earns his wages should get them. But there are conditions which make it difficult. The conditions near Brisbane are quite different to what they are in the interior. Take the question of payment by cheque. The provision is altered somewhat from that which was in the previous Bill. Ever since I can remember-and I am a native of Aus­tralia, and have been all my life in the bush-it has been the practice to pay the employees by cheque, and add exchange if it is not on a local bank.

Mr. GILDAY : Your cheque would be a!I -~~t..J. ... ~o .... u.

Mr. GUNN: It is not a question of my cheque; it is in a general way. The reason is that you are a long way from the bnnk. If you have money or notes you would have to have a safe to lock them up. That simply means a bonus to encourage bushranging. Take one of your own cattle stations, for instance. Take V an Rook. Plenty of people, if thev knew there was money in t·he safe waitin'g to pay the employees wh.en the wages were due, would come along w1th a charge of dynamite and rob the station.

Mr. MACART:i'EY: \Vh:v do vou refer to Van Rook? ' ·

Mr. GUNN: It is one of their stations. It is one of those ·places in connection with which. if the GnvP!'J>mcnt h"d not rook0d some of the people, some of the people had rooked the Government. I heard that some cattle h1d bePn rocked from there. I know that this Bill gives you an oppor­tunity to pay by cheque, by informing the man whom you hire that the mode of pay­ment is bv cheque. There is no Pvidence, however, that you have given him this notice. A man might say that nobody ever told him that payment was by cheque. It might never have been told. It is a very difficult thing to prove. To get over th(} difficulty I would suggest that. a notic-e be pasted on the store door, or m some con­spicuous place, where everybody who went to get employment would see immediately that the mode of payment there was by cheque. If they objected, they could go on to the next place. That would get over a good deal of difficulty. Many times the OWnRr of the place does not employ the men at all; it is done by the overseer, and the man cannot be responsible for what the over­seer does, without any proof. Then we come

Wages Bill. [26 JUNJ!,,J Wages Bill. 539

to the question of truck. Take Van Rook again. They have a stockman there, and I have no doubt they have aboriginals there. Those people will want matches, tobacco. soap, and medicine. I am quite convinced that the manager of that place will, and does, deduct it from the employees' wages. How is he going to get away from that provision?

Mr BRENNAN: That is provided in the Act now; it is allowed.

Mr. GUNN: You are not allowed to deduct anything. You might be able to deduct for medicine, but there are plenty of other things which will be required be­€ides medicine. I would like to point out how inconvenient thit- will be in regard to order q]ips. A hawker eomes along and supplies the employees with things which they could not get from any other stores. The employee does not carry cash about with him. He i•'•Ues an order on the owner of the place, cmd that owner deducts the amount from his wages. That is the practice at the present time. und this Bill is going to do away with it altogether. Take the union organisPr ; ho come.3 hround to my place and then goes round the sheds and gets an order for the union ticket>-. Th<'y bring the orde;· up from the men, and, of course, it is taken from their wages. Under this Bill that is not allowed. I think that what is sauce for the croose ought to be sauce for the gar,dcr. Tlw Gon·rnment at the present time have a State sleeper mill at Ing-lcwood. 'l'herc ure elc<'pcr-g-ettcr; employed there by the Go,-crnmenl. Those men get food from the storekeeper, or beef from the butcher, and they give an order to the timber depart­meut and the amount is dcdurted from their wages. That !s what the Gow•rnment do with thPir own employees. Under this Bill that will not bu aliowed. I don't know whether you are going to treat the Govern­ment in the same way as the pri,-ate indi­vidual. It is very convenient for the em­ployees and emnloyer that under certain con­ditions deductions shculd be allowed. I think it is quite ri1<ht that the hawker's order should be honoured and the amount deducted from the 1nan 's wage<:-. So it is with the butcher who supplies the timber­gdtcr employed by the Railway Department. l otm afraid if this Bill is brought ;nto force it will not be the employer who will suffer, but the employee. The employers will not be able to honour the hawker's orden, and the men will have to hav<' silver or notes in their pockets. They are not more honest in the bush t-han they are unywhere else, and they will be ·ruhbC>d right and left. They will have money in their possession, and there will be the inducement to rob. Then, again. there i•< the mon who goes to a job in the Railway Department. Perhaps he has been to a local hotel, ancl he has no money at all. He wants to get some tobacco or something that is nece,,;o,ry for his wellbeing. He goes to the employer',. 'tor0, because nobody else ••xcept the emplo;·cr wi:I trust him. He gets those things on account. ThPn, you are not eliowecl to drdnct it from his wages when thev bec··me clue. I think it will lead to a gre.at df•al d lwrrlsbip to the working men of Queensland, and I hope some amendment will be dt>vised in Committee by which it will be got over.

Mr. f10RSER (Burnett) : There is very 1\t:luch in this Bill with which we are very

familiar. There is tlH, repeal of the existing measures-the Masters and Servants Act of 1li61 and the two Wages Acts of 1870 and 1884-the provisions of which we must nece*" earily be in accol'd with. I think in the main we are in accord with the pro,-isions of the Bill as explained by the Minister. The Minister has a very nice way of explaining the Bill, nnd I will say he gives us an amount of information that we are seeking; and he very ablv reserves to himself the portion he does not want to tell us anything about. However, we are pleased to have it "t niL It is not our privilege always to receive inform>ttion. Now, there are some things iu the measure that I think are going to rebound to the detriment of the workers. \V e hear a lot about the protection of the wages of the working man. I don't think there is one indi,-idual on this side, and there are very few employers in the country, who would denv to the worker the wages he should I?ccive. But I will say that if the hon. members arc so keen about protecting the wages of the "orkers. why cannot they br· consistent and protect their wages in their iibertv fairs and other games of chance that WC SCE\ carried on in the various cities o' Queensland to-day? :ve know pe~fectly '':ell thnt these gamt>s of cnance are bemg earned on.

The DEPL"TY SPEAKER: Order! Order!

:VIr. CORSER: If we are going to protect wages .wd look to the interest .of the wage­earners, we should not allow these people to be subjeett'd to a temptation that will probably mean the spending of £5, £10, or £20 in a week or a night, as was the case yerv recentlv in a to\' n not very far from here. We s;,w the same thing here. If w,• are consistent, and if the Government really want to protcf·t those people, it is not always the contructor. or the man who engages the contractor, who is not doing his duty. I think thP Gowrnment might very well bring in a pro,-ision to enable these people. ~nd tbeir h<mlC''' to he ·protected by not g1vmg them an o11portnnity that is denied the. people locked up in dens. where they can do 1t awa.'' from the ,-ie\Y of women and children. T , :ncerely hope that ii we are going to pro­tect the; \Yages, we arc going to look to the interest; of th,, workers right through.

The DEPrTY SPEAKER: Order! Order f

Mr. CORSER: Kow, the hon. gentleman claims that !'art III. is certainly going to bE' a brnefit, and a wage-rarner should alwa;\~S receive the full amount of wages in cash. If that is the case, ,., hy do not the G ovcrnment practise what they preach? \V c know that their women in charge of little stations along· the railway lines of Queensland receive certain '' perks" as \Yl'll as their wages-and a very r.oor and Yer? small yitta~ce that i~. 'I'J:ey receive as extra consHlcration what IS going to be denil'd to the ordmary emplover. They o·iyc then1 h:ero-"ene, or firewood. or some­thing else thrown in with their wages. FaY better would it be to give these people the· full yalue of the mouc•y that they earn, in­stead of giving them what is denied to others -assistance in tho way of truck that Part IIL guards agaimt being provided by other en1ployers.

Mr. Gn,DAY: I suppose you can remember what you gave the station-mistresses in 1914?

JJfr. Corser.]

-540 Wages Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Wages Bill.

Mr. C'ORSER: You will remember that ir: tho, e tim.es the cost of living was quite a ~hfferent. thmg lo what the proposition is which we have before us.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! The hon. member mu •t discus» the motion.

Mr. CORSER : In country districts, where travellers come along and are going to take <>n a job .and sign on, I know instances where agreements were written out, and took two pages of foolscap; and the contractor asked those travGI!ers to initial the other sheet a few minutes after they had signed. These people had forgotten their names ! They did not know what names they had ploaced. as their signatures to the contract. Thoat IS what we find in many in"tances in ~mr travels in country districts-not in all !nstances; but it cannot be said in all mstances t):lat the employer is in error. There are mstances probablv where both of th<;m are in .error, and I say that if we are gomg to. legislate against one section of the <lommumty, then we should be just as hard on the other, and not allow all the trouble to fall on those people who' are endeavouring to progre~s ~nd endeavouring to give work. We find It Is a very hard provision where t):le employer, or contractor, is to be rendered hable for any debts of that contractor after he has been paid the full amount, and I think the Goverm!'~nt woul·d be wise in considering ~he probability of pro.tecting the employer m that regard. We know the employer may <;ngage a con~ractor who may work his men m s?me calhnif that the emplover knows nothiP;g about;, m a calling that he has not the slightest Idea of, and yet that emplover may afterwards b.e called upon to square 'up the debts left behmd. The same may be said of a man w?o guarantees, or takes a lien over a crop m the form which any member who represents a farming district must know. The settlers get into the hands of store­keepnrs by the assistance rendered to them­and Jwce,,sarily m, because it is greatly to the .a.dv~ntage of those people and also to the d1stncts that a lien' can be secured on the crops-and I think ~h~s. legislation is going to cut away the possibility of that assistance, because these people are not "'Oin"' to take liens on crops if they lm'?w the ~mployees <lan afterwards come agamst them. Thev advance money on the farm and crops, and then they have to meet the wages of the employees.

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC WORKS: The wor.ke:s only c'?me on the mortgagee when he Is m possessiOn.

M.r. CORSER : , I~ .is going to cut very hard agamst ihe possibility of the extension of that system which has been of benefit to those that req uircd assistance.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Only when he has the assets. If he has advanced ~he money, why should he not pay the wages If he has the assets?

Mr. CORSER: He has not necessarilv got the crop, because there mity be no crop, as very often, unfortunately, happens.

Mr. GLEDSON : men to work for

[Mr. Corser.

He would not have any him if he had not a crop.

Mr. GORSER: The unfortunate part about Nature i" that you have to make oan attempt first, and the failure comes after you have engaged men to prepare for the crop.

Mr. GLEDSON: You would not employ any­one to pull the crop if you had no crop.

Mr. C.ORSER: You could not pull the 9rop until you. grew it, a!'d it is in the grow­mg, and no~ m the pullmg or reaping after you secure It, that the wages come in.

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC WORKS : Where would ~he difficulty be if the mortgagee takes possessiOn? He does not take possession if there is no crop, and if he does not take possession he is not liable for wages,

Mr. CORSER : There is a lien on the crop before it is grown, and the hon. gentleman ~no~s perfectly . well that when the crop is m sight, or bemg harvested, the difficultv does pot present itself. Before there is any certamty that there is going to be a crop at a}!, these business people have to secure a hen to enable the settlers to produce some­thing, and he certainly wants some hold over the property, beca~se he ~as advanced money to keep the fall!IIy gomg, and he must h''ve a hold a.gamst what he has already advanced. He has not necessarily taken po""ession.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLW WORKS: He is not liable if he has not taken possession.

Mr. CORSER: He is liable if the settler leaves soll!ething behind him to be paid for, and that 1s where the trouble comes in. In the past the workers have not altogether heen neglected. On a mining field. if a mine fa~ls, the worker gets his wages out of any­thmg left, ar:d there is always enough left to pay the mmers, and that is quite correct.

Mr. GLEDSON: There is not alwa:·s enough left.

Mr .. CORSER: It is very seldom tha.t there 1s not. I do not know any instance in my district, and there are sevcr:tl places there dosed down-::\1ount Perry and others -and the only people who have lost are the storekeepers who stuck to the men. The men have to receive their payment, and then they can go off and the storekeepers cannot get a penny of the monev thev have advanced from year to year to .. those" men. The rnen have first call on anv money or assets for their wages, and that has alwavs been so and it is a very good principle, to"o, and it 'must not be considered that we are out to try to prevent them from getting a fair deal. Anything that has bPcn recognised as a fair thing in the past we are quite prepared to recognise now, but there are just a few pha'e~ of this Bill which do not appear to me to be in the interests of production and in the interests of justice. The Hon. the Minister, in introducing the Bill, claimed that the employer could terminate an agree­ment at any time.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC "~.VORKS: At a ·week's notice.

Mr. CORSER : Could not an employee of to-day terminate an agreement at a week's notice?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: No; six months in some cases.

Wage8 Bill. (26 JUNE.] TV ages Bill. 541

Mr. CORSER: If the employee wanted to terminate the agreement, what could the employer do? He would get a lot of satis­faction out of suing the employee.

The SECRE~ARY FOR PcBLIC \VORKS: He could ha.vo him put in gaol for six months.

