Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 14 AUGUST 1928

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

154 Address in Reply. [ARSE1\TBLY.] Questions.

TUESDAY, 14 AUGUST, 1928.

'l'he SPEAKER (Hon. \\". Bortram, Maree) took thn chair at 10.30 a.m.

QL'ESTIO:\"S. T.\X-FBEE Pl"BL1C DEBT;

\TJTHOFTSE:D TO Go VERN'I· "~.

Lf'C.\L AUTHORITIES BORROW OuTSIDE

)Ir. TAYLOR (lrindwr). for Mr. G. P. B \RKES (Wancick), asked the Tre~.-·urer-

" 1. Of the present public debt, what an1ount has be0 n rai:-·.cd on trrx-freo con­clitions-lcl) in Q<1een-land; (b) in other Sta'rs?

' 2. To wh1t local and other authoritic• haYe the GoYcrnmPnt j-·:mcd fianetioJ~.:: to borro .'· on their O'.Yn account?

"3. \Yhat are tho rc"pcctivc amounts? "4. \Yhat is the total sum uutlwrisccl'' "5. Sinco authority was g:iven to

borrow outside of thc Trea ury, by what an1ount ha Ye local autho1·itiC's and others rccluecd their inckbtcdncos to tho Trc\c,;ury ?"

The TREASURER (Hon. W. ::\IcCormack, Cuir• s) replied-

" 1. (r1) Raised in Australia and fro~ of Stato and Y0dcral income tax, £?!),554,379; raised in Australia and free

[14 AuGUST.] Questions. 155

of State income tax, £12,848.318. (b) No loans h .Ye been rai,ed by Queensland in tho other States of Australia.

"2, 3, and 4. I lay on the table a statcnwrrt containing the desired infor­rnation.

" 5. Advances during the period 1st July. 1923, to 30th June, 1928, £3,714,099 3s. ld. ; roprryments durmg the perwd 1st July, 1923, to 30th June, 1928, £1,151,752 l9c. ld.

Local and Other Auth01·itics to 1chich /·r-tnctions to Borrow on tl~f.-ir own Account '"'re issued t!! the Govet·n­·m.cnt dw·ing the period 1st July, 1923, to 30th J·une, 1928-Local Authority, Etc.

Ascot Racecourse (Tructecs of)

Athcrton 'l'ablelaml :Maize Board ..

Allora flhire Council Balmoral Shire Council Balonne Shire Council Barcaldinc Fire Brigade

Board ... Barcaldino Shire Council Beaudesert To\\n Council Booringa Shir1:;> Council Bonlia Shire Council Bowcn Fire Brigade Board Brisbane Cit·; Coencil Brisbane Trn:rn~.' a~,- Trust ... Metropolitan v.· a'ter Supply a~d Sewerage Boarrl ...

Metropolitan Fire Brigade Board ... ... ... ...

Bundabcrg City Council and WatN Authority

Bundabcrg Fire Brigade Board ...

Bundaberg Harbour Board Cairns City Council ... Calliopr, Shire Council Canary Seed Board Charleville Fire Brigade

Board ... CharlcYillo To~,\ n C·ounc1l CEfton Shire Council ... Cluclen RlLccconro' (Trustees

of) ... C"olangatta To~•Tn Council Dalby Fin" Brigade Board ... Eastern Dow.~s Horticultural

and Agricultural _,\_ssocia.~ tion (Sho-. · Grounds)

Esk Shire Council ... Gatt m School of Arts ... Glaclstono Fire Brigade Board Gladstonc Town Council Gooburrum Shire Council Goondiwindi Tov n Council

an cl \\r atcr Authority Hamilton Town Council IIcrl>crton Shire Council ... Hinchinbrook Shire Council Hughenden Fire Brigade

Board Ipswich City Council B.nd

\Vater Authority Ips'.' ich 1'\ho·,y Grounds

(Trustees of) Isis Shir , Council Ithaca rl1ovyn Council John· tone Shire Council Kedron Shire Council Kilcov Shire Council ... King:aroy Shire Council Kolan Shire Council ...

Total. £

12,000

104,450* 2,000

10,000 14,500

1,500 1,500

19,000 10,000 1,500 1,800

5,302,258 2,000,000

2,295,000

40,000

69,500

1.200 7,000

56,000 2,000

20,000 +

900 18.500

2,000

7,000 17,500

500

1,500 10.000

200 2.500 1:750 3,000

6,500 20,000 6,000

16,500

425

132,760

3,000 2,000

26,491 2,000

20,000 2,000

14,000 6,800

Local Autlwrity. Etc.

Longrcoch Shire Council Lutwvchc c;,,mctorv (Trusu ;,s

of).. " .

~lackav ('ity Covn"il ... ?\Tacka~~ Fir'e Brigade Board ~\[arkay :Harbour Board ~1ackav Sho\v Grounds

(T m~ tees of) .. . .. . Mackinlav Shiro Council ).falcm Recreation and S1

10w

G ro{;ncl I Trustees of) :\1aroochy Shire C unci! .. . ~,[aryboro·1gh Cit:. Council .. . Mm·cton Shire Council :IYlorning-sido Recl'L'ation Ro-~cno (Trust< of) ...

Jlilount JVIorgan Town Council Murgon Shire Council Kerang Shire Council Paroo Shire Council .. . Pine Shire Council .. . Queensland Butter Boanl Que nsland Cotton Board Queensland Egg Board Queensland Peanut Board Queensland Peanut Gro,vcr:1'

Co¥operative Association, Limited

Queensland State 'Wheat Board ... ... ...

Rcdcliffe Town Council Rockhampton City Council ... Rockhampton Harbour Board Roma Fire Brig·acle Board .. Roval 1\' ational Ag-ricultuml

a;,d Industrial Association Sherwood Shire Council ... South BrisLano Citv Council Southport Town Co~nwil Tarampa Shire Council Taringa Shire Council Ti'l.ro Shire Council Tinaroo Shire Council Too\vong Town Council Too\VOOlnba C'it<,~ Council and

\Yatcr AuthOi"itv Tom'·oo-nba i::\ho;,. Gron"d

(Trustees of) .. . .. . .. . Townsville Citv Council and

vVat0r Authority Town'Yille Fire Brigade

Board ... ... ... ... Towncvillo Harbour Board .. Tmvnsville Show Ground

(Trustee,, of) .. . .. . \Y arwick Town Council \Vide Bay and Burnett Pas-

toral · and Agricultural Societ''

\Vindscll:· To·.,n Council vYinton Shiro Council Woothakata Shire Council \Vvnnum Town Gomocil

Tot l. £

16,000

450 8.000 1.200

10.000

100 4,600

1.000 14.500 34,529 9,500

1,500 3.500 2.800

17,900 10.900 2.500

600'' 500''

27 500" 32:ooo ·

37,500

801.97P 12.000 55.('80 5.000 1.800

6.000 7,500

214,200 48,700

2,000 2,000 1.000

42.300 15,000

145,000

5.000

75,200

15,000 25,000

3,100 22,000

2.000 21:ooo 12.000

3,000 3,000

Total £12,077,884 " ~-Expired.

:\eMBER AND S'LARms oF STATE EMPLOYEES, 1927-28.

7\Jr. ~IOOim Premier-

(A.ubigny) asked the

"\\'hat ,·.,as the total number of State cmploy<:os (all grades) and their ac;gre­O'at<: salaries and \vages on 30th June. l928, the aEswcr to Le in the same form as and contain simiiar details to 'that given in reply lo a question on 4th October, 1927 ?"

156 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Questions.

Th~ PREMIER (Hon. W. McCormack, C·tirns) replied-

I "N mbcr of ,. Amount of t\alark ,

Ouffi or \\. ages per cers. ! Annum.

----------·--------------·---------------------1--------

£ Officers employed in Public Departments. (See Eighth Annual Report of

Public Servi('e Comml -~ioncr . . . . . . . . . . Construction and Maintenance Branch, Department of Public Works .. lto~Jq and Public }estate Improwment Branch, Department of Pnlllic

Lands . . . . . . . . · · · ·

12,552 514

3,21J4,602 14~,899'

15,74:) 19)781)

132,408 8>0,340

210,411 3,244

108,505

Prickly-pear Land Commi•sion (Wages Employees only) l\Iining Operations Irrigation Commbsion lVIain Rutris Commission Central Sugar Mills Stat.e Enterprls.., llail'Y,l_y Rmployr.rs--

Revcnne Employees . . . . . . Loan Employees (other than Construction) Construction Ftnployees ..

SALE OF " Qc:EEKSLAXD I'RoDcCER."

l\lr. KI.:.i'G (Logan) asked the Secret:ry for Agriculture-

" 1. \Yhcn the Council of Agriculture decided to ceasp publication of the ' Queensland Producer '-its official organ -was the paper sold or given away?

"2. \Vhat amount of money was paid by the Council of Agriculture during its regime as subsidy for the paper?

"3. If the paper was sold, to whom tvas it disposed, and ,.,·hat an1onnt was paid?

"+. Is 1\ir. R. J. \V cbstr r, managing director of Queensland Producer, Limited (the 'Queensland Producer'), identical wit.h the R. J. Webstcr, manager of the Queen,Jand Cotton Board?

"5. What is the salary of Mr. R. J. VV ebster as manager of th0 Queensland Cotton Dom·d ?"

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE (Hon. \V. l<'organ Smith, Jfackap) replied-

" 1. 2, and 3. I would refer the hon. m cm bcr to the Secretary of the Council of Agriculture, as that organisation does not represent the Crown in any way.

" 4 and 5. The hon. member should direct his inquiries to the manager of the Queensland Cotton Board as this board does not rcprc<cnt the Crown."

J\IIXERAL LEASES 215 AND 211, MOUXT CAXNIN-DAH; REWARD CLADI . No. 8, MOUNT BARKER SILVER-LE.\D MINE.

Mr. SW \Y:'\E (Jtirani) asked the Secre­tary for ~1inc"-

. " 1. Referring to 'his reply to my qu0s­tior:. on 1st l.ug: 1L,,t rPlativo to tho appli­catJon bv D. J. Hanvin for forfeiture of th.e _l1~ount Carmindnh copper leases, \vas 1t 111 ac~ord~nrA ~"ith laT\' or ~quity to .procc~~·d w1t~1 tne udJonrned heanng of th1s nlatter vnthout previous notification to the applicant. and therefore in his absence·?

" 2. In connection with the Reward· claim held b.v mo at 1\Iount Barker, hrts an,v applica 1 ion been n1ade for the for­feit tro of this cl im?

06 72

47!3 301

1,120 7

1,11 '3

17,fi48 2,076 2,SD2

38,74!3

4,7Gl,d5 664,540 741,067

£10,278 A35 o

"3. Is he aware that the appJi.· ant statu in his letter on this subioct t.hilt the Warden (l'.ll'. Dunlop) saici to him at the first hearing, ' Thoug·h ou haYQ won the case fair and sqmue, you will never g·et the leases. All the ' heads '­::VIcCorrnack, Theodoro, and Herbert•.on -an~ jn it, and Jones \>ill use his pcnxers against you' ?

"4. \Yill ho have an open inquiry into the alleged statement of the ·warden eo that it ma;."" be praYed or othen:visc In order to cloa·r up this m a ttcr to the satisfaction of the public?"

The SECRETARY FOR MI'i'ES (Hon. A. J. Joncs, Padd.··,,gfon) re-plied-

" 1. Yes. "2. No, but it is liable to forfeiture. " 3. Officially, no. "4. No."

Co;.;DJTIOX m STATE STonr _, BoARD TE~<DERS in re PROPORTION OF UNIOX L.\BO'CR.

:Mr. KERR (Enog(!•'a) asked the Tr~a.-surer-

"1. J ~ it a fact when certain or any public tenders :>;·e invited by tho State Stores Board that tonderers mmt state on the prescribed tender form what proportion of union labour is employed·~

" 2. As the lowcct tender is not neces­sarily accepted, would such a fact, if it is a fad. be one of the reasons for or against :leccptancc ';-

"3. Und0r whr,t authority is such a condition impased ?"

The TRE_'\SURER (Hon. W. ::\IcCorrnack, Cu :rns) replied-

" 1. On certain public tenders invited hv iho Stute Stores Board \vhcre manu­L~cturing or making up of uni£ortns or clothing is concerned. tendc:rerR f!-rc rc­nurshtl to Rt1t.r \Yhat. proportion of u'nion hbour is employed.

"2. The State Stores Board when ckcid­illg on tenders giYes consideration to all fucts~-viz., ttnrdit.v, price, suitability, tin1c and method of delivcrv, etc .. and on tcn­·ders for r'lnrwfacturir~~·, a1! other facts bci ng equal, the woportion. of union labour employed. The board m carryrng

[14 AuavsT.l A ddr.?ss in Reply. 157

out this po1icy is to use its O\Y11 judg­lnPnt and refer to 11inistcr for further d!r _·ction if circun1sl anc•:3 require it..

" 3. r ndcr the authority of the Minis­ter in charge ol the Department."

HE\TE)IrE rRo:.r 2v1oTOR R.EGISTHATIOXS A:XD LICENSES, 1925-28.

Me. MOORE (.4ubi[!111J) a,kcd the Secretary foe l'ub:ic Lands-

" L What was the tot>tl amount of collections during each of the past three financial years from 1notor registrations and licenses?

" 2. Similar information with rHpect to heavy vehicles under the Heavy Vehicles Ad ? "

The SECRET.\HY FOR PUBLIC LA::\'DS \1-Ion. T. Dun:::ta11, (-lymph) replied-

" L Th<~ collections under the Regula­tion3 gov--~rning registration of rnotor Yehiclcs aud traction cugines for the past three financial yPars a1·c set out horo­lJndcr. The colfcction of licenses fees is a n1a,ttcr \Yhich doe;; not conh: under the jurisdiction of tlw ,:·ecretary for Public Lands. £

17"5 26 189,632 1926-27 253,779 1U7-28 373,230

"2. The He ayy Vehicles "\et of 1925 ·was brougdt i1!to operation as fro1n tho 1st .January, 1S27. The collc'ctions und0r that 1-\ct lrmn the lst ~Tanuary, 1927, to 30th June, 1927, wu .- ±,3,252. while for the year E~7-28 they \Vert £7,660."

PAPERS. The following papers w0;·c !aiel on the

tahle, antl ordered to be p1·intcd :-Tw ~'n: --~ixth -~~nnual Rcnnrt of The Con1-

n1{ssioner of Taxes On Incon1e Tax. rrhirtceutll .A .. nnua1 Report of Th0 Con1-

n1is.~ioner of Tax(,-: on Land Tax. Thirt.y-third l{C'por~ of The )~._uditor­

GPneral (under The Suprono Court Funds _\-t of 1895).

Eighth _,;\~tnn'-tl Report of The Public ScrYicc Con1n1isi~oner for the year ended 30th June, 1928.

ADDRESS IN ImPLY.

i\C'U'\[Pfi0"' OF DEBATE-THIRD _\LLOTTED DAY.

Question stated-" That the iollowing _._\ddrcss be pre­

sented to the Governor iD reply to the Speech delivered by His Excellency in opening this tho third r;c,sion of tho· twrnty-fourth Pf1rliament. of Queens­land:-"11ay it pler1~e Your Excellr:>ncy,-

" \Ve, His Majesty's loyrJ and dutiful subjects, the members of the Leg·isiative A,sombly of Queensland, in Pm·liament assembled, desire to assure Your Excel­lency of our continued loyalt:,· and affec­tion towards the throne and person of our Iviost Gracious Sovereign, -and to tender our thanks to Your Excellency for the Speech with which you have been pleased to open the present s. ·1sion.

"The various measures to which Your Excellency has referred, and all other matters that may be brought before us will receive our most careful considera:

tion, and it will be our earnest endeavour so to deal with them thf1t our labours ma, tm1d to the advancement and pros­pcr;ity of the State"-

On which Mr. MOO RE (A ubigny) had moved-

" That the question be amPnded bv the additwn of the following "·ords: -·

' but we desire to inform Your Excel­lency that the Government does not posses' the confidence of this House! "

Mr. DEACON (C'wcningham): If I had no Gtlwr reason for su1Jporting the Opposition motion. the insufficiency and incfilciency of the defence made bv the Government would bo enough. u

'l'he PRE:IIIER: Arc you 'llpporting the motion? (Laughter.)

Mr. DEACON: Yes. The I'nE:\IIER : I should ha Ye thoug·ht vou

were upporting the amendment. (LaPc;htcr.)

Mr. DE.ACON : I am suppnting the , rn0n(h11cnt. The Prunier, iu defence of hi-; volic:v, said that he had hac! a good deal of iroublc-lhtlt ho is living in imubloue times and has great sympathy for anybody else in si1nilar C'ircnin-;btncc:~. I--Io sa.i'J the 11osition 1.vus duo to econcn1ic reactions over vi-·hich he had no c_.ontrol; that no GoYernmcnt cculd control tlw matter, and th:ct he could not help the position. He so_ys that hu h>:s clone his best, but is helpless.· Although the hon. gentleman says it was not posdJlc to avoid the difficulties he is in, yet he has had tLe big~c·_t. revenue that the Slai·--' has ever had. The P1·emier said that the cause of the ~n:ten1ployn1cnt ;,va that. \YO have been spend­Ing too mnr'h 1nonev on 1notor carr: fron1 A1nerica. I haYe b-_uen in this House sonle­,, here 8 bout eight years, and during that time I haYe noticed that hon. members orposite, v.-hen going hon1c at night. never ·(·em to ride in a street car. I hav-e never S"E'n thcn1 at an~v ti1nc patronise a Qneens­land-made Yehicle. I haYe nm-cr seen them riding home in a cab. 1Lau2·htcr.) \Yhy is it that hon. members oppo·,ite do not. set '·the cx•tmple in this 'respect? I noticed one hon. rncmber walking on one OC.~'a.sion bccau&,c there w cs no room aYrrilable in the c.tr pl'Ovided.

The PrtE:1ITER: I C!'n understand no\Y ,:;:hv ~you do not ln1ow· the an1end1nont from thC motion.

J'dr. DEACON: I can u"derstand why the Premier do~,_, not know his position, conQ,idcr­i~ri? the late events at Maryborough. (Oppo­sitJOn laughter.) The Premier savs that taxation is not to blame for unernplOyrnent, and that it is onlv one of the factors which are responsible. · l-Ie blarncs tho general cconornic condition. Then after hin1 co111t s tl1c· Secrohry for Agriculture. He says that !l1ere is nothing wrong with the State at all, and that it is not in anv trouble v.-hatever. He says that, thanks to hhaself, and v,"ith the help of the Almir;hty Queensland i. in a SJ)lendid position. (La~ghter.) He says that Ius department has done wonderful work, ~nd that tho agricultural iudustry is a growin!' industry. He thinks that everything 13 U9 It should be, and that there is no trouble; yet the Pren1ier says thore is.

Then I hove ]i,tened to other members on the other side who have spoken during this d0bate, and I have found that each man tas a different reason to give for the posi­tion. The hon. member for Herbert, for

Mr. Deac'on.]

158 Addn ~s in Reply. [ASREMBLY.] Address in R&ply.

ic,stance, blames the Federal Government for t•ot putting a duty of 4s. per hundred super­ficial feet on timber. He holds that, if that \\Tre: done, the tin::ber industry would flourish. But after h1m comes the member fol' MarybOl·ough, \vho says that the timb:r trad<' is flouri<;hing, and that one firm m hi electorate has •·11ent £10,000 on new plant.

A GovERN1IEN'£ ME~IBER: ·what does the " N atnbour Chronicle " say?

Mr. DEACO::'i' : I am not bothering about that. l a 11 taki11g notice of tho hon. 1ncmber for Marvborough. Ho is a man wno has the confldPnce of his electors, in spite of the pfforts of certain people. (Laughter.) He savs that the timber industr~- is flourishing. \V.ell both he and the hon. meml'er for Her­bert ~annat be right. If the hon. member for Herbort can ri::;htfully blame the Federal Government, what is wrong with the hon. mr-mbor for :Maryborough? The hon. mem­l- er for 1\lanborough says that he does not believe in having a surplus while there is any unemployment; yet other m~'mber~ oppo­site are nlcascd because there rs a surplus. They are all contradicting one another. tC~o~ernment intorjoctiom.) Here is the bon. member for l\1aryborough, who says he does not believe in high tariffs, and the hon. ulcn1bcr for Hcrbcrt, \vho says he does, and ih·,t_ if the dutv on timbur were high f'.Jf''lgh. C\\'er:> thing would bo all right_

The PRE?>[IER: Do vou not believe that tl•cre r m be honut ~1ifl'0rcnc< s of opinion o'er here? \Vo realise that vou hay·) differ­l'r:;-r\_" of opini011 OY'T there. ~

::\lr. DEACO:'i': I reali,.J that the-re is no unanimity of opinion on that side. Here wo are all independent; OY' r there hon. rnembers are not, yet thPy arc not all of 1he sa1ne opinion. They all rL" gTcP. ?\early ,,, ery memb.Jr of that part h d a different opinion.

::\Ir. I-IYNE-: ·when it comes to a diYision ""'" will see tint we are nnited.

~L:. IIANLO:X: That sho\Y'S our intcHigcnce.

::vrr. DEACON: The hoi1. member for Ithaca is one- of the hon. membcro \Yho contradicted the hon. member for Herbort. I c~~n q1_1ite understand his pm·ition. Is ho the oul:_· i :telligcnt one'! \Yill ho S"" that. thG hon. mer;;bN for Herber·t '" umntelli­f..!':_,nt "? Then wo ha..-c hon. lTICll1 bcrs blan1ing­tbo Federal (}ovornrnent b<;cause of a won­derfully hig·h tariff, and saying that that is the c _l_w·-e of une1nployment in thi'l State. ~--\.t nnv rab', I think I lw;re ;;:aid enough to sho\~: 'that there i~ a difl:'t>l'Cnce of opinion a::1ongst hon. meLibcrs on that side. ~O\V l~t u, ~cc how a higher tar::-: ~.\ould

affect tt-.J, indlYtry I )'nprc::lent-ag-ricul­ture. \ r~irly serious burden in ihc form o[ c:u-,i,m1s dut:~ is Imposed upon the agri­cultural in0.u._,tr-;r. I ha Ye ast .._·rtaincd the f"ZUl'CS StlCr-· Ini the duty inlp._::,;od, ad yalc_L·cnl--

I{0 1p0r thro5hcr P1ou~h ::\Iov. ir.g rnachinc..; and

rakes Bindc::;; ~~cccl rlrill 8t 'ticu.r1,rY oil engines (hindr>~·~ " Chaff cutters Tractor;:~

[JJr. Deacon.

ha;·

Per Cf=lnt.

35 30 to 35

45 45 35 60 60 30 10

'rhat is an in1position on primary industry,. and. as the intelligent hon. member for lthaca < 1airns, the 1nannfacturc.:.3 do raise thcit prices to the extent to which they are permitted. On the one hand we ha~e an increaser! ccrst of production by thP imposi­tion of a customs tariff, and on the other hand a eh tionary or falling price for agri­cultural products. 'l'hc Premier claims that it i.; impossible for the unemployed problem tc' Le solved by legislation. l-Ie claimcdlhat, if pr·iyatr nnployc-rs would provide employ­ment as the:; should do, there would not be the present tr·oub!e He clainwd that it i,; not his fap]t, that the Government arn l'mploying as 1nan::: as c1n be absorbed. If on the ono har,d cost of production " increased materiallv. and on the other hand no eorre~pocdingiy increased price js vaicl for agricultural products, is it not apparent th:-tt there must be unemployment in that ouo particular diredion 9 \Vhat othe;­rr -ult conld th-ore be? If the Secretary for Agrieulturo is sHccessful in organising the fal'mers to such a standard of efficiency that they c3-n secure the full ya\uc of their production, immediately there is an increase in the cost of living; and, on our present basis of production, the products exported 0\'l't·ea, must be sold at a very much r·Prlnced price. Do0' it not all create a. cliflicult'' in socurim; the· full value for the return ham the land?

This morni'cg the Premier gave notice of hi,, intention to introduce• a bill reimposing the c,uper land tax for the ensuing year. He confidently claims that taxation ip not an inC'ident in the '::JH( _tion of unen1ployn1ont; but does not land tflxation reduce the general 'alue of the land, and, consequently, the cr0dit of the farmers? Taxation is one detrimental factor in the conduct of industry, inn -much as it l0ads to a loss of credit. If the assets of the farmer are reduced in value by the imposition of land taxation, then he j_; unable to borro·w to ihG san1e extent as c1uring' a ptovious period.

·:,;Ir. COLLIXS: I--IoT\' n1any of your con­•titu,nt, P-'Y this land tax?

l\Ir_ DFAC'!J='!: Not nnny, directly, but f:O_lle c; 11tcrn do Th• real difficultv is in the t_cncral d0clinc in the Yalu- cf tl1c land c Jn.-.·:cpWiJt UTlOn ta at ion. A fr'\: months <l.f;O ag-ricnJtur.J land un the rail;\·ay line 11 ll' \Y.1r\:ir~ \"\"'!O ',oid at gr;--u:;_ .. value; that ]..:, it \Yus noi v .. -orth an' n1ore for agricultural purpO<'~ t:1a:1 it \Va'3 for :,'razing rurposes. 'Th~tt is oJV' i:.-tanc'\; but t~o efl'od- of ta.xa· tion i, Stete-·-idc-the dirct is felt by the fmJ.ll Lndholclcr "s \Hll as by the large landholdcr.

::\1>'. CoLLlNR: Th;ct does nnt aff, et the pr()ductivity of the land.

