Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 15 SEPTEMBER 1936

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Sawmills Licensing Bill. [10 SEPTEMBER.] Questions. 365

TUESDAY, 15 SEPTEMBER, 1936.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. Pollock !Jrcgory) took the chair at 10.30 a.m.

QUESTIONS. RETIREMENTS FROM POLICE FORCE.

Mr. BRAND (lsis) asked the Secretary for Health and Home Affairs-

" 1. How long was Major Cahill Cam· missioner of Police, and how many men under the age of sixty years were retired by the Medical Board during his term as Commissioner?

"2. How long was Mr. Urquhart Com­missioner of Police, and how many men under the age of sixty years were retired by the Medical Board during his term as Commissioner ?

" 3. How long was Mr. Short Corn· missioner of Police, and how many men under the age of sixty years were retired by the Medical Board during his term as Commissioner?

"4. How long was Mr. Ryan Commis­sioner of Police, and how many men under the age of sixty years were retired by the Police Medical Board, on the grounds of ill health, during his term as Commissioner?

" 5. In view of the fact that ninety­eight men have been retired as unfit in a period of two years and three months, will he have an investigation made into the alarming state of ill-health of the Queensland Police Force?"

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOME AFFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hanlon, lthaca) replied-

" 1. Mr. W. G. Cahill was appointed on 1st April, 1905, and retired on 31st December, 1916.

"2. Mr. F. C. Urquhart was appointed on 1st January, 1917, and retired on 15th January, 1921.

" 3. Mr. P. Short was appointed on 16th January, 1921, and retired on 15th January, 1925.

Mr. Moore.]

366 Questwns. [ASSEMBLY.] Questions.

"4. Mr. W. H. Ryan was appointed on 15th January, 1925, and retired on 8th May, 1934. To obtain the other informa­tion desired would mean a search of many files, and this would necessitate a considerable amount of overtime being paid. I do not think that the value of the information would justify the expenditure involved.

" 5. The general state of health of the members of the police force has never been better than it is to-day. The Government Medical Officer reports that the number of men reporting sick has decreased appreciably."

INDEBTEDNESS OF LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES, 1932 AND 1936.

Mr. WALKER (Cooroora) asked the Trea­surer-

" What was the tota.l indebtedness at 30th June, 1932, and 30th June, 1936, of all local authorities and other statutory bodies-(a) loans by the Government; (b) loans guaranteed by the Govern­ment?"

The TREASURER (Hon. W. Forgan Smith, Mackay) replied-

" (a) I refer the hon. member to the ' Government Gazettes ' of 31st August, 1932, and 31st August, 1936, respectively, for this information. (b) On account of loans guaranteed by the Government­at 30th June. 1932, £11,712,780; at 30th June, 1936, £13,985,586."

ADVERTISEMENT IN " TRUTH" NEWSPAPER.

Mr. DEACON (Cunningham) asked the Premier-

" Referring to his an.swer to my ques­tion on 9th insta.nt, is it usual for his department to pay for space in ' Truth' or other newspapers containing matter showing progress in industries or m other directions, and also containing the words ' all during the term of office of the present Queensland Government,' or words to that effect?"

The PREMIER (Hon. W. Forgan Smith, Mackay) replied-

" Yes.''

PUBLIC ESTATE IMPROVEMENT BRANCH EXPENDITURE IN BOWEN ELECTORATE.

Mr. CLAYTON (Wide Bay) asked the Secretary for Public Lands-

" 1. What is the amount of money expended by the Public Estate Improve­ment Branch of the Lands Department since 30th June, 1932, on the construc­tion of roads within the Bowen elec­torate?

" 2. In what local authority areas has the above work (if any) been done?

" 3. What proportion of the amount expended is repayable by the respective local authorities 1

" 4. What was the number of men employed in connection with such work?"

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. P. Pease, Herbert) replied-

" 1 to 4. Nil. There have been no land settlement projects in the Bowen electorate requiring the construction of roads by the Lands Department."

