Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Council

WEDNESDAY, 21 AUGUST 1918

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

AdJournment. [21 AUGL,'ST.] Land Tax Act, Etc., Bill. 1585

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

\YED:\ESD.IY, 21 AUGUST, 1918.

'I'he PRESIDENT (Hon. \V. Hamilton) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

LAND TAX ACT A11ENDMENT BILL.

MEScWE TO ARsE3IBLY REQUESTING FREE CoxrERC!-:CE.

On th,-, Orrl,>r of the Day being called for the co~Isider!1U01i in Co1nmittee of th~ Acsembl~ 's m.-ssage on the Bill,

HoN. P .. J. LRAHY said: I propose to submit a motion askin'l' for u free con· ference with the Assembly on this Bill. The latest free confPrence v:as on the Income Tax Act Amendment Bill-quite a distinct meas1ue from thi·;-and it does not follow that, because that con'erence was fruitless, this will also be abortive. It may or may not be so. At anv rate, it is a reasonabla way of seeing whether the differences be­tween the t·· o Chamber' c. an not be got over. I thcr0for0 he;:; to move-

" That ihe Le·gislativ<' Council having considerPd the Lec,islative Assembly's me"agP, of dat~ the 18th July, intimat­incc thnt thev disagree to the amend­men;, made bv the Council in the Land Tax .\d Am0~dmcni. Bill, requ0<t a free confer<''WP with th<~ Legislative Assembly, \vith :1 vit~\V of arriving at a mutual agrPm110nt with respect to the said an1f'1•dments.

"The Lcgislatin. Council appoint the Hon. '\ G. C. Hawthorn. the Hon. T. l\f. Hall, nnd the Hon. P. J. Leahv to be the manager~ to rrprcsent them at such ~onference, and thev name No. 1 C)m­mitteP Room, Legislative Council. to be the place. and 12 o'clock noon on Thu:s­dtty. the 22nd instant, to be the hour and day of meeting of such conference."

I trust the l\Tinister, recognising the rea'3on­ablenc'; of t!:tc motion, and the fact that it j, submitted with a desire to mc<>t any objections ther(• may be in another place to our amendments, will see his way to accept the motion. With the expression of this hope, I will not occupy any further time.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES (Hon. A . . T. Jone<;): I am not altogether surprised aT the motion, because a bout half an hour arro the Hon. Mr. Leahy informed me that this motion w0uld be m{n·e<d. I take it that he gave me that information as an act of com;tesv. Although I have not had very much 'time to consult the lertdcr of the Government in the Assembly, I want to say that we still maintain that the Council has no right to amend monev Bills.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: That is not the ques­t; on on this motion.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: No, but I want to emr,hasisc that noint. ·whether that is the qcwsfion before the Council or not, thr principle is the ea.me. I am well 'l.Ware that hon. members opposite have th·~ majority and they may ca.rry this motion; but, considering the motion has been moved somewhat hurri0dly and in view of the fact that on another occasion I opposed a free conference on a money Bill, I think the

Hon. A. J. Jones.]

1586 Populnr Initiative and [COUNCIL.] Refe1'en&um Bill.

proper thing for me to do is to let the motion gv to the As.-,embly and allow that Chamber to b-eat the request for a conference as it deems wise (Hear, hear!) I, therefon offer no further objection to the motion (Hear, hear!)

Question put and pa csed.

On tho motion of HoN. P. J. LEAHY, the request for a Irec conference "\vas tran:;­mitted to the Assemblv by me<'lage in the usual form.

WAGES BILL.

l'OSTPOXE:\IENT OF ORDER FOR 'J'HIRD READING.

On the Order of the Day being called for the third read;ng of the Bill,

The 3ECRE'I'ARY FOR MIXES said: I beg· to move-That the Order of the Dav be po· !poned until to-morrow. Ye.'·torday I moved a similar motion without E''<planation, c.nd thP Councii agreed to postpone the Order of the Day until to-day. I hope that hon. members v.-i!l agree to this further post­ponement. I may just briefly explain that the Hon. l\fr. 0 Sh<·a circulated an amend­went, which c>tme before me y0sterday, and [ thought it wis·• to couult with the l\linie­tcr in charge of the Bill in the other Cham­ber. I Fpoke to :\Ir. Theodore a few minntv­ago, and learnell that all the mor'1ing he v, ,ts indisposrd aLd is not quite fitted to give cvnsidcration to' the amendment.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: The shock of our letting the Incom' Tax Bill through !

The SECRET.ARY FOR MIKES: I do not n1ean to infer that he is ;~o se>rioush~ ill that there is tmy rlangcr-(Hear, hear !)_::_:Cut I wish to give him time to consider the a11wndment, >end I, j herefore, ask that the third reading may be vostponed until to­morrow. I assume chat hon. member3 are aware 1:hat 'B01HO hon. 1nembers opposite in­tend to move that thP Bill be recommitted with a view to ·dealing with a certain amend­ment, 'ln-l I have no objec-tion to that being done. (Hear, hear!)

Question put and pacwd.

POPULAR INITIA'riVE AXD REFEREN­DUM BILL.

FuRTHER CoNSIDERATION IN Co>DIITTEE oF AsSEMBLY's lYIESSAGE.

(Hon. !V. P. '1'a.ylor in the chair.)

Clause 9 (now 10)-" fluty of returninu of!ic<r; petition an cl certificate to be pre­sented !fJ Speaker"-

The SECRETARY FOR MINES mO\·ed­That the Committee do not insist on their amendments in clause 9 (now 10).

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Why?

The ~ECRf<,TARY FOR MINES: For ohYious reasons.

Hon. I'. J. LEAHY: Are you not going to giYe us some reason for the motion?

The SEORETARY FOR MINES: He understood hon. members did not intend to insist on -th0ir amendments in the dausc. 'I'he clause dealt with the duty of the re­tu.r:ning officer, and c;ho first amendmem. made hy the Council eliminated the ''lOrd

[Hon. A. J. Jones.

" :11inister." and substitut<'d the words "Principal Electoral Officer appointed under tlH· Elections Acts for the timo being."

Hon. W. STEPHENS: \Ve will let that go. Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: But subclause (4)

deals with a different ma'ter.

The SECRETARY FOR :.VIIJ\'ES: He thought it v;as preferable to deal with all th<: ame•1dmentd in the clause u•1der the ono motion. Th0 motion was absolutely fair. Th0 Bill wonlcl be improyed by not insisting on those amendments.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Subsection (4) ;, a rcasonablD amendment. \Vhat is your obj eetion to that?

The ~ECRET.\RY FOR MINES: Subsec tjon (4) provided that-

" Any elector may search against and verify all petitions, copy petitions, de­clarations, and marked rolls, and make copies thereof."

Ho thought the Hon. l\1r. Parnell mo·.'ed that anwn-dment just before the adJournment pretty late on<> eyening. Some hon. mom­lwr :. opposite admitted that the argume:.ts against it \V ere sound, and th<Y we To not inclined to insist upon the insertion of the anwndnccnt. As m em hers appeared to b • smn<'"'h>tt chongeable in their opinions that evening, he moved the Chairman out of the chair, and next dav those members insisted upon the amendme"nt being inserted in the Bill. He was satisfied that members opposite were not very keen about this particular anwndment, as the.) knew that it was imprac­ticable, and that it would make the Home Se<>retary's Office si1r.ply an office for scrutiny. On a previous occasion he stated that he had had :"ome experience of persons being allowed to go to the Home Secretary's Office and scrutinisP. petitione, and that such scrutiny had led to victimisation in one citv of thn State. rrh '',t VI as his reason for being so persistent in oppoeing the insertion of the alHendnwn~ in the Bill. Ho was '-ure that tlw Hon. Mr. Fowles was not in favour of tlw amendment.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLE~ : Who did the victimi' ation in regard to the other petition?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: TherP v,·as SO!l1C victimisation, and ~,omc vory un­fair trcntment. and this amend!nPnt would open the door to that sort of thing. The Minister should be the person to declare that a petition was in order and was duly received.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: \V e gh·e you that.

The SECRETARY FOR :MINES: They should not allow every Jack and Jill to go to the Home Secretary's office to cc.orutinise petitions and upset tho discipline of the office n.nd toke outside information which would be used, a~ it had been used. to the detrim.,nt of citizens who had unfortunately signed a p-·tition. Their citizens should be encouraged to C'xpreso their opinions by signing petitions and shoul'd not be victim­ised for do;ng so.

Hon. E. W. H. FmnES: Who is going to do the yictin1isation?

Hon. IY. H. DniAINE: Some of your fri0nds w~rc Yictin1iPc.d.

The SECRETARY FOR JI.>IINF,S: Wh<'n it was known that certain persons had cigned a petition, they were threatened with the

l'opular I,, itiatit·e and [21 AUGUST.] Referendum Hill. 1587

loe" cf tllcir positions unlcs<; thc1· ·i""ned an affidaYit to, th' dfc ·' th.1t they' sig~ed the J1CtJtlOtl lHltt' t' a llLS~tpprPh'.'llSiOll. rrhe hon. };Lntlc1nau kn· that had oPcurr0d; and that '" nt. th.: .surt of thing whir h thi;;: ainend­ruc::t v.-.._:u1d le,td to.