Mr. DK\("(\X: It affects the Yalui' of the land. and serious!.) militates against tl1o chanc ~ of -;ecuring credit. The fanner i" not ·worth J ILnl2h, f:o wh0n he requires

he i.c unable to S' ::v.rc it to the same and then he is hamp red in his

'Iho hon. JY •mbcr should admit that taxation is a very serious fa.ctor jn c-ausing the deprc"sion. ·

I now d· cire to deal \\·ith some contr·a­dictions conLtine: ~.::1 in speeches of hon. mcm­LE'rs opposite abont the timber trade,, The hon. member fM Hcrbort said that the conditions of the trade wcro b'ld, while the hon. mcmb.er for ~\Iaryborough, as I have

Aadress in Re]JlJ. [U AUGUST.] Address in Re)Jly. 159

already st.atcrl, said the industry was flourish­ing. The SC'crchr:; for Agriculture stated H:at the Forestry Board had supplied rcr,proximate fignrr' indicating that tho value d interstate trade in timber from Queensland amonntod to £397,000 for tho year 1925-26. Ho quoted that figure as showing the flourishinp.- condition of the industry. Then we IJmvo a statement in the Governor's Speech showing that the operations of th·' Forestry Board for the last. financial year dieclosed a surplns of £169,750. If the eL·stonls dutv on tintbcr \Vere increa;:;:ed in order to g·ive more employment b:r the encouragement of the uso of local ti1nbers, is i~ not a corbinty that the cost o£ timber would rise an ext,a 4s. per 100 super. feet.. v:·hich was the increase suggested? Is it not a ccl'iainty that the working man would ha' o to pay mo1·;:, by that sum for his house, and, in fact, that every person in the com­munity '" oulcl have to pay it? 'l'hcre is a limit to taxation. If the ind m try os in the flourishing condition that hon. members oppcoitc have stated, and if the intero;tate trade in the product has grown as stated by the Secretary for Agriculture, why bother the Federal Government for a position for \7hich the State Governnwnt alone are to blame? The whole fanlt of the high costs in industry to-day lies with th" Government opposite. It is no use the Premier saying that it is the economic situation, which is beyond his control, that is at fault. The causes of the preRent eronomic position in Queensland are not bevond his control.. The Premier can exercise Control so far as taxa~ tion is concerned. He can also reduce the expenditure on adn1inistration; ho (an ayoid wasteful cxpondit.nr. ·, and he can alter the condition of things no1v cxL;tinr·. '\Yhcreby a large body of unemployed men receive money for which the State receives nothing iL return.

The 8ccrctary for Agriculture made the statement that ununpioyment \Yas not duE' to any action of the GovEn·nment. Ho contra­d;cts everybody else. He said that tha posi­tJon 1-vas due to the pl'C'Sent organi~ation of HJciet_v; but he conl rndictC'd himself subse­quently b;t declaring that, if anv indusLry Yf-~·e furc{_•d to carry grcatc)1• b·tnlens than i'" could bear, then 'it ',,m t decline. Agri­cliltnrc-the indL!Stry I am rP)Wcsonting-is carrying great·_r burdc11S than it is able to carry.

One burden th,;.t is causing a good deal of l:ll':Ielploymcnt in thrrt industry is chw to t.he action of the Govcrnn1.:::nt in bringing the crnplo.vcc.~ ongage~l in the industry under the jurisdiction of the Board of ·Trade and Arbitration, and to the Board of Trade and Arbitration, acting under an Act of Parlia­Inent,.,. rnaking an _aWtFd alJd prc:c~·ibing condniL-'-1"5 under '~ lnch those cngf'tgecl 111 th2 i11dustry find it impoHib!e to <.:arrv on. 'The boarc1. in its eward, was compe!fed b·, Act of Parlia:mcut to prc~r·1 ibr a ~4-hour 'n 0k fo1· the industry, notwith .. tanding tho fact that CYf'ry \\ ]tncss cxa1nincd '\V a~ of opinion that it \vould he irnpo::-~;i} lP to cttlTY on the indudrv if a 44-hour week ''- C'ro p;<'·cribed. EYery fanner ifl to-day doing his utn1ost to :1ltcr his conditions by r~ph.cing his cn1ployces b7 n1achinery, or in cutting down operation" to the extent of what ca'1 be clone by himself and fan1il:v. The farming industry is fast becoming cn:e for farni1~r labonr onlv. Farrning- op8ra­tions where labour i3 concerned arc slurnping. Every farmer i, so planning his operations

as to do just what his family <"'an do \Yithout cngaccing· outside labour. Thu,t will mean th,t. more men will be thrown on the unem­plov,_'d n1arket, which, of course, n1e:-1ns a. gTcater Lurdon on the Unemployment Insur­ancl: Fund, and in rnany casl'S a lesser pro~

duction from the land. Ro far [11 a.m.J as I know, thme has been no

extei1sion of productic;!l beyond v.that a n1an can do on his o\vn area. r:r~here arc very few new fanners coining in. In fnct, the value of farming land is so low that i~ is possibl'> for a man to buy an adjoining farm and use it. cxclu"'ively as a grass pad­clock. As I say, a certain area of land is going out of cultivation.

::\lr. Cor.LJNS: Cultivation !s increasing in all the sugar district

Mr. DEA\'0)1: But the hon. gentleman n1nst recognise that tho sugar industry is Pt•til'('ly clifierent from any other avenue of 1,rin1ary production, inasmuch as there is a fixed price throughout the country, and st:gar farmers benefit from the monopoly. On the other hand, other farmers have to b ke the price that is offering throughout the world, and there is not much po:,.;ibility cf getting more than the world's parity.

i\Ir. FERRTCKS: Th·' butter people used to l ell the same story you are telling now.

l\Ir. Cor.LIXS: Did not those people get r·"·otcdion under the Paterson sch<me?

::\lr. DEACON: That scheme applies only to the butter sold in the home market. You "an raise your price a little on that; but, '\vhen you export, you cannot increase your proJection. l am sure the hon. member for South Brisbane will agree that it is better to sell in the homo market than in outside places.

:Mr. FERRIC](S: The sugar man is not gi'Owling about labour colldii.ions, but the bvttcr ~na:a is.

111-. DEACO:'i': The sugar man has no l'L·a:-:on to gro'\vl, because ln the rnu.rkct that ]J,, has for his product he is given a lHicce that \Yill pay him. Givo a price that will 1 our labour, and \Ve not grosd c·ither.

~Ir. \VEIR: You 81'0 ahvays grO\YlinP'.

''Jr. DEACOK: The hon. member for :Jaryborough ~hould not be grov.:llng this 1~1orning. (Laughter.) Let us proceed a httlc further with the po ition of th.c sugar ir1dustxy. \\ hy should not th~- ·~ugal' indn:-;-1ry pro~prr? ~\_, the hon. men1ber for R.wcn has s,tid, it j. difficult to kcqJ pc<oplc fron1 growing sugar.

The SECRETARY FO:tt .:\GETCULTURE: Y~ou , ~'"Dl to con1plain a grctt. deal about the

, grn~ industry.

::\Ir. DRA<'O"': :!'\oi: :tt >tll. I am com-pinining th:1t you do nJt put other indus­tr:c-.; on t!1,~ san1c footii1J;.

::Ylr. FnmiCKS: Dut for rmttcr tlvt I' <'xnortetl you are gt ;tin~· rr subsidy Lc:s.onL1

rho local )wice.

:\h. DEACOX: There Is :10 subsid:.· on h:,ttcr.

1Ir. FERRJC](S: ',Ye pay more for lmitor.

Mr. DEACOX: And yoa pay more fo,· ugar.

Th0 SECHETAEY FOR PwATL\YAYS: \Yhy do you not. get a Federal pool?

Mr. DEACO)l: \Ve haYo one. All tho e engaged in the trade sec the difficulties of a

Mr. Deacon.]

160 Address in Reply. [ASSE:.\IBL Y.] Address in Reply.

Federal pool. They have a Board of Control, and that is working satisfactorily. 0£ course, i l means an increased price for butter.

Th0 SEcnETARY Fun · AGRTCULTDRE: You know th!" re is no Board of Control in rc~ard to local consumption. The board only deals with exports.

J'l:lr. ]}fi:;\CON: 'l'he J~6ard of Control adjust·; prices. There is no bounty on {'xports, bnt, as a. result of the conditions made by the Board of C•mtrol, there is an adju tment of prices between the fac(ories. Mv comobint is that the Government have in!poscd 'on the farming industries conditions ilnt thcv cannot carrv, and the Secretary for _\griculturo agrees 'with me in that.

M:l'. liYl,ES: \Vhat conditions are you referring to?

Mr. DEACON: 'The 44-hour week. i\1r H YNLS : You stated that you would

\Yclcome an award in the rural industry,

~h. DEACON: 'That is distinctly untrue. The hon. n1Cinbor' s n1omory n1ust be very had because he lcnows verv well that what he ~avs is not tnl<'. 'The other day the hon. 1nember for IleYbcrt said there \Vas no reason at all \Vhy v:o sho~:dd not produce a lot 11101,)

sng, r and export . it. lJe sa ill there '~Tero mil!iona of people 111 the East who would be glad to have our mgar. I dare say they \\OUld .at a r_;_L'iCP- But suplJC•·iO you gave all the sugar-growers u free h<uld to grovl whatever sugar the:v plr'ascd and to export it in large quantities, how long could they nay the present a\\'ard rates? They could ;10t .do it ior one year, and they could not comply with the conditions imposed. 'The Gover-nment ~rade a great n1istake when they im•JoFcd a 4~-hour week on rural industries. So· far as tho wa;cs Hi'O conccn10d the fanners were llltying cfllcient n1c11 these rate.~ previously. The only gro\·:1 can1o frmn the org._:ni,·~~r.~ 'fhcrc was no grovd at all fron1 any y,·od\..ing 1nan connc~~tcd \Yith the indn~try, _tnd not one attended to giYo Ci-idcnco at the inquiry.

The 1o . ..tin trouble at the present ti1!1e is Ullcrnployn1cnt. The Uifliculty is that in~:LB­t rics cannot carr:· on. 'fhe Government have <:nlploycd a:.; rnany Jnen ,ts they could, ~nd they ha'e io find ways and means for keopmg a trcnu~r~dous body of men doing nothing. 'They arc faced with the same position in Grc~lt Britrrin, vvhoro there arc millions of w•~mp\oyed. The Government there started to rdicvr- certain keY industries from taxa­tion--even from the payment of local rates­aud e5avo the1n encouragmnent to C'\_pand. 'Tliev rccognie ;d that certain industric< wuo car/>'ing bigger burdens than they could cc.rry, and reliC\·od them by direct Govern­ment action-by paying their local rates, a,nd exemr1ting thrm frorn other taxation. That ,, ilula be one way out of the difficulty in Qncnnsland. There is anj number of indus­tries here \vhich cannot carry the burdens impo.··)d upon them, and it is, better to give relief in that way than to have so many people unocnploycd.

2\Ir. I-IYNES: \Vhorn y;-·'J<:Ild you tax to carry oH the businee'; of the cc; cm try?

:Vh. DEACON: The Ooyermnent .ne tax· ing the working men, the employers, and also rontrihuting to th0 upkeep of the unom­vlo;nneut Insurance Fnn(~.. That anwnnt coul<l bo used to open up mdustry to find c·1nployrncnt for workC:'l' Ono 1nan \vho is

[Mr. Deacon.

workin!T proYidcs a certain amount of mnploy­rnent ior another man. rrako the caso of Ttlount l\Iorg-an, for instance, 'vhich had to close do·wn be('au;;.:o it cost rnoro to produce gold and copper than the prices obtained therefor. \Yhy not have that industry kept going, a,nd havo people employrd in that vay'!

Mr. CoLLli\'R: ~~-e subsidised Mount. Morgan at the rato of £1,000 a week. 'That is more than the British Government arc doing.

Hr. DEAf'ON: 'The Government are pay­ing more than £1,000 a week to the men who arc unmnploved. There vvould be a saving in that rerya~cl. If the.v can save money in that w tv and hdp the country, why not do f<J? \\ hy not exempt from taxation all cultivated land? 'There is an exemption of £1,500, which applies alw to grass land. \Vhv not p;o further and exempt all cultivated land? EvPry man cultivating land employs others, not onh' on his O'\Vll farn1, but in creat­ing other chamw'' of employment. He employs at least three others. If we can put ono rna··1 at v.ork there, will not that relievo the un0mployment problem? It seems to me 1hat the Government have taken the most '1 c1pid wa' possible of dealing with unem· plo:'ment; there is no intelligence about it.

J\T•·. LLEWEL'lN: They havo not put on a poll-tax, anyhow.

lYh. DEACON: \Vhat is this tax of 6d. per v.rcek on ~~ working- man's wage but it poll-tax on him? Is it not also a poll-tax (Ill the crnp]oycr?

Mr. IIvx~s: It is an iw.uranco.

Mr. DEACOX: Of course, it is a poll-tax.

TLc ScCJLTnY FOR Prnuc \YORKR: Are the Friendly Societies pa.ying a poll-tax?

J\1r. DJ.~_\ COX: \Vhnt is the us8 of all this hurnh1g?

]\It·. HA':r.o:-;: You arc bowled out. One oi your g-n '1 h ~t. ! ''llc1Prs rnado the ::<tatcmcnt that _·\"!.lStra.lian 1-:;1n.1P1fad:ning industricd eould not ]L.'Osprr until ;ye had an i1npoverished ''or king d ·.ss.

l\Jr. DE"\CO:::\": The l1on. l11"n1bcr is never particu~ar about truth nJ any tirne.

Tht: 8-:-f'RET.\BY FOR Prnr.'"'n \VonKS: Gcorgc R:-id :vaid that, and it is on record.

J\1r. DEACOX: Take the statement for ,-;hat it is wmth that th8 present conditions in QuP1•nslor!d arc not ~:u, to the Govern­ment, and let ns see '.Yhat the Go.-crnrnent are doing to find a ws"y out of th" position. Hon. member· opposite do not seem to \<Yorry about the uncn1ployed, yet they are their men. They are the people who put them there, yet they arc not worrying about them. . A Go'.ER:ODIE:\T },IE)!BfR: _\.re you worry­Hi!:?

1\ill-. DRACO).J: I am showing ways in v l1ich they can improve the position.

Mr. H.\XLOX: \Ve have 600 council employees who were sacked by your Nationalist Party and are walking the s,reets of Brisbane to-day.

Mr. DEACO::-J: And we have thousands walking the streets as a result of the taxa­tion and actions of the Labour Party. \Vhat i' the use of talking about that when the Government themseh'es' are doing the very stcme thing'? The only way to solve this

Address in Reply. [14 AUGUST.) Address in Reply. :un

question of unemployment is to find ways and means of oreating employment.

Mr. CoLLINS: No wonder the Darling Downs does not progress.

Mr. DEACON: The Darling Downs has progressed more than the hon. member's drstrict; and ·the hon. member for Bow en has not made much progress in his ideas since he first came into this House. In spite o£ the " try-out" that Socialism has had during the last thirteen years, he still ~elieves that it is the only remedy; yet there Is not one man on the front Government bench who agrees with him. (Opposition laughter.)

The hon. tho Secretary for Agricuiture and some Northern member;; have referred to the maize pool, and the Secretary for Agri­culture went out of his way to attack the country storekeepers for what he called itltimidation. If. when the hon. gentleman has finished his term as Secretary for Agri­culture, he can say that he has done as much for agriculture as the country storekeeper has done, he will have done well.

Mr. HANLON: He did not attack the country storekeeper.

Mr. DEACON: He did. Mr. HANLON: He attacked the people who

were intimidating the country storekeepers.

Mr. DEACON: The country storekeepers have done more for agriculture than the whole of the Department of Agriculture. They lend out more money now every year without any interest, through their busi­nesses, and without mortgages than the Agricultural Bank. '

Mr. COLLINS: You cannot prove that.

Mr. DEACON: I know that it is true, and every. member in this House who has any erpenence of the countrv knows that it is true; and such a statement as that from a Minister of the Crown only shows his ignorance of the facts.

I have here one of the election promises made by the Government last year-one of the things that were circulated in the North. On it is the heading, " A Guaranteed Price fo;· Maize." That was one of the promises of the Government. The fact is that the industry cannot be oarried on at a profit ev~n Without the 44-hour week at the present prwe of the crop. There is jljst this difficulty -and we must recognise it-that the mar~et has gone except in a drought. · ·

In this era of motor transport fwilities it is impossible to consume within the State all the maize that is produced or can be pr{)duced ; but in .a periC!d of drought, which Q_ueensland expenen'?es m cycles, there is ·'I b1g <,lemand for ma1ze consequent upon its scarcity, and naturally high prices must then p~evail. Du ring the drought period maize Wlll be reqmred far purpo13es of artificial feeding, and undoubtedly it should be stored in anticipation of such periods. No doubt a considerable quantity could be stored but the difficulty is in connection with the hand­!ing of such a tremendous quantity. Here lS where the Government could assist. The growers of Southern Queensland turned down a pr~posal for _a maize pool; but, even if a ma1ze pool w1th a controlling board were established to carry on for a period of four or five years in anticipation of a drought, the burden would be too heavy, the mai11 diffl-

1928-M

culty being to advance a reasona-ble price to the growers. I do not suggest that the Government should purchase the maize and store it, because we have a painful memory of the failures of the Government in conneo­tion with Rtate stations, Chillagoe, etc., but they could assist by advancing money without interest, or at a very low rate of interest, tu enable the scheme to be financed.

Mr. HANLON : Like the country store­lwepers?

J\!Ir. DEACON: The country ·storekeepers give credit, but they do not lend money. They do not charge any more than the Agricultural Bank, and the credit is given entirely on personal security. The maize problem is one of vital importance to Queens­land, particularly in view of the assistancE) such a scheme could be in times of drought; but what is the use of sforing the ma.ize, if there is no guarantee of some payment' to the growers? Even the Atherton Maize Pool Board could not store maize for three o,r four years. 'l'hey have each year's crop to handle, and must make room in the silos for the crops. If three or four sets of silos were constructed, it would create a burden that would be too big for the board to carry.

Mr. O'KEEFF.: \Vhv did the growers not establish a pool in the South?

Mr. DEACON: Because the bulk of the growers were opposed to it. It would be a, very different thing if the Government under­took to finance the scheme.

Mr. O'KEEFE: \Vould you support it?

Mr. DEACON: Of course I would. When the growers refuse to adopt the scheme, you must consider the effect of the lack of such a scheme on Queensland; and we know that the lack of a storage scheme will have a. very serious effect upon the growers of Queensland in the next few years. The Go­vernment can help. They should honour their promise of a guaranteed price for maize over a period of years. They won the elections-at least in North Queensland-on that promise; then why on earth do they not make an attempt to honour it? So far as I know, not one single member of the Government has yet said anything consistent with their policy in the past.

Mr. COLLWS: The Opposition have said a lot less. What would you do?

Mr. DEACON: There is no better man to gwe advice tha!l the ho.fl. member, if the Government required advice regarding their Jil(llicy. The hon. member is one vf those mew.bers of the party whose policy is not believed in at the present time.

The SPEAKER,: Ord~Jr ! Order !

Mr. DEACON: The whole of the policy of the hon. member is forgotten, therefore it i; time for him to get out. A better policy for the Government as a cure for unemploy­ment and fpr the general dep.\'ession existing in the State is to encourage those ijldustries that will flourish. It is no JJSe encouraging certp,in ma,nu{actures; but there are certain indqstries which, if ~Jncoqraged, cqujd employ & greater number of men th&n they are nqw doing, 11nd thus relieve the problem of 1.memployment. '!'hat is one way out of the c.hief difficl!lty of the State which ought to commenli itself tq the Government.

Mr. Deacon.]

162 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

'l'he SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS (Hon. J. Larcombe, Keppel): I have listened with interest to the progress of the debate on the Address in Reply and subse­quently to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, which is a motion of no confidence. In support of that amend­ment many arguments have been advanced, chief amongst which have been that produc­tion has decreased under Labour Government, that secondary industries have declined, that population has not increased in the same proportion as in o'ther States, and, generally, that Queensland has not progressed under a Labour Government. Fortunately there is statistical and documentary proof available to show howillogical, unsound, and absurd that contention is. One does not need to rely on generalities, for evidence is available in abundance to prove the illogical nature and unsoundness of the contention of the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters.

The underlying assumption of the criticism o+ the Government is that hon. members opposite would do better if they had the oppo·rtunity. In order to test that contention let me briefly review the control of Queens­land by the anti-Labour party before Labour came into power. What do we find? Stag­nation, industrial slavery, no policy, no vision, and no progress-only abject failure.

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS: Hear, hear ! Mr. KERR: Have YOU ever read the book

b:v Mr. Bernays? ·If not, you ought to read it.

[11.30 a.m.] The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS:

There is evidence available that there was absolute and tragic failure in the government of Queensland under an anti-Labour Adminis­tration.

Mention has been made this morning of the problem of unemployment. \Vhy, in .1914, the vear before Labour came into pov:er in this ·State, 17.7 per cent. of the unionists of Qaconsland were unemployed. Never under Labour control or administration has there been anything like that proportion of unemployed unionists in Queensland.

GovER'>fMENT MEMBERS : Hear, hear! The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: At

the present time under Labour control there is a lesser percentage of unemployed persons in Queensland than in the Tory-governed States of the Commonwealth.

Mr. MAXWEI.L: That is not true. The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS:

The figures prove that conclusively. Where iq the logic, where is the soundness, of the contention of hon. members opposite who make unemployment the chief ground for attack on the present Administration when we find that there were 10 per cent. more unionists registered ae unemployed under anti-Labour control than is the case to-day, and when we find that under Tory adminis­tration in other States there is a greater percentage of unemployment than in Queens­land under Labour rule. There was stagna­tion, retrogression, and great unemployment under anti-Labour control.

Let us take a bird's-eye view of the position in other States of the Commonwealth under anti-Labour control. In South Australia and in New South \Vales the people listened to the political sirens who led them into the deep sea of difficulty and on to the rocks of disaster. The people were told that, if

[Hon. J. Larcombe.

anti-Labour were put into power in South. Australia and New South \Vales, there would be no deficits, no extravagance, no increa,ed taxation, and no increased unemployment. All the~e glowing promises were held out to the people in the States I have mentionoo. But that. was a promise-a dream! What was the reality, and what was the awaken­ing? We find that in South Australia unprecedented taxation has beon imposed upon the people. The "Courier," the "Daily Mail," and other anti-Labour papers in Queensland have published information as to the appalling increase in taxation in South Australia under anti-Labour government. Not only has an increase in taxation taken place, but a poll-tax of £1 has been imposed on everv young man and every woman earning £100 per annum. Here in Queensland under· our Labour Government what do we find? There is an income exemption of £250. On the other hand, in South Australia, under Tory administration, the income tax exemp­tion has been reduced, a. poll-tax imposed, and, generally, a staggering taxation burden upon trade and industry imposed. That is what took place as the result of the defeat of Labour in South Australia; and we find the position is similar in New South \Vales, where, instead of the promised " no deficit " being fulfilled, a record deficit since federa­tion has been registered.

Mr. KELSO: Due to the Lang Government.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: After the Torv Government had been in power many months out of the twelve. There have been record extravagance, record unemployment, and a policy of borrowing that has probably never been equalled in the history of New South Wales. That is the tragic result that has followed Tory control and Tory administration in New South Wales,

Those two lessons a re pregnant with sugges­tion to the people of Queensland. The people of this Stat.f' must realise that the political sirens here are just as enticing, just as false, just as readv to lead the people of Queens­land on to the rocks of disaster as were the political sirens in New South \Vales and South Australia.

Mr. MAXWELL: We are on the rocks now.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: The underlying assumption of hon. members opposite that there would be an improYement under their control and administration is absolutely absurd-not supported by argu­ment, not supported by Tory history in Queensland, and not supported by Tory con­trol in South Australia and New South Wales.

Let me mention Victoria. The Tory Party there were so tragic, so disastrous, and so incompetent. that a section of the party defeated their own party, placed a Labour Government in power, and hrts kept it there, for O\'er twelYe months, where it still is. So appalling had Tory control been in Victoria that a section of their own party -particalar!y a section of the Country Party --revolt0d against Tory administration, returned Labour to power, is keeping it there to-day, and its work is infinitely superior to that of anti-Labour Governments in Vic­toria. That is another point of interest for the electors of Queensland.

I desire to discuss for a moment some of the big problems of State in Queensland. Labour admmistration has dealt with these

Add1'ess in Reply. (14 AUGUST.] Address in Reply. 163

problems in a sound. and businesslike-one might say statesmanhke-way.

First of all, take our land settlement policy. Take the Burnett scheme. Lately I had ~he opportunity of visiting the Monto distnet, and I found over 1,000 new settlers in that district· buildings gomg up, production increasi'ng, settlement. going on apace-all healthy signs of activity and pro!l'ress as a result of the land settlement policy of the Labour Government of this State.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICUL'fURE : There is a new cream factory being built.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: .Factories are being erected, and generally great progress is being shown. . There_ are over 1,000 new settlers with their families, which means a tremendous advantage to the State. 'rhis scheme was not thought. of by the opponents of Labour; it remained for the Labour Government to develop that great land settlement policy.

Then the great problem of wate:.: conserva­tion and irrigation was neglected m Queens­land until Labour came into power. In the Dawson Valley and Inkerman districts the Labour Government has developed two great schemes, and is developing the Daws~n scheme to-day. There are scores of settlers m the area already made available in the Dawson Valley. That great scheme of water oonservation and irrigation, when completed, will make available homes for thousands of settlers. That will mean an addition of thousands to the population of Queensland, increased wealth production, and develop­ment. That is another important scheme that the Labour Government has developed in Queensland.

In connection with general development, the Government has completed the North Coast Railway; it is just completing the line between Longreach and Winton, and is responsible for the arrangement of terms with the directors of the Mount Isa Company which will mean the expenditure of between £3 000,000 and £4,000,000 in the development of the Mount Isa mineral field-that mountain of wealth. These big lines of State develop­ment policy have been developed under a Labour Government in Queensland.

In regard to wealth production schemes, £4,000,000 have been advanced by the Government to the Agricultural Bank for assistance to the settlers of the State to enable them to develop thei•r holdings and increase production. A main roads policy has been inaugurated and developed by the Labour Administration of this State. Such a policy was never contemplated in Queensland until Labour assumed control.

We have also passed primary producers' organisation legislation. We have encouraged co-operation by the Primary Products Pools Act, the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act, and by a general agricultural develop­ment policy.

The cattle industl·y is vital to our produc­tion and settlement, and the Government, by means of the Land Acts (Review of Cattle Holding Rents) Amendment Act, has assisted the Crown tenants by remitting over £300,000 in rent under that Act. Gcnemlly speaking our cattle freights on the railways are the lowest in the Commonwealth, and under the Land .\cts Amendment. Act recently passed the Government made it possible for Crown tcmants to secur(' extensions of lease on certain terms, and,

therefore, gave them the necessary security to enable a,dvances to be obtained by the cattle-growers of this State.

Then, with rega,rd to· the sheep industry­another vital factor in our productiOn, our development and our welfare-under the Land Acts .4'mendment Act security of tenure was given to the sheep-grower. Provision was made for leases to be extended or new leases is~ucd; and the growers have been able to obtain advances that they were not previously able to secure as the result of that ve-ry fine piece of legisla•tion passed by the present Administration.

Living area, drought relief, and restocking provisions have been a feature of the Government's policy in relation to the sheep-grower. In regard to drought relief, millions of stock h<tve been saved by tho special concession railway rates which were allowed to the sheep-grower by the Govern­ment. RestDcking is a big problem, and Queensland will never beco'!'e norma_! and the State it should be until r0>tockmg IS completed. By granting a concession of 25 per cent. in restockinli rates the Gove_rn­ment has greatly assisted the rostockmg problem in Queensland.

