Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

MONDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 1909

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Question. [29 NoVEMBER.] Land Acts Amendment Bill. 497

~IoNDAY, 29 NovE>IBER, 1909.

The SPEAKER (Hon. J. T. Bell, Da/l;p) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

PAPER. The following paper, laid on the table, 'wa~

ordered t,,, he printed :-Annual report of the Inspector of Orphanages for the year 1908.

QU:BJSTIOX.

PROSgRPINE CEN'J'RAL MILL.

:Mr. FERRICKS (Bmcut) asked the Trea-surer-

1. \.Vas there any nAt profit on the trauf'actions ()f the Proserpine Central l\Hl1 dnrin~ the year ended :nst De­cemtd', J 908 :-

2. If so, l\'hY has not the half or that sum been paid to the cane· sUppliers a.t Proserpine, in accordanc?. with the promise made by the Treasure!' when foreclosure of the mill took ]Jlace'

The TJtEASURER (Hon. A. G. C. Haw­thorn, Enoggera) replied--

!. The tinancirtl ~·ear ended on 30th ,fune. 1909, Hnd not on 31st December, 1908. There '\Yas a net profit on the .rear.

2. The auditor's report rlisc1osing the results of last year's transactions is only just to hand.

1909-2r

RABBIT BOARDS ACTS REVIVAL AND CONTINUATION BILL.

INITIATION.

On thP, motion of the SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. D, F. Denham, Oxley), it was formally reBolved--

That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of the desirableness of introducing a Bill to revive and con­tinue the operation of the gahbit Boards Acts, 1896 to 190.5, with certain exceptions, until the end of the year 1910.

LAND ACTS AnH:\:'\D21IEXT BILL. Cu;mnT'IEE.

(3Ir. TV. D. Armctrong, Lockyer, in the chair.)

Clause 1-" Short title and ecnstrnetion of Act "-put and [Ja'iled.

On clause 2-" .Al!lendment of section 12 "­

The SEORETARYFOl{ PUBLIC LAXDS: He prnpn• ,d, "'' eac· elause v,·,cs called out, to briefly irH:ic.,te Lhe effect of the amendment". He thought that would euit the c .nvenience of th, Committee, and expedite the pa8S>1ge of the Bill through O•nmnittee. Thi• clause had to do with grants ctmlleases. Hitherto it; had heen the IJractice in the preparation of deRCript.ion~, before referring an application to the Land Court, to get a elf> tailed description, as well as map and plan. They prop~:sed, under this arnendment, to omit the detaikd de,,eription in the instru­Intmt of lease, and merely to have a. n:1ap or plan, which would sntfieientl'l' indicate th..; boundaries of the land. Of cour·se, when the deed of grant 'vas issued, therfl wnuld not only he a 1nap c.r plan, but also the detai:ec! cJe,criptio:>. This anlt,ndinent w:~.s ~ought as an office cnnvenienc~'J and to a void unneeet1 ary vork a1HJ c. 111~:queut delay. He b, lieved t:mr. i, Xe.v Zealand they vtere ecmte~~t to i"'Q.HB the dE-ed of grant with :1

map, ,,ne! without all the det>ded de,crip·, ion. \Ve did not ]>ropoee to g' as frtt' a' that, but merely to omit tlh~ written dc.;;cription of the boundaries. The map wnuld sufficiently delint'ate it.

i\.Ir. MAcGH_~N: They have got a record in the office.

Clause put and passed. On clause 3-" Amendment of sections 30 and

!52"-'rhe SECRETARY :FOR PU.BI~IC LA~DS :

Tne object of tbi:'i amet!dni:::,nt v:· _lR to l~Pn1ove a doubt, which at present existed, as to w lwther the Land Court, under section 30, which dealt with rtppea!s to t]e Land Court, or a land com­lnissioner holding an inquiry under section 52, had power to compel a witness to produce docu­ments. 1 t had been found desirable on occ'•.sions to request a witness to produce such books and documents, but it was doubtful whether under the law as it now stnor! a witness C\JU!d be com­pelled to do so, and they merely soLJght now to pnt the Land Court or the land c,>mmis•ioner into a position to require a witne"~ to produce such books and d ocnments as might be necessary.

Mr. HAltDACRE (Leichha>·dt): The Mini,ter said the amendment would remove a doubt, but the fact was that it. had been pretty well settled at the present time that the Crown had no power to ask appellants t.o produce their books. He relnetnberrd a '"10mewhat. cuntentioua ea~~; before the Lrtml Cnurt, in "hi eh it was d~"ired to g::t the p"storal Jesoees to prodoc9 their· bnokB to show their proti ts, and t.h~y \\-er,• nnnbJe to nbtc1.in the hoob. At the same time, be agreed with the Minister that it wa~ "de,irable thing to do. As a. rnar.Ctr of fact, the a.-::.;;:esstnents of runs tn-day were determined largely upon the question of the profits of the c.1pitalist or the lessee, as

Mr. Hardacre.]

488 Land,Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

the c".''B might be. PerHonally, he was rather in favour of the proposal to give the court power to compel the lessee to produce documents.

Clause put and passed.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS moved the following new clause to follow clause 3:-

After:::ection sixty-six of the principal Act, the fol­lowing sect }on is insert.erl :-

(66A.) The right of ctepasturing ~hall be determinable at any time with J"espect. to the whole or any specified part of the land subject thereto by three months' notice given by the J.iinister to the lessee. On the n•snmption of a holdmg the lessee con­tinued the use th~reof, if he so desired, as a de­pasturing right nntil the area was surveyed, or until a title to a better tenure was issued. There were times when it would be to tbe convenience of the department and iutending selectors to have the right uf depas' uring determined, and therefore P' •wer was a'ked in this claw;e to deter­mine it by giviPg three months' notice. It was propooed to ask for the same power in connection with oc,upation licenses.

Mr. HARDACRE : \Vhat notice do you give now in connection with the right of depasturing?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: There was no provision at present for giving notice. \Vhether three months was too short or not was a matter for the C.•mmittee. to dttPr· mine; but the department thought it was fair notice. It, was more than likely that the les"ee would he liherally de e. It with, and that three mont.bs would be the minimum.

Hox. R. PHILP (Tmvnsvillc) thouP'ht three month,' notice was too little. At certain times of the year, if a lessee who held half of his run on a grazi11g right were to receive three months' notice to remove hi" stock, he might not be able to get them away, and it might mean a serious loss to him. He thought six months was qnite little enough notice. Some c,f those lessees had been in occu[Jation of the resumed ha! ves of their runs for years.

::Yir. BOOKER {l'!Ia1·yborough): If on the eve of a bad season, more particularly in the drier belts, any less notice than six months W< re given, it might mean the ruin of the pastoral lessee. He would not be able to get his ,t,ck away, and would be at the mercy of the department, and possibly Gf the incoming tenant.

Mr. HAMILTON (Gregory): There was a diff<rence between the bnlder of an occupation license Hnd the man who had a depasturing right. In the first c•se, the lessee was subject to com­petition ; in the other case there was no compe­tition. He agreed with the bon. member for Townsville that three months' notice was too short when anyone bad a lot of stock to remove. In the \Vinton di.trict., and down the Diarnan­tina, it would mPan ruination to some of the lessPe<. And even if they were near a railway they could not get enough trucks to remove their stock. In connection with occupation licenses, be intended to move an amendment making the notice six months.

Mr. BLAIR: There were different kinds of depasturing. He presumed that this clause was referable only to d, pasturiug on nsumed land.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : That is so.

Mr. BLAIR : With regard to the length of time, he associated him se If with the remarks made by the hem. members for Townsville, J'.tlary­borough, and Gregory.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Under the law "s it stood now, they could only dispossess a lessee who had the right of depastur­ing if the resumed land was surveyed, or a title

[Mr. Hardacre.

to a better tenure was given. With regard to· the timA, he was prepared to sub~titute "six" for "three" if the Committee preferred that period.

Mr. COYNE (J'Va1·rer10) was in favour of the clau•e as it stood. He did not think th;tt it wonld cause any h:wdship if the notice was limited to three months, because the mt<n who­had the right of depasturing under the clause would be the le•see of the adjoining country, and he would have no difficulty in removing hi" stock to his leasehold in the event of a bad season.

Mr. MAY: He could not move them in a wet season.

Mr. COY NE: He did not believe that who­ever was administering the Lauds Department would inflict hard,.hip on any person who had a dPpasturing right oYer resumed country. The department would not force a tenant to move his st<,ck if there waH a flood, nor would it ftttempt to cntnpel him to do anything impossible. It would only expect him to make an honest endeavour within the three months to remove his stock in order to allow closer setLlem, nt to· take place. If be could not remove his stock in the three months, it would be an easy matter for the rlepartment to cancel the proclamation throwing it open to selection, and issue another proclamation throwing it open one month or two months later. It would be a very good power for the Minister to have, in case a tenant did not hurry up.

Mr. P AYNE (llfitchcll) thought three months. wa' rather short. It miv,ht greatly inc,mveni­ence people who werP. running stock on such country. A man might get three months' notice, and just at the expiration of the period his ewes might commence lambing. He would juot as soon se'l the time definitely fix.,d hy the clause at six months, because the Minister told them that it was not definite at present, and that the department never tied a man down to three months. If the time were not riefinitely fixed -even if it wa~ left at three months-· there was nothing to prevent the Minister giving les,ees twelve months. It would he an utter impossibility in some seasons fur a man to get rid of his stock in three months.

Mr. LAND (Balonne) said that the clause only referred to resumed country, and a lessee might know fur ten or even twenty years that the land was re•umed. It. was a l"t of bnnkum talking about wee sea."ons and droughts, because the lessees knevi exactly what they had to expect, and they stocked accordingly. The three months bad been fixed as the result of the. expel'ience of the Lands Department. Some hon. members who had spuken bad been refer­ring to uccupation licenses, which were a different thing altogether. In that case a man might have an occupation license 100 miles, or even iiOO miles, from his leasehold ; but the clause referred to resumed areas, and the leaseholders' sheep were running on them; and as the area might not be more than one-fourth of his lease­hold area, or perhaps even less than that, he could not see that there could be any hardship. He believed it was wiser to leave the cla11Se as it stood.

HoN. R. PHILP did not think th<' hon. member for Balonne knew altogether what he was talking about. All runs had to be divided, and the lessee was given a grazing right over the resumed area, for which he paid an annual rent. If the Minister accepted a year's rent, it would not be fair to gi \'e the lessee notice the day after the rent was paid to remove his stock withm three months, and in that way get nine months' rent for nothing. Six monthe' notice was quite jittle enough. There were millions of acres which

Land A.cts [29 NOVEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 499

conlrl be opened to selection to-morrow, but it was not likely to be taken up as grazing farm< or grrtz1ng hornesteads, as rnost of ir. was cattle country. Xe<trly half of the country was at preRenc held under grazing right, and six months' notice was little enough.

. Mr. LENNON (Herbert) was in favour of the clau"e as it stood. He agreed with the hon. memh8r for B"'lonue that they Rhould he guidrd by the experience of the Lands Department. Three mouths would be ample, bec.tuse the mere fact that the land had been resumed was an iuti­mation to the holder that his occupancy was only temporary. In the face of the large and grow­ing demand for land, it was not de«irable that pastoral occupants should con"i •er themselves to have anv fixie.y of tenure in regard to resumed areas. No doubt the department would show reasonable forbearance. The Minister was to be commeurled for submi•ting thie and a number of other amendments, but he would Jikb to puin~ out that, althou!!'h it was only two ani a-half weeks since the Bill was introduced in Uommit­teP, the h·>n. gentleman had already found it necessary to give no•ice of nine amendments. That went to show that in a few mouths' time they would probahly want another amending Act, and it showed the folly of mshing legisla­tion. through the House in the manner it had been d<me tbis session. If, however, the Minister discovered that the Bill was faulty in any respect., he would only be doing the right thing to make whatever amendments he considered necessary.

Mr. HAMILTON knew that it had meant a great loss of revenue to the departme.nt, and it would continue to mean loss of revenue if the power of right of depasture wa-< not exercised by lessees whose resnm-d portinns had fallen in

automatically. They a!l knew that [4 p.m.] the resump-ious fell in automati-

cally, and that might happen at a time when there was no demand for land. Three or four years ago there was not the demand for land that there was to-day. If no provision were made as to notice, and the resumption fell in, then the pastoral lessee would have the right to use that laud for nothing at all, and the Crown would not be getting any rent from it. He believed in the Crown getting all the rent they po•sibly could. Even at the pre•eut ti;ne he knew cases where there was a lot of land bewg used by people who were not paying one penny for it. He did not see what hardship there could be in making the notice for six months. Everyone knew that at a certain date certain resnmptions were due, but the Crown might not deem it ad­visable to make that resumJJtion then, as there might not be a demand for laud, so was it n,>t better to allo>v the les•ee to hav,. it under the right to dep~sture instead ••f getting no rent from it at all? No ma.n would put any stuck on laud if the tenure was insecure. If he were only given three mouths, there was practically no security of tenure, and he would sav, "I will not use my right to depasture, because I cannot get the stock away in that time." He would defy anyone to take their stock off some of the country that he knew of in that time. He knew some di"tricts where they were selling sheep at 6d. per head, becaustJ they could not g-et them away. He believf'd in a"sistiug the department to get all tho laud tbey could for closer settle­ment, hut at the same time he did not believe in doing injury to any description of tenants. In providing for six mouths' notice, they were only giving him sufficient time to shift his stock.

Mr. TOLMIE (Drayton and Too?coo1nba) agreed wit.h the hon. member for Gngory, who had put hi• arguments clearly and forcibly. It

seemed to be the idea for years that all laud that was re~uav~d \Vas for clo::;er S!?ttlement pur~ poses, bn t such was not the c <se at all. ThPy knew cases in which the re.<umed land would fie idle unless the P''"toral le.,•;ee used it., and paid so met 1ing for the right to d•1 so. The dep·•rt­ment would carefully watch the resumptious that were falling due; and where the land was wanted for closer settlement, they would see that notice wa' given in due time to acquire the particular portion of land which they req niretJ_ But in the far vVe<tern districts, where the land was not likely to be needed for closer settlement for many years, thPre was no reason why the pastoral les.<ee shnuld not be allowed to occupy it, and, if he had to be given "ix mouths' notice, it would induce him tu occupy the laud that had been resumed and pay rent for it. If they were not given some security of tenure in that way, they wnuld utilise the land, and the State would not receive any compensation by way of reu t for it. He supported the amendment suggested by the Minister to make it six mouths.

Mr. HARD ACRE: The Committee were not aware that at the present time the holders of resumed ereas of land had no rig-hts at all, and this amendment wae a propusition to create an eutirdy new right.

Mr. LESINA: I am against any new rights being granted in connection with laud tenures.

Mr. HARDAORE: The lessees had been going on for twenty or thirty years without having any rights to resumed land, and no ob­jection bad been taken by them, and no com­plaint had ever been made by them about not recoiving sufficient notice. The original amend­ment propo-ed to confer a right by giving three months' notice, and that amendment was altered to make it six m<mths.

Mr. ToL~HE : He acquires a right under clausi/J 65.

Mr. HARD ACRE: No, he did not. Mr. FoRSYTH : Haven't you to give him

notice? Mr. HARDAORE: No,notunderthepreseut

Acts. vVithunt giviog any notice whatAver, tbe Crown C<>nl•l take away the resumptinn for closer settlement purposes or for the purposes of a re­serve. The Cr•>Wn ha<l to give notice of six m >nths in the mtse of an occupation license, be­et use Lhfl occupier was then only a tenant at will, but the lessee had a right to us& the resumed area until it was tak~u from him. There had been no difficulty in the past, and while he bad no objection to three months' notice, he certainly objec'.ed to six mouths' notice being given to acquire the land for re~erve or closer settlement purposes. It had been oaid that if they did not give six months' notice, then the resumed area would lie idle, and they would get no rent from it, but the resumed areas were c.mtinnally held by the pastoral les~ees.

Mr. HAMILTON: No; when the resumption falls due it ie optionn.l whether he takes it or not.

Mr. HARD ACRE: That was so, but it was very rarely done. The lessee generally continued in occupation until that was taken over.

Mr. ToLMIE : The lessee mu~t give six months' notice if be is going to occupy the resumption. Read section 65.

Mr. HARD ACRE: Not at all. He c.mtiuued to occupy it, but under the amendment he would have to get notice, and the Crown could not take it from him unless he willingly gave it np. He would suggest that the chtuse be amended so a• to !Jrovide tha·t if the land was required for reserve purposes six months' notice should be given, and that if it was required for selection

Mr. Hardacre.]

500 Land .Acts [ASSEMBLY.] .Amendment Bill.

purpo3eo only three month<' notice should be given. HA moved that the proposed new clause be am,,•nded by omitting- all the worrb after "insertc d," with the view of in,erting- the fol­lowing:-

When a.ny por.ion or the whole oft be land is requirerl for selection nnder Part IV. of this Act, the right of depastnrin:~ ou snch portion or t~re whole of the land "Rhall be determin:thle b'r t!n'f'~ month<;' notice, and in all other t'n"es b)-~ six llFJnt.hs' notice given hy the Minister to t.ile lr"<;ee.

The SECRETARY ]<'OR Pl:BLICLANDS: The hon. member for LHichh,n·r1t sought. to mak<' the not.icB three rnonths in the c '...,e of re~nmption for grHzing f•1rn1R, and six montln in the casP. of resun1ption fl1r re.:-Prvr:'s, Ti1at vc ,:s a very need­le~g CO!rplicn..-iun to insert in the Act. ..:-1.s mat· ters ncnv st~tod, c-artain areas w,Clre held under a depasturing right :mdPr the Act of 1884 that had not bren availed of. Such are::ts were available for tile p~stornJ holdini(, but 'the depa,turing le,8ee w;mlcl have to pa ,., ont immedi,te;y the new le ,,ee c •.me in, and pmctically the only no:ice he \V(Juld ncl=!i\·e wa~ the pr,1clamation that on a ginm drc'e the holding \>'OUlcl be avRil­able L.r selectioP. But, wh,re '' depa-turing right wa· held nnde.r the Aet of 1902, the land was only aY.>.ilable for grazing farms, and it took some rr;onths before the >uney was c >mpleted. A" a matter of practice, he did not think it would make much difference whether the notice was three or six months, buL inasmuch as those who were familiar with p%toml operations thought it would be a serious disadv,mtage to the lessee if they were compelled to lea\·e in t.hree monthB, and th"t ;ix months would be a greater security to the lessee, he was of opinion that the Commit­tf'B would be well advised if they acc~pted the propo;;ed alteration in the clatme.

Mr. LAND could understand the senior mem· her for Townsville br.ing in LtYour of six nwnths' notice, bee~ use th., t g<·ntlnman wao an olJ friend of the pr.storaliste, but he could not understand any n1mnber who was in fav')ur of close settle­ment supporting the nmendment. HP hoj.Jed the .Minister would with rh:> w the amrendnwnt, or give rne1nhers an oppurtc·n1ty of Raying whether they were in favour or 11ot in favour of cl(lse settlement.

Mr. GUNK (C!anwrron) said h" could give a c•ncrr~te ~as,~ t•f hov, the three months' notice wonlrl opet·atP. .At one tiruB he was 1nana~ing a statwn, the half of which w '" resumer!. A por· tion of the resunwd part was eut up into grazing farmo.;, but there were n<> applications for those grazing hrrm. Consequently, he ;,eld the g-mzing right over the whole of the rnumption--over that which haJ been cut UD and that which had not be8n cut up, and it would have been very hard tn have loot tb tt gr_,z!ng right »t three months' notice. He thought six months was little enough. \Vhen the fourth of a run became vacant, it was thrown open to selection, and in the COIDJlarati vely settled districts it went off at onc2, but in the outside districts it was quite possible that rum nright be similarly situated to the one he had referred to, and the land might not be taken up.

Mr. LENNON: You had ihe benefit all the time.

Mr. GUl\JN: He paid rent for the land. i'vir. LENNON : A very smail rent.

;yrr. GUNN: If he had not been paying rent for it, nobody would have been paying rent for. the land, and it wonld have l:een lying idle.

Mr. LENNON: Didn't you want it~

Mr. GUNN: Of course he wanted it, but all the same it would have been verv hard if he had been compelled to shift his 'stock in three months,

[1Vfr. Hardacre.

An HONOI:RABLE ME)IBlW: J<>pecially if it was boggy country.

Mr. GUNX: It was up in a rant5e; it was not boggy country. At present the pastoral leRsee had a right to the land up to the date th:1t it wa<c- sPlected, a11d if they gave hin1 :::ix: 1nonths' notice to renwve hi8 stock, he WOllld have thern rem•>ved very littlo· before the land was surveyed for :-;slection. He \Vould support c:.ix tnonth.s in place of three.

1Ir. CCYNE t-hought there was a g·,,od deal of misunderstanding in reference to the proposed cl.Hl~P. The hon. rnPinber for To•· lL ville had stated that that country mig-ht remain idle for years if the in~·-;;torn..l lessee frmn whose rnn it was re,,nmed. did not occupy it. There W'1S

Ron1eth!n~ pr ~suppo~ed. in connection \Vith the BilL '\Vhen it. was proposed to resnn1e the land ou three 1nontbs' notice, it '-VRt': evit'~_·~nt the land was rt:quired, for closer settle:ment or re~erve purpo~e1, P.nd \V hen it w .,s required fnr either of those purptlse:-. the nwn who wns dep.- turing stock on ·the land should not be taken into consideration '~ alL

Hon. R. l'IULP: He has been p~ying rent all the time.