. Mr. CORSER: How many have been put m gaol? I venture to say that very few have been put in gaol.

The. SE2RETARY FOR PUBLIC \VoRKS: In the last six years I venture to say there were over a hundred cases of imprisonment.

Mr. CORSER: Six years is a !ono- time and tl1cre ha~ been a lot of employme;;t sin~~ the:r, an:l If there are any cases in those which were _ll~1Ju ·t to the men, then I feel sure the, '\hmster would have given them to-day. They \cry probablv deserved what they got, and they would probably receive J~· t the same Lmdcr the present Bill. To say tnat ~he _worker~ have not the long end of !he stick 13 not right, because they have, and If an empluyoe wanted to break an agree­ment the employer would let him go as soon as he wanted to get a\,·ay.

Mr. GLEDSOX: Poor old worker!

::\1r. c_;ORSER: It ~s ,generally considered at e!e~twn bme that It Is a pretty good cry to e'aim that the members on the Govern· ment, side aro the only one~ who are out in the m tore 3ts of the working ,ection of the poop]? of Queensland. That is an old ga;r, and It "ccurod for them the position they have to-day, whereas how would it be possible for the w'?rkers. to. enjoy the privileges they ha':e r:cmvcd If rt had not been for the legislat~on bi:ought about by past Govern­mer;ts 111 which the Labour party had no sav 1

1Ir. GLEDSON: If it had not been for unionism they would not be enjoying those privilf-::.;·e:':l.

Mr. CORSER : What made unionism possible?

J\1r. GLEDSON: The men themselves.

The DEPL:TY SPEAKER: Order ! Order!

J\1r. CORSER : All these enactments all tho~0 yrivilegcs received by the work~rs­theu· mcreasod wage:., their trades unionism and their wages boards-w<>rc all brought ahmt by the Government that is addressed from a kerosene case by members on the opposite side at eL ction time and who are believed in by a majority of the people who do not know what they are voting about.

The DEPC::TY SPEAKER: Order! Will the hon. member deal with the Bill?

::\Ir. CORSER: And this Bill does not, to any great extent, go to increase the privileges of those people. It repeals the existing legis­la.tion, but it does not go ,-ery Inuch further in increasing the pos;,ibilitics of raising wages or bettering the conditions of the men in any fair way, bu.t it doc·3 go in the direction of being harsh to the employer in many imtanc.••·, particularly where an employer is responsible for "· deficit or the non-payment of the wages due to his workers.

Mr. BEBBINGTON (Drayton) : I would just like to say a few words on this Bill. I do not think it has been sufficientlv dis­cussed by a long way. There is one obj';,ction we have to Bills of this nature, bocau~e the

Government always hold themselves outside of any Bill passed. in this Chamber in regard to employment or Government businosse~.

A GOVER::{MENT ME"IBER : The Government are the people.

Mr. BEBBI::'\GTO::\': The Government are not the people. If the Government were the people it would be a very differ:mt thing altogc:hcr. The C ·wernrnent is the c:meus, and some people would be very glad to get rid of thc;n, and Australia would be very much better off for their absence. If the Government \Yen confined to what is con­sidered Government in any civilised country it would be all right, but when th<> Govern­ment begin to compete with otlwr employers of labour ;~nd other bu~:inf'SS n1en I seo no reason "·h ttever \vhv the Government should not be held down t~ similar conditions, and this Bill should apply to all Government busincs.scs equally with private businesses. I thi_J~ ruch a clause is necd"d, a.nd I hope someone, if not myself, will bring in a cln u:-o to that effect; also with regard to tho quc: .. tion of paying by cheques.

Hon. \V. N. GILLIES: Is not a Government ch,,quo always saie?

Mr. BEBBINGTON: If a private man's cheque is not safe, it very soon gets about, and he cannot cheat a man more than once, because he will certainly demand cash. I do not want the worker to take any risks any more than hon. member~ opposite. This side is just as much concerned about the worker as members on that side, and I fail

to see how this Bill will benefit [7 p.m.] the worker in comparison with

what hf;l was getting under the old Bill. I sav this is merely a bait to make the worker believe he is getting something which he does not get. The Government consider thFms~lves above the law. The Government have entered into a number of competitive businesses with the public, and, instead of allowing the Government to re­main above the law, we should bring the Government under this Bill just the same as any other employer. \Ve know that the Agricultural Bank makes advances as mort­gagor.,, and under this Bill they should be liable just the same as other mortgagors. If thP. Agricultural Bank takes possession of a farm because of monev advanced to the farmer. or if the bank takes posseS!lion of any cro-p, thl) Government should be in just the same position as any other employer or mortgagor.

The SECRET4RY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The Agricultural Bank will always see that to"l workers are paid.

Mr. BEBBINGTON: I was pointing out that the Agricultural Bank ought to be brought under the provisions of this Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC \VORKS: It will always pay wages first.

Mr. BEBBINGTON: I am very glad to sec that this question is being discussed quietly and nicely. In fact, if this evolution goes on we will soon be a mutual admiration society. (Laughter.) With regard to the question of paying wages by cheque, I see that this Bill is just the same as the law is at the presP,nt time. There is no difference at all. and the worker is getting nothing ail all from this Bill.

Hon. W. N. GILLIES: Then, why complain?

Mr. Bebbington.]

i'i42 Wages Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Wages Bill.

Mr. BEBBINGTON: I am not complain· ing. I am just pointing out to the working men that they are being· "had," because they are being led to believe that they are getting something out of this Bil! and they are not getting anything aG alL (Govern­ment laughter.)

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC ¥,"aRKS: Then, the Opposition have on!:;- been fighting shadows.

Mr. BEBBINGTON: We are only too glad to give the worker all we possibly can, but I cannot see why we should waste the time of the House in making Ghe worker believe that he is getting something out of this Bill when he is not getting it at alL vVages can be paid by cheque under this Bill just the same as at the present time. I was wondering why the Government hunted the grazing farmers off the land adjoining the Statq stations. I suppose the Govern­ment do not want to have any neighbours or they want to keep their . neighbours hundreds of miles away. Perhaps, it is that they want to keep a lot of money on the State stations to pay their employees in cash and that is why they hunt the selectors off the land.

Mr. O'SULLIVAN: No selectors have been hunted off the land.

Mr. BEBBINGTON: They may not be selectors from the point of vir;w of the hen. gentleman, but men who have spent ten or twenty years of life on the land have been hunted off by the Governm<:nt. They had a safe tenure under the Liberal Government but they did not have a tenure at all undet: this Government.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ord,.r ! Order!

::Yir. BEBBINGTON : There is a moral law which governs these things outsidE) the statute law. It appears though that the Govern­ment arc anxious to get rid of these people.

The; DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or·der ! The hen. gentleman's remarks are not relevant to the question.

Mr. BEBBINGTON: I was tlealing with tlw question of payment by cheque and the nccr·:,sity for keeping a lot of mmw~· in the house. It would be too dangerous to keep a lot of monec· in the house to pay wages. The Minister for Works, in dealing with Lhe question of hiring agre,.ments, mentioned that >;ome workers were not able to terminate their agreements for months. I do not know of any agreement entered into where the worker could not terminate it with a week's notice.

The SECRETARY FOR Pt:BLIC \VaRieS: Agree· ments are made at the Labour Bureau for men to go on a station, the agreement to b(l tNminated at three months' noticc.

~1r. BEBBINGTON: At any rate, a man ran always get away if he wants to, and it would always pay the employr;r to let him go. I think we should have a simple form drawn up at the Labour Bureau so that men should know what they are signing. \Ve just want a simple form which anyone can read. It would save peopfe having to pay big sums fo1· agreements and would be a great advan­tage to the workers.

Hon. \V. N. GILLIES: You might move that as an amendment to the BilL

:\fr. BEBBINGTOK: With regard to the portion of the Bill dealing with truck, there arc some cases where it might be necessary

[Jfr. Bebbington.

in the inten'sts of the worker. I am quite cure that it is going to operate a great deal more against the worker than against the employer. If an omr:loyor keeps a st?re, it does not matter to h1m whether the thmgs are sold Ol' not. :'\ ot one man out of a hundred cares whether he sells the things he has got in his store or not.

Hon. W. N. GILLIES : What does he keep them then' for?

Mr. BEBBI:'-fGTON: For the convenience of people who go for them. These stores on the western stations are not kept for profit at alL In nineteen casE's out of twenty there is no profit at all. When you con­sider the time spent in looking af~er them there is no profit. T~e stores are JUSt k~pt there for the convemence of the workmg men. However, if the workers do ;>ot want anv credit and do not want anythmg from the storE', well and good. I am satisfied t_hat provision will tend to operate more agamst the worker than in his favour. Now, our working people are not fools, and, if a m~n buvs a thing out of a store he knows 1ts value, and he is not going to pay two or three times what it is worth. He knows what he is paving for, and I do not see whv he should not have it. So far as I hav.e seen the practice, I think that this c~ause IS goin"' to t<:'l! a great deal more agamst the worker. Them is one class of peopl<:: who, I admit, ought to be prot<:'eted,_ that IS,. the aboriginals. TherE' is not the shghtest doubt that m<'n somet7mes employ them ar;d supply them with clothes and other thmgs and often thev have nothing left. They should be protectPd against the ordinary haw_ker who travels the country more than agamst anybodv else. Those men often carry grog ant! othr"' things they ought not to carry. ant! I think, if that mat~er were looked into a little more, the pohce would find a good deal they did not expect. I know that an aboriginal sometimes draws £15 or £20. and it is run out in one of these hawker's vans directlv. It is a fact that some of these hawkm~s' vans go into a certain centre and take something like £500 or £600 to £1 000 in that district, and mostly from ah~riginals. I consider that, if any .P~ople want protecting, they are the abor1gma~s. and the GoYernment might go furt.h-:r. m that direction. One of their great fa!lmgs in getting rid of their money is tha~ ~hey are true Sociali.-ts. ¥,'hen an abongmal, who has been at work, comes back to the camp, he goes and spends his money ~t one of th0se hawker's vans. We do not hke ~o sec such p0ople " had " or " taken down " tf we can help it. vYe can look on thcx;n as object-lessons of what we would come to 1f we were all Socialists.

An Hoxm:RABLE MEMBER: Hawkers? (Laughter.)

:Mr. BEBBI~GTO::'-i: It would not m:;tke us hawkers. vVe would be a long wa.y behmd the hawkers. We would be· on the level of the aboriginals.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order ! Order!

-:vir. BEBBI::'-iGTON: Dealing with the q1;estion of mortgages, the wo.rker has noth­ing whatever to fear from 10hat. He has a! ways been protected. If the mortgagee has t'aken possession of the crop or the farm, it stands to reason that he must be respon­sible for the wages that are due.

Hon. W. ~ .. GILLIES: Not at the present time.

Wages Bill. [26 JUNE.) Wages Bill. 543

Mr. BEBBI~GTON: He is. I have had a good deal to do with that.

Mr. HARTLEY : With the mortgagee? Mr. BEBBINGTO;\f: Yes, the man who

trafficks in lmsiness knows about that. The hon. member is very simple.

Mr. HARTLEY: I have not had much to do with the mortgagee; I have had too much Bense for that.

Mr. BEBBI~GTO::'\T: Then, the hon. member cannot have done much business. He is very simple-minded if he does not know about the mortgagee. The practice has always been as stated here. I have done it myself. I have gone on to a plare where I have had a threshing machine to do some work with fifteen or sixteen men, where the mortgagee forcolosed. I have r".aid, " Have you got the mortgage on this?" Ho has said, "Yes," and I have said, "\Vel!. will you give me an order before you start?" You may call us our own law makers, but we have alwac, s protected ourselves in that wa.', so that I cannot see that there is any­thing new about that. It is only to trick the workers into the bolid that they are getting something they have not had before. The workman has always been protected under the common law. Here is another thing in which the worker is supposed to be getting something, that is, as to holding a worker's property. Could any man, under common law, hold any property bPlonging to another person? If you cannot hold another person's property, how can you hold a worker's property? Why all this nonsense? Why all this waste of time?

A GOVERX>IE!-;T MIDIBER: Then, why not sit down?

::VIr. BEBBIXGTO~: Why should not I waste the time of the House as well as any­one else? If I sit down somebodv else will get up. (Laughter.) "

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member will not be in order in wasting the time of the House.

Mr. BEBBI:\"GTON: \Vel!, dealing with this matter of holding a worker's property, anybody know< that the worker is protected under the common law. You cannot hold anyone's property, and why put this in to make the worker believe he is getting some­thing he is not? This is only a sham. He has had all these things under Liberal Governments. He has had all the blessings of civilisation, and this is one of them. They are only trymg here to make him believe that he had no such thing. I do not think I shall waste the time of the House any mo;re; .I s_hall leave it to somebody else. Tins Bill IS a waste of time and nothing more.

