Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 22 JULY 1890

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Factories and Skops Bill. [22 JULY.] Petition. 305

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. 'l'uesday, 22 July, 1890.

South Brisbane Elsct.ion.-:Jiember Sworn.-Printing Committee.-Petition-Fnctories and Shops Bill.­QuestiOlL-}:lementary Property Rill-first reading. -Union Trustee Company of Australia. I~imited, Bill -first 1·eading.-Factorit~ and Shops Bill-resump-tion of committee.- )fessage from His l~xcellencythe Governor-~E:stimates for the year lAU0-1.-l~acto­

l'ies and Shops Dill-resumption of committee.­:J.fc,,>jage from the Legislative Council-Prisons Bill. -Adjournment.

The SPBAKER took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

SOUTH BRISBANE ELECTION. The SP}<~AKER said : I have to inform the

House that I have recdved the writ from the returning officer for South 13rish·me duly notify­ing the return of Arthur JYiorry, E>quire, as member for that electorate.

MEMBER SWORN. l\Ir. Arthur JVIorry was 'worn in, and took his

:;eat for the electoral dbtrict of South Brisbane.

PRI::--TTI~G COlVDIITTEE. Mr. JESSOP, on behalf of the Speaker as

Chairman, presented the first report of the Printing Committee; and moved that it be printeu.

(,\ue,tion pnt and passed.

P:B~TITION.

J<'ACTORIES AND SHOPS BILL.

l\Ir. GLASSEY presented a petition from 1,258 residento in different parts of the colony in favour of the Factories and Shops Bill now before the House; and moved that the petition be received.

Question put and passed,

306 Factories and Slwps Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Factories and Shops Bill.

QUESTION. Mr. G RIMES asked the Minister for Lands­Have instructions been given to the Irrigation

Engineers to inspect and report upon the watershed of the Oxley as a suitahlc locality for irrigation purposr-;? -if not, is it his intcnlion to do so?

The MINISTER FOR LANDS (Hon. M. H. Black) replied-

Ko instructions have yet been issued, bnt aR the Gm-crnmPnt are desirous of obtaining the fullest in­formation on Jor.alities aclaptecl to irrigation, the suita­bility of the Oxley district will rece1ve considrration.

ELE:\1ENTARY PlWPERTY BILL.

On the motion of the Hox. Sm S. \V. G1UFFITH, leave was gh·en to i11trodnce a Bill to declare the 11atural hw relating to the acquisition and ownership of priv.1te property.

I<msr HE.\.DING.

The HoN. Sm S. \V. GRIFFITH presented the Bill, a11d moved that it be re,ld a first time.

Question put and passed, and the second read­ing of the Bill made an Order of the Day for Thursday, 7th _\.ugust.

UNION THUSTEE COMPA"t\Y OF AUS­TRALIA, LIMITED, BILL.

On the motion of l\Ir. TOZER, lea,·e was given to intrmluce a Bill to confer powers upon the Union Trustee Company of Austmlia, Lirnited.

FIRST HEADING.

Mr. TOZER presented the Bill, and moved that it be read a first time.

Question put and pasoed.

FACTORIES AND SHOPS BILL.

RESUMPTION OF 00il!ll!ITTEE.

On .the Order of the Day being· read, the House went m to committee to further consider this Bill.

Question-That the following words be inserted after the word ''engaged" in the last amendment on clause 2 :-

But shall not include any printte house, 11lace, or room used as a dwelling, wherein no mee1Janical power is used in aid of the manufacturing }Jrocess carried on there, and ·wherein the only persons employed are members of the same family d\velling there. -put

l'IIr. TOZER said that when the Contmittee ad­jonrned its last sitting he had moved an amend­ment which met with rc,•.sonable opposition from the hon. member for H erbert, and it had been sug·­gested that the amendment should be printed. Since that time the amendment had been printed and he had used in it abont the same word' as wer~ used in the clause, only inclnding persons work­ing in and about the house, as the hem. member suggesterl. He wished now to substitute the amendment as printed and circulated amongst hem. member.,,, for the amendment at present before the Committee. He therefore asked leave to withdraw the amendment men ed when the clam<e was last under discussion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. TOZER moved that the following worrls be inserted in the clanse after the word "enga<~ed" in the last amendment:- "

But shall not include any building or place in which su?h persons. are so engaged at home, that is to say, in pn:va~e prem1scs used as a dwelling or in acljaeent btnldll1gs or structures appropriated to the use of the household, wherein no steam or other mcchani('al pow~r is nsed in aid of the manufacturing process earned on there, and wherein the only persons envaged are members of the same family dwellmg there,

He might state that he thought the clause wonld reqnire to be fnrther amended even with that in. He had taken considerable trouble to work out the definition of the words "fac­tory or workroom," and he found there would be a lot of further amendments necessary to nrry out what he believed to he the wish of the Committee in respect to the clause. He would like t'o inform the Committee what the clause meant now. A factory under the clause as it stood would mean any TJlaco in which six or more persons were working· in anr handicraft and en­gaged in actual manual labour. It might be a woolshed where men worked for an hour or two or for a week. That would he a factory. Under the Bill a farm was a factory; all mines would be faetori<" under the clauRe, and any place even in the ont,,ide fields in which six or more per.~ons were engaged in ruannal labour. But con1ing to the i':i8Cond part of the cla11se, any place in '\vhjch ~tearn or other mt· ~hanical power was nsed, w>>s declared to be a factory. That was terrihly broad. If a man put np a small boiler to work a purn ping engine on a station, that would constitute a factory under the second part of the clause. There were a lot of things to be done in connection with factories. TLey had to be registered and to furnish returns ; fees were to be paid in respect of them which n1ight, in some instances, arnount to £3 or £4, and tht'Y were to be open to Government inspection. Under the first part of the cl:wse, any phce in which six perRont-J or rnore ·were et1gaged in a handi­craft waoa factory; bnt underthesecond, any place a tall in which steam orothermeclmnical power was employed, constituter! a factory; and a tobacco­nist't-J shnp in which a ga:-;-engine was used to '\Vork a tohacco-cutter would be a factury under it and subject to the provisions of the Bill. He had a number of amendments prepared in the interests of the Bill, and he rer;retterl ,-ery much that they were not put into the hands of bon. members until now. He could assure the Committee that he had sent them to the Goverument Printer at 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock on the previous day, with a view of having them in the hands of hem. members for con­sideration at least early that morning. He had in them worked out what he thought the Committee meant, and intended should be included in the definition of a factory. It was not intended that rnine·, and rnining rnachinery earning under the pr<wisic,ns of the l11ines Hegnlation Act shonld be inclnded, and he had also worked out what he thought was the intention of the Com­mittee with respect to pastoral and agricnltural pursuits, He had hoped to have the definition as he had worked it out in print in the hands of hon. memhers. His idea of what the Com­mittee intended should be the definition of a factory was this :-

" 'Fa.<:Jtory' shall mean any building or plncc in which six or more pcu0ns m·e enp;aged in any handicraft or in prcpnring or manufacturing articles for trade or sale, \V hereof the employer of the persons \vorking the• e has the right of aeccss an'l control; and every hakehonse in which three or more persons arc employed. and any building or place\vllerein onvitltin the precincts of which steam or other me\·hanical power is used to move or 'vork any machinery employed in p·eparing or manu­facturinp: articles for tra(h-• or z;;ale; but shall not in(>ludc any bniltling or place in which snch persons are so emp1oyecl a.t home, that is to s:ay, in private premises used as a dwelling, or in ndjacent. buildin?,'s or structures appropriated to the nse of the household wherein no steam or other mechanical pO\ver is nsed in aiel of the mnnnffLCtnring- procr "'s carried on there, and wherein the only 11ersons engaged are members of the same famUy dwelling there; nor any mine or machinery undrr the l\Iines Rt;,:!nlation Act of 18SB, nor any building or place used intermitt cntly for lJ nd fide pastoral or agri­cnlt.ural purposes, and situatrd upon a run or farm beyond the limits of any city or town."

That was his idea of what was intended under the Bill to be a " factory."

Faoto1•ies and Shops Bill. [22 JuLY.] Factories and Shops Bill. 307

Mr. O'SULLIVAN: That does not exclude a sawmill.

Mr. TOZER said that a sawmill was about the only instance before his mind at the moment, where supervision such as was provided fur in the Bill was required to prevent accidents. He moved the insertion of the words he had quoted.

Mr. HODGKIKSOX said the amendment ap­peared to be in accordance with the lines of the Bill, and a subsequent amendment in regard to early closing, under tbe heading "Locltl option clauses" read :-

"The provisions of this Act mny be applied in any electoral district." In the attempt to make the Bill a vital one he had always pointed out that there should be a clause inserted givin~ the ~Iil1ister discretionary power to a very large extent, and -.;ome idea of the same kind had evidently struck the hon. member for \Vide Bay. \Vhy could not the pro­visiom of the Bill be applied to such portions of the colony as the Mini"ter might think fit to direct? By that means it could be applied to only the urt•an and sulmrban districts, and it need not interfere with the pastoral, agricul­tural, and mining industries of the culony. If those provisions of the hon. UJember "ere inserted they would only be fmnishing work for lawyers in the actions that might arise under the Bill, and completely blind the people gene­rally as to what the Bill munt and what ad­vantages were to be derived from it. He thought the people who most wanted protec­tion were people connected by blood relation­shiv, and there wr~s an int')tance no later than in tlntt day's paper which bure out that argument. He hoped the hon. g•mtleman would insert a clause later on to give the Minister discre­tionary power as to the application of the Bill; and if the hon. gentlen,an did that, he would be placing uron the statute book of the colony a measure that would bring him a very worthily earned share of popularity, and wonld do a very great deal of &·ood to the colony in general.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY (Hon. J. ]\'[. :rvracrossan) said the hon. member for \Vide Bay had stated that six perscm8 working in a place would constitute a factory. It would take six persons.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRI:FJHTH : That is not how the new clause ren.ds.

The COLO::\I AL SECRETAHY said the hon. member for Burke said that he did not fc,cl at all inclined to accept the new Bill of the hon. mem­ber for \Vide 1hy. It was practically a new Bill, and he himself was not prepared to accept it. He intended to stick to the lines of the Bill as far as possible, and was ready to accept imprm ,ements when he heard them from whichever side they came; but he certainly would not subotitnte the new Bill for the present one. He had no objection to the present amendment; hut he had great objec­tion to many of the others which followed, and he wunld state his objections when those amend­ments came before the Commi-ttee for discussion. He admitted, when he spoke on the second read­ing, that improvements might be rmtde, and he had to some extent indicated the lines upon which. amendment,; would be accepted by the Government and by himself. In the meantime, they should deal with the amendment before them.

Mr. SA YERS said he wished to know why the Bill did not de.al with shopo where men and women were serving? He did not see any clause applying to them at all. He had received a petition from over 400 shop assistants at Charters Towers asking him to see that some such clause was inserted. People seemed to be Yery dis­satisfied with the Bill, which in no way relieved

them from the long hours they were n~w work­ing. Many people worked, especially on Satur­days, from 8 o'clock in the morning tillll o'clock at night, and he thought all the business in those shops could be done within reasonable hours, as was the case in regard to banks. \V hen one shop kept open, it compelled others who would be willing to close early to keep ot>en also, and he thonght all shops should close at a certain hour, say, (j o'clock. As the Bill stood at pre­sent, there wa~ nothing to crnnpel shopkeepers to close eculy, and he would like the boo. mem­ber in charge of it to sugge"t a clause in that direction.

The COLO~IAL SECRETARY said, as the hon. member for Charters Towers, :\lr. Sayers, Y-.as not pre'·cnt when the second reading of the l3ill was before them, he might inform him that the object of the Bill was the protection of women and of children under the age of eig-hteen years. The qnestion of closing- shops at the hour incli­c 'ted by the hon. member was left an open one, and it was an open queotion still.

The House resumed.

MESSAGE FIW:\1 HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR.

EsTL\!A'rES Jo'OR THE YEAR 1890-1. The SPEAKER announced the receipt of a

n1es:;;;age from Hi~ .Excellenc~r the Governor, transmitting the EstinL'.tes-in-Chief for the year ending 30th .June, 1891.

On the motion of the COLOXIAL TREA­SURER (Hon . • T. Donaldson), the Estimates were orrlere•l to b~ pr-inted and referred to Com­mittee of Snp!Jly.

FACTORIES AXD SHOPS BILL. RESGMPTION OF CO:IJMITTEE.

:VIr. CO\VLEY said there were many small places in the country where horse power w~s gradually being r-ephced by steam po_w~r, ':nd rt would be very hard if those penple hvm;.: m the coun trv shonid be brong-ht under the Bill. The nmend.ment to be snhseqncntly proposed by the hem. member for \Vide Bay would nwet all the objections that he had formerly urged against the clause which, as it stood, specially provided that those pbce< should be inspected. Steam separators, fl)r insta,nce, harl come into general use, and since the travelling dairy had been introdncecl many of those machines hod been ordered which it. would be difficult to work at a re"ular speed by horse power. :Most of the pe';,ple who u.sed tlrr;se machines thorr;ugh!Y understood how to dnve them; and hanng m many instances their own families to work them, or at most one or two hired men, they would take every precaution that no accident should happen. ·It would be very hard to bring those per."ms under the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment put and agreed to. Mr. TOZER said he had a further amend­

ment to propose, of which he had not given notice. He wished to further remove from the provisions of the Bill any mine, colliery, or mn.chinery under the Mines Regulation Act of 18S\J, and any building- or place used for bond fide pastoral and agricultural pnrposes situated upon a run or farm beyoud the limits of a city or town. After defining that a factory should mean-

" Any building or 11lace in 'vhich six or more 'Persons are employed in wol'ldng for hire or reward 1n. any hanrtim-aft. or in preparing m~ manufacturing articles for trade or sale," the clause went on to say-'' and an,y building or place in which steam or other mechanical power is ll~eQ.."

308 Factories and Shops Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Factories and Shops Bill.

His d_esir~ w~s. to assist the Minister to get factones m CJtJes and towns inspected. The whole of the trouble over the clause had arisen from the omission of the provision in the Vic­torian Act, but its provisions should not apply to the country. That omission had involved them Jn the present dispute, and was the came of the amendment of which he had given notice. The present Bill applied to both town and country. There were a Jot of far.mers in his electorate who used a little steam power, upon :vhom the provision would fall oppressively, and It would never do for the pastoralists to have their woolsheds and shearing-shecls declared a factory because a few men worked there at certain times. If they hac\ the slightest bit of machinery on a station it becttme a factory. In any case mines should be exclnc\ed. It would be absurd to call six men working in a drive a factory. He moved the insertion o£ the words, "':or any mine, colliery, or machinery under the Mmes Regulation Act of 188H."

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said he thonght it would be better to insert the words the hon. memher had spoken of ns being in fo_rce in Victoria-that it should not apply other­Wise than in any city, town, or borough.

Mr. TOZER: That would include Gym pie and Charters Towers.

The COLO::\'IAL SECHETARY saio there were more mining townships in Victoria than there were here. Here there were only Gym pie and Charters Towers, while in Victoria there were at least half a dozen.

Mr. HODGKIXSOK said if they allowed that amendment to be carried the whole Bill would require remodelling. It was simply preliminary to about twenty other amendments. The Bill had Lhe bones of a good measure and they should try and clothe it with the provisions they desired to be embodied in it. Then they should give the Minister discretionary power by which he wonld prevent the pastoral, agricultural, or mining in­dustries being hampered. If they did not do t[r~t t~ey would open the door to any amount of htrgatron and defeat the object they had at heart.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Hon. C. Powers) said that the hon. member for \Vide Bay was correct in his reading of the clause, but on re-commitbl of the Bill there would be no objection to a-Iter it, so as to make it clear that six persons should constitute a factory. That would avoid the necessity for several of the amendrr;ents suggested.