J\Ir. COYK:E : He would pay rent, but h~ would p\lt rJl the stock he possibly c;JUld on to the country. That wns the usual practice. He did uot think the Crown would lose any rent, becil.nse if the c·.,tmtry was of tbe nature men­tioned hy the bon. UJP!ll ber for Townsville there would be no danger of the pastoral tenant losing the right of dcpasturing stock on it, as nohndy wC>nld apply for it. 'l'he onlv tinY there was any danger of the pa&toral le,Ree> losing the co~.<rntry was when there wa.;; ,e; 1wc(~"isity of the L· ud hPing rer1nired for closer settlement, and when that necessity arose the Crown should get the land nt the earliPst pm,;ible date. He was going- to vote in £::.~ V()Ur of the clause a:,, it .st\1od.

HoN. ,T. T. BELL (Dalbp) thunght th" hon. 1nember for Carnarvon, in rel:~ting his experience in connect,ion with his occups,tion of a resu1ned are•1, wal.:l really, relying on a false security. '.rhe: h~m. n1emher imagined, unlet:~ he ('Hr. l\ell) misapprehended hini, that he was entitled to notice. That was a mistake. That country, according to the dhcription, was sur· veyPd and had been thrown open for selection, but thcr,, were no applicants for it. He enjoyed his tenure, not nnd(-'r a t{I',_zing right., but under an occupation license.

lVIr. GeNN: Only a portion of it w;'s surveyed.

HoN. J. T. }:\]}LL: As regarded the portion thrown open for :-.:election, a,nyhody coulJ 0ome along, and, aftcer forty-eight hours, req tlest the hon. member to removl' his "tnck.

Jl.fr. GcNN: I was not referring to that portion. Mr. HAMILTON: They can do that now.

HoN. J. T. BELL: Everyone who was keenly interested in closer settlement should recollect thJ&t the propo"al of the Minister did not in the least interfere with the public who wanted to get on the land, and gave t.he department power of expedition which it did not now possess. But the real safeguard-and the one the hon. member for Leichhardt appeared to overlook-still prevailed, and that waR, that when the land was sun eyed and thrown open to selection, the grazing right terminated, and when any man came forward and WMrted to take up the land, there W~S no question of six rnonths' notice--thPre was no question of threA months' notice--thE' lessee had t" get his ,,took off within fnrt,y-eight hours, s•> that tl1ere was reallv no interference with the ri,(hts of popular oeJection, and he joined him· self to the hon. members on the other side of

[29 NoVEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 501

the Committee, in that he could not underHtand how th•ere was the slightest opposition to the proposal of the ;\linister.

Mr. HAH.DACRE: There woul,l be a grut deal of objection if th'' amendment were cartieJ in its present form. He supposed there were thou­sands-perhaps millions--of acres resumed in all pa.rts of (Jueen,Jand. Some of the land was "P•enfor H~le~tion, in wbich ca:o;e tht~ selec~or~ could apply for It, but there was a.l~o a. large rp,.,1nned <~tea of land called "available for selection," but it could not be "elected until a long tedious process had been gone through. Applications would have t;,, Le sPnt to the department some weeks or months before, and they would have to wait for the Commissioner's reports, and when all that process had been gone through, map" and plans would have to be prepared and the area surveyed. In addition to that, there had to be a proclamation issued before the man could get on it, and on top of that, before the very first step could he taken, if the amPndment were ,passed, six monthb' notice would have to he given by the .i\finister to the occupier of the resumed area. If that proposal were passed, it would b,-, most disastrous for close settlement in Queensland, and he strongly objected to it. He did not object to the provision if the land W-<R

not wanter1 for selection. The reason be moved his amendnu_.•nt was ton1a.ke it six 1nonths' notice where the land was not wanted for "electinn "nd allow the .i\finister to give three months' notice when the land waR wanted for selection.

Hnn. R. PHILP: You mean agricultural selec­tion?

Mr. HARDACRE : Any kind of selection. He thought. that wa" a very reasonabl,,, proposi­tion. He nlftde it six rnonths in connection with re-serve~, so that in all case:-; which were !H•'V PX~ treme c.: .. ~e;'-\ th~ MiniHter could d·~ term in? the resnn1ed area, and disposse!':~ the occupier after f'ix 1nonths' notict-. If the l\1inister wnuld not accept hi" (.Mr. Hardacre'") amendment, he hoped he woulct Htick to the ori:(inal proposal.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: The object of the amendruent was to secure a furtl:er right fur the acquiHitinn of land for grazing farru ''· A..t pr€:;-;eot, until the land was 1-lUrveyed, ~ the,y· could not open it n..:-: gr,,zing fartlJo. TbPl'e were tractH of country tlmt c n>ld be defined oy a boundary line, by m.t\ mal feature~~, by running a ~nrvey line r o d.f:'ter rnine where the grazing farrn cornrneneed. U ndt>-r t.he

law as it now •tood they could not [4.30 p.m.] get posse,sion until it wa3 sunc,;ed,

and yet there might be selectors quite willing tn go on that country in the wean~ time. As for the lapse of time, all the action indicated bv the hon. member for Leichhardt could be lmtde cnntem poraneons, and the notice of removal could be made to expire simul­taneusly with the six month,; or three months, as' the c·->se might be. He would repeat once morp that it wa.; purely a question of what was a fair thing. Anyhow, the object of the ameudruent was so that they could more readily get pose,cs­sion of land for grazing hwm >ettlement. At preseat they could not get it for that purpose until it had been surveyed. "Vhen a question of th11t sort came up, perhaps the perio<l of three nr six rrwnth~' notice to the incon1ing selec~or was not a matter of life or death, bnt it might be a ,,en.ms matter for the outgoing man. He was prepared to rne •. t the wishes of hort'. rrwmbcrs as far a~ po.-, ... ible.

Mr. >lARD ACRE: 1'be Minister must surely misunrler"littH1 the po8ition, (Laughter.) He said t-biR amend mfmt was for the purpose of expediting the getting on to the hnci.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLT<' LANDS : Su it is.

Mr. HARD ACRE : How cunld it be? There was no notice at all given to the present lessee,. but under the amendment they woulci have t<} give six tnouths) notice.

The SECRETARY FOR PCHLIC LANDS : Y on don'L undentand the clause.

Mr. HARD ACRE: They did not require to giv~ the owner of a re:..uffied area any notice whatev-.·r.

The SEORETAUY FO!t PUBLIC LANDS: You must lw,ve a better title fo" the incommg man.

lVlr. HARD ACRE : It might take six months to get the la-nd surveyed, but it was not neces­sary in every case to go to s1x months' delay. It might be thrown open without survey.

The SECRETARY F'OH PuBLIC LANDS: Not now. This clause won't affect. tha!.. The incoming man cannot get possession until he gets a better title than Lhe present holder.

Mr. HARDACHE: Selections could be opened sometimes before survey. After the selector had got his application approved by the Commis· BiGner's Court, then arrangen1ents were some­times entered into between the lessee and the applicant and the department to let the man go on the land before survey.

Mr. CoYNE : Is that where there arf' improvA­ntent:<, or not?

Mr. HARD ACRE: "\Vhere there were no im­provements on the land. In some cases it would be a hardship where it did not take six months t<> make the survey. If the Minister's amendment were adopted, it meant that no land could be taken before six months' notice from the holder of the resumed area.

Hon. R. PHILP: After survey, he has no right to it at all.

:\1r. HARD ACRE: He obje;;ted to the first step, tilat the holder· bad to get six months' notice before the land could be selected. He pointed out again that no lHtrdship had occurred where no notice nad been given. They were actually conferring a new right uvun the lessees, 1111d they would be well advised if they kept to three m'nnths, and nob give them a louger term of six rnon ths.

1\-Ir. HAJI.IILTOJ\': According- to ,,ome of the speeche' which hc,d b,en m:'de, on~ would think th·ct tho>e who "'"''" >~peakmg agamst a further extension of three months were against close settlement. He (Mr. Hamilton) yielded to no member in his efforts in that direction. No hon. member, either inside or outside the Hc,use, had been Jllore ont'P"ken against hnd being !ucked up against settlement. If he thought he was doing anything that would le"•Jen the oppor­tunities for closer settlement he would not vote for the provision which had been mooted, but he took it that thteP months or six months would not affeet the position of the CNwn, inasmuch as in ctmnection with resumed land which was surveyed, and over which the lesser.' held. a grazing right, they cm:~d st1ll take It wrthm furty-eight. hours even 1! the a1nendn1ent were c m:icd. In the district on the other side of \V in ton there had been six months' notice given in the caoe of Elderslie. J.n the meautime, while that notice \Vas ~oing on, surveyors wet e survf'ying the htnd. They couid not get it ready within six mo,tbs. Thev could not find selectcJl'3 during the six m,mths' notice. The land would have been till own open for selection before if they could bave had it rettdy in timE,. He took it that the giving of six months' notice was not going to debnr the land, hieil_lg, thrown O!'~ll ~or closer settlement, but rt rmgnt prevent JUStice being done to some person" who had got _a lot of stock to remove. The hon. member for I,ewhhardt

Mr. Hamilton.]

502 Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

said this amendment would even stop a reserve being proclaimed, hut it would do nothing of the sort, as he (Mr. Hamilton) would not support such an amendment. He took it that the Crown wanted the same power of proclaiming reserves as they had had in the past.

:Yir. PA YNE : The hon. member for Balonne said he wondered why any man in favour of closer settlement could support the amendment to extend the time to six months.

:Yir. LANIJ: No.

Mr. P A YNE : He did not think there was a man in the Housf\ who would go further to make our lands availaiJle to closer "ettlement in the quickest time possible, and if it was possible to take this land away from pastoral tenure, get it surveyed, and get the selector on to it in six monttls, all he had to say to the l\Iinist"r was that he was doing something which bad not been done in Queenkland before. (Hear, hear!) He too\< it that the fact of giving a man six months' notwe did not deprive the Minister for Lands from putting surveyors on and cutting the land up.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC L.\NDS: And if completed before six months, posse"sion at once.

. Mr. P ~ YNE: Certainly. He wanted to put 1~ m" plam, s1mple wn,y to hon. mPmbers on this s1de of the House : \Vas it possible that land could be taken from one tenant to-morrow and in three months be ready for c.election? H~ bad never known it. \Vhen they heard men in that Chamber or outside talking about taking this land away fro:n one tenure and cutting it up, and putting selectors on to it inside of twenty· four h~nrs, as ~t were, they were talking about some1hmg they knew nothing about. If it could be done in six months, the :Y1inister was doing very welL

An l-IO:s"OURABLE :Y1EMBER: Y on cannot oper­ate ou it.

Mr. P A YNE: Could not operate on the land? If that was so he wa• labouring under a mistake. He understood from the Secretary for Lands that he could give notice that he wanted t<l take this land in six months, and on the date of the notice be could set surveyors to work and cut the land up, and if at the end of six months he got the la'.'d surveyed ~nd ready for selectors, he was dmng a good tbmg. He did not think six months' notice was going to stop closer settlement. If they made it a month he was very doubtful whether they would have it open to selection.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : The bo~. member fc:r Gregory had a clear corn· prehensiOn of the pomt, but the boo. member for Leichbardt was confused, even now. The object of the amendment was to provide for the lessee ':'ho had a dep~stu!-ing right giving up posses­SIOn at the expnatwn of six months from the date of the notice, or earlier than six months if the land was surveyed before then or if a title to a better tenure wa" given. The 'object was to make available land which had not hitherto been available by reason of not being surveyed. There must be natural features sufficient to determine where the new tenant's rights would ~ommenoe, or it might be sufficient to run one surveyor's line to mark the boundary. He brought the amendment in to expedite settle­ment, and->trangely •nongh--some members :;eemed. to think i,t wo~lld cause delay. The giv-1n~ of SIX months no:.1ce was simply a m"tter of fairness to the outgomg tenant. Of late year' the department had been getting the same rent for dep•lsturing rights as for the original leases instead of three·quarters of the amount, as for:

[Mr. Hamilton.

merly. The amount received for occupation licenses and depasturing rights was too great to treat lightly, being somethmg like £50,000.

Mr. HARD ACRE: The Mini,ter had not given one bit of evidence to show thHt this would expedite selection. The resumed half of a run was available for eel~ction now, and the only difficulty was the time nquirerl for sur­veying; but there were many ca8es whe1e land could be made open for •election in less than six months-land on the resumed area marked on the map, but not eurveyed. Thie proposal only imposed upon the Crown another r~striction­that of having to give six months' notice, wbe~eas now there was no notice required at all. Under Part IV. of the Act land could be thrown open as unsurveyed land, also as unsurveyed land with plans showing the area, and as •nrveyed land ; so that in two cases out of the three a man could get it in lees than six months.

Mr. HAMILTON : Do you know of a case where a man has gone on unsurveyed land ?

Mr. HARDACRE: Yes; in many cases where there were no improvements, by spfcial arrangement betwe~n the department and the applicant and the lessee, the man goes on the land before it was surveyed.

Mr. NEVI'l'T: They are very exceptional cases.

1Ir. HARD ACRE: No. He was informed by the Under Secretary that it was frequently done. He hor·ed the Minister would stick to the period of three months.

Mr. COY:l\E: The 11inister bad stated that though six months' notice was given, land on the resumption could in some cases be made avail­able inside a month. Suppose that wa' done, the department having made:< contract with the outgoing les;ee that he would get six months' notice, could they dispossess him at the end of a month without giving him compensation?

The SECRE'l'ARY FOH PUBLIC LANDS: Yes. That is the position with the occupation licensee now.

Mr. LESINA wished to know how the clause would affect his constituents as ten>tnts of the State. Was the U10wn giving better terms than before to its tenants?

The SECRETARY ~·oR PUBLI0 LANDS : Yes. Mr. LESINA: And was the proposed amend­

ment of the law in favour of closer sett!tmenL ? The SECI\ETAI\Y FOit PuBLIC LANDS : Yes.

Mr. LESINA: Take the case of \Volfang or Peak Downs, for instance. Suppose one corner of the run was resumed, and the resumed area was held by the ]e,see under a depasturing right. He depastured his sheep nn the land and pR!d rent for it. Sur>posing he (Mr. Lesina) came

"from New South Wales, and wanted a little piece of that resumption, and that he had only £200 or £300, and could not afford to waste time hang­ing a1ound Peak Downs-what would be the Minister's reply? \V nuld the Minister tell him that he could get the land immediately, or tl:>at he would have to wait for six months for it until the hem. gentleman had given" the financial cor­poration which owned the adjoining station notice to quit~

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC J,ANIJS : Six months' notice.

Mr. LESI:~-A: According to the bon. member for Dalby, the i:iecretary for Lands, and th'l hon. member for Grcgory, the pas;i,g of t.he clause did not affect the existing rights of le>sees at all, and yet here was a case in which tbe Minister said that he must g-ive s1x months' notice.

Mr. HAMILTON: Not if the land is surveyed.

Land Acts [29 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 503

Mr. LESIK A: If such a miracle could happen as that land would be surveyed immediately it became available-and it had never happened yet in any part of (.lueensland--and he wanted a piece of re•·umed area, could he get it without six months' notice having to be given?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : Cer­tainly. It would be available immediately.

Mr. LESINA : \Vas there any provision in the Bill, or in any Land Act, or was provision made on the Eatimates, to send out an army of surveyors to survey all the land immediately? If the Minister could sherl a little light on the points he had raised, he •hould feel clear in his .:lonscience that he could vote for the clause without interfering with closer settlement; but if the hon. gentleman could not throw such a light on the Hubject, he should have to vote against the clause. ·

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: If the resumed area were surveyed the depart­ment could take immediate pos8ession of it.

i'.Ir. HAI\DACRE: You would have to give six months' notice.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIU LANDS: Not at ail. The hon. member was as confused a,s he generally was when he touched upon tech­nical matters. They could ditiposse<s the lessee instanter under the existing law if the land were surveyed. But they could not dispos.ess him under the existing law unless the land had been surveyed. He (Mr. Denham) wanted to be in a position to secure that land without its being surveyed, and to do so quickly. He did not see hi' way to get it surveyed, but he wished to secure the right to get pos,ession of the land by giving the pastoral lessee who had the grazing right over thA land six months' notice. Then at the expiration of the six months he would have to clear out. \Vhilst they might not b<e able to tell the incoming selec­tor definitely where hie selection ended, they would be able to run a line sufficiently near to indic.<te its location to him with regard te the natural features of the country, Why hon. members who prof""'ed to be interested in seen ring closer settlement were battling against the amendment he could not imagine. He was not concerned whether the notice should be three or six months, so long as no injustice was done to the depasturing lessee. If it would ·enable them to make progress he would stick to his original clause, becPouse it was what the de­partment liked. On the other hand, the depart­ment did not wish to do anything that, in the estimation of those who were associated with pastoral pursuit<, was not a fair thing. They had taken up enough time over it, and, ns he liked the departmental amendment, if the Com­mittee liked to leave it at thre'' months he had nn objection.

Hoi<:OURABLii: ::\lEMBERS: Leave it acl it is. Othe•· HoNOURABJ,E li-IEl\IBERR: No; make it

six months.

The CHAIRMAN : I shall have to divide the vrop•lSed new clause. I therefore shall put the qne"tion-" That the clause, down to the word 'thereto,' in the third line, be immted."

::VIr. HARDACRE said he was willing to withdraw his amendment if the Minister would adhere to the clause as originally proposed, retaining the three months' notice.

Hon. R. PHn,p : I will move an amendment to make it six months.

lVJr. HARDACRBJ : The Minister himself was confused about the matter. (Laughter.) The hon. gentleman had suggested the only case

in which settlement would be expedited-that wa• where it would at present take longer than six months to survey the land. J n every other case the clause would place imp,diments in the way of settlement. If it were surveyed .a selec­tor could get possession at a minute's notiCe, b.ut the Minister's proposal would preve~t h1m doing so until three or six months' notice had been given.

Mr. HAMILTON: Not if the land is suneyed.

Mr. HARD ACRE: If the resumed area was surveyed, the selector could get it at once, but under the Minister'B proposal the le"sec could not be di,possessed for three or six months. He asked leave to withdraw his amendment .

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. HoN. R. PHILP moved the omission of the

word "three" with the view of snbstitutir•g the word "six." The hon. member for Leichbardt

was supposed to be a past master in [5 p.m.] connection with the Land Acts, but

he did not understand this mattei·. If a pastoralle"see were given a grazing right over the resumption he would pay tw~lv:e months' reet, but if the land were surveyed mto "razing farms, then the pastoral lessee would have no right at all under his grazing right. If the land were not taken np then, he might apply for an occupation license, and that was the only title which he would have. Once the country was surveyed into a grazing farm the pastoral right was gone altogether.

.Mr. LENXON : He gets his license to occupy.

HoK. R. PHILP: He coned get an occupa­tion license, bnt it was ea.sy to deal with that. The Minister wanted to give three months' notice for an occupation license. The amend­ment was to make it six months' notice, and a number of members in the Committee thought that was little notice enough to enable "' man to shift hts cattle and sheep frGm the land. If the country was surveyed it could te taken up to-morrow unless somebody was paying rent for it. \Vhoever was paying rent, sureiy their rights ought to be respected. If any member had a cottage, for which he had paid twelve ~onths' rent, would he like the landlurd to come 111 and say "You must give it up in three months, bgc~use I have got somebody ehe for it who will pay a higher rent"? Six ~5mt~s was little enough time for a man to sh1tt his stock. He had never known the survey to be completed and the land purchased under six months at any time.

Mr. LAND was oppoBed to the amendment. Ever Aince he had been in the House he bad heard the democrats barracking for all they were worth to get people eettl~d on the land. The Minister proposed to brill!' 111 a clause by which they could be settled on the l3;nd before survey, and it could be done in many mstances. In the settled district.s almost the whole resump· tion waR divided into paddocks, so ever~thing would be as clear as they wished, because 1t was in the settled districts where most of the oettle­ment to'>k place. How was the land taken up in the first place? More than half Queeneland was taken up by marking a tree,. and going alon"' a certain distance and markmg another tree." It was all done by design, and it could be easily done again. He could not undershnd men who had been barracking to get the people settled on the land supporting the amend:nent. He had told them previously t.bnt they chd n~>t understand it, and it was clear that they did not. He and his colleagues had been barrack­ing to get people settled on the land before s>;r­vey, and the :Minister was proposing to do It. They could even do as the hem. member for

Mr. lA~r~d.]

Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Leichhardt wggested-let the selectors make an arrangc"mcnt with tbe lescee, and Jet their sheep run together.

:l\Ir. HAMILTON : There was c·mfusion somewhc.rcj hPcause ~hey were all •,vt~rking on different premi· es. The hon. m• mbcr for Leich­hadt soicl that if the new clansP were c;nried it \V(Jn!d Inean that if the land Vv:1R ret:~umed, ::;ur­veyt d, opened to selt·etion, but Hot. takfn up, aud over whch T·erhaps the Ies,ee, whoever lw might be, hat! a license to depasture, the Minister would have to giv0 six mor.ths' notice before he could take it.

Mr. HARDACRE: Yes.

The SE~'RETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: No, not at all.

Mr. HAYHLTOX: If he thought that were so, he would not vote for it. He hoped the J\'Iini,ter would olear up the ccmfusion that existed.

