Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Council

WEDNESDAY, 9 JULY 1913

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Jo•nt Committee;~, {9 JULY.] Sugar Cultivation Bill.' 3t.n

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

WEDNESDAY, •9 JULY, 1913.

. The PRESIDENT (Ron. Sir Arthur Morgan) ilook' the chair at half-past 1l o'clock.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT.

Go VERN ;JENT SA vrxas BANK sicuRITIEB.

The PRESIDENT announced the receipt from the Auditor-Genera] of a report, dated

· 7th July, 'under the provisions of section 6 ·of the Savings Bank Act of 1870, with a statement ,hawing how the funds of the

· Governinntt. SaYings Bank Wf're invested on 30th June, 1913.

Ordm'qd to be printed.

PAPERS.

The following papers, laid on the table, were orderr,>d to be printed:-

Annual return of the Curator of Intes­tate Estates, Brisbane, for 1912.

Annual return of the Local Deputy Curator of Inte,tate Estates, Town•­ville, for .1912.

.JOINT COMMITTEES.

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS.

On the motion of HoN. A. H. BARLOW, icu. was re,oiYed-

" 1. That the President, Mr. Norton, and Mr. Brcntnall be appomtcd mem­hBrs of the joint committcc- for th" managenwnt of the Parliamentary Librury.

"2. That the President, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Fahey be appointed members uf the joint committee for the managP-. ment of the Parliamentary Refreshment­rooins.

"3. That the President, Mr. Cow­lishaw, and Mr. Hall be appointed •rwmbers of the joint committee for the management and superintendence of the Parliamentary Buildings.

" 4. Thut the foregoing resolutions be transmittBd to the Legislative Assembly, by message, requesting that they will be p1Pased to nominate a like number ·of members from their body, with a view cu givo effect to the 8th Joint Standing Order."

At u later hour, the PRESIDE:t-;T an­nounced the receipt of a message from the As,cmblv, intimating that they had ap­pointed Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gunn, and Mr. Lennon. to be members of the Joint Library

,.Comnritt0e; JVI'r.- Speaker, Mr. Booker, and M·r, Ma.y to be members of the joint com·­mittf'<> for the management of the Parlia­mentary Refreshment-rooms; and JVlr. Spcalcer,- 1\'[r. Petrie, and Mr. Payne to be memberq of the joint committee for the mal'agemf'nt and superintendence of the Parliamentary Buildings.

SUGAR CULTIVATION BILL. SECOND READING.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Hon. T. O'Sullivan) said: This is a Bill that ;s really the outcome of an arrangement between the late Federal Prime Minister, Mr. Fisher, and the Premier of Queensland to J.b~lish th.e bounty and excise on sugar. Certam condi­tio:ns were annexed by Mr. Fisher !o th_e introduc~ion of the legislation for the alroh­tion of the excise and bounty, and one of these conditions "'as that the Queensland Parliament would, by legisl~tion, ab?lis_h coloured labour in the sugar mdmtry. This Bill is for the purpose of giving effect to that condition. The necessary legislation to 'abolish both bounty and excise '."as passed b_y the Federal Parliament, but It w_as not passed until after the Queensland Parhamcr:t had risen last session. I prPsume that Is the reason that the Federal legislation was. only to become operative on the issuing of a proclamation by the Federal Government. That proclamation has been ~eld ov:r, J?rc­sumably until we pass this legislatwn. Hon. members would naturally conclude that it is u simple thing to put in the Bill which is submitted for tlw consideration of the Council a direct prohibition of coloured labour in the industry; but I dare say most hon. members arc familiar with the fact that a direct prohibition is not a feasible pl~n for uccomplishing the object we have m view. Consideruble correspondence h~s taken place between the Chief Secretary s Department and the Home Office, and the result of that co.Tr·~spondence is that the Royal Assent will not b~ !!i_Ye:' t": any 'r:ea­sure which C<Jntains u drscnmmation agamst anv p::'rsons, or class of persons, in Quecnr;;­lai;d on the ground of race or colour. It .Is therefore necessary to effect our purpos~ m son1e other way, and a ·well-recognised method of effectin~ that purpose has be.en m operation in <)ueenslarrd . ~'l.cts _for. s'?me time. I do not think thut drrect drscr.rmma­tion on racial grounds can be found m any Queensland Ad of Parliament since 1901. I find, on looking at the Common;v"a!t)l statute> chat th(' dictation te-t-which 'IS now tht~ l'"cognis<'d mtlthod of ctfecting the objt•ct wP havG in view-was adopted by the Federal Parliament as far back as 1901. ThB dictation test is the method which has beBn adopted in Queensland statutes of recent years. I might refer to the Land Act of 1910 the Local Authorities Act of 1910, the L·ea~es to Aliens Restriction Act of 1911. and

, th" -Sugar \Yorkers Act of 1911. Conse­quently the same. mBt.bod is proposed. now. The provisions of the !Jill are v?ry simJ::lP.

, Olause 2 defines certam expressrons wh~ch are med in the subsequent parts of the Btl!. The exnressions defined are : " Certificate of having- ·passed the dictatior: test,'' "occ;upier" -which, hon. members will observe, IS very wide~ including "owner in fee;~imp]e o,~ for any less estate "-" employPr and om­pl~yc<>." · The two last-mentioned terms. are to have the same meaninr; as ar<' respectiVely assigned to thGm by the Industrial PPa~P. Act of J ~12. The operatiYe part of the -Btl! is contained in clauses 3 >rnd 4. f'laus<> 3 deals with the cultiyators of land. It mukcs it unlawful for any pereon who hae not first obtained .a certificate of haYing ·passed· the dictation test to carry ·on the cuJtiyation of sug-ar, and it provides a P.enalty for cont]:a­vention of this sectio,n. whrch han. n;embers mnv think rather drastic. The penalty rs !'-sum not· exceeding £100. .and the forfeiture df

Hon. T. O'Sulli1;an.l

JHi2 Sugar Uulttnat·ion ,Bill. [COUNCIL.) Sugar Oult·~vation BilL

the crop of sugar-cane which is cultivated in contravention of the section may result. Clause 4 deals with employers and em­pwyees both in the cuitivation of sugar-cane and in its manufacture. 'lhe first prohibition in the clause deals with the employer, and the second deals with the employee, and the penalties again art~ pretty· drastic, because in ·the case of an individual employer he may incur a penalty not exceeding £5 for every day on which an employee is employed in contravention o.f the section; in the case of an employer which is a partnership firm or corporation the pena:ty is a sum not exceed­ing £10 per day, and in the case of an em­ployee. he may be liable to a penalty not exceedmg £2 for each day on which he is omployed in contravention of the· section. Then we come to clause 5. It must be quite apparent that, if legislation is passed to prevent a man putting his land to 'the best use-and the growing· o.f sugar-cane may be the best use to which the land can be put­that land, so far as that particular owner is concerned, suffers a diminution in value. Therefore a provision is inserted in the Bill that, so far as the use of his land is con­cerned, any occupier who is prejudicially a_ffected can P';'t in a claim for compensa­tron. That clmm for compensation is to ao to the Land Court, and the basis of co~­pensation is tlie diminution in the value of ~he land to the claimant caused by the pass­!ng of. the -!\ct. It wa~ thought advisable, m deah~g wrth t~'! qup,twn of compensation, to put m a provrswn to enable the Secretary for Agriculture to get the whole value of the claimant's estate in the land assessed be­r:ause otherwise confusion might aris~ be­tween the actual compensation to which a man is entitled for the diminution in the value of the land to himself and the value of his whole estatP. A man might be the o:"n.er ?f ~he land in fee-simple, and the drmmutwn 111 value of the land to him would not be the whole value of the land. The Secretary for A ~:riculture will have the option either of bnying right out th<> whole of the claimant's interest in the land or of paying- him compensation for the value of the diminution of his interest in the land. It seems to me that it is a perfectly fair thing to allow the Secretary for Agriculture to have the right of buying the whole land in case he thinks that the Land Court has assessed the compensation for the claimant's intE>rest at too high a figure. Clause 6 is really a procedure clause. It brings in the machinery provisions of lhe Land Act for assessing compPnsation in dealing with resumptions. Clause 7 deals with the power of the Governor in Council to make regulations. Hon. gentlemen will see that this power is a wide one. It enables the Governor in Council to make re>rnlaiions for the examining and granting to persons a. certificate of having passed the dictation test and for the exemption of certain persons o; classes of persons from the operation of tha A_ct, which is a very nercssarv power to. fl}Ve to the. Governor in Council by regula­tion, and rt also enables regulations to be framed prescriloing rates ,,f wa<res and con­ditions of employment for abori>rinal natives ?f Australia who may be employed in the mdustry. Those are the main provisions of the Bill. As I hnvn said. thP onMat.ive nart of the Bill is contained in cleuses 3 and 4. and the other provisions are eithPr incidental to th" tPrms of clauoes 3 and 4 or they are n:achinery S<'r.iions for enabling the provi. srons of the Bill to be put into operation. l:t

[H:on. T. O'Sullivan.

is important, if possible, that w~ should pass the second reading of the Brll to-day. I understand from my colleague that he is not particular about going through the Commit­tee stage, but would like to pass the second reading of the Bill to-day, because the sooner this legislation has gone through the. soo':ler we shall get the benefit of the. legrslatron providing for the abolition of ,the sugar bounty and excise.