Mr. SALKELD said the drawback to giving the Minister a discretionary power to apply the Bill to certain districts was that he might not apply it to country districts where it would be very necessary. :For instance, sawmills ought certainly to come under the Bill, for there was no more dangerous occu1Jation.

Mr. TOZER saiu one objection to giving the Minister discretionary power was that capital was always shy of entering upon an undertaking the consPquences of which it could not forez.ee. A Factories Bill was the most difficult Bill in the world to pass through any House, because it was a measure re8training people, and everyone who felt that restraint naturally rose against it. He could not see for one moment that it would con­duce to the welfare of the colony to leave power to the Government for the time being to con­stitute any particular industry a factory. If the thing was worth doing it was worth doing well, and let it be settled, once for all, so that capital would know in what position it stood and what it had to meet. In all the Fac­tories Acts he had seen in other places it was stated in them what were the conditions under

which people entered upon any business, but if the Ministry had power to make by-laws re,tric­tive in their operation, no one would know in what position he stood in regard to those mat­ters. He had no desire whatever to interfere with the passing of the Bill, but he thought it his dnty to draw attention to the fact, which he dio at the second reading, that mines came under the definition of the Bill, and would continue to do so notwithstanrling the remar·ks of the Post­master-General. They had already made pro­vision for the regulation and managem"nt of the mines of the colony, but there was other out­side machinery in use that ought to be defined as factories. They had inspectors under the JYiines Regulation Act ; they were to have inspectors under the Bill ; and there would be such dreadful clashing if they did not exclnde mines, that the Bill would not work. If mines were excepted, then pastoralists and agriculturists should be excepted. But they were not the subject of his amendment, which was to the effect that all mines and collieries under the Mines Regulation Act be excluded.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH said the object the hon. member had in view would be b~tter attained by inserting the words " in any mine, colliery, or place in which machinery is used in or a bout a rnine."

Mr. TOZ:ER said he would acJ,,pt the sugges­tion, ·and put his amendment in that form.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said there was no intention to include mines, or pastoral or agricultural occupation.

1\Ir. GLASSRY said he thought the weakness nf the whole Bill was caused by making a factory a place where not less th,m six perwns were engaged, because there were hunoreds of people in the city of Brishane and elsewhere in the colony who would not be protected by the Bill on account of working in places which would not come within the category of factories. He seriously asked the Committee to reconsider the matter and endeavour to protect the individual worker, whether there were one, two, three, four, five or more people at work in the same place. The report of the Labour Bureau published in England in 1888 showed that the grossest evil:-; existed in connection with various industries, particularly the nail-making- industry in Staffordehire, where a great deal of the work was canied on under the most wretched social and sanitary conoitions. The Committee should take warning by what had happened in the old country, and try to prevent such evils from arising here, instead of wrtiting till it was necessary to provide a remedy. They ought cert.ainly to J;rotect every worker, particularly women and clnldren, from such evils as existed in other parts of the world. One of the suggestions of the person who made his report to the :English Labour Bureau was that the Factories Act should be extended to those domestic W•lrkohops, and that protection should be affcrded to people who wor-lmd in their own homes. To exclude workshops from the opera­tion of the measure because less than six pemons were employed would be doing an injury to a very large number of people scattered through­out differmrt parts of the colony.

l\lr. LITTLE said it was not so long ago since the hon. member for Gympie, Mr. Smyth, advised the hon. member for Bundanba to gb oYer to the other side of the House, because he was not wanted where he was. But they would not have him on the other side either. After the hon. member for Bundanba spoke on the Address in Reply, he (Mr. Little) went to sleep and had a dream. An old joker rather older than himself took hold of him and took him down below. He saw the golden gate on one side, and the iron bars on the other, and the dark gnlly between. He looked through

Factories and Shops Bill. [22 JULY.] Facto7'ies and Shops Bill. 309

the iron bars, and there he saw millions of men he had read about-men from the old country. An old gentleman who was mside asked him his name, and he said, "I am Billy, the miner, from Queensland." Then the old gentleman told him to come in and sit down, as his case was under consideration. ·while waiting there another traveller came along, and he heard a knock at the door. It was the hon. member for Bundanba. "\Vho are you?" said the door­keeper. ''I am a labour agitator from Queens­land," was the reply. "Then I must see the old man about you," the doorkeeper said. The old man came out and cast a kind of smile on him (Mr. Little) as he said to the hon. member for Bundanba, "\Vhy don't you try the people over the way?" That gentleman replied, ''I did, but they would not have me. \Von't you let me in?" But the old man said, "No ; I would not have you here at any price. Before you had been here twenty-four hours you would cause a strike among the firemen." The hon. member then asked, "\Vhat am I to do?" The old gentleman then said, ''\V ell, I'm manager here; I can't have you here, but here's a box of matches and a packet of sulphur, and you can start a place of your own." He did not know what happened afterwards, because he awoke and found that it was only a dream.

Amendment agreed to. Mr. TOZER said that in order to make the

definition of the word "factory" quite workable he had another amendment to propose which would commend itself t@ hon. members. The Minister in charge of the Bill had stated that it was not intended to apply the provisions of the Bill to agricultural and pastoral pnrouits ; and he therefore begged to move that the fo:Jowing words be inserted to follow the last amend­ment:-

X or any building or place nsed exclusively for lJr,nfi fide pastoral or agricultural purposes, and situated upon a run or farm beyond the limits of any municipality.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH said he had an idea that a large number of farms were within the area of the municipality of Mary­borough. The hon. members for that town might state if that were not so.

Mr. MORGAN said that the municipality of \Varwick contained a very considerable area of farming land, and far1ning was crtrried on thE're regularly. If the hon. member would use the words "town boundary" instead of "munici­pality" it would meet the difliculty.

The Hem. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH: What is the size of All ora?

Mr. ALLAN •"aid it measured four miles from the centre of the town; and there were a great many farms in it.

Mr. HYNE said there were a large number of farms within the municipality of Maryborough, and it would be a great hardship if they were all to be brought under the provisions of the Bill. Then there were jam-making and fruit·preserv· ing establishments within the municipality. He really thought that a clause should be inserted by which the Colonial Secretary or the inspector would be empowered to enforce the law wherever they thought it advisable to do so. The English Acts bristled with clauses reserving power to the Secretary of State to apply the Acts if he thought it wise to do so.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY Raid that if the hon. member for Wide Bay would omit from his amendment the words "beyond the limits of any municipality" the objection would be over­come, and the ca;;e of iYiaryborongh and \V arwick would be met. He did not know whether Toowoomba would come under that class or not,

Mr. TOZER said he had not the slightest objection to accept the suggestion of the Colonial Secretarv. \Vhen he had moved the amendment he had riot been aware that farms were included within any municipality. With the permission of the Committee he would omit the words "beyond the limits of any mnnicpality."

Mr. HYNE said that the island plantation of Messrs. Cran Brothers was within the munici­pality of Maryborough.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to. The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said he

would ask the Colonial Secretary why the follow­ing words in the definition in the Victorian Act had been omitted :-

"Any dwelling-place, building, or p]ace in which the employment is not carried on for more than three months in any year."

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said they were omitted for the purpose of preventing evasion of the Act. He bad considered the words very carefully, and had come to the con­clusion that they would lead to very great evasion of the Act.

Mr. TOZER said the next amendment he had to move was the omission vf the words at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph, " If not in­consistent with the context or subject matter." He need not say anything about the amendment, because the words were in the beginning of the clause.

Amendment agreed to. On the motion of Mr. BARLOW, the clause

was further amended by the insertion of the words "or other Asiatics " after the word "Chinese."

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said he would like to move the omission of the words "in working for hire or reward," after the word " indirectly " in the 20th line.

Mr. TOZEK said he wished to go further and omit also the words " directly or indirectly," as they meant nothing, and they were not used in a previous part of the clause. Some magistrate would have the question to deal with, perhaps, and he would naturally say that the legislature had some meaning in making a difference in the phraseology of the two parts of the clause, and that would lead to endleJs trouble.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said the words of the clause were taken from an Amending Act of 1887 of Victoria, and the words m that Act were:-

" If not inconsistent with the conte1t or subj ~et matter, any oflice, building, or place in which Chinese ~tre engaged directly or indirectly in working for hire or rmvard in any handicraft." And so on. ·He thought that the words "in working for hire or reward" should be left out.

Amendment agreed to. Mr. TOZER said he had given notice of an

amendment which he did not know that the Government would accept; it was intended to exclude technical schools.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: Is that necessary?

l\fr. TOZER said it was in the English Act, and he thought it absolutely necess&ry.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: I am afraid you are defining it too much.

Mr. TOZER said he did not wish to move any amendment which might be considered unneces­sary unless h~ thought there was a principle in­volved. He proposed to insert the following words after line 24 :-

Any building or place shall not he excluded from the definition of a factory by reason only that such building or place i.:; in the open air,

310 Factories and Shops Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Factories and Shops Bill.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: Is that in the English Act?

Mr. TOZER said it was, and in the American Act, and every Factories Act he had read.

Mr. COWLEY said he wanted to thorot~ghly understand the matter before going further. He wanted to know whether any building used exclusively for agricultural pursuits on any run or farm as mentioned in a previous arr.endment would be excluded from the provision of the amendment now proposed which said:-

" Any building m· place shall not be excluded from the definition of a factory by reason only that such building or place is in the open air."

Mr. TOZER: Certainly. Mr. COWLEY said he did not think so because

the Committee, on the motion of the hon. member, had just struck out the words "if not inconsistent with the context or subject matter." He gathered from that that Chinese working on a rice field would be included under the ]Jrovisions of the Hill and would he obliged to send in all those retums provided for. He was not quite clear on the point. He wished to know whether all the agricultural labourers would be included. \Vere Chinese who were working as agricultural labourers to be included? By the amendment which the hem. member had proposed he concluded that they would, and in that case they would want more inspectors than agriculturallttbourers.

Mr. 'rOZER o&id difficulties had arisen all through from the misuse of the word "place." The words in all other Acts were "build­ings or prernisec;," and then it becmne neces~ sary to state that any buildings or pre· mises should not be excluded from the definition of a factory by reason that such building or --remises was in the open air. Then the hon. member asked a question in regard to the Chinese, and objected to the omission of the words-

" In the construction, and for the purposes of this Act, the following terms shall, if not inconsistent with the context or ~ubjcct matter."

If ho had not struck them out, they would appear in two places. The clause would read:-

"Any bni.lding or place in which Chinc::;c are engaged in any handicraft, or in prepa,ring or mannfac­turing articles for tl;·dc or t::.ale, f:;baH be deeme{l a factory or workroom \Vi thin the meaning of thl·" Act.''

They knew the Government contemplated mak­ing a place where six persons worked together a factory. \Vhere there were six Chinamen work­ing was a factory. If they left out the words he proposed to insert, then any huilr1ing or ]Jremises in the open air would not be a factory. They wonld be in a dilemma if they did not put them in. The word "place" was· the mnBe of the difficulty. A place might be a piece of land with an area of a lOO acres, and it washy making that place a factory without identifying it with any particular structure or premises that the difficulty arose. He w~s not desirous of pressing the point; but he knew that in England it had been found nece,sary to have such words in the Act to prevent its being evaded by making factories in the open air.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said he did not think the words would improve the Bill iri any way. Any building must be in the oven air. As to the use of the word "place," it was used not only in the principal Act in Victoria, but in the Amending Act itself.

:i'vir. DRAKE said there might be a fish-curing place carried on by Chinese entirely in the open air, and unless the amendment were inserted those men would be exempt from the operations of the Bill altogether. Surely such a place would be a kind of factory.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said if they were carrying out their operations in the open air that would be in some particular place. As to disputes having arisen in England, there were no Chinese there.

Mr. HODGKINSON: Is the word "place" used in the English Act?

T!Je COLOXIAL SECRETARY: No; but it is used in the Victorian Act.

Question-That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted---put, and the Committee divided:-

AYEs, 21. )1essrs. IIodgkinson, Annear, Salkeld, Hyne, Groom,

Rutled.ge. Isambert, Sayers, llarlow, Unmack, Morry, Tozet', Stephens, Luya, Buckland, l\:Iacfarlane, Drake, Glassey, ::'&organ, }fc:Jiaster, and Aland.

"XOES, 3?·. Sir ·r. 1fcll\vraith, "f.Ie-:srs. l\elson. Donaldson, Black,

~Iacrossan, llmvcrs, 1Iorehoad, I,att.ison, It. It. Jones, C&-"'OJ. Perkins, Philp. Crombie, \Vatson, :J1urray, Paul, Hattcrsby, Little, Xorth, G. H. Jones, Pnlmer, Adams, Cowley, Lissner, Dun.-:mnre, Gannon, Callan, Dalryrnple, Allan, O'Sulliv:;n, Grimes, and O'Connell.

Question reRnlved in the negative. Mr. TOZER said that in order to encourage

technical schoob, and not to throw any obstacle in the way of anybody engaged in any private place in ~-iving technical instruction, he had pre­pared the following amendment :-

"The exereisc by any child or young person in any l'ecogni;;,;ed technical school ot any manual labour for the purpose of instructing such child or yonng person in anY art or handicraft slrall not be deemed to be an exerc~isc of ma.nnal labour for the purpose of gain, nor constitute the building or place so used a factory within tlw meaning of this Act."

But as those words were associated with certain definitions to be moved afterward which pro­bably the Colonial Secretary would not accept, he would not at present propose the amendment.

'l'he HoN. Sm S. W_ GRH'FITH said that as the clause stood at present, if six perRons were employed in a technical school working at any handicraft they were brought within the meaning of the Act. As to the amendment just disposed of, without the words proposed, the Bill would not apply to "ny work unless it was e:trried on in a Lnilding; and if the words had been in­serted it would h:we applied to every Chinaman working- in the open air or fishing in a fishing boat. 'l'he result seemed equally ab,urd, whether the words were put in or left out ; so that he did not vote on the amendment at all.

The COLOKIAL SECRETARY said he did not w11nt to include technical schools in the Bill.

1\Ir. HODGKINSOl'f said that in plain English they were asked to provide that-

(< Tlw exercise by any child or young person for the pnrpo·,e of instructing- Rnch child or young person in any art or ha,ndicrnft slmll not be deemed an exercise of manual labour i'or the purpose of gain."

He would not intenti<mally vote for such an extraordinarily constructed sentence as that.

On the motion of the COLONIAL SECRE­TARY, the definition of "occuvier" was amended as follows :-

"' Oecnpier' shall include the employer of the persons working in any ftwtory, workroom, or shop."

Mr. TOZE1~ said he thnught the word "em­ployer" should also be defined. He could assure the Colonial Secretary that there was no word about which there had been more litigation. Take the case of a crushing machine let on tribute. According to the amendment just made the occupier was to include the employer, but who was the emvloyer? The English definition of "employer'' was a very long one,

Fac-tories and Shops Bill. [22 JuLY.] Factories ancl Shops Bill. 3ii

and unless the word was defined it would lead to the greate"t difficulty. He therefore moved the following amendment:-

"' EmDloycr' shall mean any person 1vho on his O\Yll behalf, or as the mnnagcr, overseer, or agent for any pe1·son, firm, company, or corporation, has charge of any fa0tory, workroom, or shop, and employs any manunl labour exercised by way of trade or for the pnrpot'cs of gain in or incidental to the follmving pm post.;;, or any of them. that is to say: the selling, exposing-, offering, or adavtin~ for sa.le, m<tking, alt,::;rlng, repairing, orna­menting, finishing, or othcrvdse manufactLning any article what:-.oever.''

Mr. HODGKIXSON s1id he thought they ought to have "occupier" defined as well. If the definition was necessary in the one case it was necessary in the other.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH said he should like to know in which sections of the Bill the word "employer" was used. It might be used for one pnrpose in one case and an entirely different purpose in another.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said the hon. member f'lr \Vide Bay had several amend­ments to propose in which he used the word "mnployer."