Hon. J. T. BELL: What is your point?

Mr. HAMILTON: If the land werf· resumed, surveyed, open fors .Jection, and not taken up­an cl there were cases of that in Queensland-and the lessee exercisecl hi" right to occnpy--

Hon. J. T. BELL: Not license to occupy. That would be an occupation license.

;\fr. HAMILTON: The hon. member for Leicbhardt said that the Minister would have to give six months' notice before he could take it up.

Hon. J. T. BELL: Not at all.

Mr. HAMILTON: He did not think it meant that or else he wnuld not vote for it, and he hoped th~ l'liidster wouirl make it clear. Another thing the Minister saii was that he cou:d draw a line through the reln1n1ed portion and say, ''I will take that," and it could be occupiec •lext day, 1f that wete so, how conld they expect any n.an to put improvements on his land? How could they expect him to put down a dam or a tank or put uo lmi!dir•gs, if he did nut know he was putting them within the boundaries of his selection? That" :•s goil.g back to th.' old time of V-.-ictorhtn ~election hefore ~mrvey, wht-re, when .a. man \Va.ntt:=·,J to "pracPck 'l the area he would say, "I want that waterhole and that \1, atPrbu1e, '~ and the :5nrveyor tvould have to conw along and ju,•t follow th" boundary rouml "e tl•e selector asked him to do. Bu~, under thP Queenshnrl Acts u man harl to take the good with the bad, an 1 the eur­vey .. r, when he dfsigned the lnnd, ga \'e a little good and litt]r, bad to each. \Vhen there was a water-hole the C{ueensland surveyor would try to work it so t,hat he would ,,,ive a water frontage to each of t.he selectors. But, aecordin~ to the argument \1f the hon. ITIPrnber for B:-tlonnt>, a man could come along and say he wanted the bes'o piece of land and the surveyor wnuld have to comP along and surv(- y it.

1:Ir. LAND: No, he must take the good with the bad.

Mr. HAMILTON: No one would pnt down improvements under such conditions. He hoped the Minister would explain the meanir'g of it.

The SECRETARY FOri PUBLIC LANDS: The po~ition wc~s that even 1f six tnonths' n:)tice wa" given, when the-land was surveyed they could take possessinn of it, and if it was not sun·eyed they conk! immediately take Jl""session of it. on expiration of the notice. Section (jfi was clear, nnd if the hon. member f<•r Leichhardt bad understood it, all this confusion would not have prevailed. AB the law now stood, the man

[Mr. Land.

who had a depasturing right cnuld hold that depasturing right against all per,;ons nn trl there waR a superior instrnrnent uf titlt:>.

· .1\Ir. H.niiLTOX: Or until survey.

The SECRETARY JWR PUBLIC .LAJ\'DS : Th:tt was clearly undemtood, The awendment would be preceded by words which put into the bands of the department power to reoume land immediately it had been ,urveyed, or, if it was not surveyed, t•ower to eome along and take possession and give it to the new les,;ee, So that the hon. rnemher for Gregory might feel himself on perfectly sound ground in voting for the new clause.

}fr. H .\.RD.'I.CRE: There were many ways on which the proposed new provision would ob­struct settlement. For instance, in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Gregory, where an area was resumed and the land had been actually surveyed, proclaimed open for selection, but not selected, and still rema~ned surveyed, the former holder would hold the r1ght of depasturing over that land.

The SECRETARY l!'OR PUBLIC LANDS: Under section 6().

Mr. HARDACRE: The law at present was that land which was surveyed could be taken up, and the person taking up that land would have a superior title to that held by the person who had the depasturing right. If the land had been sur­veyed, and the thy of application had pass.ed, as it had in many cases, the applicant could go tc the Land Office and put in an application, and the land would be his next <lay-·the applicant c>1uld go on to the land at a moment's notice The p;-opo;al now before the Committee was that three or Kix months' notice must be given on the top of all that.

The SEcRJ;TARY ~'OR PcBLIC LANDR: No, no!

;',;Ir. HARD ACRE: There wtrf', he "upposed, rnillion~ of aerts of ~-;urveved h1tHl on rEhun1ed areas which,remained unselected to-day, and the moment any person took up any of that land he would acquire a superior title to th9,t of the lessee who h~ld a depaHturing right over it. Xow the i\Iini:lter proposed that-

The right of depaRturing shall be determinabl~ at anr time with re..,pect to the whole or any spemfied pai·t of the land ~ulJject thereto by three months' notice given by the )Iiniste-r to the lessee.

Although the land had been nsumed, it could not be sun·eyed until the Minister had given three mcJutbc notice to the lessee.

The SECRET.\,RY ~'OR PUBLIC LANDS : ~beer nonsensr·.

Mr. HARD ACRE:. \Vh,,t was the Minister proposing the amendment for then? (Laug:hter,) \Vhy did he propose three mtmths' nnt1ce to pHltect the holder of the depasturing right? The only nse in which the new clause would facilitate settlement"'"'" th.,t in which it would take longer th,"'n six 1nonths to survey the land,. and, in that case, the Mini.,ter conld, by giving this notice, to1ke the land before it \\as surv<eyed.

Mr. TOLMIE: The Minister proposed by this new clause to m:.ke land available mnch more· readilv than it could otherwise be made availabh'. 81) far as surveyed land was con~ cerned, the right of depas~nring- was deter­mined by sections 103 n,nd 105. Under regula­tion 21, as soon as a pBr.:'on i,;:ot a license to occupy, tlve right to dPpa~ture on that land was determined. What the Minister desired by this. new clause was simply to make that J.mcl avail­able previous to survey, and, at the; prese?t time, he c"uld not do that. If he could go m and take possession of the land, then he could

Land Act.v [29 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 505-

deal with it without survey; he could design it or do anything hP plett&ed with it. There was plenty of power to de,;l with the land after "'n·ey. .He thought it wag rtnite ele>1>r that the proposal \vas nu1de with a deRire- to facilitate settlernent on f 1!RUllled land,.,, and tha.t it \"-'as a fair thing to give six momhs' notice to the pas· tom] temwt, so tiL>.t he might have rmificient tin1e to renwve bi.-; ~tock. 'J.1he clau .. e would not postpone close Hettlement twenty-four hours.

Mr. COYNE: If the object of the cla•1se was to make hmd avaihtble, why did thP Nlinifter propose that three months' nntice should be given? \Vhy not say that the previous holder of the land should be dispos.~cssed immediately the lease of it fell in?

JYir. 'foLMIE: Because it is desired to give him time to take off his stock.

1\fr. COYNE : '!.'he pastoral tenant knew fifteen year·,, previously that he would have to take his stock off. It was altogeLher nonsense. The meaning ough\ to be m~de a bit more plain. If a provis,, were inserted that it was compul­sory to give three or six months' notic~, it might happen r.hat bdore one monr,h the survey might be completed, and it would be another Jive months IJ~fore the Crown could dispossess the lJastoral tenant, even after the land was eur­veyed. lf, :;ftel' the termination of one month after the le:;se fell in, the :\Iinister sent along surveyors and then gave notice t<> the lessee that he would be dispossessed at the end of six months, and thel surveyors completed their work at the end of two mont.hs, could the Minister make the reMumed portion available at the end of two months~

The SgoRJlTAUY FOR Pt::BLH.: L.\:'<n~ : Y<·s.

Mr. COY;\fE: He had entered into a six months' crmtract with the leHsee in the first place, a'Jd unle,,, the :\Iinister compens<ttecl him he could not di~possess him until the OX'Jiry of the fir$t notice. ·

Question-That the word "thre0" proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause (Hon. R. Ph.ilp's nmendmcnt)-put and negatived.

Mr. HARDACRE nndersto'ld the Minister was not a verse to three 1nonthi-;' notice. Now the Committee bad >Lctually omitted the three months' no tie,. and the Secret C~T for Public Lands had m·,. fe ll'> protHt o.bom ic. The Com­mitteP \Vt~re no\v asked to vote for six 1nonths, and he (Mr .. Hard<tcre) waR strongly oppo,ed to anything being inserted-lv~ v!(alld prefer to leave it a.s it was. It would be :t very bad thing for Queensland to provide for six months' notice being given. In ~very Ct,tRB ;::~, 1nan should be able t<! gee un the land without any notice being· given.

The SECRETARY FORPlTBLICLAXDS: If the clause remained as it was, then they could not get po,;"es,i,.n of lmtd held under a· depas­~nring right nntil it had been surveyed. But if It were pos:-nble, a~ sug-gf'":ited by the hon. rnein· ber for \Varrego, that ,m·veyors wp.re on first, they would not give a depasturing right at all; &nd if the sun·ey w.,n completed before the six months' notice the hold et' wculd have to go out.

Mr. LESINA: 'fhe Committee had het•n rlis­cussing for some time whether it was ad vi.,able that a Jr ... ;;8e, part of whose run had been re:;;;umed for closer (~ett.lernent, nnd who was depa,turin.z- on that land hv payinr.r rent for i·c, shonld be [,~iven six r.nl)nth~ 1 notic'e if RPlectors wanted to take up that land. The ':lecretarv for Public Lands wanted to give tht·ee mo;1ths' notice, but the hnn. member for To.vns;iile pro· posed to increase it to six months, so tb,t if a person came froru J\f<:>lbourne to take up land in the C!fc'rmont district, or an~' other district, he

would have to ;:ive six months notice l!efore he could get on that lane! 1:ith his wife and family.

The SEOHETARY FOR PUBLIO LANIJ~ : If this amt·ndment i" not nrried, he will have to wait a great dMI lon~er.

:iYir. LESINA: He would only have to wait until the Government put enongt1 powder b8hind the Act and e:ot snrveyors on to the country.

'fhe SECRETARY l<'Ort PcBLIC Lu\.1\DS: We cannot get ,. urveyors.

Mr. LESIN"cl..: TilE' complu.int was they could not get f<urveyors. If the Government paid a good wage, they would t~et surveyors.

The SECRETARY FOR PrBLIC LANDS : '\V e pay as much to surveyors as any other State.

Mr. LEf·liNA: If the Govemment wanted surveyors, they should pay biggP.r sabries than were offered elsewhere, aud turn them out on the resumed area•, and then the selectors would be able to get the land they could not get at the present time. The lag-gurd fashion in which it was cHrriecl. out huel become such a scan· dal and disgrace that even th.- daily papers which supported the Government were full of cnm­plaints about people who came from the other States and could not get on the land.

The 8ECR.il1'ARY l''Oll PuBLIC LA:iDS : They are full of eorupliments, too.

Mr. LESIN A : Now, the Minister &aid that the proposition was to facilitate settlement. Were selec,ors to be allowed on un&urveyed l'f"'umpr.i,ms ? That was the point. The hon. member for Balonne said t'r" clause practically providted for ,;election br>fore survey. Di,l i~ pro vide for selection before survey?

Mr. LAND: I did n0t >eay ,,,.

~Ir. LESIN A: The hon. member argued that. way. The technic"! phraseolo~y u.;c.J w,;s such that numbers of lron. members c,uld not under­stand it, and 80 wt>nt unt fur a, r-.moke flt \Vent for a walk down the street, a« they C'>ulcl no;; have their minds and brain,; wraried by t.ho'e tech· nical phrases. He WC~nted to kno"'· if a seleetor could cmow up from Sydney or :\fdbonrne or New Zealand, with a few hund' ;d l'ounds in his ]Jvckct, and take up land under the amevdment on a re~nrned arr-:1 in ~;.certain di..:;trict without six months' notice? They could do that now without an arneudr 1ent of tb:• Ac~, and it was being done- all ove"' <.~nrensland ever since 1907. On the other hmd, if the iand was not ~un·eyed, they could not take it up until it was surveyed, whether the arrwndrrHmt ware pa~sed or :not.

The SECRETARY l>'OR PFBLIO LANllS: They can if this amendment is passed.

Mr. I,ESINA: That WHo the point. It ap­peftred that under the present Act a. l<elector· could take up a portion of a re,nmptiou almost immediately, .so long as it was surveyed, but if it was not ::inrveyed, LJ.e cuuld not get it.

JYir. ToL:'tUF.: This clause gh·es him a c:hu.nce of getting it.

:iYir. L:BJSINA: If the clame were passed, could he get on unsurveyed land ?

The SECHETARY FOR Pt::BLJC LAXDS: Six months afterwards.

Mr. LBSIN A :The Secretary for Public Lands said by in.:-.erLing "~ix " in the clau ~e, 1:!. Holector who wanted to gd on that uuourv<-yed land could do so 8ix nlrJnth'\ afterwards.

The s-~CRETAllY 1'0R PuBLIC J,AXlJS: If sur­veyed before the six months, he coqlc[ get on. earlier.

Mr. J...ESIN A : Where di ! it say that ? 'l'he SECRETARY POH P1.:BI,IC LANll:-\ : The

clause gives you that.

Mr. Le8ina.]

E06 Land .Acts LASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

:Mr. Li~SINA: The new clausP, in conjunc­tion with clause 66. It appeared to

[5.30 p.m.] him that, if a man came to his district and w»nted a piece of land

·on an unsurveyed resumpt.ion, he would apply to the :Minister, and the Minister would write b•ck and say, "The first thing I must do before you take up this selection is to inform the lessee, and give him six mnnths' notice of my intention."

Mr. TOLMIE : Either do that, or survey.

:Yir. LESINA: If the Government would not keep a 8nfficient number of survey,,re, and post­poned selection for a conoidera ble period-per­haps for years, as the h<m. member for Balonne had said-then thEre was the best kind of in­·dncement to delay survey, because no man could get on a resumption which was unsurveyed under six months' notice. \Vould the mftn from New South \V ales with his .£300, the man from Vic­toria with his £250, or the man from New Zea­land with his £150, wait for six months in order to get on the resumption? Under the law as it is, he could go on a resumed area, survey it, and get it almo"t immediately, but now the Minister proposed 1 o give notice to the lessee that in six months' time he would want that, and then the selector might go on it.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Unsur­veyed. . An OPPOSiTION MEMBER : How can he get on 1t unsurveyed?

The SECRET.I.RY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: It has been repeatedly stated to you this afternoon.

Mr. LE SIN A : The Con·,mittee was in a. state of confusion as to the meaning of it, and always would he as long as these fragmentary "'mend­ment~ of the Land Acts were con tinned session after session. No wonder members did not un­·derstand them.

:Yir. PAYNE pointed out that :ts one lwn. member bad got one idea and another a different idea, if they tried to follow them all they got eonfused. The hon. member for Clermont re­marked that the Secretary for Lands, if he did not want the selector to get nn to the land, could easily delay survey; but he (Mr. Pay ne) took it that, if any Government wilfully delayed survey >'imply to stop peo;.le from getting on the land, it would not be very long before the people would deal with them accordingly.

Mr. COYNE : They will come along and tell you they cannot get the surveyors.

Mr. PAYNE: His understanding of the .amendment was that it matt.ered very little to the selector whether it wa~ three months or six months. Some hon. members had been speaking about going on to land before it was surveyed. From his experience, he did not think that in Queen~land, or any other part of Auotra!ia, that waH going to be very successful. H.eference had been made to the early tenure of the oquatter. That was right enough in huge areas of land, where it did not matter whether you were within ~alf a mile or a mile of your boundary line, but 1t mattere.d a great rleal when land was cut up into snnll areas of 10,000 or 20,000 acres. He thought that, even in the case of the man who was anxious to get on the land, the tendency was not for him to go on before be knew where the boundarieil were. :For that reason alone, he did not think it mattered whether it was made three -or six months. He had seen the hon. member for Clermont get up before to-day, and kick up a tremenclon" row about the poor people in his electorate paying their money in eighteen months before they could get a lease. That was very

[ 2lf r. Lesina.

hard ; but if the Minister could get the land surveyed and give a man possession in six months he was doing a good thing.

Mr. HAH.DACH.E would like to point out his objections to the amendment again. 'With regard to lands already surveyed, as he had pointed out before, the applicant could go into the Lands Office and t»ke it up to-morrow.

Hon. R PHILP: Everybody admits that. Mr. RARDACRE: In those cases, the hon.

member for Townsville's amendment would make it necessary, on top of that, to give six months' notice.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: No, no!

Mr. HARDACH.E: Under the law at present, where land had been surveyed, the practice of the department was to let » man put his money down and go on to it to-morrow. The Minister was addmg to the law the provi,ion that the right to depastnre should be determinable on three or six months' notice being given. As the law was now, the survey determined the right to denasture.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: \Ve want to do something more than that ; we want to determine the power to survey.

Mr. HARDACRE : How could they do any­thing quicker than let a man get it at once? That was the law now.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Precisely. You need not labour it.

Mr. HARDACRE: He was pointing out that the :Minister was going to add to the law the necessity of giving six months' notice.

The SECRETARY }'OR Punr,IC' LANDS : Yes ; with the power to acquire the land without sur­vey.

Mr. HAH.DACRE: Th•re were thousands of selections open to-day which had alrPady been surveyPd and not selected. There was over them still a right to de!Jasture in force. The applicant came and paid his money; and, being surveyed, he could go on to-morrow, and the right of depas­turing thereby determined. That was the law now, but the Minister proposed to add to the law the proposal that the right of depasturing would not be dPterminable under six months.

lYir. TounE: He does not say so.

Mr. HAH.DACH.J<J : At present no notice at »ll was required. The right of depastnring was determined the moment thP man with the superior title came and took it up. The superior title was completed by the survey and the man putting in his application. The amendment dealt with both mrveyed and unsurveyed land . Section 66 of the Act provided that, when any portion of the resumed area was 'elected, the right of depasturing a• to the part selected thereby ceased and a proportionate rer:lnction was made in the rent. The law now said that, when a part of the resumed area wa.s applied for and surveyed, the proceAs of selection was com­plete, and from that moment the lessee was dis­possessed as to the portion selected. The Minister's proposal added to that.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDH : No.

Mr. HAH.DACRE: That was one case. ~ow he came to the other case. \Vhere th8re was a resumed area the present law and practice was that when a man applied for a piece of land it was thrown open to seiection. It took six months -sometimes more-to go through the process of making it available-throwing it open and getting it surveyed. The Mimster urged that where it took m"re than six months to do all that he might take the land from the lessee in six months. But what was the use of it to the selector until it

Land Acts [29 NoVEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 507

was surveyed? It still had to be surveyed ; and though it was taken possession of at the end of six months, it coulci not b~ made available until it was ourveyed. Therefore in no case would it shorten the time.

Mr. MANN (Cairns): Perhaps it might end the discussion if the hon. member for Townsville were to substitute four months for six months.

Mr. LESINA: Now they clearly compre­hended that a selector from one of the Southern States might come to a country district in this State where there was a piece of land available for selection but not surveyed, and he might get the land he wanted after the lessee bad received six months' notice.

Mr. PAYNE: Or in less time if the land was surveyed.

Mr. LESINA: At least six months' notice must he g1ven where the land was unsurveyed. It might not be surveyed at the end of the notice, and would not the survey be as necessary at thA end of the six months? The only ad van­tage he could see in passing the hon. member for Townsville's amendment was that the lessees holding- depasturing tights on unsurveyed re­sumptions would receive ~ix ffit)nths' notice. He faile,] to SPe how it \\'Ould facilitate settle­ment. He would vote against the six months.

Mr. FERRICKS (Bowen) thought the clause was ambiguou" as it .~tood. It brought in the question of "urveyed lands, though it was only supposed to apply to unsurveyed lands. He thought it should read, "The right to de pasture Qn un~urveyed lands." He would vote against the proposal to give six months' notice.

Mr. LENNON was sorry he was temporarily absent when the Minister agreed to subst,itute six months for three. If he had been present, he would have called for a division. He thought sweet reasonableness should be allowed to pre­vail, and considered that the suggestion of the hon. member for Cairns to alter the term to four months might be accepted. He was astonished 'that the Minister should havp been willing to alter the term from three to six months.

The SECRETARY FOR PVBLIC LASDS : Out of conRideration for the pastoralists. The depart­ment likes three months, but the pastoralists like six.

Mr. LENNON: 'Whilst he did not argue that the pastoralists were not entitled to considera­-tion, he thought they Bhould endeavour to ex­pedite settlement as much as possible.

HoN. R, PHILP: It seemed to him that some members were arguing a,bout agricultural settlement, whereas others were arguing about grazing settlement. He took it that there were no cases in which land would be opened to .agricultural selection before survey. But there were immenRe areas in the far West 11nd North that were held under grazing right which would not be requir·'d fnr agricultural settlement, lJ:nd it was with lands like those that the clause pro­posed to rleaL He knew ""'·era] cases in which a pastoralles;;ee had been dispossessed of land held under grazing right through fellow-p:<storalists ·offering to pay more rent. The least they could do w:<s to give six months' notice to give time for the removal of stock. vVhenever there was any agricult.ural land resumed everybody knew ahout it. If the hon. member for Clermont knew of any lanci that was likely to be required for agricultural settlement, he 0ught to apprise the Lands Department of it, and it would be sur­veyed. He had never known any area suitable for grazing farm settlement which had been stlr­veyed within six months of resumption. Hon. members who were opposing the amendment were considering men who were not here at all-

they were perhaps in New South '.Vales or Vic­toria; but he a"ked them to consider the pasto­ralists who had held the land in some instances for thirty or forty years, and be claimed that it was only fair to give them at least six months' notice.

