Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 1913

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

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

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

P_\P;:;R.

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

"3. \Vhnt action do the Governn1cnt intnncl taking in the n1attr'T :o ensun-' th_lt tho full amount of tho incr:.ry fc.•~' R_::unva.:ys-

" 1. Is it ,c fact that his depart c1ent arc cli'-,•harging n1cn fron1 tho Ip"wich

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

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

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

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

GREAT WESTERN RAIL"\YAY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

SECOND READING-RESul>fPTION oF DEBATE.

Mr. GRANT (Fitzroy) rose to speak.

The SPEAKER: Order ! Before the hon. member speaks, I \vish to explain tho posi-tion ·which has nrisen in cOnnection ·with this matter. Thdo i' no Standing Ordm-deolim', with the quection of rderring a Dill to a Select Com>nittce during the second-n 1clinc:- ~-t·::t~,) of that Bill, nor can I discover any practice governing this position. \Vhat has hap;F :ted is the first instance in the hi&toi·,-- Cf this Parliament that during the second-re~ding stage a Bill ha~ been referred to a Scl0ct Committe-•. This action tem-porai·ily remove. the Bill from the paper. The report of the Select Co•nmittcfl having bi'Bn present- d to th~ Ilouc-J, that auto-matically placed the Bill in tho pocition which it pre;-ious ly occupied on the bus in•·. o-paper. Han. mc,nbers will su that tho information fodhcoming from the be!eot Conrnittec to the Home through the report which tl"c' hnve pr< ;rnted would not be available for debate by han. members who ha vo spoken, as, according to the Standing Order:J, any hon. n:tcmbcr who spoke before the- t re-port " 's pre ,cntcd will be c!Pb:trred from speaking again, and so fron1 u·~ing the information whic;1 that report has brought forward. '1.s there is no Standing Order d0:tling with tho matt•"r, and as I ha,e no practice to guide me, I propose to take tho s;•nse of the House as to whether the pre-\'ious SpeakerS on the second l'F

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

I ask

[25 SEPTEi\iilER.] 1535

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

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

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

hole rc:::t< r is OllO for further inquiry. 'vVe know that tlwm is a diH'erenco of opinion l_.,?t'"('E'n the CtJn1mic;:s1oner for TI2.ilways and th,- :.'Uni.-ter, and I an1 Rom(_ J_in1'"'3 wonder-ing '' l- v it is th,_tt is hrhind the Commis-sioner in his dP

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

flr . s t~ at is c·1 ·::ccerned. I have gone lhl'OCl~h tho c ddcncrc ·,ts of evf~rv di:- ~ ri,~t i~ Inr rig-ht to SI"Ntk. and it n1ie-ht be thOJf.'ht that !110mbcr' had talked me over, and lln.t ·~-hat I s ~id on a previous orcasion wa., not n1v ~wcse·~~ oninion. }~ ou -~vill notice, ~Ir. Spr d". r, th2~ it is a :maioritv re;JOrt. I wr in tl : minorj·i ,-. I thin.k the 0videnn ;l,,t '",. had. aTJd the evid0nce thd th~ CcrP1n1~:>·~. bnt if we take the straight '"''::tY. "\vi (!1 vi 1 roct·1., r, o ,viii get there 60 or 70 ~h,n·L~·r, '·•1 that thC natural port o' that n:,rt of Qnr 'Island. if the via r,,cta is h'''lc r.n.j tho bordrr lire is ox-t0 '·(h- L y,~ill Lt: B1.·i":ha~, l. But if v0u lmild th 1 t Fr::.;' +1 TohrnJory froP1 (;h;:·J!ville yen 'i-vill not CC'n 'TV!' th::t tr,~dr-· f0r QUE'f-':J:,_ 1~1 "' ~1. Th!1 only ront0 tha1- \Yill con'•,{' YO it l" :-, . ., 1' l 7n0. In the n1c ·~n-l in1e. I r-1 ,"]'1 \ _11,.~, con'+rtPJ f1rp lin0 t0 J"·o· ··n.t?.·~ fn~· ·nr-P-pr tf' pr ,ln '.'::.) ~•n '''!.i1~~-fP."J th ~1 HL(1 :-·0-ttin~ f:tcir P< ,,:~[' to DHlrk-~" t -!"o th" hP-.{ H lvnnt':.n·r rF t 11 )'fll~J lyp; r.nd the- Sfu-!-I th:~k ~~":.P n{ ; it is not neccb'ary for the House tD t"Lrry out thv.se n,~omnH:mdations-particu!arly if thy are political Royal Com-m'''ic 1S-and they a1o valueless. If you t r" going to h;,.vo a Royal Commission, let. L bo coLlPO'·C'd of r~:p-.-- ts fro-·n t:_,G vurious d( partmm~k~. I an1 ~orry to ha,~e kept tho l-loT.;0 so long, Lut I a1n quito convinced I a:·l right, ulthouY b I run in a Ininority-H~·lt we slv::n71d 7ivo tho R;.:.ihvav Conunis~ :l'Wr \, h:.-t he asks. Ther0 are "other rail-