Mr. TOZER said as it would only complicate the Bill at the present stage he would withdraw his amendment. In the event of his other amend­ments being muried he would ask the amendment to be inserted on re-committal of the Bill.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH said before the amendment was withdrawn he should like to see the effect of it. The word "occupier," which was a perfectly well known term, had been a:mendecl PO as to include employer, and he should hke to know what that meant. He did not know, and he thought the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill had not a very clear idea either.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said the object was to fix the responsibility on the proper person.

:Mr. TOZER said he should like to know why the word bed been altered from the Victorian statute. "Occupier" was not used there, and "emvlover" was.

The doLO::fiAL SECRETARY said the hon. gentle1nan ought not to make such a statement because it might lead people astray. "Occupier" was in the Victorian statute, but it was not detined.

Mr. TOZER said he meant that it was not defined in that stat'ute.

The Ho:-<. Sm S. W. G RIFFITH said he thought it would be better to leave the definition out. In the 14th clause it would be ,,een that "every occuFier of a factory or workroom who has wori{ done for the pnrpo'''s of his factory or workroom elsewhere than in such factory or workroom 8hall keep a record." Did that mean that two persons must keep a record-the man in occupation and the man who employed persons to work there? Then the 12~h clause contained a provision to the effect that in every factory the nmne and addn's of the occupier for the time being should be posted up. Did that mean the occupier and also the employer? \Vork might be done for a person who was not the occupier at all.

Mr. HODG KINSON said he thought it would meet the difficulty to provide that the person responsible for carrying on the business in any workroom, factory, or shop should be registered under the Act.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said it was for that purpose that the word "occupier" was put into the Bill. If an offence against the Act was committed, but not by the occupier, he could get out of it under clause 36. But he (the Colonial Secretary) wanted to fix the responsibility upon someone.

Amendment withdrawn.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY moved the insertion of the words "wholesale or" before the word " retail" at the end of the clause.

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

On clause 3, as follows:-"Subject to the proYisions o~ the Civil Service Act of

lS<D, the Governor in Council may from time to time appoint so many iu~pectors of factories, workrooms, aml shops as may a pp( 1r necessary for the carrying this Act into effect, and may from time to time remove any inspector.

"The 1Iinister may for the purposes of this Act divide Queensland into such and so many districts as he tllh1ks tit, and allot or assign one or more districts to one or more inspectors."

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH said the marginal note showed that the clause was taken from the Victorian Act, which made pro­vision for a chief inspector, whereas the Bill before the Committee did not. Some of the functions performed in Vict0ria by the chief in­spector seemed in the Bill to be transferred to the Minister ; some were left to the inspectors, and the rest to no one in particular. If the system was going to work properly there ought to be a chief inspector. He need not be an officer employed for that work alone; but it was just as necessary to have a chief inepector of factories as a chief inspector of distilleries.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said that each inspector would make a report on his own district, and it was not necessary that there should be a chief inspector simply to report to the Minister.

The Ho:'i". SIR S. W. GRIFFITH said he wished to know what was the scheme of the Bill with regard to inspectors. ~'l.n inspector for Brisbane could not l'robably de:tl with any place other than Brisbane. Could he deal with the whole of Brisbane? How many in~pectors were likely to be required?

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said that when the duties of the inspectors were indicated, as they would be after the Bill had passed thrcugh Committee, he would be able to say how many inspectors would be rertuirecl. But he did not know how many alterations would be made before the Bill passed. There was a big· question to be settled yet. Some hon. members desired to have v.ll shops clooed at G o'clock ; itnd if they carried that provision a great many more inspec­tors would be required.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said he wished to know what were the vie'YS of the Government with respect to the Bill as they brought it in. No one knew what it would be when it was passed.

The COLOKIAL SECRETARY said that if the Bill submitted by the Government became law, there would not be a great many inspectors required.

'rhe HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH: How many? Fifty?

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said that less than a fifth part of fifty would be sufficient for the whole colony. He would make officers already in the Govermnent service do the work of inspection to a certain extent.

Clause put and pas,ed. On clause 4, as follows:­"Every person-

Occupying a factory or worluoom at the time of the commencement of this Act shall within two months after such commencement; or

Going into occupation of any factory or workroom after the commencement of this Act shall within one month of such going into occupa .. tion; or

312 Faotories and Sltops Bili. [ASSEMBLY.] Factm·ies and Sltops Bill.

In occupation of any building or place which after the commencement of this Act b?comes for the first time, or after a period of disuf'e again becomes, a factory or worluoom shall withh1 one month of such building or phtee becoming or again becoming a factory or workroom-

serve on the inspector for the district in \Yhirh the factory or workroom is established, at his office, a, written notice in such form as ma.r be prescribed by reg-ulatiOns made under the authority cf this Act,, and containing particulars of the name and a dr"cription of his factory or workroom, the place· where it is ~ituate, the nature of the work carried on or to be carried on therein, a description of the motive power lif any) therein, and the name of th.~· firm under which the business of the factory or workroom is cnrried on, and such other particulars as mn,y be requirert by the regu­lations to be made under the provisions of this Act, and in default shall be liable to a fine not e"1:ceediug ten pounds; and H it be shown that all the reyuirements of this Act have been fulfilled, the inspector shall issue under his hand a certificate of registration of such factory or "\VOrkroom on payment of the registration fee as hereinafter provided."

:Mr. HODGKINSON moved the insertion of the words "or shop," after the word "work­room," on the 45th line.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said he would ask the hon. member for Burke why he thought it necessary that shops should be regis­tered and pay license fees? That clause really did not apply to anything in respect to shops.

Mr. HODGKINSON said he proposed the amendment because the people who would be most affected by the Bill were the people em­ployed in shops. The wishes of those people should be attended to, and they had a strong desire that those words should be included in the Bill.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: They want the word "shops," inserted in certain parts of the Bill.

Mr. HODGKINSOJ'\ said that was one of the portions of the Bill where they wished it to be inserted. He had prefaced his remarks upon the subject by saying that he intended to move amendments in little pointF, and he therefore confined himself to amendments which he knew were desired by the claF, on whme behalf it was proposed to legislate. He would take no part in what he termed legal discu,sions, berause he had sufficient experience of law to know that any intelligent lawyer could refine the Bill until it would be almost lost in a mass of definition. His amendment was a simple alteration which would give the people working in shops the sccme privileges as those engaged in factories and work­rooms, and it was desired by a very large class of the industrial community. He would like that to be taken f18 a test r.oint, ]Jecause there were a number of similar amendments to be P'O­posed. As to the harrlships of registr11tion, what were they? They were there not to con­sider those trifling additional troubles to em­ployers, as the Bill was introduced in the interests of em ployes, and their wishes should be consulted to some extent.

Mr. TOZER said he hardly thought the hon. gentleman had read all the clause, which only referred to factories and workrooms. The clauses there were of a most cumbrous character, and were only intended to apply to large factories. In Factories Acts, except in the colonies, those clauses were made to apply to factories emrJIO,''ing at least twenty per­sons. The hon. gentleman might see that under the Bill a shop was any ]Jlace where a person might sell, so tbat if anyone were to sell three bottles of ginger beer or anything at all, that person was bound to register under the next clause, which was :1 corollary of that one; and before he could dare to build a shop he would be bound to send a plan of the proposed building, stating the exact size of the shop, and

he would also have to pay a license fee of 10s. a year and send a list of the persons working in the shop although there might be only one person. The hon. gentleman had not considered the effect of his amendment. He could assure the hon. gentleman that he would assist him when tbev came to the clauses directly applying to shops.·

The HoN. SIRS. W. GRIFFITH said that some of the provisions applied to shops, whilst others dirl not. \V as any register to be kept of shops ? There must be some list of shops, or how would an inspector do his work? As to p:wing a license fee, that was another thing alt"ogether, and he did not see why a license fee should be paid for a shop-not under that Bill at any rate. If a lic·Bnse fee had to be paid for shops, it would be for different purpo~es altogether; but there certainly should be some list of shops registered, so as to ascertain what shops were to be inspected. AC!ain, there ought to be some provision in the Bi)l dealing with the health of persons engaged m shops. There should be some provisions with regard to ventilation, and the accommodation required for certain purposes, such as for women >tnd children and for meals. It seemed to him that that sub­ject had not been thought of at all.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said he would point out that the Victorian An,ending Act of 1887-passed two years after the Victorian Act had come into operation-struck out the word "shop" wherever it occurred in section 40. He would also point out that the working of the Act with regard to shops had been found to be impmcticable.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH : That was a bad Act.

TheCOLONIALSECRETARYsaidhedidnot know whether it was or not. The Act permitted the local authorities to grant certain exemptions upon petitions fr orn the shopkeepers, but it worked in such a way that some shops were dosed in one locality, whilst in a contiguous municipa;Iity the sflme class of shops were allowed to remam open. In the Bill before them they were altering that. They were still keeping np the same class of exemptions, but they were taking the power of denJing with the matter from the local authorities and giving it to the Chief Secretary. A petition might be sent in by fl certain class of shopkeepers asking for exemption, and unless a majority of the shopke··pers of the same class peti­tioned against that, then the Chief Secretary would grant the exemption. He did not know whether it would be necessary to register shops for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Bill. He hardly thought it would, as the inspector would be able to carry out the law withont the registro.tion of shops. Certainly he would object to imposing any Iiceme fee upon shO!l', because there" ere hundreds of shops in Bri~bane ani! elsewhere kept by women with perhaps a child or two to assist her, and it would he unfair to impose any additional tr~xation upon such people; but if registration were con­sidered necessary it might be introduced into the Bill.

Mr. HODGKIJ'\SOJ'\ said that if the hon. gentleman did not press a fee for registration nobody on the Opposition side would press for it. So far as regarded the difficulty of furnishing plans there were very few shops erected in the colony in these days in which plans were not provided, and tenders called for their erection ; so that that provision would inflict no great additional hardship on the shopkeeper. What he wanted to do wa;; simply to carry out the object intended to be effected by the introduction of the Bill, and that was to protect those classes hitherto unprotected, Everything should fall

Factories and Shops Bill. [22 jULY.] Factories and Shops Biil. 313

before that. He was not asking for any stringent measures that would in any wtty defeat trade. He only asked that the benefits of the Bill should be extended as widely as possible.

Mr. UNMACK said he failed to understand the hon. member for Burke. He would like to know what was to be gained by registering shops. An inspector going about the city or the country would see the shops, and could go iu and see whether the conditions of the Act were being complied with, and that could be done without the registration of the shops. \Vhat was to be gained by it? On the other hand, what would be lost? If they made the registration of shops compulsory, they would impose very heavy expenses on the country. The compul­sory registration of shops alone would mean the employment of a large number of Government officials, and the keeping of books and regis­ters all over the country. It would reouire fifty or sixty additional clerks, as they could not rele­gate the work to the clerks of petty sessions who were, in many cases, already overburthened with manifold duties. He was as willing as any­one to protect the hands employed in shops, but it was not necessary to have the shops regis­tered to do that. He thought the amendment a very objectionable one.

Amendment put and negatived; and clause pa"sed as printed.

On clause 5, as follows :-" Every person who is in occupation of any building or

place which after the commencement of this Act is about to become for the first time, or after a period of disuse is about to again become, a factory or workroom shall before the same is used as such forward to the office of the inspector fm· the district a complete pla.n of such building or place, together with particulars of the same to the satisfaction of such inspector, and such building or place shall not be registered as a factorv or workroom until such inspector has in writing apprOved of such building or place as suitable for a factorv or workroom, or has within one month after the receiPt of such plan and parliculars omitted to notify to such person any objection thereto."

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said: Suppose the inepector declined to iepprove, what was to happen?

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: There will be no registration.

The Hox. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said that, so far as he could wake out, what happened would be thi': If an inspector said, "I object to this shop," the man could not go into that business. That was all.

Mr. SA YERS said it would be a great hard­ship to many persons to give such powers to any inspector. In the country districts factories were not in the first instance erected on the elaborate scale that might be expected in Bris­bane or other large centres. They were usually at first put up very roughly, and as the business extended the buildings were improved, as every man had not the capital to put up an elaborate building. U ne! er the clause an inspector would simply hav~ to say he objected to a build­ing, and the applioont would be shut out and prevented from pushing himself along in the world. He would like to see some limit to the powers of the inspector in that matter; at least an appeal to the Minister should be allowed the person whose building was not approved of by the inspector.

Mr. HODGKINSON said there was 'not the slightest doubt that in a country like this, so utterly different from the highly populated coun­tries of Europe, the conditions should be met by that discretionary power to which he had already alluded being given to the ::Vlinister. The Minister should have the power of saying that the Act was :tpplicable to Brisbane, :iY1aryborough, Charters Towers, Cooktown, and other places, and was not

applicable to certain other places in the country. As the hon. member for Charters Towers said, there were many men who could not command the capital to warrant the erection of such a building as was contemplated by the Bill. If such a clause as he suggested, giving discretionary power to the Minister of the day, was included in the Bill, many of the proposed amendments would have been unnecessary.

Mr. HYKE said he would again urge upon the Colonial Secretary the necessity fora discretionary clause. In the report of the inspectors under the Victorian Act they pointed out case.< in wbich complaint was made to them of factories being erected outside cities, towns, and boroughs, and not coming under the operation of the Act. All that persons had to do was to go outside the boundary of the city, where land was not so valu­able, and they did not come under the Act. It was absolutely necessary that a discretionary clause should be inserted, and as he had said before, the English Act was full of clauses of that kind.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said that he had stated when moving the second reading of the Bill that it was impossible to draw any hard and fast line in the colony in such a matter, and he was not unfavourable to such a clause as was suggested by the hon. member for Burke. In the clause before the Committee, objection was taken to the powers of the inspector ; but some­body must have the power to inspect and report.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIF:FITH: He has not only that power; he has the power to veto.

The COLOXL'I.L SECHETARY said inspec­tors had a veto in manv other cases besides that. He saw that in the following clause the word '' 1-linister " was used along with '' inspector," and if the words ''or l\1inister" were inserted after the word " inspector" in the 9th line of the clause, the difficulty suggested would be met. That would give the person who erected the factory an opportunity of appealing to the Minister. He had not very much fear of the inspectors being too severe.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said it was not a good thing to give unlimited power to any one, and especially not in a matter of that kind to any subordinate officer or official, who was likely to have friends amongst the persons concerned. Might not this easily happen, as such things had happened in the world before? A man erected a place and intended to open a business in it, and the inspector might say, "I object to thh; place." The man might ask, "\Vhat are your objections?" and the inspector could reply, "I am not bound to state my objections. The building doeR not satisfy me. Try again." The man might try again and the inspector might Ray again, "The building does not satisfy me and you must get a competent architect." That sort of thing might go on indefinitely. He said such a thing might happen, and some hon. members of the Com­mittee knew that such a thing had happened.

Mr. SA YERS said that bearing out the argu­ment he could state that a foundry was started in Charters Towero on a Yery small scale, and, though the inspector might object to it as it was started, the business had been worked up and the buildings were much improved. He hoped the power would not be left in the hands of the inspectors alone.

The COLONIAL SECHETARY said the leader of the Opposition had taken exception to the powers given to the inspector under clause 5, and he thought it might meet the case if the words "or the Minister " were used after the

314 Factories and Slwps Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Factories and Shops Bill.

word ''inspector." That would take away a great deal of the ab,,olnte power that was given to an inspector under the clause.