Mr. GRAYSON (Cunninglwm): We have had .this Bjll e~plained very fully by the Treasurer m his sncond reading speech. Members on the Ministerial side are under the impression that they are the only friends of the working man in this House.

GovERNMENT MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Mr. CARTER : It is tru':. Mr. GRAYSON: Well, I deny that. I

have been a working man myself for years, working for wag-es, and the best Bill that was ever tabled in this House to protect the working- men of Queensland was passed bv the Kidston Government. I refer to the Contractors and Workmen's Lien Act. Th<' l1on. member for Drayton stated that the

working man has always been protected against the mortgagee taking possession. That is not so. I can cite one case where a very large pastorolist on the Darling. Downs, a man w horn everv person respected m those days, had his pror)erty fully mortgaged, with the result that the mortgagees took posses­sion. What was the result? Many of the working men <'>mploye,d on that station did not receive one single farthing of the wages due to them. I knew one young man who worked for thirteen months. In those days it wns the practice for many workmen not to draw their wages, except yearly or half­vearlv. · A GovERN>IEN~ MEMBER : They ran a risk.

Mr. GRAYSO:c\ : Yes, it was a risk; but the man who did not want his wages trusted to his employers, and drew them at tJ:e end of twelve months. This young man did not get one single farthing of his . wages for thirteen months. When Mr. Kidston took office I was one of the first to mention to him that he should bring in a Bill to protect workntcn in eush of this kind, with the result tlxtt Mr. Kidston introduced and passed the Contractors and ·workmen's Lien Act, which protected all workmen in connec­tion with any "age·s due to them by any employer. No matter whether he 'Yas a squatter, a farmer, or a contractor,_ Imnle­diately the mortgagee took possessiOn the wages of the workmen became a first charge upon the estah' I fail to see that this Bill gives the workmen any more protection than they received under the Contracto"s and Workmen's Lien Aet. I am in favour of protecting the wages of workmen in . ev;ry way possible. One hon. member on tJ:us side of the House pointed out the hardships pas­toralists and others would endure by being compelled to pay their shearers and other workers in cash. <md I would like to speak about another class of men. Thos<' engaged in primary pr<rluction will also be very hard hit by the clause prohibiting the payment of wages by cheque. lYiany farmers live at lf'ast 10 or 20 miles from any bunking institution in Qu<:'ensland. and it will be very incon­venient if they are compelled to puy their employees in cash. Many of those farmers are engaged in wh<,at or tnaize growing, and periodically threshing plants come along to thresh their maize or wheat. Usually there are from ten to fifteen men employed. on the threshing plants, and it is an act of injustice to those farmers to compel them to pay the wag-es in c:1sh after the threshing season is over. The SecretarY for PubTic Works, in his second reading· speech. cited one case onl,---that of a pastoralist or grazing farmer in the Blackall district giving a cheque to one of his emplovees for £70 odd, which. when presented at 'Blackall, W<IS dishonoured. That is the onlv case the S<:'eretarv for Public Works could cit<' during the debate. Only one solitary case. I have been a resident on thf' Darling Downs for a .great many years. nnd I hav<> neYer h<>ar·d of a single gr<1zing farnwr, selector, OJ' f<armer g-ivin!! a cheque to an em]1loyee which has been dishonoured, and I challeng-e any hon. member sitt;ng on thP Ministerial side to nrove that any farmer in Ou<'ensland has giYen a Pheque for wao:es which h<~S been afterwards dishonoured. The Hnn. the f'kcrehr,- for Pnblic Works h s ha.r1 nrnnl0 jpf0rm11tlon on thiR wnttcr. :1ntl if h() rr)nlcl }pq_·p Pib-,.d any l1101'.n C'ft'-.:()8 h0 rr-r­tai1' lv W0uld }l:1yn -clone f:O. f do t1'llf't that in C'onunitte<• the hon. gcntlemo'1 will accept

Jfr. Crayson.]

544 Wages Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Wayes Bill.

an amendment to obviate this hardship, which will certainly be an injustice to the employers in the bush, particularly the small man. No man in this House knows that better than the ex-Secretary for Public Lands, because many of the farmers in his electorate are many miles awav from Roma and the nearest bank. If the 'hon. member expressed his views thev would be in enti're accord with the views 'r have expressed. 'With reference to the truck system, the Minister in charge of the Bill eaid that when an employee ~ts any goods from a pastoralist or selector his employer should not be allowed to deduct the amount from the wages due. That will be a hardship on the employee. Those of us who havo been over Queensland know that there are many men in Queensland looking for 0mployment, and sometimes they have not a "bob " in their pockets, and they are very thankful if a pastoralist or farmer will trust them with certain goods, such as tobacco, m<ttches, and other small articles. and are quite willing to work and earn sufficient to liquidate the <lebt. But the employer is debarred under this Bill from doing so, as he has no right to deduct from the wagPs due to an employee the cost of any goods supnlie-d. In the cities and towns any workman has an opportunity of going to the neare~t store and getting credit, but in the outlymg districts it is <tnother matter altogether. However, it is no use debating matters of this kind, because if the Minister '·""'' "No." that ·ettl0s it. a.s he has a, majoritv bPhind him.

Mr. GrLDAY: Do you believe in the truck sy,tem?

'\fr. GRA YSON: Not altogether, but I have known of many cases of men going to a 't;}~!Oil or selection with not a shilling in

their •pockets, and those men [7.30 p.m.] have been very glad to get a

few articles to carry them on until they can make a few pounds. I say that it is a decided a-dvantage to the em­ployee if his employer will trust him and supply him with those articles until he earns sufficient money to liquidate the debt that he incurs. I, for one, dPnv that all the friends of the workin!l' men a1;e sitting on the Ministerial side. We hear so much from members of the Ministerial side about their being the friends of the working cla••'l.

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear !

Mr. GRA YSON: I say there are as many genuine friends of the working class sitting on this side as there are on the Ministerial side. However, this Bi]] is principally a Committee Bill, and I think the Minister in hie " sweet reasonableness" will acce.pt several of the amendments which arc likely to be proposed.

Mr. BA YLEY (Pittsworth) : Like the hon. member for Cunningham, I am anxious to safcguar.cl the rights of the workers. (Go­vernment laughter.) I am quite sure that you, Mr. Sr,eaker, and the hon. gentlemen in this Chamber will appreciate and admire the absolute unanimitv that has bPen shown by the independent 'party in this regard. \V c a.ll &dmit that the wage-earner makes no fortune. He makes a comfortable living, and, perhaps, a little bit more.

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS: No, no! Since when?

Mr. BAYLEY: A man who enjoys health and strength in Queensland to-day, if he is

["lf r. Gra,yson.

industrious and willing to work, can make· a comfortable living and a little bit more; a good deal more in some cases. At the sam'l time, he cannot make a fortune. That being so, we on this side of the House, at all events, are only too pleased to safeguard the interests and the rights of the worker in all reasonable ways. I must admit that th~ Bill has some good features. We would naturally expect to find a number of good features in a Bill emanating from the party which professes to be the friend of the worker. But there arc a number of fea­ture' included in this Bill which, if carried into effect, I am quite sure, will cause the workers in great numbers to say, " Save us from our friends" ; because there are a number of clauses contained in this Bill which are not going to make the conditiom better for the wage-earner.

A GovERNiiiE:-iT MEi~IBER: \Vhich arc they'?

Mr. BA YLEY: I wili tell you. One is clause 19. \Vo find in that clause that it is impo•">ible for the employer to make any deductions on account of goods supplied to the worker. As far as city workers are concerned, that is all very well; but it is absolutely different so far as the far-out districts in the West and North are con­cerned. It is a well-known fact to anyone who understands the position and has been to these places, that on a largo number of the stations and grazing farms stores a,re kept, not for the purpose of making money, but to add to the convenience of the workers who live in those localiti0·. It crnnrti;nps cost J fm_~ rnoro n10ney to run th:-:t store t~1an t:le profit which accrue' from the running of it. (GovcrnmPnt dissPnt.)

Mr. CARTER : lOO per cent. profit.

Mr. BA YLEY: The little stores are there for the convenience of the work0rs a.t tho --: places. Kow. what will take place if this Bill becomes law as it stands at the present time, when a man tries to get work on a grazing farm or station? The station-owner or the grazing farmer will have several method' which he may adopt. In the fir·t placo. hn can refus<e to supply any man of whom he has any doubt. He can refu·,e to giYe an~; supplies' of provision'> or clothing to 8.ny n:an 1.vhorn he doe" not recognise a-- being hon<'''t and willing ancl able to pay. If iw doe.> that. ,,-hat will be the result? It .vill b~e a hardship on the man who is not well known. and a hardship for his wife and family; and it will probably result in a genera,] strike among the oth~r employees because that man was rcfus·cd credit. As an aHernativP, th<> €'mployf'r can give the, nlan his groceries, clothin,·, tobacco, a.nd so on, perhaps for some weeks or months. He would receive his w-ages when wages fall due. ·

A GOVERNMENT MEMBER : Every week.

:\I r. BA YLEY: He would allow· his Bill to run on. The ;;;tation-o>;ner would re:·lon­strate. ant! ask him to pay up. He would ,.,ruse and say he has not got tlw money, and make other cxcus0 •. He woulcl be told that he would get no mom cr<'dit. \VhPt \Yould be the rNult? HP would complain among his mates. and they would have another stTik<>. It not onlY would make it fa.r n1oro a\vkward and inconvC'nient for tlw Ycorkl'rs and their wives and children, but it "·ould a1so lead to great trouble among the nwn. so far as strikes are concerned. Then. we find another clause in this Bill which pro,-idcs that no order attaching wages shall

Wages Bill. [26 JUNE.] Wages Bill.

be made unless the wages are over £2 per week ; or, if the wages amount to more than £2 per week, only such amount as exceeds £2 shall be liable to be attached. Now, does not this encourage dishonesty and lazi­ness? We know that most men are honest, but in many cases men would trade upon that, run up large accounts and refuse to pay, knowing they could not be made to pay, as their wages would not be garnishccd, and no deduction could be made in that regard. It is only encouraging dishonesty among the employees. Then, we come to anothPr clauH~ which states that the emplover shall be liable if the contractor fails to p·ay the men their wages.

GovERNMENT MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Mr. BA YLEY: Do you think that is a

good thing? Mr. CARTER: Very neCD'·sary. There are a

lot of dummy contractors.

Mr. BA YLEY: I don't think it is at all necessary. In the first place it would mean that when a man wishes to make a contract he would only engage a contractor who is wealthy, a contractor who he knows will be in a position to pay his men.

Mr. CARTER : Hear, hear !

Mr. BA YLEY: We find the hon. member for Port Curti·· saying '' Hear, hear!" and yet he professes to be a democrat. Is he not anxious to see the poor man have a chance? Is he not desirous of seeing the men of small capital having an opportunity of getting work and doing something for themselves? \Ve 0!" this side are. ~-e are not standing for the nch, the wealthy contractor; we a.re standing up for the small man, the man who is willing and able to work, b_ut who, perhaps, has not a great deal of cap1bl. For this reason we oppose this particular portion of the Bill. Then, again, w<:- will find there are many working men who wish to build their cottage homes. How much does such a man know of l":w, and would not he. in his ignorance, in nme cases out of ten, pay the contractor what is due on account of that contract as the pay­ments fall due and are claimed? 'vVe would find that it would not be the wealthy men who would be penalised in this regard, be­cause they, as a rule, build large buildings and employ architects who know the law and who safeguard their interests in every pa,rticular. The men who will suffer as the result of this provision will be the workino­men, the men of small m0ans who wish t~ build a little cottage or a little shop, who do not engage an architect, and who, not having a knowledge of law, would lose in nine cases out of ten. For the sake of the poor man who has not got the facilities which are posses,ed by the wealthy man, we ~re absolutely against this clause. I do not mtend to keep the House much longer­(Government l\iembers: Hear, hear ! and laughter)-becausc the matter has been well thrashed out, and although so much infor­mation has been given bv members on this side, a great number of members on the other side appc:tr to be as ignorant as ever in regard to the Bill. judging by the inter­jections made by hon. members opposite. \Vhy should the employees of contractors have preferential treatment in this regard?

Mr. CARTER : Because they earn it.

Mr. BA YLEY: If men are working for farmers, merchants, or storekeepers they are not p_rotected in this way, so why should prefercntml treatment be meted out to men

1918-2 M

working for contractors? I say it is abso­lutely unnecessary and unfair, and to this provision of the Bill I am absolutely opposed.