STUD LEASES, 1936. Mr. GODFREY MORGAN (Dalby) asked

the Secretary for Public Lands-" Will he furnish a statement show­

ing the stud leases in existence on 30th June, 1936-(a) sheep, (b) cattle, (c) horses, and including in such statement the names of the lessees, area of each lease, and district, respectively?"

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. P. Pease, Herbert) replied-

" Full information regarding stud leases will be contained in the Annual Report of the Land Administration Board, which is now in course of pre­paration and which I will table in Parliament shortly."

" GoLDEN CASKET " RESULT SLIPS AND NIGHT DRAWINGS.

Mr. NIMMO (Oxley) asked the Secretary for Health and Home Affairs-

" 1. What number of Golden Casket result slips are printed for-(a) a small casket; (b) a mammoth casket?

"2. What is the cost of (a) and (b) as in Question 1?

" 3. What extra cost is entailed through drawing the caskE;t a~ night as _com­pared with a drawmg m the day t1me?

" 4. What amount of overtime pay is entailed by a night drawing?

" 5. How much of this overtime is charged-(a) against the Government Printer; (b) the Casket Office?

" 6. Are any persons, other than Golden Casket employees, engaged in the draw­ings at the City Hall?

"7. If so, what are their names and duties, and what payments do they receive, respectively?"

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HOME AFFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hanlon, lthaca) replied-

" 1. (a) Varies, average 67,500; (b) varies, average 154,000.

"2. (a) £18 16s. 9d. for 67,500; (b) £50 14s. 7d. for 154,000.

"3. Small Casket, £12 lls. 9d.; Mammoth Casket, £34 Os. lld.

"4.-Small Caskets-

Special set payments Government Printer-over­

time

Mammoth Caskets-Special set payments Government Printer-over-

time

"5. See answer to No. 4. "6. Yes.

£ s. d. 21 5 6

9 6 10

£30 12 4

34 5 6

23 9 0

£57 14 6

"7. The Accountant of the Depart­ment of Health and Home Affairs is in charge of the drawing, whieh is super­vised bv an officer of the Auditor­General's Department. The Golden Casket staff has no control over the draw­ings. Other staff of the Department of Health and Home Affairs, Golden Casket Office, and Government Printer

Sawmills Licensing Bill. [15 SEPTEMBER.] Supply. 367

arc engaged in recor.ding and checking results. The personnel of the staff and the duties vary with each drawing, but if the hon. member requires details of any particular drawings, they will be supplied."

BREAKFAST CREEK RELIEF WORKERS. Mr. MAHER (We~t Moreton) asked the

Secretary for Labour and Industry-" In reference tq his answer to my

question on 9th instant showing fifty­four men employed on the Breakfast Creek job, does this number include any of the men who were dismissed for refusing to pay for an Australian Workers' Union ticket? If so, how mra.ny?''

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, Towns­ville) replied-

~' Yes. '1_1wo."

KINGAROY RAILWAY STATION. Mr. EDWARDS ("Yanango): I desire to

ask the Minister for Transport whether he has an answer to the following questions, which I addressed to him on lOth Septem­ber:-

" 1. What has been the expenditure on the Kingaroy Railway Station building -(a) original cost; (b) expenditure since; and (c) total?

" 2. What amount has been received in rentals from the Kingaroy Railway Station grounds-( a) in 1935-36; (b) total to 30th June, 1936 ?"

The MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT (Hon. J. Dash, Mundingburra) replied-

" 1. (a} £210; (b) £217; (c) £427. £1,012 also spent on a grain shed.

"2. (a) £570; (b) £4,350 since 1905."

TREASURER'S FINANCIAL TABLES. The TREASURER (Hon. W. Forgan Smith,

M ackay) presented the tables relating to the Treasurer's Financial Statement for the year 1936-37.

Ordered to be printed.

INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

INITIATION. The SECRE'I'ARY FOR LABOUR AND

INDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, Towns­ville): I move-

" That the House will, at its next sit­ting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of the desirableness of introducing a Bill to amend 'The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Acts, 1932 to 1935 ' in a. certain par­ticular."

Question put and passed.