Ilun. E. \V. H. Fo\VLE": I ani in favour of flu.; Ji•rht putition.:-; ]C't daylight in on .evcrytlling.

The SECH.ETAHY FOR MI.":ES: There ,.,ere p.topL'l' ... -tfpgnanls in th • Bill to e··1sure tlL t p -~Utir~ns were in order. .A. certain :L: u.s{_• in !:lw n11Jasuro ;;aid that ea( h signa­ture ehould be "it ne .sed by certain persons. -~ur -·}:· that ~VH .( a .·-.1ftguard, a:.;l ;;ave the . tuyl!ght the IHJn. gentleman scught. The .dLenrl!nent wu _impn•ctit able, and he hoped 1t ·,,·outd not be msrstcd upon.

llo~-: .. A. G. C. HAV\'THORC\: He thought th:..·:v n11ght g1Ye \\'ay on the anlendtnt1 nt in whi,.ch they su:»titutcd the Principal Elec­tor,_d OITie..:r for thl' .:.'vlinister but he cer­taiEly agrc.lJ "':it_h th ~ r::lOYcr ~f the anlcnd­Int'nt_ that l-Ptitic'1S ~hould be opo;1 to in­epcctJOn hy "lrctors-that cvcrythiPg should be aLov~Lo :rd, end that any elector who <:ha to t:1ke tbe tr'- nLlo ::-honld have thl' rigiJt to in~pee1· :::.nd Vt"rjfy the f'i crn:ttUl'C'S to c:. petitio"l. lfe did no't aL·rc

0

with thD . l!iniq'-r h:n h sa ;:i he ·;·.-Ould not allo'v {~.' ._•ry J nck ancl .J ill to inspect the petition. 'u 1y .)ll0 _\vho tho_u~ht there \v;. 3 anything

;nong '.nth a pclltlon should h. vc the right to tyu nn _l in~]H ir. r~Chc· a1nP 'dn1ent was both r '~on a bl "nd dr rnocratic.

I-I ox. ;~. Il. P"\R.:\ELL: },, the mover of the a:ucnd•l,mH hr· "ould a,srec to leave ont that part \\-hich cubstitutr l the Prin­cipl p;[, cio: a! Clf!iccr for the ::\Jin:,tcr. ~\.t thf' ··am ti::w he \Yould point out th:tt evc•ry rat~'IHt~. ~:r \'.'i.1S all "\n:d to in~p(~C'~ the \vhole of the books of n 1nunicipal council. Thev said thai· ·daylight shoul·d be let into tho,: books. ,md that the ratcpavers should ha·-e the priYilcge of inspNt·ion. · \Vhy !lot allow ekctors the •amc pri,-ilegP in this case?

_, Hox: li. P AGE-HAXI.FY: He hoped the Comnnttee would not metst upon this amend­ment. He had probably had more experi­< ncG than most members of the wav in which this sort of thing acted. The 'Hon. Mr. Fowlcs kn?w as well as he did that the liquor trade, wh1ch the hon. gentleman had been up ag·ainst ostensibly for a long time, was absolutely unccrupulous in these matters. The liquor trade did make u&e of the oppor­tunity given by the Home Secretary at the time the local option petitions were pre­~ente·d, not only . to. scrutinise petitions m orde~· to. ascertam If there were any in­accuraclt·~ m them, but also to take the names and addresses of those who had ven­t:n·ed to >ig!' the pe~itions for reduction poil'l. 'I hey exerCised th8lr sy'ltem of organisation and the power they possE'ssed to crush those who opposed them. .

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Can you show us any victi>.nisation?

HoN. G. PAGE-HANIFY: He knew of victimisation of traders, but he was not going to mention any names. The liquor trade, not only here, but eYerywhere, did that sort of thing, and used their power in mder to mnint~tin their position in the com­munity. If all person<> who would go to vc·rify thege petitions were bona fide elec­tors ":ho wished to ascertain if the petitions were m order, .there would be no harm in

such inspection. But he. IVould r0mind hon. members that. claU'-" 8 provided a safeguard which would ensure that only pcrsono who were so entitled ~igned such petitions. HEJ did not cl aim that the temperance party should have any right to inspect petitions. If the: l1ad not ~rot public officers that the2- · cuu!d trust to look after these matter&, and it wa;, neh,~sary that an elector must him­se 1£ go personally and inspe2t a petition, then it would be a very bad thing for the State.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: ::'\ot "mu&t"­" may."

HoN. G. PAGE-HANIFY: Why should he have the right to in,peet a petition?

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Bec;mso it is demo­cratic.

Ho;;. u. PAGE-HANIFY: Why should they not trm;t public officiais to see that petitions were in proper order? As a rule, it "·"' only persons who were influenced by ulterior matins who "anted to inspect peti­tion' and find out who had signed them. This kind of thing had happened in connec­tion with a teccnt petition, and many hon. gdJtieJ.Ien !me<. that victimisation had taken pLce.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: You are only dealh.tg in g'f'neralities .

HoN. G. PAGE-H~'l.NIFY: He could only deal in generalities in a matter of this kind; he could not give na1nes, as hon. men1~ hers \\dl know. But it as well knov;n that l.ntoin<' ... 'lien were' afraid to show that they supported the tempcmnce eau .. ,,, and had to do it cm·ertly. It was a sad thirg that they should have to do that, but they had to do it h/cau,,c of the Lcar of losing business if it .,, ere generally known wh.1.t stand they took. A member of that Chamber h<td told him that because he took a definite stand arrain.,t the liquor traffic when the liquor Bill was befor<J the Houi'e in 1911, he lost £300 worth of business within a week. He hoped that hon. gentlemen would reali ·e that there was no neeJ for this amendment in the chuse, ar;l that it w~.s a dangerous pro­vision; and he trusted they would agree not to insist on the amendment.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Evidently, there were some people who loved darkness better than light, and he was sorry to say that ir,cluded in that number was the Hon. Mr. I'age-Hanify. H~ \\Ould not say that all the members on the other side of the House loved darknEss better than light, but cer­tain!'<' the hon. gentleman who had just sat do\m did. The Hon. Mr. Pagc-Hanify always spoke in such a way as to indicat{l that when he had spoken there was no more to be said on the subject. 'fhn hon. gen­tleman seemed to adopt a snporivr air, and to consider that what he said was the last word on the subject. He remembered in his young days reading something of a Pharisee who thar::ked God that he was not like other men, and he hoped that story would not find any application in that Cham­ber. He knew that ostcnsiblv the Hon. lVIr. PagP-Hanify was a temperance man, buL he had never known the hon. gentle­rr:an to do anything in that House to assist the cil.use of temperance. The main ques­tion they had to consider was whether it was nec<',sary that this am~ndment should bo retained in tlw Bill. Thev had heard a great deal of wild talk about the victimisa­tion that wonld result. He presumed the

Hnn. P. J. !,fah&.' 1

1588 Popular Initiative and COCXCIL.; Rcferencltnn Bill.

rdercnce was to clerks and artisans. Labour to-day was very well able to look after

itself. It was not Labour, but [4 p.m.] Capital, that was victimised.

vVhat guarantee had they that the names in those petitions would be genuine? Nothing was ensiP,r than for a man to sign a petition a dozen times with different names. The witneqs need not have any personal knowledge of the man. As a matter of fact, thqv knew from the figures at the recent election that there were 30,000 more names on the roll than there were adults in Queensland, showing conclusiv(lly thnt there were men and women on the roll ·who had 'lO right to be there. Was not that equally liable to happen in regard to a petition?

The SECRETARY FOR lYliNE' : There were a number of people on two rolls.

Ho~. P. J. LEAHY: They should not have been on two rolh ; they had no right to sign claims saying that they were qualified. He wn ·; in favour of letting the light of d"y iol on petitions.

The SECRETARY FOR J\!T~ES: What about the Jnllot-box?

Ho~. P. ,J. LEAHY: This was an Anti rely different thing. They did not sav that. when tlw votes '':ere actually taken, the ballot-boxes wer,, to be opened and subjected to the scrntinc of any elector. All they said was that. if there was a petition from 10 per cent. of th" people demanding a poll, that peti­tion should be open to an elector to satisfy hi1nsclf as to whether anY or all of the signatures were genuine or 'not. Surely that was an eminently fair and democratic pro­vision. Had it come to the position that hon. members on the other side, who o'ton­sibly '.';ere democrats, ran away from dtn1ocraG:v whenever it aR~umed a practical form, and that they on this sid<; had to give effect to democratic proposals?

Ho~. T. XEVITT: He could understand the attitude of hon. members if there were no :'afr,,:nards.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: They are not sufficient. Hon. R. SnrNER: Make them sufficient. Hon. P. J. LEAHY: That is what we are

trying io do.

HoN. 'f. NEVITT: Hon. gentlemen who "anted to insist on that amendment could not trust a clerk of petty sessions, a clerk of a local authority, the head teacher of a State school, or the other officers mentioned as being the persons who were to witness the signatures of people signing a petition.