Mr. GILDAY (Ithaca): It would appear to me that there are ll, number of members opposite who do not under­stand the Bill. The hon. member who has just resumed his se.at put up a very strong argument against the protection that i-; in the Bill again't subcontractors. I think that is one of the features of the Bill that should be looked upon as one of the best, because in the past a number of people who required certain work done let it to sub­contractors, with the result that in many cases they overpaid for the amount of work that was really done, and the result was that the subcontractor got a way, and the men were the sufferers. Under this Bill the worker is protectoo against an individu~l of that kind. I think hon. members opposite­if thev pose to be the friends of the working man, 'as they stated here to-night-should welcom<' some provision of that kind. \V e. also found the hon. member for Cunningham making a great argument on behalf of the­small farmer and the small grazier. If he· read the Bill at all he could see-or even if' he listened to the Acting Premier dealing with the Bill, he would notice that on~­clause of the Bill allows them to pav bv cheque, providoo the employee underst!l':'ds. that before he accepts work. That proviSIOn in the Bill will, I think, meet the case of' the small farmer mentionoo by the hon. member for Cunningham.

Mr. GRAYSON: It will not,

Mr. GILDAY: Of course it will. It only goes to show that the hon. member do0s not understand the Bill, and I wondN that some of those on the opposit0 benches who do understand the Bill did not get up and give a proper definition to their colleagues, or Pven when they are dealing with it in caucus thny should have explained the conditions of the Bill so that they should be in a position to deal with it when it comes before the House.

A gre-at deal has been said with regard to the truck business, and the hon. member for Pittsworth deprecatoo the idea that a man should not have an opportunity of having a certain amount of money deducted from his wages on behalf of goods supplied. I happen to know a good deal about the truck system in Queensland, and I want to tell hon. gentlemen opposite that it has been a blessing in a sense, because it made the work<>rs of Queensland organise. At that particular period they could not get justice from the then Government, which had been in power for many years past. It was through their lack of administration, because there was at times certain legislation put on the statute­book, and if there had been proper adminis­tration there is no ·doubt there would have been some protection afforded by that legis­lation. But the Government was unsympa­thetic in their administration, and uhe result was that the emplovces ha.d to organise. and they knocked out the truck system in many cases. But, unfortunately, the truck system is operating at the presPnt time, more par­ticularly where unorganised labour exists. In and around Rockhampton, no later than 1906, we found there one of the most up-to­date Ame·rican systems of truck that was ever in Queensland. That was a place where men had to work for a small wag<', and they had to buy all their commodities-all their necessaries of life and other materials they required-from the one company with

Mr. Gilday.]

51G TVages Bill. [ASSEMBLY.]

which they worked, and the result was that in many cases at the end of the week the men actually had no monev whatsoever to draw. We can bring ourselves nearer to

· Brisbane, because there was a company work­ing here under the same category as the one in Rockhampton, and I consider a measure of this kind should be accepted by anyone who has a tendency to extend a helping hand to those who are not able to help themselves in that direction.

Mr. CARTER: What happened to the truck­ing system in Rockhampton?

Mr. •GILDAY: It was completely knocked out owing to the fact that the unionists in that district took control of their own affairs in such a way that they were able to be free to buy whore they liked, and to receive the full amount of their wages at the end of the week. I think those arguments are .quite sufficient to justify a Bill of this nature, and I am quite satisfied when it becomes law, and I hope it will become law, we will find it one of the best pieces of legislation .an our statute-book.

Question-That the Bill be now read a second time--put and pa*sed.

CO:IiMITTEE

The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I call upon the hon. member for Mundingburra (Mr. Foley) to take the chair.

Mr. FOLEY thereupon took the chair. Clauses 1 and 2 put and passed. On clause 3-" /'JJilerpretation "-

Mr. VOWLES moved that the following words in lines 31 to 35 be omitted:-

" For the purposes of Part III., the term includes any master, manager, fore­man, agent, clerk, or other person en­gage~ in the hiring, emJ?loyment, or supermtendence of the servwe, work, or labour of any worker."

l'nder the definition of "employer," if this clause passed as it otcod, then under Part

· III.-whic-h was thD penal portion of the Bill-a man would be liable for any breach, yoJuntarv or otherwise, committed by any person i'n his employ. They would _be in the position that a mast<•r woul<~ be Imme­diatelv responsible for the actiOn of his gange1· or any person in a respons~ble posi­tion who made a. breach of that kmd. He did not think that was ever contemplated, or that it should be so. Under the Masters and Servants Act the manager could make his principal resp<!n~ible, and the workmen could have the pnvilege of gomg over the hc,ad of the manager and suing the principal. In that ca.se the principal would be respon­sible for thD actions of any agent or any 1 "'rson subordinate to him. He thought the definition went too for.

Mr. BRENN~'\.N pointed ;mt that _tl_Ic old Act made practically a similar provision m

·the definition of "emrloycr.''

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC WORKS: He did not think it VI as necessary to omit the paragraph as suggested ):>Y the hon. mem­ber for Dalby. The retentwn of the words was necessary to give a proper meaning to the definition of " employer." If they deleted those wo!"ds the Bill would be faulty. There

' were certain duties whwh might be exercised b;r the agents, or overseer, or superin~enden~, and if the employer coulu shnk his

[Mr. G1:lday.

responsibility and put his liability on to the shoulders of an agent or overseer then it would defeat the object of the BilL The paragraph referred to dealt particularly with Part III., and in clause 20 it was provided that no employer by himself or his agents should impose any condition as to the man­ner in .,~:hich any wages were to be expended. If an a15cnt act<xl for an employer, then he would be liablP, as he would be accounted as the employer. It was a necessary pro­vision, and. tlw amcnclment would weaken it.

Mr. CORSER supported the amendment. He thought the definition was too broad, as it included a clerk who cou:d only act as agent, and " agent" was already provided for.

'l'he SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC \VORKS: It says " clerk or other person engaged in the tiring."

11r. CORSER: \Y>:>ll, if he wore another person, he would not be the clerk, and if h" were the a15cnt, he would not be the clerk. Considering the enormous penalties attached to the provision, it was too drastic. It might cYOn cover a hJly clerk or ganger. It might cover the ganger in charge of the muster at Mount Hutton.

Mr. PAYNE: There is nothing wrong with the definition at alL

HoN. \V. H. BARKES: He noticed tha Minister consulting with the Parliamentary llraftsman, and thought perhaps he might give the Committee the benefit of any further information he might have on the question.

The SECRETARY FOR FCBLIC WORKS: He had alreadv nointed out that the defini­tion '''H$ nec0:::.sary to cover the specific clauses in Part III. If an employer could shirk his responsibility and liability by ap­pointing an agent to act for him, it would destrov the effect of the BilL It was neces­sarv to have an agent included as an em­plo~'er, because, if an agent acted i:r; that l>osition and knew he was making an illegal contract, then he would have to suffer the penalty.

}1r. VoWLES : What a bout the clerk?

The BECRETARY FOR PDBLIC WORKS: Be might be a clerk of work~.

Mr. VoWLES: Then he would be an agent, and "agent" i3 already provided for.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: It was necessary to have the definition made as broad as possible so that an employer could not shirk his responsibility by appoint­ing an agent. The person who acted in that position must take full responsibility.

Mr. MooRE: Will the agent represent the employer in clause 40?

The SECRE'l'ARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The definition under discussion applied only tn Part III., while clause 40 was in Part IV., and the .agent was specificaliy ,dealt with in Part IV. It was quite cleai· that the defini­tion should stand,

HoN. W. H. BARNES thought that the word " cl•'rk" should be omitted from the definition.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The amendment is to P'l{cise the whole lot.

HoN. \V. H. BARNRS thought that if the Minister agret'L1 to delete the word " derk"

Wages Bill. [2G Jmm.] Wages Bilt. 547

there might be a disposition on the part of the mov(•r of the arnPndmcnt to withdraw it.

Mr. VOWLES: With the permission of the Committee he would withdraw his amend­ment with a view to substituting another in its place.

Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.

Mr. VOWLES moved the omission, on line 33, of the word " clerk."

Amendment agreed to.

:Mr. VOWLES moved, in the definition of " wages," on line 2, page 3, after the word "done," the insertion of the words "by a worker." That was an amendment asked for by the Upper House.

The 'l'REASl:RER: Work is necessarilv done by a worker. It would not be don~ by a capitalist. (Laughter.) That seems to be a distinct improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. VOWLES: The definition of '' worker," on th<J same page, read-

" Any person, male or female, whether under or not under the age of twenty­one years, in any manner engaged or employed in work of any kind, or in manual labour."

He always thought manual labour. was work. Why should they use the words " manual labour"?

The TREAScRER: Manual labour may not be work; it may be slavery. (Laughter.)

Mr. VOWLES: He did not know why they should include words in a definition v:hich were unnecessary and might cause difficulties to arise.

The TREASURER : If the hon. member will move· the omission of those words, and put in the word " whatsoever," I will agree to it.

Mr. VOWLES moved the deletion, on line 10, of the words " or in manual labour" with a view of substituting the word " what­soever."

Amendm£Cnt agreed to.

Mr. VOWLES moved, after the word "whatsoever," which had jul>t• been in­serted, the insertion of the words " subject to the direction or control of an employer." This was another of th<: amendments asked for by the Upper House. There was already a special definition of " employer" in the dause, and he thought thev should connect the word " worker" with. it in the same clause.

Mr. BRENKAN: Could the point of having to prove the authority of the agent to engage a man to do the work not be raised?

Mr. VOWLES: You have to prove unthority in any case.

Tho SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS' He did not think it would be desirable to .uecept the amendment. It would have the effect of limiting· the meaning of the term, and operate too restrictively, and to that extent might limit the usefulness of the mea­sure. He took it that nobody desired to exclude from the benefits of the measure any class of workers-whether working for em­ployers or contractors-but, if the amend­ment were carried, it might have the effect of excluding somebody who actually was a 1vorker.

Mr. VowLES: " Employer" is defined.

Tho SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The hon. member was seeking to provide that he must be subject to the direction and control of the employer. The worke.r might be employed by an employer, but not subject to his direction and control. He might be a pieceworker, or employed on work which benefited the employer, but, nevertheless, be subject to the direction and control of a con­trartor. In that case he would not come under the Bill.

Mr. VowLES: The definition we have already passed covers ''contractor."

Tho SECRETARY FOR PL:"BLIC WORKS: 'rhcrc \va-:. a scparat0 definition of "con­tractor," who was a person with separate and definit0 obligations. \'\'hat harm was there in leaving the df'finition as \Yidc as possible? It waR truo that a man might be a. worker. but not Pmp!oyed by an employer, and if so thP Bill dirl toot apnly to him, so thnt no harm was done. On the other hand, by h'~tVlltg out tne word::; the hon. metnb r pro­]JOsul. they v. n·e quite sure of not excluding anybody. He hoped the hon. member would no1· vre% th8 Uhlf'ndnwnt.

Amendment put and negatived; and clause put and passed.

Clauses 4 and. 5 put and passed. On clause 6-" .'l£oneys received by con­

tractor not to be attached, and to be applied in payrn ent of wages rlue "-

::\1r. VOWLES moved the insertion, after the word " workers," in line 44, page 3, of the words, "to the extent o.f such moneys remaining in his hands." The clause would then read-

" :Moneys due to or received by the contractor from the employer under or in respect of the work shall not be liable to be attached or charged, except by the workers as hereinafter mentioned, until all wages due or to accrue due to the workers have been fully paid and satis­fied; and the contractm· shall apply all such' moneys received by him in payment of the wages due and to accrue due to thP workers to the extent of such moneys rC'maining in his hands."

This was another vexed amendment of last session. It was pretty tho1·oughly thrashed out then, and the feeling of members of the Opposition and members of another Chamber was pretty clear.

Mr. SMITH: Did you hold a joint caucus?

Mr. VOWLES : They did not hold caucuses-thev left that to the other side. (Laughter.) So far as g-entlemen in another place wen' concerned. he had not seen any of them in reference to it. This was one o£ the things on which a diffe.rence occurred, and they might just as well face it now and be done with it. To his mind, it was a desirable limitation, and would improve the clause .

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: He did not think the amendment would improve the clause in any way. They had considered it on more than one occasion when the Bill was being passed between this Ch~mbcr and anoth<>r place. The L<egis­lative Council inserted it twice. and he thought that, for full and sufficient reasons, the Assembly rejected it une.nimously last time, on the ground that it would practically Pnable contractors to .avoid any possible obli­gation, and so escape payment of workers

Hon. E. G. Theodore.]

548 Wages Bill. (ASSEMBLY.] Wages Bill.

under any claim for moneys due if they wished to do so, because they were only liable "to the extent of such moneys remain­ing in their hands." A contractor mh>;ht hand it over to his wife, or to somebody else, or otherwise dispose of it if he desired to act fmudulently to the workers. The con­tractor obviously was under an obligation to make due provision for the payment of the men engaged on his work, and therefore it was quite just that they should make even drastic provisions to secure to the workers what was due under the contract. If the con­tractor dealt carefully, he would not be left m an awkward position. He might have to let some of his creditors go, but the last he should let go were the men who did the work.

Mr. VoWLES: This refers to attachment. The SFAJRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:

The hon. member wanted to limit it to what might be left in his hands, but that might be a negligible quantity if the man wanted to escape his obligations.