SAWMILLS LICENSING BILL. THIRD READING.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. P. Pease, Herbert): I move-

" That the Bill be now read a third time.''

Question put and passed.

ESTIMA'I'ES IN CHIEF, 1936-1937. Mr. SPEAKER reported the receipt of a

message from the Deputy GovPrnor, forward­ing the " Estimates of the Probable Ways and Means and Expenditure of the Government of Queensland for the year ending 30th June, 1937."

Estimates ordered to be printed, and referred to Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY.

0PENIKG oF CoMMITTEE. The 'l'REASURER (Hon. W. Forgan

Smith, Mackay}: Mr. Speaker, I move-" That you do now leave the chair."

Mr. MAHER (West Moreton} [10.45 a.m.]: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, and the House goes into Committee of Supply, I wish to avail myself of the time-honoured privilege of ventilating one or two substan· tial grievances.

During the course of the debate on the Appropriation Bill I had occasion to make reference to certain windmill contracts that had been let by the Secretary for Public Lands.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAKDS: Let by the Sub-Department of Irrigation and Water Supply.

Mr. MAHER: Let by the Sub-Department of Irrig·ation and Water Supply, which is under the control of the Secretary for Public Lands.

An OPPOSITION MEMBER: The same thing. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: It is

not the same thing.

Mr. :MAHER: On that occasion I unwit­tingly did an injustice to the Toowoomba Foundry Company. A well wisher of the company and a prominent citizen of Too­woomba spoke to me and pointed out that it had lost contracts because of the fact that it was operating under a Federal and not a State Industrial Award.

The TREASURER: That is not the position. Mr. MAHER: I should be very glad to

have that substantiated here in the House in view of the questions that have been asked and the replies made thereto in this Chamber. However, I got in touch by tele­phone with Mr. Boyce, the managing direc­tor of the Toowoomba Foundry Co.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! In reference to the discussion of grievances before Com­mittee of Supply, there is only one Standing Order of this House to which we can appeal. Standing Order ;\Jo. 139 provides-

" \Vhcn the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of Supply or of Ways and Means is read for the first time during the ses­sion, an amendment or contingent motion shall not be entertained without the leave of a majority of the House, and no debate shall be allowed upon the motion for such leave, except a statement of the subject-matter of the intended amendment or motion, in making which the mover may not debate the same for more than ten minutes."

In other words, on the motion '·That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair," it is com­petent for any hen. member to move an amendment, which the House may accept if it is prepared so to do. The hon. member

Hon. G. Pollock.]

.368 Supply . [ASSEMBLY.] Supply.

who mo,·es that amendment is allowed ten minutE's in which to detail the form of amendment for the consideration of the House so that it may be determined whether it is acceptable or not.

In rcrrard to ''Grievances before Supplv ., :\Iny. at page 625, stat<·s:- ·'

" For instance, a matter which should be considered upon a substantive motion, or which has already been decided bv the House. or of wh!ch notice has bcei1 given, or which stands upon the notice paper canuot be discussed. A subject, or matter of detail, which should be discussed in the Committee, is out of order. According·ly, neither debate nor amendment can be permitted relating to grants already agreed to, or to resolu­tions which will be proposed in the Committf'e of Supply, or to items upo11 the estimate, as in Committee of Supply n1atters involYing l0gislation cannot be discussed on the question for the Speaker's leaving the chair."

The matter which the hon. gentleman is at prf'sent discussing can be dealt with under <'iihf'r one or two Estimates: on the ·prin­cipal vote for the Department of Public Lands or upon the Yote for thf' Sub-Depart­ment of Irrigation and \'later Supply. Hi., remarks. therefore, are not in order at this 'tage. Grievances that are not covered bv the K'timates in Committee of Supply, car{, I think. b<• fairly discussed at this stage.

~Ir. MA HER: Mr. Speahr, I do not question at all the accuracy of your ruling, hut my understanding has always been that it is a matter of custom in this House thnt hon. members should have a wide discretion in the llHttter uf disrussing grievances before going into Committee of Supply. I recollect., Mr. SpenkN, that under :-·our Speakership in this Home I have brought forward matters of grieYancPs of this kind at this stage.