Hon. T. J. O'SHEA: Does every justice of the peace know the man whose signature he "'VittH>:388?

HoN. T. XEVITT: It was not necessa.ry for him h know him.

Hon. T. J. O'SHEA: No; he never cares a rap. He never looks at the signatures he witnesses.

Ho~. T. 1\"EVITT: What was at stake? The petition was being signed as to the adYisability of some question being sub­mitted to the public of Queensland. If they had 20.000 forged signatures to a petition, ir would not alter the effect when the ques­ti(n "-~,, put before the people.

Hon. T. J. O'SHEA: Do you mean to say it would not alter the effect if you got forged signatures to a petition?

[Hon. F .. J. Leaky.

HoN. T. 2\JEVI'rT: It probably would have the effect o£ the question going before­the people.

Hon. T. J. O'SHEA: You would have bogus enthusiasts getting rights to which they were not entitled.

HoN. •r. ="i'EVITT: He wanted to make his position clear. It might have the effect of tlw petition going before the people, but it would not affect the referendum· itself. Surely the safeguard of a public officer wit­nessing a signature was all that was necessary in cases of that kind? He did not intend to go into the qur-stion of victimisation. If he knew of anv individual case to which he could sweJ-r." lw would be prepared to give the name. He did not know of any indivi­dual case to which he conld actually swear, but he was satisfied that victimisation had taken place. :\' o doubt, hon. gent !cm en fr<'<JUentl~, had been in simila1· positions. Iu his mtimation, there was quite sufficient safe­guard in clause 8, and there was no necessity for the amendment which hon. gentlem.en insi,tcd should go into the BilL

HoN. 'f. J. O'SHEA: He was rather ;ur­prisnd tn hear men who usually proclaimed themselves in favour of democracy and any­thing put forth b,· democrats-including the Hon. the Minister and the Hon. Mr. Pag·c­Hanify, designating an elector as ,Jack rilld Jill, or Tom, Dick, and Harry. vVhy insult flw elector ?

Hrm. I. PEREL: That will not insult a decent man.

Hon. R. Su11~ER: Do you allow every inspr-ctor to exan1ine incorne tax returns?

HoN. T. J. O'SHEA: Ho did it now; he was duly authorised.

Hon. R SDINER: You are only making it cuJnborsomc.

Ho~. T. J. O'SHEA: They were accused of making the Bill curnbersom.e, and of pc-nalising men. If a man had not the hardi­hood to >ay. " I signed that petition ! I believe in what it supports," he should not sign it at all. \'.'hen a voluminous petition was "heaved in" on the Home Secerotary, every facility should be given for checking th0 accuracy of the signatures to it.

Hon. R. SniNER: By public officers, appointed for the purpose.

HoN. '1'. J. O'SHEA: Every facility should be given. They should make no limitations. If the signatures were genuine, they would stand the light of clay. If they wr re not genuine, he would punish the peopl,, who­signed and the people who got others to sign.

Hon. R. Snr~ER :, That is the most pradi­cal way of dealing with it.

HoN. T. J. O'SHEA: It was simply non­sense to sa0 that. because that subclause gave· the right to any person interested-providing h. was an elector--to see whether the signa­tures to a petition 'were genuine or not, they ''·ere putting into the hands of some person the ri"ht of penalising and victimising signatories to that petition.

Hon. R SmiNER: There is no clause like this in the Elections Act.

HoN. T. J. O'SHEA: There was. He could go into any electoral office and search the records, and see who was on t.he roll. More than that, he could buv an eleetoral roll and see who was on it. 3omeone had put up an argument that tho.~e petitions wereo

__ Popula1' Initiat&ve and [21 AUGUST.] Referendum Bill. 1589

witnes:,ed by ": justice of thP peace, a school­master, and this, that, and the other person. It \vas arrant nonsense to suggest that that was any protection against- the non-genuineness of the signature. A man signed a document, went before a justice of the peace and c,aid "That is my signature; will you kind!; attest. it." Th: justice of the ptace, without ~nowmg what It 11·as _about, without inquiring mto It, \>Jthout seemg the contents of the document, and not wanting to inquirf:, sirnply signed his name.

Hon. I. l:'EREL: It i• genuine 99 times out of 100.

Ho:-~. T. J. O'SHEA: It .va•·· the odd one th<'y wanted to catch.

Ho,J. I. PEREL: You do not want to catch them unless you want to penalise people who put their names to a peticion and lose their j ohs for them. '

Hox. T. J. O'SIIK\: Ho had hr<nd in­si11uabzms n1ade, and invitations had been extended to hon. members on the other sidB to stute }nstances. All they got in reply wa···, "' \'\ e dare not tell; we know things }:ou do ~;ot know,_ and which you can never iwd out. That did not appeal to him at all. There was as much subterfuge and victimisa­tiOn on the one side as on the other. The amendment would tend to eliminate that and he thought, therefore, it wa' a good one: The. Hon. Mr. PagB-Hanify, in his mual florid. style_ threw out insinuations against the hquor t.ra:Je., Ho inctanced where per­sons were vJCbmised, but he dared not follow up Ins "rgument by giving particulars. All he would say wa.s: "I know all about it. If I could on!; open my mouth, I could reveal thmgs to you that would astonish 'ou " and tlwre it en?ed., That might appeal to a crowd, but It did not appeal to hon. mem­ber>. \Vhat was more, thfl soreness with that hon. gentle-man was, ~hat a la~·ge number of SJgna.turc,, to a p€titiOn sent m bv his own pa-rticular faction w01·o found to be fictitious duplicated, not reliable, and the per~on~ could not lw found.

Hon. E. W. H. FoWLES: Do vou remember one inst:tnre? "

HoN. T. J. O'SHE.\: He would not t1ke the trouble to note one.

Hon .. E. W. H. FowLES: \Yell, your argu­ment IS no better ·than that of the other hon. members.

Ho:-~. T. J. O'SHEA: Absolutely no better and no \\ orse.

~{on. G. P1cm-HANIFY: Did the public officers find them, or the visiting delegates?

HoN. T. J. O'SHEJ .. : The delegates found a large number. The anwndmrmt would help t? eliminate that 'Ort of subtm·fugo on both s1d~s-the dodgery, scheming, and chicanery wh1ch oceurred in connection with those petitions. If that clause were in, at least it w<_mld be some warning to people that their misdeeds would be under scrutiny, and they would be mo;-e chary .in signing when they were not entitled to sign.

HoN. R. S"CM:N"ER: The Hon. Mr. Leahv said something about loving darkness rather than l!ght. When they had a proper state of wmety, perhaps evervono would expro•·s his convicti:ms openly and freely. Everyone knew the history of the ballot. It might be better for a man to be able to go to the ballot to record his vote, and let Bverybody

know for whom he voted, It would be a proper thing, and it would be more manly and straightforward, for everybody to say: "I am going to vote for so-and-so." But thev knew the state of societv-their rotten svste;1 where there were employer and employee­where, perhaps, hundreds and thousa.nds of men were d0pendent upon a certain employer, who might be a candidate or might be sup­porting a certain candidate. That was ihe reason why the ballot was brought in.

Hon. A. G C. HAWTHORK: ;~ very dif­ferent thing.

lioN. 11,. SGMXER: He had been reading John Morlm 's "Life of Gladstone." It took a long time for a man like Mr. Gladstone to be converted to the ballot, but his political experience taught him that if the artisan­the man who was dependent for his living on som0one else-went a.nd rooorded his vote openly, he would be penalised. Mr. Glad­stone becam" a convert to the ballot, and it had b0en adopted pra-Ctically all over the world, simply because a man eould not vote 011cmly and C'ould not expre~,., .. ~ hi-; convict1ons as he ought. He believed it w.1s more hon<''·t, and a better thing, if it could be done without men being penalised ; but they had to get a better state of affairs than ttey had to-day. \Ve ought to be able to trust public ofhcials. Tak0 the income tax. In the Taxation Department they swore the officials to secrec,--that thev would not diYulge what a ma"n was earning or paying. He did not sa . ..- it wa.'' a proper thing to do. There should be no sccrecv about the matter, but it was necqssary at· the pre -ent day, \Vhcn a man signed a petition for any reform there should be eYery safeguard that the signature was honest. The petition should be scrutinised fully by the officials, who should be sworn to secrecv. To allow eYery elector to go and see wlwJ th0 man had clona was bringing it to just the position that existed before the ballot. He hoped hon. members opposite would not insist OR

the amendn1ent, as it would assist anyone who wanted tD do it to penalise someone else.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: T• show the utter inconsistency of hon. mem­bers opposite, he would point out that, when the Stamp Act Amendment Bill was before the Committee a few weeks ago those ho:m.. members objected to a clause which gave an officer of the department, who was sworn to ,ccrecy and under a heavy penalty, an oppor­tunity of inspecting documents which were subject to taxation.

Hon. A. H. PARNELL: To go into a man·~ private house.

'l'he SECRETARY FOR MINES: No, into his office.