Han. E. J. STEVENS: Have vou had any intimation from the Prime 'Minister of Australia?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I under­stand the Premier has received a communi­cation from the Prime Minister, the exacli · terms of which I am not able to put befm'e the House at present, but I understand thai there will oo no difficulty about the further condition which the Prime Minister ha~> stated in his letter. We have every reason to anticipate that the le&"islation abolish­ing the excise and bounty wrll become ope_ra­tive next week. I move the second readmg of the Bill.

HoN. A. GIBSON: It would appear, fr'om a glance through the Bill now before t~e House that this measure is of a very drastiC charadter. Some years ago, in order ~o secure the white sugar-growBrs. of Austral;a getting the bonus for growmg cane m Queensland, protection seemed to be. neces­sary, and protection by law was prov;ded by which coloured labour would not derr':'e an,l' oonefit from a bonus. That has been mtelh­gently understood, both by the bla9k and white man, and the yellow man, durmg the term of the existence of the Commonweal~h Act. A very large number of people m Queensland, the growers especially, felt tJ:rat there was some necessity for their pr~tect~on agaimt the coloured ~en, and so lcgrslatwn was passed, under whrch Nos. 1, 2. 1>; and 4 divisions of the colony were sketched ~mt by the authorities at that time. No .. 1, bemg· somewhere in the vicinity of Carrns and Port Douglas, received 7s. 6?. per ton for the cultivation of cane, and m the MackaJ

• district, and coming down the coast-N?· 2 district-7s. was paid. When you came r:rto the Wjde Bay district, No. 3, 7s. W>l;S pard; and No. 4, in the south, has recerved 6s. Those w'we the rebates paid to the growers out of the .£4 excise that was placed upon the manufactur~rs. This has run along very well. The men who grew cane by black labour-or the black labour itself which cul­tivated cane-received nothing. That revenue went into the consolidated revenue of the Commonwealth and became part and parcel of the very la~ge fund which .the ~eople of Australia derived from the sugar mdustry. The manufacturer:s did hot come in in thP legislation that was paEsPd, the .£4 exc~se having been demanded from them, whrle there was only a .£6 protective dnty--natnr­a.!ly, the man.ufacturers had verv little pro· te~tion in making the sugar. Hon .. gentl<;­men who know anything of mercantile busi­ness knov· that there is alwa.ys in nroffiction a considerable reduction in the benefit to 'the manufacturer, as he has to pay a high protective duty on the importation of sugar machinery, or whatE>ver it may be. T)'e engineering firms will tell you that whrle they have 25 per cent. protection for the manufacturing of sugar machinery which W<>

Sugar Gultimt~on B.ill.

buy from them, it does not cover by a long way the difference to them as against the imported article. The sugar people reason it out in exactly the same way. 1 am glad we have one of the members of the .Federal Sugar Commission here-the Han. Mr. Hinchcliffe-who will have the evidence fresh withm his memory. The Colonial Sugar Re­fining Company made it known that raw sugar of a very considerable net titre could be bought in Java at £1 per ton, and delivered in Sydney at less than they were paying to the manufacturer of >Ugar of the same net titre in Australia. We also did not have a 6 per cent. duty when that pro­tection took place, and I might state that during the past year nearly 100,000 tons of sugar came in from Java, Fiji, and Mauri­tius to meet the requirements of this conti­nent. This is what the manufacturers have had to contend with. I am inclined to think that clause 4 of the Bill-which was not in­troduced by the Commonwealth Government -is an addition put on to the difficulties of sugar manufacturing by the Denham Govern­ment. I say unhesitatingly that it is not a fact that the manufacturer derives a profit out of the protection. He has to buy the cane from the grower, and another Act comes along requiring him to pay 2<. 2d. extra per ton on what was formerly paid, which, un]e£~ he take~ it out of the grower in some way, will be fatal to the manufacturing of sugar in Australia. You have only Jl5 pro· tection; it is not .£6. If you arc going to erect a sugar-mill at a cost of .£100,000, out of that amount .£25,000 will represent the duty you have to pay, and that is not the average. There is material used in a suo-ar­mill which is much above 25 per cent.· s~mc of it is 33 per cent. to 40 per cent. 'Hence we hold that clause 4 is an inroad upon an industry which is not deriving any benefit from the Bill which is now before us. Speak­mg for myFe!f and a number of other mill­owners, we have honourably carried out the 1~ct by_ not employing any coloured labour, either m the field or in the mill--for vears pa_st we have not done so at Bingera: and neither has Qunaba and some of the other mills in the di&l;rict. I am told-how true it is I cannot say-that there are mills which e~pi?Y coloured labour in other places. Wishmg to be on a fair business basis with the manufacturers elsewhere I naturally might look at clause 4 and say: " If I do not employ coloured labour in the factory, why should others be allowed to do it?" I have neither act nor part in tho produc­tion of this, but as - a matter of prin­ciple I hold feat, as the manufucturer is not receiving protection he has no right to be interfered with ~s to the class of labour he places in the factory. (Hear, :hear!) I have been approached by one or two gentlemen whose factories are not up to the standa;d, and I believe that they have no mtentwn whatever of continuing the ma:'ufacture of s!lgar for any lengthene-d periOd. The conditiOns at the present time are such that any of us would he a-lad to get out of the industry altogether." I did not vote-but I should have done-for the nationalisation of industries so that the Commonwealth Parliament co'uld have taken over the sugar industry, and worked it at a cost to the people of Australia. I did not do that, because I do not think that any Government can work the sugar industry

Sugar Cultivation Btl[. 363

pro:&tab!y, and there is abundant evidence in Queensland that it is not a desirable under­taking for the State. But there is a num­ber of small men, w.ho have not been, and who are not now, in a satisfacto:-y position, who could not borrow from the Government the moneys necessary to enable them to carry their cane up to the carrier, so tha~ it can be moved on to the rollers. Some of these mills work two, and some three, shifts. Those "orking t»o shifts have, perhaps, 100 or 200 tons of cane to pass through the rollers, and that cane has to be carried by men in their arms to the carrier, some­times for a distance more than the length of this chamber. You can understand wha:'l is going to take place in a factory of thai description. One gentleman told me that he followed out these conditions to feed his rollers during the present year, and he is under agreement; but, under this Bill, ha cannot take advantage of the men who are hired to carry this cane to the carrier, so that it may enter into the factory. I think

that is a great hardship, and I [4 p.m.] hold that, at least this year,

that should not be one of the conditions in the case of the small man who is endeavouring simply to make a liv­ing-there is no money in it for him. If we are going to drive him out of the indus­try-ruin him-for that is the word that I oug·ht to use-then we shall be doing a great injustice, and one that, I am sure, the Com­monwenlth Government will not insist on our doing. It is a mistake on the part of our Government to harass the little man, who is trying to make an honest living in an industry in which he has been engaged for the last twenty-five or thirty years. I do not want to weary bon. members, because, hm' ever much I dislike this Bill, I want to see it passed. It is very important that we should get it through, and I have an instruction from a large number of growers to say that they do not care what it is like. It is a very bad state of affairs in the his­tory of any industry when men become indifferent whether they carry on the indus­try or not. In August last Mr. Tudor issued a regulation fixing wage" in the industry at 1s. per hour, and providing that there should be an eight-hour day, and that, if men worked longer than eight hours, they were to be paid overtime. Any hon. mem­ber, who knows anything about work in the open, knows that under such conditions the sugar-grower cannot carry on his business for. any lengthened period. He got no extra assistance from. the Commonwealth, or from anybody else, when this extra burden of 40 per 0<ent. was imposed on him for his labour, and he "'"·' told that if he did not obey the regulation he would jeopardise the little bit that he was entitled to. Some of them tried honourably to carry out the regulation, and some of them failed, because it was impossible to carrv it out. We live under the impression that the regulation will have to be carried out, even under the Cook Government We are simply being pressed into a vortex, and we cannot help ourselves, and I have no doubt that one of the Bills still to come before us will provide for the ls. an hour and the eight-hour day. That is a condition imposed by people living in Melbourne, who know nothing about the conditions operating in the industry.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Is it not pro­posed to regulate that by wages boards?

Hon. A. Gibson.]

Sugar Cultivation Bill~ :[COUNC[L.] Sugar Oulti1'ation Bill.

HoN . .A. GIBSON: No; it has got to be done before it reaches the wa~es board "!'his House will have to pass ~n Act t~ ihat effect before the wages board gives its ~award. I was in hopes that we would get 'out of the clutches of all Parliaments, and . ilhat. we would have to fight before the .. pres1_dent of the wages board and point out :to h1m the conditions of the industry; but the Quee_nsland ~overnment are being ·~queezed mto puttmg a measure like this before Parliament with a view to assisting the growe_r. :r'hat is the plea. If we fail

. to pass th1s B1ll, the grower will not get the .<•xtra 2s. 2d. a ton for his cane that he has a right to. During the last twelve years £2,500,000 has been taken out of the in­dustry that should have gone to the grower

. and to the labourer, and it has been handed ower to the people of Australia, and I pr~ume that a measure will be introduced tellmg the grower that he will have to pay ls. an ho':'r. for. an !"ight-hour day. There are men hvmg m th1s State who came here .•wenty or twent:y-five years ago, and who have been carrymg cane to a carrier all those years, and we are asked to drive them 'out of that work. Many of those men have reared families in Queensland, and they are

. part and_ parcel of ourselves, but they are to be dnven out of the industry. I met a ~an at Bundaberg Railway Station a fort­mght ago, an~, I said t'? hi~, "What countz:y­man are you? He sa1d A Queenslander " I said, " But your father was an Ambry~ 1nan, was he not?" He saiO, " Yes, rny father was an Ambrym man." I would like to see any young white who could do more than that young fellow-bright active capable, taught in our schools, edu~ated as ~ Queeijslander, and considering himself a

.. Queenslander. He is not to grow cane an~· •more or to work in the canefields. He i·s n~t to be allo':'ed to _have anything to do w1th a sugar-mill or w1th any class of sugar work. What are we going to do with hirn o Where is he going? I have had a larg~ number of German families in my empl<:>y­'":'ent for the last year. If you put a dicta­bon test to them, how would they fare' Are you going to drive them away? A countryman of my own might be knocked out by a dictation test.