Mr. BLAIR: There seemP.d to b" some little difficulty in regard to one point. As the law stood, when an area was resumed, the original lesHee had the right of depasturage on that area

·until it was surveyed. If for that proYision they substituted this clause, and decided to give the holder of the grazing right six months' notice, he took it tha>, the right of survey would be snH­pended during those six months.

Hon. R. PHILP: No.

Mr. BLAIR: If a man was gtven by law a certain amount of notice, the JV1ini,ter would have to consider seriously whether the giving of that notice did not preclude survey going on until the notice was up.

Mr. LESINA hoped the Minister would give some information on,the point raised by the hon. member for Ipswich. 'l'he Minister had said in answer to him (:\Ir. Lesina) that six months' notice would have to be given in the case of unsurveyed resumptions if a selector wished to select on the resumed area and if the Govern­mPnt had not surveyed the land in the mean­time; and the hon. member for Gregory inter­jected, "They might survey in the meantim~." The point was whether the clau,.e would g1ve any legal right to the lessee to exclude sm'Veyors.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: The question had been debated quitt> l'mg enough. Under section G6 it was perfectly clear that a man holding a dPpasturing right could not be dispossessed unless the resumed area had been surveyed. In that case the holder of the depas­tnring right knew perfectly well that he w~s liable to be disposses;;ed almost at a m mutes notice. That was the law to-day. It was not in relation to land that was surveyed that he was moving the amendment at all, and the passage of the amendment would not affect sectiOn 66 in the least. If the survey was accomplished before the six months' notice expired, the holclur of the grazing right would have to go. There were areas that the department did not intend to survey, as there was no keen desire to select them, and there was, therefore, no immediate necessity for the department to spend n.wne:y .on tho,esurvevs. But incase 1 here should be1oqmnes for the ln.nd, the department would be in a posi­tion to give six months' notice. If the inquiries came to nothing, 0f course there would bP no need to enforce tbe notice. There were areas which lent themselves to subrlivisinn without our,·ey­there were natural boundariPs, or there might be fences. Indeed, the Land Court, in fixing resumptions, usually looked for some natural boundary or a fence. Under the law liS it stood, they could not take po,se-;sion unt.il the land was surveyed ; but they might be able to indicate the boundaries without an actual survey ; and the object of the clause was to enable them to get pos<ession of the land in such a case. Tbe hon. members for Gregory and Mitchell appreci­ated the point.

Mr. LESINA : \Vhat does the Attorney-General say on the point?

The SECRETARY IN.m PUBLIC LANDS : He had not consulted the Attorney-General, because they had the barrister uf the Lands Department and the draftsman pr<•;;ent, both of whom were competent to give an opinion on tbe question. 'fhe department would like to get land available for settlement as quickly as pos­sible, and, therefore, it had proposed to give three

Hon. D. F. Denham.]

508 Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.] .Amendment Bill.

months' notice; but hon. members who knew tbe facls considered that SIX months would be a >fair thin:; for the pastoraliHts. He might say that ilepa.stnring rights were chiefly held for sheep country, and occupation licenses for cattle country. H wotild perhaps be inconvenient to remove tlw whole ot a flock' of sheep in three rnonth:.:;, :"nd six month·:~ would give thPn:. 111ore time to rnake their arrangarnent'"· 1--Ii~ reason for agreeing to extend the notice to t'ix rnontbs wa;-; partly in response to the desire of the hon. ·member fnr G-regory and the hon. rnernber for :i\-Iitchell, but chiefly in response to a request made to him that morning by a representative of the Past<>ralists' Associatwu.

::\1r. MA:i'\N pointed out that the Minister for I.ands had held a meetirtg with members in one of the committee- rooms in Parliament House, and they agreed as to the term being three month,;. -

The :'JECRETARY FOR Pc:m,rc LANDS : That was concerning the occupation licenoe. This amend­ment wa' not then suggested.

Hon. R. PHir,p : This is a new matter alto­gether.

Mr. ::VIANN: Three months was the period which the Lands Department considered was a

fair thing. The Minister stated that [7 p.m.] he had seen the pastoral lessees, and

they had asked for six months. The Bill ought to be, not in the interests of the pas­toral lessees, but in the interests of getting men settled on the land as early as possible. From one end of Queenslanrl to the other they had he<trd comphmts about the long- period which people lmd tn wait before they could get on the land. That being ,o, the Minister would have been well ad vi se:! if he had ,tuck to the amendment which the department wished, and not ''ccept•·rl the amfmdment of the senior mem­ber for Tcnvnsville, without allowing th;, Cham­ber ample time for discus,,ion. Tt e deputy leader of the Opp•1sitlon referred to the amenrl­nJent being rushed through without his noticing it.

Mr. CoYXE: He said he was at sent at the time.

2\fr. :\iANX: He (l\1 r. :\I ann) had suggested four Hlonths iustead of six nH)ntht; as a com­prcnni~e. That \\'•~'· f-t n1onth long~-· tban the de­partment consif~ered was a fair thing, and two months less than the pastoralles3e• s wished for. They could re·•t asWrt11l that the pastoml lessees aJked for mnch mc,re thon they expected to >;Pt. The situation would he met if the se•1ior member for T''"'nsville would withdmw his amendment 1tn1! allow four mnnthB tn be inserted, and it would then go through without discu:3sion.

Mr. HARDAURE ro'A to hdp the :Minister. Sonw misunderstanding had arisen because the clause had been drafted in sueh tt w<ty as could only le;lll to confnsion. He had gone through the matter C<>refnlly during- the tea hour. It hrtd been argued that the noticP wa" to protect the holder of the pas coral right, S•> that he would not be dispos,,ssed of hi' hnldillg until he got rid of his stock. That was the objec; of the senior member for Townsville; but the Minister said it w~s to facilitate taking it from him.

'J'he SBcRET.UlY FOR l'cBLIC LAJ>ws: The Minit,ter nPver BiLid othenvil"e vet. There is no object in putting it in; bnt for. that to get earlier po:,.se~"~iou.

~1r. HARDACRE : The whole question was whetbel' this notice waY tq override the existing methn:J of dispossessing the lessee, or whether it was to be an ultr~rnative rnethod, and wonid not interfere with the old method at all, but tn run sidP Ly si1le with it. It would certainly ],,,td, to

[Hon.. D. F. Denham.

a lot of misunderstanding if it were put into· the Act in that way. There was exactly the same n1isunder:-;tanding with regarJ to the occu~ pation licen~e~ at the present time. One method was to give notice to the lesc;ee that the license shall be terminable at the end of any year by six nwnths' notice. Another xnethod was to pro~ claim the land open fur selectiun. Under one form six months'. notice was necessary, anrl by the other method it con:d be dnne without a minute's notice. It, should be inserted sn that there would be no misunderstanding. If it did not override the existing methods, then it did not do what the hon. member for Townsvi!le wanted it to do.

Hon. R. PHILP: I am satisfied.

Mr. HARD ACRE: It was not going to con­fer a new right on holders of pastoral leases ttt all, but it was going to take away from them rights which existed at the present time. At the present time tbe pastoral lessee had the absolute right to the continued ocCUIJancy of that country until it was selected or otherwise disposed of, such as a reserve, and the clause took away that right. It, therefore, did no good so far as the· 'pastoral lessees were concerned, and it did not facilitate in any degree gett,ing on to the selec· tion, because the Crown would not let anyone go on to a selection until it was surveyed. The word "or" should have been inserted so as to retain that portion of section ()5 and make thi~ an ~lternat1ve method and not to override the former method at all.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC I,ANDS: Immediately the amendment was disposed of, he· would propose an amendment whicn would re­move all doubt Lhat existed in the minds of hon. members that the six months' notice would de­prive the Crown of the right of immediate re­sumption even if it be not surveyed. (Hear, hear!) He propoeed t•> add the words, "Nothing· in this section shall affect the power of deter­mination acquired by the last preceding sec­tion,"

Amendment (Hon. n. Philp's) agreed to.

The SECRETARY FOR PFBLIC.LANDS propn~Pd the addition of the following words: "N uthing in this seetion shall affect the power of determination conferred by the last preuJding section.''

l\lr. H.\1\IILTON asked if the proposed amendment was nnt ourpluco1ge. Did not the exi<'ting law protect the rights of the Crowrv without this amendment?

The SEURE'rARY ~'OR PUBLIC LANDS: Yas, bnt this amendment makes it quite clear.

Mr. HAl\:ULTON: He understood that the l~w a' it stood amply protected the rights of the Crown, and had argued r)n that basis all the afternoon, but he was glad to have his opinion confirmed oy the 1\iinist,er.

.o'fmendment agTeed to; and clause, as amended, put and passed.

Clause 4-" Amendment of sections 75 ann 78; designed lands"-

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: This vrovision mPrely simplitied the procedure· under the Act. It was thought desirable that land which had been designed should be avail­able fnr selectiun without getting the special authority of the Governor in Council. . At pre­sent we had the anomalv that it "as simpler tr> open lands which were' unsurveyed than lands which wde designAd, ,,nd ibis clause merely asked that it ehonld be la.wfnl without getting­the authority of the Governor in Council to open lands that had simply been designed. He did

Land Acts [29 J:\1 OVEMBEIL] Arnendrnent Bill. 509

not think it wc,uld assist settlement to any degree, but it wuuld facilitate the procedure of department.

Mr. HAMILTOX understo,,d that, even if the 1linistu· had power to open designed land, selection befure survLy would still bJ possible.

The SECRETARY FO!t PuBLIC I,A:s:ns: Yes.

:\fr. HAJiillLTOX: Th •t wa'" what he had contenderl all the afternoon-that a Relec',or would ''-ill be able to take np land before survey.

'fheSECRETARYFOR PUBLIC LANDS: lfnoccnpied ]and eonld, of C!>Urse, he de~igned and tl B selector couid go upnn that land. A select<Jr could do a great deal ,,n scrnb land before he knew whc"re to erect hi:> boundary fence--h, could fell the scrub and build a dwell­ing house. He could also do a reat ileal on forest l;wd bcfom be wa9 in a position to erect his boundary fence.

Mr. COYNE asked if the :Minister could design the re,mned portion of the rnn and make it aYailable for selection before survey?

The SECRETARY :b'OR PUBLIC LANDS replied that, the fixing of a natural bnundary would enable the department to give pn0session to a selector.

Clau'e pnt ""d passed. On clause 5-Amendment of section 78,

noxiou;::; w£e~L and plants, grazing selection~ with noxious weerl8 c n1ditions, etc.-

Mr. MANN : 'fbe 2nd subsection of this <:lause provided-

In the Cf~/"3 of a grazing selection the proclamation may state that. during the flrst period of seven years the rent pa._v ,,,ble shall be either nominal or such rent to be -specified as will encourage t,he selector during such :p:-,riod to do the work nece:-:gar.v fo,. the d'e.:;truction and prevention of the increase of specified no:xious weeds -or plant<,, upon the selection.

He proposed that after the word "selection" in the 1st line of that paragraph thPre b" inserted the words "or agricultural farm." \Vhen they were pas,ing the ph<ns of th<> railway from l'itts­wortb to ::\Iiilmerran, the JHinister fnr Railways stated that "ome of the land in that locality was infPsted with prickly jJPar. He (:'lir. i\Iann) thought that persons selecting that land should bP. allowed to take it up under the provision he had quoted.

The SECHE'rAJ\Y FOH PVBLIC LANIJS: They can take it up under a better provision-the prickly· ,pear provision.

l\Ir. MANN: 'l'here were other weeds be,ides prickly P' ar that co,nsed a good deal nf trouble, as, for instance, tlw ink weed, which was to be found on land in the Atherton district. Suppose some of that bn<l for which the Government were charg­ing a high rant was forfeited, and was not taken up for a long time, would it not be adviRable to allow it to be selected under the conditions of that clause? It was a very hard thing to clear the ink weed, and it would do no harm to allow men who took up land infested with that weed to do so without payin:; rent for six or seven years. Selectors in the Atherton district said it was a very bard strng·gle fc•r them to pay tbe rent while clearing tho"c scrub lands.

The SECRETARY FO.RPUBLICLANDS: There was ample provision made for agricultural farms in the prov1sions of the Aet dealing with prickly-pear selections, pricklv-rear frontages. and prickly-pear boHu,es. This clause was ,,pecifica!ly inserted to meet the case of grazing selections, a!ld noxion" weeds included prickly p<·ar. The requirements of al{ricultural settle­ment were amply met. But in the case of grazing farm selection under the existing prickly-

pear provisions the maximum »rea whici1 c.mld be selected was 5, 000 acres. There wa,; a grent deal of country infested with pear so far removed from a railway th11t 5,000 ocres was nut a suffi­cient area to justify o;election. The deparLrnent were tlwrefore compelled to open the l"nd under section liiA of the Act of 1902 as pa~tural :treas. By the claus,, before the Committee it was pro­vided that when 'uch htnd WctR "Bleated as grnzing farrns the rent fur th<~ fin-t savc_·n year8 shonld he a nominal 1Bn~,, or no rent a.t all, and that thereafter the rental shoulrl comnwnce, and he felt surG tl.,tt the provi:·don \Vould : ecnre effectual s,ettlement. It would be most unwise t\J agree to the insertion of the words bUg'g'e~ted. ~~lre~~y agricultural farms were very fully pro­Video ~<•r.

Mr. ::\.IANN: He wanted t,be l\Iini<ter to nnrler~taud tbat burr, ink weed, Rtinking rodger, and other noxiouB weed~ took lJO"-"e'""i<'n of scrnb lands that had beeu parti,dly clPared, and if the word~ sugge~ted wer ius, rted~ tht)y could do no harm, and the Minister mii!'bt find the provision very useful. He (;yir. :!\Iann) was quite satisfied thn\; a g Jod deal of land taken up in the Evelyn Scrub, and son1r of the pour land in the Atherton Sornb, would hP thrown up on ac,cotmt of the high pt·ice charged for the land, and if l~·ft. f"r two or three y<mrs thev would br.come overrun ·with the noXious weeds Inen­tioned \vhich w.:._•ra regular P'-sts all round the country, as also was stinging nettle.

Mr. :FERlUCKS thought the Secretary Llr Lands shuuld accept the amendment. In the ::North eBpec:Ia.IIy there vvere a Dlllll bl~l' of noxious weeds qnite distinct from prickly pear. In addition to those mentioned, there was the wild apple and various kinds of thi,tl<l, and if the )IinisteL.' could not see his way to i1Jclude th·:.. "'' ondment in the clause, he (:\Ir. Ferricks) hnped when they can1e to the c1u.u~e m akin£{ pro­vit3ion for dealing with prickly pear land, the MinL;ter wonlJ bcoad<·n that clam;c by im;erting· the word:-; ''or t.ther noxious weeds.''

Amendment (Jf1·. 3Iunn's) put and ne,o;ati,·ed. Clauses iS and G put and passed.

On clause 7 --"Amendment of section ()3 ''­

::\Ir. TOL:\1IE thnught the clml'A wa' rather drastic. ClausB 93 of the A~t prn\·ided all that was neee*~ary. rfhq tl8W cla.nHe ab."nlutely pr1)· bit,it•,,i two members of one family from apply­ing fnr the ;a me piece o£ land. In Lcl,, if two brothers s;mght to obtain the same piPce of land )t WaS takPn t(l Rhow ?nalf1 ffrfes. rrhat WaS draW­ing the line 1 oo fine. T1No brothers tnight rca,onably • pply for the "ame piece of land, if it happened to be a good piece of land, with a bona tule intention of settling on it. The Land· Acr. at the present timR gavB the lnnd cotnrniAsioner po\ver to 8ay whether he con­sidered an application a right "PIJlication or not-- to say whether the applic:tnt was acting in collusion with r::omeone else, or whether he was a umut .. fide settler; and, that being the case, there was no necessity to put in a clause prohibiting' two members of a family afJplying for tho same piece of land. In the agricul~ural district' it often hap­pened that several members of a family desired t,J :,ettle on lM1d thrown (>pen, and it was quite possible that there were some portions better than ut here, 01ncl there was no ren,on why one member of a family should not have the same right as any other member of the family to apply for a particular portion that mig-ht be considered better than other8. The objection thnt was raised was that the outsider bad no ch,lllce where a number of membere of the onc, family app!iPd for the land. Tae desire was to 'ettle people on

Mr. Tolmie.]

510 Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.l Amendment Bill.

the land, and it was immaterial to the Committee, or anybody else, who got the selection so long as the per-on wae pnt on the land who was desirous of g~tting there. He hoped the Minister could see his way to leave the Act as at present. and leave the responsibility on the executtYe officers of determining whether a person applyinlt for land was a bona fide applicant or not. There was a disposition on the p~rt of some officers to shirk the responsibility and accept all applica­tions, while there were others who aceepted the responsibilities to the full of clause 93 and would not accept any application that was not genuine. There was no rush for land except in the c"se of land resumed under the Closer Settlement Act and repur0hased estates. :Mount Russell was a case in point. Also in the case of othc,r Downs country taken up there was a general rush of the people li' ing round about to acquire farms, and in spm~ cases where families were successful the outsiders were naturally disappointed, and said they did not see why those people living alongside tbe ~state "hould have been able to secure it. If anybody had a right to it, it was those living alongside the land and had information as to its value. He hoped the ::Ylinister would agree to delete the clan'''·

Mr. BOOKER: The clause was going back­wards in connection with the land s~ttlement. He knew of several cases of large families where the sons were anxious to get on a piece of land thrown open, and where there had been a determination to get that land, whether it was acquired by the eldest brother or by the youngest. He did not see any necessity for the clan se, for this reas.;n: In almost all cases where applica­tions were sent in in inside districts they were invariably priority ~pplications, and that did away with any possibility of members of a family doing anything not in accordance with the Act ---that was, in a sense, dummying. It. was very rarely dummying wa~ found to Pxist amongst memb~rs of a family. 'l'he ontsid•r who came from other countries was more like;y to attempt a system of dummying. All the members of a family living uuder one roof had just as much right to make an application for a selection as people not living under the one roof. It would be a mistake to include the clause.

:Mr. GRAYSON was of opinion that the clause was too drastic. When memb••rs of a family applied for a selection they generally :.pplied under the priority conditions, and if the selection was !(ranted to them they had to fulfil those conditions-they had to live on it. He hoped the Minister would allow the clause to be deleted. There was no necessity for it and it would be very unfair to many families. He knew families with six or seven sons, who had

been reared on their father's selec­[7.30 p.m.] tion of 160 or 200 acres, and all of

those young men w<>re anxious to acquire homesteads for themselves. When a piece of land was opened up in the district, it would be an act of injustice to deprive these young- men of an opportunity to put an applica· tion in, and take their chance at the ballot for any particular selection.

J\'[r. MANN: They are not prevented. Mr. G RA YSON : They were preYented. Only

one member of a family could apply for one selection.

The SECRETARY ~'OR PUBLIC LANDS : J!'or one bh,ck.

Mr. GRA YSON: He knew of a block in his own district which harl been thrown open for selection, for which there were fifty applicants, and if this clause wos passed it would debar the members of a family from applying.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Yes, for one block.

[Mr. Tolmie.

Mr. GRAYSON did not think there was the slightest necessity for the clause. He contended there was no such thing as dummying by men applying for farms in repurch~sed Pstatee, b~­cause the price and conrlitions of sale prevented it. No one knew bettPr than the Minister that it would not pay a man of means to dummy land on repurchased estates, because the price was prohibitive.

Mr. MuRPHY: Not at all. Mr. GRAYSON: He ]mew it for a fact. He

knew as much ab.Jut it as hon. membe1s oppo­site.

;\fr. LAND: About dummying? (Loud laugh­ter.)

Mr. GRAYSON: About repurchased estates. He thought hon. memb~rs opposite--especially those representing Western cons· ituencies-had in their mind's eye the dummying which had taken place in WestBrn C< untry, in connPction with applications for 20,000, 30,000, or 41),000 acre blocks, hut he could assure hon. members that no dummying had been att~mpted in Helection on repurchased estates. The residential condi­tions and the price of the land prohibited dummying entirely. He hoped the :Minister would allow the clause to be amended.

Mr. HAMILTON: It would assist the pas­sage of the clause if the Minister wnuld explain his reasons for inserting such a provision. Other hon. members and him"elf cou'd nnt see where the necessity or ju•t.ice of this came in, unless there was some special reason for inserting it. If the Minister wanted to put down dummy­ing--

'.rhe SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: This has no reference to dummying.

Mr. HAMILTON : It had been stat~d that it referred tu dummying, and if that was the view which the Minister had, let him bring in the restriction in the old 1884 Act, and they would all assist him ; but if it was not to stop dummy­ing, the Mini,ter might explain the reason fur the new depatture. 'Why should two members of one family in the same hons", desir~ms of getting a borne for tbem,eh es, and b •th ehgr hie, be debarrPd from applying, simply hecau'e they lived in the same house. If the Mini,ter could show the rl'ason for it they might be able to accept it.

Mr. WIENHOLT (.F'assijern): He was sorry to see this clause in the Bill. Of course, he understood the objoct was to allow outside men to have a fair chance.

The SECRErARY l!'OR PUBLIC LANDS: To give them a fair show.

Mr. WIENHOLT: Naturally, he would like to see men from Victoria, :New South Wales, and other States come here as much as pnssible, but not at the cost of our own young Qu~ens­landers. (Hear, hear !) They heard a lot about

· the increase of population, but with a clause of this sort they were apparently penalising a man with a big family. He could not see that at all, and he should 'be delighted to s~e the clause negatived.