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

The PRE}li\U: \Vinton.

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

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

is the doYiation· of this Great \Yestorn line from the original objective at Tobermory, 25 miles to the north or 50 miles to the wuth. I have held upon previous occasions when this 1natter was under discussion in the IIou· e that the ·conservation of that large amount of trado that Queensland should ~ 'f ure for ihu_,:f for all tin1c in the South-west< rn portion of the State can only be accomp lishcd by a line to that part;cular district. Deviating this line to Eromanga 1vi:l not t-end in the s1ightC',j'!; dt'gror itnagin-ablo to gd any portion of that trade. They "·ill bc> imt a' badlv off for railwav com-InunicatiOn if the lin8 is run to Erou1~nga as they would be if the lino were left whore it jc, to-cla,·, so it v;ould be absolutely of no u'e to the Sonth-w .,tern district, or for tho g~tting of the traffic which we should get from that dishict for Queensland. In their final rcnort. tho Select Committee state that they cannot !lLJ.k,-_, any recornmendation to the Hou"e, and tho reason thcv make no rrcommendation is that thev had not suffi-ci,,·.Jt infor:~ation to enable~ them to do so. If the S -ion. A Bill could then b introduc·'d, based on the recommenda-tion of the Commission, which I suggest should he annointed. The Hoube would then have something to go on; at tho present tin1e the,, have absolut>Jiy nothing. There is no doubt that thoro ic a .-ery good reason for han. members who have said it is not a fair thing to certain portions of the State to make thic; d0yi,1tion to the J'\ orth, bLcause the gco.;raphical position of the district sugg,,sts that that trade should go to some other port th'm to Brisbane. But I am not taking up that stand on this question. The stand I an1 taking up in connet.,tion \vith the deviation is this: That if that immense tract of country in the South-" estern portion of Quc,Jnslanti is going to be properly settled, and the wealth which it will produce u~ili,ed for tho benefit of tho people of Quc(mRhlld. you are not going to do it by dc":iating the line to Eromanga. The only way is by a deviation-if not quite to Thar-gornindah, at least in that direction as far as possihle, and then to c xtnnd the line further \Vest. I agree that if a line were to branch off from Beechal Creek to Thargo-mindah it would be somewhat longer than a Iinfl from Beechal Crook to Eromanga, but 1t would not cost a great deal more. I believe that- the country would be better served if there was a branch line from Beechal Creek-at the point where it crossc·s Beechal Creek, and where the Southern deviation would branch off-to _\davale and no further. It there was a branch line con-structed from that point, I believe it v, 1uld •erve every purpose in the \Y estern district for n1any years to come.

:11r. HARIHCilE: \Vhere?