:VIr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. gC'ntlcrnan cannot di~rus~ Mr. SpC'aker's state­ment, but if he YYish<>s to discuss a griev· a nee~-~

Mr. i\IAHER: Does Mr. Speaker rule that I am not entitled to proceed on the matter that I Yvas bringing forward?

Mr. SPEAKER : Certainlv. That is a matter which can be discussed on two occa­sions when the Estimates are before the Com­mittee, but it is not in order at this stage.

-:\1r. MAHER: Practicallv everything within the ambit of parliamentary discussion could come Yvithin the scope of the Estimates. It frequently happens, however, that many Estimatf's are not discussed, and there is, therefore, no opportunity to raise grievances that pertain to them. Your ruling this morn­ing, Mr. Speaker, denotes a departure from a time-honoured parliamentary custom in Queensland. It seems, however, that it is use. less for me to proceed because the matters that I desire to discuss deal with grievances arising out of previous parliamentary debates nnd happenings in the State although they are matters that always have been regarded as coming within the ambit of this parlia­mentary procedure.

Mr. SPEAKER : Perhaps it would not do any harm at this stage to give reasons for this departure. I did not propose to do so, beeanse I do not like to take up the time of the House with unnecessary verbiage.

[Hon. G. Pollock.

Redlich, whom, of all parliamentary antho­riti,•s throughout the world, I regard as the shrewdest and the most capable reasoner on parliamentary matters, has this to say on page 92 of volume I. with regard to the debating of grievances before Supply-T want hon. members to follow me very closely in order that they may see the reasons th~t have actuated the House of Commons m df'parting from this practice-

" The Speaker should leave the chair without putting any question to the House as soon as the order of the day for the Committee was reached. Above all, he suggested an extension of the rule, adopted by the House in 1848, according to which formal amendments upon the question of taking up a parti­cular order of the day were abolished ; he proposed to apply, partially at least, to the excepted case of the Committee of Supply the same rules as were applic­able to other committees of the whole House, and to provide that when pro· gress had been reported upon certain classes of the Estimates, the Speaker should leave the chair without question when those classes of Estimates came up again. The object of such formal amendments (which had no need to be relevant to the order of the day, the taking up of which was before the House\ was to put questions to the Government, and to elicit debates thereon quite foreign to any subject on the day's programme. Through the gap which had been left by this exception a prac­tice had crept in, of interposing all kinds of questions and initiating irre­gular debates, of which private members, especially those on the side of the Opposition, often made use in a manner very detrimental to the progress of busine..ss. ' The practice has been <'arricd to .an inconvenient extent,' said the Speaker, ' especially of late, when members haYe not been contented with merely moving amendments on going into Committe of Supply, but have given previous notice of their intention to call the attention of the House to questions before the Speaker leaves the chair, :vhich h~s caused very great delay and Inconvenience.' ''

This is the meat of the extract-" Many topics may thus be debated by

the :a:ouse at the very same time, without rts bemg able to give an opinion on them. Some of those subjects may refer to the conduct of the Government, and require a member of the Government to take part in the debate; but as no member of the Government can speak more than once upon the same question, and as all these subjects are brought forward upon one qu8stion, it frequently happens that the House is oblig-ed to listen to ex parte statements which cannot be answered."

That, really, is the reason why the Hocrse of Commons departed from that practice. Our final Standing Order provides that where our Standing Orders are silent we must be guided by the rules and practice of the House of Commons and that is the rule and practice of the H'ouse of Commons to-day.

Question-" That Mr. Speaker do now lea\'f> the chair" (Mr. Smith's motion)-put and passed.

Financial Statement. [15 SEPTEMBER.) Financial Statement. 369

COMMITTEE.

FINANCIAL STATE])IENT.

(Mr. Hanson, Buranda, in the chair.)

The TREASURER (Hon. W. Forgan Smith, Mackay) [10.56 a.m.], who was received IYith Government cheers, said: Mr. Hanson, I have pleasure in again submitting the annual review of the finances of the State of Queensland, and in reporting that the rapid recovery of the State from last year's drought and the continued improvement in the economic situation have reduced the revenue deficit to a figure much smaller than was anticipated in my Budget Estimates for 1935-36.