Mr. MuRPHY: Better withdraw it. Mr. PAYNE was one of those who were

altogether opposed to dummying, but he could not see that this clause was going to stop it.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : It is not designed to.

Mr. P A YNE: He did not think it was a fair thing that two natives of Queensland, who hap­penPd to be brothers and living in the same home, should both be deprived from putting in an application for a grazing homestead.

Land Acts [29 NoVEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 511

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : If two brothers go for the same block they are debarred. If two brothers go for two different blocks they are all right.

Mr. PAYNE: The thing was monstrous. The only thing to do under this clause wa" for one brn• h<'r to go away. They practically told him, "You cannot live unr!Hr th1s roof, but you can go away \,o the other end of the paddock." He did not think that this would have any tendency to stop dummying, and he could not see that it was going to give any outsider a better oppor­tunity.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: It must give th•-m a better opportunity.

Mr. PAYNE thought that two men reared in Queensland should have equal opporounities with outsiders.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: That was all they asked for. 'fhe object of the amendment was to do away with the frequent complaints m·tde to the department that. family applic<l.tions had an unnue advantage over the ordinary applicant.

Mr. MULLAN: So they should. The SECRETARY FUR PUBLIC LANDS:

Very well; if hon. membt>rs thought they should, the department was not in the least con­cerned about this amendment. It was merely introduced because there had been frequent com­plaints. If the Committee thought that the family appJic,ttinn was a fair thing-that six members of the family for onP- piece counted one man-if th'lt was the view of the Committee, he would withdraw the clause.

Mr. COY:SE : H seemed to him that several members on 'he other side had been b · gging this que•tion. They spoke about giving a better chance to Victorians, New S,mth \Velshmen. and all that sort of thing. He agreed with the clause as it stood because it gave an equal oppor­tunity t" neighbours-not nece .. arily Vic'orians, New South Welshmen or New Zealanders. There was one part of it that should be amended. \Vh"re two members of the same family, under the same roof, applied for the one block, only one of them should he eligible, and those two .should draw to >ee which of them was eligible. He thought that would ~ive everyl)ody a fair deal.

HoN. J. T. BELL: It was provided in the Land Acts that any applicant for a piece of land who undertook to per"on•>lly reside on the land obtained priority, and if there was more than one applic~nt the matter went to a ballot. He had always regarded that provision as nne of the sheet anchors in the land laws. While he was in the Lands Depal'trnent one of -the charges made against him was that he was far too sympa· thetic tnwarrls the Southern selectors-the men from New South \Vale§,. Victoria, and New Zealand. ,.

Mr. HAMILTON: No doubt you were. HoN. J. T. BELL: He would not attempt to

repel the sti?ma, because he believed the best results would accrue from an accession of popu­lation of that char::wter.

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! Hon . .J. T. BELL: He found it difficult to see

face to face with the Secretary for Lands in r•·gard to the matter before the Committee. 'fhe hon. gentleman had properly and generously offered not to inoist on the amendment ; and he thought the leader of the Opposition would allow him to say that his little jeer at the Secretary for Lands was scarcely justified. There was no occasion for the hon. member's rather insolent reflection on the Minister.

Mr. LENNON: You ttre lecturing again.

HoN. J. T. BELL: Whatever position he might occupy in the Chamber, he hoped he would always be able to exerci>e the privilege of lectur­ing-if the hon. member liked to term it so-any other member who, in his opinion, deserved it. (Laughter.)

Mr. LENNON : I decline to allow you to lecture me from that side-from the chair I have to sub· m it.

HoN. J. T. BELL: 'fhen it came to a ques­tion of etiquette. If the hon. member thought, as long as he was a m"mber of Parliament, wherever he sat or stood, he had not the right of criticising--

Mr. MANN rose to a point of order. Was the hon. member for Dalby speaking to the clause before the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN·: I th'nk the hon. mem­ber for Dalhy will see that his remarks are not relevant to the question. (Laughter.)

HoN. J. T. BELL:. He must say he thought it was a case of" Satan reprovir:g sin." (Laugh­ter.) He cnnsidered the amendment was an extremely undesirable one. In a large number of instances there were applications of a bona fide nature from members of the same family for the same blnck of land, and he hoped the Minister would not in"ist on the amendment.

Mr. LAND hoped the Minister would stick to the clause, which was so democratic that he­did not know how it got into the Bill. He thought it must have been put Lhere by the­.office, where they mnst be more democratic than the Minister.

HoN. R. PHILP hoped the Minister would not insist on tbe clause, which would not stop dummying at all, bnt would stop H farmer with a far~>ily from gettiug one or two selections.

An HONOuRABLE MEMBER : It will not stop the man with mon.:y.

HoN. R. PHILP : Of course not ; he could get 100 applicttions put in if he liked. The homestead clauses would do a good deal to pre­vent dummying.

:Mr. TOLMIE: There was ample protection in the Act at present. One subsection of section 93 provided that-

An application shall not be accepted or approved unless the commissioner or the court, as the case may be, is satisfied ~hat the application is made in good faith, and the burden of the proolthat an application is made in good faith shall, in all eases, rest upon the applicant. That was &ufficient protection against mala fides; and he thought the clause might well he dropped, so that members of the same family might acquire land. It cJid not follow because two m•mlwrs of a family living under the same roof a!Jplied for a block of land that tbey were working in each other's interests. If two full-grown men wanted to establish homes for themselves, and both of them wanted to select the same piece of land, they should have the rig-ht to acquire that land, so long as they complied with the law. The clause Bimply placed a bar upon families acq uir­ing land. If members of a family applied for the same block and failed to come to some arrangement among themselve.,, all t.heir appli­cations would be declared informal. The Minister bad been very considerate in intimating his willingness to abide by the consensus of opinion of the Committee.

Mr. HARDACJtE was in favour of retaining the clause. It was reasonab e tn assume that the application" were n•>t made in good faith if half a dozen members of a family applied for the sa.me block. The clause <lid not prevent them applying for different blocks. It was reasonable

Mr. Hardacre.]

512 [and Arts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

to suppose, if all six applied for the one block, that they intended to get it for one of their number. An outsirler applying in such a case would have very little eh:tuce ,,f getting" selec­tion) hut t.he clan:-;e won1d glve hi1n ns good a ehan~,~ as ~tnybody e1 '"·

~.Ir. Yi:FLLAX: \Vc,n1d tlw six members of the farniJy r:o~ h~,.ve six ellanee~ H they applied for six diffGrent blo;;k ?

j\,[r. HARD ACRE: The clame would not pt·evpnt tl-tPHl a.vplying for six different Ulocks. It would noc preumt families gett.ing land at a.ll. It 1night not; do rnuch harm in regan1 to small agricultural ·tlections, but it could do a gn::.t deJJ 0f harm in reg:Lrr.! to g~azing ~election, 1'nd the ]}liuister ntlght l"t'f;Lrict it to v,razing L~rn1 area,;,:.

~lr. COY~'\1,~ n1nvPd thrJ ornLsion of the word "none," in linR 3D, wit.h a vit::'l.v to iw::;erting the word "bnt one only. !J lie inr.end ed to fo11ow that np by uoving the addition, after the won't ''faith~" of the words •~sueh application to be determined by bullot." If two brothers applied for the s.·eme bk,;k, unknown to l-'i::!Ch other-it might happL~n tha~ they vn·re not on ~peaking· terms-hi~ an1endrnent would give one of thern the right to apply, but the clause would debar both of them irunJ applyim;.

:'vir. MANN: The ca"e put by the hon. mem­ber for "\Varrego wuuld not bold tqtter, ina::;much as, if two brothers \Ver~: living under the same roof, tlwy W<mld both know that th0y were going to a.pply for the ".me block. If one mem­ber of the fauily \vas rvtt on ~p~aking termS with the otheN he was not likely to be living under the ~mue ro,of; an11 if h~, :vas !lot livi~g iiL the ~.uue nomm t!lerP \~ .1.:-:: no;:,n1ng In tl•e CH1Use

to prevAnt him applyinl;' for the land. He took it the departmAnt had ~ood rea~on for inserting the clause. Hon. members on t.he Opposition side had nJwa.y.J urgued in favour of the landless man ge1 ting la:1~; and he could quite ~ee that if ~ix or seven 1nen1bnrf: of fmnily, who alnYtdy had ~ntHcient land, ~dl l•Jdged LpplicationR for the onB l)lt)Ck :tny c~ther appli0ant would t-:tand vE>ry 1ittlt• d1ane~ (,[ getting it., nn1t,..-", as the hon. rnetu her fur Crovdon rernarked, "his luck was dvad in." He v:a., a•.,t,nnished n.t. t.he hon. men1l.:.::r fnr J)a1hy, : ... n PX~:\linbt:r for L<~ndf,, advouating ih~J \Vith(h:-nval of the clautle) bf'tmuse he mu::;t havt~ kiH) l,-; n that there w::.h so1nA cog-ent reason for its in·erLinn. He tmst,•,l that, in spite nf tr:e hon. rnet..Jbt•r'~ l~c~ul'e, tht' l\lini'~ter would stick J·o the cLu;; ·.

Mr. Ll~:·,:::i"ON •bon?;ht the remedy propose<! by the ;unendmeEt won J not vnrk out to :1dvan· bge, and that the clanse wes better as it stood, although it might be evaded very easily. It would bf; ea~y, befm·e t\vo sons apJJlied for a block of land, for one of them to go away from the home. It was not practicable to make a law that wo"ld provide for every possible contin­gency, but the clause was calculated to give a feeling of security to genuine land·seekers, and they would have 'a chance to acquire land. In some cas,•s in his own district only one block of land had been opened to selection, and it would be very unfa't to allow six me m hers of a family to put in applications, as they would have a far better ch:tnc of getting it than any other indi· vidual. H" thought the clau'e was worth re­taining. The amendment would not he of any real ttdvant.age-, and hn hnped the hon. n1ernber for \Varrego would withclncw it.

:c\1r. CoY~E: Xo; I will stand by it.

Mr. HARDACRE desired to move another amendment when this one was disposed of.

Amendment (M·r. Coyne's) put and n8gatived.

[Mr. Hardacre.

.\1r. HARD ACRE contended that thev were Rtraining at a gnat and swallowing a ~camel. They were trying to prevent member> of a family from getting one block, while under the

present Land Acts the doMs were [8 p.m.l open~od wirle for member·. of fami-

lies, pa·vt.or9.J let~set•s, financial insti~ tntions, Rt>rv~nts of financial institutions, and othen; to nnke neP of the Act for the pur­pose of taking· large areas of country, n.nd. he propo•;ed to introduce an amenurncnt to pre­vent that,

.Ffon. R. l">HILP: l\1ake a new cl~Hrse of it.

Mr. HARD ACRE: In de>eling with n ,;mall leakage like that the qtwsti<•n arose a,; to whether they shonld not stop the wholesale leakage which nlreadv went nn undBr their land laws. 'fhere was dlltnmying going· on throughout the country to-day. The a1nendrnf~nt he proposed was a sec­tion in the 1SS4 Land Act, whieh pre,·ented the pasGOral les~Pe's ~ervant8 or (;l .. nyone eh.:;e: finan­cially interested in the bulding from t" king up a grazing farm, c>ithRr on their own or adjacent holding. He proposed the amendment a' a proviso to elau-:e 7, as follows:-

Provided that no person wbo-(a) !:-; a k-.;:-ee under l}art. III. of the principal Act of

a holding exceeding the maximum arl'a which may be selected as a grazing fa!'m; or

(b) Is a pa.storal tenant unCJ,;)r any of the .Actr:; thereby r,:.I.,ualed ; or

'/') I::; a trustee for any such le::;Ree or pastoral tenant other'\vise than under a. will ; or

(d) Is the servant of auy such le:-;~ee or pastoral tenant: or

(e) Is intm'f•itted as mort~agor or otherwist- in any holding under .P;n·t III. of the prinmpal Act or in a run held under au:r of the J .. ets thereby repealerl,

may apply for or become or be the le"sce o t a ~razing farm which is situated in the same t1i~trict ~n \Yhich the hol,Jin~ or run i.;; sit~mtert, or of n. grazing farm whieh i!'l Rituated in another di~trict Hlhl ; witllin t•n.:~"Ity~fivc m.ile;:; of any part of sneh holding or run.

He did not intend to discuss the amendment, but proposed it merely to get it on record.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLICI,A:NDS: It was desirable to intrnduee some such amend­ment, hut he wntjld prefer the c!anse in the 1897 Act instead of the one proposed by the; hon. member for Leichbardt.. The rlanse he would prefer was Bection l.'iO of the 1897 Act, which read as follows:-l~o person who-

(1) Is a lessee of, or beneficially intere':i:ted or interes­ted as mortgage"l or mortgagor in, a holding under Part III. of this Act or Pent HI. of the Crown Landg Act of 18'l4: or

(2) Is a trustee for any sncll les .. ee otherwise than under a vdll ; or

(3J Is· a servant of an),~ eh le:;see-

may apply for or acquire nr bold :.t grazing farm or homestead which is sitmtted on the resumed part of the run, or within fifteen miles of the holding.

This was clearly not the place to i1Hroduce it. He hoped that the bnn. member, having secured the object he had in view in getting it on record, would now withdraw the amendment. There was no donbt that there should be some safe­guards.

::\Ir. HARDACRE was glad the Minister admitted the desirablene~s of introducing some such amendm·~nt, and on the bon~ gentleman's suggestion he asked leave to withdraw it.

Hox. R. PHILP : Thev had had that safe­guard for many years, but they found that it was no good at all. It led to squatters going

Land Ads [29 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 513

-outside their own district and taking up some of their neighbour's land >Ond vice ?'ersii, and they were fighting agaimt each other. The Act was much better as it stood at the pre•1ent time, because it allowPd a lessee to select one grazing farm on his own holding- and no more. That was only a fair thing. \Vhen a man had been living thirty or forty years on one holding it was only fair that he should be allowed to take up a s'lectit'll on that holding juso the ·san1e as anyone elRe.

:Yir. HAMILTO:N : The amendment of the hon. member for Leichhardt was not ag<tinst the pastoral lessee taking up a !:(razing farm on his ·own holding. Xu fair-minded m·an would nbject to a vastoral lessee taking a selection on his holding when his lease expired. He had that right gi,·en to him under the 1902 Act, and no one objected to him retaining it. \Vhat they objected to was t!1e dummying that went on at the pre,ent time. He knew many instances where institutions never took an acre of their resumptions, but there were others who bronght along their jackaroos, their bonndary riders, their relations in Victoria and some other States who never saw Queensland, and did not know that they had any interest in Queens­land, who dummied the whole of their leaseholds. Since they had introduced the Act of 1902, and wiped out the safeguards ·contained in the 1884 Act, dummying ha.d been rampant on many holding• in Queensland. The sooner we get back to the old restrictions imposed by the Act of 1884 the better it would bo for the bonrt fide selector and ·for Queensland generally. The Act of 1902 certainly gave the lessee the right of priority of selection on . his run at thB expiration of his lease, and' he believed that every member agreed that that was a fair thing to do, but they desired to remove the possibility of the lessee dummying the whole of his resumption to the exclusion of the bon(i fide selector. At a recent Lanrl Court, for the ·first time in twelve year", applicants had been required to prove their bona fides, and be hoped that practice would be continuer.l. \Vitnesses who gave evidence of the carrying capacity of runs were :;worn to give true evidence, but as far as ki&sing the Bible Wf>S concerned, wme of them might as well kiss a brtck for all the effect it had on their evidence. Anyone who was familiar with the country knew that in mRny instances the witnesses were not telling the truth.

The CHAIRMA~: Is it the pleasure of the Dommittee that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Leichhardt be withdrawn?

HoNOCRABLE ME)!BERS: Hear, hear! Amendment wttbdrawn accordingly.

Question-That clause 7 stand part of the Bill--put; and the Committee divided :-

An:s, 30. :Mr. Appel ~Ir. L:tnd

, Barber Lennon , , Barnes, ""'. H. :Manu ,, Oor:;er ,, .:\fay .. Oottell , McLachlan , Coyne :;\Iullan

Crawford , ~furphy DenhRm , :Sevitt T<'etricks " O'.Sullivan

, Gnnn , Paget Hamilton ,. Payne II-:t.rdacre ., Petrie Hawthorn , Swayne

, Hunter, D. , Theodore , Kidston , Winstanley Tellers: )fr. Crawford and Mr. Hard acre.

1909-2 K

Mr. Allan ., Barues, G. P.

Bell ., Booker , Bouchard , Brennau , Forsyth

?>'OES, 13. Mr. Grayson

, Keogh , Philp

Tolmie ''ralker Wienholt

Tellers: Mr. Allan and )Ir. Bouchard.

PAIRS.

Ayes-Mr. Somers~t. l.:Ir. ~!organ, ::\1r. :3-Iackinto~h Mr. White, Mr. Fox, ~r. Cribb, :Mr. Rankin, :Mr. G:rant :Mr. Stodart, and Mr. Furrest.

Xoes-Mr. Blair, "Ir. J. ::11. Hunter. ~rr. R. F. S. .A.llen, M.r. Breslin. )fr. Bowmau. Mr. Fol<:y, :'lir. Jt~·an, )fr. Collins, :J!r. }ianghan. al]d J.Ir. llyland.

Resolved in the affirmative.

On clause 8-as follnw.s :-After section ninety-six of tile priucipltl At't, t-he

following section is inserted :-

l96:\_.J For a period of four weeks after the da.te on which land has become open tor gt·azing selection snch land shall be available ouly for selection r..s ~ graz1ng homestt"ttd, and any application to select the same ;:1s a grazing farm lodged before the expiration of tha.t, period shall be deemed to ha Ye been lodged ou the day next following aner the expiration of the said four wet•ks.

The S:ECRET AR Y FOR PUBLIC LANDS moved that all the wurda after "homestead," on line '1ii, be omitted with the view ot inserting the following :-

If at. the expir;ttion of that period such land has not been applied for, it shall for a further period of four weeks be det-:med to be withdrawn from seleetion. And fror.r. and after the expiration of such further period such land shall be available only tor selection as a, grazing farm.

The idea was that during the four weeks the land would be available for selection as grazing homesteads. The time for selecting as a grazing homestead having passed, and there being no applicants, the land, after one month, would be open to selection as graZing farms, and could he tendered for.

Mr. OOYNE said he had a prior amend-· ment. He moved that the words " four weeks," on line 42, be omitted, with a view of inoerting "three months." His object was to give a better opportunity to bonr.i fide settlers, which they could get by having the land open for selection as grazing homesteads for that period of time. He understood the Minister was quite agreeable to have tlie land thrown open for grazing homesteads for two months, but the majority of members on his side desired to make it three months. bC'cause when a number of blocks w<>re thrown open for selection they desired to have bond fide residents settled on those blocks. Under the clause as it stood the Minister had no power to keel? it open for three months. Say twenty applicants applied for forty blocks, and ten of those applicants applied for five blocks, then there would be ten applicants for the remaining thirty-five blocks. After the first ballot was taken the balance were thrown out of court altogether. The balance of the block> were then left open to grazing selection, whereas, if they were left open for another month as grazing homesteads, the whole of those blocks woufd be ta.ken up as grazing homest0ado. He thought it was a fair demand that pro­vision should be made to han' ouch lands thrown open for three Inonths as grazing homestead,-. After t ha.t period hC' had no objecti<Jn, and members on that .:;;ide had no objection, to meet the J\IinistN. and close it up as grazing homesteads, and 1nake it open for grazing farms only. If it. were

Mr._Ooy·ne:.l

5H La;;d Ads [ASt-lEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

thrown open for three months for grazing homesteads, and thPre was any left., they could as~ume. at any rate. that is was not good enough to reside on, and so they could allow a pe1·son to take it up under unconditional selection.

:\Ir. GHA YSON was <:>ntir<:>ly oppD 1 1cd to the pre"'C'nt system, and he was rrlad th<:> :\Iinister had given somc> prDmise of ·havin·, ~elPotions thrm.-n opPn for at least one month as gTazin<r hcm<'<teads. He thought the time sh~uld b~ <'xtendGd t.o at least three mont.hs, as one month wa.s too short a period altogc>ther.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: They have not fDund it so in the past.

:\1r. GRA YSON: He was speaking princi­pally of the lands in the WGst. There werP long distances to travel, and as a rule the people. did not see the notification that the lands had been thrDwn op<'n for selection as soon as those living in the immediate district. T110 new clam.e won!d assist the homestead selector very considerably, and <'nable the genuine selector to apply for a block and ha.ve erjnal opportunitie~ to other selectors who sent in applications at the same time. Formerly, when.Jand was .thrown open for grazing farm selectwn, the rwh man was able to tender a much higher price than a man of slender means, with thG rBsult, almost invariablv, that thG man with the long purse 1'as able to~secure the choice blocks in the ViT estBrn country. The clause would enable th<' homestead selec­tor ro put an application in for any particular block, and he had equal opportunities in the co:'r~ with all other applicants. He hoped the ~\hmster would consGnt to make the time three months. It was the man who would select with. th<> view of personally residing on his selection that they wanted. It was a verv small conCBssion they were asking for. ·

:\fr. HAMILTON: That was one of the im­portant suggested alterations in the Act, and 1t was a very good one. too. He would like to se<' the tim<> made three months, as one month was altogether too ·short. For in­stance, people looking: for grazing homesteads m the \Varrego dtstnct, the Central district, or the Northern district-if they "missed the 'bus" in one place, they would have time to go round to the other districts and inspect the lands that were remaining open.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: It has Lce.n found all right so far.