Mr. MACARTNEY : The clause provides that all such moneys shall be applied in payment of wages. It compels all the money to be devoted to the payment of wages, whether they are due or not.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Onlv to the extent due--<t contractor could not "pay more than what was due, nor could the worker claim more. If they narrowed the clause so that the worker was only to be satisfied to the extent of moneys remaining in the contractor's hands, it might mean anything. He had no doubt that in most <'ases, if a. man desired to act fraudulentlv. the worker would be left lamenting. - ·

Mr. MACARTNEY: If you put in "to the extent of the wages due," it would be suffi­cient. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:

There was no objection to that if there was any doubt about it.

Mr. BRENNAN: He knew of a case where a merchant in Brisbane supplied cer­tain material to a contractor to the extent of about £80. The contractor was about to be paid by the owner of the building, when thP merchant in Brisbane garnisherd that £80 in the hands of the owner of the build­ing. There was £78 wages owing to the workers, and they got nothing. Under such circumstances the clause would protect the workers, but if thev put in "to the extent of such moneys" he >vould have nothing when the g".rnishee got in. The claus<J said the amount should not be paid to the merchant until the contractor had made provision for the wages. It postponed the merchant get­ting the amount from the contractor until the wages were paid.

Mr. MACART?-TEY: There was no objec­tion t,o that part of the clause which pre­vented the garnishee until all wages were paid. The objection which he understood the hon. member for Dalbv had raised was that the latter part of tlie paragraph was nonson"ical in its form. That was to say that it provided that "the contractor shall apply all such moneys received by him in payment of the wag<:>s due, and to accrue due, to the workers." That meant all monevs due or received by the contractor from the owner, which meant practically all the contract price.

The SECRF.TARY FOR Pl'BLIC WoRKS: All moneys received by him.

[Hon. E. G. Theodore.

Mr. MACARTNEY: That meant the· monev referred to in the early part of the clause.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS : Only those moneys received by him.

Mr. MACARTNEY: If a contractor arranged with an employer to build and the contraot price was £1,000, the plain English of the clause was that the whole £1,000 received by him would have to be offered in payment of wage', the clause going on to say, " and the contractor shall apply all such moneys received by him," which meant the whole £1,000 in payment of the wages due, &c.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: All such moneys received.

Mr. MACARTNEY: If the contract price was £1,000 at some period of the contract he would receive the £1,000, and the clause said he should apply the whole £1,000 in payment of wages.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS; A claim may be made half way through the contract and only half the amount would be received.

Mr. MACARTNEY: The plain English of it was that every penny received from the employer had to be paid by him to the wage-earners, which was manife-tly impos­sible.

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC WORKS: For the wages due.

Mr. MACARTNEY: It did not sav to the extent of the wages due. He must apply all such. moneys in that way. That, surely, was not mtended.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC \VORKS: If the hon. membe.r thinks it means what he says, we will make it perfectly clear by adding, after the word " him'' on line 43, the words ~'so far as mas be necessary."

Mr. VOWLES : As the Minister had agreed to the insertion of those words, he would withdraw his amendment with the· permission of the Committee.

Amendment withdrawn acc<Jrdingly.

Mr. VOWLES moved the insertion, after the word " him" on line 43, of the words "so far as may be necessary."

Amendment agreed to.

:Ylr. SIZER: This clause protected the workers, and he was wondering if it would protect subcontractors as well. He knew of many cases where' a small contractor had taken a contract to build a house and he subcontracted the plumbing, say, for £100, arc!, repeatedly, the plumber, after com­pleting his work, found that something had gone wrong, and ho probably did not v,et more than 25 per cont. of his money. He­was wondering whether, in such a case, he could claim protection under the Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: In cases where a subcontractor was engaged, he was protected by the Contractors and Workmen's Lien Act. He could get a lion on the work he did and enforce it ar;ain<t the owner of the property, and it did not matter whcth2r the contractor himself defaulted.

Mr. SIZER: He was quite aware of that, but in the caso; which he referred to the ;,ubcontractor did not suspect the contractor