· Hon. A. H. BARLOW: They can be ex­empted by the regulations.

. HoN. A. GIBSON: But we do not know what the regulations are going to be.

Ho.n. F. T. BRENTNALL: A good mailJ other people might be exempted.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: A good many P''Ople will be exempted.

RON. A .. qiBSON: I am wondering where . we a_re dnvmg to. We are sons of a gr:eat .Emp1rP;· Are we afraid to employ an Ind1an ?. Are those people to be banished ? There IS no provision made for them. i never was afraid to work alongside a white

,man or alongside a black man. I could ,always· earn my living. Are we now going to ~efuse to _allo':' certain people to WOl."' I~? :We cry for 1mm1grants, immigrants, imrni­··gTauts. I have to get an interpreter when ·r wish to communicate with some of mv enn­ploy~es, and .I think it is pitiful that I ~hou]d be .hablo to a penalty if I dare to emj) I ov o~e of' these.. able-bodied men without a. rst

• ['rl on. A. Gibson.

· IeaTning his antecedents. There are other things I could say, but I shall defer them until the other Bills dealing with the sugar industry are bef01:e us. I want this Bill to pass so that the sugar-grower may get his extra 2s. 2d., so that he may share it with his workers so that they may be more satis­fied; but I do not want this Legislature to determine what class of labour a manufac­turer shall employ.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON: I am led to under­stand this Bill is the first instalment of four Bills to deal with the sugar industry that we ar<e likely to be asked to consider this ses­sion. Personally, I think it a pity that what~ver legislation is forecastJod in connec­tion with a particular industry is not brought for·ward in one 1neasure. I see no reason why the two Bills now before the Council could not have been combined. I see no reason why the projected Bill that we have heard of to provide for a fixed wage, pen<l· ing the creation of a wages board, should not have been here, and I see no reason whv tho fourth instal'llent which is on the stocks, and ,,hich we heard a great deal about, could not have been prepared and been brought along so that we might have dealt at one time with the subject in its various aspects. We have been told that the measure we are now discussing is the. outcome of cer­tain negotiations between the Premier of this State and the ex-Prime :Minister of the Co,n· monwealth; and we have been also toiu that, in order to get the bounty and excise abolished, this legislatiun has become ne<'RS· sar~·, and that it is necessary to pass this Bill to enable the Commonwealth Govern­ment to bring the legislation they passed last year into force by means of a proclanw.· tion. A •'ouple of months ago we heard all sorts of promises made. The present Federal Prin1e Minister, \\"e vvcr0 given to :J.nder­stand, would proclaim the F+<deral Act un­c-onditionally the moment he got into power.

The ATTORNEY-GEXERAL: He denies that.

HoN. C. F. NIELSOX: It wa•< not denied priur to the Federal elections. We were also told that tl1CI obnoxious Tudor regulations were going to be abolished at once. Promi­nent members of the Queensland Legislature took g-r0at pains to explain to the electors t.hat that would be done. Now it is pro­posed by this GovermnPnt not to abolish it, hut actually to bring in an Act to confirm it as a Rtate measur••. Howev.er, that is a subject I will not touch upon in detail, as w~ shall he able to see the Bill when it arrives. Touching this particular measure we arP discussing. it. is supposed to have !wen the State pricf' for the proclamation "hich is about to issuf'. and which is sup­po,ed to be based on i he recommc•ndations of the Commonwealth Roval Commission on ·the sugm· industrv. Clau;e 4 is the essential telausO cf this meaS'lr8. and it, goes further in the way of prohibition of labour than anv previous C"mmonw,..nlth legislation has ever· donf\, and fm·ther than was Pvcr re~om­m~·n?ed by the Commonwealth Royal Com­·mrs.sion.

.Tlw ATTORNEY-GENER\L: No, it does not.

HaN.· (' F. NIELSON: The· hon. gentle­man will excuse me, but it does. I have

Sugar Cultivation B~ll. · (9 JlJLY.} Sugar Cultivation Bill. 365

the Commissioner's report her.e, and the only recommendation upon it is recommendation 29, namely-

" We recommend that the bounty and excise be abolished, provided the Com­monwealth Government, by co-operation with the States or otherwise, take what­ever steps may be necessary to promote tho white-labour policy, and to ensure the ma_intenance of a living wage in the sugar mdustry generally."

Those are the words. Not to prohibit the employment of any labour other than white labour in the sugar industry-that was not r?commended. The Bill before us gO!lS con­siderably beyond that recommendation. I woul? draw attention ~o what is probably a slightly l:.umorous srtuatwn. \V e ha. ve h<:;ard wha~ my estee•ned friend, the Hon. A. Grbson, . sard about abolishing the coloured labour m any of tho firms in his suo-ar dis­trict. ;Now, he will hear me pointing out that I mtend to move an amendment on this -!'Jill to alleviate the stringency of clause 4 m regard to the employment of coloured labou_r. It is not J_na~y years ago that any man m the suga_r drstrwt~, who hrld opinions adverse to the mtroductwn of kanakas was no good, was worse than disloyal, and that h<:; w~nted ~o wreck the -industry in the dis­triCt m whwh he lived. I was in that un­fortunate position for a number of years and I have lived to see the most ardent coloured labour advocate of our district take up the position I held then, and I shall probably ?e told that I have gone back in the opposite direction. The Hon. Mr. Gib­~on has referred to certain small factories m . Queensland which arc not so fully equr~ped an~ U!> to. datp as the larger ones; a!'d rf ~here 1~ one rtem for which it is prac­tically rmpo_ssrble to get white labour, it is for the l?admg of the carrier to thB rollers­t~e l~ad~ng by hand .of sugar-cane and put­tmg ~t .mto the earners. It is well known !hat It Is the last duty that any man look­mg for work seeks to engage in.

H_on. A. G. C. HA W~HOR:li: How do thev do It at the central nulls? ·

HoN. C. F. NIELSON: They have a mechanical_ contrivance known as a. rake, or mech":mca_l un!?ader. The cane arrives at _the m1ll erther 111 railway trucks or plan­tatwn tram trucks, and these trucks arc· brought up t_o the ;mill. In some cases small trnch are tipped_ mto tne carrier; in ot.her pla?es _a mec:[Jamcal contrivance is erect0 d whwh IS mampulatecl bv a man bv meanR of a wheel, and th<; cane is cmnpletely clearc;l ont of the tru~k mto the cane carrier. At the . sm~ller mrlls, the cane arrives at the C'arr1er 1n drays or 'vagons, whieh are tipned up '!n the ground a.s close to the carrier' a,; possrble, and men .. have to take up this ""n" by hand, P\lt It on their shoulders. and w!'lk to the. earner and throw it in. If this Brll con:es mt? ope_ration in the way it now stan.ds,_ rmme?rately the Co.mmonwealth pro­clamatiOn Is Issued, it becomes penal to em­ploy anybody unless that perwn has a certi­ficate of having passed the cducatron test. At these small mills I speak of, there is a number of kanak.r~s who were exc•mpted bv the Commonwe!tltli Kanaka Deportation Biil bv reoo'TI.m{mdation of the Roval Co:nmission of which I had the honour t,; be a member. They were exempted by reason of their length of residence in Queensland. In matlv a·f these small mills these old-timers are- em-

played, and there are also contract gangs oL Uingalese or Hindoos also. Immediately this· Bill comes into operation these men will have to stop work, for the reason that they do not possess a certificate of havmg passed the education test. There will be no o.ppor- · tunity of getting exemption under the latter part of the Bi.lJ because it would be futile to pass a measn~e if it were possible bo give one sweeping exemption. If that were possible, we might as well not deal 'with the Bill at all. It will be impossible to have them examined for the purpose of getting a certificate. Even in a case such as the Ron. Mr. Gibson spoke about-a black man born of kanakas in Que<msland-he might pass any elementary English test as forecasted· here equally well with any young white men of his own age, but he cannot be examined before the Bill is passed, and immediat~ly the Bill passes we are told the proclamab~n "' going to be issued, consequently he wrll have to step back. At these small mills there will be nQ opportunity of immediately instal­lino- a mechanical contrivance-it would not be" possible to do it before the end of this year ; and I propose to move that, so far as the operation of loading sugar-cane on to. a carrier is concerned, the Bill shall not takP pffect until 1st January next.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: That will mean that the proclamatioh will be shelved.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Tha,t lS the trouble.

HaN. C. F. NIELSON: I do i1ot think it will mean that, because, as I pointed out, this Bill goes beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: But not beyond the arrangement made by the Prime Minister.