I intend to explain in broad outline the results achieved last year, and to state what my anticipations are for the current financial year.

The year's transactions resulted in a deficit of £741,815, which was £420,558 less than the Budget estimate of £1,162,373, the improved position being mainly due to an increase of £452,181 in the receipts over the original estimate, the excess in expenditure being £31,623 only.

I deem it advisable to again refer to the cost of exchange, which amounted to

£810,185, as this charge more than accounts for the deficiency in Consolidated Revenue Fund for the year.

Mr. GODFREY MoRGAN: I rise to a point of order. It has always been the custom in this Committee to have copies of the Finan· cial Statement delivered to hon. members before it is read. It has not been distributed to hon. members yet. I took one as I came in.

The TREASURER: I regret that the printed copies of the Financial Statement •,•ere not circulated before I came in. I can assure the Opposition and members of the Committee generally that there was no intention of discourtesy on my part. (Hear, hear l) The full statement is in the hands of the messengers. The motion that it be printed was carried, and it should have been circulated.

I might also draw the attention of hon. membc;rs to the amount paid to the Public Debt Sinking Fund, which reached a total of £477,170, as against £448,663 for the previous fmancial year.

The main increases or decreases in the .actual revenue and exp0nditure, as corn~ pared with the Budget estimates, am set out in subsequent tables, the following being a summary of the position:- '

Over Estimated. Actual. Estimate.

-------------------1-

Receipts

Expenditure

Estimated Deficit

Actual Deficit

£ 15,036,810

16,199,183

1,162,373

£ £ 15,488,991 452,181

16,230,806 31,623

741,815

Cm:~OLTDATED REVEKuE FuND-RECEIPTS, 1935-1936. The following table sets out the actual _receipts under the main hea'h of llevenuc,

·' compared with the Budget estimates:---------- ----------------------------~------···

Budget Actual Over Under Head of Revenue. Estimate. Receipts. Estimate. Estimate.

£ £ £ £ Amount received from Commonwealth .. .. 1,171,235 1,171,235 .. .. Taxation .. .. .. . . .. .. 3,665,200 4,082,507 417,307 . . Land .. .. .. .. .. .. 1,352,000 1,405,603 53,603 . . Mining .. .. .. . . .. .. 49,500 46,491 .. 3,009

Railways .. .. .. .. .. .. 6,700,000 6,643,834 . . 56,166

Other Receipts .. .. .. . . .. 2,098,875 2,139,321 40,446 .. Totals .. .. .. .. . . 15,036,810 15,488,991 511,356 59,175

Over Estimate .. ..

It will be observed that the receipts for t )JG _vc~r totalled £15,488,991, being £208,970 in excess of the revenue for the previous financial year.

The amount received from the Common­wealth was £1,171,235, or £211,000 less than the t-Jrcvious year. The amount received for 1935-36 included £75,000 which represented this State's share of the special grant of

£452,181 £452,181

£500,000 apportioned to all the States on a population basis. I may point out that beyond the amount of £75,000 this State did not participate in any special assistance from the Commonwealth Government.

The receipts from Taxation produced £417,307 more than was anticipated when the Budget was framed. the principal increases being Income Tax £370.128, and

lion. W. Forgan Smith.]

370 Financial Statement [ASSEMBLY.] Financial Statement.

Stamp and Probate Duty £73,579. Owing to the altered method of assessment pro­vided for in the Liquor Act, introduced last session, the revenue for licensed victuallers' fees for the past year did not reach the estimate. This is due to the fact that license fees which previously were paid in the month of June will not be payable until November or December in each year in future.

Land Revenue realised £53,603 more than the estimate, due mainly. to increased receipts from the sale of timber. This is gratifying evidence of the continued activity in the building trade.

Railway earnings fell short of the estimate by £56,166, the deficiency being due to a greater falling-off in live stock, fodder, and

wool traffic than was anticipated and the dislocation of traffic by heavy flo~ds in the Central and Northern Divisions of the State.