Mr. TOZER said he did not think that would do at all. (?u.eenslan,d was a very large place, and every Uhmaman s garden throughout the colony would be a factory. Supposing a China­man went to settle down upon a aoldfields' homestead, before he could grow a

0

Vegetable he would have to obtain the approval of the inspector, and if the inspector would not o-rant pe:rr;ission -~e would have to apply to

0

the Mnuster. If he were at a distant place like Croydon he would have to wait long enough. An extraordinary provision of the Bill was than no Chinaman could get a house at all when he was engaged in any manual labour unless he had received a certificate from the inspector. He would sugfe't that any person who had been refused a certificate for any factory or workroom might appeal to the nearest police magistrate, or, if on a goldfield, to the nearest warden, and such police maai,trate or ward.en might reverse the in::;pector'~ decision, and m case of a reversal or alteration might grant a certificate for such workroom or factory. Then there should be a final "ppeal to the Mh_li~ter, who rnifiht affirm, alter, or vary the decrswn of the pohc~ magi.otrate or the warden as the case might be. That would be an intermedi­ate course, and the insp 'Ctor, knowing he had somebody looking after him who was in authority, would be very careful in what steps he took. He had known Chinese in the ~orth who were desirous of not having any man employed in the same business within a few yanls of t,hem, and who had gone round and attempted to bribe the warden and everybody eh3. In regard to other factories, be thought the powers were too great to be g-iven to an inspector, and therefore, instead of gi vmg a man the opportunity of appealing to the Central Board of Health, as was stated in the clan,e from which that before them was copi~d, he would allow him to appeal to a police magrstrate or warden. If hon. me m hers thought an amendment to that effect would meet the case he would move it.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY ,aid he would ask how ~nuch better would the applicant be if, after havmg received the permission of the police magistrate or warden, he had to wait for the approval of the Minister?

Mr. TOZER said the police magistrate or \~arden would be a better judge upon the ques­twn of the factory than the ;\linister.

The COI"ONIAL SECRETARY srtid that if the police magistrate or warden simply acte<l on the report of the inspector and the statement of the applicant, he would not be a bit better judge than the :\Iinist-er, who had the same means of information before him.

Mr. TOZER moved that the following words be added to the clause :-

Any perf;on who hns hecn refu~cd a certificate of approval by the inspector for anv facton· or workroom m~y. appeal to the nearest police nutgistrate, or if W1t~1n a goldfield. to the nearest warden; such police ma.g1strate or warden may rcver.,e, alter, or confirm the inspector's decision, and in case of n!v0rsal or alteration may grant certificate of approval for such factory or workroom, 'vhich shall have tl10 same effect as the iuspector's approval.

The COLO~IAL SECRETARY said he had a prior amendment to propose-namely, the in­sertion of the w•Jrds "or 1\Iinister " after the word " inspe~tor " in the \Jth line of the clau.-;e,

Mr. Mc1YIASTER said the clause, even if amended as proposed, would work very hardly. The applicant had to submit a plan to the in­spector, and then he had to wait a month before he knew whether he might proceed wrth the

building. It would be much better if the Go­vernment were to provide such plans for factories as they thought necessary. There might be first-class and second-class factories, in the same wa,y as, under the Local Government Act, first­class and second-class building sections were proclaimed, which required the buildings erected thereon to he constructed of a certain kind of material. He was quite sure that that clause, even with the amendment proposed, would not only prove a great hardship, but would also open the door to bribery and corruption. \Vhy should a man who wanted to start a small jam factory to manufacture jam out of fruit grown by him­self have to wait a month to see whether the building was approved or objected to by the inspector ? If such a person forg·ot to give notice early, as he might easily do, the fruit would bA rotten by that time. The better way would be for the Government to pre­scribe in the Bill the style of building required as to area, ventilation, and so forth; ::md then insist upon all factories being erected in accord­ance with the specified conditions. Various Go­vernments had promised to introduce a Build­ing Act for the city of BrisbanP, and if that were done no doubt similar legislation would be pas''ed for other cities. He might say that a Building Act for Brisbane was now in course of preparation, and the Government would be requested to introduce it, and he was afraid that it might clash with the measure under considera­tion, unless some such amendment as he had suggested were adopted. It was desirable that they shoulr! give every possible encouragement to local industry, but the reverse seemed to be done by that Bill.

J\!Ir. SALKELD said clauses 4 and 5 seemed to clash. Clause 4 provided that-

" Every person in occupation of any building or place which after the commencement of this Act becomes for the first time. or after a period of disuse again becomes, a factory or workroom, shall, within one month of snch building or place b3coming, or again becoming a factory or workroom,''

serve a notice to th,tt effect on the inspector. That appeared to clash with clause 5, which stated that a building should not be used as a factory until the inspector had approved of it, or until a month had elapsed without his making any objection to it.

Mr. TOZER said he did not see how the amendment would work in the North. Let them take the case of a person resident at Townsville. A man in occupation of a building there which was about to be usad as a factory would have to forwarcl to the oifice of the inspector a com­plete plan of the building before it was so used, and the building would not be registered until it had been approved by the inspector, or that oificer had omitted to notify to the pro­prietor any objectinn to the place within one month after the receipt of the plan and par­ticulars. If the inspector was away, then the man could not use his factory for a month. How was such a provision to work in the North? It was impossible to carry Ol'lt the clause, even if amended by the insertion of the words "or J\finister."

Mr. HYNE: Those words give the right of appeal.

.Mr. TOZERsaid they did not give the right of appeal, and even if they did, that would not obviate the delay, as the inspector would have to expreRs his opinion before the matter w~nt to the Minister.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said the words " or :Yiinister" were proposed to be in­serted for the purpose of meeting the case of an inspector refu;ing to register. Very likely it would not happen once in five hundred cases that

Factories and Shops Bill. [22 JULY.] Facto1·ies and Shops Bill. 315

the Minister would hear anything about the matter; the inspector would do the whole work himself. But in such a case as that referred to by the leader of the Opposition, where an inspector from unworthy motives refused to approve or register a building, then the proprietor conld immediately wire or write to the J'llini8ter, who would be able, having the plans before him, and probably the report of the inspector also, to decide the matter.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said it still remained that the unfortunate person who was about to begin bu,iness had to send in particulars to the satbfaction of the inspector. If the inspec­tor said he was not satisfied, then the whole thing was stopped ; there was no appeal. The owner of the place might say, "Kindly tell me what is wrong?"' and the inspector might reply, "I am not bound to tell you what is wrong; you don't give me the dimensions of your scantling or height of the building ;" but there was no appeal. 'l'he inspector might be right in his opinion, or he might not. The hon. member for "\Virle Bay said it sometimes happened that Chinese offered bribes. He (Sir 8. W. Griffith) understood that in the1r own country the ordinary way of getting privileges was by paying money to officials, and they might attempt to carry out that practice in Queensland. Such things were said to have occurred here sometimes, though he did not know whether they had or not. It seemed to him, however, that by that clause they were deliberately opening the door to dangerous abuses. He might observe that it \V>ts not the Victorian :lystem.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY : They have a board of health in Victoria.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said they had a board of health in Victoria, and that was a body ·which might 'be trusted, but the inspector here would very often be a casual person. Of course where an inspector was under the eye of public opinion it was not likely that he would do anything of that sort ; if he did he would be dismissed. But they all knew how difficult it was to exercise supervision over officials in outside district'.

The COLOKIAL SECRETARY said the only charge that he ever heard made about Chinese giving money to Government officials had been against 1'nen far above the rank of inspectors-the very men whom the hon. member for Wide Bay wished to make judges in appeal.

Mr. TOZER said if the Chinese succeeded in bribing those officials theY would probably do it more easily with men far below them in rank. .But, he asked, was that the way to tackle the Chinese, of whom they had sever:li thou­sands in the colony? Already they had passed stringent legislation dealing with Chinese, and the proposed provision was simply a poll-tax of 10s. on every Ohinan1an 'vorking in a garden, because under it no Chinaman could go into any house in Queensland unless he got that house registered as a factory, and paid a fee of 10s. The result woulrl b~ that before a Chinaman got his house registered he would have to pay some three or four guineas to somebody to help him to get it done.

Mr. SALKELD said he thought the cbuse would be far clearer if, instead of amending it in the way proposed, a separate clause were in­serted giving the right of appeal to the ::Vlinister. He was afraid it would be very difficult to understand the Bill. He would like to know whether any person who harl a factory now, and went on working it before the house was regis­tered, was not liable to be fined under section 7. It was provided in one clause that a person who had a factory or workroom should register it

within two months, but anyone commencing a new factory had to give one month's notice to the inspector, as clause 5 stated that a building could not be registered as a factory or work­room until the inspector harl approved of it in writing, or had omitted to notify any objection within one month after receiving the specified notice. And then clause l stated that "any oc­cupier of a factory, or workroom r.ot registered, as in the Act provided, shall b0 liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds." He could not see how those three provisions agreed. Clause 7 said that any occupier should be liable to a fine if not registered, and yet it gave two months to get registered.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said clause 5 applied to a building or place which, after the commencement of the Act, was about to become for the first time, or after a period of disuse, again a factory. Therefore, there was not the same necessity for fixing the time at two months.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRLFFITH: The 4th section reads exactly the same in the 3rd para­graph.

Mr. SALKELD said there were practically two periods~-one was two months and the other one month.

'l.'he COLONIAL SECRETARY s:,id the provision in clause 4 agreed with the time men­tioned in clause 5.

Mr. SALKELD: But how can that agree with clause 7?

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said he did not see that therE\ was any disagreement with clause 7. The question now was whether they should insert the words "or :Minister."

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said the other que',tion had better be settled first. Take the two things separately. The provisions of the 4th section were these:-" Any person in occu­pation of a building or place which after the commencement of this Act becomes for the first time, or after a period of disuse again becomes, a factory or workroom shall within one month . . . . . serve a written notice," etc. That was to say, he had one month after the place became a factory in which to g,i ve notice. He need not give it until the end of the month. The next section said that before he used it as a factory he must get the approval of the inspector. One section said he could use the factory for a month without giving notice at all, and the other that it must be approved of before being used. It was impoosible to reconcile the two things. Then the 7th section impo,;ed a fine of £5 a day for not registering. The O<'cnpier was authorised by one section to do a certain thing for a month, and the next section imposed a fine of £300 uvon him if he did it.

The POSTl\IASTER-GENERAL eaid the 3rd subsection of clause 4 was exactly the same as the Victorian .\.et, and although it said the occnpier rr1ust give notice \vitbin one month it did not say he should go on with his work. Clause 5 said that although he g:we notice he had also to supply a plan which must be approved. As far as clause 5 was concerned, in the Victorian Act it was left to the local Board of Health to put in motion. The question was, whether it was better to leave it to the local Board of Health or to the inspector, and he thought the Act would work easier if it was left to the option of the inspector. The question now was whether the amendment should be pLlt in, that the building should not be registered until the Minister or inspector had approved, and it was stated that in distant parts of the colony that might be a great hardship. ]'rom his experience he knew that if any injustice was done in any particular district, the m~mber for the district

316 Factories and Shops Bill. [ASSEMBtY.] Factories and Shops Bill.

was nut slow to bring the matter under the notice of the Minister. If the amendment was carried, he presumed it would do away with the necessity for the amendment of the hon. mem­ber for \Vide Bay. The amendment would leave the right of application to the Mini5ter if the inspector did not give fair play.

The Ho:s. A. RUTLEDG E said the provi­sions of section 6 were inconsistent with both of the other sections. The provisions of section 5 were that a person in occupation of a building or place which after the commencement of the Act became a factory, or after a period of disuse again became a factory, should, within one month, give notice to the inspector. It then provided that registration should not take place without approval in writing. Section 6 expressly said that every factory or workroom should, after payment of the registration fee, be registered in a register to be kept for that purpose. Section 6 seemed to nullify the effect of the other by declaring that there should be registra­tion as soon as the plans were forwarded. That was the only condition provided by section 6, and it was not consi>tent with section 5.

The COLO~IAL SECRETARY: You must read the one with the other.

Mr. CO\VLEY said : Ought not clause 4, in reality, follow clause 5? Clause 5 said: "Every person in occupation of any building or place about to become a factory shall forward to the office of the inspector for the district a complete plan," etc. Then clause 4 saiu: "Every person in occupation of a building or place, which, after the commencement of this Act, becomes for the first time," etc., was to do certain other things quite different and distinct from the things to be performed under clause 5. One was in occupa­tion of a place about to become a factory, and had to obtain a license, and within one month of obtaining the license had to comply with the con­ditions of clause 4, which said that the name of the factory had to be given, together with the number of persons employed, and so on. He did not think the two clames were inconsistent at all.

The HoN. SIRS. W. GRIFFITH said he was not responsible for the Bill, but he could not see how it was consistent to ''ay that a man might do a thing lawfully for one month and then say that it was unlawful for him to do it. That was the only inconsistency. The Bill said a certain thing was lawful, and then that it was unlawful. If that was not inconsistent, he did not know what was.

l\Ir. TOZER ,,ctid that if the time allowed for giving notice under the 4th clause was fixed at one month the time allowed under the 5th clause should be somewhat shorter.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH said he thought it was undesirable to give the inspector absolute power to say what particulars should be sent in, and he suggested that the clause be amended so as to provide that the plan and particulars must be "to the satisfaction of such inspector or of the Minister."

Mr. SA YERS said he had listened to the arguments on both sides, and it appeared to him that the Bill would hamper and harass peovle in the country districts. A man with small means wishing to embark in an industry wonld have to get duplicate plans at considerable expense, and his capital would be eaten up before he was able to make a start. They ought to acsist new indus­tries instead of putting obstacles in their way.

Mr. HODGKINSON said that the only persons who had anything to fear were those who would try to evade the provisions of the Bill. It did not require any great expense or

any remarkable skill to find out how many cubic feet of air or how much ventilation there must be for a certain nnmber of persons. All ttttemjJts to evade the Act should receive no consideration at the hands of hon. members. Let those who wished to sail so near the wind in connection with such an important matter suffer for it.

Mr. SAYERS said he was not speaking of people who would try to evade the Act. He spoke of people who wished to make a start on their own account. He believed that all em­ployers should have due regard for the health of those they employed, but he did not see why they should be hampered with useless restric­tions. He never yet heard of a place in the out­side districts where people did not get plenty of air.

Mr. HODGKINSON sttid the provisions of the Bill were more applic:-tble to the large centres of population ; and unless they were made stringent they would be evaded.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said there was a good deal in the remarks of the hon. mem­ber for Charters Towers, lYir. Sayers, about placing restrictions on people about to engage in an jndustry; at the same time that must be done for the protection of those whom they employed. He had no objection to the insertion of the words ''or the Minister," as suggested by the leader of the Opposition; but he thought in that case, instead of the time being shortened as suggested by the hon. member for \Vide Bay, it should be lengthened. If plans were to be sub­mitted to the Minister, it would be necessary to increase the time beyond a month. He would withdraw the amendment he had previously proposed, with the view of inserting the words "or the Minister" after the word "inspector," in line 24.

Amendment withdrawn. The HoN. SIRS. W. GRIFFITHsaid it was

now a question as to whether it should he the Minister or the police magistrate. He be­lieved that an immediate appeal on the spot would be best-it would certainly be the most speedy-and he thought they might trust the police magistrate.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said there was an objection to an appeal to the :Minister, owing to the time that must elapse before it was settled in the case of people living at :;, distance from Brisbane, and It wonld probably be as well to trust the police magistrate or the court of petty sessions.

Mr. TOZER: Courts of petty sessions are dangerous.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said he was prepared to let his amendment drop, and accept that of the hon. member for \Vide Bay.

Mr. TOZER then moved the amendment he had previrmsly proposed.

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

On clause G, as follows:-"Every factory or \vorkroom of which 1mrticulars are

for\varded to the inspector as herein before provided shall, on payment by the occupier thereof of the registration fee for the year in 'Thich the same is 1·eglstered, he registered in a register to be kept for that. purvose in the office of the in:;pector, and in such register shall also be entered all the particulars which are by this Act directed to be forwarded to the inspector, together with such other pH.rticulars as may from time to time be deemed nece~sary by the Minister or inspector : Provided that nothing in this section contained shall be deemed to require or authorise an entry in such register of any particulars other than those required by this Act or by regulations made hereunder to be forwarded to the inspector prior to the registration of any such factory or workroom."