Hon. E. W. H. FoWLES: A rival trader. Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: The eases are

not in any way parallel.

The SECRETARY FOR MI~ES: Of course they were. Now those hon. members wanted to allow any elector to go into the Home Secretary's office after a petition had been received and scrutinise thB signatures to that petition.

Hon. A. H. l'ARNELL: The petition is public property.

Hon. T. J. O'SHEA: This does not say they can scrutimse every document in thB Home Secretary's Office; the other does. ·

Hon. A. J. Jaws.]

1590 Popula1· Initiative and [COUXCJL.] Referendum Bill.

The SECRET~\RY FOR i\II::'-JES: The officer would only have the right to inspect every document subject to taxation.

Hon. T. · J. O'SHEA: No-every document.

The SECRET~\RY FOR MIKES: The Bill restricted the inspection to documents subject to taxation. If there was any doubt abont it he was quite willing to have that made quitG clear by an amendment.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: He would have to inspect. d<-·ument:-; to find out whether they \VQr, subjf_'.f?t to taxation or not.

The SECRETARY FOR MIKES: If a petition was sent in reqtH ··ting the Govern­ment to intrcducc a Bill to abolish the LegislatiYe Council e··ery person who signed that petition was giYing practically an open Yote. ·

Hon. P. J. L"AHY: They might be signing it as a matter of form.

Hon. E. \Y. H. FowLES: They wight know that the country was going to vote for the retention of the Council.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The people who signed the hon. member's nom­ination paper voted for him, he took it.

Hnn. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Yes, and the nomination paper is 11ublished.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He knew one candidate who got fe;; Pr votes than there 1.verc nameq on his n0:nination paper, but no doubt a large percentage of tho'e who signPd a petition asking- for some legislation \Yould be prepared to vote in acPordance with the request they made to th0 Government. He would again refer hon. mEmben tc> dause 8, which provided that the siv,roatures to a petition must be attested by cei·tain approved witnessf\s-" a clerk of pettv ,_,,,s,,ions, rlerk of a local authority. head teacher of a State school. officer of police of or ahoY<' the rank of acting-sergf'ant in charge of a Police station, and such other officers of the Publie Service, justices of the peacP, and other persons as have been ap-1•royed lw the Governor in Council as afore­said within and for tho electord district." Surelv that provided ever~· necessary safe­n.;uanl. ThP trend of the ,discu<sion would lead one to believe that the Bill onlv applied to a pE>tition for liquor reform, but it applied to petitions on any question.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Thosn arguments came from your side.

The RECRETARY FOR MI::-.JES: He had somPthing- to do in another capacity with thP petition for liquor reform, and he would giye one in\,.tance in 'vhirh exceptiDn was ta krn to a signature ·:v that petition. He might say that it was not a case of Yictimisation. The signature of one la·dy who signed the petition that wa•· presented by the tempPrance bodies to the Home Sec­retary wac objected to by those who scrutin­ised th0 petition in the Home Secretarv's offiee. Thev compared the signatur0' to the petition with the electoral claim forms of the signatories to the petition. \Vhen the lady in question applied to haye her namG placed o·1 th~ <'l<'ctoral roll just after the franchise was granted to the women of Queensland shp made her mark. which was atte•ted by a justiet· of the pea0e. During the tim.e that had sine<' elapsed she lParned to read and write. and she was able to sign the peti­tion askinr, for liquor rpform with . her name, and the charge was made against

[Hon. A. J. Jones.

the people who presented the petition that they had got somebody to sign the name oi a woman who could not \nite. He could mention many other cases in which exception was taken to signatures. If a comparison was going to be made of signatures in the case of e.-ery per·,on who signed a petition, look at the iml'>eme amount of t1·.:mble to the departmental oflicers and at the expense that would be in.-olved. The officers had to work night and day in connection with one small petition.

Hon. E. W. H. FowLL';: You pay OYer­time, don't you?

The SECHETARY FOR MINES: Yes. He gc j- interested in the matter, and put in a good few hours of overtime himsdf.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Did you get paid for it'?

The SECRETARY FOR ::.VII::'-lES: Xo. He had ·done a lot of Yoluntary ·,, ork in his­time.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: ~T., ure doing volun­tary \Ork now.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: The Minister i& not. (Laughter.)

The SECRETARY FOR 1\UNES: He believed that any unbiassed per<;on listening to tho discu•sion ·would say that the argu­ment was all in fav0ur of the Hon. :Mr. Parnell's amendment being udeted. Ir was rather a serious defect in the Bill. The Govcrnm<mt were <tbsolutely oincere in their -opposition to the. amendme!lt. He was ,<;utisficd from expenenee that It would m~_tke the Bill verv cumbersome, and it wa" Jm­practica.blo to carry it out if they wore going to allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to go into the Home Department and '-erutini<e the signatures.

HoN. A. H. WHIT'.riNGHAl\I: The Minister's last remarks were a, very strong arP'ument in favour of lhe antendment. Although the Bill provided that every signa­ture must be att~sted by one of se.-eral reput­able persons, it did not a pp ear to be . any­one's business to find out whether the signa­tures got on to a petition rig~tly o~ wrollgly. If the amendment were retamed, 1t was not likely that the Home Dep.artmPnt was going to be overrun by Tom, Dick, and Harry, as had been suggested, and the staff we.re not likelv to be compelled to work overtime m consequence. He was somewhat intcre,ted in thte Hon. l\1r. Sumncr's remarks with regard to an open ballot and to the state­ment that it would bP seen how people" ere going to vote. He ~ad a dim recol.lection of putting up for electwn once, an.d If he had go~ the votes of ;rll t~oso who saJd they were "'Olng to vote for hnn he would not have been the lowest on the list of nndidates. (Laughter.)

HoN. W. R. CRAMPTON: He might not have thmwht this was one of the <•ssential clauses of "the Bill had it not been for the spe<c-•,hes made bv 1he Hon. Mr. Leah:·· and the Hon. Mr. O'Shea. He wa2 quite satisfied that those hon. members realised the import­ance> of the amendment. If it were not deleted victimisation would in~ ,-itably take place.

Hon. E. \V. H. Fov:LES: By whom?

HoN. W. R. CRAMPTON: Never mind by whom. Victimisatiop had nev~r yet been proved in any court m Australia, and he doubted whether it had ever been proved by any court in the world.

Popular Initiative and ' [21 AUGUST.] Referendum Bill. 1591

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: If there is no proof of it, why ·do you say it exists?

HoN. W. R. CRA:MPTO~: From large experience in industrial matters they knew that victimisation had taken ph~e.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: On which side?

HoN. vY. IL \'RAMPTO~: At the same time there was no legal proof of it. It was all _ve~oy well for a man to ~cay that he was VIChmiSed-that he did a certain thing, and now wao out of employment-but it \VltS an entirely differe~~tt thing to prove that he was out of employment because he did that thing. He d1d not saJ: that victimisation ·was quite a_s rampant as It. wt.·s, but it was still impos­sible to prove It. Thev would abo have intimidation. Take the ~ase of a big indus­trial concern that mi,ht be afl'ected bv a referendum. In orde1:' tu bring ,bout that referendum they must first take the initiative and get up a petition. The people :who had the best knowledge as to whether that indus­try or portion of the industn should be affected by the referendum w'ere the em­plo~·e<·'< an<:! thoso connected with them; con­sequently, It wns only natural to suppose that the people who handled the petition would approach those people to get as many signa­tures from that quarter as thev possibly could. If they were going to give the em­ploydr 'Nhose economic interects were at stake ~he right to scrutinise the petition, would It not be possible for him to victimise those people? If the amendm<•nt were

!nisted upon, they would .have [4.30 p.m.] mdustrial turmoil from onB end

of the State to t.he other because of the impossibility of proving victimisation. If they could prove Dne or two <'ases of victi­misation, it would probablv end the matter. If theJ: v_vere going to "giv:e men whos"" ecm_wmw mtere~ts. were at. stake an oppor­tumty to scrutimse the hst and see who signed the petition in order to bring about the referendum, it would cause intimidation to take place. It was quite natural that employees >'>ho felt that their organisation was not s~ro_ng_ enough to support them in the event of mbmidation would he intimidated if th~y knew that their employer, who was gomg to be affected bv tloe' referendum had acce~s to the petition". There might 'be a lot m what hon. members eaid-that thev might require further safeguar·ds because thev did not want faked netitions-'md os much light as possible shotild be thrown on these matt~rs.. He hoped hon. g'·nt'emen we>uld not msis~ on the amendm<:nt, because it would brmg about a great deal of indnstrial turmoil that they least expected.