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

1913-5 B

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

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

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

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

awav from Rockhampton the \Vindorah line will" take trade to Rockhampton that at pre-,cnt goes to Charleville. Look at the stations round Windorah which at present .send their wool to Charleville. Hammond Downs, Bulgroo, and all those stations at tho present time send their wool to Charle-'Ville, but they will never continue to send . their wool to Charleville, because they are a few miles from \Vindorah. I am surprised that the people of Brisbane have not taken a keen interest in this matter before now. 'They should try to look after their own busi-ness, but they bPlieve-as we all do-that each port is entitled to its own trade. \Vhat is going to happen? vV e are told that Ero-rnanga is nearer to Rockhampton tha.n to Brisbane. It is not a question of whether it is a few miles nearer to Rockhampton. If you take the stuff to Rockhampton from that part of the country, the railage might be a little le,s, but you will have to ship it back here by steamer, and the extra expense we uld make the total cost f'reater than if vo u run the wool straight from Eroman7a to Bris-bane. I most emphatically challenge any bon. member to show me that by running the line 20 or 25 miles further north it is in any way going to damage Hockhampton.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. FORSYTH: If the Government brought in a line from Cunnamuila to Thar-gomindah, I wonld support it. Such a line would do infinitely more good than a line to Tobermory. It is a most remarl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. HARDACRE: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. GRANT: That is a district that ilL geographically nearer Rockhampton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

exactly what we did before. When the Great Western Railway scheme was first proposed, members on this side of the House who knew the country well told the Government the line was going the wrong way; but, in spite of that, the Government went blindly on, and said, "Let us pass the railway first, and then we will send out officers to find out which route is the correct one." What has happened since then has shown that the Government were wrong, and that the mem-bers on this side were absolutely justified in the warnings they gave the Government. The result of the Government policy has been the expenditure of thousands and thou-sands of pounds on railway construction about which there is considerable doubt, especially as to the route adopted. The question we ought now to consider is not whether this line should go to Tobermory or Eromanga, but whether we should adopt either of those routes. The Select Commit-tee have pointed out that the Commissioner for Railways told the Government that the railways going west should not be linked up at the place where it was proposed they should be linked up in the first instance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1546 Oompanie• Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

the measure, had suddenly decided to adopt certain suggestions made from the Opposi-tion side with regard to the imposition of stamp duty on share warrants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. THEODORE: Tho whole question was involved in whether it was desirable to insert the amendment in the Companies Acts Amendment Bill. It would be admitted that members on the Opposition side pointed out the necessity of having a different scale of stamp duties th.an was originally proposed, and the Pr8lmer had suddenly conceded what was asked for ,by the Opposition although he had not given any reason fo~ the change of his attitu,de. The Bill was intro-duced to facilitate certain business transac-tions on the part of certain companies regis-tered m Queensland. The Premier said it was in order to meet the wishes of these comp~nies that the amending Bill was introduced .and hn wished to paos it. When it was pdinted out that by making provision for the issue of share warrants it might ,involve the St!lte in a loss of stamp revenue, the Pre-mier put up an argument against that suggestion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr. Theodore.

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

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

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

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

Mr. THEODORE: But the company would. net issue them in Queensland. They were getting the authority from the Queensland Government to issue share warrants, but they would is•,ue them in England, and s

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

It was not for the Government to come down and say they were going to do a certain thing without giving some reasons for doing so

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

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

The PREMIER : They both mean the same thing.

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

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

Mr. HUNTER: He would come to the question pres·-·ntly, and he might have some-thing interesting to say. If it made no differ-once, they were only wasting time, and the motion was only abortiye. It was very clear that a proposal was made to permit the issue of share warrants on the basis of the payment of s"''mp duty on a value equal to three times the nominal value of the warrants.

The PRE~IIER : That is not the question.

The CHAIRMA::"-1 : The question before the Committee is a motion affirming the desirableness of inserting in tho Compae1ies Acts Amendment Bill a clause providing for the imposition of stamp duty on share "·ar-rants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The PREMIER: You don't understand the questwn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The PREMIER: Thev can onlv i,'

Companies Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Th0 PREMlER : Are not share warrants issued in England 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. HARDACRE: They were consider· illg·-

" The desirableness of inserting into the Companies Acts Amendment Bill a clause providing for the imposition of stamp duty on share warrants."