Factories and Shops Bill. [22 JULY.] Factories and Shops Bill. 317

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE said he would point out that the clause was inconsistent, and in order to remove that inconsistency he would move the omi"sion of the words in the 1st line­" Of which particulars are forwarded to the inspector as herein before provided ;" with the view of inserting the following words :-

'Vhich has been approved, or in respect of which no such objection haa been notiti.ed.

Amendment agreed to.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said it had been said that inconsistency did not consist in saying different things at different times, but in saying different and contradictory things at the s"'me time. They had just had an instance of that in providing in two following clanses that a certain thing should be both lawful and unlawful. There might be an excuse made for that by saying that the draftsman only drafted one clause a day, and that he had forgotten the first by the time he drafted the second. Now they had a clause which contained a statement, and then it immedi­ately proceeded to say the very opposite. Any­one looking at the clause would see that it ·was absolutely contradictory, and anyone having a little knowledge of parliamentary pmc­tice could see how it had happened. They were copying from the Victorian legislation ; and in that colony they had done exactly as they were now doing--making up the Bill as they went along-. That clause contained a most extraordinary provision. It provided that in the register shall be entered certain particulars, "together with such other particulars as may from time to time be deemed necessary by the Minister or inspector," leaving absolute discretion with the Minister or inspector as to what those other particulars should be. Then when the Committee had come to that point the absurdity of the whole thing seemed to have struck them, and they had immediately added the proviso to say it should mean nothing of the kind. The clause read "such other parti­culars as may from time to time be deemed necessary by the Minister or inspector;" and then it went on to say :-

"Provided that nothing in this section contained shall be deemed to reqnirt1 or authorise an eutry in such regi:;;ter of any particulars other than those re­quired hy this Act or by regulations made hereunder to be for\vardcd to the inspect m· prior to the registration of any such factory or workroom."

He called attenGion to the inconsistency before it was too late to amend it.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: I do not see the inconsistency at all.

Clause, as amended, put and passed. On clause 7, as follows:-"The reg;stration fee to be paid in respect of every

factory or workroom shall be that in the first schedule hereto mentioned, and shall be paid on or before the thirty-1irst day of :J.farch, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one. anrt thereafter on the thirty-first day of January in each and every year by the occupier of such factory or \VOrkroom. Any occupier of a factory or workroom not registered as in tho Act provided shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."

Mr. SALKELD said the latter part of the clause said-

" Any occupier of a factol'y or workroom not re­gistered as in the Act provided shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."

He would like to know how long a person could go on without registering a factory before he could be fined. Two months were allowed in which to give notice-at least he presumed that was so, although it was not specified-and then if within one month a man did not get notice from the inspector, he (Mr. Salkeld) supposed he could go on working. They could not be fined, as he read it, until the nspectornotified that he objected to the buildings.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said that if the inspector did not notify his objection the factory would go on.

Mr. SA YERS ,aid he would like to know if the fee was an annual one?

The COLONIAL SECRETARY : Yes. Mr. SALKELD said there was a provision by

which an inspector certified his approval of a place, but he saw no provision compelling the inspector to notify his objection.

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE said there was something else to be added to the question nf the hon. member for Charters Towers, Mr. Sayers. The clause did not specify the place at which the fee would be payable--whether at the Trea­sury or at the nearest court of petty sessions. ·where was the fee payable?

Clause passed as printed. On clause R, as follows :--'' Every inspector shall for the purposes of the execu­

tion of this Act have power to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:-

(1) To enter, iuspect, and examine, at all reasonable times by day find night, a factory, workroom, or shop, and every part thereof, when he has reasonable catt.~e to believe that any person is employt-~d therein, and to f'nter by day any place which he has reasonable cause to believe to be a factory, workroom, or shop :

(2) To take with him in either case a constable into a factory, workroom, or shop in which he has reasonable canse to apprehencl any serious obstruction in the execution of his duty:

('J) To require the :production of the Ct>rtificate of registration, books, registers, certificates, notices, lists, and documents kept in pursuance of this Act or of any l'egulations made here­uncler, and to inspect, examine, and copy the sallle:

(4) rro make snch examination and inquiry as may be necessary to ascertain '\vhether the enact­ments of th~is Act and tlle regulations made thereundl'l' are complied with so far as re,._pects the factory or workroom, a11d the persons employed therein :

(5) To examine in the pl'esence of the occupier, his agent or servant, with respect to matters under this Act, every person whom he finds in a factory, workroom, or shop, or whom he has rensona1)le cnuse to believe to he or to haYe been within the prf<~eding-two months employed in a factory, workroom, or shop: and

(6) To enter any school in which he has reasonable cause to believe that pert:ons employed in a factory, workroom, or shop are for the time being educated, and to examine any person whom he finds in any suca school as to his or her employment in any factory, workroom, or shop:

(7) To exercise such other vowers as may be neces­sary for carrying this Act into effect."

Mr. HODGKINSON said he wished to make an amendment in the 15th line. Under the clause an inspector had the right "to enter, inspect, and examine at all reasomcble times by day and night a factory, workroom, or shop and every part thereof when he has reasonable cause to believe that any person is employed therein." That would give the inspector, under an amendment made bv the hon. member for Wide Bay, power to er1ter a dwelling_ Their object was to limit the hours of business in those establishments, and no doubt that would aid in the matter of early closing. Was the inspector to be allowed to enter any such place when under the Act it was closed?

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFlTH said he thought attention should be directed to the 1st paragraph of the clause. The clause provided that an inspector mig-ht enter any shop, however small, in which goods were sold by retail, at any hour of the day or night if he had reasonable cause to believe that any person was employed in it. .Although the Bill only dealt with shops to a

318 Factories and Shops Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Factories and Shops Bill.

limited extent, the inspectors were given the 1 ower to enter them at any hour of the da.y or night. Th"t was a very serious thing to do. That might be right if it was not lawful to employ persons within certain hours, so that it might be seen whether persons were being so employed. He was afraid the inspectors they would get would not be persons whom it would be safe to trust to go into shops at all hours of the day or night.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said he would like to know how an inspector was to tell whether a child was heing employed in a shop if he had not the right to enter and inspect it? They prohibited the employment of a child under fourteen years of age in a shop or factory, and how were they to find out whether that was heing rlone? He q uitP agree:! that it was not right to give an inspector any more power than would enable him reasonably to carry out the Act, but he must have the power of inspection.

An HoC'!OUHABLE MEil!llER: By night? The COLONIAL SECRJ;j'rAEY: While the

shops are open.

HoNOURATILE ::YIE>InERS : The clause says by day or night. .

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said they had not yet decided whether the shops were to be open at night or not, and until they had decided that he thought the word "night" should remain.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said the hon. gentleman bar! misser! the point. If thev decided that shops should not be open at night the power to enter them at night would be all the more necessary to detect evasion of the Act. They gave power to inspectors under the Licensing Act to enter public-houses to inspect them by night or day if they had reasonable grounds for believing that the law was being violated. The clausu before them gave the power to inspectors to enter at their own sweet will. A single woman might keep a shop, and an inspec­tor might enter it at any time of the day or night if he harl reasonable cause to believe she was employed in it.

Mr. SALKELD said they were treading on dangerous ground in giving such powers to an inspector. If a person came into his house in the night he might conclude that he was a burglar and might knock him down or kill him, and he did not think that anyone who did so would suffer for it at the hands of a jury. Any person who entered a house in that way would have to take the consequences. A widow or a single woman might be keeping a shop, and under the clause an inspector could enter it at any hour of the day or night and might take a constable with him. If the shop was closed, would the inspector have power to break into it? He did not think any such power necessary.

Mr. HODGKINSON said that not onlv could the inspector enter, but he could demand immedio.te compliance with the provisions of the subsections from 1 to 6, and if that was not enough he c•mld, according to the 7th subsection, exercise such other po\vers as 1night be necessary in his opinion for carrying the Act into effect. 'Who was to define such other power? The in­spector could do whatever he liked.

Mr. TOZER said if they were going to have the clause at all they must have the machinery to work it. Had circumstances in Queensland reached such a pitch that they would be the first colony in the world to give power to inspect shop~ by day and night? Could they give such inquisitorial powers to anybody? One clause said no child should be employed in any

shop. The object of the Bill was to keep children from being out at night and working at night, and how were they to find out whether any child was employed in any shop unless they allowed some per ,on in authority to go t,> that shop and see? If they were going to hwe the clause they must give tlmt power of inspection.

The Ho". Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said that in Victoria, where they had to deal with shops, they did not give such powers as those now pro'r>Osed to enter shops. In respect to chilrlren working in shops, the hon. member had him­self proposed an amendment, excluding frPm the operation of the Bill workrooms in which only members of a family ''·ere employed; so that a factory in which the members of the family only of th~ person who occupied it were employed, would be exempt altogether from inspection. But if his children were employed to assist in his shop, it might be inspected day or night. That wn>< the effect of the clame as it stood, and he knew the hon. member did not wish for an absnrditv of that kind. He was only calling attention to" the utter absurdity of the Bill. A workroom where a family of children were employed was exempt; but if one child were employed in a shop by its mother, that shop was to be open to inspection day and nig·ht. He presumed nobody really intended to m>tke any such absurd lll'O\'ision.

The Hox. P. PERKINS said he had been trying to gather son1e inforn1ation in regard to the Bill from tlw speeches of hon. members, but he had always found that they brought their arg·nments from Victoria. In Victoria they had bctories, and in Queensland they had none. He had heard that if a child were employed by its mother in a shop, an inspector might go in even after the shop was closed to ascertain that fact. \Vhere were their factories? \V a." the present the time to frighten away those who would be likely to in ve;t money and establish factories? If women and children were to have protec­tion, a measure a long way short of that before them would suit their requirements, and he would go heart and soul with any ban. mem­ber who would move in th>tt direction. But it sqemed they mnst copy Victoria; they must plagiarise something in operation there. There were factories there ; they could see the smoke stacks as they travelled in the trains or the trams. It would be as well for the Government to wait instead of entertaining them with that arnusen1ent, until there was ~omething to lPgislate abont, and protect women and children if there were any wrong done them. There would be quite time enough for the measure before them when factories had been establisher!, and he was sure the effect of that dra .tic legislation wonld be" like other le:;islation that had been carried out, and to which he would not allude-namely, to frighten a.way those who intended to come here. There was no necessity for it. Nobody wanted it, and it was simply a consequence of the eight honrs mo\'ement, to which he had no objection. The hon. gentleman who had brought in the Bill would be much better employed in some other direction. Heconld not believe that Queens­bnd was a country of liberty when any outcast of society, who might be appointed an inspector, might go into his house day or night, for that would be the effect of the clause, according to his temper or inclination at the time. A country under those circnmstances would not be worth living in, and if the measure were passed, the sooner anyone who had any C>tpital or any enterprise up-anchored and went to some other place the better for him. The Government had done quite enough to frighten people away, and they had ruined a good many who had come here. Under the Bill suburban shops would

Facto1'ies and Shops Bill. [22 JuLY.] Factories and Shops Bill. 319

have to be closed, if some hon. members could have their way, and he did not see why people should be forced as to their hours of labour. If a man had some other occupation during the day and chanced to be more industrious than others, w by should he not he allowed to reap the reward of his industry? If the closing hounVi.~ fixed at 5 o'cl0ck or 6 o'clock, the small shopkeepers in the suburbs would have to shut up, ann the large shop ownero would reap the benefit. :Many people who now transacted their business n,t the local stores would have to come into town ; aml he was surprised that a man with the intellif(ence of the Colonial Secretary should be the intm­ducer of a measure like that before them. He thought the hon. gentleman with his experi­ence on the goldfiel<ls, and his experience of mem­bersof that Committee, would have seen the bogus nature of such legislation, and would not have stooped to copy something that had been done in Victoria. Possil>ly there might haYe been some necessity for it there ; but even there now they were not enforcing the Act, and each member of the House there was trying to go one higher in ouibirlding the others in attempting to calm the fears that harl arisen. He was only surprised that the Colonial Secre­tary should haYe four or five idle colleagues round him, leaving to him all the trouble of ad vacating, defending, exp!Rining, and excusing the meawre, and placating hon. members on the other side. He trusted the hon. gentleman would devote his abilities in some othPr direction, and would ha,-e the good sense to abandon the Bill as early as possible.

The POST:HASTER-GENlmAL said that the Government were first of all accused of bringing in a mere skeleton Bill. Now, the very first clause they came to that gave effect to the public demand, hon. members on the other side silid it was too drastic-with the ~xception of the hon. member for \Vide Bay, who saw that if shops were to be inclnded the power asked for was absolutely necessary. The Bill had not been brought on with the object of closing those 'hops at 6 o'clock, but to prevent young girls and women from being kept at work in those shops after a certain time. The Colonial Secretary had sairl that if an amendment was proposed to close all shops at 6 o'clock, if it met the v-iews of a majority of the Committee it would be adopted; but the Bill was brought in to protect women from working late hours at night, and children up to a certain age. If the working hours of females and boys were to be fixed by the Act, it would be necessary to give the inspector power to inspect shops at all reasonable times and when­ever he had reasonable cause to believe that any person was at work therein. Some one must be appointed to see that the Act was carried out. It was no doubt a drastic clause they were asked to pass; but if hrm. m ern bers thought it ought not to apply to shops let the word.- "or shop" be left out, and give no inspector the right to go into a shop. But that was not what the shop a~sis­tants wanted. 'fhey had asked for the word "shop" to be inserted, both in that and in a great many other clauses. The Government had not seen their way clear to go as far as the shop assistants desired, but, at any rate, they wanted the power to inspect shops to see that no persons were working in those places after G o'clock in the evening. The difficulty conld be got over by rnoving the on1ission of ''or shop ;" and if hon. members on the other side felt as they spoke they would do so.

Mr. SALKELD ~aid the power asked forg<tve the inspectors authority, practically, to go into nearly every house in the land. \Vhy should the inspector be allowed to inspect a shop after it had been closed for the night ?

The Ho~. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH said he would ask once more for an explanation why children should be allowed to be employed in a factory or workroom without any inspection if they all belongerl to the family, while shops in which children worked under exactly the same conditions were to be open for inspecLion at eYery hour of the chy or night.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL said a shop was a public place where people went to buy and sell. In the c·tse of familie·1 working together it was not ri~ht to violate the sacredne·cs of the home. Th<et was why they dealt with factories in one way and with shops in another.

The H0~. SIR S. W. GRI:FFITH s"'id, conld anything be more absurd? The ordinary shop in which children were employed was a place which was open fnr a few hours rlnring the day; and yet it was to be open for inspection by day or night. In a fnn1ily workroom, where the members of the same family might be kept hard at work all clay and night, there was to be no inspection. In the latter case, the health of the children was liable to be injured, in the former not.

1\Ir. TOZER sair1 that where a number of per­sons belonging to the same family were \:vorking in a dwelling there would be sufficient parental control in the dwelling to render needless the inquisitorial power set forth in the cbuse.

The HoN. SIR S. \V. GRU'FITH: But sup­pose a shop is a cl welling?

:Mr. TOZEit said it should not apply to any dwelling or adjacent buildings appropriate to the household.

1\Ir. COWLEY said that if, on recommitting the Bill, the word "c.hov" were to be defined as not to me~n any place in which the persons engaged there were members of one family, that would meet the objection.

Mr. HODGKINSOX sairl, would the inspector have to prove that they were not members of the same family, or would they ha,·e to conYict them­se! ves that they were not members of the same family? With regard to the supervision of shops, the Government would he assisted by all those who participated in the benefits of thA Bill. There was not the slightest rloubt that those organisations which were crying cut for a Bill of that kind would keep a very strict watch on people who were trying to evade its provisions, and the Minl~ter wonld very soon be told of per·.c>ns who were \iohting the law.