HoN. A. "\. DA VEY: He did not think they ne"d fear the victimisation thev had bee!' hearing about. The result of his 'obser­vahons was that industrialists who voted for th8 LGbour partv did not do ,nuch to dis­guise the fact. They were happily living in a day when a man Pould vote for whom he liked without victimisation. He did not believe in victimisation in any shape or form. He was nersonallv acquainte.d wi'·h a number of people in private Ilfe who were rcssociated with different ""orkers, and they knew per­fectly wc·l! that those workers voted for Labour. These :wople had as~istE'd the workers to get on the roll, knowing th<>J thev wo':'ld vote in opposition to them~ and had assisted them to go to ;;he poll. , A !thou o-h victimisation existed m the nast barl cld days, and the ballot was nece:<sary then to

protect people, he did not think hon. gentle­ment opposite could seriously "ay that there was any likelihood of vict,imisation now.

l-Ion. W. R. CRHlPTON: Can you tell me what would happen if the trarnw~y employees signed a petition to form a union, and the Tramways Company hnd access to the list?

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: He did nvt bie~ieve there would be any victimisation.

Hon. \V. R. CRAMPTON: Thev would b!J forced out if they joined it. ·

l-IoN. A. A. DAVEY: That wa arother question. '\s a general rule, they did not need tD trt)ubh u bout victimisation, because he did uot think there was victimisation to any ser ions extent. A rnan or \YOIIH1ll

might be incompetent, and lose their billets after a certain event had tah·n place. and might attribute it to this particular thing, but they might 1e entirl'ly wrong. He could not understaDd any firm in a free country li!{e this, where eyery man had the same politir::,ll ro\Yer, victin1ising anyone for giv­Ing an honest exprP.e:sion of his opinions.

Hem W R. CRAJ!PTON : It is not general by any means, hut thHe are cases. It is only owing to the faulty law

HoN. A. iL DAVEY: 2\fo law that could be m.ade would make enh·ything go smoothly and keep everyone in the path of righteous­ness. People could get outside of the, law if they were built that vvay. Personal'y, he believed that a person should be stopped from canvassing for votes or for signatures to a petition. (Hear, hear !} At election times there were canvassers out for votes. Their friends opposite ·said that people who had got the most money had the whip hand. 'They should have. on the face of it. but he did not suppose they had, as they >vere not as energetic as the other side. He would make it a penal Dffence for anyone to solicit votes, or to canvass for "ignu-turcs to a peti­tion. A public notice should be put in the Press that there w<1s a petition opened at a public office, and that it would remain open for a certain time for anyone to sign, and if anyone tried to induce another person to sign it he would inflict a severe punishment. He quite saw that there might be some active bodv which, having money, might employ agents to get a petition signed in the intnests of u certain movement. They knew how easy it was to work up an excitement. It should be recognised that people were free and intelligent, a.nd it should be publicly announced when a certain refoJ·m was desireJ, and the public should be invited to go and sign -a petition, but if they did not feel sufficientlv intemsted in the matter to sign it, he wott!d not allow anyone to c,anvass fo~ v-ot, .,_he did not care whethE>r it was in connection with liouor reform or the abolition of the CounciL'

Hon. G. PAGE-HA~IFY: You do not call that a reform? Ho~. A. A. DA VEY: Hon. members oppo­

site call<'d it a. reform He was only dealing with matter& which had been brought before the Council. He much preferred tD stop canvassing fo1'" signatures to -a petition. The least they could do was to allow everv rate­payer to go and see the signatures "to the 11etition.

HoN. I. PEREL: ·What puzzled him was how they were going to verif.v the sio-natures to a petition. Were the peor,Je who "wen~ to look at the signatures to have a copy of

Hon. I. Perel.]

1592 Popular Initiative and [COU:::'{CIL] Refm·endum Bill.

every signature? If they had not, how could they identify any particulat signature? It would be inquisitorial.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: There were three distinct amendments in the clause, and the best thing the Minister could do would be to t~ke them separately. There was no objec­tion, he understood, to allowing the word " 11inister" to be reinserted instead of the words "Principal Electoral Officer," and it would be better to deal with that first. Then they could go on to the amendment they were now discu8Sing, ·which seemed to be the only debatable amendment in the clause.

The SECRETARY FOR MI~ES : He was under the impre•ssion that the Council might not inEist on the wholo of the amendments. He was quite willing to accept th0 sug·r,·es­tion of the Hon. Mr. Leahy, and would, therefore, withdraw his motion.

The CHAIRMAK: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the motion be with­dravrn?

HoNOURJBLE C}1E:.:nERS: Hear, hear ! Motion withdrawn accordingly.

The SECRETARY FOR MIKES moved­" That the Committee do not insist on

their amendment in clause 9 (now· 10), page 5, iine 2 (now page 4, line 56)-"

QueJ>tion put and passed. The SECRETARY .FOR Ml='JES movE-d­

" That the Committee -do not insist on thE'ir amendment in clause 9· (now 10), line 8 (now line 5)."

Question put c;nd passed. The SECRET_'lRY FOR MI::'-JES moved­

" Tl1at th0 Committee do not insist on their amendment in clause 9' (now 10), on page 5, line 10 (now line 8)."

Question put and passed.

The SECRETARY FOR MI:'\JES moved­" That the Committee do not imist on

their amendment in chuse 9 (now :O), on page 5, line 12 (now line 11; ''

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: If the :MinHer were not so eager to get through with the business, he would see that this was a matter which he could let e;o. The clause previously read "Such certificate r,haJI be conclmive evidence." It was never a wise principle in a court of law to bang the door, lock it, and throw away the key. The mere giving o£ a certificate 'vas not conclusive evidence. If anyone gave a wrong decision, there ought always to be a means of remedying it.

Hon. R. SmrNER: What would you sug­gest?

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: The retention of the word" "prima facie." Such certifi­cate should be, on the face of it, evidence until the contrary was proved. That was a fair thing, and the Minister should let it go.

The SELRET\RY FOR MINES: I will allow the motion to be negatived.

Question put and negatived.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES moved--" Th<>t the Committee insist on their

amendment in clause 9 (now 10), page 5, line 12 (now 11), because it would be wise, although accepting such certificate as valid_. to allow opportunity for correcting any madvertent mistake."

Question put and passed.

[Hon. I. Perel.

'J'he SECRETARY FOR MINES moved­., That the Committee do not insist

upon 1.he insertion of new subelause (4)." One hon. gentleman on that side of the Chamber had spoken of victimisation, and had pointed out how difficult it was to prove victimisation. What would hon. gentlemen think if a 0erhin number of emploveoo in an industry signed a petition for a particu­lar reform, if that petition was rtfterwards scrutinised by agc>nts of that industry, and if later on some twenty or thirtv affidavits were presented b:t persons ~ho had signed the petition stating that they had signed it inadvertently? Did that not spell victimisa­tion'!

Hon. A. G. G. HAWTHORN: The victimisa­tion occurred in the first act.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The r.on. gentleman need not delude himself by such im argument. When a man's bread and butter depended upon his work, and he found there was a danger of his losing his employment, he took a very different view of the matter. The hon. gcntle;_man had never been victimised. If he had been victimised, as he (Mr J ones) had been--

Hon. P. ,J. LEAHY: You victimised?

The SECRETARY FOR. MINES: Yes, because he took th~ chair at a political meeting, and he was satisfied that, if this provision were retained in the clause, it would lead to victimisation.

Ho~. Il. FAHEY: He had listened silently and carefully to a v<;ry ed_ifying discussion on this amendment. The obJect of hon. mem­bers on both sides of the House was to make the Bill as perfect and as free from errors and imperfections as humf\n nature would per­mit. The Minister, supported by hon. mem­bers behind him. complained that, if this "mendment became law, it would lead to tvrannv and victimisation. The Hon. M1·. drampton e" id that victimisation would ensue, th11~ it had already ensued, and that victimisation could not be proved, and that was the rcctson why this vicious weapon was c-mploy~d so much by employers. The hon. gentleman's memory must be very defec­tive, or he rr.ust have known that victimisation of a very cruel character had been proved time and agam in the courts. He had heard it proved in court that men who professed the political principles of hon. gentlemen nn the other side of the Chamber, and who had the courage of their convictions, had been 1•ictimised, and cruelly victimised, by their fellow unionists because they would not join in a strike. He had known ;:ic­timi,,ution of a very cruel character, wh10h had re'tllted in men, with their families, being thrown practically penniless on the roadside because thcv had the cnurage of their convicitions and voted for the candi­date thev believed to be the best man. But they now lived under better and suppose-d to be more liberal conditions. But are we? Hon. gentlemen opposite complained that the prejudice'< of employers "ere -,uch that they would deprive an em­ployee of his bread and butter and the means of providing for his wife and family if they found that his name was attached to .a retition for a reform affecting his calling. Bnt he would ask why. in the name of Provi­dence, should not a citizen who felt that he was being injured by decept!on or dishor;est practices have an opportumty of exposmg 6uch nractices? Was it not a contraction of the liberties of the citizen to say that he

Popular Initiative and [21 AUGUST.} Referend1lm Bill. 1593

should not be allowed that right or privilege? If a petition were presented in favour of a certain refotm, wby should not citizens have :m opportunity of ascertaining whether that petition was morally, honestly and pro­pNly prepared under the laws of the coun­trv? Thev had known of instances in which petitions 'had been presented asking for reforms, and it had afterward£ been proved that fictitious signatures were attached to those petitions. He held that it was th'l duty of Parliament, when it undertook to make laws, to make provision for having those law3 hone,tlv carried out. It was the Jut:- d Parliament to see that every section of the coml,lunity wB s fairly treated under any law that was passed, and for that reason he thought the amendment should be accept­able to the Committee.