Pricklv-pear eradication legislation is also an imp~rtant feature of the Government's work. Before Labour came into power no attempt was made to deal with this serious menace. In fact, the great pastoral. com­panies allowed the pear to spread without making any serious attempt. to check It, &nd the evil was fast becommg disastrou& to the State. The Labour Government came into power, passed the necessary legislation, appointed the Prickly-pear Lan_d Commission and that great problem IS

being effectively dealt with to-day. This great menace is being checked, _an4 the valuable lands of Queensland are bemg freed from that serious pest as the result of Labour legislation and administration.

Then in regard to population and immig~a­tion policy-very important lines of policy upon which the Labour Government has been often challenged-the Government has been successful in these very important lines of policy. Between 1915 and 1927 the annual increase in population in Queensland under Labour administration has been greater than in any other State of the Commonwealth. These figures have been supplied. 1?. m& recently by the Commonwealth StatistiCian; and they are certainly figures which take some explaining from the viewpoint of ~he Opposition, in view of the criticism. '!'hwh has been offered against Labour admimstra­tion.

The problems of constitutional reform, educa,tional reform, sociai and industrial pro­gress. have all been dealt with by the Labour Government in a way which has advanced Queensland to an unprecedented degree.

I have summarised some of the results which have followed Labour legislation and administration in Queensland as compared with anti-Labour control-first of all, record dairying production, record agricultural pro­duction, record seconda·ry industries produc­tion, record general wealth production.

1\Ir. H. M. RussELL: Where did you ge-t that from?

The SBCRF.TARY FOR RAILWAYS: I o-ot thP fi2:t1rcs from the State Statistician­from the Registrar-General-and I will give

Hon. J. Larcombe.]

164 Address in Eeply. [.1\SSEMBLY.] Address in Eeply.

them to the sceptical and satirical member for Toombul in a few moments. The summary I have made is based, not upon generalities­not upon vague indefiniteness-but upon the souncl concrete foundation of information secured from the State Statistici&n. The figures show further record bank assets, record bank deposits, record number of depositors, record bank investments, record favourable trade balance, record income, recorq population, record State development, reporq mat<>rial prosperity, and record social ami ind1;1strial progress. 'rhose are results which have <taken place in Queensland under Labour government as compared with &nti­Labollr administration, and in a few moments I will give hon. members opposite the figures they {Ire hungering for-they want to know 0!1 what evidence that claim is made.

Mr. MORG.\0:: Tell us something about the railways.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: Be.fore quoting figures I want to answer hon. members opposite from their own press. I want to answer their contention that Queens­land has !10t progressed under Labour govern­ment by reference to the anti-Labour press of this State. Out of their own political press they are •refuted and contradicted.

Th-e anti-Labour press admits the wonder­ful proo-ress that the State of Queensland has made under Labour administration. I am l'"oing to put into the witness-box a few anti-Labour writers of this State as a preliminary to giving the figures in proof of my contention that Queensland has pro·, gressed under Labour administration and legislation. Before doing so. let me quote a visitor from another country. I suppose that hon. members opposite recollect as well as I do the visit of Dr. Mott-that inter­n!)tional mission&ry who came back to Queensland after years of absence and said that Qaeensland had made unbelievable progress.

Mr. MAXWELL: That was said of Australia.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: I have his words here-

" Queensland has made unbelievable progress."

I am quoting now Dr. Matt's remarks made in March, 1926, when he was reported in the ·• Courier" to have said-

" Queensland has impressed me as hav­ing Jllade unbelievable progress since I first visited Australia."

He specified Queensland. Then take the ex-leader of the Federal

Nationalist Party in the person of the :j:tight Hon. W. M. Hughes during his last visit te Queensland. After coming back to Bris­bane from the North he said that he had seen a miracle of progress. That is how he de,cribed his impressions, and a more appro­priate description one could not think of to depict the wonderful improvement that has taken place in Queensland during the last ten years.

Now let me give a short excerpt from the Brisbane " Telegraph" of the 15th August, 1925. In reviewing the show results it said-

" People may look at this jubilee show as a mirror of the State and see rPflected there the pleasing and colourful picture of a smiling countryside of con· tented and prosperous people."

[Ban. J. Larcombe.

"A smiling countryside of contented and prosperous people" after ten years pf Labour al.lmh1istration ! 'r!Htt was the way the " Telegraph " sumr:ned up, not in a party po.litical article hqt in a show review.

Let me follow by quoting the " Telegrapl!" of August, 1926, in ordep tq show that the pFevious excerpt is not an isolated quotation-

" It is something of a habit to speak of each year's show as better than its predecessor, and it should be possible to say that with truth in a State which is relatively in its yo\lth ;me! has all the healthy signs of vigorous growth. Certainly the impression created by thu show on this occasioq is th11t t'here has been a progressive step in general expan­siol1 . . . There is the pure]] gratify­ing side of it to good Queens]anders that it indicates more telli!1glJ than statistics, more convincingly tha1;1 fine speeches, the growth that is ta\<:in!j place within the State."

In 1927, in reviewing the show, the " Tele­graph " said, inter alia-

" In the turmoil of party strife, of industrial squabbling, and in moments of privation such as are caused by the national visitations of drought and flood, ope is apt to overlook the fact th,..t this is a huge State full of varied resqurces, many of them as yet unexploited, il coun­try capable of settling 50,000,000 people according to Labour's modest compl.lta­tion, and boasting records of production and trade astonishing for so small and scattered a population."

That was the judgment of the " Telegraph " in 1927-that for a population so small and so scattered the records of trade and pro­duction were &stonishing. Whom are we to believe-the " Telegraph " or hon. members opposite? Surely we ca!1 believe the " Tele­graph "-an anti-Labour p&per-and say that th.e results have been astonishing to & deg:pee ! Now let m(l quote the "Telegraph " of J.928 h its review of the show. Inter &lia it Sfl,id-

" It enables Queensland to proclaim from the housetops the extent of its opportunities to the enterprising, and the high degree of attainment already reacheq."

" The high degree of attainment already reached "~after thirteen years of Labour legislation and control!

Mr. MoRGI\N: All your party's actions benefit Brisbane, and not the country at all.

Th.fl SECRE:TARY FOR RAILWAYS: As thf3 " 'relegraph " states, the shows are the minors of the State, and are not merely metropolitfln in character. One need only look 11t the recent show to see what a power­ful, simple, yet convincing vindication it is of Labour legislation and control. The great crowd was well dressed, prosperous. and con­tented, and there were record exhibits, record quality, every indication of unprecedented progress! All a result of thirteen ye11rs of Labour legislation and control!

Let me remind hon. members opposite that that commendation. that wonderful endorsement of Queensland's progress, is not confined to the" Telegraph." The "Courier" of 31st July last referred to the rosy prospects, the pinnacle of enterprise, the

Address in Reply. [14 AtmtrsT.] Address in Reply. 165

bigger, better; brighter show, and the uninter­rupted progress. Whom are we tb believe -holi. illetnbers opposite, ol: thll " Courier " and the " Telegraph "? The artti-Labbur papers in their show reviews point out that Queensland has made unexampled progress, supporting the claim that I have made, which hon. members opposite were inclined to doubt.

The " Daily Mail " of 8th August, 1928, said-

. . . And to all comes a renewal of confidence in Queensland and the particula,r claim he has staked in its fortune from actual sight of the amazing range of its resources. The show is again the 'best ever.' We have become accustomed to the claim, but every year it has been sountily based. In the show is reflected the progress of the State. "

The " Daily Mail " says that the progress of the State is reflected in the show, and that this claim is soundly baMd. Whom a'nl we to believe-hen. members opposite, or the "Courier," th\l "Tele­graph," and the "Daily Mail"? We have had many commendations of our policy and of our work. We have had manv tributes to th\l progress of the State under 'Labour con­trol; but n~ver have I come across so mally ptlwefful, eloquent, and convincing references as to the prog,ress of the State under Labolir administration than the remarks I have quoted from the various writers associated with the .anti-Labour Party in Queensland not associated at all with the Labour Government.

Hon. members opposite have claimed that under Labour government wealth produc­tiOn has decreased in this State· but that statement is not in accordance 'with fact. Hon. members opposite have merely selected on_e ye":r under Labour control-a year to smt the1r case-and made a comparison with another year during which one of the worst droughts raged throughout the State and bv that specious argument endeavour 'to show that wealth production has decreased in Queensland. But if one takes a full survey and a proper viewpoint, makino- a com­parison of twelve years of L,;:bour go­vernment with a corresponding period under anti-Labour government-a sound test-a different aspect, a different view­point, and a different result are pre­'ented on problems of production in the Stat:. In all States, at times, wealth pro­ductwn decrea,es. For the vear 1925-26 there w~.s ,a reductio_n of £23,0_oO;ooo as compared W!l·h the previOus year m the wealth pro­duction of the Commonwealth. 'Temporary fluctuations, influenced by bad seasons and other factors, do take place ; but Queensland I'T'\l'Y1Ylfll•Do UOl"n .fn.,r-r-n'l~·a hl...,. "<=~+'h +-1-.,.... ..-..+-h...,....,. -.~~~~1:'.~~ ~..... '~~,} .... ~' .._,...,__., '-""-"'-",} •• ~I./H. J.,,UG \..1\J.L.LV.L

States of the Commonwealth over a. reason­able period. Figures up to 30th June 1927 -the latest available-show the yearlv average value of production per head o'f population over a period of three years-

£ .•. d. Victoria 58 0 8 Queensland 7\l 19 8 South Australia 73 1 8 New South Wales 69 9 8*

·• Three years ended June, 1926.

The figures for the States, other than Queens­land, were ealculated by the Registrar-

General from the reports of the various State statisticians.

If we take a period of six years, we find a substantial increase in wealth production in Queensland under Labour government as compared with anti-Labour government.

But before making that comparison I desirll to refer to the history of Queensland between 1900 and 1903. Du:ring that time of drought wealth production in Queensland decreased. In fact, there were decreases in land settlement, butter production, cheese production, area under crops, and, gene­rally speaking, enormous deficits, poll-tax, great unemployment, and drastic retrench­ment of public servants. All this took place under an anti-Labour Government. Let me refer to the decreases that took place between 1900 and 1903--

TOTAt AREA OF LAND SELECTED.

1900 1903

1901 1902

1901 1902

1901 1902

Decrease

Acres. 3,063,113 1,061,528

2,001,585

OTHER DECREASES.

Butter Prod·uction. Lb.

9,741,882 4,851,362

Decrease 4,890,520 Cheese Production.

Lb. 2,436,912

952,013

Decrease 1,484,899 rlrea under Crops.

Decrease

Acres. 483,460 275,383

208,077 It is not necessary to pile up examples

to s,how that under anti-Labour govern­ment during that period of drought there were decreased production, decreased settle­ment, and drastic retrenchment of public servants.

The value of wealth productiotl in Queens­land for the six years ending 1926-27 under a. .Labour Government was £346,665,000, while for the corresponding period under anti­Labour govemment it was £185,445,000, or an increase of £161,220,000 under Labour government. Those are facts. The Opposi­tion, like Mr. Gradgrind, are always say­ing, " \Vha t I want is facts." vV ell, here are indisputable facts.

Mr. FRY: That is value only. What abouli volume?

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: 1 anticipated that intetjection, and I will give the hon. member the volume, but just here let me mention that there was an increase in value of £161,220,000 for the last six years of Labour government as compared with the last six years of anti-Labour govern­ment. Those are facts. There is positive proof that, instead of wealth production declining, there has been an enormous increase under Labour government.

Let tne give a further comparison which shows the wonderful results that have been accomplished under Labour government. 1'he following table shows the aggregate

Hon. J. Larcombe.]

166 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

wealth 1926-27

production for the years 1915 to under Labour government:-

£ Agriculture 110,556,237 Dairy, poultry, and bee

farming Pastoral Mineral Manufacturing

69,261,164 217,617,092 33,252.808

149,604,131 Forestry, ,fisheries, and

miscellaneous 28,607,564

£608,898,996

Yet hon. members opposite talk about the decline in wealth production l There are unexampled figures-magnificent figures, showing that under Labour government for the past thirteen years £608,000,000 of wealth has been produced in Queensland. Yet hon, members opposite said in 1914 that if Labour were returned to power, chaos, disaster, and other dire results would happen to Queens­land, and that she would present in appear­ance a deserted State, The magnificent results, unexampled progress, unexampled wealth production, have never been equalled iu the history of Queensland !

The hon. member for Kurilpa said, " What about volume?" That is a pertinent inter­jection, a.nd in that connection let me refer to actual production. The figures following are the yearly average for the four years ended December, 1927, being-

Sugar-cane (tons) 3,330,271

Butter ... Cheese ... *Wool (greasy) Cotton (unginned) Peanuts * Beef and mutton

Lb. 59,847,389 11,514,177

135,898,732 13,017,076 2,469,191

(meatworks produc-tion only) .. . 216,016,385

* Meat and mutton (home consumption) 198,178,945

*Yearly average for three years to June, 1927.

That is the a.ctual production, and, although there is no basis of comparison there, I intend to give that basis later. Those figures show the substantial production in Queens-

land in the last four years, not­[12 noon] withstanding the effect of drought

and the effect of the depression through which we have passed, anci from which we have not yet fully emerged. Unfortunately the droug-ht is still very severe in parts of the West. Mr. W. H. Rudd the manager for Messrs. Waiter Reid and Com­pany, of Rockhampton, stated recently that it ta.kes ten years to recover fully from the effects of a drought similar to the one from which we are now emerging. There has not been a full restocking. It takes money before there is a full restocking; yet there is the wonderful figure of production for the period mentioned.

Th" tonnage of goods a.nd livestock carried on the railways is a fair indication of the volume of production. Comparing the period 1902-15 with the period 1915-28, we find the following figures :-

1902-3 to 1914-15 1915-16 to 1927-28

Tons. 36,991,000 55,057,000

an increase of 18,066,000 tons under a. Labour Government. There is volume--not value­giving substantia.! proof of progroos under a

[Hon. J. Larcombe.

Labour Government and positive refutation of the statements of the Lea.der of the Oppo· sition and his colleagues that production has declined under Labour control.

I have a further table dealing with the volume of production. Comparing the period 1915-26 with the period 1903-14, taking the aggregate production in those two periods, the increases were-

Butter .. . Cheese .. . Cotton (unginned) Wool (greasy)

Wheat

Lb. 226,591,730

75,164,757 61,751,281 56,437,655-* Bushels. 1,378,225 Tons.

Sugar cane 8,041,122 * 1915-1925-26 over 1904-14.

We find these astonishing increases-not by taking one year or selecting an isolated instance, but by taking the volume of pro· duetion for the full period of Labour rule up to the end of 1926, the latest figure, avail­able, and comparing the result with the cor­responding period under anti-Labour control.

Mr. MAXWELL: ¥Thy, then, the present financial stagnation?

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: There is no financial stagnation. If time permits, I will <JUOte from the remarks of the financial writer to the " Telegraph" con­cerning banking returns, to show hon. mem­bers opposite that the statement just made i; a libel, and untrue.

Mr. KELSO: Wha.t about the Savings Bank figures?

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: I will give the hon. member the Savings Bank returns, which show an increase in deposits of £10,000,000 in the last year of the Labour Government as compared with the corres­ponding year of the anti-Labour Govern­ment. At the proper time I shall give the hon. member the Savings Bank figures, the general banking figures, and the opinions of fina.ncial writers in the " Telegraph " and other newspapers giving the actual Stock Exchange returns, and showing that the chairman of the Stook Exchange said that there was a. pleasing change, and that the investors of Queensland, instead of going in for stock securities, were returning to industrial investments. How can there be stagnation? How can there be retrogression under Labour control when industrial invest­ments are being sought?

The most exacting critic can be satisfied by an investigation of the figu•res I have given in regard to wealth production and progress. There is not a scintilla of truth or proof that progress and production have been retarded under Labour Government. On the contrary, there is absolute proof 'that there have been unexampled wealth produc­tion and progress under Labour control.

Mr. MORGAN: Yet every busineos man in Brisbane is complaining about the shortage of money.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: If time permits, I will give the hon. member, who represents an agricultural constituency, the views of the editor of the " Producers' Review," who says that the greatest enemies to this State are the growlers, traducers, de­famers, and wailers. Hon. members opposite l!!re always defaming the State, and can see

Address in Reply. [14 AUGUST.] Address in,.,Reply. 167

no progress. When Mr. Urquhart, the chair­man of directors of the Mount Isa Company, came to Queensland, he said, " I feel certain that the propaganda that I have heard and the gloomy predictions about the industrial conditions will not be fulfilled." He went away s.ati,fied that the propaganda he heard was insidious. It was dangerous ; it was poisonous; and it was damaging to the State. Hon. members opposite, by their propaganda, almost droye away from this State the man who represented a company which had mil­lions at its command, and which was pre­pared to spend millions in Queensland. It was only after meeting industrial leaders and members of the Cabinet that Mr. Urquhart and his eo-directors decided that they would invest millions of capital in the Mount Isa field.

The poisonous and insidious propaganda carried out against Queensland by hon. mem­bers opposite is done in the hope of securing some party political advantage. They may do so, but they arc damaging the State; they are damaging their supporters ; and they a•re damaging the Commonwealth.

Let me follow the argument I have been developing by showing the progress in ·secondary induetries. I want to deal with that important phase in our industrial life. Great progress has been made in Queensland in secondary industries, despite the calamity­howling of hon. members opposite.

Mr. MORGAK: You know that is not true.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS : I say it is correct; I will give the hon. member the proof. Hon. members opposite pick out ono year. like the Leader of the Opposition, "ho picked out the best year in the history of Quecnsland-1924-25-and compared it with 1926-27, when the State was suffering from the effects of industrial depression and drought. Why did he not pick out 1922-23 for comparison?

To show the weakness of the contentions of hon. members opposite, I will compare 1922-23, 1924-25, and 1926-27; but, before doing so. let me remind the hon. member for Murilla that, according to the statistics, the number of factories in Queensland in 1913 was 1.838, and in 1914 1, 796, or a decrease of 42. I am not going to say that that meant .a decline in the output or in the prosperity of secondary industries. \Vhen hon. members opposite are talking about numbers they want to talk with some judgment, circumspection. and care, because number is not the only factor.

J\ir. TAYLOR: You are using numbers your­self.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: And using them curefullv and soundlv.

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS ,- Hear, hear l The SECRET.ARY FOR RAILWAYS: I am speaking of secondary industries. Hon. memLers opposite compare the number of factories in Queensland in 1926-27 with pre­vious years without any regard to the circumstances.

In early days a blacksmith was defined as a manufacturer. The definition has been changed, and that affects the position.

In the " Production Bulletin " issued by the Commonwealth Statistician the follow-ing definition appears:- '

"FACTORY.

" For the purpose of these returm a ' factory' is an industrial establish-

ment in which four or more hands are employed, or in which power other than hand is used."

Mr. TAYLOR: That applies to every State. T'he SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS:

Yes; I am speaking_ of Queensland now. as compared with prevwus years. Accordmg to the statistics, the number of factories ia Queensland was as follows in the years mentioned:-

1901 ... 2,110 1914 1,796

showing a decrease of 314 in the last year of anti-Labour administration. Will hon. members opposite say that they represent a decline in secondary industry production?

Mr. MORGAN: Did not federation have something to do with that?

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: There was a decline of forty-two factories between 1913 and 1914. Did that connote a decrease in production and output? Did the decline of 314 faotories between 1901 and 1914 show a decline in output? It did not, and I want to be fair to hon. members opposite. I could use the figures in the same sense that they do, and say that that decli1_1e of 314 factories in the vears I have mentiOned showed there had been a decrease in produc­tion during those years, but, . as . I ha ye already said, there was an alteratiOn m desig­nation which partly affected the figures.

Let me mention further the important aspect of size .and capacity as compared w~th numbers. I might mention the sugar-mills in the ~ackay district was an argument advanced with excellent force by uhe Secre­tary for Agriculture. the hon. member for Mackay. He mentioned that there had been a substantial increase in production, although a decrease had taken place in the number of mills in the Mackay district. He has supplied me with the figures, which show that in 1896 there were twenty-two sugar mills in the Mackay district and in 1927 only seven, or a reduction of fifteen.

T.hose figures are alarming in themselves; but take them in conjunction with the acres of cane crushed, which in 1896 were 15,566 and in 1927 46,582. '

There was a substantial increase in the tonnage of sugar produced. In 1896 it was 22 839 tons and in 1927 it was 101,328, an in~rease of' 78,489 tons-a substantial increase in the cane produced and crushed, although there was a reduction of fifteen mills. Hon. members opposite should be careful not to draw unwarranted inferences from figures.

Further the size of factories is an import­ant facto~. Hon. members opposite have given the number of factories generally.

Let me give .a comparison of the factoriee in the different States employing 100 persons and ovcr:--F ACTORIES E~TPLOYING OVER 100 PERSONS PER

10.000 OF POPULATION-YEAR 1925-26. · No. New South Wales 1.186 Victoria 1.467 qu0ensland 1.266 South Australia 0.882 Western Australia 0.887 Tasmania 0.599

'rhose figures show factories of a certain size, and in that comparison Queensland compares favourably with the other States. In fact, there is only one which has a better propor­tion.

Hon. J. Larcombe.]

168 Addr~ in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

The factm- of population IS also an i!nportant one. Hon. members opposite do not make comparisons with WBstern Aus­tralia or South Australia, but with Victoria and New South Wales. That argument is hardly fair, because we know that New South Wales has far more pMple than Queensland-that there are more people in Sydney than in the whole of this State. As the population of Queensland increases, so will her industries.

Let me mention now, however, what the relative figures were in 1914. If there has not been the relative progress in Queensland that there should have been, it has not been the faul& of the present Administration.

An OPPOSITION MEMBER: Now you are talking.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: Now. I am talking, and I will give hon. membere the figures. I am mentioning your argument.

Mr. MAX\VELL: You do hot know who is responsible.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: Hon. membei's claim that there has not been relative progress as compared with NBw South Wales and Victoria. If that is so whose fault is it? In 1914 the number of fac: torie.s in each State was-

New South Wales Victoria Queensland

5,268 5,650 1,796

So that in 1914 New South Wales had 3,472 more than Queensland, and Victoria 3,854 more than Queensland. so that, if the present position in Queensland is not as satisfactorv as it should be. the cause is not to be found in Labour government, but in the fact that the relative position in 1914, when this Government came into power, was unsatis­factory. That argument is based on the assumption that hon. members opposite are correct. and that tho relative increase is unsatisfadory.

Let me p1·oceed now to deal with the ques­tion of capital invested in manufacturing and quDte the following table:- '

CAPITAL INVESl'ED IN MANC'FACTURING INDUS­TRIES, LAND, BuiLDINGS, PLANT, AND MACHINERY.

1914 1926-27

Increase

£ 11,333,000 24,689,000

£13,356,000

Mr. THLOR: Don't forget that the pound of 1914 would be worth only about twelve shillings to-day.

The SECRET},RY FOR RAILWAYS: \Vhy do hon. members opposite not make that qualification when they are dealing with rail­way and ether governmental expenditure? When they are doing so they will not a.dmit any such <]Ua!ification. But even admitting the hon. member's statement, those figures do not show that there is any decline. There has been an increase of considerablv more than 100 per cent. in the money invested under those heads in the manufacturing industries 1\S compared with 1914.

Mr. KBLSO: You might deal with the employees.

[Hon. J. Larcombe.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: Yes, I have the figures; but first let me com­pare the capital invested in manufacturing in three of the States:--

CAPITAL INVESTED IN MANUFACTURING Irmus­TRlES, LAN:p, BuiLDINGS, PLANT, AND MACHINERY, 1926-27.

Queensland ... South Australia Western Australia

24,689,000 16,949,000 10,132,00@

I now come to the question of employees, following the question of the hon. member for Nundah. In 1914 the number of em­ployees was 43,282, and in 1926-27 it :was 48,133, whilst between 1923 and 1926-27 there was a jump from 44,948 to 48,133; so that there has been a substantial increase in the number of employees, too, under Labour govBtnment.

How can it be reasonably contended that t.here has been a decline in secondary indus­tries when facts and figures prove the oppo­site? The evidence is so patent and so overwhelming that I desire to have it placed in the columns of "Hansard."

Mr. H. M. RussELL: Most of those secondary industries are not secondary industries.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: The hon. member is quite wrong. There has been greater progress in primary and secondary industries under Labour govern­ment in this State than under anti-Labour control. ·without mentioning the figures, the total value of output per employee for the year 1925-26 was greater in Queensland than in any other State of the Common­wealth with the one exception of New South Wales. That is conclusive evidence that the employees are giving service, and that the output per employee was satis­factory.

Much comment has been made of late about boot factories. These figures show the volume and value of output of boots and shoes--

Aggregate Annual Total Value of Output. Output. Total

Output.

Pairs. Pairs. £ 1903-1914 725,088 8,701,000 2,615,000 1915-1926-7 757,613 9,091,000 5,502,000

Allowing for depreciation in the purchasing power of money, there is a very heavy increase in value and a big increase in volume.

An OPPOSITION MEMBER interjected.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: First of all, hon. members opposite say there is no increase in population, and then claim that, if there is an increase in population, it accounts for the improvement in secondary industries. \'i'hat. a contra­diction of argument ! What illogical reason­ing ! First of all, they say that there Is no increase in second an:- industries; and, when it is proved that there is an· increase, they sav "Oh ves but it is due to the increase in"' population'." If the population has increased, and production has increased under a Labour Government, how is the State suffering?

Mr. KELSO : Quote the figures per capita.

Address in Reply. [14 AUGUST.] Address in Reply. 169

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: The hon. member would not listen when' I quoted per capita figures in relation to wealth production. I shall quote from the anti­Labour press to buttress my remarks that the contention of hon. members opposite is unsound. These ilJre ·articles written as trade reviews, and not for party political purposes. In 1925, the " Daily Mail " wrote-

"Although Queensland is not primarily a manufacturing State, secondary indus­tries are making steady progress and more and more goods than once were imported are now being made locally. Since 1913, the value ef manufactures has increased by £15,178,814, the total output in 1923 being valued at £38,867,603."

Since that article was written there has been a substantial increase in the value of output. In that trade review the " Daily Mail " admitted that substantial progress in secondary industries had been made. The "Brisbane Courier," 31st July, 1928, in a review of the show, said-

" The visitors from the country will see some of the achievements of the secondary industries, and the amazing results that have been accomnlished by science and industry in the manufacture and utilisation of by-products that a few years ago were wasted."

First of all, the Opposition contend that there is no progress, and, when they are cornered logically. they say there has been progress, but it has been in spite of the Labour Government. They cannot have it both ways.

Mr. KELSO: What did " Searchlight" say about you?

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: If time permits, I will tell the hon. member for Nundah what the " Producers' Review " and the " Brisbane Courier " say of the Opposition.