The COLONIAL SECRB;TARY said they could only ascertain whether a place was being fairly worked or not by inspectors and inspection. If any hon. member was of opinion that slwps should not be inspected, let him move the omission of the words, but it should be clearly understood that if those words were omitted that would affect other clausu relating to shops.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIF:FITH said he was in favour of shops being inspected, but under reasonable circumstances.

The COLONIAL SECRETAEY: You dare not move the omission of the word "shops."

'!'he Ho~. Sm S. \V. GIU:FFITH said he dare do anything in that Committee which he thought was i·ight.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: In the way of talk.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH s"id the hon. gentleman interjected "in the way of talk." He thought the hon. member should say nothing of that sort. His record in that House was as honourable as the hon. gentleman's, and he (SirS. W. Griflith) had never hesitated to do or say what he thought was right. He believed

320 Factories ana Shops Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Factories ana Shops Bill.

that shops ought to be inspected, but under reasonable conditions. But the proposal in the Bill was preposterous. Because one room in a building was kept open for a shop during any part of the day, they were to allow an inspector to go into it at any time of the day or night.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: You should propose to amend it then.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH 5aid the hon. gentleman stated that he should propose to amend it. He (SirS. \V. Grifli th) had pointed out on an earlier occasion that the Bill was so Lad as to be incapable of amenrlment, and he declined to make it workable. It consisted of absolutely contradictory provisions, which became more numerous as they went along, aucl he declined to undertake the responsibility of rrmking them consistent. He pointed out the errors in the measure, and if the hon. gentleman perpetuate<! them it was perfectly plain wh::~t would h::~ppen. If the Bill got on to the statute book in its present form, it would be somebody else's duty to repeal it and introduce a proper Bill.

Mr. MORGA N said the Postmaster-General had told them that the Bill had been c::~lled for by the shop assistants.

The POST:\1ASTER-GENERAL: No; I did not say that.

Mr. M ORGAN said the hon. gentleman stated that that was not what the assistants wanted. It was the duty of the Government to legislate for the country and not for the benefit of shop aRsisLants alone. vVhat was the meaning of the speeches they had heard from the :Ministerial benches? They dared hon. members on the Opposition side to move an amendment which the Government would be very glad to see carried, but dare not propose themselves.

An HoNOURABLE MEl\InER: Why?

Mr. MOHGAN said because they were afraid of the trade organisations. For his part he would be very glad to see evPry protection given to people who were eng::~ged in factories, but he did not think they s!;wuld embody in the Bill a provision such as that now under discussion. He did not see why they should give the right to inspectors whom they knew nothing about to go into dwellings, for that was what it really meant if shops were included, and take a policeman with them at any hour of the day or night. He certainly thought that subsection ought to be expunged from the clause.

The COLONIAL SECllETARY: Well, ex­punge it.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH: Part of it is good.

Mr. J'.IORGAN said part of it was good, and part of it was very bad. The Colonial Secretary invited amendments. Any amount of amencl­ments had been p>·oposed, and they all came from the Opposition side of the Committee. At any rate he (Mr. Morgm) was of opinion that the sub­section allowing an inspector to enter any shop-for instance, one where a female might r~side-"hould not be permitted to pass, and he di<l not think the Minister himself thought that that power should be given to an inspector. And why should a policeman accompany the inspector? \V as it to combat some ferocious female armed with a rolling-pin behind the counter? If they were to have such inspection it should be done in the ordinary way-on an order from a magistrate­and nobody should be allowed to enter a dwell­ing-house without such an order.

'The POSTMASTER-GENERAL: We are not dealing with dwelling-houses, we are dealing with shops.

Mr. MORGAN said there were many shops in dwelling-houses, even in the city, and if an inspector entered the shop he must enter the dwelling also, because he had power to enter every part of the building and search.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: No; only the shop.

Mr. MORGAN said he would ask the hon. gentleman to define where the shop ended or the dwelling began; the workroom would be part of the shop. If there was any search it cer­tainly should be only on the order of a magistrate.

Mr. GLASSEY said he would like to know how the objectors to that clause proposed to meet any difficulties which might arise, or to put down any abuses. He had listened to the dis­cuosion for a considerable length of time, and the tenor of the ~peeches which had been made was that the abuses which that clause would deal with did not exist. He maintained that mch abuses did exist, and that the Government had acted very wisely in tna.king provision for an inspection in SUCh cases. It was hardly neceSS"-t',V to mention any names, but if it were required, or it were pc·udent to do so, he could mention the names of persons in Brisbane who owned shops where such abuses existed, and he contended thrt the Govern­ment had ::~cted wisely in making provision for inspectors to enter those !'laces when the shutters were up and the doors lockert, in order that the abuses might be put down. On one or two occasions he had made allusion to that matter, and it was the existence of those abuses that ha<l led him to frame his amendment limiting the hours of labour to eight in the Bill, and for providing that persons employed after the eight hours should be paid at a higher rate than ordinarily. It would be extremely foolish to reject the pro­vision before them. Inspectors of factories should have the same power as inspectors of mines, who could enter a mine by day or by night for the purpose of preventing abuses. It was well· known that in the city, and in many other places in the colony, employes were engaged in s~ops hours after the shutters were up, and somet1mes after the doors were locked; and he a ,ked whether it was fair or reasonable that they should see snch an evil perpetmtted and not take some steps to stamp it out. If the clause were passed it would assist to stamp out that evil, as where ::~n inspector had any suspicion that such practices as those to which he had referred were carried on, it would be his duty to see who were the persons who carried them on, and endeavour tu put them down. But if that provision were eliminated from the Bill, they would disarm the inspectors, and prevent them making inspections at timos when persons ought not to he employed. He had heard of cases in which per<'ons were employed in "hops up to 2 o'clock in the morning, putting up goods and preparing for the next day. And yet hon. members, by their speeches, seemed to imply that no such abmes existed. He hoped that no attempt would be made to excise the provision. If it were omitted a very great safe­guard would be taken away from a large section of the community.

Mr. SALKELD said the hon. member for Bundanba wanted to know in what way they could provide for inspection if they did away with that clause. The Colonial Secretary had almost challenged amendments on the clause. He did not think the hon. gentleman's remarks were very nice. He insinuated that hon. mem­bers on that side were afraid to make sugges­tions. So far as they had gone, he thought the hon. gentleman ought to be very well pleased with the tone nf the discussion, and with the advice ten­dered from the Opposition side. The hon. gentle­man must admit there had been a great desire

Factories and Skops Bill. [22 JULY,] Factories and Shops Bill. 321

shown to make the Bill a good one, and to get on with the business. He would propose later on, after the hon. member for Wide Bay had moved his amendments, an amendment to omit the words in the 1st line of the subsection "at all reasonable times of day and night" with a view of inserting the words "while such factory, workroom, or shop is open," and not while it was closed. He wished to show how to make the inspection effectire without giving the in­spector the right to enter at any time during the night to inspect. If any brc·;lch of the Act was committed it would be continuous, and when an inspector had reason to believe that something wrong was going on, what \va.s to prevent hhn being empowered to get a warrant from a magis­trate, and, accompanied by a constable, inspect the premises. That was a solution of tht' diffi. culty. It would prevent possible dangers in intrusting the work to inspectors alone. He had read of a case in Brisbane where an official had stated that he wa'• acting as an officer, for very bad purposes indeecl, and he had seen cases in other parts of the world where persons of that kind n,bused their power in a very bad way indeed. They ought to guard against that. Under the clause the inspector had power to go into a shop kept by a widow or single female and inspect at night time. There were many hundreds of such shope all over the colony, and that was too great a power to give. He saw nothing to prevent the Government adopting his suggestion, because it would provide a perfect safeguard again8t any inquisitorial power being exercised.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said he would suggest an amendment in the clause. He had said before that some inspection was necessary, but the inspection providecl by the clause was absurd. \Vhy shonlcl it not read, "If he ha' reasonable cause to believe that any person is employed therein contrary to the pro­visions of this Act."

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: That is the amendment I am going to propose.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said he was glad to he:>r it. That would get rid of many of the absurdities.

Mr. TOZER said he had an amendment to propose in the beginning of the clause. Much of the Bill provided for regulations. The 42nd clause said, "The Governor in Council may from time to time make regulations," and he would move the addition, after "every inspector shall for the purposes of the execution of this Act," of the words "and for enforcing the regulations made under the authority thereof." Those were words out of the English Act. They were left out of the Victorian Act because there there were no regulations. In the English Act, where there were regulations, they seemed to hn,ve found it necessary to have used those words, "and for enforcing the regulations made under the au­thority thereof."

Mr. DALRYMPLE said it was not ven· often he found himself coming to the same con­clusion as the hon. member for Bundanba, \mt he did on the present occasion. He believed the clause was perfectly reason,ble, and that the objections to it were founded on dangers which were imagi· nary. Hon. members of the Opposition had very freqnently taken up time by setting up skittles, which they then proceeded to knock down. With regard to clause 8, and the anticipations which some members seemed to have that the clause gave inspectors a right to enter shops and workrooms at all hours of the day and night, as he read the clause he did not think it gave any such power. The inspector was not to enter workrooms and shops at all hours of the day

1890-x

and night, bnt "at all reasonable times of the day and night," and the necessity for doing that had been pointed out by the hon. member for Bundanba. The hon. member for Fassifern seemed to think it a hardship that a constable who had power to prevent the violation of the Act should go into any place when the door was shut. That indicated considerable simplicity on the part of the hon. member, and showed that he was very guileless, because he. would find that if a constable were shut out by closing the door it would be very difficnlt for him to have access to a workroom or shop where anything improper was going on. One hon. member had asked, "\Vhere are our fac­tories 1" and seemed to think it was unneces­sary to pass the Bill. So far as the North was concerned, he (:Yir. Dalrymple) did not think it was necessary ; and he believed an amendment would be proposed to limit its operatwn to places where the population was dense. As to the question he had already referred to, he believed there were some factories in Brisbane already; and he thought that if the Bill became Jaw they wonld be rapidly multiplied, because every Chinan1an engaged in picking insects off cabbage-leaves would be a factory, and every Chinaman hawking vegetables about in baskets wonld be a workroom.

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE said the Slst section of the Health Act contained a provision which seemed very reasonable, and might with ad vantage be incorpor"'ted in the Bill. It was to the following effect :-

"The local authority. or any of their officers, shall be admitted into any premises for the purpose of ex~ amining as to the existence of any nuisance thereon, or of enforcing the provisions of this Act, at any time between the hours of nine in the forenoon and six in the afternoon, or in the case of a nuisance arising in respect of any business, then at any hour when such business is in progress or is usually carried on."

It was just as important to discover a nuisance as to discover whether people were employed contrary to the provisions of the Bill; and it was the duty of the Committee to guard against the sanctity of private houses being invaded. The other day the community were scandalised by an inspector prowling n,bout private premises at ·1 o'clock in the morning. The hon. member for Bundanba oaid that nnless all the provisions of the clause were adopted persons would be em­ployed contrary to the provisions of the Act, because even at the present time there were places where persons were employed till 2 o'clock in the morning, though the shutters were up. At the present time, however, there was nothinf; to prevent people from employing persons in that wn,y ; but if any shopkeeper attempted to do so ·after the Bill became law, some of the persons so employed would speedily contrive to make the inspector aware of the fact. He intended to support the amendments pro­posed by the hon. member for Wide Bay in regard to shop assistants; at the same time, he thought they ought to be careful not to make the provisions of the Bill unnecessarily harsh, and to guard against the possible invasion of private rights.

Mr. UNMACK said it seeme.d to him that the powers proposed to be given to the inspectors appearell rather arbitrary, and he did not know at present whether to support the proposal or not. The Colonial Secretary and the Postmaster­General had said that a great deal wonld depend on len,ving in the worcl "shop" until they knew whether the clauses affecting early closing were adopted or not ; and he wmlld suggest that the consideration of clause 8 be deferred till the clauses affecting the early closing of shops had been considered.

322 .Factories and Shops Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Factories and Shops Bill.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said that hon. members seemed to have forgotten the object of the Bill, which was the protection of women and children who workecl in shops and factories. The word "shop " in the lot sub­section of the 8th clause was necessary for c:;rrying out the provisions of the Bill, and whether the subsequent amendrr:ents to be pro­posed were carried or not the word " shop " was necessary. \Vith regard to inspectors taking advantage of the power given by the subsection to inspect dwellings attached to shops, it might be that they would, but the hon. member for \V1de Bay had an amendment in print which would pre­vent the inspection of any dwelling under the pre­tence that he was c:trrying out his duties as inspector. He had just as great an objection a, anyone to the violation of the sanctity of the dwelling-house, and he would be willing t<J accept that amendment. He thonght that should meet the objections of those who might think the inspectors had too much power.

Amendment agreed to. The COLONIAL SECRETARY moved that

after the word "therPin" in subsection 1 the words "contrary to the provisions of this Act " be inserted.

Amendment agreed to. The Hox. A. RUTLEDGE said that in the

13th line there was a verbal amendment required. The word "enactments" was not correctly used, as they did not speak of the "enactments " of regulation~. "Provisions" was the word which should have been used.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY moved that the word "enactments" be omitted with the view of inserting the word '' provisions" in the 13th line.

Amendment agreed to. Mr. HODGKIKSON moved that the word

"or," before the \Vord "workroon1, ''be mnitted, and that the words " or shop" be inserted after the word " \Vorkroom. n

Amendment agreed to. Mr. TOZER said he begged to move the inser­

tion of the words ''either alone or," after the word "examine," in the 17th line. The Bill would be valueless if the examination could only take place in the presence of the person. The object was to get at the truth ; and they would never be able to carry out the examination under tbose circumstances, because the occupier would simply clear out, rmd then the examination could not take place. The words "either alone or" appeared in every Act except that of Vic­toria, and they were very necessary.

Amendment agreed to. Mr. TOZER moved the addition of the follow­

ing words to the cb.use :--The inspector, before entering, in pursuance of the

powers conferred by this Act, without the consent of the occupier, any room or place then in actual use ns a dwelling, shall obtain a written authority to do so from the nearest police magistrate, who, if satisiied by a statutorv declaration of facts and reasons that there is good catlse to suppose that any provision of this Act is contravened in any such room or place, may, in his dis­cretion, grant an authority authorbin~ the inspector, at any time within one calendar month from the date thereof, to enter in pursuance of this Act tlie room or place named in the huthority, and exercise therein the pmvers of inspection and examination conferred by this Act. He might inform the Committee thitt the only change from the F:ngli,h statute was the substi­tution of the word "authority" for the word " warrant," which was a very nasty word.

Amendment agreed to. 'J'he HoN. A. RUTLEDGE said he would

like to know whether persons refusing to answer questions put to them privately by an inspector

would be deemed to be obstructing the inspector in the execution of his duty, and would come within the provisions of clause 10, and be liable to a penalty? Clause 9 dealt with cer­tain obstructions to the inspectors, and that was clear, but under the 5th subsection of the 8th ch1nse an inspector might ex::~UJine a person who had been employed in a factory or shop within two months as to what was going on there, and he would like to know whether the refusal to answer such questions would render the person liable under the lOth clause?

Clause, as amenderl, put and passed.

On clause 9, as follows:-"The occupier of every factory or workroom, his

agents aml servants., shall furnish the means reqnired by an inspector necess-try for an entry, inspection, examination, and inquiry or the exercise of his powers un<ler this Act in relation to such factory or workroom.