Wages Bill. [26 JUNE.) Wages Bill. 549

.and did the work in good faith, expecting that at the end of the job he would

~~~n]~p~~ He~d=thle~p~ in a claim Ior a lien, because if

the contractor should be all right he would 'lose his business in the future, and he C~1r. Sizor) would like the Minister to see if he could not suggest some scheme whereby a subcontractor would be protected in cases like that.

The. SECRETARY FOR P"CBLIC WoRKS: How does the hon. member propose to put it in?

. Mr. BREN~AN: Section 13 of the Con· tractors and Workmen's Lien Act provided-

"An employer or contractor shall, and, notwith,tanding any legal obligation to the contrary, '!lay retain in his hands one-fourth part of the money payable under the contract to the contractor until the expiration of eight days after the completion of the work."

Mr. SIZER suggested making the employer reoponsible for thB payment of the sub­·contractor.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: If the hon. member will move an amendment on it, I will be able to see what can be done.

Mr. SIZER: He only threw it out to see if the Minister would be inclined to take an amendment on that point.

Mr. G. P. BAR~ES: It would be inter­esting to know what course the Government followed under the Workers' Dwellings Act. The great bulk of the work, at any rate in the country districts, was done by con­tract. Where there was contract work they also had subcontract work. Was the Govern­ment carefnl to see that not only the work­men but the subcontractors were paid?

Mr. PETERSON: Subcontractors sometimes are the workmen directly employed.

Mr. G. P. BARNES: Sometimes. but not always. He could assure the Committee that in many cases the greatest sufferers, in the ·event of a contractor going down, would be, not the actual workmen, but the subcon­tractors. Every business man knew that.

Mr. BEBBINGTO~ thought that very often subcontractors suffered. He under­stood that the usual course adopted under the Workers' Dwellings Act was that an order was taken out, signed either by the arehitect or the original owner, that he would not pay over to the contractor thR full amount until the subcontractors were paid.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I think the Workers' Dwellings Act provision is to see that subcontractors are paid before the final settling up.

Mr. BEBBING'l'ON believed that that was so. There was no law to protect them, so far as he knew. If some protection could be given in that clause possibly it would be better.

HoN. W. H. BARNES considered that the point which had been raised was a verv im­portant one. He had the impression' that the Minister had signified his willingness to accept an amendment.

The SECRETARY FOR P1;BLIC WORKS: I said that if I saw an amendment I could see if it were acceptable. In the vague form in which it has been discussed, I don't know what it means.

HoN. W. H. BARNES: There was need for some definite clause to protect subcon­tractors, because they all knew there were some who had gone down very badly. There was not a member of that Committee who did not know of such cases. There were many subcontractors who pinned their faith to a contractor who ·\'vas a man of straw. They found the material and the labour, and finally had gone down. He took it the object of that Bill was to protect the very weakG~t in the community. If they cc;uld protect that class of man they certamly ought to do so, because he was a small man. He would like to ask the Minister about subclause (2). He noticed in looking at the clall'·e that it seemed to be a clause put in by the draftsman, and in that case applied onl:y to Queensland. It did not seem to be copwd.

The SECRETARY FOR PrBLIC \VORKS: It is the same in the New Zealand Act. The con­tractor has to keep accounts and produce the same to the worker when demanded.

Ho)[. W. H. BARNES : Did not the Minister consider it was rather a drastic clause, which, probably, might operate very adversely as far as the contractor was concerned?

The SECRETARY FOR PlJBLIC WoRKS: I have no doubt contractors keep accounts of money received bv them. If the worker has a suspicion that the contractor, has not suffi­cient money to do the job, he can demand scrutiny.

HoN. W. H. BARNES: Could not the Minister see that it might be made an instrument of very great hardship so far as the contractor was concerned?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I don't think that is possible.

Ho)il. W. H. BAR~ES: He supposed it would be admitted there were workers and workers-some who were particularly scrupu­lous and careful, and others who would cause no end of trouble. He would like to have an assurance from the Minister that he was satisfied no hardship would be caused.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I am satisfied there will ~ no hardship on the contractors in this case.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 7 to 17, both inclusive, put and passed.

On clause 18. Mr. VOWLES said he had a new clao.se

to move after clause 17. which clause would he clause 18, if it were carried. He moved the insedion of the following:-

" 18. Where an employer, in satisfacr tion of his liability under this Act, pays "ages due to a worker of a contractor employed by such employer, for work performed by such contractor under a contract with such employer, then, in the event of such contractor becoming insolvent or compounding with his creditors, or being a company in respect of which proceedings for winding-up have been commenced, such payment shall be deemed to be and shall be treated as a preferential claim against the estate of such contractor in the same manner as if such wages were ·due to the worker."

This was simply to put an employer in the

Mr. Vowles.]

550 Wages Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Wages Bill.

same position as a worker would be who received his wages, so that in the event of the insolvency of the contractor, besides the worker having a preferential claim, the em­ployer would have a preferential claim against the eshte of the contractor. In the event of insolvency, a worker would have a preferential claim up to three months' wages, and the employer might be compelled to dis­gorge that money. This amendment was well thr:>shed cmt last year, and he was sur­prised that the Hon. the Minister did not re­member it. It was one of the amendments insisted on by the Upper House. The posi­tion was that the employer paid the wages of the men working for the contractor, and when the contractor went insolvent, what was the emplo.ver's position in regal'd to that pavment? The men had received their wages a.nd were protl·cted, but what was the posi­tion of th" employer of the contractor'!

The 8ECR1~TARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: After perusing the amendment, he remem­l)(red it was one which can1e fron1 tbe Legislative Cl>uncil. Jle did not know why it was not included in the Bill this year. It seemed to him it i.Vas u"-ing the· \V ages Bill afl a further protection for the employer. This Bill was for the purpo>e of protecting wages, and the emplo.\·er had a right against the estate of the insoh cnt contractor, which was enforcible at Jaw, and he had as good a claim "' ever he had.

Mr. VowLES: The •vorker would be a pre­ferential cre-ditor, so why should not the ernployer?

Tho SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC \YORKS: Yes. the worker would be a prefcrcnt;al creditor, and the hon member wanted to make the employer '' preferential creditor also. At any rate, he had no objection to the clau~;c b1.:-ing in_:cri:e'L

New dause put and passeci.

PART IlL-TRUCK.

On clause 18-" TVagr s to be· made payable in 7/LOncy"-

Mr. 2\IOORE said he had an amendment to move. on line 7, to insert after the worJ "~hall" tbe words " except as hereinafter provided ., Th8 '"lause read, '' In every con­tract ma-de wiLh any worker the vvage::: :-hall be rnade payable in n1one:'"T only anJ not c.therwi P." l-ie- thoubht that cuntlic;.cd with a clause furi her 011.

The SECRET\RY FOR l'UBLIC \VORKS: 1\o, it does not l'Ontiict further on. It reacls acl right as it IS now.

Mr. MOORE: He thought, to make it con­sistent, it 'houl.d •have the words " except as nereinafter prcwided" in·~erted. He moved aCcordingly.

The SI~CRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: 'rho words were 1ncre f-vrplnsage. It ''as an amendment mm·cd b,v the Lcgi_.]ativc Coun­cil, and not accepted by the Leg:slativfl .Assernbly last year, beeause it was considered to be unnecessary, There were other dcdtJc­tions allowed notwithstanding this clause. If thev looked at clduse 29, thev wou:d ~cc it stat;t,cJ out by ,aying, ";\lathing in thi,, part shall be construed to invalidate or pre­judice the following contracts or transac­tions." To that extem it was limited in its operation, and if this clause was limited by other clauses there was no neces-ity to insert the words the hon. member had suggested

[Mr. Vowle.s.

The hon. member wa' only attempting to provide for the exemptions in clause 29, and they were providc·d for notwithstanding that these words were not in.

Amendment negatived; and clause 18 put and passed.

Clauses 19 an·d 20 put and passed.

HoN. W. H. B.ARNES moved the deletion of clause 21, which read as follows :-

" In any action brought or commenced by any worker against his employer for the recovery of any sum of money due to such worker as his wages, the de­fendant shall not be allowed to make any set-off or counter clairr., nor to claim any reduction of the plaintiff's demand, bv reason or in respect of any goods had o~ received by the plaintiff as or on account of his wages."

The clause seemed to be a manifestly unfair one, and the Opposition should vote ':gainst it. Wh-; should not a counter claim b~ allowed for goods supplied to a worker if. on examination it was found to be a JUSt claim? The clause should not be in the Bill at all. It was onlv right and equitable that an employer should be allowed to put in a counter claim as a set-off against a claim for wages if he supplied a certain amount of goods to the worker. There was no justice or equity in the clause.

Mr. PAYNE (Mitchell): He did not think it was any hardship on any e':'ployer w_ho supplied good, to a ma':' workmg for htm to prevent him from settmg off fhe pnce of those goods against the man's wages. The man buvincr the goods ~hould be treated the ~amc ns' an~7 ordinary customer. As a matter of fart, a man working for an employer w_ho sold goods would be more likely to po.y h1m than an outsider. The ccause would not affect the honest man at all, and there was no need for th0 honest straightgoer to fear tbat he would be haraBsed in any way at all. Thrre were crrta in men in the com­munitv who did not play the game f~irly­who did not pay their way-.and the Btll was framed ro deal with men hke that. There ,,-a no logic in the argnmcnt of the hon. mcmlwr fo.r Bulimba at all. Sqppose he (Mr. Payne) wa-; working for the hon. gen.tleman nPd h'lug:ht h If a ton of chaff from h' n, thf' hnn. "rnt~rman would have no right to take the cost nf that chaff out of his wages, but· he should reallv treat him the nm<; as any ordinarv customer. He heard the argument that th~ etores were kept on the station for the c'onvcnienre of men working there. That argument would have held goo-d thirty years ag·o. bnt not now, because the mail passed the station every week, and the mr:n could p:et their toharco and other, ncrescariCs froJ? the town. The shearers d1d not get then· supplies from the station unlres thev could geL them as cheaply as they got them from the town. All the old ideas wer" now pass­ing aw<tv and the Bill was not p:oing to affect th0 'owners of the stations in the West at all. He admitted that it would have be~m an inconvenience for the station-owners m the vVret to ha\'C to pay all wages in cash instead of by e'heque, but the Bill di·d not provide for that at all. The hon. member for Cunning-ham mid the farmer generalfy paid his wages ];Y ch~nue, and he could still do so under tne Bill. If there wa~ an honourable understanding between the em­plover and the emp!ovee that payment should be made by cheque, the thing was.

Wages Bill. (26 JUNE.) Wages BiU. 551

settled. If a man did not want to be paid by cheque, he need not be put on to work. The honest man had nothing to fear from the Bill at all.

Mr. BEBBINGTON thought the proposal from the hon. member for Bulirnba was a r~asonable one. It was only right that a mar: should be able to set off goods supplied agamst wages due. When a farmer went to the Bankru,ptcy Court his account with the storekeeper was put in as a set-off against the estate. ·

Mr. GLEDSON: H<i only got the same per­centage as anyone else.

Mr. BEBBINGTON : He thought the clause should be struck out altogether.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: He was afraid that hon. members had not grasped the meaning of the cl a use. It pro­vided that where a worker commenced an action for the recovery of wages there must be a default in the first place on the part

of the employer or there would [9 p.rn.~ be no action. If such action

were tak<Jn, the employer could not put in a claim for goods supplied as a set-off against the wages. The Bill provided specifically that goods should not be sup­plied in place of wages. If they allowed that then it would nullifv the effect of the Bill altogether. If an 'employer supplied goods to an employee he had a remedy against him, but he had no claim for the goods on account of wages. He must treat his employee just the same as he woulu treat an ordinary customer buying his goods, but ho had no standing if he wished to sue for the goods as a set-off against wages due. If an employer who was a storekeeper sup­plied goods to a worker, as a customer, but not on account of wages, he stood in relation to that worker the same as he stood to any other cu;tomer.

Hon. W. H. BARNES : I recognise that; bu~ it will prevent the worker in that capacity from getting goods from a storekeeper.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS did not think it would work out in that way. He thought the clause was necessary to render effective the prohibition of the truck system.

Mr. CORSER pointed out that the worker might be going to a countrv district with his family, and the employer· would have to find whatever was necessary for them.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: That is only a week's credit, because he can pay him back at the end of the week.

Mr. CORSER: The worker would probably have half a dozen more who would want to get money from him, and one of the biggest offenders would probably be the Government themselves.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The em­ployer can say, " There will be no further employment until you settle that account."

Mr. CORSER: No, not at all. In the first place, the employer was responsible to the Government for the payment of the man's railway fare, and the Government could corr.e on the employer for the railway fare, so that the wages were practically garnisheed.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: It is only half-fare.

Mr. CORSER: Never mind, the principle was there, and they were going to seize that man's wages; but they were not going to ·

allow the same principle to exist in conneo­tion with goods supplied by the employer. They made the employer responsible for the wages at the other end, and he might find them food, or blankets, if they required them, but the clause took away from the employer the protection which the Govern­ment claimed for themselves. The amend­ment merely provided that the employer who supplied food to a worker's family should have the sarr.e protection as the Government had when supplying the railway fare.

Mr. POLLOCK: Does the employer pay that fare?

Mr. CORSER : He had to pay it to the Labour Bureau, and the principle was that it was deducted from the man's wages. Yet they denied the same right to the employer.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WoRKS: No, we are giving the employer the right for any money he himself advances to the worker for fares, apart altogether from the Govern­ment agency.

Mr. CORSER: The Minister must admit that they are carrying out the principle of securing for themselves the railway fare of workers who left here, but when it came ta the employers supplying food the principle was no good, and they cut it out. They did not give the same protection to the em­ployer, who would be as honc"'t to the worker as the Government would be.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The hon. merr.ber for Burnett must :be labouring under a serious delusion. There was no discrimination in favour of the Crown in rega1'd to railway fares advanced, as corn­pared with a private employer. If a private employer advanced the money, quite apart from the Government Labour Bureau, for steamer or train fares, he could dPduct the money out of the wages. And even in regard to food he could make certain deductions, because clause 29 provided-

" Where such employer supplies, or contracts to supply, to any worker any victuals dresse-d or prepared on or about the premises of the employer, and there consumed by ~uch worker."

Those might be deducted, but ordinary truck conditions would not apply, and that was the whole essence of this clause. If they were going to allow goods to be supplied to a worker as on account of wages they might as well strike out Part III. If the" did that, it would open the way to a pernicious system of truck, which they were att<'mpting to legis1ate against. The clause rr.ight, in some remote circumstances, bring about a slight inconv<'nience. Hon. rnernbNs spoke about married men going to a distant place to work, and who, being penniless, might have to depend upon the employer givin(\' them a week's provisions. That happened every week in every district in Queensland, and if th<> ernplover thought that the man was a bad mark: he mig>ht pay him his wages and stipulate that before he continued his em­ployment he must pay for his food. If men took their families with therr., the-;- could not "s<·ale" or go away or ignore their obliga­tions in that wav. As far as a sing-le man was concerned, in most cases the employment was with keep, which was provi-ded for in the Bill.

Mr. CoRSER : After the first week he has to pay the railway fare to the Labour Bureau. I gave you an instance.

Hon. E. G. Theodore.]

552 Wages Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Wages Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: In such a case as that they might have been engaged six or twelve months, and the deduc­tion for railway fare did not come out of the first week or fortnight's pay. There was ample protection afforded to the employer, and he would not suffer loss in one case out of a thousand. The Bill would consider­ably improve the state of affairs existing in Queensland.