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

[Jfr. Hardacre.

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

The PRE}IIER: Then you have no control.

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

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

Mr. IL\RDACRE: ~ever mind that. Thev had no control over the individual, because the share warrants might be issued to an individual who held them in Great Britain, which was outside ~he scope of their power, and so ho was gomg to ~sc~pe paying any duty ~t all. He _wa.s pomtmg out what existed m Great Bntam, and he did not think the Premier understood it.

The PREMIER : He did. He rose to a point of order. The question before; the Committee was the desirableness of mtro· clueing a clause into the Bill to impose stamp duty on .share warrants. 'They were not comidering the spe01fic duty that was to be imposed, but whether it was wise or not to impose it.

Mr. HARDACRE: On what 1

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

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Leichhardt is going away altogether from the question before the HDusc, .and he JS not in order in discussing what was to be the stamp duty. The only question is the adyisableness of imposing a stamp duty 0n share warrants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:vir. HARDACRE: To show that he "iS in order, he proposed to an1cnd this pro~ posed al""'nding clause·. He moved tho in-DL'rtion, af:cr "on," at the end of tho f=.Pcond line, of " an:,- company which i,,,snes share 1Yarr~tnts."

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

Mr. IIAHD~\CRE: \Yas not a co:·>pany different from a share? They were going to confer vn a com!1any in Queensland tho Yaluablo concC',sion of tho nowor to issue .sha.ro ,., UlTants. I-I0 v.-anted- to n1ako that cr.mnanv nav for tho valuable concession "hich 1t g'nt,· so that whether it issued the share warrants in or out of Qucen

[550 Companies Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

as to what a share warrant was, and from a .misreading of an article in the " Bulletin." A share warrant wa3 nothing more or less

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

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

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN-STRL:CTION: What interest could they

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

Mr. THEODORE: Pay dividends on them.

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

Mr. HARDACRE: Who pays on the issue?

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

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

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN-STKCCTlON: The share warrant was issued to the man, and the holcler of it paid duty -on the transfer. The man who got the share warrant paid the duty on it just the same ;as anybody to whom scrip was transferred paid stamp duty. Pcrh:Lps one or two words .on something which had recently occurred might clear the atmosphere a little. The duty on the English share warrant was thre'l -times the ad valorem stamn duty charge-able, if the consideration was the nominal ·value of the shares. By a schf du le to tho Stamp Act of 1891 the duty on an ass;gn-'ment of a marketable security was ls. for every £10 or fractional part of £10. The :hon.· member for Leichhardt said that touched the share warrant.

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

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

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

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

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

Companies Acts (25 SEPTEMBER.) Amendment Bill. 1551

Mr. HARDACRE: Nothing of the kind. How could the individual be made to pay the stamp duty when he did not issue the share warrants?

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

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

Mr. FoRSYTH : They will not issue them until somebody applies for them.

Mr. HARDACRE: Of course they would. 'The stamp duty should be on the issue, and -as the company only could issue, the re-sponsibility rested with the company, and that wa·' where Great Britain got the stamp .duty, and that was what he wanted to do here. They were enlarging the Companies Act, which gave increased powers and made .the companies more valuable, and therefore the companies should pay the stamp duty, no matter where the transactions took place.