Other receipts, which include such head­ings of revenue as Harbour Rates and Fee~, Interest from Loans to Local Bodies, and Fees of Office. totalled £2,139,321, this amount being £40,446 more than was anti­cipated and £101,789 above the total for the previous year. The increasing revenue under those headings must be regarded with satisfaction.

ExPENDITURE, 1935-1936. The following table discloses the variations

in the actual expenditure as compared with the estimates:-

Head of Expenditure. Budget

Estimate. Actual

Expenditure. Over

Estimate. Under

Estimate.

Schedules . . . . . . Interest on Public Debt .. Executive and Legislative Premier and Chief Secretary Health and Home Affairs Public Works .. Labour and Industry Justice . . . . Treasurer . . . . Public Lands .. Agriculture and Stock .. Public Instruction Mines .. Railways ..

£ 874,619

5,006,414 34,757

103,598 1,459,756

174,220 101,796 182,244 I

1,274,786 249,109 138,531

1,536,973 62,380

5,000,000

£ 858,066

4,980,730 34,671

112,002 1,461,854

172,518 100,832 184,302

1,276,075 236,461 129,324

1,531,377 59,880

5,092,714

£

i:i,404 2,098

2,058 1,289

£ 16,553 25,684

86

12,648 9,207 5,596 2,500

Totals .. 16,199,183 16,230,806 106,563 74,940

Over Estimate ..

The total disbursements from Consolidated Revenue Fund amounted to £16,230,806, which, as I have already stated, is only £31,623 in excess of the Budget estimate.

In making a comparison with the estimate it must be remembered that Governments are called upon to meet many and varied items of unforeseen expenditure. The fact that the excess disbursements during the twelve months under review were restricted to the comparatively negligible sum of £31,623-which is equal to an excess of under .2 per cent.-shows that a proper control was exercised over expenditure.

The charge for interest on the public debt was £25,684 less than the amount provided. This was brought about by a saving of £32,900 in respect of the loan of £2,793,350, which matured on 31st January, 1936, pro­vision having been made for a full year's interest at the rate of £5 Os. 9d. per cent., whereas conversion was effected at the reduced interest rate of 3~ per cent.

In the Department of the Treasurer pro­vision was made for the disbursement of £90,000 on account of rebates allowed by the Railway Department in freight on starving stock and fodder, but owing to the continued effect of drought conditions it was found necessary to provide an additional amount of £9,875 for these rebates. This sum more than accounts for the excess of £1,289 in the Department of the Treasurer.

The Railway Department expended the sum of £92,714 in excess of the original pro­vision, due mainly to the cost of variations in award conditions granted by the Arbitra-

[Hon. W. Forgan Smith.

£31,623 £31,623

tion Court, flood damage and consequent diversion of traffic, and also to the wag.!3s of the increased staff employed in the work­shops to cope with the accumulated rolling­stock repairs rendered necessary by the abnormal traffic handled throughout the year 1934-35.

It will be noted that in regard to practically all the other Departments the expenditure showed a saving as compared with the estimates.

TRUST FUNDs-1935-1936. The receipts on account of Trust and

Special Funds for the year amounted to £7,598,808, which is £43,307 less than the previous year. The principal increases in receipts, as compared with 1934-35, were Forestry and Lumbering Fund £52,549, Harbour Dues Fund £15,904, State Insurance Fund £123,431, and Unemployment Insur­ance Fund £26,504. A decrease is shown in respect of Main Roads Fund £181,371, Agricultural Bank £27,728, Workers' Dwel­lings Fund £20,077, and Workers' Homes Fund £13,706.

It is particularly pleasing to note the increases in the receipts in respect of the Forestry and Lumbering Fund, the Harbour Dues Fund, and the State Insurance Fund, as these are undeniable indications of increased business activity generally. The increasing revenue of the State Government Insurance Office is also evidence of the expansion in the business of this Government institution. The improved position in relation to unemploy­ment is reflected in the increased receipts of the Unemployment Insura.nce Fund.