"Evel'y vm·son 'Yho wil rully delays an inspector in the exe1·cise of any power under this Act, or who fails to comply with a requisition of an i11spector made under any such po,ver as aforesaid, or to produce any certifir.ate of ret;ist.ration. hook, register, certificate, notice, list, or document which he is required by or in pursuance of this Act to produce, or \vho conceals or prevents, or who at,tempts to conceal or prevent, any person from appearing before or being examined by an inspector, shall be deemed to obstruct an inspector in the execution of his duties under this .:let:

"ProYifled alwars that no one shall be required under this or the 'last prec "(ling section to answer any question or give any evidence tending to criminate hill1S\\lt'.''

On the motion of Mr. HODGKIXSON, the clause was amended by the omission of the word "or" after the word "factory" in the 1st line, and by the insertion of the words "or shop " after the word "workroom " in the same line.

Mr. BARLOW said he would like to under­stand the meaning of the words " furnish the means" in the 1st paragraph of the cl~tuse. \Vas a man to furnish an inspector with the means to break open his own shop?

The COLO:i'\IAL SECRETARY: No; but the inspector might require the use of a lift to go upstairs.

Mr. HODGKINSON said that in order to remove any doubt he had intended to move the insertion of the words "or regulations " after the word "Act" in the Dth line of the clause, but as the amendment ·nould involve a number of consequential alterations in subsequent clauses he would not press it.

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE said the proviso to the clause g·ave point to the queries he had made with respect to the refusal of persons to answer questions put by the inspectors. The 9th clause said-

"Provided always that no one shall be required under this or tile last preceding section to answer any question, Ol' give any evidence tending to criminatc himself. That certainly implied an obligation to answer questions, and he wished again to know whether the refusal to answer them would render a man liable under the lOth clause ?

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: There is no penalty for not answering.

The Ho:-r. A. RUTLEDGE said: Then what is the use of specially providing that they need not answer que,,tions which would criminate themselves?

On the motion of Mr. HODGKINSON, the clause was further amended by the omission of the word "or" after the word "factory," in the 4th line, and the i11sertion of the words "or shop" after the word "workroom," in the same line.

The Hox. A. RUTLEDGE said he must confess he did not like the clause as it stood. The provisions of clause 8 dealt, so far as the

Factories and Shops Bill. [22 JULY.] Factories and Shops Liil. 323

employer was concerned, with the production of the certificates and documents that might be asked for by an inspector, and with the examin,tion of persons who were employed. The inspector could also enter any school where work-children were being educated, and examine them a. to the circumstances connected with a factory or shop. But clause 9 made an exception in hvour of per­sons who declined to answer questions tending to criminate themselves.

The COLO~IAL SECRETARY: Do you object to that portion of it ?

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE said it seemed to imply that persons \V ere bound to answer ques­tions ; but they would not be subject to penal consequences.

The COLOXIAL SECRETARY: Move the omission of the words.

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE said he would move that the last subsection be omitted.

1\fr. DRAKE said he thought that would make matters rather worse. As the clause stood a man employed in a factory was to be compelled to answer questions under a heavy penalty. Any­body who obstructed an in,;pector was subject to a penalty, and he presumerl that refusing to answer inquiries would be a ~pocies of ob'·truction.

Mr. TOZER said he thought the clause would be better left out because it would hold ont to anybody a premiurr1 for not answering questions. If a person had read the Bill, he "ould say he would not answer questions.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said he must confess he had not nmch sympathy with the doctrine th:tt no man shouU criminate him­self in matters of that sort. There was no pro­vision compelling anybody to anf..lwer. A rnan could say, "Find out.; I will not tell you."

Amendment put and negatived. Clause, as amended, put and passed. On clD.use 10, as follows :-"Where an inspector is obstructed in the execution of

his duties under thb Act, the person obstnlCt.iug him shall be liable to a fine not eYcecdin~ fiYtJ ponnrts; and where an ins1wetor is so obstructed in a factory. 'vork­room, or shop, the occupier of that factory, workroom, or shop shall be liable to a fine not exceeding live or, where the offence is committed at night, t'tventy pounds."

Mr. MACF ARLANE said he did not like the clau,e, which was a penal one. The fines were too heavy for refusing to answer son1e petty que•1tions which an illSpector might put to a man. The town he represented was really working under the Bill at the present time, and if all the towns in Queensland were doing the same, the Bill would not be ref]uired. All places were shut at (j o'clock in the evenings, and at 9 o'clock on Saturdays, which was an hour less than the Bill ref]uired. Therefore, he was not speaking for himself. There were a number of penalties mentioned in the 2nd sub­sectiun of thA 9th clause, and the clause before them stated that for obstructing an inRpector in the daytime the fine should be £iS, and in the night-time£20. Rethought the maximum penalty should be £5, which wouL:l answer the purpose. They were going to spoil a very good Bill. As the Colonial Secretary had said, the Bill was a good one; its intention was good, as it would protect women an<J young children. But they were Rurrounding it with a great rr1any vexatioutt provisions which might cause it to be thrown out in the Upper House, and the end in v'iew would be defeated. He was anxious to make the Bill acceptable to the working classes who were most interested in it, end he hoped they would not spoil it. He moved that the word "five," in the 50th line, be omitted, with a view of inserting the word "one,"

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said be was afraid that the alteration would tend to injure the Bill. He did not think the maximum was too high. It did not follow because the maximum was £5 that every fine would be of that amount. The fines under a similar Act in Victoria were very light, and the maximum penalty was not inflicted unless the offence were repeated several times. He thought the word "five" ought to be allowed to remain, and leave the amount of the fine to the discretion of the magistrates.

Mr. 1IACFARLANE said there was to his mind a da.nger that the person who tried the case might inflict the maximum fine.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said the hon, gentleman had better leave the fines as they vvere.

Mr. HODGKINSON said he thought it would be advisable to leave the clause as it stnod. There were many shades in an offence. In some cases it might be met with a merely nominal penalty, while in others theutrno't extent allowed by the Act might not be too Hevere a puni~hment

Amendment put and negatived; and clause passed as printed.

On clause 11, as follows:-" Bvcry inspector shall be furnished with a certificate

of his appointment, ;;;igned by the ::\Iinistcr, and on al1pl_ying for arlmi::;sion to a factory, 'vorkroom, or shop, or school, shall, if required, produce to the occupier or schoolmaster :4uch certificate.

"every person who forge~ or counterfeits any such certitknte or make:; use of nny forged, counte1·fmted, or false certificate, or 11crsonatcs the inspector named in anv such certificate or falsely pretends to be an inSpector under this Act, shall on conviction thereof before two justices be liable to be imprisoned for a period not exceeding three months with or without hard labour."

Mr. GLASSEY said he did nut like leaving the disposal of cases of that kind in the hands of two justices. It would be much more satis­factory if they were dealt with hy the police magi,trate. There was :'ot sufficient ?onfi~lence in j usticos generally trymg cases of vwlatwn of contract.

Mr. HODGKINSON said the offences referred to in the clause were forgery and personation, which might well be left in the hands of jus­tices, who would probably be men engaged in commerce. The chief objection he saw to the clause r; as that the punishment for such forgery or personation was in1prisonment not exceeding three months, which was ridiculously dispropor­tionate to the crime. The crime of forgery, possibly for the purpose of levying blackmail, was treated there very little more severely than a common nse 0f assault. If he (Mr. Hodgkin­son) borrowed a gentleman's horse in an illegal manner he woult! be subject to two years' im­prisonment, while those men who forged, or counterfeited or issued a false certificate on a most important matter affecting the vital in­terests of the country, were only liable to three months' imprisonment. He moved, by way of amendment, that the word "three" be omitted, with a view of insP;rting the word "8ix."

Mr. SALKELD said he should like to see the maximum period rais~d to twelve months. Persons who would commit such a crime would be the blackc't sc<mndrels in the country, and six months' imnrisonment would be far too light a punishment ·for them. If in order, he would move that the word "twelve" be inserted.

Mr. HODGKINSON said he had mentioned six months as a period which the Committee might feel disposed to accept, bnt if hon. mem­bers preferred to fix the period at twelve months he would withdrawn his amendment,

324 Factories and Shops Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Factories and Slwps Bill.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said it was unusual to give justices the power of imprison­ment for so long a period as tweh-e months.

Mr. BARLOW said he would ask why the offences of forgery and per--onation should not be separated? It was one thing to personate a false character and another to deliberately forge a written instrument.

The PREMIER (Hon. B. D. Morehead) said that in that particular case the two crimes were almost identical.

Mr. SA LKELD uaid that in view of the fact that it was unusual to empower justice' to inflict twelve months' imprisonment, he wvuld not press his amendment, and would support that of the hon. member for Burke.

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

On clause 12, as follows :-"In each and every factory, workroom, or sho-p there

shall be kept-(a: A l'ecord of the names of all persons employed

in such factory, workroom, or shop, together \Yith the ages of all 11ersons who are under t\Yenty years of age; and

(b) A recorcl of the particular kind of \vork of ench and every IJerson employed in such factory, worluoom, or shop;

and such record s1:all be produced for inspection by the ins1Jector when demanded.

"'!'here shall also be affixed in some conspicuons place at or near the en trance of each and every factory or workroom, and in such other parts as an inspector from time to time directs, and in such a po~ition as to be easily read by the persons employed in such factory or workroom, a notice containing-

(a) The name and addrt":ss of the occupier for the time being; and

(b) The n:1me and address of the inspector for the distlict.

''In the event of a contravention of the provisions of this section in any factory, workroom, or shop, the occupier thereof shall be liable to a fine uot exceeding forty shillings for every day the said provisions arc not complied with."

Mr. TOZER said he wished to move an amendment in the 3rd line of the first subsection (a). Young women would certainly object to having their ages recorded all over the shops, especially when they were over twenty. The Bill had nothing to do with any person over the age of eighteen, and he thought they had better keep to it. He moved th:<t the word " twenty " be omitted, with a view of inserting the word ' eighteen."

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. HYNE said he fancied that one part of that clause would be very objectionable-namely, the provision requiring a record to be kept of the particular. kind of work done by every person employed m:< factory or workroom. It was im­possible to do that in many cases ; it was im­practicable to do it in his factory, and yet the clause stated that "such record shall be pro­duced for inspection by the inspector when de­manded." He thought the utility of the clause would not be interfered with if they inserted the words " where practicable." '

Mr. L UY A said he was afraid that the clause as it stood would lead to much difficulty and complication. For instance, in an iron foundry a man might be engaged during one day in working a boring machine, a planing machine, and a slot­ting machine, and a record of the work done by each man in such an est:cblishment would have to be provided. \Vould it not meet the case to provide that a record of the particular profes­sion, trade, or calling of every person employed in any factory or workroom should be kept? That, at any rate, would do away with the com­plication that might arise under the chmse,

The HoN. A. RUTLEDGE sairl the clause might very well be omitted altogether. What necessity was there to hang up near the door or elsewhere a record containing the names and ages of the persons employed in a factory, and the particular kind of work done by each ? For whose information was thnt record to be kept? The inspector had the means of getting that information if he wanted it; the record might be three months old, whilst the inspector could get the information up to date by simply asking the question. It was simply putting vexatious work on people to require them to keep such a record. If a shopkeeper discharged an errand boy and engaged another he must alter the record. It was one of those small things that could be pro­ductive of no good, and would certainly be pro­ductive of a very great amount of irritation.

1\!Ir. HODGKIKSON said he would like to know what trouble it would be to keep such a record. An employer would have to keep that information in his books, and it simply meant a transfer of it to another document. He intended to try to get an additional clause inserted requir­ing employers to show the hours of daily ,,ttend­ance of each and every person employed in every snch factory, workroom, or shop, w that when an inspector entered a place he wouM have particu­htrs of the names of the persons employed, the kind of work they did, their ages, and the number of hour~ of daily attendance. If the inspector was s;ttisfied from his general knowledge of the occupier that the return was correct, there would be no occasion for him to annoy that occupier at all; but if he had any suspicions, and they were well founded, the record itself would be cot·robo­rative proof that those suspicions were based n pon some facts.

;',1r. MORGAN said the penalty for contra­vening the provision requiring a record of the names and ages of persons employed in a factory to be kept wr.s £2 per diem. What would be the position of a person who innocently offended against that provision, as for instance an em­ployer who had been wilfully misled as to the age of an apprentice by the father w'ho indentured the boy?

'fhe COLONIAL SECRETARY: The em­ployer would not be fined.

Mr. MORGAN said he knew there was another clause dealing with the subject which stated that if the peroon who really committed the offence was discovered he Rhould bear the penalty, but how were they to get at that person, and what was to b~come of the boy?

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: The boy will not be punishable.

Mr. M ORGAN: But will he be taken av;ay from his employer?

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: If he is under age.

Mr. MORGA:c{ Raid that was another injustice to the employer. \Vhat would be the position of employers with regurd to boys who were now ap­prenticed, and were below the minimum age, if the Bill became law?

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: I would not like to say.

Mr. MORGAN said the hon. gentleman was in charge of the Bill, and should give that infor­mation before asking hon. members to pass a pro­viaion of that kind. What would be the position of an employer who had an apprentice indentured to him whose age was belc,w the mimimum limit fixed by the Bill? Would the employer be liable to a penalty? \Vould he be deprived of the ser­vices of the apprentice, who had probably half learnt his trade?

Factories and Shops Bill. [22 JULY.] Factories and Slwps Bill. 325

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said the hon. member could read the Bill as well as he could himself. Clause 39 provided that-

" Every offence against the provisions of thls Act or of any regulation made hereunder shall be report,ed to the :3:1inister, "\vho may if he think fit direct proceedings to be taken against the offender." He really could not say what he would do if such a case as that referred to were reported to him. He would like to know the circumstances.

Mr. SALKELD said there would be a little difficulty in working subsections (c') and (b). In many establishments men were di~missed and taken on nearly every day, and though the record might be correct one day, yet in a fort­night or week's time it might not he so-the names of some men not in the establishment might be on the record, while the names of others who were there might not appear. \Vith regard to requiring a record of the parti­cular kind of work, that would be impo,sihle. Some men acted as both poler and leader. Some men were kept who could do almost any kind of work, and when men were absent those U>eful men took their places. They never were at the same job long, and might have four or five different kinds nf work in the day.

Mr. HYNE said he would move the insertion of the words "whPre practica.ble" after " and" on the 15th line. He believed those words would improve the clause.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said clause 39 should remove all reasona.ble objections to the section. He did not suppose any :Minister would order proceedings to be taken against an occupier or employer in a case in which it was not practicable to comply with the Act. It would be far better to omit the whole of subsection (b) altogether. He would much prefer that.

The HoN. Sir S. W. GRIFFITH said the hon. gentleman referred to c;ection 3!!, by which the Minister directed the prosecution. If he read that in connection with section 37 he would find that in distant parts of the colony an infor­mation could not be laid at all because it must be laid within a month. The offence might not be discovered immediately, and unless the whole proceedings were carried on by telegraph there would be a dif!iculty about that. He thought they bad better leave out paragraph (b) altogether, rather than put in the words " where practic­able," because they would leave a wide loophole.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said he had no objection to leave out the subsection, although it had been in operation in Victoria, and no objection had been taken to it.

The Hoe!. SIRS. \V. GRIFFITH: It was not applied to shops.

The COLO~IAL SECRETARY: No. Amendment withdrawn. The COLONIAL SECRETARY moved the

omission of the word " and" on the 15th line, and all subsection (b).

Mr. TOZER said he thought it would be advisable to omit all the words down to the word " district." That portion of the clause appeared qmte as useless as the part proposed to be omitted. "There shall also be affixed in some conspicuous place . . . . the name and address of the occupier for the time being." '!'hat was not in any Act in the world. Then there were the name and address of the inspector to be exhibited, but everyone in the place would know his name and address.

Amendment put and passed.

Mr. HODGKINSON moved the re-insertion of the word "and " in the 15th line, and the addition of the words "a record showing the

hours of daily attendance of each and every person employed in such factory, workroom, or shop." In moving that amendment, he said he was asking for nothing more than was carried out in the Ci vi! Service offices in Great Britain, and also in the Queensland Civil Service. 'fhere could be an attendance book in every factory, workroom, and shop, and each employe could sign his name, and the time of arrival and departure. The inspector would then have a correct record, because the ernployes would take care to get credit for the time they were at work, and the employers would take care that the hands did not make false entries.