:\fr. HAMILTON: The land had never been opened under those conditions before, and where ten or twelve areas were opened at opce, there might be three or four good por­tions, and the great bulk of the applications

would be for those three or four [8.30 p.m.] good selections as homesteads, and

the others would be secured as grazing farms. Under this clause, if the majority went in for three or four of the sel<;ctions which might be amongst those whwh had been opened, those who " missed the 'bus" could turn round and say they would take up one of the others. He thought it was a very good provision, and that it would be improved if the Minister accepted the amend­ment which had been proposed.

Mr. LAND was very pleased indeed to see the clause in tho Bill. He stood a little different to this clause than he did to clause 7. He thought so much of clause 7 that he was rather surprised that it got there at all. He ln<ppened to know how No. 8 got there. The Labour party had been for a long time ad­vocating c!oser and bona fide settlement, and cndeavourmg to do away with the tender

[M-r. Goyne.

system. The agitation became so strong, that before the Premier went to the country he thought it wa3 a good chance to snap up a few democratic votes on this. The Minister stated that it was put in at the instigation of the c.c>loctors and settlers' association-a purely Philp organisation-just got ready for the last election.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the amendment.

Mr. LAND : In reference to the amend­ment, he thought three months was guite short enough. On a previous occasion he worked very hard to help the Minister to extend it to six months. One month gave men in the country very little opportunity. It was not easy for people to get round. Selec­tors had perhaps to travel hundreds of miles to get the land, and a month was a very short time to get ready in, As the Minister and the Premier had expressed their liberality and sympathy towards the small settlers, and were anxious to promote bona fide settlement, it was only reasonable they should extend this to three months. He was sure no one in favour of closer and bona fide settlement would vote against the amendment, or The clause after­wards, because it shut out the land speculator and the land grabber, and gave the bona fide selector a chance.

Mr. TOLMIE thought the provisions of the Act gave all the advantages which the hon. member for Balonne stated. The clause pro­vided that for a space of one month the land· should be open for grazing homestead selec­tion only. Then in clause 97 of the Act the hon. member would find the protection he wanted. It said-

1\""hen lands are open for selection as gr::~zmg selec­tions, and applit·ations to ~:<elect the same lands both as gr:JZlllg farms an(l as grazing homr>~teads are lodged at the same time, the applications to selert the lands as grazing homesteads shall be entitled to priority.

The amendment of section 96 of the Act gav'l' a man the same advantage to go for a grazing selection as it did for a.gricultural homesteads. It allowed the land to be thrown open for one month for homestead selection.

The SECRETARYFORPUBLIC LANDS: To his mind. there was very ample time pro­vided. In the past it had not been four weeks; it had .been six weeks; but, for the sake of illustration, they would allow the ordinary time to obtain as far as the advert;sement went. Assume that it was four weeks from the opening on 1st December, then the court had to sit immediately after 1st January, and the ballot was taken for the gra.zing home­stead. The disappointed select.or for the graz_ ing homestead had his chance t.o come in up to the end of January as a homesteader still. On the 1st of I<'ebruary, it was withdrawn altogether from homestead selection, and re­mained open for a month; at the expiration of that month there was tendering as f<Jr a graz­ing farm. What more time did they want? At any ratr-, it was nearly eight weeks before the first ballot was done ; then the disap­pointed selector had another four in which to come in as a, grazing homesteader, and after that four weeks was up it was withdrawn from homcsteading, and became available as a grazing farm.

Mr. CoY"E: When does the court sit after the land is opened?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAND~: After the land was opened, the oourt usually sat---

::\Ir. COYNE: Does the court sit on the open­ing day?

Land Acts [29 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 515

The SECRE'L\RY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Yes. the ballot was drawn then. If there was a disappo:ntecl ,pl.ector who wanted the land, the court eould sit next rnornin go to enable hin1 to come in a:-> a homesteade1~, and it re­mained open for the n<Jxt four weeks a8 a homcsh•ad, and then it became a grazing farm. H<J could not understand hon. mem­bers, who took up two hours in the afternoon in being so anxious to get men on the land so quickly, now wanting to shove it off for three or four weeks.

Mr. LAXD: \Ye do not want to shove it off 1Lt all,

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS· Tak<J the effect of th<J last twelve months; operations-and it would be admitted that the present law was not so favourable as what the cla':'se prop<?sed. On the opening day f?r grazmg selectwns there were 291 applica­tions. There were 227 selected leavil1'' 64 With the conscious knowledge of' the improve: m<mt _of the law-that was, not tendering­ballotmg on t!1e first opening day, and that the land remamed open to the grazing home­steader !"t the opening price for the next twenty-eight days, he though every block would bB taken up, and anv block which was left would not be worth ta':kin~ up. To talk about making the time thre<J ,';;onths was to his _mind, playing with the importance of 'the ,;ub]ect. He hoped that the matter would not be delayed any longer, but that the Committee would accept the amendment as it stood.

:\Ir, COYNE: The wav the :Minister had placed the case before the- Committee was not fair. He had given an illustrati~n that if the land wa;s proclaimed open on the 1st Janu­ary, then thNe might be a CDurt held on the 2nd January. If it was proclaimed to be open for one month, then there was one court held to deal with the applications that month. They kn.ew the:y woul~l g-;t priority according to the t1me their apphcatwns were deposited, but there seemed to be one court t-o determine these applications made that month, and those made at the end of that month in which the land was. thrown open for that particular class of sel<;chop. According to the provision in the Blll, It would then be withdrawn alto­gether from sel5'ctiou of any description for another month after the court, and then it was thrown open at the end of the second four weeks as !',rrazing farms. If the Minister did what he promised them, he (Mr. Coyne) would have no obj<Jction, because it would be a sort o~ compromise that it should be held open for mght weeks; that was to say, the disappointed homesteaders at the first ballot would be able to have a second ballot at the end of the second month. 'rhere was a ballot for the blocks left after the first ballot, At the end of eight weeks it would oo thrown open as grazing farms-that was, after four weeks had elaps<';d during which It was not open for selection. Were those people who had come long distances for land going to sit idly by a.nd tender-ra.ckrent themselves-in order t-o obtain onn of those hlock~? He thought. it was unfair. It did not give bond fidr. ~ettle­ment a chance. Here was a chance to leave this open two months--three would be better. If the Minister would compromise, he would withdraw his amendment in favour of two mont-hs, otherwise the would put his amend­m<'nt to the vote.

:\Jr. CORSER was satisfied with the explana­tion of the Minister. \Vhen discussing it be­fore he did' not know there would be such a

long time given for the first applications to be put in. Th<Jre wa;; ample t.ime for the would­he homesteader to pnt in his a.ppl'cation; and \Vhen the court ~at, ii any applic','1tions ovcr­lappc·d, f.hosf' applicat-ion.- would have anoth,ll' four weeks in which thev w·mld have the ex­clus;vo riccht to t<tke up ll.omesteads; and after the expiration of the four weeks it lay dor­mant another four w<Jeks so as to let the grazing farmers come round and look at the land ; a.nd if they failed to take it up it would be open for other selertion.

:J1r. LAND: This amendment was in the interests of boniJ fide settlement, and he hoped It would be adopted by the Committee, as they oould not have too much of a good thing. When they were considering the Bill in the committee-room, he understood the ::Y1inister to say he was going to extend the time for two months.

HuN. R. PHILP: At first he was inclined j,o agree with the hon. member for \V arrego but after the explanation of the Minister h~ had changed his opinion in regard to th~ amend­ment. The graztng homesteader would have two chances. After the applications went in, the. c_ourt sat, and the commissioner gave his demswn; and there were twenty-seven davs after that during which time the land w'its open for grazing ~homesteads only, Plenty of land had been thrown open for homestead seleciwn and had not been taken up. He h<td known some of the best land;; in the countrv open for years and sometimes no applications received for them. He was glad to see that there wa.s a des:re for bonri firle settlement. It wa~ the object of the 1884 Act to provide for bonri firle settlers; but the people who were ex. pected to settle never wont on the land. He rpmembered getting land thrown open near Longrea.ch for shea.rere a.nd others but no-body took it up. '

An HON01'RABLE 2\TEMB!m: You can't ex­pect them to take it up at 2d. and Sd. an a.cre.

Hol\', R. PHILP: 'l'his was open at ld and ~d. an acrp. Under the clause propose.d by thP Minister, a court must be held before the grazing farmer could get a show.

ThE" SEORETARYFOR PUBLIC LANDS· Nothing could be ciearer than thP clause itself--·

For a period of four weeks after the date on which hmd has become open for grazinO' selection such land shall be available only for selectio~I as a grazing home­stead. The opening day was the day on which the court sat.

Mr. COYNE: No-the first day on which applications can be made.

'rhe SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: What was intended was that the land should be advertised for from four to seven weeks. Then came the opening day--the court day. The court sat. Then the land remained open tor a period of four weeks as a grazing home­stead. Already it had been open for that form of selection for from eight to eleven weeks. Then it was withdrawn for a month, and thereafter it was only to be available for selection as a grazing farm. The clause was liberal enough, and he had no intention of accepting an amendment for eight w,eeks.

Mr. COYNE repeated that what he said with r0gard to the courts was correct. If the clause were passed, land would be proclaimed

Mr. Ooyne.l

616 Lanrl Ads [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

open as a grazing homestead for four weeks, beginning with a certain date. No applica· tions could be in before a certain date fixed by the proclamation. Any applications that came in before that date were to be regarded as being all received on the one day. If what hon. members opposite said was correct. and all the applications were for one block, it would mc·~tn that they would simply have to be drawn for the one block, because they were all received at the same time. Now, would that not make a farce of the whole thing? All the applications received before the date when the land was proclaimed open for grazing home­steads were to be regarded as received on that particular date, and all received during thP remainder of the month were dated according to the time they were received until the court was held at the end of the month. When the court was held at the end of the month, thev got priority according to the date when they were received. One court disposed of the whole lot. Those who had been disappointed at the first court were deprived of the oppor· tunity of coming in again as applicants for grazing homesteads. With the permission of the Committee he would amend his amend­ment by omitting the words " three months" with a view to inoerting the words .. eight weeks."

Amendment, by leave, amended.

1-Ir. HARDACRE certainlv understood the Minister to inform the conference that he assPnted to the extension to two months.

Hon. R. PHILP: This Committee knows nothing at all about the conference.

:Mr. HARDACRE admitted that the Minis­ter had said that he would not bind himself to anything he said at the conference. At the same time, they discu,sed this question, and the hon. gentleman said he would assent to the two months. He (Mr. Hardacre) would just as soon see the present law in force as this clause, as he was of opinion that the clause would make against grazing home­steads. At the present time applications for grazing homesteads had priority on the date .of opening-that was the date on which the court sat-and all that this clause would do woulcl be to give 1ohem priority for one month longer.

Mr. COYNE: That i~ wrong.

Mr. HARD ACRE: It might be; but he was assuming for the moment that it was correct. But the clause was going to counterbalance that by closing it for ever

against grazing homesteads after [9 p.m.] the month. In the case men-

tioned by the hon. member for Townsville, where land had been open for a long time without being selected, a grazing farm applicant could take it up, but an appli­cant for a grazing homestead would not be .able to get it at all. After one month it -would be open to grazing farm selection only.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: You il:now what that means. It is to give the -tender system an opportunity.

Mr. HARD ACRE: It meant that it would .only be open to selection as grazing farms. An applicant for a grazing homestead could not come in at all after the first eight. WPeks. He supported the amendment making it two months. The clause as it stood took away all the advantages which a grazing homestead had now.

[J·lr. Coyne.

Question-·That the emitted {Jb·. Goyne's of the clause-put; divided:-

words proposed to be amendment) stand part and the Committee

..AYES, 24. :Yr. Allan :Mr. Gunn ., Appel , Hawthorn ., Barnes, G. P. , Hunter, D. ., J!arne~, 1r. H. " Keo~;h ., Hool<er " Kidston , .Honchard , Paget , , Brennan .. I>et.rie .. Bridges ,. Philp ., Corset ,. Swn.yne , Cottell .. Tolmie , Uenham , \Valker

Forsyth , Wienholt 77el/Prs: Mr. D. Hunter and Mr. 1-Yallcc:r.

~or:s, 20. )Jr. Barber )!r. ~!ann

,, Uoyne ,, May Crawrord :J.1cLachla~l Douglas ::\Iullan li'erricks ., )iurphy Grayson Xevitt Hamilton ,. O'Hullivan Hardacre PaytJe Land ,. Theodore

., r.ennon ,. "l\"instanley 'Pf'lfers: ):Ir. :Xevitt and llr. Theodore.

PAIRS.

Ayes--1Ir. Somer:-et, 3ir. Morgan, lir. _\faekintosb, Mr. White, llr. Fox, Mr. Cl'ibb, :M.r. lt.a.nkin, Mr. Grant, :Mr. Stodart, and l!r. Forr·est.

Xoes-}11'. Bhtir, Mr. J. lL Hunter, l!r. B. P. S. Alien, Mr. Breslm, :'vir. Bowman. :l!r. l'oley, ::llr. ltyan, Mr. Collins, Mr. :\1aughan, and Mr. ltyland.

Reaolved in the affirmative.

On clause 8-The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS

then moved the a.mendment as already stated. and explained that after two courts had passed. if the land was not then applied for, it would for a further period of four weeks be with­drawn from selection, and only opened for selection as a grazing farm.

:\Ir. HniiLTON: If it is not taken up at the end of four weeks. is it open to either form of tenure?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Yes, it was open to any form after that.

:\Ir. COYI\E had an ame1;dment to move, which would come in after the word "' home­stead," before that proposed by the Min­ister. He wanted to make it perfectly clear to the Committee and to the applicants nnder the grazing homestead provision that. the court would sit twice during this term of four.week~. He wanted applicants to know that. If they failed to obtain a block a.t the first court. they would have an opportunity, when tlw second court sat, of getting in an application as graz­ing homestead: before the land was thrown open for grazing farm. His amendment would come in on line 45, and read as follows:-

The commiss~oner's court shall sit and determine all applications submitted on the first, se~ond, or th.ird dav of the term for wllich such la.nd 18 open as grazing hoinestead, :md shall also ::-it and determiue during the last day of such term all applications received since the first court sat.

\Vould he be in order in moving his amend­ment now or should he wait until the amend­ment submitted bv the Minister was disposed of? -

The CHAIRl\IA~ : I think the amendment of the hon. member for \Van·ego should be ,ubmittE'd first, and I shall defer putting- the Minister's amendment until that is decided by the Committee.

Land Acts [29 NovEMBER.] Amen.dment Bill. 517

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: There was no need for this amendment, as ~ction 51 of the Act required that the commis­sioner should once at lf'ast in each month hold a .court.

:\lr. UoYNE: \YelL that won't do. You said he sat twice in each month.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: The January c_ourt having passed, all appli­cations for grazmg home,teads which were not dealt with at that court would be dealt with at the subsequent court in February.

:\Ir. COYNE: The clause propo-sed a new departure, and they were now dealing- sepa­rately with grazing farms and grazing home­steads, and he wanted it made quite clear that the commissioner would sit twice a month, as the :\1inistcr had told the Committee that he would.

The SECRETARY FOR PCBLIC LANDS: I did not tell you that.

Mr. UOYNE: He did not believe the state­ment at first, and he simply desired to make it dear that the court would sit twice in the month to deal with these appJications. If what the :\linist-er said was correct, the amend­ment could do no harm, and it would make it quite clear to applicant~ t.hat there would l:e two court' in tlw month to dBal wit11 appli­eations for grazing homesteads.

}fr. HAMILTON thought the amBndment was absolutely necessary. If the land was thrown open on the li<t January, the court sitting at the beginning of that month would deal with the applications then received. Then the four weeks for which the land was open to . <eh'ction as grazing homesteads would expire before the next com·t sat, so that it was Jiecessary to have two C'Ourt'' in the month to dell! with such applications. It would be much better to. provide that t.llf' land should be open from the one monthly court to the next. That would meet the whole difficulty.

Mr. G. P. BARNES: The practice which had prevailed in the past with regard to applications would continue to prevail. The clause stated specifically tha.t the land should b<> open for four we<'ks, and all applications r<'ceived during that time would be con­sidered. In the case of the Maryvale Estate applications came in on the 4th, 5th 6th and 7th days after the first date on which 'they were receivable, and they were dealt with in the orc!Pr on which thev were received.

:.\fr. COYNE:. That is- a .r~purchased estate, and the cond1hons there are very different.

:Yir. G. P. BAllNES: Not at all. The same conditions applied to grazing homestead selec-tions. ·

Mr. UOYNE: The :vJinistt>r had not given any good reason why he should not accept the amendment.

Mr. BoucnARD: It is not necessary. Mr. COYNE: It was nonsense to say it was

not necE',sary. Clause 51 of the principal Act provided-

The commh•sioner shaH mwe at least in each month, on a day of whieh notice shall be given in the Gttzette. hold an open c•ourt, to he called the commissi..:mer's court. at whlCh all }t_pplie~Lt.ions to ~elect land under Part IY. or this Act shall be considered.

That was the point. .\ pplications under the t,;razing homestead provisions would close at the end of the particular month. If it was provided that the next court, after the close of the t<>rm from the time of the first court, could deal with them, h<> would l:e satisfied: otherwis<', he was not. "'hat would they feel

like if men came from the Southern States ~..nd discovered that the court had no jurisdiction? That was likely to arise, and there was no pro­vision that there should be a second court. It was no us<> keeping the land open for a. month, unless there were two courts tn deal with it. They must insist that two courts be held.

:VIr. PA YNE: There was just one po-int. For instance, supposing the land had be,,n open for grazing homestead selection for a period of four weeks, applications put in on the first clay after the land was thrown open wBre dealt with on the second or third. If there was still some land remaining not ap­plied for, if he applied 011 the last day of the four weeks, he took it, so long as his applica­tion was within the hmit of that four weeks, the next court would deal with the application.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: That is right.

::\Ir. PA YNE: It did not matter whether the court sat in .January, February, or :\larch so long as the application was in within the four weeks.

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC LANDS: Yes, %

a grazing homestead. There is absolutely no need for this amendment.

::\lr. HA RDACRE": There wa.s a slight mis­take over the watter. The clause provided that at I ~le end of faur weeks it would, for a further four wee~s, be deemed to be with­drawn from selectwn.

1'h() SECRETARY }'OR PPBLIC LANDS: V\' c are talking about another matter.

i\lr. HARD ACRE: It was opened on a. certain clay for grazing homestead selection . t-iome of the applicants might be disappointed, p)though there might still be some isolated areas for which th., disappointed applicants might apply on the following day. The prac­tice to-day was to leave those lying in the office until the next court was held. The Act provided that the commissioner must sit at le·ast once in each month but it did not neces­sarilv mean t.hat there should not be over a mm1th. It might be six or seven weeks.

The SECRETARY FOR Pc'BLIC L.\.l\DS: '.rhat makeo no difference.

Mr. liARDACRE: The court might sit five weeks afterwards, and, when it came to deal with ihe applications awaiting attBntion, some lawyer might try and force the interpretation that as the month had elapsed, accordiug t-o the clause, the land wrus withdrawn.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: No, no~

:'vir. HARD ACRE: The clause provided that aft-er the first period of four weeks the land would be withdrawn from selection; the commissioner could not go behind that. A man might go to the court and say that, although the applications had been lying for four weeks. the commissioner could not deal with them, as the land was withdrawn.

:.\1r. FoRSYTH: Why should thBy be lying there for weeks!

:'vlr. HARD ACRE: The intBntioll was to givt the grazing homesteaders four weeks in which to put in appLcations. Suppose at the present time land was thrown open for selectwn, and the day following a man put in an applica­tion for land, and it lay there until the next court sat. In the meantime, the Minister sent a telegram withdrawing that land from selection. Uncler the circumstances, could the commissioner deal with that land? He

, did not think he could, unlBss the Minister made provision that applications put in before

Mr. Hm·dacre.]

SlS Land .dcts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

the expiry of the four weeks should be dealt with. The clause r<quired to be made mace clear t.han it wa.-.

::ur. CORSER did not think there was any­thing· to fear as far as that portion of the cla.u;e was concerned, but this was where some trouble might a.rise : The clauee provided that after the expiration of the term set aside for home,teads, then it should be left over for four weeks, so as to allow the grazing farm selectors to select. If .by any chance the court was not held until eight weeks, it appeared to bim that it would do away with that four weeks' opportunity for the grazing selector to select. He would not know how many home­stead applications were in, and he would not know what land was available, and the object of giving him the four weeks' exclusive right would be lost.

~Ir. FORSYTH: After the first month there might be a numler of homesteads left over. ThAn they had a.nother month. The second month they were all priority applications. The first applicant on the fir,;t day g-ot priority. After the first four weeks there was a. second four wc<:>ks, aud during the sec<md period the commissioner could decide ou the applicatiom.

Mr. LAND said he was not satisfied yet about the clause. He did not see why it should not be made clear that they had got

two courts to deal with the first [9.30 p.m.] month. Suppose there was a

court held at the commencement of the month-the court could be held, and the four weeks elapse within that month. Why could the Minister not make it sure that they would have two courts?