Financial Statement. [15 SEPTEMBER.) Financial Statement. 371

The decrease in the receipts of the Main Roads Trust Fund is accounted for bv the fact that the amount transferred from 'Loan Fund was £400,000 as compared with £770,000 provided from the latter fund in the previous financial year. The smaller amounts received in regard to Agricultural Dank Fund, Workers' Dwellings Fund and v.· orkers' Homes Fund are due to the relief granted by way of reduction in interest on loans advanced to primary producers and to borrowers for the erection of homes.

tions in detail, I think it desirable to refer to the principal items of expenditure, which comprised:-

The total amount expended from Trust and Special Funds during the year was £7.428,708, which was £170,100 less than the aggregate receipts for the period. Details of receipts and expenditure of all the Trust Funds are furnished in the Budget Tables.

LOAN FUND-1935-1936.

Buildings Loans for Erection of Workers'

Dwellings and Workers' Homes, &c. Main Roads-Grant to Fund .. Loans and Subsidies to Local

Authorities, &c. . . Stanley River Dam .. Flood Mitigation Works Land Settlement, Public Estate

In1provement, Forestry, &c. Mining Assistance .. Advances by Agricultural Bank to

Farmers and Graziers Railways Other ..

£ 494,198

393,081 400,000

1,313,682 80,000

118,956

420.640 35,905

233,336 693,712 36,120

£4,219,630

The amount expended from Loan Funds dnring the year 1935-36 was £4,219,630, which was £566,070 less than the amount disbursed in the previous year. -

This expenditure has enabled the Govern­ment to carry out an extensive policy of public works and development, and, whilst not attempting to review the year's opera-

In addition to the £80,000 provided from State loan funds for the Stanley River Dam there was expended the balancA of a grant of £125,000 received from the Commonwealth Government towards the cost of that work.

The following is a statement of the transac­tions in the current account of the Loan Fund for the year 1935-1936 :-

Balance at Current Account at 30th .Tune, 1935 Receipts during the year-

Repayments by Local Authorities, &c ... Receipts under Land Sales Proceeds Acts Proceeds of Loan Issues-

A ustralia---Domestic Issues-­

Si per cent. 3! per cent.

State's Proportion of Loans issued by the Commonwealth Government--

3~ per cent. (Balance) 3! per cent.

Less Discount and Charges

Less not received at 30th .Tune, 1936

£

7,000 229,000

133,022 1,884,660

2,017,682 31,122

1,986,560 176,802

Proceeds of Loan raised by the Commonwealth to convert Inscribed Stock . . 2,393,350

Less Expenses 9,689

Loans from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia on account of Increase in Savings Bank Depositors' Balances

Proceeds of Treasury Bills Refund on account of Expenses in connection with Loans raised by the

Commonwealth

Disbursements during the year-Expenditure as per Budget Table E5 Inscribed Stock converted during the year Amount transferred to Consolidated Revenue to meet Deficit for

1935-36 Moiety of Repayments under the Commonwealth-States Scheme for

Relief of Unemployment repaid to the Commonwealth Government Treasury Bills temporarily cancelled during the year Treasury Bills redeemed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Further Amount of Expenses in connection with Conversions under

the CommonweaUh Debt Conversion Act, 1931 Portion of Repayments received during the year transferred to Con­

solidated Revenue and applied towards the payment of the Sinking Fund Contributions due in terms of " The CommonweaUh and States Financial Agreement Ratification Act of 1927 "

Balance at Current Account at 30th .Tune, 1936

£ £ 1,400,811

1,208,351 13,427

236,000

1,809,758

2,383,661

874,000 3,363,000

89 9,888,286

11,289,097

4,219,630 2,393,350

741,815

8,518 969,000

1,015,000

3

100,000 9,447,316

£1,841,781

Hon. W. Forgan Smith.]

372 Financial Statement. [ASSEMBLY.] Financial Statement.

The receipts of the Loan Account for the year comprised the following:-

Repayments by Local Authorities and Other Borrowers

Land Sales Proceeds Act Loan Raisings-

Domestic Issues-Investments by the Insurance Commissioner, &c.