Mr. VOWLES said he would like the Min­ister to consider this phase of the question. Under the clause it was provided that the defendant would not be allowed to make any set-off or counter claim for goods supplied to the worker. "not to claim any reduction of the pl<>intiff's demand, bv reason or in respect of any goods had oi· received by the plaintiff as or on account of his wages." That was plain enough. HP did not know how one could counterclaim in an action of that sort in the police court; but in clause 29, to whic-h the Minister referred, it was clear!:;· provided that-

" Nothing in this part shall be con­strued to invalidate or prejudice the fol­lowing contracts or transactions."

That clause validated the contracts and transactions set out in the clause. But, read­ing that clause in conjunction with the c!ause under discussion, it was obvious that it was proposed to legitimise matters which the €mployer was precluded from setting up as a counter claim.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS-: I do not see that at all.

Mr. VOWLES: There is no other way of reading it.

Mr. BRENNAN: Suppose the employer held back wages as a set-off against goods supplied by him?

Mr. VOWLES: The position would be reversed then. The employee would have to proceed against the employer for withhold­ing something to which he was entitled.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Look at the first words in clauw 29.

Mr. VOWLES : When those words were read into clause 21, it meant that there should be no set-off against wages for goods supplied. It would be just as well if the matter W€re cleared up.

Mr. GLEDSON: Subclause (2) of clause 29 will prevent an employer from making a deduction.

Mr. VOWLES: Seeing they were looking so far ahead, the subclause referred to by the hon. member specified a number of things which were referred to as legitimate deductions, hut they did not include such nec<'e,ary things as tobacco and clothing, which were referrpd to in an earlier part of the clause as articles that might be supplied by an employer. He did not know why those particular things were omitted.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Th0 employer can make a deduction from the wages of an employee for the things set out in suhclanse (2) of clause 29.

Mr. VOWLES: Supposing he does not deduct them?

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC WORKS: That is his orn fault.

Mr. VOWLES: It frequently happened that an employer advanced a man his wages and allowed his account to run. Then, if the man decided to get out when he owed a

[Hon. E. G. Theodore.

considerable sum, although a, deduction from his. wages would have been perfectly lawful, the employer would be precluded from suing him for the goods supplied or from making a set-off, so that he would have no remedy against the man.

Clause 21 put and passed. Clauses 22, 23, and 24 put and passed. On clause 25-" Payment of wages may be

made by cheque"-Mr. 1\lOORE moved the omission, on linea

32 to 35, of the words-" Queensland, either generally or with any particular persons or class of persons only, if the employer has _notified to the worker prior to or at the tune of employ­ment,"

with a view to inserting the words-" the Commonwealth of Austrulia if."

That would enable payment to be made by cheque drawn on a bank in the Common­wealth instead of restricting it to a cheque drawn' on a bank in Queensland. There would be a great deal of trouble if payment was restricted to cheques drawn on Queens­land banks and it would appear from cluuse 26 as if it had not been intended to insist on that restriction, because that clause read-

" When any wages are paid to any worker by any cheque, draft, or order in writing upon any bank or person out of Queensland, exchange shall be added to the amount of such wages."

Mr. PAYNE: That is the rule now. If I pay a cheque in Longreach which is drawn on a bank in Brisbane, exchange must be added.

Mr. MOORE : Clause 25 only made pr?­vision for cheques being drawn on a bank m Queensland, but clause 26 went further, a;nd spoke of cheques drawn on a bank outs1de Queensland. Troable might also occur through t.he agent who employed a m~n not notifying him that the employer was m the habit of paying by cheque. If a_ man se~t down from \V est Queensland to hu;. agent m Brisbane, telling the agent to notify the man he engaged that he paid by c_heque, and the man said that he was not nohfied. there was going to be endless trouble, and the employ~r would have to bring up tbe agent f•·om Ens­bane to prove that he was told. If it was the usual svstem that a man paid by cheque, as it was 'in most cases, and trouble occurred, that fact could be easily proved, surely. What was the use of having disputes as to whether the employer or his agent told the man beforf'hand?

The SFrRETARY FOR P11BI-Ir WoRKS: It is too late when the inconvenience is cau'ed t<> the \vorkcr.

Mr. :\100RE: But inconvenience would not be caused to the worker. The question would onlv arise in the case of disputes. Thev kne,\· that in many cases in \Vestern Queensland they caul d not pay excr·pt by chcquf•.

The SECRETARY FOR P11BLIC' WoRKR: We know that there arp many men in Western Queensland and other parts of Qu0ensland from whom they would not take a cheque.

Mr. MOORE: Was the rlame going to altP!' that fact? Thev would have to have a list in Brisbane of th.ose men who were men of straw.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WoRKS: They know them, all right.

Wages Bill. (26 JUNE.] Wages Bill. 553

M~. MOORE: It would save a lot of trouble if the Minister would accept the amendment.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: He could not accept the am<mdment. The ·clause was all right as it >Jtood at pre,ent. He would remind the hon. member that there was no legal right on the part of an employer to. pay by cheque if the worker . dem~n1ed his money in cash, but they were modifymg the present law by validatino- a contract to pay. by cheque, so long as "the worker was notified at the time of engage­ment that It was th<; usual .n:ode of payment. That was a v_ery fair proVIsiOn. It gave the workc':. the nght to refuse a cheque from a. 1uan or straw, or a ma.n whose financial bona fides he had reason to doubt. Whv should a w~rker b? put to endless inconvenience by bemg paid worthless cheques, even though he could recover the amount and get ·damages?

Hon. W. H. BAR"ES: There is nothing to prevent his refusing now?

!'he SEc_RETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: No, but If the amendment were carried a man might find himself due for three months' wages and be tendered a cheque by a man whose financial bona fides he had reason to ?m!bt; and he would have no right to refuse It If It could be shown that it was the usual mode of payment. If he was notified before­hand that it was the usual mode of payment ihe'?- he had to put up with the incon: vemf'nce, although, of course, he would not ·lose oth81:wi.se. No difficulty would arise .a.bout n?tifymg the person employing. The pasto~ahst .would engage through an agent here m J?nsbane. If the man was signing up, a prmted memorandum was handed to him intimating that the usual mode of pay­ment was .b:r cheque. If he was engaged on the spot, It would be posted up.

Mr. GUNN: Will that be accepted? The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WO.RKS:

•Of course, so long as he was notified.

Mr .. GVNN: Take the case of a place like Mungmdi, near where he lived. The bank was on the New South Wales side of the border. and the emplovees on the stations there were paid by cheqaes on it. The con­sequence if the cl a use were carried would be that people would not be able to pay by ehcque on that bank, because it was not in Queensland.

Mr. PAYNE: What is the next nearest bank?

Mr. GUNN: That would be at St George 80 miles away. There were lots ·of larg~ places· and small places around there, and they would have to have money stored up, so t~nt they WAre only encouraging bush­rangmg. (Laughter.) If it was right that a cheque could be drawn on a bank in QueC'nsland, it was also right that it should he drawn on a bank just over the border. He was ll'l,ad to hear the Minister say that he thou!'ht It would be sufficient notifkation if a notice was posted up saying, " The mode of paymc.nt on this place is by cheque." He -thought 1t would be more satisfactory than leaving it to the word of the overseer or somebody else, because it would provide at once a certain amount of proof.

:\oir. BRENNAN: Members on the other sid!' knew that at present a cheque was not legal tender in any part of the Common­WC'alth. Commonwealth bank notes or gold

were legal tender-they saw no gold now­and the fact that the Acting Premier was meeting the convenience of employers by introducmg a system whereby they could legally pay by cheque ought to be sufficient for the Opposition. It might have been the custom before, but now it was going to be a legal method of payment.

Amendment put and negatived . Mr. G. P. BARNES: The Minister might

explain what the real object was of subclause (a) to the effect that no chrque should be crossed. He must know that cheques were usually crossed in the interests of the work­man.

The SECRETARY FOR PL'BLIC '\VORKS : This is strictly in the interests of temperance, be­cause if a cheque is crossed it is not likely that a public house will cash it. (Laughter.)

Mr. G. P. BARNES: That argument fully appealed to him, but at the same time the ordinary thoughtful worker would prefer that the cheque should be crossed, for the simple reason that it was very much more ea,,ily traced than otherwise. The rule right through now was that for the protection of the individual receiving a cheque it should he crossed. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:

'I'he reason wh.v the clause was put in was to • prevent any difficulty in getting a cheque cashed.

Mr. G. P. BARNES! It only means that the cheque must be paid into a. bank. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIG WORKS:

Take a place where 100 men might be paid on an average £10 ear:h, which would mean

£1,000. No o!'dinary grocer [9.30 p.m.:; would accept such a num.be~ of

cheques and have them paid mto his account, l·ut an hotelkeeper might find it convenient to do so for the sake of his trade. The hon. member might think that was a far-fetched idea, but such a thing had occurred in many miHing towns.

Mr. G. P. BARNES: There was no com­pulsion to have a cheque cashed if it was crossed. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS:

'l'he hon. member would see that there was greater facility in getting a cheque cashed when it was not cro~sed. while there might be great inconvenience when it was crossed. A workman could croso the cheque himself, if he thought it necessary for greater safety.

Mr. G. P. BARNES: The mere crossing of a cheque di·d not mean that the workman rr.ust at once have·it cashed. On the other hand, the workman was protected if it wa•. crossed. because the cheque could he traced.

Mr. BRENNAN: Supposing there wer•' 500 men who were paid cheques of £10 each. and th~re was onlv one bank in the place. The bank manager might re'use to cash them, and would say they must go through an account.

Mr. POLLOCK: The principle of crossing cheques, particularly in country distrids, was very bad. In places such as Selwyn, in North Queensland, there were 500 men and up to 700 men working at the smelters, and very often the cheques were crossed, and as there was no bank in the town the men had !o go to the local holelkeepers or the store­keepers to get them cabhed.

Mr. GuNN: Why don't they demand cash! That is the law now.

Mr. Pollook.]

ii54 Wages Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Wages Bill.

Mr. POLLOCK: Although it hacl always been the law, as there was no bank there, they had found it Yery inconvenient. In \Yestern and Northern Queensland it was practically compulsory for a man who brought in a crossed cheque to take it to the hotelkceper or tha storekeeper to get it cashed.

Mr. G. P. BARNES: If there is no bank there, how much further advanced are they?

Mr. POLLOCK: That di·d not alter the fact that the crossing of the cheque neces­sitated its being paid into a banking account, and. thereforP, instead of going to some ordinary person who might be able to cash it for them, they must go to some well­known per~on, and in nearly ev0ry case they went to the hotelkeeper or storekeeper.

Mr. BRBNNAN: He would point out that if an unscrupulous hotelkeeper took a cheque at a place where there was no bank he might tell the customer that he had not enough change, but would get the change as soon as possible. and by the time that draft came up there would be very little left.

Mr. CARTER: He could not sec much value in having a cheque crossed if any businc" s man would take it, and they knew it was a very C'Olnmon thing for businep~, 1nen to take crossed eh<>ques. If there was no bank in the nearest town, they would have to pass the crossed cheques over to one of the business pc;uple, whether it was the hotel­keeper or the <:torekecper, and they would have to buy something to do that, so that the mere crosQing would be of very little Yalue. The next thing to crossing would be to make it payable to "order," so that the r.erson ·.vould have to sign it and then, of course, there would be no evidence that the person who signed it was the person who originally received it. He knew that when hG was sendhg a cheque any distance he always croS'ed it. not only to safeguard him­self, but al,:o to protect the pcr,on who received it. but it diJ not appear to be any oafeguard according to the arguments of hon. members on the other side. Suppose a man lost a cheque and someone picked it up, and paid it to a business man, what did it matter whether it was a crossed cheque or an onen cheque? A bu·,iness man did not ncce·,'larily ]mow ev<)rybody in the place. Then, take the case of a shearing-shed where forty men were paid off. and they all came into the town on Saturday afternoon when the bank wa·'· closed. The whole of the eheques would be cashed at the hotel or with the storclweper. The business people did not know thnt thcv wne the people who origin­ally received the cheques, but they took them in good faith. It was wise to say that cheques should not be ero~Bed, because if business people de,ired it they could put the workero to all kinds of trouble.

Mr. GUNN: He had had a good deal of expericnc0 amongst grazing farin('rs, and they had always paid their men with open cheques. They ncYer crossed them, as it was more convenient for the men to get open cheques, as they couJ.d get them cashed more readily than when they were crossed. On the other hand. he understood that mer­chants generally crossed their cheques, so that it was very difficult to frame a clause to meet all cases.

Clause put and passed.

[Mr. Polloclc.

On clause 26-" Discou~; on order to be added to amo·unt of wages -

Mr. MOORE wished to delete the whole of the clause, I>S he could not see that there was any sense in it.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: You have made a good sug!!estion at last.

Clause put and negatived. Clauses 27 and 28 put and passed. On clause 29-" This part not to apply in

cDrtain cases"-Mr. CORSER moved the omisRion, on lines

37 and 38, of the words " to fell scrub or to clear land of scrub, ,uckers, prickly-pear, or other noxious weeds."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. POLLOCK moved to insert on line 3, page 9 after the word "prepared," the words " or for the purpose of being dressed or prepared." The object of the amendment, he said, was to meet the ca,,e of men who pr_?­vided their own food in shearing sheds m the \Vc·.,t. At the present time the Bill did not provide that they might be allowed to secure that food from the station-owner.

Mr. VOWLES: He had an amendment before that on line 2, to delete the words " and victuals dressed or prepared on or about the premises of the empl?,yer,_ and there consumed by such worker with a view to inserting the words " or whose family or de pen dents in foodstuffs."

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WoRKS : That is' too wide. You might as well delete the whole part.

l\Ir. POLLOCK: He bad an objection to !hP hon member movino- the deletion of any words a·fter the word " prepared " on line 3, because it would spoil the opportunity he would have of moving !\11 amendment. If tile whole of that subclause was deleted he would not have any opportunity of moving the amendment he desired.

Mr. VoWLES: You have a pretty good idea of whether or not it is going to be deleted.

The SECRETARY FOR PcBLIC WORKS : Even if it is not deleted he could not move his amendment': because we declare- for the standing of those words.

Mr POLLOCK: No matter whether the clause was deleted or left to stand, he would not have the right to move that amendment.

The SECR.ETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS suggested taking the amendment in two parts.

Mr. VOWLES : If the Minister stated that he was not prepared to accept the amend­ment, he would withdraw it.

The SECRE1'ARY FOR PcBLIC ·vr ORKS : I am afraid it would not be wise to consider it.

Mr. VOWLES: Then, he would withdraw it.

Mr. POLLOCK moved, on line 3, to insert after the word " prepared " the words "or for the purpose of being dressed or pre­Ilared." He was proceeding to remark, when the hon. member for Dalby interrupted, that in practicallv every case in the West where men went "out to a shearing shed to commence employment, they found it neees­eary to buy the first portion of the food t.hey required from the owner of the statwn. The Bill expressly prohibited that, as far as he could see, unless those words were

Wages Bill. [26 JUNE.) Wages Bill. 555

added. It provided that where such employer supplied or contracted to supply to any worker any victuals, dressed or prepared, on or about the premises. such a thing could be done. That would only apply to foodstuffs that were dressed there. His amendment would cover all kinds of stores. The main object was that it was customary for shearers to have a mess of their own. Their chairman, whom they appointed for that purpose, made up the amount each man owed at the end of the shearing for his share of the mess account. and then the employer deducted that money and it was paid to the store­keeper to whom it was dtH'. In many cases there was some money owing to the station itself. That would make provision for that only. He hoped the Committee would see its way clear to accept the amendment.

Mr. VOWLES thought everybody saw the reawnableness of that suggestion; but it was a remarkable thing that the Government could only d<.•cide to accept that principle where 1t applied to one particular avocation, that of shnring. They had been impressing on them all the time how absurd it would be to prevent old customs which had been existing in the backblocks.