HaN. C. F. NIELSON: No one seems to know exactly what that was. So long as the wagf5 remain the same, where it is a particular operation one is employed in, . it can do. no particular harm to anyone,_ whrte or coloured, to postpone the operatiOn of this part for the present season. We arp asked to revolutionise something right in tht' middle of the season; and if there is a detail which cannot stand this sudden revolution, I think it is the dntv of those who see that detail to point it ou( and I am satisfied that that small detail will not prevent the issue of the proclamation. There is an omission which ought to be remedied-that is, that this Bill is one of detail, it is a Bill particu­larly th·o subject of administration, and the making of regulations. I think that in a. Bill of this kind which depends entirely on its administration, there should be a c.Iause to prevent any prosecution, which may be harassing in many cases, without the sanc­tion of the proper authorities. Just as under the Shops and Factories Act, the inspector has to. take action, and under other Acts the :V1inister of the Department, so in this Bill prosecutions should be taken by the Attorney­Genoral-$omcone whom Parliament can hold responsible for the administration of the Act.

Han. B. FAHEY: That can be attended to in Committee.

Ho::.;. C. F. NIELSON: I am merely point­ing that o.ut. ThB two items I have referred to deh''rve the attention of this Honse when we get into Committee. I shall be pleased if this legislation is going to benefit the sugar industry. I hold the view-and I have held it all along-that the persons engaged in the

Hon. 0. F. Nielson.l

3&6 Sugar Oultwation Bill. [COUNCIL.] Sugar Oultwation Bill.

.sugar industry will yet clamour for the Com­monwealth to take charge of the legislation affecting 1t. I will abo make this prophecy -that the present Government w11! be very sorry betore very long that they ever meddled with the sugar inda~try, which is an industry ent1reiy dependent on th<> financial valUe of the barriers artificrally made by protection. Vlf o must recognise that, were it not ior the artificial stmmlus given by a protective policy, we unfortunately cou!d h..,ve LO sugar industry in l.jueensland.

Han. A. A. DAVEY: Nor any other in­dustry.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON: Yes, we would have some other industries. Fortunately, the groat maj onty of the people of Austraha are protectionists and I have no fear, and never had any fp~r, while the sugar industry was under the control of the Commonwealth,

that anything would be done to [4.30 p.m.] kill the industry. It d1d not

matter how much it might be fleeced, the industry is too big to allow any kgislation to be passed which would have the effect of wiping it out. In one sense, probably it is the greatest industry in Queensland. Jlon. W. STEPHENS: Go steady.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON': Perhap,, not from tho point of view of pounds, sh.llings! and pence. That is not the measure Df _an md~s­try. I am a\\ are thaL there. are mdustr1es the value of whose prod.!ch 1s much larger than the value o£ tho product of the sugar industry; but no industry has be. n estab· lished in Queensland wh:ch has been the means of settling such a long stretch of country.

Hon. A. G. C. HAwTHORN: Tropical Qu<Jensland.

HoN. C. F. NIELSON: Tropical and se:rni­tropical Q.wonsland. The d.st:rict where I live is dependent on the sugar mdustry, and you would not call a place 200 miles fr~m Brisbane tropical Queensland. Th!l sugar In­dustry made Bundaberg, and the sugar indus­try maintains it to-day. Apart from the act~.al cultivation and manufacture of sugar, the 1n­dustry maintains many ·other kinds of settlers. It is an industry which produces only one thing and consumes cv<Jrything else. The best customer the farmers on the Downs have i~ the sugar industry. It buys butter, ~aize, chaff, potatoes, and flour. I am s~t1sfi-e-d that the persons directly interested m the industry will want to get back again under Commonwealth control for the reason that the Commonwealth Governml?nt controls the life of the industrv through the Customs, wher-e­as the State GoYernmcnt ca'l do very little that is benefic'al for the industry, as vve have no control over tho value of th13 pro­duct. Whether the legislation that is being introduced will do go{·d remains to be >een, but there are branches of the subject still to come before us which, so far as I can sec, will do no good to an vane. No dou. bt this -legislation is being introduced with the hest of intentions, bnt the Government of QuPensland have ruehed into the business without realising what the consequences are likelv to he. Whatever hanpens, I'hone the result will be of benefit to the sugar industry. Just now we are experi<mc;ng one of the b<:>gt seasons I have ever known. We have our ups and downs, but, t"'king it all rouno.<J., the sugar industry is still expandi;ng, a10d

[Hon. C. F. Nielson.

there are probabilities of v~ry great expan­sion, and I hope that nothmg that may be done or that has been done, w1ll have the effc·ct of leading the Commonwealth Parlia· mont to forget the industry altogether. While the Commonwealth Government were getting a revenue of .£200,000 p~r annu::r1 out of the industry, they had an mtcrest m it, and it was to the inter~Jst of the industry that it sh:ould be under the control of the Commonwealth, for the reason that it is almost whollY carried on in Queensland, and only to a ve~y em all extent on the Northern Riv-ers of New South Wales. Further to the South the people and politicians have abso­lutely no interest in the ?usiness. If we take the industry out of the hands of the Commonwealth, ~ve must not complain later on if we begin to find that the industry has no interest for them, because their only interest is a mone7ary one, and that is being taken away. I make the prophecy that thoee who are now ardent in their desire to get the bounty and exci··c abolished will be just as keen in asking the Federal Government to rPFume control o£ the industry.

Ho;:.;. G. W. GR.\.Y: I do not agree alto­gether with what has fallen from my han. friBnd '' ho has just re~umed his seat. The crop this year will bring in not less than .£2.500 COO between now and Christmas. Any­body who has witnBESc.cd the growth of t_he ind;,st"v and what it has done for other m­

.dustr:,.; v,ill do nothing likely to lead to the de truction of tho industry. This measure appears drac,tic, particularly clam.~ 4, but the eugar-grJwers have asked for the abolition of tho bo:mty and exciee, and their request has led to an agreement being enter<Jd into betw<Jen the late Prime Minister of the Com­monwealth and the Premier of Qu~ensland, and, until this Bill is passed, a proclamation c:mnot be issued abolishing the bounty and excise. I thought the Attorney-General was a little delicat•' in not stating plainly that thB understanding with Mr. Fish"r had b"en Pndorsed by thn pr·····cnt Prime Minister. The whole vf th'e big industry is at nresent being run from Mclbournf', and this leg-islation will take it out of the control of the Com­monwealth and place it in the hands of the Queensland Parliament. The only thing that is askPd of the Federal Government, as the Han. Mr. Gibson . said, is to adont the recommendation of the Roval Commieslon and increaSE' the. import duty on Sugar to .£7 per ton to keep foreign s:Jgar out of Australia. We do not wish to subjPct our sugar to com­petition with the sugar of Java or Ma,Iritius, or with b.Pet S'Igar. I have studied the beet industrv in Europe, and know that it was a vorv bi!T fe,ctor in Prinl)Iin~ th3 f"ano F:ng-:u~ industry of the British Empire. Half of the S'Jgar r<ms'lmed bv the teeming population of the Briti<h Isks is beet mgar imported from the Continent. I had that assurl1nce from onp, of the largest sugar firms in Eng-

-land. The frAight on bePt sugar to Aus­tralia is 7s. 6d. a ton, and it is absolutely necesso,ry that the import dutv should be increased if our sug-ar is to compete under S'lCh conrlitions. I understand , that the Federal Govf'rnment are prent:red to increase the dutv to .£7 ner ton, and th<> rest of the "'dministration in connection with this big indnstrv is to he nlaced in the hands of the St.ate Govcrnm<mt, so that. if either em­pl<Jyers or emnlovees experiencfl any hard­ship through the 'carrying out of the rpgula-

Sugar Cultivation Bill. (9 JULY.] Sugar Cultivation Bill. 367'

tl.oi1s, · all that they will require to do will be to walk up Queen street to the Treasurer, ;\rho will be able to satisfy both parties. I .a.greo with the Hon. Mr. Gibson that any n:isting contract with reference to this year's oCl'Op should not be interfered with if it can be avoided. Then, if no other hon. member does so, I intend to propose an amendment providing that no prosecution shall take place unless with the consent of the Attorney­Gz,neral. 1 understand that was the original proposal of the Bill, but an amendment was made in. another place allowing any person to institute proceedings for a breach of the Act. I think the Bill is likely to lead to a· <Jonsiderable amount of litigation, and ample powers should be placed in the hands of Miniciers to chock costly litigation. That would be a set-off against the drastic provi­sions of clause 4. The main thing is that the Bill is the resu!G of an agreement be­tween the sugar-growers, the Federal Gp­vernment, and tho State Government. The division of th<J sugar distrccts into four divi­sions, from th13 tropical North to the South is as simple as A B C, belt that is embodied in anothur Bill. The details of the Bill lwfore us are perhaps objectionable iri some t•ecp<'cts, but that is probably due to tho hnrri,.d rireparation of the mea:.ure. It is neci""d that this Bili. should na .. ,, without am< ndmcnr, but it 'hould be pi1t b11ck into the form in which it was tabled in another plac1 '..:ith regard to the point I hayn Fl8n­ti.o:J.ed. I do not approY·3 of what tho Hon_ ::\Ir. Nielson savs-that those who are inter­<'Cted in this big indnstn' will again ask that it 'hould be taken over and controlled from Victoria by the Federal GovernrHent, when they can have it df''tlt with directly through the Stato Government of the day as a State nroduct. The industry ha' grown to sucl1 hugo proportio""s no1V, the prr· .cnt crop being within 30 000 tons of what is required for the whole of Au·tralia, ti1at no State Government of Queensland would dare to give it a knock down blow_ The: would not be in office vN.Y long if they wi!fu!Iv interfered so as to destrov this in­dustry: I, for one, intend to Sl;pport the IY!e!P;ure a-J it stands, with the intention in C?:nmittc·e of moving an amendment to pro­VIde that the Attorney-General must be consulted and approve of any prosecution ;vhich nuiy take place.