Mr. MAXWELL: And I will tell you what. ·' Searchlight" thinks of you.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS : The comments of the " Brisbane Courier " and " Producers' Review " intimate to the Opposition and the people of Queensland what those influential journals think of the Opposition.

The SPEAKER: Ord'Cr! The hon. member h11s exhausted the time allowed him under th'e Standing Orders.

Mr. BARBER (Bundaberg): I move bhat the Secretary for Railways be granted an extension of time to enable him to complete his speech.

The SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of hon. members that the Secretary for Railways bA granted an extension of time in order to complete his speech?

HONOURABLE MEMBERS : Hear, hear !

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: 1 thank hon. members for their courtesy.

The " Brisbane Courier " pointed out that the achievements of the secpndary industries were amazing. Therefore, we find the anti­Labour jJtess supporting my contention of the progress of secondary industries m Queensland under a Labour Government.

Mr. TAYLOR: The "Brisbane Courier" was not referring solely to Queensland exhibits. There were secondary industry exhibits at

the show 'from other States. That article does not refer to Queensland industries.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: It does. The text of that article and the articles in the " Daily Mail " refer to Queensland industries. The "Daily Mail" actually gave figures showing the amount of production and limited their figures to Queensland.

Now as to the value of the output. I have spoken of the method adoJ?ted by the Leader of the Opposition in takmg the best year under a Labour Government and compar­ing it with a year of disastrous drought under the same Government. This drought effect was reflected in the secondary industries as well as the whole of the industries of Queens­land. If the Leader of the Opposition had compared the figures for 1926-27 with the figures for 1922-23, he would have found an increase of £3,503,666. If he had taken the year 1926-27 and compared it with the year 1923-24, he would have found an increase of £2,460,164; and, further, if he ha·d taken the year 1924-25-which was our best year­and compared the production figures for 1922-23, he would have found they disclosed all increase of £11,318,335. Before Queens­land was overtaken by the disastrous drought which is at present affecthg it, there was a great increase in our secondary industry pro­duction. Between 1922-23 and 1924-25 there was an increase of £11,318,335. The follow­ing table shows the increase that took place in the States mentioned between 1922-23 and 1924-25:-

Queensland Victoria South Australia, Western Australia

£ 11,318,33E· 6,891,055 5,240.218 2,607,231

\Ve find, therefore, that in Queensland under a Labour Government there was a. substan­tially greater increase of output as compared with the other States that I have mentioned, and, with the exception of New South Wales, Queensland was predominalrt. Queens­land's increase in output was £4,427,000 mol·e than that of Victoria, almost double that of South Australia, and more than four times that of Western Australia. According to these figures, Queensland not only compares Well with previous years, but S'he compares well with other States for the period men­tioned.

Coming now to the question of the value of output for a period of five years, for the last five yBars ended 1914 the "alue was £99,417,121, and for the last five years of . . ~abour gevernment £213,062,575, [12.30 p.m.] showing an increase in the value

of output of £113,645,454. Yet hou. members opposite have the effronte•ry and the audacity, if I may put it that way, to talk a bout the decline in secondary pro­duction in Queensland, when in fact there has been an enormous increase in the value of output during the last five years of Labour government.

Let mB go a little further. A comparison of a twelve-year period shows that secondary industry produdion was £165.946,238 in the period ltl03-14, and £438.819.695 in the period 1915-1926-27, or an increase in value of £212,873,4li7 under Labour government.

Mr. KING: That is the value.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: The hon. ruetnber who has just interjected was not pt·esent 'vhen , I mentioned the

Hon. J. Larcombe.]

170 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

volume. How can hon. members opposite, in view of their criticism, explain away the fact that there was an increase in value on the output of £272,873,000 under a Labour Government over a twelve-year period.? That represents an increase not only in value but also in volume. The figures are astonishing to a degree; yet hon. members opposite will assert that there has been a decline in secondary production.

Mr. KELSO: They do not prove anything.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: They prove that Queensland is not suffering from a decline in production, either secondary or primary, but that it is suffering from the croakers and the defamers who are continually defaming the State. That is one of the greatest handicaps that Queensland has to encounter.

Let me deal for a moment with the alleged handicap of taxation. The cry of taxation is world-wide. Taxation, of course, is irksome, but it is inevitable; we cannot escape it. Taxation has to be imposed in all parts of the world. Recently I read "The Confessions of a Capitalist," by Sir E. P. Benn, and, dealing with English industry, the writer said this-

" Perhaps the gravest aspect of our present taxation is the frightful dis­couragement which high rates and oppressive regulations offer to new enterprises. It is not too much to say that they must, from their nature, kill initiative, and damp down at their source much new development which would be very helpful to us as a nation.''

There we find Sir E. P. Benn using the same e1rgument and advancing the same con­tention as hon. members opposite-that taxa­tion is restricting industry under Tory government. Notwithstanding our taxation, unemployment is less, and the cost of living i-1 Queensland is lower, than in any other State of the Commonwealth. Surely, if the wages here are on the average the best in the Commonwealth, if hours of labour are shorter and unemployment is less, secondary iPdustry cannot be suffering from taxation!

Mr. KELSO : The incidence of taxation is too high.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: That argument may apply to any State in Australia, and in fact to the whole world. But there is this to be said for Queensland­that, so long as a worker, with a wife and three dependent children, has an income not exceeding £440 per annum, he does not pay a,ny income tax on personal exertion.

Mr. KELSO: You know that is not the only factor.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: I do know that in 1914 the income tax exemption was lower than it is to-day. At that time the worker was not allowed any deduction from his taxable income in respect of his wife or dependent children. On the other hand, this Government allows exemptions in that connection, and the result is that the area of exempt income has been w}dened. That fact must be borne in mind ~when considering taxation on the higher Incomes.

Again, Queensland manufacturers are able to enter successfull.v into competition with the other States of the Commonwealth, and

[Hon. J. Larcombe.

even with other parts of the world. Just recently, as Secretary for Railways, I brought before the Cabinet tenders for loco­motives, and the tender of Walkers Limited, Maryborough, was only 7.77 per cent. higher than the English tender, showing that, even with the allegedly irksome conditions, Queensland firms are able to tender and secure contracts, notwithstanding indus-trial conditions and taxation. Other firms, such as Evans, Deakin, and Company and Shillito and Company, were able to secure contracts for wagons. The industrial conditions and the taxation did not prevent these firms obtaining con­tracts in competition with firms in other States of the Commonwealth. These allegedly irksome conditions did not prevent the Bowen Salt Company from investing many thousands of pounds in this industry at Bowen. They did not prevent Hoskins Limited building up a business in Queensland under a Labour Government. They did not prevent the Henry Ford Company starting an industry in Queensland. That company, with an enormous capital, and possessing the keenest brains and the keeneet orga­nisation, looked for favourablE> conditions; came to Queensland and established an industry at a cost of about £250,000. If hon. members opposite were correct in their c:ontention, this capital would not come to Queensland as it is doing in enormous sums. The Mount Isa Company would not have committed itself to between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 in Queensland unless the keenest brains in the world-which they have -were satisfied that a reasonable return could be secured on their investment. Mr. Urquhart, in dealing with this question of conditions, speaking at Townsville, said-

" He ""as satisfied as far as Mount Isa was concerned the money would be well spent, and he expected a profitable investment. He was satisfied, given modern machinery and appliances, great development could and would be made in Australian mining. He felt certain that Australian labour can be obtained as cheaply as any in the world."

He is satisfied that his company can secure a profitable investment with these important qgalifications-modern machinery and up-to­date appliances. These qualifications are very important. It is no good hon. members opposite blaming the Labour Government for what is frequently the result of obsolete machinery, obsolete plant, and unsatisfac­tory conditions on the part of those con­trolling industry.

Some of the real reasons for the handicap on industry have not been mentioned by hon. members opposite. One is the high rate of interest that the prospective manufacturer has to pay. Very frequently that is a crippling handicap. High rents are another very important factor. Then we have the high price of material, and the high price of machinery, plant, and equipment. Hon. members opposite are as silent as can be upon the charge that is made for machinery, plant, and equipment, and the rate of interest. All these very important aspects in connection with secondary industry are conveniently overlooked by those hon. members.

I have mentioned the unfair propaganda of hon. members opposite. I shall quote the report of what Mr. Urquhart said concerning his impressions of Queensland after coming

Address in Reply. [14 AUGUST.] Address in Reply. 171

here and being among the people of the !State-

" He did not expect that all the pessi­mistic talk he h'•d heard would prove to be true He was told that he would be having trouble all the time; but he 1vas perfectly certain that, with a little understanding, they ought to have no difficulty in getting along together."

That remark was reported in the " Courier" of 5th February, J 923, and it indicates that one of the greatest difficulties that the State has to encounter is the propa­ganda of hon. members opposite-the appal­ling suggestion that taxation is too high. Hon. members oppos.ite are constantly howl­ing about taxation-about allegedly oppres­sive conditions-and are going about creating a::J. atmosphere of gloom. All the prospective investcr has to do is to meet a member of the Opposition, and he will imme­diately return South. (Opposition interj ec­tjpns.)

The SPJi:AKER: Order! I would ask hon. members on m.v loft to desist from interject­ing, and allow the Minister to proceed.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: I want to quote briefly from the " Producers' Review" in proof of my contention that the propaganda of hon. members opposite is poisonous, insidious, and disastrous.

Mr. MoonE: Why not quote " The Railway Advocate"·?

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: 'The '' ]0 roducers' Review" of lOth August, 1925, made the following remarks, which are -as true to-day as they were then :-

" The handicap is not the Labour Government. The worst enemy to the State is the man who is constantly bewail­ing his position, constantly telling people in other States that Queensland is a land of terrible taxation, constantly complain­ing against legislation that protects the peopl,e from spoilation, and constantly prarsmg the VIrtues of some· other place of which he knm,-s nothing. It is an ill bird that fouls its own nest but that is what a big number of Quee~sland people spend a lot of their time in doing. Against their wailings let us put the honest advice of the Brisbane business man : ' Look here, you tell your readers that Queensland stands out on her own. In comparison with other States she is 100 per cent. good.' "

·That is the comment of the " Producers' Review," w~ic~ has been followed up year by :year wrih srn:~lar comments; but this year rt has been lmked more closely with the Opposition. The " Producers' Review" savs that one of tho greatest ham!icaps the State has got is the Opposition and their dangerous and insidious propaganda.

I want to deal with the question of Savings Bank returns, to give the hon. member for ~u_ndah s.ome. satisfaction in response to his msrstent mqmry. Students of banking and

'finance and government can ascertain from om· banking returns the relative position of ·the State and its relative material pros­perity. In 1914 the hon. member for \Vynnum in one of his Financial Statements pointed out that no truer index of general prosperity can be found than that disclosed by the bank returns. I will take that test­·that barometer of material prosperity. The

number of depositors in Queensland in the yea,rs mentioned below was-

NUMBER OF DEPOSITORS IN QUEENSLAND.

1913-14 ... 229,023 1926-27 438,282

or an increase in the latter year of 209,259. Then as to the

NUMBER OF DEPOSITS. £

1914 11,972,965 1926-27 22,452,749

or an increase of £10,479,784 under Labour government. Then take the

AGGREGATE DEPOSITS. £

1903-04 to 1914-15 76,534,120 1915-16 to 1926-27 225,092,068

an mm·ease of £148,557,948 under Labour government ! Here is the test of banking­an enormous increase of £148,557,948 between 1915-16 and 1926-27, as compared with the corresponding period under anti-Labour government.

These are facts, and, as Burns says-" But facts are chiels that winna ding,

And downa be disputed." There is no disputing the force and the logic of the figures and facts which I have quoted.

The hon. member for Nundah wanted to know about the per capita relationships. If he goes back to 1914 he will find that the relationship was approximately the same, but that Queensland stands out with the greatest amount per depositor in the Commonwealth.

Now let me deal for a moment with the private banks. The hon. member for Nundah questioned my remarks when I said that the " Telegraph" and other anti­Labour papers asserted that there was no economic unsoundness or financial unsound­ness in Queensland. I find that the " Tele­graph," on 30th April, 1927, published this statement-

" A QuEENSLAND S-cnvEY. "BANKING JOURNAL'S COMMENT.

"No sign of unsoundness. " In the monthly summary of Austra­

lian conditions issued by the National Bank of Australasia, Limited, the follow­ing references are made to Queensland :-

A special reference is necessary to bring Queensland into the survey. 'rhis great State has suffered an extreme drought over much ot its best sheep and cattle carrying country dur­ing the past year. . . . This State has in the past made a

rapid recovery from drought losses, but it is probable that the decrease in wool production, from which a large propor­tion of its income is usually derived, will lead to some trade depression and affect the revenues of the State Govern­ment for a while. There is no sign of unsoundness either in the commercial or financial position."

In the judgment of the writer who contri­buted that article, there was no sign of unsoundness, commercially or financially; there was no indication of decay.

Passing on to the question of population for a few moments, I want to emphasise the fact that Queensland stands best of all the

Hon. J. Larcombe.]

172 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

States in the Commonwealth, which is a very high tribute to the legislation and adminis­tration of the Government, because, if there were any unsoundness in the commercial or financial position, it would be reflected in population, and. Queensland would not have the best record m the Commonwealth.

Between 19l.5 and 1927 the rate of annual increase was higher in Queensland than in any other State of the Commomvcalth, as the following table shows:-

ANNUAL RATE OF INCREASE IN POPULATION, 1ST JULY, 1915, TO 30TH JUNE, 1927.

Per cent. New South Wales 1.91 Victoria 1.57 Queensland .. . 2.11 South Australia 2.10 Western Australia .. . 1.52 'I'asmania 0.53

Between 1914 and 1927 the population of Queensland increased by approximately 220,000 persons, showing that before Labour took control a similar very happy state of affairs did not obtain. In 1914 the Rockhampton "Morning Bulletin," in dealing with the capacity of the State to accommodate popula­tion, said-

" Though Queensland is one of the emptiest and richest areas in the world, it offers less encouragement to thP immi­grant than any other self-governing State in the Empire."

That was the judgment of that paper in dealing with the capacity of the State to absorb immigrants and population under Tory tule.

Passing on to the distribution of popula­tion, the figures s.how that development in that respect has been just as sa-tisfactory under Labour government as increase, as the following table will show:·-

PERCENTAGE OF PRD!ARY PRODUCERS TO PoPULATION-CENsus 1921.

Queensland .. . 14.49 New South Wales 9.94 Victoria .. . 9.63 South Australia 10.60 Western Australia 14.72 Tasmania. 13.97

With the exception of Western Australia, ,Queensland has the best record in the Com­monwealth. and is only a few decimal points behind that State.

These figures show the numbet of persons en~·a~ed in rural occupations, principally dlurymg-

-- 1914-15-11925-26. Increase.

New South Wales 39,352 I 45,378 6,026 Victoria 41,360

I

46,025 4,665 South Australia : : 10,029 4,932 5,097* Queensland -· 26,579 36,599 10,020

*Decrease. The following figur'es show the increase or decrease of persons engaged in rural occupa­tions, farming and cultivating principally, between 1914-15 and 1925-26 :-

South Australia New South Wales Victoria

~ueensland

[Hon. J. L-ar-combe.

Deorease. 8.835

... 21,987 ... 26,102

Increase. 7,748

These figures are supplied by the Common­wealth Statistician, and show that the persohS. engaged in rural occupations have increased greatly in Queensland under Labour govern­ment, and that there has been an astonishing decrease in the other States. There is a substantial increase under Labour Govern­ment in Queensland in owners engaged in cultivation, in the numb\)r of dairying estab­lishments, the number of cattle owners, and the number of sheep bwl).er§. Not 6hly has there beeh a substantial increase under a Labour Gov'ernlli'eht, but thll distribution of population has b·een well balanced, an essential fa<lt'6r when dealing with national problems.

Essex Evans said--" The men who make a nation are the

men ltpan the land," and asks-

" How shall we make Australia great And strong when danger calls,

When half the people of the State' Are crammed in city walls?"

E is very pleasing to. know that under Labour rule not only has th·ere been an increase in population but there has heen a. satisfa'Ctory distribution.

Mr. WARREN: That is not true.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: I shall give the hon. member the exact fig\J.i"es-

1914 1926

·-----~---------~---

Owners I Engaged Dairy

in I Establish-Cultiva- ments.

::~;~8 1

· 18~029 1 28,248 22,451

No. of No. of

J~tl;s. 1 os~.;;~fs.

39,716 3,719 44,958 4,860

* Exclusive of factories.

Mr. WARREN: On the strength of that you cut out four electorates.

The SECRE'l'ARY FOR RAILWAYS: The hon. gentleman asserted that my remarks were not ti'Ue. I have proved to him that they are, and now he says that '"c cut out four country electorates 'l'hat is shifting ground. That is a different line of argument altogether. I am giving the hon. member statistics which show that there has been a substantial increase in the number of those engag·ed in cultivation, dairying, cattle-raising and sheep-growing.

The SPEAKER: Order ! 'fhe hon. gentle­man has exhausted the extended time allowed him under the Standing Orders.

Mr. MORGAN (Murilla): I have listened very attentively to the very tong-drawn-out speech of the Secretary for Railways, and I must say that he has shown very great judg­ment in dealing with eve•ry department con­trolled bv the Government with one excep­tion, thai exception being the department which he has under his immediate control.

The. SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: 1 will deal with that on the Financial Statement and the Estimates. Everything should he dealt with in its proper place.

·Mr. MORGAN: The hon. gentleman was very careful not to touch upon the opera­tions of the Railway Department, over which he has control, and which up to the end ef

Address in Reply. [14 AUGUST.) Address in Reply. 173

-the last financial year has shown under Labour rule, a deficit of over £16,000,000.

OPPOSITION MEMJ;lj<:RS : :fiear, hear !

Mr. MORGAN : I do not intend to deal with all the figures the hon. gentleman has quoted in this Chamber. He evidently has gone to a considerable amount of trouble in their preparation; but it must be remem­bered that, while "figures cannot lie," ''liars can figure." I believe that he has done his best in trying to prove the case for ±he Government according to his point of vliew, but, if his statements are to be weighed by the accuracy of his statement in relation to the tenure of office of the present Government in New South ·wales, then they are not worth a grain of salt. He stated that Mr. Bavin, the fremier of New South Wales, had been in office for eleven months of the past financial year, whereas everyone acquainted with the political situation knows that the elections in New South Wales were held on 8th October, 1927, showing that he was in charge of the Treasury for eight months only of the financial year just Bxpired. The' commitments of the Lang Government in the first four months of that year were so great, so· extreme, and so extravagant that it w;ts a matter of impossi­bility for any party controlling the affairs of that State to show a surplus rut the close of the year.

The hon. gentleman's comments in respect to the present Government in power in South Australia were equally unfair. The Govern­ment there have been in power only for a very short period, and it was not right for him to condemn them because they had to assume responsibility for the numerous com­mitments and extravagant provisions of the Labour Government whom they defeated.

The hon. gentleman also stated that a poll­tax was imposed on young men by the Government of South Australia; but he did not tell this House that two years ago the Government of which he is a member imposed a poll-tax all the dead people of this State. By Act of Parliame!lt his Go­vernment made it necessary for the relatives of every person who died to register the de;tth and to pay a fee of lOs. A poll-tax on the dead is a much more Sf'rious matter th&n one on the living. · ·

By reading newsp;i,per cutti!lgs fr-om the various metropolitan qailies, the Secretary for Railways endeavoured to point out that Queensland was prosp<>rous, owing to·the fact that we recently had a very successful show which was attended by a large number of well-qr!'ssed people. '!'he bulk of the business people with whom I conversed have led me to understand that for many years there has never been such a short<tge of money, and

that fewer persons were visiting [2 p.m.] Bri,bane for the festivities than

was the case in other years. Although I cannot speak with authority in comparing 1his year with last year, owing to the fact that I was unfor­tunately absent last year, I do know that, so far as mv own electorate is concerned-and I speak with twenty years' experience-there were fewer people visiting Brisbane from that particular district, which is a very large portion of the State, than during the pre­vious nineteen years. The prosperity of Qtteensland 011-nnot be gauged from the fact that the attendance was large, because we know that Brisbane has increased its popula-

tion considerably during the past eight or ten years, whilst at the same time the popula­tion in the country districts has been de­pleted.

I take it that a fair indication of whether conditions are prosperous or not are the pric~JB obtained at the sales of stud stock. The show which has just closed saw st~d b4lls, which in 1916, 1917, and 1918 would have realised £1,000 each, bringing only £200 each. Simi­larly with stud rams, which the auctioneers and agents found it almost impossible to dispose of. As a matter of fact, ra.ms similar in quality to those which years ago woulcl have solq for twenty guineas realised only ten guineas on this occasion. I claim that !hC!se are indications o~ ;vhether Queensl11-nd IS m a prosperous condlhon or not, and that the figures quoted by the Secretary for Rail­ways, whilst capahle of being used to bolster u-p his own argument, are in no way an indication of the prosperity of this State.

It is not my intention to deal with figures, which have been used by quite a number of speakers as a basis of attack upon the present Government. Rather do I intend to deal with matters appertaining to the domestic require­ments of t.l1is State-what may be termed matters of everyday importance.

In the first place, I wish to congratulate the mover of the amendment-the no con­fidence motion-on the very fine speech he delivered in condemnation of the Govern­ment. Such an occasion gives an opportunity to members on this side of the House to point out just where the present Government are making mistakes and where they have not studied the interests of the people generally.

Dealing with land settlement, I was sorry I was not present to take part in the debate on the report of the Land Settlement Acl­visory Board.

The SECRETARY l''OR AGRICULTURE : We were all sorry.

Mr. MORGAN: I take a keen interest in land settlement matters, and I have had nn opportunity of studying thoroughly the report presented by the board. Generally speaking, I approve of that report; and it was a very good thing for the State that the Government decided to appoint a com­mission of that description. 'But why was such a commission necessary? Before this Government came into power there was no need for the appointment of such a com­mission, as the people on the la,nd were satisfied. '."here was no general com­plaint; bu~ t'!J.e moment the present Gove-rn· ment obtamed control they endeavoured to cr.rry out the policy of an ex-LPader of the Labour Party who has since died, and who said he was " out to make the sql!atters squeal." There is no doubt that durillg the time the Labour Government have been in power, right up to within the last twelve months, they have carried out such a policy, and they have succeeded not only in making the squatter squeal, but also in making the worker suffer to a gr-eater extent than he eYer suffered previously. I refer pa,rticularly to the bush wo,ker. All the land legisla­tiOn passed by the present Government was passed during the time the present Premier, Mr. McCormack, was Secretary for Publio Lands. From the very nioment he succeeded in getting the position of Secretary for Public Lands-I look upon that position as one of the most important held by any Cabinet Minister in this State, because land

Mr. Morgan.]

174 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

se·ttlement is the most important thing in Queensland-from the very moment he obtained that position he and his Uader Secretary, JIIIr. Melville--who, in my opinion, is not sympathetic to the man on the land­set about seeing in what way they could ir.jure and draw taxation from the man struggling on the soiL All the land legisla­tion passed by this Government was brought fcrward by the present Premier. I-Ie brought in legislation, and succeeded in increasing the rentals upon grazing holdings. He brought in legislation that did away with family partnerships. These family partner­ships between fathers and sone, mothers and sons, mothers and daughters, and so on, existed all oYer Queensland. Under these partnerships their lands were worked in con­junction, but the Premier was responsible for causing these partnerships to split up, thereby compelling sons to leave their homes and come to Brisbane owing to the fact that some " meddlesome Mattie " was inter­fering with the domestic rights of these individuals. Then all of a sudden, after a trip to the old country, and occupying the green room or the blue room of some fashion­able hotel in England, and after consorting with the dukes and duches~es of Great Britain, we find the Premier comes hack with an altered policy. He went to the old country a redhot Socialist, and he came back to Queensland a rabid Tory. Then he dJscovercd all of a sudden that it was neces­sary to appoint a board to rectify the mistake he himself had made, which imposed impossible conditions on the people settled on land in Queensland. That board, I am pleased to say, after taking exhaustive evi­dence, submitted certain recommendations, and the Government found it necessary to agree practically to the whole of its recom­mendations. That board condemned the Government up hill and down dale, which has been the case right throughout. Every time it has been necessary to appoint a commission or a board the same thing has occurred. The same thing applied in con­nection with the commission appointed to inquire into the meat industry of this State. Every time an independent commission is appointed with power to take evidence throughout the State, its conclusions are against the policy of the existing Govern­ment. Their conclusions condemn the administration of ihe Government, and they point out in their reports that the Govern­ment of the day are responsible for imposing unjust conditions on the people, and recom­mend that these unjust impositions should be removed. The Premier throughout the whole of his term of office has practically smashed into fragments every plank of the Labour Party's platform. He has proved in season and out of season in his speeches here, there, and everywhere to the people of Queensland that the policy of the Labour Party is impossible and cannot be put into practical operation.

Mr. WARREN: That is quite true. A GOVERNMENT MEMBER : Whv are you

condemning him so bitterly? -

Mr. MORGAN: \Ve want to show hon. members opposite that, while the Premier at one time spoke in a certain ,-oice, he has to-day altered his principles. vVe have had three preYious " Bills" in Labour politics­First of all we had " Billy " Hughes, who started in the Labour ranks and eventually found it necessary to leave the Labour

[Mr. JYiorgan.

Partv and seek " fre'h fields and pastures· new." Then we had " Billy" Holman, who· came into power on the shoulders of the Labour Party and then found it necessary to leave that party and join another party for the good of the country. Last, but not least, we had " Billy " Kidston, who was­perhaps one of the best Premiers we have had in Queensland, and he also found it necessary, owing to the impossible conditions. imposed by the party, to continue any longer in the ranks of the Labour Party. Then we have the "Big Bill," as he is termed, of hon. members opposite. who, if he is not given a good position, will follow the example of the others and leave the Labour Party.

The SPEAKER : Order ! 'The hon. mem­ber must refer to the Premier by his official title.

Mr. MORGA2'\ : The present Premier has altered his 'iews and ideals owing to the fact that he is to-day in a different position financially than he was when he first joined the Labour Party. It is a wonderful thing to see how finance alters the views of indi­viduals, and how it affects them in different walks of life. \Ve do not see the present Premier consorting· with the rank and file of the Labour Party at the present moment; generally speaking, we find him hobnobbing with Tories of the very bluest dye.

The Premier has told us that State enter­prises cannot be carried on successfully. That is one of the chief planks of the Labour Party's platform. I remember how the Labour Party got into power by raising the cry of "Cheap Food." They said they were going to establish enterprises so that food would be made cheaper for the people; but every one of those State enterprises has been a failure. They have caused a loss to the State of millions of pounds, and the Government are practically doing their level best to-day to get out of many of those State enterprises. 'They may be able to run a State hotel successfully, for whioh no great brains are necessary, as there is no competi­tion and they are able to charge what they like for the commodity.