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

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

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

register in London was under the control

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

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

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

Companies Acts (25 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1553

desirous of taking adYantagc of the clause, and in that case a distinct gain would be made by the Treasurer of Queensland in the amount of revenue he would receive for stamp duty. And although the Premier, when he WaS in ch:crge of this particular am~ndmcnt, said he was not prepared to allow the Opposition .to plume thcm,,':lves on having SIH•'d tho mtc "'"ts of Queensland and the Treasury, he could not but admit that, what-ever uifvarr;m~; might bc•comc fashionable. 'The Treasury would beneftt (o tho extent of the cliffcrcJK,, bc'twc ''1 the duty on lhrc' timYoulcl be to take their tran,action to Great Britain, and, having got share warrants. give tho purchasers share warrants instead of shar0s, and pay no stamp duty to Queens· land. It had boon pointed out that a com-pany which iHued share warrants >Yas liable for a ponaHy on every share thoy issu< :! which was unstampod. In that case, it made a company responsible rather than an indi-vidual, and they ought to do the same thmg in connection with this clause. ~ew clause (hfr. Blair's) agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, put and passed. The Hon,•e resumed. The CHAIRMAN re-

ported the Bill with an amf,ndmcnt.

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

1\,k THEODORE : Through certain cir-cumstanc"s I have not been able to propose an amendment in the Committee stage of the BilL and I now nropose to submit to' the consideration of the House an amend-nwnt in clause 2. I move t.hc insertion, after " is~ue " on line 12 of the clause, of " in Queensland." I desire to restrict the issue of share warrants in Queensland alone. It may be said that, if the proposal is' carried,

Mr. Theodore.]

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

it will result in somewhat of a hardship to the London shareholders, or shareholders living outside the State of Queensland, in Queensland companies, who desire to take advantage of the provisions for the issue of share warrants ; but I maintain that, as the negotiations in share warrants in Queensland companies affect the interests of Queensland, 100 far as the interests of the companies are

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

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

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

down to the Committee with a bald proposal that it was desirable to do something, without telling the· Committee why, was to ask the Committee to sign a blank cheque. The Committee were entitled to further information. What was the object of asking permission to introduce a Bill if it was only a matter of form? The permis-sion should be obtained for some substantial reason. Was there some crook work going on amongst the agents in the city? If the Government proposed to introduce a Bill "'tablishing a produce agency and to work the business themselves in the interests of the farmNs of the State, he could under-stand it would be of some as,istance to the producers of the State; but the Bill was to prevent something that was happening, and the Committee were not told anything about it. The Minister should take the Committee into his confidence and justify the action of the department in asking the Committee for permission to introduce a Bill of that nature. This coming to the Committee and asking permission to introduce a certain thing was becoming a farce. The hon. member for Herbert had stated the other night that it was a waste of time. It might not be a waste of time, as there might be some sub-Btantial reasons for the introduction of the Bill, and hon. members wanted to know what they were. The Minister should state roughly what the Bill proposed to do. What were the evils it was intended to suppress? \'i'hat were the benefits it was going to con-fer on the farming communit"? It was not sufficient for seven men to constitut-e them-selv!'S into a Cabinet and decide on a certain thing and the other sixty-five members were to rep1ain as dummies and say, "Yes, it is all rtght. Whatever you propose must be good." He did not believe that everything emanatmg from the other side was good, and those other sixty-five members could be truste-d to have sufficient common sense to know whether a proposal of that kind was a good thing or not.

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

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

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: He was, and it took a great deal of trouble to discover that man, and the Bill was to prevent such a thing happening. It was to try and prevent unscrupulous agents selling produce at 8s. 3d. per bag and sending account sales for 7s. 9d. per bag. Another good reason for the Bill, which he could give the hon. member for Maranoa, who

was always prating about the farmers, was that the farmers wished that the Bill should be introduced. When the Bill was before the House, he would give all the information he could. It was not a long measure, but it was a measure of the utmost importance to the farmers. Under the regulations, al'l agent would have to show to whom goods were sol-d., what he got for them, and all about them. He sincerely hoped that han. members opposite would consider that he was not bringing the Bill in for the fun of the thing or to waste the time of the House in any particular. His only object in bring-ing the Bill forward was to try and assist the farmers without inflicting any great hardship on the produce agents.