HaN. W. STEPHENS: Not being a sugar man, possibly bOmc han. members will wonder why I interfPre in this matter. \Ve were told the other day about wme people who arc not inter0stf'1l in snC"'ar making ignorant statements concerning the industry_ \Vel!, I have had some e·z:>oripnce in sug-ar_ I grew cane for a sugar-mill for eip-ht year3. I was managing di1·ector of the sugar-mill for two yeP.rs, and durin!T that time I was actually the manarPr. vVe had a suvar-boiler and an env,ine-driver, but I was th" man who worked the show. That was in connection with a Government milL As far as coloured labour is cor>cerned, I can well re'llernber thP first South S0a Islanders brought to Queensland. They were broug-ht bv Captain Towns. and takc•n to Townsvale, " near Beaudesert, for the purpose of· picking cotton. I was with a lot of boys going kangaroo shooting, aiid we happened to meet these kanakas, who killed two of our dog-s. I remem­b€n; a man call<>'! Francis, who first g'rew sugar at Oxley. A good many

people laughed at him when he said· he could grow sugar: My father and ~: went up to Oxley w1th a large P,~rty ~; others in the Government steamer l\..ate to see the sugar-mill which he h.ad. 'l'he man who brought kanakas mto the sugar mdustry was ~he Hon. Lou.s Hope. This was at Orm1ston, and then Mr, George Raff went into it at. lYlorayfieJd, and after that there were qmte a lot of ougar men down at the Logan. When 1 ,.vas ten years of age theTe \vere a great rnany kanakas, and thore was a grea~ argu~. ment as to which was the best kmd of labour to have. Mr. Heuss:cr. and Mr. Bauer, who were. connected wrth the m­dustry at that timD, were argumg whether they should grow black or wh1te sugar. Mr. Bauer said he had produced wlutc sugar which brought 4d. a lb. Mr. Haussler c.al1ed his accountant, who proved conclusively that it cost half-a-crown to make th1s sugar for which they got 4d. I understand fro~ the way hon. membC'rs have spoken that this is a broad qu<·,tion, and t~ey !;ave r;one into the cugar questiOn gencra.ly. _ _rho Ho:'­Mr. Gibson and tho Han. Mr. I\wlson drd so, and I would like to say a few ords on the broad qu··stwn of sugar. I have c.Lrc­fullv watched the industry, and I have come to the conclusion that it is the most over­l;l)hd industry in Australia, that it is abso­lutely the mcnt spoon-~ed, and ab'solntoly one of the: grc ttest fa!Iu~es, as has . been admitted here to-day, and d anyone w1ll go carefully into the statistics he can con.w .to no other conclusio·.L VVe ha~ st .. 1.t1st1cs giv_;n to us the other day tellmg us the crop for la,~t year amonnt.,d to 113,000 t.ms of sugar. 'I'he va:ue was a httlo o;'er £700 000 to the cane farmer. Tho protectiOn is £6 ton, and• £1 a ton is lost on the bonus and 0 xcise-that leaves £5, so that the true value is a little over £200,000. In estimating the value of any commod:ty, you never take it plus the bonus whrch the Government gives .''OU. You give the value of·what it is actually worth.

Hon. A. G. C. HA-WTHORN: What it brings to Queensland.

HoN. W. STEPHENS: It is what you and I ha "'' to pay for it. In business, men will tell you that if there is a bounty on an article the valuB is not plus the bonus, but minus the bonus-that it is actually what the cron is worth on its own-and this crop on its- own is worth a little over £200,000, without protection. And yet they tc:II ns that this is one of the biggest and best industrir,; in Australia. It is really very hard to get anything to compare it with. There is a lot of sugar land m New South \Vales th?,t has gone into dairying, and nocsib\v it would be well to compare it with dairving. But there is no com­parison at all bc;twefm the ''lurar industry and dairying. Sugar is left absolutdy b~­hind. Thn ncare>:t coinnarifl.on I can ,r-et IS

the dairying down on the. Rich'Yiond Riv:er. There are eight co·npanws them deahng with pigs and cream, and one of tl~ose cc'11panies pa 1d the farmer last year 1ust about £800,000 for his raw product. That one comnanv beat the whole of the cane crop in Qu<'·;,nsland. The whole cron here w'ls only valued at a little ave: £200,00.0; but the B;'ron Bav fadory paid for pigs and erean1 over £750.000 to thP settlers in one district. I have the balance-sheets here, and if !lnyone doubts that statement I can

Han. W. Stephens-]

368 Sugar Cultivation Bill. [COUNCIL.] Sugar Cultivation Bill ..

give the. complete figures. If you take the actual value of the cane crop, it is a little over £200,000, because you never add the bonus on anything in estimating its value. The Byron Bay Company, for the first three months of the year, paid £240,000 to the farmers for pigs and cream. The figures show tha·t in the first month they paid £78,890, in the second month £81,500, and il! t~e third month £79,800; or .an average of £80,000 a month, and throe times that is £240,000. They have to compete with the markets of the world, and have no assist­ance from the Government, and in three months this one company exceeded the total output of the cane crop, minus the bonus.

Han. A. GIBSON: You take one year of the sugar industry, and the lowest:

HoN. W. STEPHENS : I will take the year it was 200,000 tons if you like-that is what you are going to produce this year.

Han. A. <GIBSON : Multiply that by ten.

HoN. W. STEPHENS: But you cannot. The Han. Mr. Gibson told us the other day that the canegrower got £7 a ton for the sugar his cane produced.

Han. A. GIBSON: That who got?

HoN. W. STEPHENS : The hon. gentle­man said that that was what the farmer got. The hon. gentleman made some awful statements, and I did not interrupt him, and I shall be glad if he will let me go straight ahead, as I do not want to keep han. members too long. At the same time, I wish to say a word or two in favour of dairying, and to show how the sugar in­dustry has been supported beyond all reason whatever. Taking the statistics with regard to the quantity of cane, and what the crop was valued at, you will find that the farmer got a little over £6 15s. from the miller last year. There was a £6 duty, and they lost £1 through the excise and bonus, which left a protection of £5. As a matter of fact, they only got £2 a ton. This year the excise and bonus is going to be taken away, and the whole £6 is supposed to go to the farmer. If the farmers gets £6, with another £2 that the miller gives him, it will bring it up to £8. So this year, with the 200,000 tons of sugar, the farmer is going to get, according to the Hon. Mr. Gibson, £1,600,000. Out of that amount, £6 a ton, or £1,200,000, belongs to the Government, so that tho cane industry this year is only worth £400,000. According to the han. member>s own showing, if they produced 200,000 tons of cane, and the farmer has to get £8 a ton the farmer will get £1,600,000, and £1,200,000 of that comes straight from the duty of £o_ That leaves the cane industry for the year worth, on its own, £400,000. The Byron Bay Company already for the six months of this year has paid its settlers over £400,000 for cream and pigs. That shows you again that you cannot even compare the suga.r industry with one little dairy factory down. South. Then compare it with the Logan and Albert districts. The cream and oigs sent up from the Logan and Albert districts comes to about what the farmers get for th-e. cane, minus the bonus and protection. The farmers on the Downs also get more for their cream and pig;g than the cane farmer gets for his cane, minus protection, and the sarn-e. thing applies to the farmers on the Range_ The farmers there get more for their creal:k1 and pigs than all the canegrowers in Queens-

[H on.· W. Stephens.

land get for their cane from the m;ills, minuB­the protection which the law gives them. To my mind canegrowing is the most spoon-fed industry in Australia. The Hon. Mr. Gibson told us that during the last twelve years or so the Government got £2,300,000 of their money back. What he­meant by that is that they collected £4, and only gave back £3, and that £1 taken off the sugar industry has produced £2,300,000. But now there is a duty of £6 where it was £5. If the Government, with the £1, made £2,300,000, what did the sugar planter make? He had the other £5. The cane­growers, therefore, had a protection of £11,500,000 during a period of t":elve years, and yet the Han. Mr. Gibson will t<>ll you that the Commonwealth Government are not. protecting the sugar industry.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: The people of Australia are satisfied to pay the protection.

lioN. W. STEPHENS : That is a matter of opinion. Hon. members admit that it is spoon-fed to that extent. But after all th~t spoon-feeding, what so~:t of a success has It been? The Han. Mr. Gibson has told us this afternoon that he would be glad to get out of it if he could. It is also said that other people would be glad to get out of the industry if they could. It is pit.iable. to sc-<> this industry, which is protected m this way, again brought up before this Home. Why should this one industry be singled om for special treatment? I am told it is a failure, and if you judge it in a hundred and one ways you cannot get at.oy other regu:t out

of it but a failure. Ii it. was a [5 p.m.] success with that p~oteeti·.m, you

would not have to go to the Go­vernment to build mills. Privute cnmpanit>l' would take it up and build Jmlls if t be:" was anything in it. Those who. engage m the dairying and other Imlustrwo have ~o put their own money into them. Th.ts business is such a failure that nobody will touch it, and the Govonnmmt have had t<> come to the resuce.

Hon. A. GIBSON: Th~ Government have assisted other industries, too.