I cannot allow this occasion to go by without referring to the recent railway strike. \Vo had the Premier. who is the Leader of the Labour Party, sacking 18,000 <Wlployees of the railway' simply because they refused to " scab" on their mates.

The SECRETARY FOR Pc;BLIC WORKS: Oh!

Mr. ::VfORGA~: Because they refused to do what the Secretary for Public Works would not do in 1912! Because the hon. gentleman would not "scab" on his mates in 1912, he became a member of Parliament. The Pre­mier sacked thousands of men because they refused to do just what the :Minister did then (Government dissent.) Hon. members opposite cannot get over the fact.

Why did the Minister himself follow the Premier on that occasion? The Premier made a mistake in the first instance. He said to an individual engine-driver and fire­Juan, "You go a-nd n1an this train," and they said, " 'ye "·ill not. We will not ' scab' on our mates." So he sacked them. He ordered other men to take the train. They also refused, and he sacked them too. Then he discovered that he had made a mistake. I v· LS talking to a prominent railway unionist at the time, and ho said to me, "·we've got

Address in Reply, (14 AUGUST,) Address in Reply. 175

the Premier in the bag." I said, "What do· you mean?" And he said, " It will take _the Premier twelve months to sack all the engme­drivers and guards individually at the ra~e he is going, and he is going to close up ~Is railwavs piecemeaL" When the Premier found 'that he had made a mistake and he could not sack these men in that way and put them back intD their positions afterwards, he said, " Well, I will sack the whole lot holus bolus" ; and . a week after that they were all back in their old positions under the old conditions. He allowed these men to go back on the same terms and conditions as those on which they were employed by the Rail way Department, and he lost at least £200,000 in the process. Some of our Tory papers praised the Premier up to the skies for the firm and prompt action which he took; but anybody who knows the inside fact.e in connection with the strike knows that tho Premier was in a blue funic I do not think it would be possible for any man to have " the wind up" more than the Pre­mier had during the whole period; yet it suited the To·ry press to praise him and tell the people what a great man he was and how firm he had been, whereas, when all was said and done, the railway employees had a glorious victory. That is my opinion in con­nection with ihat strike.

Now I want to refer to the :Mungana ques­tion. Last session the deputv leader of this party undoCibtedly and without any equivoca­tion whatever definitelv accused the Premier of wrongfully using his public position for the acquirement of private gain in connection with the forfeiture and subsequent sale of the Mungana leases. There is no doubt whatever about that. It appears in "Han­sard." We definitely made a charge that the Premier was responsible for raiding the Treasury, robbing the people of this State of money to which he was not entitled, and, when we endeavoured to get a Royal Com­mission appointed to have the matter investi­gated, he refused that Royal Commission.

The SPK'>KER: Order !

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE (Hon. W. Forgan Smith, Jiaclcay): I rise to a point of order. I suggest that the hon. member is not in order in saying that the Premier or any other ~1inister has raided the Treasury.

The SPEAKER: If the hon. member for l\1:urilla made any such accusation, he must withdraw.

Mr. MORGL\N: I am quoting from "Hansard," which states definitely that the deputy leader of this party deliberately and after due consideration accused the Pre­mier of robbing the Treasury. You can put it in other words if you like; but, when it is boiled down. when vou come down to tin tacks, we accused the Premier of robbing the Treasury for the acquirement of private gain.

The SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member must withdraw.

Mr. MORGAN: Well, we asked that a Royal Commission bo appointed.

The SPEAKER: Order !

Mr. MORGAK: If you say, Mr. Speaker, tl.at I cannot use the words " robbing the Treasury," I withdraw those particular words. But, say what you like, try to hide it as you wish, the fact remains that we have

accused the Premier of doing something ·which was wrong, and something that war­ranted an immediate inquiry.

What are the true facts in connection with this particular sale? A useless mine vas sold for £40,000. Everyone connected with mining knew that it was useless. When the Government bought it. they knew that it was useless. It had been proved through­out to be a failure. It was never a success. Thousands and thousands of pounds were spent upon it, yet it was not successful. The Premier was one of a group who were instrumental in securing a lease of this mine for nothing from the Government, and after­" ards sold it back to the Government-a worthless, useless thing-for £40,000.

Mr. KERR: Who got the money?

Mr. MORGAN: The Premier admitted that he was u member of the svndicate that defrauded the Government. -

The SPEAKER : Order !

Mr. M ORGAN: He admits that he was a member of this syndicate that sold the v:orthless thing.

The SPEAKER: Order ! If the hon. mem­ber does not obey my call to order, I shall call upon him to resume his seat.

Mr. MORGAN: The Premier was a mem .. ber of a syndicate that sold the worthless mine to the Government, and he also admitted that he had obtained a portion o± the spoil; but, when we asked for a Royal Commission, he did not think the matter was of sufficient importance to give us a commi;;csion. Even after we had made serious allegations against the Government, and against himself in particular, he did not think the matter of sufficient importance to warrant the appointment of a commission of inquiry; but, when a comparatively small incident occurred recently in connection with a charge by a weekly newspaper that the State stations were responsible for the intro­duction of cancerous cattle for slaughter in Brisbane, the Premier soon jumped on h1s tail, and quickly and lively and dramati­cally proclaimed that he was out to defend the honour of the Government, which he held was not to be impeached in any shape o~ form by any such suggestion as that they were providing cancerous cattle for slaughter. When it is a matter of ·obtain­ing money from the Treasury-that is, from the people of Queensland-by a syndicate that was not entitled to receive the money, the Premier refused to gra.nt an inquiry, although, if a vote were taken in Queensland of Labourites or others, it would be almost a unanimous decision that the matter justi­fied a Royal Commission. If the Premier were so anxious to defend his honour as he led people to believe, he would have taken some action. It is quite apparent that the hon. gentleman is becoming nervy. That is becoming more apparent every day. It is necessary to make orilv some very slight insinuation-! am sorrv that he is not here to-day-to be either threatened with a writ or a punch on the nose. He has a great reputation for such threats, and not only are they aimed at hon. members on this side, but they have been made to n:embers of his own party when they do not see eye tu eye with him in his conduct and utter­ances. At a recent Labour Conference­which, by the way, was stuffed with politi­cians-the Premier feverishly endeavoured to

il!fr. jjforgan.]

176 4ddres& in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

whitewash himself, and in the process assumed the role of judge. jury, and solicitor for the defence, refused any representa­tion ion hehaH of the complainant-the public-and decided that he was not guilty. What a wondedul verdict ! What a wonder­ful farce to stage before the public-a rnan cl:arged with a certain offence acting as judge, jury, and solicitor for the defence, and re£ush1g representation to the complainant, and then bringing in a verdict of " Not guilty " on behalf of himself ! When the people are called upon to give a verdict, [ feel sure they will give a very U!1mistak­able verdict, co!lvincingly intimating that in 001111ection with a charge of this description against a public man, even where there is smoke and perhaps no fire, it is sufficient to justify an inquiry being held to ascertain the tn1th or otherwise of the charge. If the Premier had tiot been guilty of the offence charged against him, he would have been one of the first to institute <J,n inquiry for the purpose of clearing his own character.

Mr. FoLEY: The people gave their verdict on that matter at the last election.

Mr. MORGAN: So far as the Labour Party is concerned, we know that, not only in this State but thl'Oughout the whole of Australia, after they become the controlling power; whether in loc!tl attthorities or in the government of the State, " graft " immedi­ately afterwards comes into existence.

Mr. BRuCE : Are you speaking of the Greater Brisbane Council?

Mr. MORGAN: I am not. I am speak­ing of the City of Sydney Council.

l\Ir. BRUOE: Wh!tt about the City of Bris­bane Council?

Mr. MORGAN: I am spe<tking of some­thing that is known and that has been proved. Aldermen-representatives of the L<1bour Party-in the Council of the City of Sydney h<tve been proved guilty of "graft."

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : Are you speaking of the gravel contracts of the City of Brisbane Council?

Mr. MORGAN: A Royal Commission is still investigating charges of " graft" ag<tinst aldermen and employees in the City of Sydney Council. There were also the ballot-box scandals. Labour men in Sy<;lney could not take a plebiscite <tmongst the!11-selves without permitting abuses to enter into it in orde1' that one section might gain an advantage over the other. They are not even satisfied with robbing those who are not of their own political view, but they are even prep!Lred to fake ballots in order that one section of their party may triu111ph over another.

I want now to refer to another matter. V{e know that. when Mr. Theodore was Premier of this St<tte. he set a trap for two men and succeeded in having them convicted of bribing the ex-member for Toowoomba, Mr. Brennan, who. is now a judge of the Supreme Court.

The SPEAKER: Order ! Order ! Mr. M ORGAN: He set a trap with a view

to. ea tching two men. who were convicted of bnbery.

The SPEAKER: Order ! The charge was one of " attempted bribery."

Mr. MORGAN: It was proved to be bribery, because they were convicted and sent to gaol for two ye~trs.

[Mr. Morgan.

· Mr. LLEWELY:<i: Whom were those two men the servants of?

The SPEAl.C:F.R : Order ! The hon. mejll­ber capnot 111ake any implications against ll judge to-day.

Mr. MORGAN: Well, they were charged with attempted bribery and were found guilty and s.entenced. The same Mr. Thee­dare-who occupies a prominent position in the Federal Labour Party but not as prominent as he anticipated he would hold -and he will never reaoh any position of importance-has himself been convicted of supplying a oert<tin amount of money for the purpose of bribing a man in order to obtain his seat in Parliament.

The HO:I!E SECRETARY: Tha~, is not right, The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE : It is an

absolute falsehood.

Mr. MORGAN: A Royal Commission proved t!1at Mr. Theodqre gave £200 to Mr-. Mahoney for the purpose of making up an amount, which was estimat.ed to be <tbout £5,000, for the pl,lrpose of getting hiw to retire from his Federal seat in Tl1r. Theodor-e's f<tvour.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTuRE: That is <Lll absolute falsehood.

Mr. BRuOE: What did Mr. Jolly get out of the Brisbane Council? ~

Mr. MORGAN: We know that Mr. M<thoney resigned his seat, <tnd that Mr. Theodore was elected in his stead. We know that two men were prosecuted by Mr. Theodore when he was Premier of Queens­land, and sent to gaol for "' simil<tr offence to that of which he himself has now been proved guilty.

A GOVER:<iME~T MEMBER: That is a lie.

The SeCRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : That is not true.

Mr. M ORGAN : We know, too, that Mr. Theodore recently disposed of 5, 000 shares in the Mount Isa Comp11ny. It h!ts been proved that not only did Mr. Theodore possess Mount Isa shares, but that others occupy­ing highly important positiop.s put money into certain concerns which eventually

bec<tme very valuable. vVe do [4'!.30 p.m.) know that this Mr. Theodore-

who is now looked upon by some as a boodler-was able to sell £5,000 worth of shares in the Mount Isa Company. We paturally would like to k!low how Mr. Theodore &cquired .;£5, 000 worth of sha.-es, a.nd also as to the coucessions this Govern­ment have given to the Mount Isa Company. So far, we know that the Government have entered into cer-tain agreewents with the company, which is spending money. The Minister told us that men with capital came here, but we do know that a very prominent company-a company of repute-went into the matter and refused to have anything to do with the Mount Isa proposition. What we want to know Irom the Government­and if we can find out we will-is what con­cc,sions the Government have given the Mount Isa Company in order to induce that comp<tny to spend the amount of n1oney mentioned? The people of Queensland h11ve a right to know what agreement has b.een entered into by the Government, and what concessions have been given. \Ve know that

Address in Reply. [14 AUGUST.l Address in Reply. 177

some have been given, but we do not know just what.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: The man with the muck rake !

Mr. MORGAN: I want to refer to another matter to show that, so far as the Labour Party is concerned, money seems to be the almighty factor. Money possesses greater power than over it did before. I want to place on record the conditions appertaining to the selection of land recently known 'If Saltern Creek, so that in fifty years' time, or perhaps less, the readers of " Hansard " will be able to see that a Labour Govern­ment was responsible foT a proclamation imposing conditions on the people that did greater injury to the working class and the ma;> desirous of obtaining land than . any actwn of the greatest Tory or Conservative Government ever known in the history of the world. This is what the proclamation says-

,, STOOKING CONDITION. " Each applicant for a selection opened

subject to a stocking condition must furnish, as part of his application, a declaration undertaking to fulfil such cc:tdit:ou. and setting out his pastoral or laud experience, and the means by which he intends to finance the selection. If he intends to borrow capital, he must state the amount and the name of the bank, company, or person from which it is to be borrowed. The intending lender must acknowledge the correctness of such statement.

" CARRYING CAPACITIES AND FINANCE. " The estimated carrying capacity of

each block is noted on plan hereunder from 5, 000 to 7,500.

" Applicants will not be ·regarded as qualified to fulfil the stocking condition unle,;s they can show, to the satisfaction of the Land Commissioner, that they possess capital to the extent of at least £1 per sheep on the carrying capacity of the block applied for. Such capital may include actual cash. convertible assets, or guaranteed financial backing.

" INQUIRY BY LAND CO)!MISSIONER. " If the Commissioner is not satisfied

as to the applicant's capacity to fulfil the stocking condition, he may, at his discretion, refuse the application or summon the applicant before him to give such evidence on the matter as the Comn1issioner may require."

It will be noted that the Commissioner had power to refuse an· applicant if he had not the money or the backing to stock the land, but he had no power to refuse an applicant who possessed money but had no land c-:~:::p0rien,..,0. ::Money again ruled in connec­tion with this ballot for land. The man with money was looked upon as a greater asset from a Labour point of view than the man who had yc•ars of experience but a smaller amount of money.

I happen to live in an electorate where thm·e is quite a number of men who looked forward to the day when the Labour Party would obtain power. They said there were large pastoral <treas locked up by the Conser­' atives, or Tories as they called us, and that until a Labour Government got into power the station worker, the carrier, and others would have no opportunity of getting a bit

1928-N

o•' land and becoming their own masters. They, therefore, looked forward to the day when a Labour Government would get into power. But the first time the Labour Government had something better than a prickly-pear selection to offer these workers --something on which a man could almost be assured of making a good living and eventually becoming prosperous-they said to the worker who was responsible for putting them into power-who voted for them year after year and election after election-" You arc debarred. You cannot go in for the ballot owing to the fact that you have only £1,000 or £1,500. That is not sufficient. It is necessary for you to have backing up to £5,000 or £7,500, otherwise you cannot go in for this country on Saltern Creek." The result was that there was a great storm throughout the country. I happened to be in Charleville at the time this country was open for selection, and quite a number of rrien who never voted for me at any time came along and asked me what they could do. I replied, " You voted for these parti­cular individuals. Don't come to me in your time of stress. I can do nothing You have to go to your own men, as they are re· ponsible for placing these conditions on the land."

In my opinion there should be placed in large letters on this proclamation, " Reserved for the rich. The poor need not apply." That is exactly what has happened. Yet we have men sitting on the Government benches who represent these workers, who are men of experience on the land. It is a shame to think that our good Queenslanders and good Australians who have been looking forward to the day when they could get a little bit oi land similar to Saltern Creek should be debarred from going in for that ballot while foreigners were allowed to go in and succeed. I do not object to a foreigner obtaining land in Queensland, but, if there is going to be preference in land settlement. then Queens­landers and Australians should get the preference, notwithstanding the fact that the:, may not possess just enough capital to stock the land within three years. Why should the Government insist upon stocking in three years? I could mention scores and scores of successful men to-day who went upon their blocks in the Charlevill<>, Cunnamulla, and other districts with a very small capital. These men may h"'ve been carriers in the early days or drovers or shearers, but they succeeded in obtaining a block of land, and, although they only had a few hundred pounds-not thousands-these men to-day are wort,h thousands of pounds. They did not succeed in making these thousands in one year or in two years. It has taken them a lifelong period to accumulate that wealth. They started, not with 5,000 sheep. but with 500 sheep. They gradually built up their position until to-day they and their sons arc rich men. To-dav the Govern­ment say to this class of people-the carrier, the shr,arer, and the bush worker­" vVe do not want you because you are not financial enough to stock up within three years. We want someone who is able to put sheep on this country immediately." Why? So that they can be heavily taxed. So that they can become revenue-producing to a greater extent than the men who are respon­sible to-day for keeping the Labour Govern­ment on the Treasury benches.

Mr. FARRELL: Do ?DU sa.y that a man could go on the land with 500 sheep to-day?

Mr. Morgan.]

178 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

Mr. MORGAN: I say that a man could go on the land with 500 sheep to-day. When I read those remark" of the hon. member for Gregory when he said that £13,000 was neces­sary for a man to go on the land to-day, I could not help but smile. I thought to myself, "·what a fool a man would be to go ou th<> land if he had £13,000 !" and next I thoug-ht wha.t a change has come over the tone am! tactics of the Labour Party. Although I am not a young man, I would not be afraid to-day to iake up land on Saltern Creek with 1,000 sheep. A neighbour of mine drew a Saltern Creek block. He came to Queensland twenty years ago, and the first work he did here was fencing and ring­barking on my place on the Condamine. He saved his money, and had a 1,280-acre block of land which he was dairying on at the time he pnt in his application for Saltern Creek land. He had a brother-in-law who had sufficient finance to support him, not having all the amount necessary himself, otherwise he Would not have been able to go in for this block. He had not drawn the block three days before he got word from one of the financiuJ institutions saying that he could •rent that country for six months at the rate of £40 a month per 1,000 sheep. As soon as the man got the right to do so, he leased the land. He had six months before he goes on t<J the land, Hnd he leased the land for £40 per 1,000 sheep, He is going to obtain £1,000 from a lease, which will almost pay for improYements, which were valued at £1,150; he is going· to obtain £1,000 for the grazing right of that land before he takes it up. Why wer~ not some of ihe \Vestern workers allowed to do the same? \Vhy were they debarred from taking up land .of that description? That is a fact, and many hon. members oppo­site can verify what I say. The Labour Party is debarring the very men who have made Queensland a success-who know how to work the western country, and who have lived all their lives ihere, and who do not want to cotne to the city and take up jobs here, bnt to retnain in the bush. The Government are only opening up land for rich men's sons, and arc placing money before experience. I say that experience is worth more than money. An experienced man will go out with a smo.ll _amount of money and make a success of the land, while a moneyed man will go out and prove a failure, as they want too many comforts and too big hotnes. Their money has secured all that in the first instance. and after seven or eight years those men find themselves in financial diffi­culties. \V" do not find men with practical experience in financial difficulties like that. These men live according to their circum­stances ; yet they are the very men who cannot go upon i.hese lands. The Govern­ment give them prickly-pear selections, where they a re condemned all their lives to hard work. I speak very feelingly, because I know these men. It is very wrong on the part of the (}overnnlcnt. not to give these men an opportunit)' of becoming their own bosses, and of owning their own property. They arc entitlPd to it, as they have helped to blaw th<} tmck in the ·west, and make the country what it is to-day. These men are entitled to the land which the Government have prevented them from obtaining. Hon. members opposi tP are responsible for this. Many of them read the Saltern Creek pro­clamation, but they had not the backbone to sh•p it, and the Premier-" Big Bill"--

The SPEAKER : Order !

[Mr. Morgarn.

1Ir. JI.IORGAN: vYas able to dictate and! have his own \\ay. He is no longer a repre­sentative of the worker; he ceased to be so long ago ; and nobody knows that better­th~n those who •mpport him, but, unfor­tunately, they are not game to withdraw their support.

Now I want to touch upon unemployment. It is impossible to say that it is wholely atld solely duo to one cause, but in my opinion-and I say it without fear of con­t~adiction-one of the principal causes is the awards of the Board of Trade and· Arbitration, given at the demands of the unions. I put that just as plainly as it is possible to put it. I cle.im that the Board of Trade and Arbitration and the cc·ntinual demands of the unions to it are, mainly responsible for the position of indus­tries in Queensland and for the unemploy­rr..ent that exists in our tnidst.

\Ve have only to take Mount Morgan as an illustration. I feel sure that, if the men at. Mount .Morgan had been allo.werl to meet round a table and the awards could have been suspended for the time being, and wages and conditions left entirely in the· hands of the miners, Mount Morgan would have been working to-day. On Saturday lest I had the pleasure of meeting a man from Tasmania who has just started a new hdustrv there in making tennis racquets. He told me that, in order to get the industry established, the Tasmanian Government decided that for three years they wou)d suspend all a wards and the men engaged 111

the industry could carry on just as they desired. (Government laughter.) Just a minute. The result is that this new industry to Australia is employing eighty people in making tennis racquets to compete with the imported article. And these people are not sweating the workers. (Government laughter.) They are in every way giving their workers everything they are entitled to irrespective of the award of the court, and a new industry has been started simply because the Tasmanian Government used common sense. We have already ruined our mining industry by our awards, because mining companies cannot pay the award rates and compete with the people ovetseas, and the State has suffered accordingly.

Now I want to say something about the meat industry. A commission has presented a very fine report on the Queensland beef cattle industry

1 arid I trust that it will be

put into effect oy the Government. We have meatworks in Brisbane and others elsewhere, including the North, and they are all lan­guishing owing to the fact that the Board of Trade and Arbitration has imposed such 8 high award on tho meat industry that it is not able to compete with Argentina and other countries which supply beef. (Govern­ment dissent.) Meat that is killed by these works has to compete with overseas meat, 2nd in Arg-entina only one-half the wages are paid that are paid to the workers in Queensland. Here it is called a seasonal industry, and as such is called upon to pay a sufficient wage to a worker for three months in order to keep him for the rest of the twelve months in idleness. If you put such restrictions on industries, you are going to kill them. These industries are dying slowly and surely, and they are going to continue to die owing to the fact that the Board of Trade and Arbitration is not game to make a proper award, and the unions

Address in Reply. [14 AUGUST.] Address in Reply.

are continually asking for concessions to which they are not entitled. This is one of the things to be found in the report of t,he comn1ission-

" In regard to increased cost of manu­facturing the products, the views of the various companies are summarised below-

( a) The companies are forced to engage too much labour. (The esti­mates of overstaffing, where given, range from 25 per cent. upwards.)"

Wh:v should an industry be compelled to er:gage more labour than it needs? Why should a man getting a fair salary or wage not give in return a fair day's work? Why should anybody be compelled t.o employ three men to do two men's work? The nport continues-

" (b) Special rates are imposed on the export business because it IS termed ' seasonal '; yet the product of the trade must compete with that of other coun­tries;

" (c) A considerably lower wage (especially to boy labour) would still be a fair wage to the worker."

They point out that a considerably lower wage would still be a fair wage for the worker. I was informed by one of the meat­works that they employed their slaughtermen in Brisbane for ·nine months, and .during that period the slanghtermen averaged £9 a week, whilst during the same time there were others engaged in the industry who were practically on the bread and butter line. The producer was unable to meet his !rabilities, and it became necessary to approach the Board of Trade and Arbitra­tion seeking a reduction in the wages paid to station .hands on cattle stations. Here were these men drawing £9 a week, and it required three of them to clo the work of two men. That is the cruelt.v of the whole position. B:ere we are allowing an industry Worth millions of pounds to Queensland, which is facecl with oversea competition, being slowly hlled, but the "Government stand still and do nothing. The present position is the result of the ridiculous award given to workers in that industry and the persistent desire of the union that the award be brought into operation.

Mr. FARRF.LL: Is that why the meatworks at Lakes Creek are operating the whole year round?

Mr. PETERSON: They have had trouble. Mr. MORGAN: H would be a very

different ma.tter if there was continuity of operations. 'The meatworks referred to by the hon. member for Rockhampton do not compete in the oversea market at Smithfield and elsewhere, but confine their attentions t:J their own trade, with their own centres of distribution. In those circumstances they can operate the whole year round. The r,:port of the Beef Cattle Industrv Commis-sion states- "

" Failing a readjustment of industrial costs, some of the opinions are as follow:--

(a) The industry will gradually de­cline;

(b) The outlook is hopeless for pro­ducers and exports;

(c) If the price of hides dropped the industrv would be affected more seriousiy than at any time during its history."

That is the considered conclusion of the commission-that the industry is on the decline and in a hopeless position. Not­withstanding that fact, the Government do· nothing to save an industry that is worth £5,000.000 to this State. The report further states-

" Seeing that the wages and working. conditions of the industry are fixed by the industrial tribunal established by Parliament for that purpose, after 'hear­ing the contentions of both sides, it is difficult for us to make anv recommen-dation. "

" \V e think, however, no harm can be done by drawing public attention to what we believe to be a weakness in the pre­sent system which results in excessive wages and conditions for an industry that has to dispose of its final product in the open markets of the world, and has, therefore, no control of the price obtained."

That is true. This industry, which Is a dying industry, is in competition with over­seas producers; and, if we are to continue this industry, then there must be an altera­tion in conditions. It is claimed that it is necessary to maintain an exportable surplus of beef; but from the point of view of the producer I do not entirely support that clai:n. It is all very well for the Premier to say that we must maintain an exportable sur­plus; but I would point out that although 85 per ~ent. of our meat is sold in Australia the price is governed by the amount received for the 15 per cent. that is shippe-d to, other parts of the world m order that people there might have cheap meat. I do not care a rap whether the people secure cheap meat unless the industry tan provide it; but I d~ definitely assert that the industry should be maintained on the 'ame lines as the sugar industry-that is, that the public should pay a price. sufficient to. enable ~he industry to be earned on and give a fair return to the producer. Although cattle prices have !mproved,, the cattle breeders to-day are not m a riosibon to carry on satisfactorilv as ~he State stations have clearly proved. There " no need for me t~ enter into any argument or produce any evidence other than to say that the Government entered into the cattle business by purchasing cattle stations. and, as a result, have lost over £1.000,000. \Vhy? Because the indus!rv is not a payable !ndnstry, an.d it wiil not be a payable rndustry untrl suc.h time as its conditions in regard to marketing and so forth are so Improved that it will be raised from its pre~e_nt state of stagnation to a flourishing positron.

Mr. FERRICKS (South Brisbcme): The Leader of the Opposition has based his a.mendment on the Address in Reply prac­tically solei:( on the unemployment position. He complamed that taxation imposed by this Government was the cause of unemploy­ment, and that. therefore. the Government were 'vholly and solely to blame for it. As the debate has proceeded, much extraneous matter has been introduced, and what the bo.llot-box scandals of Sydne~- have to do 'Tith the question of unemployment in this State passes my comprehension.

Several Yaluahle suggestions have been made by hon, members on this side of the House to ease-not to solve-the unemploy­ment position, while opinions have also been·

Mr. Ferricks.]