QuP~tion-'l'hat the Committee do not in­siet upcn the insertion of subclause (4) in clan se 8 (now 10)--put; and the Committee divided:-

CONTENTS, 10.

Hon. W. R. Crumpton \L H. Dcmaine ~\ . . T .. 1 ones H. C .• Tonf'-s H. Llewelyn

Hon. L. J\IcDonald T. Xevitt G. Paw•-Hanify I. l'rrrl R. ~Ulllll('T

Teller: Hon. W. H. Demaine.

NoT-CoNTE"'iTS, 13.

Hon. cL "L Davey Hon. C. F. ~larks B. Fahey T. ,T. O'~h••:t E. \\-. H. Fowk,~ ~\. H. J>arnell A. Gihson \Y. ~tophens T. '\i. Hall H. Turner .\. G. C. Hawthorn "\.H. Whittingham l' .• r. T"eahy

'Teller: Ron. A . ..:-\. Davey.

PAnt

Con'cnt>'-::'.Ir. Bdford, Mr. Cou:tice, Mr. Purncll, and liir. Riordan.

l\ot-Content"~Mr. Miles, ~Ir. ~ielson, :Jir. Dunn, nncl "Jir. Brentnall.

Resolve@ m the negative. [5 p.il<.J

Ho:-;. P. J. LE.AHY moved-" That the Committee insist on che

illcertion of the new subclauoc (-+) to c:ame 9 (now clause 10), as it will 1111nur_~~, J fraud and malpracticC's, and berau,e it embodie, a sound democratic principle."

Qu0stion put and passed. Clause 15 tnow 16)-" H' ho entitled to

~rot<''-

Th SECRETARY FOR MI:c\ES moved­" That the Committee do not insist on

their amendment in clau•'e 15 (now clause 16)"

The amendment consisted of the following paragraph, which the Committee had in­serted:-

"A refer.endum poll taken under this Act shall not have any force, effect, or operation whatsoever, unless at least fifty per centum of the electors of the State shall· have voted at such referendum poll."

Ho~. P. J. LEAHY: Much could be said on both sidf's of that question. It could be said that, if the 50 per cent. were retained, the oppom.nts of any particular referendum, by absenting themseives from the poll, could defeat the referendum. No doubt that would be so if the minimum we're very high.

He did not say it would be possible with the minimum at 50 per cent. On the other hand, if there were no minimum, it would be possible, to take an extreme case, for 20,000 or 30,000 voters to vote and decide a particular thing.

Hon. T. NEVITT: There is compulsory voting, you know.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Even though there were compulsory voting, did they not know that the adherents of the hon. gentleman, and those exprf'ssing opinions similar to his, weJ'c breaking arbitration aw"rds every day?

Hon. T. NEVITT: They go to the poll. HoN. P. J. LE"\HY: They went to the

poll when it smted them. If it did not ;,uit thmn, they would not go; and he would be very much surprised if the Government brought them before the court fcir not doing so. Being anxious to facilitate business and b do things in a rNtsonable way, he wonld sugge3t having some minimum, and making the number 40 per cont. instead of 50 per cont. It could not then be said that persons could defeat a referendum by ;>.b<enting themsel W4 from the poll. On the other hand, it would be eome provision t.gainst an infinite­simal proportion of the electors carrving or Jofcating a proposed measure. " Ho~. G. PAGKHA:'<IFY: The Hon. Mr.

Lcahy having gone so far, he hoped he would go further and permit the deletion of the amendmc'nt.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Oh, no! Hox. G. P AGE-HA::\IFY: It was a matter

of principle. \Vhy should they m;; that the non-voting elector should have consideration before the voting elector?

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Do you favour minority rule by '' >mall section of the people?

HoN. G. PAGE-HAKIFY: Th0 electors of this countrv had all the came rights. Those electors 'who were alive and alert to their duty as electors, and who went to the poll, should not he embarrassed by a pro­vision which v:ould mean that even the non-existent electors would count against them. They were told, during the recent election, that there were a number of dupli­C''tiors on I h.c rolls through faulty machinery in connection with remoyals.

Hon. T. J. 0' SHF.\ : Is that the soh, cause?

Hox. G. PAGE-HA:'<IFY: He did not know whether it was, or not. He was quite prepared to bc·licv<' the statement was true. It was very difficult to have an absolutely dean roll up to the time of taking the poll. His partv did not stand for an inflatetl roll, but for a clean roll. and they trieJ always to have it. He would be sorrv to think it was otherwise. \Vh:; should fhey put into that Bill a restriction that did not exist anywhere else? The Federal Constitution wa·~ amended by a majority vote without any restriction. Th< ir own Constitution could be amended by a majority of the two House,,, without any reotriction. Formerly thev had the restriction that there must be a c'ertain proportion of the members of the two Chan:bers voting before they could amend the Constitution, but they cut that out. Yot in this Bill they wanted to pnt in something \vhich, in his opinion, was much more heavily loaded than any hon. gentleman realised. There was no fear that anv question which was so much a live ques­tion as to go through all the difficulties of getting a 10 per cent. petition in the first place, and all the procedure of having a

Hon. G. Page-Hanify.]

1594 Pop:dar Init~atit·e and [COUNCIL.] Referendum Bill.

poll of thP electors, would not result in a minimum vote of 40 per cent. of the elector They would probably hdve more than 50 per cent. of the clcctm·s voting, unless there was some clover, effective organising in ord.cr to induce one side to stop~ a wa v from the poll. ·

Hon. _\. G. C. HAWTHORCi': \Ve propose to concede from 80 per cent.-as it was last year-to 40 per (·cnt. this year.

HoN. G. PAGE-HA="TIFY: Hon. members n1jght be generous and realise-, as a matter of principle, that it was a wrong thing to insert in that Bill, and leave it to the good sen·e of tho electors themselves. Electors who did not go to the poll on am· question of public interest ·were not entitled to be safeguarded. He hoped the Minister's motion woulct be o cccptcd and that the amendment v. ould not be pre·sed.

The SECRET.\RY FOR l\IL\'ES: It might or. ;night )lOt be a. hc•.lthy .sign that the sp,nt of compronuse had entered that Chambe1·. ·

Hon. A. G. C. HAW'l'HOR:s-: It is always here; it is never out of it.

The SECRETARY FOR MI~ES: He noticnd that hon. members were willing to compromise on something which was not very important. They could hold individual opinions about that amendment. He could quite undcrsbnd the amendment if they h11d in thq Bill a clause ,-hich was in force in mme countries where the Initiative and Referendum Act prevailed-that those who did not g·o to the poll should be counted as having voted in the negative.

Hon. \V. STEPHENS: Nothing would ever be carried.

'fhe SECRETARY FOR l\1I~ES: Yes; because those who would refuse to go to the poll would be counted in the negative.

Hon. W'. STEPHEXS : Everythmg would be in the negative.

The SECHETc\RY FOR MIXES: The Hon. ~.lr. Page-Hanify viewed that clause with some alarm.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: He is an extremist.

The SECRETARY FOR MIXES: The party that was strong enough to organise 50 per cent. of the people ehould be strong enough to carry anything. tie would appeal to the Hon. Mr. Page-Hanify to accept the suggestion of the Hon. Mr. Leahy as a comproml~i:~.

Hon. A. G. C. H.\WTH0RC'r: Is he running the show now?

The SECRETARY FOR MIXES: ~o, but he thought it was his duh to tr' to draw hon. members together. He would. like to sec the Hon. Mr. L2ahy willing to com­promise stili further by agreeing to make it 25 per cent. or 30 per cent.

Question (Jfr. Jones's motion) put and negatived.

Hox. P. J. LEAHY moved-Tha.t the Committee insist on their amendment, but offer to substitute the word " fortv" for the '·' ord "fifty" in line 17. ·

Question put and passed.

Clause 18 (now 19)-" Endorsemeni and return of writ; publication of resu/t"-

[Hon. G. Page-Hanify.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES moY<'d­That the Committee do not imist on their­amendment in clause 18 (now 19). The amendment substituted the words .. prima facie" for the word "conclusive "

Hox. P. J. LEAIJY: \Ve will ha Ye to insist on that, because it is consequc·ntial on our amendment in clause 9 (no"' 10).

Question (Jlr. J ones's motion) put and negatived.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES moYed-That the Committee insist on their amendment in clause lE (now 19) for the reasons giYen on clause 9 (now 10).

Question put and passed.

Clause 20 (now 21)-" Constitution may be amended by proposed law"-

The SECRETARY FOR MINES mo,-ed­'l'hat the Committ,~e do not insist on their amendment in clans(! 20 (now 21). The Council had omitted subclause (3), which reacl-

" A proposed law approved under this Act on a referendum poll may be a .. ,ented to, and shall be valid and effectual not­withstanding that it is an amendment of the Constitution of Queensland or of any amendment thereof, or that it,, enact­ment, by means of Parliament. would have been subject to any sperial provisions.''