Mr. FoLEY: This is food.

Mr. VOWLES : He knew it was food-or luxuries, as some of those things were. Thev would not apply as far as other workers "\VBre concerned.

The. SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: These are VIctuals, as a matter of fact.

Mr. VOWLES : What was a victual? {Laughter.) It was a very nice definition. It would probably include beer.

The SECRETARY FOR PFBLIC ·worms: Oh, no! Mr. CARTER: Shearers don't drink.

Mr. YOWLER: There was no gdting away from it; the section, to his mind. was an ab,olutcl·. absurd one. It simply rileant that tho·~e g-oods had to be dressGd on the promisees. If a man agreed with his em­ployees to find their dinners for them at 9d. a head, and g-ot the stuff sent in from a shop next door, he would be outside the working of that section. bt'cause the victuals were not preparcJ on the premises.

Mr. G. P. BARNES: It was just as well to emphasise the inconsistencv of the Go­vGrnment in accepting the amendment o( the hon. member for Gregory.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: It is for victuals prepared and consumed on the premises. ·

Mr. G .. P. BARNES: It was just as well to have 1t noted fully that the principle of the truck system was being introduced by the amendment and accepted by the Govern­ment. Similar concessions were urged by '!llembers on the Opposition side, particularly m the amendment to delete clause 21. The same principle was involved there but the Government put their backs to the' wall and would nol accept it. Immediately that some­thing which the Government conceived to be good came from one of their own sup­porters, and which concerned that hon. member's particular electorate, then the Government in a passive way accepted the amendment. He did not object to the amendment at all, but pointed out that the Government were acting in an inconsistent manner.

Mr. POLLOCK pointed out that the object of the amendment was to make the BiH reallv workable for the men working in the shearing sheds.

Mr. G. P. BARNES: I think the amendment is right, but the Government are incon­sistent.

Mr. POLLOCK: If that was the only charge which the hon. member could l_ay against the Government-that they were m­consistent-then he could bear it, be<!ause consistency in man_y instances was o_nly another name for p1gheadedness or foohsh­ness. In most oose~ where men started work they had to get their supplies from the station. UnlEcss the amendment was oorried no provision was made to enable these men to get their food from the station, That practice had been in vogue in the West as long as he could remember, and he did not know what would happen if the system were discontinued and nothing were proposed to take its place.

Mr. GUNN: The amendment applied to dressed victuals. \Vhat about sardines and canned fruits? They would have to leave the peel on the potatoes, because if the peel were off it would be undressed. Under the ame~dment they could use pig-weed, but they could not use asparagus. (Laughter.)

Amendment (Jfr. Pollock's) agreed to. Mr. BA YLI<JY moved the insertion of a new

snbclause to follow line 9, page 9, reading­"(h) Where persons are engaged in

agricultural and pastoral pursuits." Thf' Secretary for Public ·works took great pride in saying that the provisions of the Bill wer<' taken from the New Zealand Act, but when thev came to the subclause which he now proposed, which was also in the :"!ew Zealand Act, thev stopped short. Here was a chance to help the primary producer. Evervone knew the difficulties that were attached to the work of pastoralist and agri­culturist in the country, and the Government were making it much more difficult. He hoped the Government would follow the New J\caland Act and include the clause he pro­posed. In J'\ ew Zealand they looked after the interests of the primary producer, and the Government should do the same.

The SErRET.\RY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The Rmendment would have the effect of excluding from the operation of the truck provisions all th<' workers in the pastoral a':d agricultural industries. That was not desir-

able. Why should thQy ):l~ ex­[10 p.m.] eluded from those prov1s1or:s?

They had already made spemal provisions in regard to agricultural workers and rural workers as to the deductions which might be allowed in regard to advances for the purchase of tools or appliances.

Mr. VowLES: ThE) New Zealand Act does exactly the same.

Th" SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKR: It showed that the Government had only taken the best provisions out of the New Zealand Act .and rejected the worst provi­sions.

Amendment put and negatived. 1\Ir. CORSER moved the omission, after

the word "any," on line 14, of the words­" such rent, medicine, medical attend­ance, fuel, materials, tools, implements, hav, corn, provender, or victuals, or for a ~heck weighman, as aforesaid ; "

and the insertion in lieu thereof of the words

Mr. Cors1r.]

.556 Wages Bill . [ ASSE:MBL Y.] Wages Bill.

"all the matters and things in this section hereinbefore mentioned." The subclause left out tobacco, clothing, and other things in­cluded in the previous part of the clause

Mr. VOWLES: The Minister must see the necessity for some change here.

The TREASURER : Let it go. Amendment agreed to.

Mr. VOWLES moved the omission, in sub­clause (b), after the word "a;dvancing," on line 26, of the words-

" any money to any member of the worker's family by his order, or from advancing.''

That would enable a worker to give a general order to his employer for an advance to any person.

Amendment put and negatived.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS moved the omission, on lines 36 to 38, of the words-

" fuel, materials, tools, implements, hay corn, provender, victuals, or travelling expenses."

The amendment was consequential on an amendment he had already accepted. from the other side.

Amendment agreed to ; and clause 29, a2 amended, put and passed.

Clause 30-" Consequential amendment"­put and passed.

Mr. VOWLES moved the insertion of the following new clause:-

"Any person who-" (a) Wilfully pretends or falsely

asserts in writing that any person has been in his employ for a period or in a capacity other than that for which or in which he was employed., or in any other material r<;spect contrary to the truth, shall be gmlty of an offence against this Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds:

"(b) Forges or knowingly uses any forged certificates or document purport­ing to be a discharge from or record of previous employment, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shail be liable to imprisonment for any period not exceeding three months;

"(c) Having in his possession a valid certificate or document as aforesaid issued to some other person, assumes a~ his own name the name stated therein, 11nd makes use of same when seeking employment, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds;

" (d) Assumes the name of another person and obtains or attempts to obtain employment by using such assumed name, whether the name is that of a person living- or dead or of a fictitious person, shall be guilty of an offence ag-ainst this Act, and shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds;

"(e) Wilfull:v or negligently spoils or destro:vs machinery, tools, work, or materials, or wilfully or negligently a~~>andons, loses. or injures any cattle of h1s emplo:ver, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and on conviction shall,

[Mr. Corser.

as a penalty, pay forthwith such reason­able compensation as shall be ordered. In default of satisfaction of such penalty, the offender shall be liable to imprison­ment."

This was part of the Masters and Servants Act, and it was strange that it should have been omitted from the Bill, as it was very necessary. Where a man assumed another man's certificates, he was guilty of imper­sonation, which was a serious offence.

Mr. BRENNAN: What does it matter if he does the work?

Mr. VOWLES: He thought the hon. mem­ber would be very sorry if he (Mr. Vowles) personated him--(laughter)-or vice versa. (Laughter.) A man got into disrepute, changed his name, and assumed other people's certificates, and got work on the strength of those certificates when he was not competent to do that work.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Certifi­ootes of discharge have nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. VOWLES : They had something to do with the Masters and Servents Act. Then, there was the other part of the clause, which dealt with the man who was entrusted with property which " he wilfully or negligently spoils or destroys."

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Well, there will be a claim against him for damages.

Mr. BRENNAN : He can be prosecuted for malicious destruction of property.

Mr. VOWLES: But he might have noth­ino- to satisfy a verdict for malicious destruc­tio~n of property. A man might have valu­iLble stock entrusted to him as a drover, and he miD"ht lose them. What remP<ly would the o-:ner of the stock have against him? The man was a worker, and the employer would have to pay him his wages as a drover.

Hon. J. M. HUNTER: A drover is usually a man of some substance.

Mr. VOWLES: No doubt the hon. gentle­man knew of a case which happened at Char­leville where a man lost £800 worth of stock ; he had no propert:v of an:v kind. and the owner of the stock had to suffer the loss.

Hon. J_ M. HUNTER: The man who gav~ him the stock to drove was a fool.

Mr. VOWLES : He was not a fool. The man had good referencf'~.

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC WoRKS: How will this protect the owner ?

Mr. VOWLES : If he lost stock, wilfully or negligently, he will be liable to imprison­ment. That was the law under the Masters and Servants Act If a man did those things he we.s liable to a penalty.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS : Did they proceed under the Masters and Ser­vants Act in that case at Charleville?

Mr. VOWLES: No. The man was sued, and they recovered against his wages.

The SECRE'fARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: That shows that it was a dead letter.

Mr. VOWLES: Not at all. They recovered e, portion of the damages from his wages. Under the clause he proposed, that would be a legitim~te deduction. There had been no cases of hardship under the provision in the past; whilst, on the other hand, there had been many cases in which men had been

Wages Bill. [26 JuNE.] Wages Bill. 557

prop~rly punished as a result of its being the existing law. They wanted to protect honest persons and not dishonest persons, and there was no reason why they should not continue the remedy which at present existed.

New clause put and nega.tived. Clause 31 put and passed.

On clause 32-" What notice required to ·terminate employment"-

Mr. MOORE thought there was a mistake in the clause in providing that where a man was employed under an agreement, whether oral o_r in writing, for a. definite period exceedmg one week, seven days' notice should be sufficien~. They did not engage a man for a defimte penod, but for an indefinite period. They . did not know how long his employm··-nt m1;rht last.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC vVORKS; Leave out tho word " definite."

Mr. MOORE moved the omission of the word " definite" in line 29, page 10.

Amendment agreed to; and clause, as amend0d, put and passed.

Clauses 33 to 35, both inclusive, put and pa.ssed.

On clause 36-" 1Yages recoverable against mortgagee on failure to rrcover from mort­gugu1·"-

Mr. G. P. BARNES: It seemed to him that. the Co1!lmittge .wer'.' entitled to very considerable mformatwn m connection with this clause. lie would like to know whether wages were recoverable in any other case than >Yh<:re foreclosure had taken pla.ce. He could qmte undersbnd that a worker should have preferential consideration in case of foreclosure, but was he to understand that in the case of a man working on an ordinary farm a.nd the farmer being unable to pav the mortgagee would have to pay? ·'

The SECRETARY FOR Pt;BJ,IC \VORKS; The :nortgagce is only liable if he has entered mto possec;·ion, after he has foreclosed.

Mr. G. P. BARNES: During the debate that had not been made clear. Then what was the position when the Governmerit were concerned? What would be the position in the case of a perpetual lea se, because the Government were making advances in such cases? \Vould the worker ha.ve redress as against the advances made under the per· petual lease where the lessee might become insolvent? Then, again, in many cases there were second mortgages as well as first mort. gages. To whom would the worker look?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS; The man in poF<-session, of course.

Mr. G. P. BARNES: To what extent was the lia.bility? Was it for three months' wn,ges?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC \VoRKS ; To the <'Ytent of the wages due in the cultivation of the crop. If the man who has the lien exer­cises his rights and takes pos,ession. he has to satisfy the wages due in connection with the cultivation of that crop.

Mr. G. P. BARNES: It seemed manife,tly unfair that a man who had not been con­sulted should be liable for wa.ges for six months.

Mr. BRENNAN: That is the law now, under the Act of 1870.

Mr. G. P. BARNES: It was wrong and should be done away win,h. It should be

obligatory on the part of emplovers a11d employee~ to give and receive wages weekly or fortnightly. To allow them to accrue­and fall on somebody else was manifestly an unfair thing.

Mr. BRENNAN: Section 2 of the Wages Act of 1870 made provision for the recovery of wages by any person-

" prevented or hindered from recover­ing any wages from a mortgagor for work done in cultivating or otherwise improv­ing any land under mortgage or in cul­tivating or otherwise in connection with any crop 'under lien--"

Mr. VOWLES moved the insertion of the following subclause, to follow line 60, page 11:-

" Nothing in this Act shall be con­strued to render a mortgagee li<tble to imprisonment for non-payment of any debt contracted by a mortgagor and intended to be mcured by this Act."

That was the law under section 5 of the Wages Act of 1870, and the Committee could readily see the reason for it. If a mortgagee in possession could not pay, he would other­wise be compelled to go to prison for another person's debt. It was bad enough that he

should be held responsible in [10.30 p.m.] connection with the crops or

other classes of security men· tioned in the section, but it had always been recognised that mortgagees should not be liable to imprisonment for non-payment. He had neYer heard of any complaint against the Act of 1870. It was not a case where a man wa.s guilty of fraud. A man might have to take pos,ossion to protect himself, and if he were not in a position to pay, surely a democratic Govemment, of which they had heard so much, did not consider that he should be put in gaol.

ThoSECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: He could quite understand the amendment, but failed to see any justification for it. The hon. member assumed that mortgagees, under certain circumstances, would be liable to imprisonment.

Mr. VOWLES: Yes.

The SECRETARY FOH PUBLIC WORJU­How did the hon. member arrive at that conclusion ?

Mr. VowLES: You make him responsible for .,·ages.

The SECRETARY FOl~ PUBLIC WORKS: V\'hat might be recovered by civil process and the worker might, as a last resort, put the mortgagee insolvent, but there was no penalty cnforcible against the mortgagee.

Mr. VowLES: Are you perfectly satisfied that the mortgagee cannot be imprisoned?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I am perfectly satisfied.

Mr. VowLES: That settled it, and he would withdraw his amendment.

Amendment withdrawn accordingly. Clause put and passed. Clau.ses 37 to 39, both inclusive, put and

passed. On Clause 40-" Power of court to deter­

tnine all questions, etc."-

Mr. VOWLES said he would like the Minister to explain the necessity for this clause. It was suggested that it was an

Mr. Vowles.]

558 Wages Bill. [ASSEMBLY.]

appeal clause and referred to a higher court than a court of petty sessions, but he was at a loss to ·understand what was meant by line 34, which read-

" and may vary and rescind all such orders.''

It appear,,d to him that the powers given to the court there were concurrent with the powers given under the Industrial Act of 1916. Then, appeared to be some doubt as to what the effect of the clause was. The only conclusion he could come to was that, i:1 some covert sort of way, an attempt was being made to give magistrates the right to decide di,,putes between a contractor and an employer, or the workers, in cases where no provision was made by the Arbitration Court.

The SECRETARY FOR PcBLIC .WORKS: Only in disputes arising under thi.< Act. Put in the words " under this Act" to make it clear.

Mr. VOWLES: They were giving a bigger power to the justices with those words than they were giving to the juclges of the Arbi­tration Court. What did it mean by "vary­ing or rescinding all such orders" ?

The SECRETARY FOR Pt:BLIC WORKS : The orders made.

:VIr. VOWLES: He could not understand it. There seemed to be something radically wrong; it did not seem to be intelligible. A similar clause was in the New Zealand Act, but. it had a bearing on previous sections which hacl been omitted in this Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: In order to meet some of the objections hon. members had raised, he moved the insertion on line 30, after the word "arising," of the words " under this Act." The drafts­man informed him that a word had been dropped out inadvertently, and that after the worcl " may " the word " make " should be inserted.

Amendments agreed to. The remaining clauses of the Bill and

Schedules I. and II. were put and passed. The House resumed. The TEMPORARY

C'HAIR~IA:-i reported the Bill with amendments.

RECOMMITTAL. (Jfr. Foley, Mundinyburra, in the chair.)

On the motion of the SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS, the Bill was recommitted for the purpose of considering clause 3.

Mr. SIZER movecl the insertion on line 13, after the word " whatsoever," of the words " and whether or not part of such remunera­tion is in respect of material supplied by the worker." He said that this was in connec­tion with subcontractors to whom he had referred previously. He did not think there was any neecl to e-laborate on it, as the Minister had signifiecl his willingness to accept it.

Amendment agreed to; and ,clause, as amendecl, put and passed.

The House resumecl. The TE~IPORARY CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with a further amendment.

The third reading of the Bill was macle an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

The House adjourned at forty-five minutes after 10 o'clock p.m.

[ll'fr. Vowles.

Questwns.