180 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

t>xprc'"ed on this side of the House as to the causes of the prevailing unemployment. I want to add to the reasons already given one which I have previously expressed in this <Chamber-that is, that during the past five years or more there have been coming to Queensland from the other States, and from overseas, more people than this State can absorb in the absence of a much greater expansion in secondary industries. This, in my opinion, has been the cause of the acute­neos of the unemployment problem in this State. We all regretfully admit that there has been abnormal unemployment in Queens­land for the past eighteen months or two years. I have stated, in the course of debate in previous sessions, that the statistical f1gures from the office of the Registrar­General ha.ve gone to show that people have been coming to Queensland from overseas and the other States at the rate of over 1,000 per month. That is about 12.000 a year, in addition to which there has been an actual excess of births over deaths of 1,000 a month. The increase of the population of Queensland has thus been about 24,000 per year. If we put the natural increase per year down at 6.000 only, that would mean that Queensland has to absorb about 18.000 additional people annually. It is interesting to note that the natu·ral increase was not so great fifteen or sixteen years ago as it has become since owing to the prosperity that has been brought about in this State by Labour administration. (Opposition laughter.) Where was it expected that all those people 'Yould go? They cannot all go on the land. because we have over-production in many of our main primary industries. One hon. member opposite this morning complained that the export of so much butter brought about a doereasc in the price paid for the total quantity produced. That is also true with respect to sugar, bacon, eggs, maize, and a lot of other commo-dities. For the past vear the increase of population from overseas and other States has been just under 6.000. It is no use bringing people here under delusions, and it is not fair to the people already here or those being brought here to do so. This is a factor which has to be taken into consideration in dealing with this vital problem, which is confronting this State in common with the other States of the Commonwealth, and, indeed, the whole world.

'When we observe what has been going on around us for the past ten years we see quite plainly that the invPntion of new

machinerv and the modernising [3 p.m.] of old machinery have played an

important part in increasing the ranks of the unemployed. Let us consider how the advance in the use of electricity has affected the amount of employment a;ailable. Apart from the labour-saving devices which have come about as the direct result of the greater use of electricity, result­ing in the unemployment of many workers, there is a depleted coal consumption, with a consequent reduction of work for coalminers, transport workers, etc. Quite recently I was reading in the columns of the " Daily Standard" about a man who had been following the occupatioa of a fireman and greaser on board a boat, who went in search of employment to Dalgety's wharf, at which was herthed a big 5,000-ton ocean-going oil-fuel vessel. He pointed out that, when he asked for employment, he was told that

[Mr. F'erriclcs.

the number of greasers looking after the noachinery on that 5,000-tonner was three, exclusive, of course, of the engineers; and he stressed the fact that, had that vessel used coal fuel, the number of men employed a~ firemen. trimmers, and greasers would have been thirty-six. That goes to show that in that one instance thirty-three men had been thrown on the labour market. Coming nearer home, we have evidence in (he Government departments of the increased use of computing machines, which are capable of adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing, and which render unnecessary the services of manv employees, by reason oi the fact that office work is rendered c,uicker of completion. The same thing obtains in the manual walks of life. Go down the street and notice the concrete mixer. How many men were employed ten years ago in mixing the concrete which is now produced by one mixer? IJ'hen, coming to the point raioed by a member of the Opposition this morning in reference to the tractor plough, it was stated that the farmers were installing labour-saving machinery wherever they could since the introduction of the 44-hour week. Farmer>, in common with everyone else, have instituted labour­aaving machinery and modern appliances whenever they could afford it ; and the fact of the matter is that the tractor plough and the disc plough are now putting the old swing plough out of use.

Consider also the inroads of motor trans­port. What has happened to the wheel­vnights, blacksmiths, and saddlers by reason of the increased motor transport? They are all thrown on the labour market. The same with every labour-saving device in the fac­tory. They all have a direct result in throwing workers out of employment. But these serious phases of this very serious question are not only not mentioned in the tirade of the Opposition members when they condemn this Government, but apparently they are undreamt of in their philosophy, O" what passes for their philosophy.

Mr. SIZER: One cannot argue against the advance of science.

Mr. FERRICKS: I agree with the hon. member. It would be no argument to go back to the bullock dray in place of the train. \Ve must take advantage of these advances in science and welcome them, although there is the inevitable dire result tu the people concerned. One cannot argue on the use of the kerosene lamp as against electricity, or of the bullock dray as against the train; but it must be realised that all • these things have a serious effect on the number of unemployed workers, not only li! this State but in every other State of the Commonwealth.

It has been proyed by figures quoted two or three times during this debate from this side of the House that, bad as the position is in Queensland-nnfortnnately we know that it is bad, as we meet men out of employment \Vho arc in verv necc~s1tous circumstances-it j,, not confinc·f1 to this State. As I have etatetl, auti1oritatiYe figures quoted from this c-ide uf the House go to show that, bad as things are in Queensland, they are worse in everY other S~ate in the Commonwealth. So hon. m0mbers opposite must not look to this Government to solve this question, which ~tffocts the whole of Australia, but, on the contrary, we do expect and have expected

Address in Reply. [14 AUGUST,] Address in Reply. 181

them to advarwe some sensible suggestion­some practical hint or advice to the Govern­ment as to what would lessen or relieve this evil. Unfortunately, it is not confined to Australia. I read an article in the columns of the " Daily Standard" of 26th May dealing with this question wherein it is pointed out that in the European countries onlv and the United States of America­exciuding all Asia, South America, Africa, and Austra.lia-there were 10,000,000 indus­trial workers unemployed.

Mr. SIZF.R: What is the population of those countries?

Mr. FERRICKS : J r,hall give the figures if the hon. member does not accept my state­ment-

United States of America Gern1any Great Britain Russia ... Italv Austria

4,000~000 1,548,000 1,178,000 1,127.000

414,000 224,000

And so it goes clown, making a total of 10,0CO,OOO unemployed industrial workers in European countries a,ncl the United States of .America.

:VIr. CLAYTOX: What is the proportion?

:Vir. FER RICKS: The serious aspect of the question, far transcending even the question of proportion, is whether the position is worse there than it is in Queensland. The fact remains t-hat there arc 10,000,000 inclus­tnal workers out of employment in those countric.1. That is a moderate estimate as we sec in the cablegrams every clay that there are from ~:500,000 to 1,2EO,OOO unemployed in Great Brnam. Thn unemployed question is most vitaL It is :c problem that is facing the entire world. and not only Queensland, undc•r a Labour GoYernment, and this article po'intecl out that th<> workers have been thrown out of occupatiOJJ by this "on·ward march of machine production,'' as it is called. The workers arc' in such dire straits in other coun­tries that the position will have to be faced or roali-ccl. The article contends-and it is quite believable- that the unemployed workers of the world at this date would be quite capable of doubling the entire indus­trial output of the United States of America· that unemployed workers could be found frodt the countr~cs I ha,:e mentioned who, put on ~louble_ shnts workmg day and night, would l<eop m full production all the machinery L'qmpment of the 'Cnited States of America. It says that reports from India China Japan, Australia. and South Afri~a go t~ ~how that iJ:erc is serious uncn1ploy1nent in those cOLmtnes, and asks " \Vhv is it that the workers who produce' this w<;alth do not get a fair sLare in consurnption 't" The remedy it sw;gcsLi is that the workers must haYf~ an opportunity of consu1ning more of the product,; which their efforts turn out· that they wili have to be endowed with greater ""rvircg before this world over-pro­ductwn will be met or relieved.

It m~st appear cl_ear to the most super­ficial thmker that this world-wide unemploy­ment of mclustrial workers is a responsibility of more than the Queensland Labour Govern­I"ent. I haYc follo\vod t~1is debate closely, and I have bf?on '·adly chsappointed at the lack of sugg·cshon, the absence of anv advice as to what mig·ht or could be clone to reliev~ the situation. On the contrary, there haYe been gibes _and much gloating and exagger­ated assertwns as to the number of unem-

ployecl in this State; and hon. members­opposite could not repress the evident glee which they felt at the prospect of nailing down to the Labour Government one more charge, be it false or unfounded, or not. That has heen conspicuous all through this. debate. The only suggestion hon. members opposite have made has been on the lines of the last speaker, the hon. member . for 1\1 urilla : Decrease the cost of production. They and their press reporters have been preaching that doctrine for some months past; but none of them, except the hon. member for Murilla, has stated what he actually means by reducing production costs. The hon. member for IVIurilla means a reduc­tion in wages, and he has said so.

0PPOSITIO::i MEMBERS : ::--.; 0.

Mr. FERRICKS. I am not saying this in any carping spirit or with any desire to score, but in the fairness of debate, and I ask why hon. members opposite do not say just '.>'hat they moan. How are they going to reduce costs? If they would say so, we would know where they stood, and would see i' there was any genuineness in their pro­posal that the cost of production should be reduced. The post-war slogan by their then leader, Mr. William Morris Hughes, was " Produce! " but they have changeu their slogan now from "Produce I Produce!" to· ''Reduce! Reduce!" This is not reduction iu production, but reduction in wages.

Let us examine this suggestion to reduce production costs. ·what would be the result tc> the industries of this State of the proposal advanced or quoted by the hon. member for :V1urilla! I am informed by the hon. member foe Bulimba that it is only an opinion of one of the men who gave eviclen~e at this Commission of Inquiry. The basiC wage is now £4 5s. per week, and for the purpme of illustration I will accept the estimate of the Leader of the OppositiOn of the number of unemployed in Quepnsland <tt 10,000. I am not prcparcu to accept the st atcment he mad(· four days afterwards that i c had increased by 5,000, making it 14,000 or 15.000; but we will take it at 12,000, if hon. members opposite prefer. V\~hat is their r0medy for absorbing those 12,000 unem­plo,·ed.? Reduce the basic wage to £3 5s. per week, we will say, and employ those 12,000 rncn.

Mr. SIZER: How could you do it in that "\vay?

:\[r. FERRICKS: That is the contention end argument of hon. members opposite­that. the unemplo3 eel position could be solved if wa~es w0rc not so high. Reduce the basw wage ~to £3 5s. per week, with a consequent reduction in the price of the milk, SU!l;ar, butter, cheese, e12:gs, fruit. and vegetables produced by the farmers. That is a natural corollary. If these 12,000 industrial workers were employed, everything in the garden mig-ht be lovely until another 12,000 came ho'm the Eastern States into Queensland. ·what would hon. members opposite do then'? Would they follow their line of argument and reduce the basic wage to £2 5s. per week and employ t.hose further 12,000 mer. 1':ith a congequent continued reduction in the price of primary products and in the standard of living? Then, if there were still unemployed. would they m"Lke a further sug­gestion to reduce the wag-e to £1 5s. a week? (Opposition laughter.) Hon members may think that that is a very great stretch of imagination; but it is not, because, when I

Mr. Ferricks.l

182 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

W<l> a boy, the wages for manual workers 1\Cl'P ftom .81 to £1 5s. a week,. and in those days of wages of that character-5s. a day for a nine and three-quarter hour day-milk was retailed at 3d. per quart and butter at 1s. per lb.

2\It-. l\IORG \X : £3 5s. then would be worth more than £4 5s. now.

:Mr. FERRICKS: That is absolute non­sense. becau.oe when I was retailing milk at 3d. per quart it was not enough to enable the farmers to maintain a decent standard of living; and it is idle for a man to say that a subsequent reduction in the cost of commodities is as good as £4 5s. a week. If they reduced the wages to £1 5s. a week, and absorbed all the unemployed in Aus­tralia, and other unemployed began to come here, I suppose that, if theil' ambition was uot satisfied, they would reduce the wages again to three meals a day-and I have seen men working at farms for that without any accommodation. I remember when fine. strapping young immigrants of eighteen and nineteen and twenty were working for faemers adjoining where I lived, and when \Ye asked them, " ·what are you getting? " tl:ey said, " We are getting our keep ! " And I suppose, if hon. members did that, they would find all the 10,000,000 in all the countries of the world coming to Australia, and when we had got down to that stage Queensland and' Australia would be in the s:une position as the aboriginal when he 1vas in undisputed pos~cssion of this continent. I say that low wages and a low standar-d of !iYing have never made any country great, and that any policy of reduction of wages can only ha Ye that inevitable result.

GoYERX:\IEXT ~1E1JBERS: Hear, hear!

:2\lr. FERHICKS: I have listened during this debate for some suggestion from hon. members opposite to cope with the problem. Some excellent suggestions have been made on this side-one by the hon. member for Ithaca, and the other by the hon. member for Burke-dealing with the tariff and the manufacture of goods in Queensland. They ·were goo~l suggestions; but has any prac­tical suggestion come from hon. members on the other side? I have listened in vain during the whole course of this debate for anything of the kind. The one I have alreadv dealt with is the only one thev have made., Perh~tps it may be sai-d, " c,i,n you rnakc any suggestion in addition? " I think I ran, and it is this-that the Com­monwealth :National Government--

OPPOSITION ME}IEERS : Ah !

:\lr. FR:RRICKS: It is not a Queensland matter, but a national mat-tor. I suggest that they should take steps at once to link np Ca111ooweal, Windorah, Hungerford, and BourkE' by railway. This so-called transcon­tinental railway was introduced and passed in this House in 1910, but I think it was a good thing that it was not gone on with then as the rP>ponsibility of one individual State. I think the undertaking- would have l1<'Pn too severe for any indivi-dual State. The Labour Party opposed it in 1910, and it may be said that they were wrong in doing P·O when m>tterials and money were cheap; bnt the Labour Party proposed that Gharle­Yil!e should be linked with Blackall, and Long-reach with Winton. Thev were sitting iu opposition-where hon. mEnnbers opposite are now, and where I understand they are

[Mr. Ferricks.

likely to remain, for it is their proper place­and they were justified in their propo.sal under the conditions which prevailed. Had those connections been made, -during the last drought they would have saved more than the cost of the railway.

Mr. PETERSON: The Longreach-Winton railway would have done the same.

Mr. FEHHICKS: Well, it should have been built in 1910, when money was cheap. The work should hav<l been undertaken before the interest rate had increased from 3b: per cent. to 5 per cent., and in some cases to 6 per cent. 'That project should have been undertaken, instead of embarking Ol" the much bigger, and, from the point of view of the State, impractical undertaking in the shape of a transcontinental railway. My reason for saying a moment ago that tl.is was not a Queensland matter was bGcause it would not be a railway to -develop ody the western parts of Queensland, but rc,ther would it be an outlet for the cattle and sheep of the l'iorthern 'Territory, and would also serve New South w·ules and ultimately Victoria. It would serve princi­pally 'the Northern Territorv-the baby of the Commonwealth Governn}ent-which has been neglected ever since it was handed over to the Commonwealth about 1909. In fairness to Quecusland, in advancing this suggestion, it can be claimed with every justification tlc.at st~ch a line should be built on the same principle as the South Brisbane-Kyogle­Grafton line is being built on. 'Thut is to say, Queensland \Yould contribute I_ts share, ='Jew South Wales would contnbute Its share, the Commonwealth Government would con­tribute its share, and, in addition, contribute the shares of the three non-participating States-Victoria, South Australia, and ·western Australia-Tasmania not being con­sidered a participating State because it was re-moved from r0lief benefits in the construc­tion in Australia of continental railways. If the Federal National Government realised their duty as a truly rcustralian Government, and had any desire to relieve the unemplo;r­rncnt prohlem they would undertake this !me without delay, commencing at different points on the route, a11d employing some thousan-ds of men. Queensland and New South Wales would be justified in asking for the construction of this line, not only in the interests of Australia and from the point of view of the rights of the States, but because in addition to constructing the South Brisbane-Kyogle-Grafton line, the Gommon­wea lth Government were <tble to construct a line from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie, i,1 length 1,051 miles, and not by any stretch of irp.aginatwn can it be contended that Queensland is beneficially affected by the building of that transcontinental railway, except £row the national point of view as being a part of Australia. Nor did New South Wales stand to beneftt very materially, L-ut Victoria did, because Melbourne was virtually the terminus of that railway, a1though the connectiou was between Port P ugusta and J(algoorlie. As a set-off against the Co.mmonwealth Government building those 1.051 wiles of railway at a cost of many millions-a line which has not yet justi­fied its existence in a developmental sense, though perhaps it has from the point of view of communioatio.n-Queensland and New South Wales would be justified in demanding from the. National Government the construc­tion of the line to which I have referred.

Address in Reply. [14 AuGUST.] Address in Reply. 183

In addition. money has been expePded in the interests of two of the Southern States­South Australia and Victoria-in the Murray River water scheme, upon which millions. have been expended and from which Queens­land cannot expect. any direct return. Neither could Western Australia, but it was the right thing to do from the viewpoint of Australia, although I understanc1 that the Prime Minister is not enamoured of the proposal, believing that it has been con­structed in the wrong place.

The same thing was said about the East­West railway, which was called the h·ans­.t\.ustralian white elephant. With every justi­fication Queensland and New South Wales would have a good case as a set-off to the expenditure of so many millions of Common­wealth mone.Y on these two big works, which benefited States other than Queensland and :\ew South ·wales, and could advance their claim for the construction of the line I have mentioned. It remains for hon. mem­bers opposite to galvanise some activity into the Queensland representatives in the Federal Parliament, and, with the co-operation of the Kew South Wales members in the same House, see that somcthmg it done. This will aesist materially in alleviating the unem­ployment which is so intense.

If they f"il to bring pressure to bear on their Fedceral colleagues in Queensland and New South \Vales by their persuasive powers, then wcc ~an only charge thorn with being guihy of hypocrisy in the sentiments O'cprcssed by them in this debate in regard to the unemployed, and with atbmpting to <"xploit unemployment to their own political advantage.

This qucotion of unemployment cannot be solved by picking holes in the administra­tion of any Govflrnment or of any indi~ Yidual member of the Government. That is not going to relieve the position. Neither is the position going to be relieved or solved by irresponsible men making assertions that a person has only to come here from ::\'ew South \Vales and other States and he ean dra Yv- une1nployrnont insurance as soon as he arrives. The press of Queensland and the Opposition were to a great extent .respon­bible for that influx of unemployment in past years. \Yhen the Deputy Leader of this part:• introduced the Unemployed \Vorker:; Insurance Bill it went broadcast ihroughont AL1stralia that an unemployed worker had only to come to Queensland in order to p'l.rticipate in the benefits of this legislation. That was only misleading them. Unemploved workers arrived in Queensland from other States practically destitute, and lhe Home Dopa rtment will tell hon. members the numbers who asked for passes back to New South "\Vales or whm'ever they came from. A responsibility devolves on hon. members opposite and their colleagues in the Fedora l Parliament. if Mr. Bruce is possessed of those qualities of statesmanship which are so loudly claimed for him horn the house­top and elsewhere-for it. is said that he has assisted in solving Empire problems and has done <rreat work at Imperial Conferences-to see that he pays some attention to Australia's problems. one of the acutest of which just now is nnemployment. It is up to Mr. Bruce if he is possessed of those qualities of states: manship which are claimed for him, to show thorn.

Another feature which struck me in the course of this debate on unemploymentc-

and I hav0 listened to it fairly closely-was !he c·ntiro ~bscnce of any mention by mem­bers of the Opposition of the question of immigratioll, which has a serious connection with this question. The only hon. member who mentioned immigration was the hon. member for Toombul, and all he said about it was merely to qu.ote what someone else had said. He did not say where he stood, nor has any member of the Opposition during the debate statc·d where he stands, or whether t1is party favours bringing an unlimited hurnbt'\' of immigrants into Queensland or otherwise. How are they going to reconcile their crocodile tears for the poor unemployed and their agitation for more immigration from the mother country? Their arguments will not reconcile. Since the Prince of Wales visited this country no less than six delega­tions have arrived from Britain. One dele­gation arrived mainly with a view to imperialising Australia and to get Australia to accept a burden which is troubling Great Dritain~~thcir acutest burden being unem: ployme11t. The Empire Parliamentary Dele· gation said that they wanted to relieve their unemployed position by sending them out to Australia. Do hon. members opposite still contend that a ~·olution of the question is to be had in bringing out more unemployed in1n1igrants?

Mr_ MAXWELI, : They did not say anything of the kind.

Mr. FERRICKS: They .:lid 'ay it. The hon. member was there; and something else was said in return about relieving the burden of unemployment by sending them to Australia. ~What is going to come of An>tralian conditions, of the Australian standard of living, of the people who are here. and of the poor people who are coming here? It is dire cruelty. There are men

who have not been here twelve [3.30 p.m.] months who are saying that it

was a shame that they should have been brought here, and that they would lilre to g-et back. On the f1Uestion of the exploitation of the serious straits of unem­ployed workers by hon. members opposite, tlwsc hon. members should b<? consistent and say that no more people shall be brought to A nstralia until the labour offering in suoh large nu m hers here is absorbed. If the cares of hon. members opposite about the unem­ployed position are genuine. that is the logical attitude for them to adopt, because no more men should be brought here until the unemployed labour already in the countty has been absorbed.

Another notable om1sswn fron1 the charges against this Government-wild and extraneous, as I have said-on the motion of no conl1dence has been the practical non­mention of the railways. One lone voice cried out from the front Opposition bench, ':Give us son1ething about the railways!" presumably because the interjector thought that the Secretary for Railways would be sure to unload upon him some of the diffi­culties that the railways are up against. Prior to that there was no mention of the railways, notwithstanding the fact that it h11s been the stock-in-trade of the Opposi­tion fm· the past seven ye&rs. What about the railways? Have hon. members opposite realised at long last that attempting to m;ploit the position of the Government rail­ways-that the delight which appeared Oll

Mr. Ferricks.}

184 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

their faces at the announcement of a deficit in the Railway Department-- ,.

Mr. KING : You are not doing yourself justice now.

Mr. FERRIOKS: I have even read in the leaders of what should have been responsible journals such headings as "Gone a Million"; have heard people in the trams say, " She is going another million." Oh, yes it was a line old joke; but have hon. {nembers opposite realised at long last that the question. of a system of railways which traverse such a huge extent of territory as ours is more than a Government responsibility-that it is a community responsibility-and that the cheap gibes and jokes they have passed about the losses on the railways have directly affected the class which sent them to this Parliament because the greater the deficit on the railway~ the higher the taxation will be. When hon. members opposite are gloating 'over increased losses and thi?k they are scoring off the Government, they should realise that they are rendering no service to the State or to the people whom they profess to repre­sent, because the deficit will have to be made up in some way. It is all very well to say that the worker will pay; but who is it who squeals when the income tax is raised? I have my own view as- to who pays the taxes. The prcfits of the other fellow are curtailed During the past seven or eight years whe~ they have been contributing, perhaps uncon­scwusly, to a _loss on the J;ailways, hon. members oppos1te have been telling their fnends what a Labour Administration has brought. the railways to, making all sorts of msmuatwns and mnuendoes about the rail­;' a]ls-so. much so that before every election 1t 1s . sa1d by travellers in the train, after hstenmg to hon. members opposite and their prceo msmuatwns, that the railways are not safe to travel on. that the new engine sheds at J\layne Junction built by a Labour Govern­ment >nll not permit of the accommodation of the engines, etc. All that was only filthy pohtJcal propaganda.

Mr. KIXG: \Vhom a·re vou accusinrr of making those statements? L t:o

Mr. FERRICKS : The anti-Labour pre,8 of hon. members opposite. The lack of any sound suggestion or .PTactical advice by members of the Oppos1t10n shows to me-I am expressing my own opinion-that the Labour Govc;·nmcnt have them safelY on the run, and if thev do not show some' sort of initiati_ve o: evolve some policy at the next electwn, mstead of winnin"' thev will come back hero with deplete~!' numbers. Inst?ad of moving- a want of confidence motwn, I had hoped that Oppos1t.ion mem­bers would advance some solution-probably not to solve the position but at anv rate to relieve it-and that the~ would ti~e above the pettiness which has characterised this debate. I sa~- quite imparti<ul'· that that has been my impression after ual'oful!y fol­lowing the debate and it is unwc-rth-,- of anv party that aspire~ to be the Govcrn.ment of a great State like Queensland.

Mr. PETER SO"!\' (X ormanbv): I am rather disappointed with the argumei1ts adduced by tbe hon. member for South Brisbane because he claims to be a champion of the workers, and I have given him credit for his endeavours in the past. But, unfortunately, that ho1_1. gentlem~n, like previous speakers on h1s s1de, has fa1led to show how it is that the Government have fallen down on their

[Mr. Ferricks.

job in regard to unemployment. The hon. gentleman's trump card is that there are more people coming into Queensland th<tn this State can absorb. If the hon. gentle­man's arguments are sound, why does he support the Premier in bringing more people here?

Mr. FERRIOKS : I don't. Mr. PETERSON: I am going to quote a

reply given to the hon. member for East Toowomba last year by the Premier on the question of immigration. This is the ques­tion, which will be found in " Hansa•rd " for 1927, at page 387-

" M·r. ROBERTS (East 1'oowoomba} asked the Premier-

' 1. Is assisted emigration of persons from Great Britain to Queensland sub­ject to the approval of the Queensland Ci-overnment?

' 2. What was the cost for last finan­cial year of the upkeep of institutions in Queensland (paid for by the State) for the reception and maintenance of immigrants? '

" The PREMIER (Hon. W. McCormack, Cairns) replied-

' 1. Yes.'"

\Vhat is the good of the hon. gentleman coming here and blaming othe·r Governments wh'Bn he sits check by jowl with a Govern­ment who have entered into a treaty with the Federal Government to bring more people here? Let us go a little further. Take his great champion, J\fr. Theodore, of Dallev fame. He issue·d his policy speech in Cairn's on lOth April, 1923. I can imagine the sepulchral voice of that gentleman when he gave utterance to these rema·rks-

" The opponents of the Government soduloush· foster the impression that Labour i's hostile to the introduction of newcomers to the country. This impres­sion is utterly false. The Labour Party recognise the urgent nee·d for additional population."

His speech is a condf!mnation of his own party, and should not be a-ddressed to the Opposition. It should have been delivered at the Labour Convention in Townsvill0. That is the proper place for it, and, so far as I am concerned, I sav that. so long as we have a GoverrnnCnt suCh as is reigning in Queens­land to-day. it is unfair to bring people here. I take up that position, for I know that we have thousands of unemplo;:ed.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICuLTTIRE: Don't you agree with the hon. member for Oxley 9

:VIr. PETERSON: I do not agree with tho hon. member for Oxley any more than I ag'ree with the hon. gentleman in regard to this matter. Representing a large countrv electorate. I know from experience the vast amount of unemployment there is in my own district.

First of all. we haYe an agreement on the part of the Government with the Federal authorities in favour of immigration.; secondly Q:oing bark a couple of yCars. '\Ve

had Mi·.' Theodore eepousing that principle, and denying tha·t his Government were opposed to the introduction of people here. The question is not wh0ther we have too manv people in this State or not, but what the 'Government are going to do with the unemployed who are here to-day. That is the question 'vhich the workers are asking.