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

1556 Stock and Farm [ASSEMBLY.] Produce Agents BitL

the stock and produce business. They knew that they had dishonest men in all walks of life. In almost every businc's in Australia they had men engaged who were prepared to do a dishonest thing, and it was b0cause oi such men that it was necessary to bring in legislation to deal with them. This Bill was to supprc'ls or prevent those business tactics from being adopted in business, not only in Brisbane, but in other parts of QuN>nsland. It also applied to the hon. member for Maranoa, who conducted the buciness of a produce agent. It would also ar ply to men like Izatt. The han. nKmber for Maranoa would welcome such a Bill, just as anv other honest trader would welcome it. Tho honest man who was prepared to do a fair thing by his customers would always welcome such a Bill. It was only the dishoncot man who would be affected by it. Leave to introduce the Bill should be given without the slightest hesitation. He had heard han. members opposite say that certain middlemen were not treating the farmers fairly, and they said that all middle-men were alike. He did not think tha.t han. members opposite could really mean that all middlemen were rogues and thieves. If thev did, they would have to condemn some of their 0\Vll membrs who were carry· ing on husine,, as stock and produce agents. Because one or more agents, or one or more companies, wore not doing tho right thing b:r the farmer, it was not a proper thing to condemn them all. This legislation would give them an opportunity of discovering the dishonest men, and bringing them to book, which was a difficult thing to do under the present ]a'' s. It was really safeguarding the interests of the producer, and he gave the Opposition credit for wishing to do that, as !hey were always saying they wi"hod b do rt.

Mr. BowMAN: And the consumer, too.

Mr. MORGAN: If they safeguarded the interest,, of the producer, they would s.1fe· guard tho consumer, because under this Bill records would have to be kept, and they could gd, they threaten0d to turn out the whole IIouse, and tear up the Constitution itself, if thcv did not got their own way, and vet they were satisfied with this poor, weak, little b 'ctling of a Produce Bill, which merely proposed to license produce agents.

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

[.ilf r . .il1 organ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to offer to the class whom the farmers' party pretended to represent, something better· than the proposal they had before them now.

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

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

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

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

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

l\lr. THEODORE : Those hon. )Tiembers would have an opportunity of declaring them-·sclves upon those principles. If they had not tho courage to put them before the House them•·0lves, hon. members on his side would give them an opportunity of voting •One way or the other.

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

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

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

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

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

OPPOSITION MEMBERS: Hear, hear !

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. FIHELLY was sure there was no point of order. If they accept~d the a'!'~ndment it must be incorporated m the or1gmal moti~n, and he thought it would .facilitat!3 business if they w.ere allowed ": .little lati-tude notwithstandmg the opposrtwn of the hon.' and ga!Iant member who professed to lead the country party. The hon: member for Murilla appeared to be labourmg under a wrong impression. The farmer. wanted to get the best price p

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

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

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

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

Lieut.-Colonel RANKIN (Burrwn): There seemed to be something unusual about the debate. In past days, leave to introduce a Bill was regarded more or less as a formal motion. Now it seemed to be regarded as an opportunity for a full-dress debate, on which what were generally looked on as second-reading speeches were delivered.

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

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

that the very question which seemed to be troubling hon. members opposite as to what the Secretary for Agriculture was introducing was contained in the motion. The title and the objects of the Bill were given.

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

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

Lieut.-Colonel RANKIN thought he wa' quite in order so far as he had gone in lead-ing up to tho amendment proposed by the hon. member for Maranoa, and he wished to say that he thought that no Bill had been introduced into tho Chamber under more favourable conditions than the present Bill. As a matter of fact, the gene,sis of the Bill was to be found in, perhaps one of the largest gatherings of primary producers that had ever taken place in the State.