HoN. W. STEPHENS: Very few of them. As a rule, it is only industries which are ":lot thriving that ask for Government assist­ance. The han. member cannot deny that £11 500 000 has been paid to the canegrowers during 'the last twelve years under fed~ra­tion. On the han. member's own showmg, the grow13rs receive £5 for every £1 re­tained by the Commonwealth, who, the hon. member· says have made £2,300,000 out of sugar. If th~ industry is nob a failure, why did the Premier, when he went down South, make this extraordinary offer to th0 Federal Government-an offer that is unique in the history of any civilised Government-;-that he would erect two or three sugar-mills, pro­vided the Federal Government would raise the duty to £7 per ton? In other words, the Government of Queensland were pre· pared to erect those milfs if the F~deral Government would tax the people of Aus­,tralia to such an extent that it would amount 'to buying the cane and presenting it to the mills for nothing. I never heard of such a proposition in all my !if!'. The Hon. Mr. Gibson told us that the cane farmer gets £7 per ton for the sugar in his cane, and .. if there was a duty of £7 a ton, 1t would really mean that the miller would give the

Suga1· Gult'ivation Bill. (9 JULY.] Suga1· Cultivation Bill. 369

grower .£7 a ton for the sugar in his cane, and then he would have the advantage of the duty cf .£7 a ton when he came to sell his sugar, so that he would, in reality, be getting the cane for nothin(i:. If the propo­sition that the Premier maue in Melbourne does not spell failure, I do not know what it means. I .am with the Han. Mr. Nielson in one respect. Seeing the industry is en­tirely at the mercy of the Federal Govern­ment, I cannot understand the State Govern­ment being prepared to .put one shilling into a sugar-mill. This State might invest .£500,000 in sugar-mills, and then Mr. Fisher, if he happened to be in power, could reduce the duty on sugar, and at once the mills would be nothing more than scrap iron. Although a good deal has been said about the Commonwealth Government not taking off the duty or reducing it, I think the chances are a hundred to one that they will do something in that direction. Parties in the Federal Parliament are absolutely level now, and everyon-e is looking for votes at the next election. People in the South are not in­terested in the sugar industry .at all, and if one crowd start to cry out that the people of Australia are paying the big tax of 6s. per head for its sugar, and that it is pro­posed to make it 7s. to bolster up the Colo­~ial Sugar Refi~ing Comp:"ny, once the cry IS properly rarsed, the mdustry will be doomed. According to statistics, the con­E>umption of sugar in Australia amounts to 1 cwt. for every man, woman, and child in the Commonwealth. so that the tax amounts to 6~. per head, and once that is thoroughly realised I am sure the people in the other States will not consider the little sugar in­dustry of Queensland. I would like to know why our Stat{) <Governm<mt should single out this industry for special treatment. Tho people engaged in the industry are not a better class of individuals than those engaged in other industries. There are no more law­abiding or better living people in Australia than the farmers on the Northern Rivers of New South Wales. On the Richmond River you will find farmers on their littl0 farms with their families living with them, and you will not find a better or more pros­perous lot of people anywhere in Australia. I do not say that the sugar planters and lots of canegrowers are not as good and as re­spectable as any other farmers: but they employ .a lot of people for only a short period, who live in camps and tents. and an industry which employs labour of that class is not anvthing like as good for a countrv as an industry which emplovs whole house­holds, and which is prepared to compete in lhe markets of the world without bPing bol­st.ored up by the Government in the way that the Han. Mr. Grav has asked that th;,_ sugar industry should b'e bolstered up.

Hon. G. W. GRAY: I am not asking that the industry should be bolstered up.

HoN. W. STEPHENS: The han. member asked for an additional duty of .£1 per ton.

Han. G. W. GRAY: I did not.

HoN. W. STEPHENS: W~II, I will leave it to "Hansard."

Han. G. W. GRAY : I said I understood the -Federal Government were going to increase the import duty to .£7 per ton.

HoN. W. STEPHENS : Why is the sugar industry singing out for more protection ?

1913-2A

The dairying industry is just .as good, and the people engaged in it are just as good as those engaged in the sugar indust!'y, but they are prepared to keep on therr own wicket and compete in the markets of the world.

Han. C. F. NIELSON; You do not go on you1· own at all in the dairying industry.

HoN. W. STEPHENS : I am absolutely on my own wicket. The whole sugar industry last year, minus the bonus, was only worth .£200,000. Now, three of us went to a bank and got .£4,000, and put up a butter factory in the Log,,n district, and in four years the factory was paid for, and the paid-up capital was at fixed deposit in the bank, and this year we are distributing .£95,000 for cream amongst a few people in the district. There was no spoon-feeding ther.,. This sugar business seems to mesmerise everybody. We had a farmers' party the other day. The leader and the secretary of that party were both sugar men, and when these two Rills came along that farmers' party went out. It is wonderful how the two Bills seemed to me.smerise them.

Han. C. F. NIELSON: Th~Jy understand the · tatist.ics of the sugar industry a lot better than you do.

HoN. W. STEPHENS: The other day, when I said that the industry was protected to the extent of 50 per cent., the Han. Mr. Gibson scouted my assertion, and said that .£6 was not 50 per cent. of .£22. That is to say, the han. member took the price al; which sugar is sold by a grocer over the counter. Now, any man in business knows that in estimating the percentage that a duty represents he must take, not the retail price of tho article, but the Ianded cost-that is, in this case, the price at which sugar could be landed in Australia from Java or Mauri­tius. That is about o-£12 per ton, so that a £6 duty is exactly 50 per cent. of the price.

Han. C. F. NIELSON: Don't you know there is a difference between th!l sugar you use a.nd raw Rugar?

HoN. W. STEPHENS: I have stated that I managed a sugar-mill, so that I know some­thing about it. The butter industry pays handsomely. I think the sugar bubble is going to be pricked sooner than most people imagine.

Han. A. GmsoN: And then in comes the Jap.

HoN. W. STEPHENS: I understand the Han. Mr. Gibson saJS that there arl;l 22,000 people engaged in the sugar industry. Well, are they going to patrol the whole of the coast of Australia from here right round to Perth, with a stick of sugar-cane in one hand and a knife in the other, to keep out the .Taps.? This cry about the industry being necessary for the defence of Australia ha• little in it. In any case, this State has nothing to do with defence. That is a matter in the control of the C·~'llmonw<'alth, and dairying would give us a much larger population for defence purposes than sugar. We are .told that this year th•• prad'ldion of sugar will be 200,000 tons. If the farmers are going to get .£8 per ton for the sugar in the cane, that will give them £1,600,000. The people of Australia will pay .£1,200,000 in the shape of duty, and yet we are told that the mdustry is not protected. The sugar people are going to get £1,200,00.0 out

H on. W. Stephe~s.]

370 i::iugar Cultivation BiU. [COUNCIL.] Sugar Cultivation Bill.

or' you and me, so that their crop is worth only :B4UU,OOU. And now we have the .!:ion. Mr. Gibson and the Han. Mr. Nielson telling 11s that the industry is tottering. Well, when any industry that has been protected for forty-Jive years, and at the end of that time, wrth a duty of £6 a ton, is not success­ful, what is the use of trying to bolster it up ? Why not try to bolscer up wme in­dustries that are likely to be u:Jaess±ul? Before long, if the industry expands, the people of Australia will be paying £2,000,000 a year for the benefit of the few people in 1'\orth Queensland who are carrying on the industry. Do you think the people of Aus­tralia are going to stand that? The cane­grower will practically be paid the duty of £6 per ton and the miller will give him £2 per ton more, so that the protectiOn amounts to 300 per cent., whilst the dairy farmer has no protection at all. Is it because the cultivation of sugar-cane is an aristocratic occupation and the making of butter is only a "cocky's" game? That must be the reason. I canr:ot see any other reason for the differ­entiation between the two industries. It is Cdtainly not right for the Government to spend another £500,000 in erecting sugar­milis when someone else holds the key of the situoJ.ion-the Federal Government control the Customs. If any man in business was ·trmke for a second 'party and he sank that second party's money in a concern to which a third party held the key, and could wipe out the whole of the &•·curity, it would be almost a criminal action on the part of that trustee to inv'"''t money in such a.1 under­taking. I cannot understand the Government putting our golden sovereigns into an in­dustry over which they have no control, and which they candidly admit must go down if the duty is removed. I have not heard a single argument in favour of the erection of

.sugar-mills. According to the Hon. Mr_ Gibson, the indu,try has receiYed a bonus equ&l to £ll,500.080 during the last twelve years, and now when we say, "You have had thio protection for a long while, and it is about time you stood on your own legs and walked on your own feet," the han. member says, "Are you going to kill us?" I think myself that the sugar people 5hould give the rest of Australia some thanks for protecting it to that extent, because I have not seen yet what the sugar industry has done for Aus­tralia. If the sugar industry is wiped out something could take its place, and I think a.ny. man '' ho pretends to criticise a thing

·ought to show something to take its place_ That is a fair argument. A similt r thing to this occurred ·in the adjoining State o£ New South \Vales, when Mr. Reid-now Sir George Reid-was Premier. His policy was freetrade, and he belieYed in chean food_ He said he would take the duty off -sugar­there was a pretty fair duty on then-and he was taking the duty off at the rate of £ l per annum. The peo!Jle on the Norther:n. Riv-Pr~ -,tronr-h~ ol_,i,-d,r>rl 1-o thnt. and i~­vit"d him to come up and see for himself. B:e came up, and I happe1wd to be in the district and heard him sneak. He said, " I do not know much about sugar, and less about dairying, but it appears to me that, if you cannot maim cane pay with the duty you have now, the sooner you plou!fh up the cane and go in for dairying the b<'tter. >" The farmers ploughed up their cane land and went in for dairyiH·, and, as I haYe told you, one company paid more for cream and pig-s