Address in Reply. [14 AUGUST.] Address in Reply. 185

The hon. member for South Brisbane said that nobody on this side had made any sug­gestion. \Ve 'are not the doctors-hen. mem­bers opposite are the quacks who have pre­scribed for the patient for the last thirteen years. I agree that, when a patient becomes prostrate, it is time to c.all in a new doctor; but it is not proper to ask that doctor to write his prescription until he is called in.

Mr. CoLLI'lS: You were one of us for a portion of those thirteen years.

Mr. PETERSON: But I am different to the hon. mernber-I know what to do when I am wrong. 1 intend to deal for a moment with what 1 con,ider are the primary causes of unemplo~·ment, and I shall endeavour to show a way out of the difiiculty. It is not the function of hon. members merely to criticise, but to endeavour, where possible, to show the) way out of the difiiculty.

Before de a ling with that aspect I want to refer to one contention which the hen. mem­ber for Soutl1 Brisbane raised. He said that unemployment is more rampant in .the other States. He went all over the world to prove that th') Queensland Government were justified in having unemployed.

Mr. FERRTCKR: Nothing of the kind.

Ml'. PETERSO:\T: That was the idea. I want to show th0 difference between the t\IO forms of government referred to. When the Bavin Government came into power, they found unemployment in New South \Vales. The first thing they did was to have a con­ference bet\veen businC'ss men, manufacturers, and representativPs of the Government. This was no election stunt; thct·e was no need to stuff the roils. As the re3ult of the confer­ence, they were able to secure work for 17,535 men. I qnot" the following figures from the '" S:·dney Morning Herald" of 16th l\1arch. 1928, with 1egard to unemploy­ment, being the final six·month period of the Lang Government:-

}\fa\ JuttO July .L'\ugnst September October

8,000 7,500 6,500 8,500

10,500 12,500

\Vhen the ne'v Gon;rnmC'nt came in they were confronted with this huge army of unemployed. How did they meet it? Just as any humane man or Government would try to get out of the difficulty. The Govern­ment brouc;·ht the emnlovcrs and others con­cerned together to discuss matters--a sort of super-parlirtmcnt, as it were, amongst those intercsted-·not a Labour Convention­where they mouthed platitudes. and told the workers that C'H'r,·thing was going to be all right in the S\VCet by-and-by 1vhen the Labour objec-tivo was pnt into operation. Here is another prc's extract I want to read-

" As the n•sult of its activities pro· vision has bef'n made for employment for 17,535 lllen, iho works and the number of men absorbed in each being as follows:-

iVorks alt·cadv put in hand: Christ­mas rcl ief woi·k, 5,600 men; other works. 5,300 men ; total, 10,900 men.

"Other works approved and com­mencC'd or .ahont to be commenced."

~'hen it sets out a list. The report also states-

" It 'hould be mentioned also that the Government since taking office has pro-

vidcd tl!o ::Yiain Roads Board with £467,000 additional money for road works. The distribution of this sum to councils and shires has resulted in much additional employment being found in country districts."

There is the difference between the two systems. Hon. members opposite, instead of urging the GoYernment to take measures of that description, have tried to justify the position; but that is not going to appease the wrath of tho unemployed throughout Queensla.nd-mcn who are anxious to rear rheir families in decency and comfort. It is not going to get over the difficulty.

;\'lr. KELSO: ThP Government say they are goitlg to give then1 statistics.

Mr. PETER SON: That ib not going to get over the difficulty of unemployment.

Let us take the very latest information from Xew South Wales. I am quoting now from the " Telegraph " under date Sydney, 26th July of this year-

" No fewer than 837 men out of 1,250 called up for employment during the past week failed to respond. Of the total number called up 1,100 were >narried men.

.. A statement to that effect was made bv the Ylinister for Labour and Indus­t;y (Mr. E. H. Farrar) yesterday. He added that. of those who responded, 183 were placed in employment, and the others were either unsuitable or refused to accept woi·k. Altogether 593 persons were placed in employment last '.reek.

" Mr. Farrar intimated that arrange­ments .,·ere being made to proceed with relief works. ~o that additional men might be called up.''

That is a Tory Gov.·:rnnwnt. T wonder d1ether the workers of Queensland would not like a Governnwnt like that, whatever you all it. Aft0r all, what does it matter to the worker what forrn of govcr:rnncnt he is under so long as he gets good work under reasonable c.onditions? That is what the wcrkcr has to get. Paramount aboYe all other thino-s he needs to e'tablish in power a GoYernrr';'e;,t that will give him the oppor­tunity to live like othe1· men.

The Premier the other afternoon gaYe us his doctrine on this question, and when one peruses " Hansard," it is 1·en1arka?le to notice how wonderfully accommodatmg are the opinions the Premier holds. On each occasion-whether he is speaking to the cquatter or to the worker-he has a word suitable to the occasion, and each is different from the last. I am going to analyse the Fremier's statement, because I am going to condemn him out of his own mouth-not by what the hon. member for Normanby said or what the hon. member for Oxley said. I ask for no special consideration from hon. members; I appeal to them on the utter­ances of the Prc>micr himself. He admits that unemployment is one of the main pro­blems confronting Queensland to-day, and he went so far as to say that it was not tbe feult of his Government. As a matter of fact. he said that unemployment was due to economic factors, and constituted a problem ,.hich is exPrcising the minds of the leading thinkers of the world. But we have to take into consideration the fact that Queensland c1·.nnot be placed in the same category as countries overseas. vVe are a young country,

JJfr. Peterson.]

186 Address in Reply. [AgSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

with a sparse population We ha.-e all the potentialities for building up new industries, which would be the avenues through which v•e could absorb immigrants, but Q4eensland, with all its potentialities and possibilities unexplored. has men who get up in this Upamber and say, " For God's sake, stop anybody else from coming here!" There must he a cause for this unemployment in Queensland-,. young country with few people -·not a cq)lntry like China, India, Japan, or Germany. In Queensland we have an adult franchise-a franchiw which makes every man and woman equal at the ballot-box, and, vrith all this, Queensland is the most back­ward State in the Commonwealth.

A GovERNMENT MEliiBER: You are insulting Queensland.

:\Ir. PETERSON: If the hon. member had been in opposition in 1914, he would know how his party not only insulted Queensland but also slandereq it and aiel everything they could to damage it. It is fa~Cts and flgm·es that have to be faced, and hon. mem­bers on this side have as much right to submit their arguments in this Chamber as anybody has to discuss tbe question any­where. because, if there is anywhere where this question shou!d be dcba.ted, it is in l;arliament.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : How do ;\'Ou account for there being less unem­ployment in Qnecnsland than in the other f:itates?

:Mr. PETERSON: I will deal with those figures in a few minutes. On the 7th August, 1924, the present Premier said-

.. I think that, if taxation gets to a certain stage--''

Hon. gentlemen have been shying off that subject, and saying that it hfls nothing to de with the question oi unemployment, but I want to point out what their leader said iJ, 1924-

" I think that. if taxation gets to a certain stage-and it is fairly high now m Queensland- . . . it is 10s. in the £1 in some instances . . . It is the danger zone for employment."

\Ylwn we on this side get up and refer to the iniquitous taxation that is crushing and ruining our industries, thrc_>wing our men and women and boys and girls out of work. we are told that we do not know what we are talking about. The Leader of the Government distinct],- stated in 1924 that it had then reached the danger zone, and that further taxation would lead to unemploy­ment; but he has changed his views since then. His remarks as to the danger zone WPre made on 7th August. 1924; but the other afternoon he endeavoured to justify l;igh taxation by quoting Professor Coplan4. and a gentleman by the name of Gepp. .Mr. Gepp may be an excellent man in con­nection with road construction and other things of that sort; but I have yet to learn that he or Pn?fessor Copland is an authority on high taxatiOn. It is a remarkable thing, when it eomes to professors that the hon. gentleman is quite prepared' to accept their arguments so long as· they suit him; but pe generally 'couts the opinions of pro­fcsso_rs if t-hey arc opposed to the views of hiS. Government. . Professors may be right sometimes, and evidently they have con· verted the Premier.

[Mr. Peterson.

Since the hon. gentleman gave vent to •his views in 1924. he has increased taxation by £1,063,921, but what has been the answer 1 A great army of unemployed. Hon. mem­bers on this side are besieged day after day by the unemployed. and inundated with letters f.rom people imploring an opportunity to work. The lack of employment is due to the conditions created by the hon. gentleman, who warn<>d the House in 1924 that such conditions would bring unemployment.

The hon. gentleman has referred to the drought as a contributing cause. I quits admit that the drought has been a contri­buting factor; but drought did not close Mount Morgan or other indu&tries that are now languishing. The drought is a menace and a scourge to be feared; but, despite that fact, the Government stand indicted of having aided and abetted the drought in crippling Queensland. The Secretar,- for Agriculture-who claims to be an enlightened thinker, and probably he is -advanced a new thesis. He started out by contradicting his chief in an endeavour t~ prove by spurious figures that Queensland has a favourable trade balance over the past five c·ears. Incidentally the Premie1· hac! men­tioned that ono of the factors causing unem­ployment in QLwensland is that the people of this State are in the habit of pnrchasing goods elsewhere than in Queensland; ~tnC! to some extent pe was quite right. He also went on to say that Queensland had suffered from an adverse trade balance; but the Secrc>tary for Agriculture went to a great deal of trouble to explain that Queensland enjoj·s a very favourable trade balance. 1 clcfinitcly make the statement that the hon. gentleman was not (juoting correct figures, because such figures were not available either to himself or anybody else; and when the hon. gentleman was reminded from this side that that was so, he still maintained that he was right. In support of my con­tention I ngain quote the remarks of the Leader of the Government to prove whether tl:e Secretary for Agriculture was right in Ins contention as to the trade balances. We claim that his figures were not correct, and that the Premier agrees with us. This appears in " Hansard" for 1927, at page 1586:-

"Mr. MoORE (Aubi(!n!J) asked the Premier-

' l. Are any statistics available to him which will show approximately the ·total exports and imports of Queensland. including those imports which are landed from overseas boats ?- t Southern ports, and the exports and 1rnports representing interstate ex­changes?

' 2. If so. what was the actual value of exports and imports of Queensland for last financial year?

' 3. \Vhat was the amount of interest on public debt payable outside the Stato for the same year?

' 4. \Vhat was the amount of interest payable outside the State by the various State authorities?' "

The PI!E:IIIER replied-" 1. No. Statistics of oversea imports

a11d exports only are compiled."

That is so-" only." Now, where did the Elecretarv for Agriculture get his figures frorp? "

Address in Reply. [14 AUGUST.] Address in Reply. 187

'l'he SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE : My figures regarding interstate trade are abso­lute, and were obtained. from records in my department.

Mr. PETERSO::\f: It is a moat remarkable thing that the Premier does not know about those figures.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: He knows about thei:n thoroughly.

Jl,lr. KERR: Then he gave wrong informa­tion to the Honse.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE : He was asked a question in relation to a specific matter, which is not that which you arc dealing with.

Mr. PETERSON: That is not so. The other day the hon. gentleman was dealing with the favourable trade balance of Queens­land, and he used the figures in relation to oversoa and interstate trade.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: I used figures in regard to the trade balance of Queensland, and I also gave accurate figures in regard to sales of Queensland products in the South.

Mr. PETERSO::\f: Then the Premier does not know what he is talking about. I will read the question again-

·' Mr. MooRE asked the P·remier-' Are any statistics available to him

which will show approximately the total exports and imports of Queens­land, including those imports which an• landed from overseas boats at Southern ports, and the exports and imports representing interstate ex­changes: ' " :\Ir. :YicComrACK replied­

' No.'" The SECRRTARY FOR AGRICULTURE : When

wa" that-1926? :VIr. PETERSON: No, 1927. ThP SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: Since

then the figures have been compiled.

Mr. PETERSOX: The hon. gentleman is not going to bulldoze me with that. We ha vo the eta tement of the Premier that there are no statistics, and I believe that. if we could get the statistics, thev would put QuO<'nsland in an ignominious position.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: Why, even vour Federal Prime JY1inister is sick of thco doleful tale you preach.

Mr. PETERSON: I .do not know that the Prim0 Minister is sick of the doleful tale we preac-h: hut I understand that hon. members on thP Government benches a·re sick of the unemployed talcs that are going around, and a re worried abol\t the condition that problem has <'roatccl. I will go further and show how inconsistent the. hon. gentleman is.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: You are a bright ono to talk about inconsistency. '8onsistency is about the last thing with you.

Mr. PETERSON: If, as the hon. gentle­man stated, our trade balance is favourable, th<m there should be · no unemployment. What we arc talking about is that our trade ba]ance is on the wrong side; and I am gomg to give the hon. gentleman figures from his own department. The hon. member for Herbert delved into the matter further, :;md disproved the statement of the Premier and the Secretary for Agriculture. He

stated that unemployment was due to the failure of <Queenslanders to buy Queensland goods. I want to show-and it is the basis of my argument-that the pre,ent conditions in Queensland have been brought about by taxation imposed by the Government. The Premier. when speaking at Bowcn on 14th April, 1926, prior to the last election, said-

" The great bulk of the people were not paying any tax, and the bulk of the taxation comes from the wealthy, who can afford to pay."

On 15th October, 1926, he said-,, In the last analysis, the great bulk

of the people carry the bulk of the taxa­tion."

I just fit t.hat in here to show what I want to allude to as the contributing hctor to unemployment and the inconsistency of the Premier.

I want to read further from a statement made by the Premier in the course of the debate on the Address in Reply on 7th August, 1924-

" I want to ask those outside who are agitating for these very good reforms­if we could make them-such as the 44-hour week and the increase in the ba.sic wage, if they compelled us, or we resigned ourselves to the position, who would be the sufferers? In order to secure for the permanent employees of the Sta to a privilege or ad vantage over everybocl,- else, we would have to dismiss thousands of men on other works of the State."

[4 p.m.] Do not che records of this Chamber-the

answers to que,tions a Bked by hon. members --show that the Premier's prognostications have proved correct. The Premier further said~-

" The practical side must have know­lodge behind it. Whatever may be the opinion of hon. members on this side, some think that the necessary money can be secured. I am stating my opinion because I think lhat in the securing of it there will be involved a boomerang <"fleet unon the very people we are trying to protect. That· is my point. If we do that, then we have to face the con­sequences. It is no use saying we are not le,uning. vYe are learning."

The hon. gentleman was perfectly correct when he 111acle those statements. He IS lc•arning, and will continue to learn, but at the expense of the people of Queensland.

The SEC3ETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: Your party at the last election said that it did i10t propose• to alter those conditions.

Mr. PETERSON: YVe will create such conditions as will do away with the necessity of removing anyone; rather will thousands be attracted by our policy. During the last fifteen Years the ideals of these hon. members have f<i:ded away, and all that is left for the worker to-clay are the old-age pension and Dunwich.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY: vYe did not "rat" on the workers.

Mr. PETER SON: I did not ride on the backs of the workprs like the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman has done very well out of the workers all his life.

The SECRETARY FOR L".BOUR AND INDUSTRY: I did not " rat" on them.

Mr. PeterS01J.]

188 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

Mr. PE'I'ERSON: . It would have been better if you had; you might have been o£ service to them. If I called the Minister a "rat," I would be insulting the "rat." My electors arc satisfied with me, and I would remind the hon. gentleman that there is a mining district in my electorate.

The hon. gentleman does not like the argu­ment about high taxation, because we on this side of the House know that it is the crux so far as the affairs of Queensland are concerned. Let me proceed a little further. The hon. member for Herbert, in using 1 he argument that Queenslanders did not buy Queensland-produced goods, forgot the fact that, on account of the high t<~.xation which is reigning here, the manufacturers of ::-Jew South vVak·; and Victoria are able to sell their good, m QueE>nsland at a cheaper price than the Queensland manufacturers, and that the Queensland workers generally buy in the cheapest market. The result is that quite a number of our enterprises have had to close down.

The hon. member for Ithaca said that unemplo.vment was due to the fact that the Fede,al Government had not raised the tariff. That is quite a novel idea. I.. intend to produee. figures to show that, with the same tariff in operation all over Australia, the other States have progrec;;ed remarkably, whilst Queensland has gone backward. It cannot be a question of tariff, if that is the case. I hold that unemployment is due to-

(1) Excessive taxation; (2) Padiamentary interference with the

Arbitration Court; (3) Decreased pro-duction; and (4) 'Waste of public funds.

The Premier admits that taxation is a cause. Analysing the figures, we find that in 1914-15 the taxation amounted to £954,457, whilst in 1926-27 this Government received in taxation £4.502,340. Taking a period of twelve years, which is a fair cr;terion, it will be found that the present Government have collected £37,448,297, as compr.red with £7,714,098 for the reriod of t>;clve years represented by anti-Labour control. The Premier is per­fectly correct when he says that high taxa­tion is a cause. It means that, making a comparison over a twelve-year period, the Government have collected over £30,000,000 more in taxation than their predecessors.

Mr. HYKES: ThG incidence has not been raised durin'S that period.

Mr. PETERSON: Why, our own income tax has bec,n raised.

Mr l:IYNES: So ha, your salary, which you spoke a o:mnst but eventually took.

;'jf,r. PETERSO::--J: It became the law of the land, and, if we had not taken it, it would have been •,bared amongst Labour members.

How can you expect industries to expand? How can you expect avenues to be opened up when you take away from the manufacturers monev that should rightly bo used in the expansion of busi­ness? You cannot do it.. and you have to pay the economic penalty. No matter >·hat. platitudes you use, no matter whether you adopt a beautifully optimistic attitude like the Secretary for Agriculture or not, you have to realise that you cannot take more milk out of the bucket than you put

[Mr. Peterson.

ii>to it. The hon. gentleman wants to realise that, too.

A GOVERNMENT ME)JBER : A lecture ! Mr. PETERSON: We had a lecture given

by the Premier at Perth on his way home, when he warned the Queensland Vi'Orkers that they had to realise that there were only 20 cwt. of potatoes to the ton. So long as you exact taxation such as I have mentioned, you must expect the inevitable. Exactly as the Premier stqted. I want to show what has been the result of that policy, and I shall give the figures, which in themselves are astounding, and which I believe, when placed bdore the mothers and fathers of children who are out of work, will rapidly change their political opinions, if they have not been already changed. Let us take the factory production increases per head of the popula­tion from 1914 to 1927-that is, a period of the Labour reign in Qucensland-

New South Wales, £40 Os. 3d., showing an increase of 110 per cent.

Victoria, £39 15s. 10d., showing an increaee of 115 per cent.

South Australia, £35 Ss. lOd., showing an increase of 119.2 per cent.

v'> cstern Australia, £21 11s. Sd., showing an incrr·ase of 108.9 per cent.

Tasmania, £19 Os. 5d., showing an increase of 101.6 per cent.

Queensland, £7 6s. 10d., showing an mcrcase of 19.5 per cent.

What do those figures show? They reflect the result of high taxation. That is the only thing, and Karl :Nlarx or anybody else can­not get beyond the argument that taxation os· the basis and cause of it.

Let us go a little further. The total pro­duction between 1926 and 1927 in the other States increased by £107,613,119, while in Queensland it decreased by £7,814,669. Yet all the States arc subject to the same tariff, and there is the same Nationalist Govern­went in those other States. Yet those o~hm· States show a tremendous increase in t!:::eir factory production, while Queensland shows a decrease of £7,814,669 ! Is it any wonder that there is unemployment? The wonder is that the people have not wakened up and put the Government out long ago. In 1926-27 2,563 factory workers ;,, Queensland lost their jobs, not because of incrcasc•d population, but because of the conditions brought about by the Labour Go­vernment. 'vhich have made it impossible for ei•terprise here to compete against the other States. No platitudes can get the Govern­ment a W!lY from the fact that even last year 2,363 factory workers in Queensland lost their jobs. W c find our technical colleges filled with children receiving a secondary education and a training for the learned trades. It i~ the same in Brisbane, Rockhampton, J\Iount Morgan, and right up to the North; and whore are the_e girls and boys going to be· placed? A friend of mine in Rockhamp­ton advertised recently for a junio-r typist, and 225 girls applied for the job.

It is time that the House awoke to a sense of its responsibility and realised that the people are calling for action to be taken; and we as an Opposition can only call the attention of the Government to these facts_ I .ay that the next election will not be fought upon the question of cheap food or cheap living. It will be fought by the mothers and fathers of those boys and girls

Address in Reply. [14 AUGUST.] Address in Reply. 189

who are deprived of the right to work at a trade.

0PPOSITIO>r MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! Mr. PETERSON: I am sure that the

victory of our party at the next election will be brought about by the mothers and fathers of those boy" and girls.

If the Secretary for Agriculture is correct in his argument with regard to a favourable trade balance, why is it that 2,360 workers have been thrown out of employment? If the trade balance is what he says. there would not htwe been those dismissals. nor would there be the unemployment which there is at the present time.

Mr. HYNES: I£ we had a Federal Govern­ment which would protect our industries, that condition might not obtain.

Mr. PETERSON: I am going to give figures in a moment showing .how factories have increased in the other States, and how the number has gone down in Queensland. vVhat hypocrisy on the part of the hon. member to talk about the tariff ! The tariff in some instances is overwhelming the people of Australia, particularly the primary pro­ducers; and, if the hon. member was only fair, he would realise that.

The hon. member for Ithaca, referred to the same question, and naturally Government members are anxious to discover anything with which to blame the other fellow, but they must remember that they appealed to the people in 1915 with the promise that, if they were returned to power, they would bring in good measures and exercise sound, wise, and efficient financial administration so that there would be no such thing as unemployment in Queensland. They have not lived up to their promises or been true to the worker by giving them those condi­tions. They have fallen down on their job.

I could quote from the policy speech of the late Hon. T. J. Ryan, at Barcaldine, when he said that it would be one of the functions of the Labour Government to estab­lish the right to work. There are any number of poor workers who cannot get the right to work under present conditions. and who are tramping from one end of Queensland to the other.

I give a comparison of the increase of factories in the various States, and also the position in Queensland, from which will be seen the effect of the tariff :-

New South Wales (increase) 320 Victoria 265 South Australia 96 Tasmania ... 92 Western Australia 28 Queensland (decrease) 13

Queensland has decreased under the same tariff. There are increases in all the other States, while in this State, governed by hon. members opposite. ,there is a decrease. Is not that the reason for unemployment? When factories decrease in this State there must be some reason for it. There is a spirit of discontent amongst those who are prepared to invest their money in Queens­land. They know they cannot get a fair and square "go" owing to the way things are at the present time. These <'ffects are reflected in the administration of the Govern­ment, and the Government should be manly enongh to take the blame and mend their ways. So much for the tariff yarn ! I was amused at the way hon. members opposite talkPd about the tariff.

I want to itemise the figures in relation to factories so that we can see whether protection has anything to do with the matter so far as Queensland is concerned. Take the movement from 1914 to 1926. Saw­mills and joinerv, for instance, are very important trades: and suitable to put boys to. We have hundreds of boys who want to learn decent trades. The increase in saw­mills and joinery works in the period men­tioned is-

New South Wales 254 Victoria 256 QueellSland 4

·what a wonderful record for Queensland ! We have practically all the timber that is nquired, both soft and bard woods, and y, e could only increase our factories by four. How is it that the tariff does not affect Victoria· or New South Wales in the same way? How is it that it does not affect 'I'asmania? That is the puerile argument of a weak party.

Take ironworks and foundries-a very fine avenue of employmfmt for our boys. They would make engineers and fitters of them. ·where are those avenues to be found in Queensland? In New South Wales under the present tariff they increased by 214 in the period I ha Vt' lllenliouecl ; in Victoria under the present tariff they increased by 176; in Queensland, also under the present tariff, they decreased by thirty-nine_ Yet hon, members opposite want cheers when they get up on the corner of the street and say, " It is not we who are to blame; it is Mr. Bruce" ! Why all this humbug? Why not face the situation, and realise that it has come to such a pass in the affairs of Queensland that we have to take time by the forelock or put on the back pedal.

Confectionery is another very good form of employment for our boys and girls-girls e;pecially. In New South Wales in the same period the number of confectionery factories increased by forty-four; in Victoria by twenty-two; in Queensland there was no iroc,rease. What is the good of hon. members on the other side t.alking about protection?

Mr. HYNES: What are you quoting from?

Mr. PETERSON: I am showing where the trouble lies, and what I am giving is not palatable. I am sorry that the policy of the Government has failed in this respect. It would be much nicer for me to applaud tl--em and be able to say that never before in the history of Queensland has prosperity been so rampant. but here we are forced to consider the position from all aspects and to analyse the case thoroughly, and, when we have found out the causes, it is our duty to a,ppeal to the people on those causes and give them our opinion.

Let us take the woollen and cotton mills­_another very fine avenue of employment for our boys and girls-and see how we have fared as compared with the other States. New South Wales increased her factories by six, Victoria by seventeen, and Queensland by one. and that a cotton ginn<'ry.

The boot and shoe factories are protected bv the tariff of the Commonwealth in the same way in all the States. In New South Wales they have increased in the period I specified by 554-a stupendous advance-in VIctoria by 259, and Queensland by five. Under the same tariff! Do you wonder that our boys and girls cannot get work? No

Mr. Peterson.]

190 Add1·ess in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

more ·damning indictment of the Government could be offered than the facts which have been submitted to hon. members here this afternoon. It is all very well for us to draw our salaries-which are above the basic wage-but we have a duty to perform. We are the keepers of the people, the custodians o! their rights, and it comes within our pro­vmce to see that they are protected, and in no way can we better protect them than by seeing that they get rea"mable oppor­tunities of employment.

Let us now turn to clothing factories­which afford a wonderful avenue of employ­ment for boys and girls, especially the latter. In New South \Vales the number increased by eighty-seven, in Victoria by forty-seven, m Queensland bv four. All under the same tariff! T.he reason for it is that Queensland manufacturers cannot compote against the lower taxation of ="Bw South Wales. Why will hon. members opposite persist in that policy, and so prevent our boys and girls from getting employment? They are out for Socialism. Socialism only flourishes where poverty reigns-if that is their objective­they are coining to it fast.