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

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

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

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

[Mr. Fihelly.

producers, and he thought he was just a~& much in order as the deputy leader of the Opposition when he said that all those groans and all those tears from the other side about the cloud of indignation that was going to hurst were caused merely because they had ehown such a sympathetic interest in the primary producer, not in the dirr"1tion sug-gested by the amendment, but by the intro-duction of a measure that had been asked for by the farmers and the primary producers themselves. And he submitted that there was no class of persons mort1 able t.:, say what the" required than the farmers them1elves. It \vas as a result of a specific request that the measure was being introduced, and he submitted that the amendment brought for-ward in his specious manner by the hon. member for JYiaranea was on all-fours with the attitude adopted by his leader, when another measure of a similar nature, one of the sugar Bills, was before the House. It was tried to block and delay it on that occa-sion by the introduction of amendments, and now the same tactics were displayed.

Mr. BoWMAN: Do you believe in the amendment?

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

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

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

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

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

GoVERNMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear 1 Mr. BEBBINGTON: Because that brought

out the good points of the individual. They did not believe in nationalisation, and the dividing of their products v.·ith anybod:---They believed if the amendment "as pa,,ed, when thev came to nationalise the whole of their products, they wonld have less left than they had at present. They preferred to de-velop their own co-operative companies. They had two now in Brisbane, and there was n0 necessity for any nationalisation. Thev felt that as farmers they were just as competent to manage their o\vn business as any State official would be, and just a little bit more, and they preferred to trust their own farmers, and their own people, to manage their own business. "Wiost of those gentlemen belonged to Brisbane, and if the local authorities of the towns did their duty as they ought to do, they would do more in the way of marketing and bringing the pro-ducer and tho consumer together, but they dosirecl to leave too much to the Go,·ernment. They neither provided markets nor homes, nor anything else, for their people; they practically loft it all to the Government, and that was very little credit to any city authori-ties. If they did their duty, they would do more towards feeding and housing the people within their bo_rders. Hon. members opposite talked about the farmer, and brought in

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

Mr. COYNE said the reason he was in favour of the amendment and against the original motion was this: The hon. member for Murilla said that the object of the original motion was to license produce dealers--

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

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

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

they could safeguard the interestr, of the farmers was to acnept the am.endment. He believed that was far preferable than causing what might be a combine of produce dealers, which the original motion would tend to make; because granting a license implied that somebody must grant tho license, and how did they know that it was not a gang of produce dealers that would have to grant license~?

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

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

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

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

keep books, and he had not got a license, The hon. member for Drayton said there were t'vo co-operative fanners' corr1panies in Bris-bane, and found fault with the local authori-ties for not doing more for the producer. All the tim.e the ho,n, member forgot that he was in favour of thB amtmdmcnt, because it was only a lesser degree of Government control he wag advocating, as against the full control b-; tho GovC'rnment under the hon. member for Maranoa's amendment. The hon. mem-ber for Drayton sejd there were 14,000 farmers who had asked for the licensing of produce dealers. If they thought for a moment, and were not mislBd by membBrs opposite, they would proye their consistency by sending the whole of tJ:leir pr_oduce to either of the two co-operative soCieties, or by forming more societies to deal with their produce, . Mr. MORGAN : That is coming. This Bill

will help. Mr. COYNE commended the amendment

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

Mr BEBBINGTON: No; there would bt nothing left.

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

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

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

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

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

amendment. (Laughter.) The Government would be the very worst medium between the farmer .and the consumer that the farmer could have.

Mr. Grayson. J

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

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

Mr. GRAYSON: No; to any Government that might be in power. If they had an army of Government officials managing a produce agency business in Brisbane, he believed that when the farmer received his account sales he would find his returns were verv small indood. If the amendment was cari·ied, he did not believe we should have any farmers in Queensland in five years' time-they would all be public servants: He could not believe that the han. member for Maranoa was serious in proposing the amendment, as the han. member was a middleman himself, and he was positive that the han. member would resent any interfer-ence by the Government in the management of his business. He noticed that the deputy leader of the Opposition was rather wrathful at the Goyernment for proposing to intro-duce this Bill.

'rhe CHAIRMAN: Order !