Mr. ANNEAR said he was beginning to wonder whether the country which he had always considered so free was as free as he had believed it to be. It seemed that his life in the colony for the past twenty-seven years bad been n.lmost a delusicn. Hon. members talked about the manu­facturing industries of Great Britain and Vic­toria. Manufacturing industries were wanted in Queensland, but the Bill would only hinder the establishment of those industries, and hamper them in many respects. He had heard that night from the Opposition side about certain men working in eertain places up to a certain hour. But tho;;e men worked of their own free will and were paid for working as they did. Men did not work anywhere unless they were paid. When he was serving his time he worked ccntinuomly for a whole week, night and day, just getting a little sleep and some­thing to eat when he could ; but that had done him no harm. It was those people who had never worked in their lives who were the loudest in their demands for such legislation as they saw in the clause now before the Committee. In his opinion there was not, in any part of th~ British dominions outside of Great Britain, an Act in existence with sueh a clause as they were now discussing. As he had said on other occasions, supply and demand regulated themselves in every branch of life. Bnt there were two things which should be the chief aim of the legislation of the colony-the settlement of the people on the land, 9,nd the encouragement of manufacturing industries. Some J>eople called themselves protectionists ; but where was their protection? They drove trade from the country. There was a feeling of unrest througho:ut the colony, an<l people would not em bark their money in industries when such fads were brought before them. He had the courage of his convictions, and so had thou­sands of others; but they never asked to be pampered in the manner proposed. He had worked all hours, and always got paid; and he had always worked without a record being taken of his name, age, and the work at which he was employed. Anyone could go to \Valker's foundry and Tooth's foundry, in J\.Iaryborougb, and see there bandy men who could work in the fitting shop, the moulding shop, or the boilermakers' ~hop-just wherever they were sent. \Vhy should employers be asked to keep a record of what those men were going to do? It was a thing unheard of in any part of the civilised world. He bad hitherto taken no part in the discussion, and he thought it only right to say a word or two, because it might be thought that he was afraid to speak. He was never afraid to speak his mind on any occasion, and he would say that it was the duty of hon. members to do all they could to make the Bill a workable measure, and not destroy its usefulness by the insertion of obnoxious provisions.

The COLONIAL SECRE'fARY said that such a clause as the one now under consideration was contained in the English Factories Act, but the particular portion to which the hon, member

326 Fartories and Shops Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Factories and Shops Bill.

for Maryborough objected had just been struck out by the Committee-namely, tbat relating to the record of work.

Mr. HYNE : And now a worse provision has been suggested.

The COLONIAL SECRE'l'ARY said he was about to say so. He could not accept the amend­ment proposed by the hon. member for Burke, because it would be impracticable. Fancy hundreds of men putting down their names before commencing work in the morning, and again before they left in the evening!

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH said it was done in the great factories in England.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said he knew that it caused a considerable loss of time in the public offices in Brisbane. A timekeeper was a very different thing.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH: Not as I understand it.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY said he was very sorry, but he could not accept the amend­ment, as it would make the clause impracticable.

Mr. SALKELD said he would point out to the Colonial Secretary that not only in England, but in Victoria, and in Queensland also, in all kinds of work it was customary to keep the exact time worked by each individual. He had seen sawmills and foundries in Ipswich where large numbers of men were employed, and there was no delay caused. A ticket was given to each man on entering the works, and it was returned by him on leaving the place, so that a record was kept of how many hours a man worked, both in the forenoon and in the after­noon. As to signing their narues or anything of that kind, that was not necessary, as they had it already in the paysheet.

Mr. HYNE said he was afraid some of the amendments were being proposed by men who had no knowledge of the working of factories. If the hon. member for Burke were to stand at the door of one of the large foundries in JYiary­borough, and saw the number of men and boys who entered there, he would not ask that they should have to sign their names. It was not practicable; but if the inspector wished to know about the hours of working he could inspect the time-book. As an employer who was only too ready to assist his fellow man, he did not ,,, ant to see anything passed which would be ridiculous and be vexatious to employe<", and that amendment was inquisitorial. He was a liberal-minded employer, und his employes considered him so, and he asked the hon. gentleman not to preEs his amendment, as any informati<m of that kind could be obtained from the employer's time-book.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIYFITH said he would ask the hon. member for l\Iaryborough if he kept in his establishment a time-book ?

Mr. HYNE: Certainly I du. The Hox. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH caid that

the amendment of the hon. member for Burke proposed that a time-book should be kept in every factory. What possible objection could there be to a time-book being kept ?

:Mr. HYNE : He proposes that every man shall sign his name.

The HoN. Sm S. W. G RU'FITH said the amendment s;mply provided that a time-book should be kept. Every hon. member who believed that it was justifiable to limit the hours of labour was bound to vote for the amendment, for how could they be limited unless a record was kept? That was the foundation of the whole thing. The Colonial Secretary surely did not understand the amendment.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: I under­stand it very well. The hon. member for Burke spoke about the men signing their names.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH said the effect of the amendment was to provide that a time-book shonld be kept. Every factory would have to keep a record of the daily work of each of the employes, and there could be no objection to providing that it should be inspected.

Mr. HODGKINSON said the Colonial Sec­retary must have misunderstood him. His amendment had been couched in the words which he had read to the Committee, but in illustrating the facility with which the amend­ment could be carried out, he might have suggested that each employe should oign his name. In spite of the lmowiedgeof factories claimed by the hem. member for Maryborough, perhaps he (Mr. Hodgkinson) had seen as much of factory life as some of those hon. members who knew so much about it. He had seen factories which employed more men than all the artisans in some of the towns in Queensland, and in those eotablishments a time-book was rigidly kept, even to the minute. It was a matter of indifference to him whether a record was kept in small e'tablishments or not. '\Vhat he wanted was that an official record, open to the JYiinister through his inspector, should be kept, in order to show how many hours anyone worked. Such a record might be kept now, but it was kept for the private information of the employer, and he wished to provide that an official record should be kept for the purpose of carrying out the pro­visions of the Bill. He had g1ven suffic1ent arguments to prove his statement, even though he never put his foot inside the Chamber again.

J\Ir. DALHYMPLE said he thought there was a distinction made between the record to be kept according to. the proposed amendment and a mere time-book kept by an employer for busi­neNs purposes. But that private record was not kept to be shown to the police. Apparently the hon. gentleman thought that if a person worked for another person the number of hours he worked should be placed on record, so that it might be brought against him on the day of his trial. There were many men who, when they worked, were good working men, but there were occasions when they did not turn up at all; and why should the fact of a man being absent from his work because, perhaps, he was sick, or, perhaps, because he was seeing some friend off in a steamer -why should that informati?n be transmitted to the police, as such a hst would be ap­parently? vVhy "hould the exact number of hours a man worked, or the number of hours he did not work become public pro­perty, and be sent to the police to start with, and ultimately transmitted to the Minister? JYiatters of that sort should be between man and man, and if a man chose to work eight hours or ten hours he should be at liberty to do so. He was sure that the leader of the Opposition would work just as long a.~ he liked. It was nothing to any man how long another man worked. He was afraid there was a disposition in the Committee - and he agreed entirely with the senior member for Maryborough with regard to the subject- to govern humanity by rules which would no doubt be proper in St. Helena ; but he would be no party to anything of that kind. He be­lieved in a free country, and no advan­tage would be gained by attempting to limit the hours of labour. If the rule were univer,ally applied it would limit what the labouring classes earned, and if it were not universally applied it would be a sh'!meful piece of class legislation. Whatever advantages they might gain-and he did not believe they would

Factories and Shops Bill. [22 JULY.] Factories anrl Shops Bill. 321

gain any- they might put against them the fact of their being no longer free men. He held that liberty was an estimable pri vi!ege, and he would not sacrifice it Ly allowing men's private affairs to be inspected and shadowed by a bobby. The majority ofhon. members on the other side did not follow the particular le~d that had been given. He did not accuse a majority of hon. members on the LiLeral side of not bPing Liberals, but he said that many of them limited their Liberalism to their liberal professions, whilst in practice they would be autocrats and despots.

Mr. MACF ARLANE said he hoped the hon. member for Burke would withdraw his amend­ment, as it would be impracticable if carried. If they took any large public works the labour of recording the time lost through men being late, to say nothing of any other record, would require the service.s of a clerk. What was the use of the record? The Bill proposed that persons should only work a certain number of h"urs a day, and what right had they to inquire how many of those hours a man worked? The proposal was too inquisitorial, and would answer no purpose whatever.

Mr. HODGKINSON said he would divide on the amendment, as it asked for no more than anv business man did at the present time ; and a man who did not keep such a record was unfit to conduct a workroom, factory, or "hop. The hon. member for Maryborough had no doubt worked a great deal; but he was certain that if the hon. member was at any time late for his work, his wages were docked for it, or his employer was not a credit tu the ranks of trade. ThP Bill was specially intended to protect those who could not protect themselves. They knew there was a large number of persons who con­sidered it a disgTace to be connected in any way whatever with legal proceedings, and there was no saying what they would not stand rather than appeal to the law. HA was not urging the amendment in the interest of the average artisan, as he waB organised and knew his power, but WGmen and children wanted such protec­tion. vVhat he was a"king for was nothing novel ; it was simply that the inspector should be allowed to examine the time-sheet kept by el-ery employer at pre,ent, and without further argu­ment he intended to call for a division upon the amendment.

Mr. SALKELD said he could not under­stand the objection to the amendment. It only asked for a record that was kept in every considerable establishment at the present day, and provided that the record should be open to the inspectors under the BilL It was only very small places in which a record of attendance was not already kept, and in those places it would be no great trouble to provide such a record. Be,ides, how were they going to carry ont the next clause without such a record. The next clause pro­vided that the inspectors should prepare an annual report which should show-

" As neaTly as possible the 'vholc number of persons engaged in working 111 factories or workrooms in his district, classifying them according to their sex, age, and average weekly earnings, whotheT in wages or by piecework, or boLh in wages and by pieeework in each branch, their honrs of labonr, the percentage of work done in the factories or workrooms, and the percentage of work done outside thereof, together with SLH':h other particulars of t,he same general nature as the Tliinister 111ay require." Hon. members talked of the amendment as in­quisitorial ; but it was nothing to that clause, nor was it nearly so bad as the clause they had already considered giving an inspector power to enter a place at any hour of the day or night. He could not understand the objection to the amendment.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said he would ask how they proposed to give effect to clauses 20, 22, 23, and 24 unless those statistics were obtained. It was a necessary part of the machinery of the Act.

Mr. DALRYMPLE said he rose to say a few words in explanation. If the hon. member's amendment applied only to women and children he would not oppose it, but should be in favour of it ; but he understood it also applied to men.

Mr. HODGKINSON: It applies to every­body.

Mr. DALRYMPLE snid the definition of factories was so very wide that it covered only six men working- anywhere. If the amendment was made to apply to women and children only he would support it, as he agreed that their hours of labour should be restricted.

Mr. TOZER said he intended to give the hon. member for Burke his most cordial support in connection with the amendment. He noticed that hon. members opposite always cheered remarks which would lead to the belief that they were opposed to the Bill altogether. He was beginning to think that the Government were not sincere in the Bill, though he had not thought so before. J\iany members on his own side also cheered observations opposed to the principle of the Bill. Before they came to the second reading he had thoroughly considered the principle of the Bill and had come to the conclnsion that it was worth trying, and nobody could say to what extent it would affect them in a year or two. If they had the right to control women and children, they had the right to control some men. In the 20th clause of the Bill they provided that-

"No person shall employ in any factory, or workroom, or shop any male under the age of sixteen, or any female for more than .forty~eight hours in any one week in p;:eparing or manufacturing articles for trade or sale.

If that was to be clone there would have to be a record, such as was asked for in the amend­ment, kept in the factory, and such a record was kept in every well-conducted factory at pr€-;ent. He supposed there was not a factory in England or Australia in which such a record was not kept. They had already in that House affirmed their right to control men as well as women and children by passing a law preventing men working for more than eight hours a day in rnine~, and there were cer~ tain trades quite as injurious to persons as mining. They had already affirmed that prin­ciple, and he bad certain clauses to move where­by they would prohibit, in the interests of the men themselves as well as their fami­lies, their employment in such a way as to injure either themselves or those depending upon them. If they were to have a lh<ctories Bill at all they should take up the subject from the beginning to the end, and he hoped the hon. member for Burke would press his amend­ment to a division. There might be some difficulty in connection with shops, but it was <·.1sy to make a prov1swn that the amendment should not apply to shops. He hoped the hon. member for Burke would endeavour to obtain from the Committee such a record as would enable them not to make the Bill a sham.

Mr. MAOFARLANE said if the amendment were carried he did not see how clause 20 would work, which said that a man must not work more than forty-eight hours in a week. It would not be possible for them to work more than th11t time if the factories were shut.

328 Message from Legislative Council. [ASSEMBLY.] Motion for Adjournment.

Question-That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted-put, and the Committee divided:- ·

AYES, 16.

Sir S. "\V. Griffith, :,jlessrs. Hodgkinson, :Mc:Master, :Sarlow, Salkeld, Glassey, Drake, Tozer, Gannon, Sayers, Grimes, Unmack, Isambert, Annear, Smyth, and Morry.

NOES, 27. )fessrs. Nelson, Donaldson, Casey, Black, ~Iacrossan

Powers, JYiorehead, Pattison, Paul, R. R. Jones, Plnnkett Dunsmure, Lissner, Oowley, l\forgan, 3lacfarlane, Little, StBvenson, murphy, Dalrymple, Philp, G. H. Jones, :Sattersby, O'Connell, Murray, Allan, and Hyne.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr. HODGKINSON said he must franklv state that he did not think any harm would be done if they adjourned now, as he could not do what he had to do in a reasonable time. He had some more amendments to propose.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH said he might express a hope that while they were deal­ing with the Bill they might not always have to look for a solid vote on the part of the Govern­ment party. There were differences of opinion upon his side ; but it was a singular thing that the Government party voted solid upon the most trivial matters.

The PREMIER said the hon. member for Maryborough made a most eloquent speech against the amendment of the hon. member for Burke, and then he voted for it.

Mr. ANNEAR said he had been talking about an amendment which had been withdrawn with­out his knowledge. He was outside the Chamber when the present amendment had been proposed, and when he heard the explanation that it was intended only to apply to women and children, he made up his mind to vote for it.

An HONOURABLE MElllBER: You know nothing about it.

Mr. ANNEAR said hon. members appeared to be amused with something he had said ; but that was not the first time he had added to the amusement of hon. members. He did not wish to be inconsistent in anything he said. He was thoroughly a ware that there was a circle of his friends who would like to see him make a mistake. His position in the House had been pretty well circulated all over the colony in an untruthful way-not by the other side. He defied any hon. member to say that he had been a traitor to his class. No man had ever worked for him who would not work for him again to­morrow, and he was proud to say that no man had ever worked for him but had been paid his wages. He hoped he should never be charged with inconsistency.

On the motion of the COLONIAL SECRE­TARY, the CHAIRMAN left the chair, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again to­morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

PRISONS BILL. The SPEAKER announced that he had

received a mesoage from the Legislative Council, forwarding a Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to gaols, prisons, houses of correction, and penal establishments, and asking for the concurrence of the Assembly therein.

On the motion of the PREMIER, the Bill was read a first time, ordered to be printed, and the second reading made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

ADJOURNMENT. The PREMIER: I move that this House do

now adjourn. The Government business to­morrow will be the further consideration of the Factories and Shops Bill in committee.

Question put and passed. The House adjourned at a quarter to 11 o'clock.