[Han. W. Stephens.

in that district last year than the mille~s paid to all the canegrowers in Queensland, even plus the bounty of £5 that they got. Exactly the same n·sult will take place here, Yon can prop up the industry as much as you like, but the Northern parts of Australia are yet gomg to produce butter, cheese, and pigs. They were told down South that they could not dairy, and they had many struggles, but they h:,ve done it, and they compete successfully in the world's markets and export their stuff. Yet they are asked to contribute to this little sugar industry in the North of Queensland. I have no he3ita· tion in sayipg that, If they get anything l1lm the support which the sugar-mill people are getting, and you gaye th:"n a free hand to mvest it in the Korth, in less than ten yean; there would be a big export of butter from the North, and there would not be the drag on the people of Australia to keep the sugar industry going. As to the defence qu• .. ,tion, that is rdie to raise it. They have been forty years trying to get a population, and th~j have only got ~2,000 yet in the industry. There are as many in one distnct down below in the dairying, and if dairying was applied to the Korth I have not the ,ljc,htest doubt it would pay handsomely. Th~re is not only the coast from Cooktown to Rockhamnton to defend. From Cooktown down to Bu'fidabcrg is costing us £1,200,000 in connection with sugar. If from Cooktown to Eundaberg it is costing that amount, what is it going to cost from Bundaberg round to Perth? It is idle to protect the coast from Cooktown to Bundaberg, and leave the re<t oncn to the Japs. If you want to populat .. _:- the North, give dairying a chance. They started dairying oncP, but when they gave £6 protection to the sugar, nobody would dairy, and it went out. But put dairying on a level with sugar, and you will soon see how quickly dairying will wipe sugu out. It will also bring about a fi.x!'d population that will rear their own famrhes and teach their children to work--not get 9s. a day and waste it at the hotels. They will rear lads and lassies who will he1p to build up Australia. I admit that the fixed policv of Au•tralia is protection, but not to the ~xtent of the 300 per cent. which the sugar people get. I can assur~ you. tl:at if busineSh experts had money m thrs m­du<try ;h , l",onll rcco nmr nd thnt th~ Go­·:nnrnent ·should not invest money where they had not got the key of the positior,, and, ~.,:_-,' 1ndly, that if thi,., i1Hlustr), .cr a trial of forty-five or fifty years, wants pro­tection equal to what the miller is paying for the cane it .,hould be wiped out. I never hoard of su~h a thing as the Chief Secretary going to the Federal Premier and saying, "You must put a duty on sufficient to pay for the cane and give it to the millecs for nothing, or ~lse we won't erect mills." That is \• hat he did say.

Han. C. F. NmLS0:-1: If there was no sugar industry here and no duty, do you imagine sugar would be any cheaper than it is to-day?

HaN. W. STEPHENS: I am sure it would. That leads me to something which I have not yet .men.tioned. 'I'he sugar people will tell you that they have not had the pre· s0nt protPction for the whole of forty-five vears. They say that they made more sugar here then than was conmmed, and they thought there would be a combine, and the price would go up. I say exactly the same

Sugar Cultivation Bill. [9 JULY.}

ihing of the sugar-mills-when they made, more sugar than was consumed they had a combine, ;,nd they made us in Queensland pay their pnce, and they only had a loss on the , \po1·t. 1 a1~1 CJl!l_'·-~ HL. e 11 tnere ...LS

no duty there would be cheaper sugar in Australia. If there will not be, why are you asking for a -duty? You stand con­victed by your own request. You are ask­ing for £7 t~ ton; and ii \'., should t:,et sugar no cheaper without duty, why are you a~k­ing for a protection of £7 a ton? It is idle to say that sug:u would not be cheaper" I say the Government should pause before they go on any furth~r bolstering up an in­dustry which, with the protection it has alre tdY, hac, been a faibre. I sav you should give some other ind;·stry a chance if you want to populate thn, Northern part of Que<:nsland.

HaN. A. G. 0. HAWTHORN: I have list­ened '' ith interDst to the llon. Mr. Stephenc. a1:d I must say that I hope th:~t his prophe. y will not come to pass. IIo has told us that it is lik, h not to lle ver.v long before proi CJc­~ion r ill be entirely removed from the sugar mdustry.

Hon. W. STEPHEXS : I did not say that · I caid that the duty will be reduc0d. '

HoN. A. G. C. HA WTHOR~: If the duty •.ccJn donc awey ith Jhere is no do~1bt that the ind 1ctry would die, b·1t I hop~ that time is Vel" L off. Tho hon. gcntlpn: .1n also ?aid th.ot he looked m1on it that the sugar mdu~,jry >-.a, worth £200,000.

Han. IV. STEPI!EKS · I r:>id the cane.

Ho:'-1. A. G. C. IL\ W'l'HOBN: What w, have to Iool:· at, it R~f'ill8 to n1e. is the value d 'ho i:u1u-rrv to Q·wen,Jand the last vear or for an:s year. This year WP haYo 200,006 tons of S'lg1r whiPh is "t ]Pact worth £i2 n tC'n so th;re is 2. '00.000 t]o-,' Q~,eonsland will b0 } :-'"'Her off for thro·;gh th~ S11g-c1r in~ duotry th1., year. It seems to me that that is the '<::ty to look nt it.

Hon. W. STEPHENS: You have not been in busin('':3'.'1

Ho;.r. 'L G. C. HAWTHORN: That is the "av io look at it--not at the act·1al amount oi th'1 ·vn 1

nP of tho f:P!!:"''-l''IF'. Th .... ho~'. [ren­tlem~n cli·l not sa'' why tho Government are bringing in this lf'g-i~,lation. It seems to m-e they are compelled to bring it in. There h:~~ lwPn a constr.nt agitation an1ongst the groWI':·s of S'Igar in Q:!eensland for the wip­mg cnt of the bonntv and excise, and it was also a recomm·•ndetion of thB commission annninted by the FPchmJ,] Government that tho bounty and excieo sho11ld be wiped out. Tlw>'e i' no doubt that it has been most irksom~ to the bv.q;ar induo;;trv for n1anv years since fode,.otion start.f'.d, and the onlv ·foot­in~ on v. hif'h · ,,~c-~ can g-et it wjppfl ~out is that hle_ 0 k laho11r shall be entirely done awav '"Ith. The policv on whi<'h Austr,.,Jia S~I~'R;d' "'"'R th0 F" 1 (far inrl1J.'trv i~ that it shall bo vrn·ked hv white lo bonr a lnpo. We must remrmh<>r that last """'tho F"rl"r"l GovPrn­mP'tt rotained .~198.000 ant of tlw brmntv a,-,d owise co.,.,ing- to Queensland. That will all rome to Q•Jf'enslancl in the fnbn·e-the >''h0Jo nf the ro•mty wiJJ r'OmB, instead of thrnc-fonrrh.' of it. e.s has hrf'n the nosition br•forr: :1·0 th"t. unrlpr thP cirenmstances, it seems to me that the Government here have

no alternative but to bring in legislation to entir.ely do away with black labour. The Han . .Mr. Nielson has said that he would like to see th:o Bill postponed for a certain tim<·, but that would mean that the procla­mation v. auld not be broug·ht into force until that time had elapsed.

Han. C. :F. NIELSON: I did not say that­only in r<·spect of one detail of it.

HaN. A. G. C. HA WTI-IORN: But even that d 'ail is sufficient to lll'vVent the pro­clamatwn being carried out. 'l'he proclama­tion will only be brought into force on our P:l"rrying out our promise. The Pre1nier, when aC::lressing tho Blectors in the different parts of tho Statc, promised that steps would be taken to hr:ng in legislation this se,;sion to do away ontirelv with coloured labour. At the J1!'~sent time, under 5 per cent. of r~ho nwn employed in the sugar industry are coloured, and a large proportion of them do the work of taking the oane to the car­riers. On the whole, it will only be a small nnmber of coloured aliens who v:ill he aiL•cted by that clause if the lion. Mr. Ni!li­Pon's amendment is adopted: but in all these things t.h., minority must suffer for tho benD­fit of thA majority. and it seems to me we must bring in a Bill which will me:>t the wishes of those who have e;ot tho carrying cut of the nrocla·nation. Thev will not be eatis''ed ·rith anvthing l<>ss than the entire

iping out of coloured labour.

II on. C. F. NIELSON: How do you know?

HaN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I am cer­bin Mr. Cook will not, and Mr. Fisher certainlv would not. It seems to me there is no alternative. Many people say: "Why don't vou com<> out in the onPn. and sav no black labour is. to be employed? " but there are certain trPaty regulatiol'd und other lhings to be considered. \Ve have to pa~s 1 ~-gislation in a form which the Imperial Government will consent to. The Han. Mr. Giloson 3aid that ,,-e had no ri:rht to inter­fore with the mill labour in that rcspBct, b,Jt I see no alternative for it. There will po --ibl:v be a ha-dship inflicted on -a few men, hut somebodv h.'lS to ~nffp,r bv this h'g-islation, and, in view Df the g_,od it is '~:·oinv, to do to Queoncland, it is our duty to pass it, more particularly as it was pro· misc·d bv us ~md it NUS made a condition by the · Fedm·al Government before they pi:hsed the Bounty and Excise Act. They have carried out th0ir part of tho contract. and it is for us to carry out our part. I am g-oing to support tho second reading of the Bill.