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

Tho CHAIRMAN: Order !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Stevens.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. PAYNE could not understand farmers' representatives saying that the amendment was not better than the motion. If they analysed the two questions, they would soo :that the motion was for the purpose of rog1stermg an agency to deal with farmers' produce. The amendment provided that the Government should handle the farmers' pro· due~, and just charge him the bare cost of handling. If the amendment were accepted, h2 could a'sure them that the Labour mem-bers would support any provision that the produce should be handled and sold just for thn bare expense it cost. He did not blame the agencies. In Brisbane alone they could seo the fine establishments that had been erected by farmers' .agents during the past ten years.

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

Mr. PAYNE : He did not believe in ~weatin>: the agents, but he did not believe m the agents at all. He always recognised that the man on the land had got a good deal_t? contend with in the way of climatic cond1twns, and pests of every description, and he considered that the primary producer should get the full result of the wealth he produced. The Labour platform provided for that, and th0 Labour party were per-fectly honest and conscientious in advocating it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr. Stevens.

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

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

Mr. PAYNE (continuing) said that there seemed to be a lot of hypocrisy among. farming representatives on the other side, In various directions they advocated na-tionalisation, such as in the purchase and distribution of seed wheat. That being so,. they should certainly be prepared to sup-port an amendment of such vital import-ance to the primary producers, seeing it would enable them to get the full results. of their labour. 'l'he hon. member for Rose-wood did not believe in the amendment, because, in his opinion, it would injure the· farmers, but he had not shown in what way it would injure them. The system was in operation in other parts of the world, and it was in force in several States of the Commonwealth, and in every case it was. an absolute success. Nothing that would benefit the primary producer should be left untried, and the system proposed by the· amendment would certainly benefit the pri· mary producer. He hoped the Committee· would accept the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. BOWMAN: If the farming represen-tatives realised how the system had worked in other places, they would readily support it. The Bill might do a certain amount of g-ood, but it would be still more beneficial if the principle of the amendment were incorporated in it. Anything that would' enable the produce of the farmer to be sup-plied to the consumer at a lesser cost should meet with the approval of hon. members Tepresenting farming constituencies. The amendment would prove beneficial both to the producer and to the consumer. Time after time in Queensland thev had had examples of the primary producer getting less than he was entitled to. He was not

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

disputing the merits of the Bill, but it would be considerably improved by the acceptance of the amendment. They heard no com-plaints about the State manufacturing rail-way engines and railway carriages, and dur-ing Exhibition week the Commissioner for Railways invited a number of hon. members to see what could be done in that branch of State enterprise. The success that had been achieved in the wav of State manu-£ acturing could also be achieved in the direc-tion of State distribution. The Agricultural Bank had been established to give cheap money to farmers, and hon. mllmbers oppo-site, time after time, advocated an exten-sion of tho functions of that bank. The Opposition desired to add State produce depots to the list of the things undertaken by the State, and he sincerely hoped the amendment would be carried.

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

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

find the enormous sum that would b

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

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

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! The hon. member is not in order in in1puting motiYes to hon. members by saying that they fleece the farmers. I ask the hon. member to with· ·draw the statement.

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

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

Mr. GILLIB~S: They wore told there were t\vo co-operatiYo societies in Brisbane and .~till it was nec•?ssary to introduce a J3il! to deal with the middlemen. Co-operation had ·done a great deal as far as production wa" .concerned. \Vh ed that the alleged " Go-\-crnment stroke " was a myth, and that vv~rk was much cheaper and much more effective undc·r State control than under private con· tract. J'\either did this amendment involve tho enormous e:'Cpenditure which the hon. member for \Vide Bay contended that it would-it simply mpant the affi~mation of the principle. It did not necBssanly mean that depots would have to be established all over the State, but it meant the creation of a depot at tho commencement as a trial, and there could be no doubt what the result would be The hon. member for Rosewood was exceedingly unfortunate in his opposi-tion to this amendment. He "cnt to \V estern Australia and attempted to prove that State distribution there was a failure. He tald the meat being sold in the State of \Vestern Au,tralia was a much higher price than under private enterprise. ETidcntly the hon. m

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

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

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

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

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

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