The GoYernment insisted on the retention of the subclau-c, and he hope-d that the Com­mittee· would agree to its retention, bec:wse he thought the people should have the power to make or amend their own Constitution, as they had in the mother country. That was consistent with the attitude of hon. membero opposite when they insisted on another amendment becarrse they comidered it democratic. The subclause under dis­cussion was certa.inly democratic, and he asked hon. members to be consistent \Vith their attitude on the earlier amendment to which he alluded.

HoN. P. J: LEAHY: He intended to be consistent, and he hoped other hon. mem­bers would bo, too. Insistence on the amendm0nt . was 11ecessary, bee a us~ . it \vas consequential on new clause 2, whiCh the Committee decided the. previous day should be' re+ainc·d. If they agr0,ed to the Minister's mod, •n, they would stultify the·nselve .. ,,

Ho:.:. G. PAGE-H.\N'IFY: A leg-al mem­ber ha.d told the:n the previous day that new dame 2 was merely declaratory and it would not affect the Bill whether it was retained or omitted. The Hon. Mr. Lenhy had s'lid a r-cod deal about some particular brand of dcmocracv, but the hon. member's conception of de:n.ocracy wns not hie ('Jilr. Pa'l'e-Hanif:v's). The hon. member often said a gcod deal ·1.bout consistency. \Yell, he asked him to be con,istent now. The hon. member had insisted on retaining the amendment providing for the recall. which amounted to an amendment of the Con­stitu'ion, so that he should not now insist on the omission of a subclause which said that a proposed law might be asscnted to even if it were an am<mdment of the Con­stitution. If thev struck out that vital pro­vision, it would 'take away from thP people the power to frame or to amend the Con­stitution under which they lived. The Hon.

Popular Initiatwe and [21 AUGUST.] Referendum Bill. 1595

Mr. Leahy's conception of democracy must be a peculiar thing altogether if he did not realise that that was the verv basis of democmey. The Constitution of ·Queensla.nd was framed in what he might call the dark ages-tlw days of the property vote and the plural vote. There \Vas no universal fran­chise, like there w 1s now. The hon. member wanted to prevent the p-c·1ple from making any law that in any way conflicted "\ith the present Constitution, which "·as so behind the times, and which there \vas so much difficulty in intorpreti1.g, as instanced by the conflict between the tvm Chamrers. ·would it not be far better if the people were placed in a position to clarify the whole thing? \Vould it not be far bdter if the people, by initiative. couU frame a Constitution clearly defining the respc' tiYo powers of the two Chambers, so that :10 < :mllict should be possihlc? I-Ie could not conceiYe of any man who cl,Jimed to be an apG.1Jc of demo•.;racv wanting· to keep from the peopk the righ"t to lee;islate directly on th .. ir Constitution. The people should b2 able to iLitiate laws and to get right down to the foundation of things, and, if they were to haYc a contented and harmonious people, the people should have the privil .. ge of framin:r or ame<Jding their own Constitution. He looked upon the subdau<e as one of the mo.,t Yit:tl provi"ions in the Bill. If the amendment were imist:•d upon, he wa,; afraid there would be no Bill. Ile wa.o anxious to see the Bill become an Act. Every memb .. r of the party did not think just as he did on the matter. He look<>d unon the Bill more as a potential instrument for securing so. ia 1 reform. Others in the party looked upon it as being a poten­tial instrument for securing other reforms. It was quite clear that the party generally \voulrl not be satisfied with a mee1sure which wuuld only give them the opportunity of securing so.oial reform>"; and, if the Com­mittee insist·ed upon the amendment. thercbv taking away the basis of the Bill, it wa's verv likelv that the Bill wnnld re destroved and thrir ·labour lost. He honed hon. mem­bers would not insist upon tl~e amendment.

Hox. P. J. LEAHY: There was really nothing in the suggestion of the Hon. :\fr. Pag-c-Hanify. They did a certain thing lttst night in r0gard to clause 2, and that had to otand. If this remained 1t would cla3h IYith clame 2. Of course, it would be po,,ibln,

as su>; g<>sted by one of ~-he [5.30 p.m.] lawyers in the Chamber, to add

the words, " Subject to the pro­visions of section 2 of this Act " and let the subclause remain, but it would be simpler to delete the whole of it, and then there could h., no po~sible conflict with anvthing in clau~e 2. "

Question put and negatived.

HoN. P. .T. LEAHY: If it would meet with the Minister's views, they would agree to th<? insertion of the· words " Subject to the provisions of section 2 of this Act." It would then read-

" Subject to the provisions of section 2 of this Act, a proposed law."

etc. If it met the 11ini,ter's views, well and g-oo.:l ; if not, he would not waste time. He moVEd-

" That the Committee insist on its amendment, because it is consequential en new cla:use 2."

Question put ; divided:-

and the Conn:'li~ree

CoNTENT'·', 13.

Hon. A. A. Davey Hon. C. F. :l!m-ks B. Fahoy T .• L 0' "hL'a K W. H. Fowlcs "\. H. Parnell A. G-ibson \Y. t-'h ph-,ns T. }1. Hall H. Turner ~L G. C. Hawthorn A. H. \VhiHinghnm P .. 1. Leahy

'l'r 7 :er: Hon . . \. A. Davc •r.

~OT·C'C;-.:rT£NTS, 9.

Hon. \Y. H. Demn.ine Hon. T. :\evitt . .:\ . . T .. Tonn G. Pr.gc-H~lni(y H. C .. Tone, I. Perel H. LlewelYn H. umner L. :JlcDonfild

Teller: H m. 1.~. ~.IcDonald.

PAn·;:;.

Contents--1Ir. 3lilc~. }fr. ~i0lson, :Thlr Dunn, ~nd l\Ir. Tirl·~ tna]l.

Kot-Cont<>nts--}1T. Bedford. 1Ir. Courtic", j\:fr. Purn.ell, mul :JJr. Hiordan.

Resoh·ed in the offirmativc. Clause 25-'' Bill for repeal o1· amendment

of this ilct or of Act approved hereunder to be submitted to electo·rs"-

The SECRETARY FOR MINES moved­That the Committee do not insist on the on_ission of clause 25.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: This was probably one of the most important amendments in the BilL It \Yas debated at very consider­able length on previous occa-.ions. It was felt that it would be unwise to tic up future Parliaments. There might be occasions of national emergency.

Hon. A G. C. HAWTHORN: The clause is unconstitutional.

Hox. P. J. LEAHY: As the Hon. Mr. Hawthorn said, the clause was unconstitu­tional; but, leaving out the constitutional qu<>stion. he thought it would be unwise to retain the clause.

Question (Jfr. .J ones's motion) put and negatived.

Hox. P. J. LEAHY moved-" That the Committee insist on the

omiesion of clause 25, because the reten­tion of the clause would mean that this P»rliament would bind future Parli.1ments. which is unwise and against­eonstitutional prac+\ce throughout the Empir0."

Question put ·am] passed. The Council resumed. The CHAIR>IAN

reported that the Committee insisted on s.ome of their amc·ndments, did not insist on other of their amendments, and insisted on another amendment with an amendment.

The report was adopted.

l\JEs~.\GE TO AssE~IBLY, No. 2.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I move -That the Bill be returned to the Legislative Assembly with th·: follo\\'ing message:-

" l\Ir. Speaker,-" The Legislative Council having had

under co11sideration the mt.ssage of the Legislative As~embly, of date 30th July, relative to the Popular Initi11tive and Referendum Bill, beg now to intimate that they-

" Insist on the insertion of new clause 2~be~ause the Parliamentary Bills Re­ferendum Act of 1908 gives the people

Hon. A. J .. Tones.]

1596 Dingo and .Marsupial [COUNCIL.] Dr strur-tion Bill.

ample. powers to deal with constitutional questions, and the new clause does not in any way restrict or confine the powers of the people under this Bill, and is in harmony with the most recent decisions of the Privy Council;

" Insist on their amendment in clause 4 (now 5), lines 33 to 35-because it is essentially democratic and in harmony with the apparent purposes of the Bill;

" Insist on their amendment in clause 9 (now 10), page 5, line 12 (now 11)­because it would be wise although accepting such certificate a~ valid to allow opportunity for correcting 'any inadvertent mistake;

" Insist on the addition to clause 9 (now 10)-because it will minimise fraud and malp1·actices, and because it embodiP~ a sound democratic principle;

" Insist on their amendment in clause 15 (now 16), but offer to substitute the ••·ord ' forty' for the word ' fifty,' on line 17, in which substitution they invite the concurrence of the Legislative Assem­bly;

" Imist on their amendment in clause 18 (now 19), for the reason given in re­gard to the amendment in clause 9 (now 10), page 5, line 12 (now 11);

" Insist on their amendment in clause 20 (now 21)-because it is consequential on new clause 2;

" Insist on the omission of clause 25-because the retention of the clause would mean that this- Parliament would bind future Parliaments, which is unwise and is against the constitutional practice throughout the Empire; and

Do not insist on their other amend­ments in the Bil! to which the Legisla­tive Aseembly have disagreed."