* HaN. A. HINCHCLIFFE: I am rather s-npri: od ·a' the Pxtremely sordid views of th" Han. Mr. Stephens in regard to the rBl·1tin1 merits of the sugar and dairying industries.

Hon. C. F. NIELSON: He was not serious.

I-I oN. A. HINCHCLIFFE: I am satisfied in my own mind that the sug-ar industry is of imnort<tnee. not alone to Queensland, but also to thD whole of Austra!ia-(Hear, hear!) -and anything that can be done in ,., reason­able way to assist that industry it is our bounden duty, as Australians. to do. I would like to sav that this Bill which is submitted to us ·for its second reading is

H on. A. Hinch cliff e. J

372 S-ugar Gultwat.on Bill. [COUNCIL.] Sugar Gultwation Bilt.

acceptable to me, in so far as it endeavours to emure the white Australia policy in all br~nch.es. of the sugar industty in this State. I thmk It IS rather unfortunate that these Bills are being submitted to us piecemeal. At present, we do not know exactly where we are. In my opinion, this Bill in itself-and even with the other Bill which is to follow­is not sufficient to put the industry on a fair and satisfactory footing so far as all the parties who are engaged in it are con­cerned. It would have been very much better if we had had the full intentions of the Government disclosed to us, whether by statement, or in the form of Bills sub­mitted to us together, such as those which 'have been sent up to us. One thing which impressed me during the inquirie-; of the Royal Commission was the fact that, out of 400 odd witnesses examined in Aus­tralia, there were only two who declared in favour of a return to the old black-

labour conditions, and they were [5.30 p.m.] both men who did not live in

Queensland, and who knew little or nothing about the conditions which ob­tain in the Northern portions of Australia. We all know it has been a long and bitter strugg-le to get Australia to recognise that the sugar industry could be carried on satis­factorily, and with advantage to the com­munity, by white labour. I venture to say that, had it not been for the steps that w,:re taken by the Federal Government years ago, the ":hite Australia policy would not have been m force in the sugar districts as it is to-day. This legislation which we are now considering has become necessary to secure the wishes of the farmerP who have been ·agitating for some consid~rable time for the abolition of tho bounty and excise_ It has been made a condition by the Federal Govermnent thut the bounty and excise would be abolished provided white labour was secured in ·all branches of the industry_ I have no sympathy whatever with the amendment which has been foreshadowed by my hon_ friend, Mr.· Nielson. I do not think it will have the desired effect, and it may delay the lDgislution which is so neces­sary and so import<~nt. Before the othe:r Bi)l is submitted for its second reading, ]: th1nk ;,vc ought to ha,7 c son1c explanation fr?m the Government as to their intentions With regard to the conditio-ns of labour which are to obtain when this legislation is passed. We have been told this .afternoon thut a minimum rate of wage·> is to be fixed unt!l such time as wage,; boards can be e~tabhsh~d to deal with the question. I certamly thmk that, before these Bills pass. we should have some definite understandin~ from the Government regarding their inten"":: tions on that matter.

HoN. B. FAHEY: We have had a Jong and somewhat interesting speech from the Hon _ Mr. Stephens, and also a goo.d speech frorra the Hon. i\1r. Gibson on the subject that the Hon. Mr. Gibson understands thoroughly · and I see no reason why the Hon. M.r: Stephens also should not understand the subject he was dealing with, as he intimated that he had a good deal of experience both in the growth and manufacture of sugar_ The bon. member, in his criticism of the Bill and of the sugar industry, appears to have missed the most important point, and that is the: white Australia principle. He is determined in stating that the sugar industry is a ta:::oc: U]hm the whole of Au~;tralia. Well, we alI know that. Sincc> federation has take10.

fHrm. A.l!inrhrliflr.

place, it is essential for the good of the country and the mutual benefit of everybody in it that so:me portions of the community should make reciprocal sacrifices for the general good. Naw, the industry that the hon. member has said is not worth nurturing and maintaining in Queensland will produce this year £2,200,000 worth of sugar. That is the very minimum. :£176,000 of that will be devoted to the labour employed in the pro­duction of the sugar. All that money will be retained and circulated in Queensland for the purpose of developing the rich re­sources that are right at our door and that are scarcely scratched in the matter of agri·· culture. The interest on that £2,200,000 will be gained next year and reinvested in the country, and so on year after year increas­ing the capital inveBt~d and the industry_ I hope that the provisions of clause 4 will be modified by regulations, otherwise it will be almost impossible for anybody to conduct the industry, and I understand it will be very much modified by regulations, because it may not be necessary to make white men submit to the dictation test. If we get a guarantee to that eff<'ct from the hon.~ gentle­man in charge of the Bill on behalf o.f the Government, I think the Bill might be passed. The idea Is that in conserving the interests of the sugar farmer we are conserving the in­terests of Queensland, and enabling m>llions of acres of unsurpassably rich lands in this country to be utilised and put to its highest and most profitable use. That is the grea.t secret of its success. I say that the sugar industry at preRent is only in its infancy in Australia. We have not even yet overtaken the consumption of Australia. We have only overtaken about two-thirds of the consump­tion so far. Will the people of Australia stand still? Will the population of this country not increasp, and, as it increases, will not the sugar industry also essentially increase? The argu­ments of the Hon. Mr. Stephens against thP industry and against this :Bill were very eloquently advanced, but my own impression is that he omitted the most important factor in connection with the industry. I shall sup­port tho second reading of the Bill.

'l'he ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply, said: One hon. member who has spoken re­ferred to the Government bringing in legis­lation in a piecemeal fashion, and complained that the various provisions are to be put into four Bills. The Bill we are now considering is the only Bill which contains conditions which formed a part of the bargain with the latP Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. That bargain depended on two conditions-exclu­sion of black labour from the sugar indnstry, and the establishment of tribunals to settle the rates of wages to be paid in the indmtry. There is no necessity to co.mply with the latter condition, because it has alreadv been complied with by the pas,mge of the 'Indus­trial Peace Bill last session. The other con­dition-the exclusion of· co.loured labour-is the only object co.niemplated by the Bill at present before the Council. Therefore it is quite appropriate that it should be de~lt with in a Bill by itself. The m<>asure .which my colleague has charge of has nothmg to do with the l1aro:ain witli the Prime Minister. It. is a Bill which is b;.ing introduced at the r-equest of the cane2:rowers fo'r the purpose o.f securing to them the benefits of the bounty which will be abolished, and which they are p-etting at pre3ent. The-re are, therPfore, special reasons why the two measlHPS should b0 separate. The Hon. Mr. Nielson has suggested that there are 'Fwo other BilJs in

Adjou1·nmmt. [9 JULY,] Sttpply. 373

c~nte.mplation. I _know of only one other Bill m contemplaho.n, and that is a Bill to cover what I might call the interregnum be­tween the issue of the proclamation by the Federal Government and the award of the ~ages boards. When the proclamation is 1~sued, and the bounty and excise are abo­hshed, there will be no provision dealing with !he wages to be paid to tho.se · engaged in the ~ndustry until the award of the wages boards !S made, and it is considel.'ed advisable bv t~e Governm~n~ to bring in a Bill to cori­tmue the existmg rate of wages until the award of the wages boards is published. Hon. members will see that there is very good reason why three separate measures are being introduced. They deal with entirelv diff~rcnt su~jects, and ·could not very well be mcluded m one measure. Thn Bill fixin~ the wages during the interregnum to which I have alluded will b13 only a temporary mea­,;ure, which will drop out of existence as soon a~ the wages ):loards award comes into opera­twn, so that It would be out o.f place in an Act which is intended to have a permanPnt operation. I do not think there are any other points to which I need draw attention; but I would emphasise the point which was made very clear by the Hon. Mr. Hawthorn­that this Bill is introduced to carrv out the arrangement made with the late 'Prime ',f!nister, and we mu't adhere to the terms la1d down by him and which have been ~dopted by the present Prim,, Minister. It IS not a question of whether it is wi.se to mak" the conditions more stringent o.r tD go beyond the rPt'':>mmendations of the Sugar Commissic;n. The only qucction is what was the b_argam made, and is this Bill necesmry to .•nve effPct tD that bargain·: If it is necessary, we must put the Bill through, or we shall not attain our object, which is to secure the a bolitio.n of the excise ami bounty.

Question-That the Bill be now read a second timP-put and passed.

'The committal of the Bill was made an Order of the Day for the next sitting day.

SP ECL\L ADJOURNMEN'I'.

HoN. A. H. BARLOW: I am sure it is ll~)t tho wish of han. gentlemen to sit to­mg·ht. I am sorry to have to ask thCin to <eome to-morrow, but there has been rather an uncxp ctodly long discussion on this Bill.

Han. A. G. C. HAWTHO~N: Very useful.

l-Im;. A. H. BARLOW: Very useful. I n;ove that the House, at its rising, adjourn t1ll to-morrow.

Qtw·stion put and passed.

AD,JOURNMEN'l'.

. HoN. A._ H. BARLOYy: In moving- that the Counci_l do now adjourn, we will to­morrow, With the _permission of han. gei'ltle­men, take the Bill I have charge of-the Sug:a1: Growers Bill. 'That will be the first busmess to-morrow. I move that the Council do now adjourn.

Question put and pa,ssed. ,

The Council adjourned Jninutes to 6 o'clock.

at fourteen