The SECRETARY FORPUBLIOLANDS: It seemed to be quite clear that the first court sat to have the ballot taken. If there WN'e blocks still open, at any time during the currency of the next four weeks applica­tions might be received for these blocks; but if there were two in simultaneously, then, of course, there would have to be a ballot as between those two. For four weeks after the opening day, the commissioner must re­ceive applications for homesteads, and allot them as homesteads; but four weeks after the opening day, he closed hie~ books for homesteads, and said, "I have finished for homesteads."

i\fr. HARD ACRE: 'l'hat is what is meant, but it does not say so here.

The SECRETARY FORPUBLIOLANDS: It did say so. All he could say was that the State, having to employ men as lawyers. were wasting their energies when they had to deal with bush lawyers.

Mr. COYNE: Everything the Minister had said up to a certain point was correct.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Are you going to set up your opinion against the Par­liamentary Draftsman?

Mr. COYNE: He was not going to pit him­self against the lawyers at all, but he wanted to understand it the same as an ordinary bushman would. In regard to the order of application for these particular blocks, the Minister had not made it one bit clearer. They had the same amount of vagueness as they had before they started the discussion of th{>. last amendment. The Minister said the land was opened on a. certain day. At the end of one month from that day the commissioner dealt with all the applications during that month, but the ]\'Iinister said nothing about the court being held on the first month to deal with the applications that had beE>n received up to that

[ .i!£ r. H cirdacre.

time-with the applications that had be:en received from the date of the proclamatwn being issued up to the date the lan~ was opened. If he said there was a co~rt gomg to be held then, and he could show It would be provided for in any part of the Act, a~d that there was one to be held also to dea~ with the applications which should be received from that first court to the end of the term: he (i\f;r. Coyne) would be satisfied. The applicant did . not want to go hunting about for lawyers. There was no doubt our land laws had pro­vided some of the grandest harvests m the world for lawyers, and it was as well that they should make the matter more clear-and see if they could not remove some of the legal phraseology to make it easier to understand.

::Y1r. TOLMIE: After the lands were ?pened. the commibsioner might, if he was so dispose9. adjourn for two or three days, '?r a week, If he knew that a great many apphcatwns were "'oing to come in· but in any case the law was quite plain in thi~ matter, as in all other cases of selection. After the first day, for the.la!ld which had not been selected there was pnority to those who came first. and in any case the applications must be dmlt with at th_e end of the month. He would suggest, seemg ho_n. members on the other >ide were so well d.Is­poscd to preventing two members of a family applying bona fide for a piece of land If t!>cy wanted it, that there should be only applica­tion for one selection.

Mr. COYNE would like the Minis.ter to g~ve a reply to his question. As to the mspiratwn of the hon. member for Too'l·oornba, it was .a wonder the hon. member did not refer to his collearrues at the same time. Could the Minister show the Committee th';t there was a provision that the court shoul_d s1t on the first day of the term for whwh this land was open for grazing homesteads? Co_uld he ~how them anything in the Bill, o~ !n provwus Acts. which said that the comnusswner should Sit on that day, or within a day or tw~ of that day. and that he should also then sit a~d deter­mine applications that would be received from that dav to the end of the term'/ Surely he ought t;, give them that iuformation!

The SECRETARY .FOR PUBLIC L~\:;\IDS: The opening day wa.s the cla.y ?f the c?urt. dearly. The hon. member for \\ arrego snook his head, but the opening day was the. da.y of the court, and it remained open for grazmg home­stead selection for fon~ more weeks, when the c.ommis,;ioner c!o.•ed his bo,lks for homesteads. After the first court day, they wonl1 assume there wa.s six blocks ldt nnselected. Th<• next morning :\'Ir. Smith might come along, and offer to tnJce up one block as a homeotend, and then the commissioner w<>nt home. and on thE> following- day h<, received more apphcat;ons. a.nd he 'let them have priority as they cam r.Jong. If at the end of four weeks ther~ wc_re still two left. th<:>n the a.mondment winch ne was C"oing to bring in dir.ectly clearly mad<; 1t known that, if a.t thP expna.twn of tha.t periOd such land as had not been applied for as a. home,tead up to the currency of the last fo,lr weeks then it was withdrawn and opened as a gra.z1n'~ farm. 1-fo conJd not make the nw,tt;:~r clearer.

Amendment (Jfr. Coyne\;) put and nega­tived.

The SECRET.\RY FOR PVBLIC L.~NDS then moved the amendment he had previously read. . .

Mr. lL\RD.\CRE asked what was gomg m happen after the four weeks'! Would the land

Land Acts [29 NOVEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 519

then be opened as grazing farms and grazing homesteads, after the month in which it was opened for grazing farms?

The SECRETARY FOR PrBLIC LANDS; It re­mains open as an ordinary grazing selection.' You can take it up as a farm or as a home­stead.

:Ylr. HARD ACRE: It distinctly said that after the end of the four weeks it was to be opened for grazing farms only.

The SECRE'rARY FORPUBLICLAKDtl: ·Could not the hon. member distinguish what "only" meant~ Prior to this it had been availa.ble as a. grazing homestead. ::'-l'ow it was available only as farms, the holder of which had no priority or preference. He had had his two chance-;--he had had the day of the op<;ni~g of the court. and he had hfd the four foltowmg weeks; and now It was open only as farms in the sense that the homesteader had no pri<Jrity.

:Y1r. HARD ACRE: The :Minister started with one idea, the Tinder tlecretary with another idea; the Under Secretary's idea was brought down first, and now th~ 11inister was trying to put his idea forward; and between the two the whole thing was mixed up. The :Minister now proposed to do away with the grazing homestead applications altogether after they had had a month; and then the man who had failed to get a grazing homestead could put in an application for a grazing farm. He had had one opportunity.

The SECRETARY l!'OR l'l'BLIC LANDS; Two.

::Yir. HARD ACRE: He had an opportunity on the day of opening, and one a month after­wards. That was a limited opportunity. Clause 97 of the Act provided in connection with grazing selections that the applications for grazing homesteads should have priority over the applications for g-razing farms; but this clause said there were to be no grazing homesteads after the limited period during which the land was open to the grazing home­stead applicant. And since there was no chance of getting a grazing homestead after that limited period, there could be no priority. First it should be open for a month to the grazing homestead applicant; then it should be withdrawn for a month to give the grazing farm applicant a chance to know what had been selected and what remained unselected; then. it should be open to the grazing farm apphcant for a month; and thereafter it should be open either as grazing homesteads or grazing farms, with priority to the grazing homestead applicant.

:Hr. LAND : He wished the Minister to make it clear whether unsuccessful appli­cants for grazing farms would have an oppor­tunity of securing land when it was thrown open to unconditional selection.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS; There is nothing to prevent them,

Mr. HAMILTON: He understood that the land would be open the first four weeks under grazing homestead conditions only, and ~~e next four weeks under grazing farm con(htwns only; and after that section 97 of the Act came in, and the land would be open to applicants under both tenures the hom":'iteader having priority. That wa~ the way It ought to be, and that was the way he hoped it was.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: For two periods the land was open for grazing homeBteads; another month passed by, and the land was withdrawn. For a month it

was open to grazing farm selection; and if nobody applied for a grazing farm during that time it was clear that there was going to be no competition. Then the man who came along could either elect to homestead it or to bailiff it.

:Yir. HARD ACRE: In the last event he could take it up as a grazing farm only. :\iillions of acres thrown open had remained unselected for three or six months, and some had been unselected for years. He wanted it made available first for the grazing home­,teader, then for the grazing farmer; and after that he wished it to be available for both, with priority to the grazing home­steader.

Mr. FORSYTH: If land was first opened for selection as a grazing homestead, and was then withdrawn, and opened to selection as a grazing farm, an applicant was not likely to want to take it up afterwards as a grazing homestead, seeing he could get it as a grazing farm under better conditions.

Amendment (Jfr. Denham's) agreed to.

~fr. !YIANN moved the addition to t.he claus<' of the' following proviso:-

Provided that no persou who, not being ot· European descent, ha~ nr1t lirst ohtainPd in r.he prct'eribed manner a. certiticrtte that he i~ able to read and \Vritc from dicw tation in the I~n:.:;lh~h langnage ~hH.ll ht' allowed to ~e­lect or pnrehal'lo any lJrnwn laud::; under this or any other Land Act. He wa.ntBd to· ensure that twopk of their own race should have the first clul.nce to acquire la.nd. LatBly. at Atherton, a. Hindoo had suc­ce<'ded at the ballot, and he wanted tD pre­vent that. That was the onlv form in which he could prevent undesirable persons selecting land without running tho Tisk of having the Bill rej<>cted by the home authoriti""·

The bECRET.\RY FOR PUBLIC LA!\DS: Look at page 48 of th" Land Act.

:\Ir. :\IANX: \Yell. iww did tha.t Hindoo get land? He de,ir<>d to lueep ~nch British ,;ubjects as natives of Hongkong, Ceylon, India, or Burmah fron1 :-:electing land in t~neen:"land. The :Ylinister ha.d a:,;reed to a similar provision b<eing in'""rted in the Dairy Produce Act.

The SECRETARY FOR FCBLIC L\SDS said that he r<:'ally could not accept the amend­ment, as they would be putting British sub­jects under a grcatm· clisabihty than thcv were puUing aliens. Quit<' rc'c<'ntly a num.ber of Russians came from Vladin1stock. not one of whom knew a word of English. and the only intercourse he could have with them was through an interpreter, a.nd yet they w<'re able to select land. The •.a.me was tru<' of a large numl>er of Germans. Xow, the hon. member was asking that British subjcch should b<' sub­jected to a test that they might not be able t;:> undergo. To insert "uch a clause would be highly unwise. a.nd it would "crve no ';ood pur!JO&e. How many l-Iincloos had selected land? Certainly not gra.zing farms. They ·vere more traders than anything else. In the case of a group the :Ylinister had a choice. and he could ex<'rcis<J It by not admitting such men; tut to acc2pt >.uch an amendment would be to jeopardise the Bill and invoh·e its Leing reserv<'d for the Royal ass<o•nt.

:\Ir. }L\NN pointed out that when the hon. member fo!· Dalby was :Ylinister this quc•sbon was brought before him when he visited the .\therton district, and the hon. gentleman claimed that one good thing· about the group system was that he could prevent Hindoos or other undesirables taking up land. The 11inis­ter said that the amendment would place

Mr. Mann.]

520 Land Arts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

British subjects in a worse position than aliens. vVell, had not the Governm<mt promised to introduce a Bill to "''strict the leasing of land to aliens?

'Ihc TnEASl:RER: These people are not aliens. ~fr. MA:::\]';": They were a great deal worse

than some aliens, because they did not con­form to our standard of living. A Chinaman

-a British subject born in Hong-[10 p.m.] kong-made a worse citizen than

a German, a Dane, a Frenchman, or a Russian. He preferred a Russian to a British subject from India, Burmah, Hong­kong, Zululand, or any of those British coloured subjects. The Minister accepted the same amendment without demur in the Dairy Producp Bill, but now he was afraid of g-iving offenc<> to people in a certain quarter who wished to l<'ase lanru to undesirable per~ons.

Tho CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. MANN: He intended to push the amendment to a division to let the country know that this Government did not believe in preventing the leasing of land to undesirable persons.

Mr. LEN::';"ON thought that, as the Govern­m~nt had al;cady pledged itself to bring in' a Bill to restrwt the leasing of land to undesir­able aliens, they might as well admit it into th<' present Land Bill. The Minister pointed out that these were not aliens but they were as equally undesirable as most aliens were. The same principle was in the Dairy Bill and the ~finistcr would be acting wisely in adcept-ing the amendment. ·

. Mr. HAMILTON: The principle of debar­ru;g. ahe1_1s was alJOeady . recognised by the ::\·hmster. m connection with group selections and spec1al leases. If the~ principle was good enor:gh to put in there, it was good enough to put m here.

Th0 SECRHTARY I<ou PUBLIC LANDS: That is onl,Y a department~<! matter. It is not statu­torv law.

}rr. HA.;\liL'l'ON: If it was admitted in the administration of the department there was no harm in admitting it under this amend­ment. The same principle was in the Dairy Bill >11ld could be extended here. They heard a lot about saving the North for the white race and ke€ping out the undesirable alien, a:Id the amendment provided for' that. If they did I_wt pa.;s the amendment, they were only openmg- the door to the Asiatic race. Even at th<' present time the white:' in the North had to put up with competition from the Hindoos, Chine<e, aJJd oth€1" races in the North. During the Moreton election they were told that a Hmdoo had been successful at the ballot for a choic<> bit of land in the Blackall Ra1_1ge against white people, and they had deputatwns to them protesting a.gainst it. He was agamst the Asiatic every time he could ge~ the opportunity, and as the principle was admitted m the administratjon in conn<'c­tion with thC' group sdections and special !Rase, it c·ould· be accepted here.

.:\Ir. F.l!;RRICKS supported the amendment. The acceptance or rejection of the amend­ment by the Government would be an eviden'ce of their sincerity or otherwise in their announ. oom<>nt to bring forward a Bill to restrict the leasing of land to nndec.irable aliens. It would be a test of their sincerity in that direction. They were told that their friends opposite were the friends of the farmers. and here was a good opportunity to show their friendship. If thf're were twenty white applicants for one

[Jlr: !J£ ann.-

piece of land and one Hindoo also put in, by some law of cussedness the Hindoo generally turned out to be suceeseful, and the twenty whites had to go hunting for land elsewhere. If the amendment were defeated, it would be fair evidence that the GovernmE>nt had no sincerity in their talk respecting the checking of th€ alien inva.sion in North Queensland. They talked about having a whit€ population on our coastal lands, but they were restrict­ing the settlement of the white people there.

Question-That the words proposed to be add<>d (Jfr. Jfann's arnenrlment) be so added­put ; ancl the Committ~>e divided:-

Mr. Barber , Coyne , Crawford , Ferricks ,, Hamilton

IIardacre " Land ., Lennon ,, Lesina ,. Mann

AYES, 19. ~fr. Ma~·

, McLacblan ,. ;l!ullan ,. Murphy

O'Sullivan Payne

., Theodore , Walker , Winstanley.

Tellers: Mr. Hamilton and Mr. O'Snllivan.

No~<:s, 26. :Ur. Allan Mr. Gunn

., Appel , Hawthorn Barnes, G. P. , Hodge Barnes, W. H. Hunter. D. Booker Kidston Bouchnrd , Paget Brennan H Petrie Bridges ,. Philp Corser Roberts Cottell ,. Swayne Denbnm , Thorn Forsyth , 'folmie Grayson , Wienholt

Tel/l,rs: :'ilr. Bridges and Jlr. Tolmie.

PAIRS.

Ayes--31r. Blair, Mr. J. ~L Hunte1·, Mr. B. F. S •. Alien. l\:lr. Breslin. Mr. Bo\vman, )fr. Foley, Mr. Ryan,. Mr. Collins, ~1r. )laughan, 31r. Ryland . .l!:r. Douglas, and Mr. N evitt.

Noes-Mr. Somerset, }lr. Morgan, Mr . .!\fackintosh~ .:W:r. 1Vhite, ~:Ir.J.!,ox, Mr. Cribb, Mr. Ranldn, Mr. Grant,.. Mr. Stodart. Mr.Forrest.11r.Keogh, and ::\ir, Macartney.

Resolved in the negative. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clausrs 9 to 11, inclnsive, put and pnssed. On clause 12-" Amendment d section 121 The SJ£CRETA RY J!'OR PUBLIC LANDS·

moved that after the word "Act," on line 50 there be inserted t.he followin(l' :-

Or an agrjcultnral farm whirh is :subject to the pro­visions of subdh·ision X. of this part of this Act.

This amendrr ent was intended to provide that a person who had a block of land, and who wished to· select within a distance of 15 miles of that land, could not do so if open to personal residence conditi<m• as would apply to selectors under section 95A, and under prickly-pear selection provision8.

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

Clauae 1~-" Amendment of secli<>n 121A "­put and passed.,

On clause 1-l~" Amendment of section 122 "­The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS

moved the insertion after the \\ ord "Act," on line 29, <lf t h<> words-

Or :tn ~g-ricultural farm which h~ subject to the pro­visions of Subdivision X. of this Part of this Act. T<Ie objec ~> ! .>is amendment waR !o bring the wbole of the selections under priority condition& more into line.

Amendmtnt agreed to.

Land Acts [29 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 521

The SECRETARY J!'OR PUBLIC LANDS moved that the following wurds be inserted after the word ''Act," on line 50, IJainely-

Or a prickly pear selection which is subject to the provisions of Subdivision X. of this Part ot this Act, being performed in any manner <LS pre~.::cribed by subR ~ection 2 of section 16~s of this Act.

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

Mr. HARD ACHE, in the absence of the hon. member for Maranoa, moved that the following new clause be insertet! after clause 14, namely-

1'be following provision is added to section one hundred •nd forty-two of the principal Act:-

NotwithEtanding anything eontained in the proviso to sectiOn one hundred nnd twenty-two of this Act, any person who acquires an ngricultural homestead subjeot to the provisions or thJS section, within a dit~­taace o! ten "'liles from a selection acquued by him of any of the classe::: herein mentioned, may perrorm the condition of oecnpation JlrCscribed with respect to such agricultural homestead by eontiuuous and bona fide personal residence on his original selection dnring the term of the lease of such agricultural homestead.

The hon. member who had given notice of this amendment had found in hts district, as other members had found in th<Jir districts in some cas<Js, that pioneer selectors who had taken up 80 Ol' 16() acres, which was the maximum at the time they selected, could not now take up the same class of land ad,jacent to their original holdings without performing the con­dition of residence thereon. In one case, a man who had built his home and made cer­tain improvements on hio original holding wished to take up an additional area across the :road, but was unable to do so unless he moved his house or estabJi,hed his home on the new area he wished to select. That " as a hardship, and 1t wa' thought reasonable that a man should be allowed to reside on his original holding if he took up other land within a distance of 10 mtles from that land. He knew of a similar ca.H• where a man had taken up a sdectiou and paid his money, and had to forfeit because he could not comply with the conditions. It S('<>med to him a very fair thing, and he trusted the Minister would accept it.

The SECRETARY FOR PGBLICLANDS: It was rather an anomaly that they should seek· to put in a provision directly opposite to the provision they had just passed in clause 14, gubsection (c), which read-

Provided thnt nothing' in tbil" sect ion shall be con­strued so as to permit the condition of occupation in respect o!-

(c) An agricultural homeRtead being performed in a.ny manner e-xcept :-ts vrescribed by subsection five of 8Cction o11e hundred an{l thirty~seven of this Act.

::lection 142, which was sought to be amended, was inserted in the 1902 Act, and it set out specifically that any person who had acquired a,n agricultural homestead in his own right could select up to 320 acres. The selector had taken up 160 acres under the 1884 Act. Subsequently it was made possible for him to have a larger area, but the law provided that. having acquired one homestead, he could not acquire a second. If the amendment were inserted, it would strike at the very root of the personal residence conditions. There was nothing to prevent a selector in the Maranoa taking up 160 acres as an agricultural farm, but he could not take up another 160 acres as an agricultural homestead unless he could carry out the homestead conditions. His opinion was that the hon. member for Leich­hardt. in moving the amendment, had done

so out of courtesy to his colleague, who was unable to be present, but in his innermost mind he (Mr. Hardacre) thought it was a bad thing.

Question-That the new clause stand part of the Bill-put and negatived.

Clauses 15 and 16 put and passed.

On clause 17-" Amendment of section 95A"- •

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS, moved the addition of the following words to follow subsection (4) :-

The provisions of this secti.on shall eo me into opera­tion on and after the first da.y or :\larch. one thousand nine hundred and ten.

This was to make special provision for certain selections held under prickly pear conditions.

:Mr. P A YNE asked if the whole of the Act would come into force on that day or only a section of it?

'l'he SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: The provisions of section (4) of clause 17 only.

Amendment agreed to; and clause, as. ament!ed, put and passed.

Clauses 18 and 19 put and passed. On clause 20--" Amendment of section

164"-

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS· moved the omission of the words ".issue to .the leesec of the license to occupy" wtth the VIeW of inserting the words " commencement of the lease," on page 9, lines 12 and 13.

:Mr. HA~IILTON: Clause 19 had been de­clared carried, and if the Minister did not see. his amendment in time it was the fa1_1lt of rushing the clauses through. Comphcate.d clauses like those were rushed through, and 1t was very hard to follow amendments. The clause was declared carried, ':Lnd th~y coul.d not go back to it. If the Mmtster wtshed hts amendment inserted he would have to re­commit the Bill, or deal with it in the report stage or some such way.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member ts quite correct. 'l'he question is that clause 2(). stand part of the Bill.

The SECRETARY J!'OR PUBLIC LAND& moved the insertion of the following n~w sub­section to follow clause 20, on page 10, !me 4:-

12.) In subsection nine of the said ~ection, the words " the rent shall abate in proportion" are repeaJed, }Lnd the word8" the license shall a.::. to such part b& thereby determined, and a reduction sball be mHde iu the rent proportionate to the area sele~:ted. reser\~d. le~sed, or sold, and any payment 1nade 111 a~•-ance 1~ re8pect of such area sluill be refunded to tbe hcen::.ee.

'lhey were merely doing an act of just;oe to a licensee.