Qtwstion put and passed.

:FISH AND OYSTER ACT AMENDMENT BILL,

FIRST READING.

On the motion of the SECRETARY FOR MINES, this Bill, receive·d by me>sage from the Assembly, was read a first time. The second reading· was made an Order of the Day- for to-morrow.

DINGO AND MARSUPIAL DESTRUCTION BILL.

.SECOND READING-RESUMPTION OF DEBATE,

HoN. A. H. WHITTINGHAM: This is a ]3il~ _of considerable interc;;t, not only to mrhVIduals, but to the whole of the people of Queensland, and I hope that it will be dealt with in a non-party manner. I had intended to speak at some length on the Bill, but a~ it is now nearly 6 o'clock I shall abbreviate my remarks and shall deal with the subject more fullv' when the Bill goes into Committee. The" Bill is the out­come of a deputation which waited on the M:inister for Agriculture in August of last year, when certain propositions with regard to the amendment of the present Marsupial Boards Act were placed before the Minister. '.rhooe propositions included the following:-

"That the dingo be omitted from the

[Hnn. A. J. Jones.

prov1s10ns of the prerlent lYfarsupial Boards Act, and that a separate Act b'l passed to deal with the dingo pest,

" That the whole of Queensland be brought under this Act,

" 'fhat the Act be administered by the Marsupials Boards, and that whore no such boards are in existence they be con­stituted to administer the Dingo Act,

" 1'hat, in addition, a central board be constituted, to be composed of stock­O\Yners nominated by the Gov(lrnment, ''hich shall supervise the operations of all district marsupial boards, which shall collect all funds at a uniform assess­ment through the agency of the District Marsupial Board, and shall distribute those funds to the various district mar­supia.! boards as required for the destruc­tion of dogs, at a minimum of not less than 10s. per scalp, but the various marsupi.d boards shal! be empowered to collect an extra rate of assl· .sment in their respective districts for the purpose of paying an increased rate for dogs' scalps in their own districts.

" That a uniform assessment be im­posed throughout Queensland upon the basis of 20 head of cattle and lOO head of sheep, r,nd that the Government be assessed as stockowners, also that a sub­sidy of 25 per cent. b~ granted by the Government on the funds coilected by the Dingo Act."

Th0 provi~ions of the Bill now presented to us arC' summed up pretty well in a Iett()r from Mr. C. D. E. Francis, who was the spokes­man of tilE' deputation refcorred to. That loiter appeared in the Press, and is as follows:--

"Sir -I notic'l that the Government is introdn'cing a Dingo Bill, presumably in response to representations made on the snbject last v<:ar. If that is so, as ''noke;;man of" the deputation which laid the matter before the Ministqr, I can onlv sav that every vital principle in the scheme" then formulated, which embodied the idPa:; of practical men, arrived at after long and careful consideration, and which I maintain "as a thoroughly prac· tical solution of the difficulty, has been omitted from the present Bill, and that as a means of combating the dingo menace the proposed new Bill is abso­lutely Yalueless. In view of the import­ance of the question, and having regard to the constantly increasing area of conntrv which is being rendered unavail­a hiE' for sheep owing to the ravages of dogs, I wonld respo?tfully l!rge the GoYernment to recons1der the1r whole attitude on this question. The vital points I 1·efer to as having been omitted are­No provision is made for the compulsory formation of board'' for the whole of Queensland ; no provision is made for the constitntion of a central board to r(l­ceive all assessments and distribute such as required by the different local boards, and unless this or some similar provision is made it must inevitably happen that the heavily-inf~stBd districts will be un­able to meet their liabilities, Moreover, in those districts exclusively or prin­cipally stocked with cattle, there will be an inclination to neglect . the destruction

Dingo and Jiarsupial, Et•',, Bill. [21 AuGUST.] AdJournment. 1597

of dingoes, especially a' foxes are coupled with them in the proposed Act, unless there is a superior power to step in and enforce the performance of this duty.

" No provision is made for a uniform a;ccessment throughout Queensland, though this is necess,try to prevent the whole burden of dingo destruction throughout the State falling on a few districts. No provision is made to render the killing of dingoes compulsory on all landowners, and at pre,cr,t cer· tain landowners go so far as to refuse to :tllow dogs to be killed on their holdings, regardless ui the loss thereby entaih•d on their neighbour·o.

"I an1, sir, etc., " CHARLES D. E. FRANCIS.

"25th July.'

Mr. Fr:tncis puts the case very clearly, and I hope that when the Bill is in Committee the amendments that we have suggested will !Je adopted. One amendment is to add the words " wild pig or eagle hawk" to the dcfinitirm of marsupial as given in the Bill. People living in towns may think that is not a matter of v<;ry much importance, but to those who are immediately concerned a bout those pests it is a matter of very great importance. No provision is made in this Bill for the compnloory formation of boards for the ,; hole of Queensland. Clnus~ 4 em­powers the Governor in Council from time to time to constitute diBtrids, but it is im­portant in or<ler to make the Bill effective, that the constitution of districts for the whole of Queensland should be compulsory, and an amendment providing for this should be ineerted in the Bill. Again, the power to abolish a dingo district should not be included in the Bill, as influen•3e may be brouf"ht to bear to have certain districts ex~mpted from the Bill; and it is desired that no loonhole in this direction should be opened. Another reason for the compulsory formation of districts and boards for the whole of Queensland is that if any portion of th0 StatP is left outside the scheme, that portion will become a b1:eeding-place for dingoes. By including the whole of Queens· land we shonld do away with anything in the nature of preference to a particular dis­trict or districts, and as the levies are on a stock basis no injustice or inequity will be done to ctny particular district. The dis­tricts with " small number of stock in them will contribute in a small way, and districts ,,ith a large number of stock, and which are vitally intC'rested in this national question, will have to contribute according to the r.umber of their stock.

I w0uld also point out that no provision is made in the Bill for the constitution of a central boal'd such as exists under the Rabbit Act of 1913 In my opinion, the Bill should be am,mded so e,s to provide for the constitution of a central board to r!lceive ail asse"ments and distribute such assess­ments as are required by the local boards. The dutv cf the central board should be­(a) to aclvise the Ministm' upon matters re­b ting to the administr:,tion of the Act, and generally with respect to measures for pre­venting the incursion and migration of dim<:oeB and marsupials, and for the destruc­tion of such animals; (b) to fix the rates of a<,.eosment to be levied by th.; district boards

-the rate nf such assessments should be on everv 25 head .of cattle and every 125 sheep, and "should be uniform throughout the State; (c) to fix the rate of honus to be paid to scalpers, smch rate being made uniform throughont the State; and (d) generally to take all such measures in any district or districts as the central board rr,ay deem necessary for the prevention of the incursion or migration, or for the destruction, of dingo·,~ and marsupials. 'l'his would enable thu c<>ntral board to step in in case the local board was not doing its duty. Unless this or wme • uch provision is made in the Bill, it will ine.-itably happen that the heavily­infcd.ed di<tricts will be unable to meet thei1· liabilities. Moreover, in those districts ex­clusively or principally stocked with cattle, there will be an inclination to neglect the de'.truction of dingoes, especially as foxes ar(l conpled with them in the Bill, unless there is a superior board, such as the Ccr,tral Board, to etep in and enforce the performance of this duty. The Central Board should comist of the Minister, who would be ex-officio chairman, and six members, two of whom could b<J appointed by the Governor in Council. and four elected by the different local boards in the different dingo districts. 'l'h" board.< should meet at such times and places as th~ Minister directs, but not less frce1uentlv •han twice a yPar. The endow­mer,t of '£5,000 provi·ded by the Bill is too "moll and should be raised to £10,000 per ann,u~1, :tml paid to the central board in the same manner as £10,000 is paid to the Central Board under the Rabbit Act. I shall not detain the Houee any longer, but when the Dill goes into Committ.ee I shall have sonwth iEg further to say. I hope that the Bill will be treated as a non-partcr mea­sure and will be ·dealt with purely in the inte;·ests of the State and those living in countrv dist.ricts.

HONOURAilLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Question-That the Bill be now read a sc·cond time-put and passed.

The consideration of the Bill in Committee was made an Order of the Day for Tue,day next,

ADJOURNMENT.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I move-'I'hat the Council do now a·djourn. The first bnsinPss to-morrow will be t~e c~m­sideration in Committee of the Leg1slatlve Ac,embly's message in regard to the Land Tax Act Amendment Bill.

Hon. P. ,J. LEAHY: The free conference is to be held to-morrow, and we m~y r:ot re­ceive the report of th<: managers m t1me to c0nsider the Bill in the afternoon.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Well, in that c;tse, we can postpone the matter. The next item will be the third reading of the ·wages Bill, to be followed b:" t~e consideration of the Meatworks B1ll m Committee, the second reading of the Land Act Amendment Bill (No. 3), and the consideration in Committee of the Land Act Amendment Bill (No. 2).

Question put and passed.

The Council adjourned at one minute past 6 o'clock p.m.

Hon. A. J. Jones.]