Let us now take the furniture and cabinet­making factories. These figures show the increase in the number of factories in the furniture and cabinet-making trade-

New South Wales 94 Victoria 141 Queensland 16

\Yhat remarkable figures! These figures should make the electors think, and come to the conclusion that it is about time that they recovered the sense of their responsi­bilities and realised that in the past they have been gulled by false promises. I believe the day of reckoning is coming, when the people will determine in no uncertain way that a new Government must take charge of the Treasury benches. The diffi­culty is that hon. members opposite have been using so much dope on their patient' that the patients are in a state of com·a and will need a good deal of physical reaction to restore them to normal. These figures show the taxable income of manufacturers and manufacturing companies in Queensland :-

1923-24 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27

£ 1,475,000 1,418,000 1,263,000 1,202,000

That table discloses that, as taxation increased, the output of the factories de­creased; and it ie for us to consider whether we should not alter that state of affairs with a view to reversing its effects. Accord­ing to the press of the other day, the Clyde Engineering Works, which formerly employed a maximum of 1,000 hands in New South Wales, now propose, as a result of the restoration of confidence in that State to increase t.be number of their hands from 1.000 to 1.900.

l\1r. HYNES : 'Why are there more unem­ployed in the other States?

M1:. PETERSOX: That is a fairy tale. Earher m the afternoon I pointed out that all the available unemployed in Xew South vY ales were being prO\·ided work.

l\h. BRCCE: You read an extract from a Sydney paper.

Mr. PETERSOX: Prove that my assertion rs wrong. The hon. member cannot do it.

[Mr. Petm·son.

The figures I have quoted dealing with factories are not from a Sydney paper, nor are the figures dealing with the decrease in production in Queensland. They have· been obtained from the Commonwealth Statistician, and they speak for themselves.

Queensland is a great primary producing State, It has one-sixth of the total rural workers of the Commonwealth, but only one­E'ighteenth of the factories dealing with raw nMterials that are produced in this State. The Secretary for Agriculture should endea­vour to become a little more enlightened by becoming conversant with these figures.

Queensland produces approximately one­third of the hi dos produced in Australia; but has only one-eighth of the tanneries, less than one-twentv-seventh of the boot and shoe factories, and less than one-fourteenth of the leather factories. Whv can we not produce the finished article? ·,rhe reason is plain. ::\few South 'Wales and Victoria have built up their factories under the same tariff, but their State taxation is low·er. No nation e,·er became great on high taxation; and no nation can become great on high taxa­tion. It can become great only as the result o£ its production and the work of its people.

Let us take production of wool. Queens­] and posseses one-quarter of the sheep of Australia, but only one-twentieth of the woollen and tweed mills, and only one out of the 213 faetories m,wufacturing hosiery and knitted gocdc! Is that not a remark­able thing, Mr. Speaker? Yet the hon. mem­ber for South Brisbane asked can we give any reasons and offer any suggestions. I am trying to make ::-,uggeRtions by explain­ing the cause and effect, and to show what has happen<'d in Queensland and how it can be remedied. If we can onlv emulate the members of th, Government a·f other States, who haYe encouraged trade by encouraging production, instead of having such damning tlgures as I havl' quoted we would be in a position uf which we would be proud.

Let me <•xaminc the figures regarding the income tax returns. These show that, in 1915, 550 factories paid income tax in Queens­land, whereas in 1926 only 229 paid income tax. Those figures show that the Government are gradually taxing the factories out of existence, and that thf) balance have had taxation piled on to them to make up for ihe amount previously paid by those which have been crushed out of existence. The Government must remember that the higher they raise taxation the more unemployment they create. the doctrines of Karl Marx notwithstanding. '

Let us go further and find ont the differ­<"nce in the taxation. I will take the per­CPnhges paid in the vcuious States oil the underruentioncd incomes:~

'I' £1,000 I. £1,500 I £2,000

------:--1--New South Wales 2·9 , 3·6 ! 4·2 Victoria . . I 2·8 3·1 I 5·4 Queensland . . ' 6·0 7·5 I' 9·0 South Australia 4·0 5·0 7·2 Western Australia 2·3 R·8 : 4·3 Tasmania 2·8 3·6 1 4·4

!

That statistical table shows Queensland to be by far the highest-taxed State in the Commonwealth. That is my answer to the-

Address in Reply. [14 AUGUST.) Address in Reply. 191

question as to why we have thousands of unemployed in Queensland.

Hon. members opposite have argued m favour of increases in the customs tariff. I want to remind those hon. members, in case they did not really understand the hon. membe.r for Cunningham, that many of the implements now used bv the. man on the land have at the present "time to pay a duty un to lOO per cent. I can give •the list to p;·ovc that statement, but time does not t•ermit me to do so.

However, as my time is drawing to a close. I just \\'ish to review the position of the Secretarv for Agriculture. In 1925-26 the hon.. gent1eman had a departmental staff of 708 officers, drawing salaries to the tune of £171,989. During that period the area of land under crop shrank by 91,982 acres, and the value of the agricultural pro­duce dropped by £1.439,448. The hon. gentle­man is, therefore, a very expensive 11inister.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: Your figures are not cotTPct. You are using the same figures as the hon. member for Mirani did, and they are not a correct statement of the position.

l\1r. PETERSON: Gnder the Standing Orders I have to accept the denial of the hon. gentleman, and I do so. I merely quote those figures to show that even in the Departrneht qf Agriculture and Stock all is not well. The primary producers throughout my electorate are grateful to the Common­wealth Government for the Paterson scheme for handling butter.

They are grateful for the aid that has been given with regard to cotton, on which subject I shall have something to say later. If it had not been for the Federal Govern-

ment, with its Patersou scheme, [4.30 p.m.] the position of unemployment in

Queensland to-day would have been far worse than it is. I make bold to say that, when the Federal elections take place. the farmers will show in no uncertain way how they intend to vote. I hope that between this and election dav the Govllrn­ment will give another polic,: a trial, and, instead of following the paHi' of high taxa­tion, will choose the course that has been pursued in other States.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICcLTuRE: Other Governments have not reduced taxation.

Mr. PETERSON: The Federal Govern­ment have reduced taxation bv over £9,000,000. The New South Wale~ Baviu Government have already handled the ques­tion of unemployment as well as it is pos­sible for any Government to handle it. and they are now concerned with bringing about a gradual reduction of taxation. Similady. the '\V estern Australian Government are giving attention to the matter. Every Go­vernment pursuing such a policy will find that it will react to their credit and brmg increased prosperity to the whole of Am­tralia. The people have sent us here to cb our part ; and I trust that the day will soon come when the large army of unemployed in cur midst to-day will vanish and be repre­sented by contented workers, working hand in hand with employers for the betterment of the State. '\Yith an observance of these conditions, \ve are hopeful of better times for the workers, and the creation of such a position that we shall all bo proud of Queensland, extolling its blessings to all and

sun~ry, and, instead of cavilling at people commg here. welcoming them with open arms and asking them to send for their friends.

0PPOSITIOX MEli!BERS : Hear, hear !

Mr. LLEWELYN (1'oowoomba): Like other hon. members >Vho have spoken, I desire to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply on their very able contributions. I, too, desire to ccngratulate Mr. Bow, who has succeeded our old late friend, Mr. John Payne, an old stalwart in the Labour movement. I feel confident that in the pi·esei1t member for Mitchell we shall have a very worthy mcces­sor to the late Mr. Payne, and that the seat will be i'etaiued by Labour for nJany years to come.

I desire to refer, in the first place, to the sad occurrence "-hich happened at Buuda­berg ea'l'ly this year, when, owing· to the inoculation of toxin anti-toxin to immunise against .diphtheria, twelve children lost their ltves. I am sure that I am only expressing ihe views of members on both sides when I say that the whole of the community of Queensland and of Australia was painfully shocked at that occurrence. (Hear, hear!) Our sympathies go. out to the parents and relatives of those children. In this connec­tion I desire to make a point. From time immemorial sciei1ce has invariably met with setbacks, but it would he deplorable if, through fear, the benefits of this toxin anti­toxin inoculation 'vere to be denied.

I can see no reason for the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. 'I'hut amendment well merits the fate that it will assuredlv receive when the division is taken-an opl.nion that will be endorsed and reflected by a large majority of the electors of this State.

The Speech of His Excellency is the most effective reply to the amendment, showing, as it does, the wonderful progress that. has b~en made in nearly all our primary indus­tries in Queensland. The question of primary production must he of interest to every mem­ber of this Chamber, because primary pro­duction is the main hasis of om· wealth. Furthermore, 'I'oowoomba, 'vhich city I a.m proud to represent in this House, is the main commercial centre of the whole of the Darling Downs; consequently, if our farmers are doing well, the commercial activities of the city must benefit, to the a.d,-ar1tage of the whole community. Ever ,ince Ioabour came into power in 1915, this party has been doing very much indeed to stabilise tho Yarious. primary industries. We, of course. rceognise that good seasons are the first 0ssential; but it cannot be denied that the administration of the Government, thrnugh a sympathetic Department of Agri­culturC'. has been of great benefit to the fanners of this State. I understand that tlw wealth production of Australia is valued at about £450,000,000. I also understand that about one-quarter of that wealth is rep1'e­sented by agricultural products, another q tiarter by pastoral products. and 10 per cent. bv the poultry industry. Consequently one can easily appreciate the value ot' the Department of Agriculture in its efforts to assist all these primary industries. The Go-.;;0rnment have encouraged and assisted wh~algrowcrs in every possible way. By takmg adve.uiag-e of the Wheat Pool Act tho whcatgt'Dwers have been enabled to

lJ!lr. Llewelyn.]

192 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

market their product in an organised way, and the work which has been carried out at the Roma State Farm in testing different varioties of wheat and ascertaining th~ variety mn't su;table for certain natural con­ditions has been a big factor in the success of whcatgrowing in this State. As a result of the work of the Roma State Farm in this direction, last year Mr. Armstrong, of Pilton, with a total of gg points, ti0d for second place at the Royal Agricultural Show, the winner securing 92~ points. Wheat-breeding ai the Roma State Farm is linked up with the activities of the Department of Agriculture and the Wheat Board, and has exercised· a mo't beneficial influence on wheatgrowing and assisted largely in putting the wheat industry on a sound basis.

Only the week before last a question was abked by a memb~r of the Opposition regard-

ir,g certain assistance to the Wheat Pool Board, and I am very happy to say that the Government have taken a paternal interest in the affairs of the board. When the members of the board came to Brisbane and told the Government they were in diffi­culties through lack of accommodation for sioring wheat, the GovE-rnment granted a sum of £36,000, of which £20,000 was imme­diatel.v made available.

It is worth while to mention the rapid development of many of our agricultural products. Hon. members opposite say that Queensland has been going back in regard to agricultural production, but the agricul­tL:ral statistics I submit will show that under the able administration of the Department of Agriculture Queensland has made great progress--

------------ --------- .~---- --- --------------------

Total area under cultivation (acres) Total area under crop (acres) Butter produced (lbs.) * Cheese produced (lbs.)t Total value of crops (£) . , . _ . . . ,

1914. 1926.

Number of versons engaged in farming and dairying , . . . _ ,

981,218 792,568

37,~30,240 7,931,869 5 679 783

' 62;706

1,288,518 941,783

50,991,985 8,740,355

12,161,917 79,668

Capital invested in machinery and implements for farming, dairying, irrigation and travelling machinery(£) . . . . . . . . 1,879,903

2,109,818 Value of dairy industry (£) , . . . . . Value of agricultural and dairying production (£)

'

5,236,263 6,465,273

18,932,~40

* For the eleven months ended 30-5-28, 65,800,000 lbs. ot butter were produced in Queensland, and the year 1927-28 will be a record in bntter production.

t Figures for the eleven months ended 30-5-28 show a production of 13,000,000 of cheese.

Roughly, it may be said that two out of every three farmers in Queensland are interested in dairying, and that 98 per cent. of the butter and 95 per cent. of the cheese produced in this State is manufactured in co-operative factories. In the Common­wealth "Year Book," :;\;o. 20, of 1927, there i:o this comment on the expansion in recent years in the dairying industry and the influence it -has on the output of the Com­monwealth as a whole:-

"Although the quantity of dairy pro­duction is largely affected by the nature of the seasons, an important advanDo in the output of butter has taken place in the last decade. During that period the avel'age annual production increased from 186.000,000 lb. for the quinquennium 1911-1915, to 263,000,000 lb. for the latest five vears under review. The marked dm·elopment of dairying in Queensland, where the butter production has nearly doubled since 1913, was responsible for the largest share of the increased butter output in Australia, ·while Victoria and New South Wales also made important contributions to the general progress. The maximum output of butter in Aus­tralia was recorded in 1924, when, as the result of a specially favourable season, 313,952,291 lb. were manufactured."

Yet our friends on the other side would have us believe that the country is going to ruin ! A very hir{h state of efficiency has been reached on the manufacturing side of this industry, and I am sure that hon. members who read their papers will remem­ber baying seen at different times particulars of the prizes which haYe been ~von by different factories. Moreover, during the past three years the percentage of choice and first-grade butter has increased from 63 per cent. to 82 per cent. of the total

[J1r. LleW'elyn.

output. The excellence of the higher grades i' such that at the last Melbourne Show the Oakey Butter Factory received fi'l'St prize for salt butter suitable for export; the Pitts­worth Dairy Company took the first prize for cheese; the same company took the first prize for cheese f01· export, not over three months old, the Downs Co-operative Dairy Association being second. Hon. members will consequently recognise the importance of this industry, 0specially to the constituency I represent. '£he judges state-d that the quality of the Queensland and New South \Vales butter was very fine and reflected great credit on the manufacturers and the standard of efficiency attained by the factory Inanagors.

The Deputy Premier, the Secretary for Agriculture, recently visited New Zealand, and being very observant he noted that the standard of efficiency on the manufacturing side in Queensland compares very favour­ably with that in New Zealand, although there is necessity for increased efficiency on the producing si-de. It is said that the average butter yield in Queensland js not rr.ore than 120 lb. per capita, whereas in :'-Jew Zealand it is 230 lb., and in Denmark close up to 400 lb. If we continue our efforts, especially in the direction of better he1'ds, according- to the best advice of the officers of the Department, we can see in the future hope that Queensland will be on a par with New Zealand. and, perhaps, later on with Denmark. By such methods it seems quite possible to advance the Queensland average from 120 lb. per capita to 240 lb. rr··r capita.

The activities of the department in the direction of herd-testing, investigation con­cerning the economics of the dairying indus­try, and the issue of bulletins for the dairy

Address in Reply. [14 AUGUST.) Address in Reply. 193

farmers containing the result of the investi­gations by the Economic Committe0 cannot help but be of the fullest possible benefit to the farmers" I do not repeat some of those matters merely to say something in connec­tion with the dairying industry, but to show that under a Labour Government there has been advancement and progress m this irdu,try. No anti-Labour Government in Australia can claim the record of this Govern­ment in relation to tbe farmerc. If the farmers would only settle down to funda­mentals and disabuse their minds of pre­judice, they would not be slow in realising that the Labour Party, and particularly the. Labour Government in Queensland, are their friendc. I did not agree with the statement of the Premier the other day that hf' could not hope to win some of the seats on the Darling Downs. I have very great hopes of winning seats on the Darling Downs. This excerpt has been taken from the " Producers' Review"-

" In Au,tralia the various political parties-Nationalists, Countrv Party, and Labour Party-believe that 'the workers should be paid a living wage, but it is a shameful state of affairs that Labour in politics receives no co-operation from other parties in an endeavour to pay agriculture a living wage. In Queens­land we have Labour standing behind and helping agriculture to stabilise prices, with the 0];lposition and all other parties maintaining an attitude of apathy or indulging in guerilla tactics to prevent the proposals coming to fruition."

That is a comparison of the action of this party with the action of hen. m<embers opposite.

Mr. DEACON: You pay for that.

Mr. LLEWELYN: Our opponents, sup­posedly the friends of the farmers, are continually saying what they would do if they were in power. What did they do when they were in power? That is a question that the farmers on the Darling Downs can well ask themselves. If the farmers would only get down to fundamentals, they wonld soon recognise who are their friends. If I can judge from some of the utterances of hon. members opposite on the introduction of the Primary Producers' Organisation Bill, it would not be to the advantage of these industries if Labour were defeated. Speaking o,1 this Bill in 1922. the hon. member for Warwick said- ·

" A more daring. audacious and cruel Bill was never presented fo;. the con­sideration of a deliberative assembly in a British land."

He also said-" This is a coercive measure, intended

to dictate to everyone what he shall do and what he shall not do."

He further said-" I sincerely hope that this fair land

of ours is not going to be cursed by the passing of legislation which will be destructive of our freedom and which will prevent all develop~ent m the future."

" Destructive Df our freedom ! " Mr. KING: What is wrong with that?

Mr. LLEWELYN: I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-freedom to do what? Is it freedom to exploit the farmer?

1928-o

Of course it is. I have seen it myself. I ha..-e seen farmers earning into tho town with a load of produce for which they did not know what they were going to rceeive.

:!Ylr. SIZER: They do not know now. Go down to the market and see for yourself.

Mr. HYNES: They know they will get a fair deal.

Mr. KING: You don't believe in freedom then?

Mr. LLEWELYN: I do not believe in freedom to rob people. Those sentiments are expressed to-day by hon. members oppo­site.

Mr. MAXWELL: You are exaggerating, and you know it.

Mr. LLEWELY.N: The same attitude and sentiment are still manifest to-day.

On Saturday, 21st July last, a meeting was held at Kingaroy 'to consider State politics from the point of view of the CouQ.try Party. My information is taken from the " South Burnett Times " of 27th July, which reports the hon. member for Nanango as being present, and in ·its report of the meeting states this-

" Mr. W. L. Osborne, Wondai, after congratulating the meeting on the choice of delegates, trusted that they would dis­cus" at the conference a modification of the attitude of Country Party and Oppo­sition members generally towards present agricultural organisation. Very many farmers were dissatisfied with the atti­tude adopted towards the Queensland Producers' ~\ssociation by members of Parliament representing farming dis­t,ricts. He would ask Mr. Edwards a series of questions, as follow :-

" Is it not extremelv desirable that the m>trketing of our ·primary products should so far as possible be in the hands of growers' reprPsentatives?

" Did Mr. Edwards m· members of the Country Party give any assistance in endeavouring to secure an affirmative vote in the recent maize pool ballot, which ballot, if carried, would have been the means of lifting the maize industry from its present deplorable level?

" Are not the aotions of Country Party members, as a consequence of their direct affiliation with the Nationalists, liable to be dominated by the ' party ' dictates of the produce merchant members of the party, for from whom else but produce merchants could there have emanated the circular designed to intimidate rnaizegrowers into voting against the recent maize pool proposals? "

[5 p.m.] "As these merchants are largely de­

pendent upon speculation in our primary products, is the Country-Progressive­Nationalist Party likely to whole­heartedly support the principles of co­operative marketing which are the very life blood of our primary industries?"

M1·. SIZER: The Bruce Government have done more for co-operative marketing than any other Government.

Mr. LLEWEL YN : The next heading is, "Mr. Edwards's Attitude," and continues­

" Mr. Edwards, in reply. said that he and other members of the Country Party had not taken any direct part in pool

Mr. Llewelyn.]

194 Address in Reply. [ASSEMBLY.] Address in Reply.

proposals because if they did so such action would be taken as political propa­ganda."

(Government laughter.) Fancy a statement like that-if they had any mterest in the farmer it would be taken as political propa­ganda!

" 'The Country Party believed in assist­ing the farmers in all ways possible toward giving them control of their own affairs. It was not right that the Minister for Agriculture should be Pre­sident of the Queensland Producers' Association or that there should be a Government nominee on every pool board. With regard to the Nationalist, surely Mr. Osborne would not advocate the Opposition reverting to the same divided State as it was in prior to 1924."

He has no objection to the Nationalist Party absorbing the Country Party, and he did not disguise the faot that their political interests were identical.

Mr. SIZER: You have proved that we are a very united party.

Mr. LLEWELYN: 'The intelligent and pertinent questions of Mr. Osborne to Mr. Edwards are very much to the point--

Mr. MAXWELL: Very intelligent!

Mr. LLEWEL YN : 'They are. and the hon. gentleman and his colleagues will find that the farming community is waking up to the same standard of intelligence. 'That is what I meant when I prophesied a few minutes ago that we could win farming seats. My point regarding that article is that hon. members opposite cannot serve both God and Mammon. If a Country Party repre­sentative, representing a farming consti­tuency, and true to the ideals which he must at different times have espoused in order to gain the confidence of his consti­tuents, becomes lackadaisical and indifferent w questions of pools, then he is not true to the cause which ·he previously espoused. I have made out a good case in favour of the assistance which the Department of Agricul­ture renders to all engaged in the agri­cultural industry.

Mr. SIZER: So long as you are satisfied, iG is all right.

Mr. LLEWEL YN : It is not a question of my bemg satisfied. I take my position in this House seriously, and, if I cannot do something that is of benefit to the people I represent and a benefit to the State then the sooner I am out of this House the better.

On an occasion such as this it is usuallv the custom to speak on matters of local Importance.

I should like to point out that the loan expenditure in Toowoomba electorate from 1st July, ~925, to 30th June, 1S28, included the foDowmg amounts :-

£ Willowburn Loco. Depot 256,687 Misceliancous Expenditure 22,833

'Total ... £279,520 The net loan expenditure on the Lockyer· lVIurphy's Creek deviation amounted to-

1926-27 1927-28

Total

[Mr. Llewelyn.

£ 27,976

8,804

... £36,780

'The anti-Labour candidate at t·he election in 'Toowoomba has had something to say regard­ing unemployment. As a matter ?f fact, it is only a catch-cry. 'The only questwn that members of the Opposition can exploit is the one of unemployment; and I do not think they are making out a goou case at all. Evidently the anti-I,abour candidate, who at present is the Mayor of 'Toowoomba, had something to sav as to what was neces­sary and what he would do if he were suc­cessfuL Does he not think that the Govern­ment have done something for the city of 'Toowoomba in spending that amount of loan money on something tangible and effective?

Mr. H. :vi. HUSSELI,: It is very handy at election time.

Mr. LLEWEL Y::-.!: 'The money has been spent, and .the tradespeople have had the benefit. Tlns same gentleman to whom I am referring told me that last Christmas was one of the bc·•t he had ever had. How can he reconcile that statement with his other statement of " blue ruin"? It seems to me that members of the Opposition are down to-day and up in the clouds to-morrow.

I consider that thee institution of a rail­motor service in Toowoomba will prove a boon and I hope to see the officers of the Rail~av Department co-operate in giving it a trial 'in the 'Toowoomba district.

I desire now to refer to the question of the hospital tax. I have referred to this matter in previous sessions. Hon. members opruosite seem greatly concerned about the imp?si­Lion of the hospital tax. One would thmk that this measure was an iniquitous one, and not one calculated to benefit the whole of the· community.

Mr. KING: 'The opposition to it is universal throughout Queensland.

Mr. LLEWELYN: No. 'The 'Toowoomba General Hospital was the first institution in the State to come under the operation of the Act, and I can speak with some authority on the wbject. Health should be the first charge on any community, and I would place education second. If a poor person is ill and unable to pay his or her way, it is the duty of a civilised community to restore him or her to health. 'That should be a charge on the citizen, and it should not be left to a few philanthropic persons to find the money. The old method of financing l:ospitals was a wrong one, and very precarious for the institutions.

'The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE : Generous people were paying all the time.

Mr. LLEWEL YN : Very many necessary improvements and additions were long dolayed. The new Act has obviated all that trouble. H has given hospital committees financial security and stability that they did not previously enjoy. Since being placed on this secure footing the 'Toowoomba hos­pital has been able to embark with safety on a very necessary building and improve­ment programme. Now quarters for the nurses are now nearing completion. Last :lrarch the official opening of the X-ray building with its fine equipment took place. Repairs and additions to our main block have been carried out, and a main boiler f'.nd heating appliance is now almost com­pieted. Provision has also been made for a new operating- theatre. All this is being done so that everv sick person in the com­munity shall have ·the best attention. Prior

·Address in Reply. [15 AuGusT.] Questions. 195-

to the enactment of this legislation there were only 215 direct subscribers to the Too­woomba General Hospital. That was in 1923, the year before the new Act came into operation. The Act compels 15,877 ratepayers to contribute.

Mr. KING : That is the trouble; it is only th~> ratepayers who contribute.

Mr. LLEWELYN: The amount paid to the Toowoomba General Hospital was £7,580 18s. 5d. Does the hon. member for Logan say that is a big sum for the community of 'Ioowoomba to pay?

Mr. KING: It is paid by only a section of the community.

Mr. LLEWELYN: The figures with regard to the income of the hospital are-

£ s. d. OL Patients' payments, volun-

,o

tary subscriptions, leg-acies, and sundries 8,255 0 0 25.4

Golden Casket grant .. 4,500 0 n= 50.7 Government contribution 11,371 7 Local authority 7,580 18 5 23.9

£31,707 6 1

Some Opposition members seem greatly concerned about the hospitals tax and what they term its injustice. In the Toowoomba district the local authorities are asked to pay .36 of one penny in the £1 on the unim­proved value of land. Do hon. members mean to tell me that that is an unfair tax? It means that, if a person owns land of an unimproved value of £100, his hospital tax is 2s. 10d. a year. Even if he owned land of an unimproved value of £1,000, his rate ~would only be £1 10s. 4d. a year, and in return the area has an up-to-date institution, equipped with all modern apliances and comforts. The amount the local authorities will be called upon to pay this year, more­over, will be reduced by over £500, the board having finished the financial year with a surplus, and the rate therefore will be .34d. in the £1. Further, only 3 per cent. of the ratepayers in the Toowoomba area a·re now paying £1 10s. 4d. each or over. The average amount paid by all the taxpayers is Ss. 9d. a year, or less than 2d. a week. Surely that is not too much to pay for those unfortunates who are laid aside through sickness or accident !

Opposi,tion members claim, moreover, that this is solely a tax upon the primary pro­ducer. I say it is not, and that their argu­ment is fallacious. I have shown that the amount the local authorities have to pay in the Toowoomba area is only 23.9 per cent. of ,the whole cost of running the institutions; of the whole amount the city of Toowoomba pays 22.7 per cenL, and there are very few farmers in the city area. Taking Queens­land as a. whole, I find that last year the local authori( ic vaid £83.105 in ho,nital prP°CptR. Of ihnt ::t"lOnnt cltics and towns paid £39.707. or 47.85 pr 1: cc'nt. and sl1ircs £43.338 or f2.l 5 ll('l' cc lit. In of these irrcfnJ-alllC' Ji~: ' T .IJ"not :"('(' ho\Y this iax can be {'h~~s~-rl R~ 2 on the~ pr!:iu:try­producing- indu tric:::.

In conrlus1on, lrt nlP

pcorle of cou-fidcnce in them higher wages and shorter than tho"' which prevail in the other States. The mf'J'e fad that the railwav workers in this State, for instance, have re'ccived these extra

benefits as the result of the establishment of an efficient arbitration court system should not be forgotten by them when the question is put to them at the election, and I feel sure that the answer will be reflected in their votes at the ballot-box.

Mr. WRIGHT (Bulimba) : I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

Question put and passed.

Resumption of the debate made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

The House adjourned at 5.20 p.m.