:Ylr. HARD ACRE: Was he to understand that if the land was reserved, leased, or

selected in this case, the lic<>nsee [10.30 p.m.] was to 'get all his money back

for the whole of that year? ~U the commencement of the year he had patd, say £50 for the occupa.tion license for the wh~le of that year; he .occupied it for eleven month.s, wh<Jn half of 1t was taken and re­served or leased; then it said he had to get back half the money.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: For the pro­portion of the area selected.

Mr. Hardacre.]

Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. HARDACRE: He read it that he had to get £25 back.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: He will get one month only.

Mr. HARD ACRE: It did not say so. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : This

:was really m accord with the phraseology used lJ?- the Act. It was an act of simple justice, that was all.

Mr. >r:OLM.IE: While this amendment was under: d1scusswn he thought it was only fair to brmg under the notice of the Cnmmittee that Part V., which embraced clauses 163 and 164, d~alt exclusively with occupation licenses. JC~e. w1shed to point out that, under those pro­VISIOn,;, a very grave injustice might be don>c to a tenant holding an occupation license. He had l~o lwsltation in specifying a particular ease which he believed had been brought under the notJce of members. ::VIr. Dempsey, a selector <;>n Gowne Estat;;, believed he heid an occupatwn hcense under this Act. He rrot an ag~·eement which gave him, as he believ~d. tl;Ie nght to occupy certain lands. He paid h1s renewals when the time expired and under subi*'ction (11) of the . Act he naturally sup­pose~ he would get six months' notice that the hcense was to be cancelled. He held the land for a special purpose; it was a bad time of the year, and he wanted the land for the purpo~e of la.nibm'!. He had a few hundred ewes m that particular paddock just about to lamb, when ~omeone came along and se­lected the land. Sections 103 and 105 ~ave ~he ne;v selector the right to come clown ~and 1mmecl~a.tely turn the stock out on to the road and the result was that the unfortunate ma,.; lost several hundred pounds. The Lands De­pa~tment would say that he had no le~al chum. but he certainly had a moral claim

6to

s;:;me <;ompcnsation. vYha.t had happened to b!m m>ght hapr;en to any other person holcling an o~cupahon !Icense under these '·ubsections, ?-ncl It :vas desirable that tlw :\Iinister should mser~ m the I:r?per place a. clau&e clearlv defi_nmR·. tho pos1tlon of the holder of an occu­patiOn license. The two subsections under the Act that affected st,ock were-

(6.) The lieenf.le may be renewrd for another ye:u -and so_ 01_1 frn-:,,_1_ year to ~'e:tr. upon payment, on orb8fore the thirtieth dny of September. n.t the rrrea~ury, in Bris­lmne, or other plfiCP nppointed hy the Governor in ?l~'dcil in that. belutlf, of the next year's rent.

(11.) 'fhe li<\ense :.hall be determinable at t.be end o! ~~~ i~~!~s~~.six months' not1ce given by the Minister to

Ninety-nine persons o':lt o~ a hundred taking up land under occupat•on license believed tl1at (he'*' two >•ubsections would give them protec­tl?n. .\lr. J?empsey believed that they gave lum. prote_chon, but he did not know of a prov1 s·on m sectwn 66 which provided tha.t, when land was surveyed, It might be immedi­ately taken . awa:l:' from a person who owned t!"e ·~ccupatwn l:ccnsc. Those, with regula­t~on -1 of the !a.nd re!;ulation s, were the sec­tw'?s under whwh a man might losa.his occu­patiOn license almost immediately. There ought to be protection given to a licensee who held land under those conditions. There ought to be .some hme allowed him to move his stock, 1;1 order that he might not sustain the loss wh;ch :\1r. Dempsey sustained.

M.r. lL~RDACRE said tlwy were really dea:lmg w1th the abatement of rent on land whwh had been re:crvecl, leased, sold. or selected. H" had an amendment to follow trying to diminish the hardship by giving the~ three months' notice where the land was taken

[ lff r. H ardacre.

up for selection purposes. He was not sure whether they could discuss it bsfor>e this amend~ent went through, but in point of order h1s amendment ought to come before this of the Minister, because it dealt with a prior subsection of the Act. What the hon. member for Toowoomba complained about really lay in subclause (8). It was one of the conditions of an occunation license that it. might be taken a.ny time for selection pur­poses. He did not exactly like the way he had got his own amendment, but he had it drafted in; order to amend the l\linister's own proposal. The l\Jinister promised that, at any rate, :w would make it quite clear why no notice should be required, when the land was to be taken for some specified purpose. He did not know whether the l\Iinister was prepared ~.o deal with iiJ now, but if so he (1\Ir. Harclacre) would withdraw his, in order that another amendment might be introduced dealing with clause 8. Subsection (8) of section 164 of che Act provided that the land comprised in any license might be thrown open for selection, or reserved, or leased, or sold, notwithstandinp­the provi-;ion in subsection (11) to the effpct. that the licens<> was determinable at the end of any year by six months' notice. 'rhe thing should be made clear. One gentleman had a claim of £1,000 for having to remove his stock without tho notice specified in subsection (11). It cost ,.him £300 to get lawyers' opinions, and they all told him that he had a claim a'!ainst the Government. This was in Rockha;Tipton: a.ncl when he (:\Ir. IIardacre) told him he had no claim he would not be­lieve him. The Minister had promised *o malre it clear. and it would be better to deal with it before going further.

The SECHETARY FOR: PUBLIC LANDS: He thought the case could be met effectively when the license was issued by calling atten­tion to the fact that the land being surveyed was sufficient notice. 'When Dcmpsey read his notice it appeared to him that he held posses­sion upon six months' notice; but the Act clearly implied that the land being surveyed he had no claim. It would be better. however, to make it clear b.,; indicating it in the occupation license. - He candidly admitted -that the case mentioned bv the hon. member for 'l'oowoomba, :VIr. Toln1ic, was worthy of some consideration.

Mr. COYNE: Did not the man blame the hon. member for Dalby?

Tho SECRETARY FOR: PUBLIC LANDS: He blamed a good man.y people, but he had not a leg to stand upon m law.

:VIr. THORN: What about his moral right?

The SECRETARY FOR: PUBLIC LANDS: There was a moral obligation, but this was not the place to discuss that. The amendment he had mm·cd could be dealt with forthwith. and then he had another amendment to pro­pose.

Mr. HARD ACRE: The Minister's explana­tion clicl not meet the case at all, because the land could also be taken for a reserve, or for lease. or for sale, without a minute's notice. He clicl not know that putting an intimation into the occupation license would meet all those cases.

Amendment (Jh. Denharn's) put and passed.

The SECRETARY FOR: PUBLIC LANDS moved the omission, in line 6, of the words .. at the end of any year by six IUonths' notice," and in lines 8 and 9 of the words " by three months' notice"; and the addition, at the

Land Acts [29 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 523

<:}nd of the clause, of the words "Nothing in this subsection shall affect the power of deter­mination hereinbefore conferred." They had .already decided that six months' notice should be given in the case of a right to depasture, >;tnd he thought similar notice should be given m the case of an occupation license. ·

Mr. HARDACRE was certain that the amendment propo.sed by the Minister did not .read correctly.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: The .amendment confers power to determine an occupation license at any time upon giving six months' notice.

:Mr. HARD ACRE: That was not what the amendment said.

Mr. CoYNE: Yes.

Mr. HARD ACRE: If the hon. gentleman omitted the words " by three months' notice " in lines 8 and 9, he would then be able to give notice at anv time.

. The SECRETARY. FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Yes­glve six months' notice at any time.

Mr. HARD ACRE: It did not say "six months'. notice at any time."

Mr. COYNE: Yes.

Mr. HARD ACRE: It would be all right if the hon. gentleman would insert the word " six " instead of the word " three " in line 8.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS aaid that the section in the principal Act would read, when the amendments he pro­posed were made, as follows :-

'rhe license shall be determinable at anv time with respect to the whole or any specilied part~ of the land subjE'~t _to the licen_se bv s1x month~' notice given by the :\!mister to the hcensee. Xothing in this subsection "Shall affect the power or determination herein before <Conferred.

:\fr. HARDACRE,: The :\Iinister, first of all, proposed to omit "six months'

[11 p.m.] ;~otice," and, later on, to omit three months' notice," so that

no t<:>rm of notic-e was mentioned at all. Mr. C'AJYNE: He must creak a blank fir-et.

Mr. HARD ACRE: If it was incended to create a. blank firot, it was all right.

Amendment (Jlr. Denham's) agreed to. Clause 20, as further amended, put and

passed. Clause 21 put and passed.

}Jr. P A YNE proposed the following new ··clause to- follow clause 21-

After section two hundred and thirty of the principal Act, the following section is inserted:-. [230A.] (1.} So stock toute when being surveyed shall ~~a~r~~veyed so as to be of a less width than eighty

(2.) Any holdet· of &ny license or lease under this Act when erecting~ fence on any part of the boundary or his holding whit"h abut~ upon a stock route shaH erect

. a fence tbereon of snch a character as to prevent the pas"age ot' his stock from his holding.

He found that there was a tendency in the Lar.ds Department of late to cut down all the stock rout;>s, mure particularly those in the Centra! and WestRrn districts. It was a dis­astrous mistake to cut down tho~e stock routes. IC was a very serious matter, and members who ~new anything about the travelling of stock m large numbers would soothe necessity for the amendment. He hoped the Minister would accept the new clause. In the Courier of the 13th November he noticed the follow­ing paragraph in the pastoral mattera--:-

At the last meeting o! the Longreach Shire Council :a letter was received from Mr. Charles Baird, who

surveyed the Silsoe resumption, in which he defended hiS action in surveying the stock route between Corona and Silsoe at only 40 chains. Members were very dis­satisfied at the manner in wbich the wtdth of the stock routes is being cut down. and at the disposition of the Lands Department to ignore protests in this respect. .. fhe council '"~1.s unanimously of opinton that all stock routes should be at least 1 mile wide.

The men forming th<> shire council were local men who knew the wants of the district. and the matter deserved some attention at the hands of tho Mini&ter. The second portion of the amendment related i.o- the fence abutting on a stock route>. In his electorate, as well as others, the grazing selector or lessee erected a two-wire fence, and their stock were allowed to get out on to the stock route and eat it out. When the general public, including the car­riers-of whom there were about 200 or 300 coming into Longreach regularly-used that stock route t.heir stock got through the fences on to the holdings and were impounded. Very little provision was made for the stock of the carriers beyond an odd reserve or two, and if the stock of grazing selectors and lessees were permitted to eat out the stock rout-es in Central Queensland the routes would very soon be closed up altogether.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS regretted that he was unable to a.ccept the new clause. It was a matter that should be left to the department to arrange a.ccording to the localitv concerned. It would be most indiscreet to have a stock route a mile wide throughout the State. At the present time thev were .'-'urveving- to Koorcon, in tl1e St. George district, and the local authorities ex­pected a 20-chain road. He thought that 5 chains would be wide enough.

::\-Ir. Conm: That would not be a. stock route then.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: It was a stock route. The pear was coming in, and the increase in a few years would be at such a rate that onlv a vehicle could pass there. In other areas around Chinchilla they had reduced the stock route8 from 10 chains to :3 chains, giving the selectors the extra seven chains, simply because the pear was coming in. It was a mu ttor that should be left to departmental administration. As to fixing a. five-wire fence to keep thv sheep in, he thought it would be more effectual to leave it to the selector to deal with it himself. The amend· ments would not assist the matter in any way.

Mr. P A YNE: If the Minister-had any ex­perience of Central Queensland, he would not be giving the information he was then giving. As a matter of fact, the one-mile stock route and odd reserves were the only food that the carrier had for his stock. And it was the only possible grass the general public. could get in that particular locality.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAi'iDS: You are laying down a law· here for all the State .

Mr. P A YNE: He should be very sorry to do that, and had no intention of suggesting that a stock route should be a mile wide in a prickly-pear infested di,ctrict. Ducing the four or five vears that he had been a member of the House the present and thE> previous Government had cut down ·stock routes in Central Queensland. and they actually sold a stock route when thev sold Portland Downs. As one who had liwci in Central Queensland for thirty years, he could 'ay that the cur­tailment of stock routes was a. very oerious matter. and he thought the time had arrived when Parliament should legislate in O'Uch a way as would prevent surveyors who !mew

111-r. Pa11ne.l

524 Land Al'ts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

nothing about the surroundings of a stock route cutting that route down to forty or ten chains. One of the worst things they could do was to cut down stock routes in Central Queensland, where there were a lot of sheep travelling. If the present policy was con­tinued, in a few years the Government would be at thei1· wits' end to buv back some of the land thev had sold in order to provide abso­lutely necessary stock routes. Something was said the other night about the prosperity of the pastoral industry, but he could assure hon. members that it was on the edge of a very bad time. A large number of stock were travelling, and yet at the same time the Government were cutting down the st{)ck routes. He was very sorry indeed that the Minister could not see his way to accept this very reasonable amendment.

Mr. S\VA YNE thought that something should be done in the direction indicated in the amendment, as he knew many places where stock routes were too narrow to allow of large mobs of sheep passing one another. As to the grass on stock routes being eaten {)Ut. he knew of places where people turned their stock out into the roads and let them eat that grass first, so as to save their own grass. He trusted that the Minister would give this matter some consideration.

Mr. BOOKER: There was a g-reat deal in the contt>ntion of the hon. member for 1\Et­chell. He did not go so far. as to say that t>very stock route should be 80 chains wide, as different areas required different conditions, but he thought it was a mistake to curtail the <f{)ck routes. There were places in New South \Vales where. owing to the identical circum­stances the hon. m em her for Mitchell had referred to, the Goyernment w<>re aduallv buying back portions of freeholds which at one time were included in stock routes. It was bad business to settle peopl<' on the ]and, and .1t the same time take awav from stockowners the mea.ns of getting their stock to market bv curtailmg the stock routes. Anyone wh;, knew tlw periDdica] drought conditions of the \Vest knew that sheep must be strong on their own pastt!re. but that owing t{) the stock route, havrng been eaten out those 8heep could not get out of the. drought-st.ricken areas into more favoured localities. If th€y were going to cut·tail the stock routes down to 5 chains, a> the :\Iinister stated----

The SECHETARY FOH PUBLIC LANDS: \\'here? }lr. BOOKER: The hon. gentl€ma.n stated

that distinctly. The SECRETARY FOR PrBLIC LANDS: Oh, VB'

in prickly pear country. • ' Mr. BOOKER: If the hon. gentleman had

listened to him, he would have known that he said that differ<:>nt areas required different con­ditions. There were pla.ces where a 5.chain :route was ample. that was in badly pear in­fested country. If the Government attempt€d to curtail certain stock routes they would be doing a grave injuotice to the men who were carrying on work in th{) \Vest. Even in his own district, the Burnett, ther·e was a ten­dency to reduce the stock routes. If they wished to earry on the business of exporting our surplus stock, the stock must be landed a.t the railway .station,, in the best po,sible eondition. and it wa.s impossible to land them in anything like dece.nt condition withont lnaking reasonable provision to enable stock w get grass and wakr en rout". He would not "'O w far a' to vote on the broad etatement of having all stock routes 80 chains wide, but it

[Mr. Payne~

would be a very sensible thing for the Secre­tary for Public Lands to call for reports from; tho yarious centres.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: That r.as been done.

i\Ir. BOOKER was very glad to learn it had been done, and he hoped .the Goverx:mcnt would deal with stock routes m a more hberal spirit. The tendency had been to re~u~e ~he etock routes. which was a very great lllJUShce· to the pastoral industry.

Mr. COYNE was very glad to hear hon. members on the other side agreed in substance· with the amendment. Although he did not altogether agree that all stock ;outes should be 80 chains in width. he certmnly thought the principal routes should be. It was absolutely necessa.ry that the Lands Department should see that the stock routes and reserves were not reduced. There was a tendency to reduce the· stock routes and reserves. During the last twelve months he had been doing his best to hold the little bit of common and reserve at. Charlevi!le, because, if that were taken from them or reduced, it would be rlisastrous to the pasto:al industry of \Vestern Queensland. He quite· agreed with the hon. member for Mitchell that holders of land adjoining stock routes should be prevented by Act of Parliament from eating out. the stock routes.

An HONOURABLE :!\1EMBER : What do the shire councils do?

Mr. COYNE: It often happened that he was a member of the shire council, and the shire· council "winked the other eye." If the stock routes were devastated the stock could not travel, a.nd it was rloing a grave injustice to one of the greatest industries in Australia. He would sug­gest that the amendment be altered to read "principal stock routes." He thought the 1\Iinister could have no objection to that. If the Government "howAd any inclination to enc10ach on the stock routes and reserves, they were giv­in" an indication that they were going to injure· th~ greatest industry in the world.

1\Ir. LAND was very much interested in this question. 'fhe whole of the cattle from the Gulf country and the Western ccmntry travelled along tbe \Vestern stock routes, and neither the reserves nor stock mutes should be cut down in any way. \Vh,,t was the u8e of running trains out to bring the stock to market if the roads were closed up? Charleville, as thehon. member for W arrego had stated, was one of t.he gr~atest centres, and the whole of the stock routes m the \Varrego right down into New South \Vales were importallt stock routes, and in the past manv of them had been cut down. Any number of the principal stock routes now were not a mile in width, and if thev did not make a move to prevent the Government cutting down the stock route", they would be mn~ing: theJ_U 10 chains wide. In the .3ettled distriCts It was nec~ssary to leave roads between the selections, which in time became routes for the purpose of takin.: stock to the market. He did not. think it was intended that the amendment should apply to t.hose roads.. f! e th01wht the Minister should resene a nule m width for all the principal stock routes in the North, Central, and \Vestern parts c~f Queens­land. vVit.h regard to the second portwn of the amendment, it was the habit of many selectors to eat out reserves and save their own country, but if a man took the slightest advantage with a team or mob of horses tl}ey were impounded in the morning. He did not see how it was the selectors got a certificate. The selector shoulcl

Land .Acts .Amendment Bill. [30 N OVEMBEit.] P1·esbyte-rian, Ell'., Bill. 525

not get :1 certificate if he had not his boundary fence up. He hoped the Minister would give the matter consideration.

The SECRETARYJfORPUBLICLA~DS: Perhaps it might satisfy the Committee to know that the Government were having a new map made. The officers of the department had been -engag.•d on it for some time, and the Govern­ment were dfsirous of bringing in a Bill to deal with stock routes, and in any case he did not think that was the right place to deal with the matter. He could assure the ban. member that t.he suggestions he had made would bear fruit. He should scrutinise very carefully any sugges­tions for this str·ck route mar, and, as far as Silsoe stoek route was concerned, it appeared adequate, but the hon. member might take his assmance that the matter would be dealt with in a Stock Route Bill. He should be very pleased to give consideration to anv representation which he or any other member might bring forward.

:Hr. P A YNE said it was all very well for the l\iinister to say that a surveyor recommended

a certain thing, hut some of those '[ll.SO p.m.] surveyors knew no more ~bout the

surrounding• than a man in China. They might be good at their busineso, but they went ont and simply cut a stock route down by so much. Surely the practical men on the shire councils, who had been in the district years and years, would never agitate for thP. stock routes to be a mile wide unless they thought it was necessary. From travelling about himself with three or four horses, he knew how difficult i was to get grass. He personally could go into the paddocks to get enough grass for his few horses, but the average carrier might not be able to do so. ThPre were 200 or 300 carriers coming into Longreach, and if the stock routes were cut ·down, and the selectors allowed to eat them out, they would have a dead loss.

Proposed new clause (Mr. Paync's) put and negatived.

Clauses 22 and 23 put and passed. On clause 24-" Eradication of prickly pear to

be consistently maintained"-Mr. G. P. BARNES: This clause would

work with undue severity; in fact, it was very doubtful if it could be complied with at all. 'l'he condition was that during the half year a proportion of pear clearing must be done. He questioned wh<>ther it would be possible to enforce that stipulation during the early stages of the least". What lessee could clear a fair proportinn during the first six months of his tenure'? It would be wise to eliminate the words "half of such" and allow to remain "during each year." A condition might .be inserted requiring the lessee during the said term to erect substantml improvenwnts in the way of fences and buildings. He thought fences were not included in connection with prickly-pear hold­ings, and it would be possible to discriminate and confine the improvements to buildings. There was another aspect of the case-persons taking up prickly-pear selections were rarely men of means, and during some portion of the year it would be necessary for these individuals either to undertake shearing or to engage in harvesting or otherwise to ~nahle them to overtake the expenditure in connection with getting a home. He was afraid the department would meet with trouble, unlesa they could see their way to go back to the old conditions which obtained, at any rate, during the early years of the tenure.

The CHAIRMAN : Have you moved an ~mendment?

Mr. G. P. BARNES: No; he would like to have the opinion of the Minister.

The SECRETARY :FOR PUBLIC J.ANDS said that the Mini"ter W<mld deal with thfil matter in a sympathetic way, but to expect a man during the first Hix months _of his occupation to do certain things would be folly. He hoped the hon. gentleman did not think the department was rnn on such foolish lines as tb11t. The only object was to secure a closer grip of the whole business. The position w,•1s thid: The in­spector came along at the tenth month, and the selector said it would he all right in a couple of months, and he would bluff the inspector ; whereas under this provision he could not bluff the inspector. He could assure tbe hon. mem­ber that it would inflict no hardship on any selwtor as lcng as he kept the covenant for clearing prickly pear.

Clause put and passed. Clauses 25 to 29, inclusive, put and pa.ssed.

The House resumed. The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; and the report was adopted.

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

The House adjourned at twent.y minutes to 12 o'clock.