Loans from Commonwealth Savings Bank

State's Proportion of Loans raised by the Commonwealth ..

Proceeds of Treasury Bills

£

1,208,351 13,427

236,000

874,000

1,809,847 3,363,000

£7,504,625

The proceeds of Treasury Bills referred to above consisted of the following :-

Treasury Bills temporarily issued for Revenue Purposes and subsequently

£

cancelled 830,000 Treasury Bills temporarily cancelled

from Cash and Loan Proceeds reissued during the year . . 2,533,000

£3,363,000

SUJ\BIARY OF PUBLIC BALAXCES--30TH J UXE,

1936.

The following statement shows the composi­tion of the actual ca,sh balance of £1,060,205

Treasury Bills outstanding at 30th Jnne, 1935 Issued during 1935-36 on account of Revenue Deficit Bills previously cancelled reissued during the year ..

Redemptions, 1935-36-Permanently redeemed-

held at the close of the financial ypar:­£

Loan Fund . . . . Trust and Special Funds

Cr. 1,976,015 Cr. 3,024, 791

Less-Debit Balance Consolidated

Revenue Fund (on account Unfunded Deficits)

Less-On Extended Deposit

Actnal Cash

5,000,806

3,806,367

1,194,43\l

134,234

£1,060,20(}

This amount was held as follows :-

At current account­In Australia .. In London .. In New York

In Commonwealth Savings Bank

£ £

1,032,667 5,788

362 1,038,817

21,388 £1,060,205

In addition to the cash balance as above, Treasury bills amounting to £350,000, which were temporarily cancelled from the pro­('ecds of the loan floated in June last, o,re ayailable for reissue, and may be drawn upon as desired.

TREASURY BILLS.

The following statement is a summary of the transactions in respect of Treasury bills during the financial year ended 30th June, 1936:-

£ £ £ 1,544,000

830,000 2,&33,000

3,363,000

4,907,000

From Cash, Jnly, 1935, on account of Revenue Deficit, 1934-35 From Loan Proceeds on account of Revenue Deficit, 1935-36-

November, 1935, Loan

185,000

315,000 June, 1936, Loan

Temporarily cancelled From Loan Proceeds­

June, 1935, Loan November, 1935, Loan June, 1936, Loan

Treasury Bills outstanding 30th June, 1936

515,000 1,015,000

129,000 490,000 350,000

969,000

Treasury Bills Temporarily Cancelled and Available for Reissue.

Available at 30th June, 1935 Temporarily cancelled from Loan Proceeds during the year ..

Less-Reissued during the year

Treasury Bills available at 30th June, 1936

Summary. Bills outstanding at 30th June, 1936 Bills temporarily cancelled and available for reissue , .

1,984,000

£2,923,000

£ 1,914,000

969,000

£2,883,000

2,533,000

£350,000

£2,923,000 350,000

£3,273,000

It will be observed that the Treasury bill liability at 30th June, 1936, was £2,923,000, and in addition bills temporarily cancelled and available for reissue amounted to

£350,000, making a total of £3,273,000. The whole of this amount represents Treasury bills issued to cover that portion of the deficits in the Consolidated Revenue Fund

[Hon. W, ForganSmith.

Financial Statement. [15 SEPTEMBER.] Financial Statement. 373

since the ht July, 1932, which has not been fLmclcd by loan raisings.

Tlw discount rate on Treasury bills is 1~ per cent., no alteration having been made in the rate since 1st January, 1935.

In accordance with the arrangement made with the Commonwealth Bank Board, Trea­sury bills were only issued during last financial year to meet a temporary Jag in revenue receipts, pending the issue of a loan for the purpose of funding the deficit.

PcnLro DEBT.

At 30th Ju!l0, 1936. the public debt of the State of Quer>nsland totalled £122,636.051, as eomparcd >Yit h £118.846,753 at 30th June, 1935.

Loans raised during the year amounted to £4,370.570. comprising-

Queensland's proportion of Loans raised on the market by the

£

Commonwealth . . . . . . 1,881,570 Domestic Issues-State Insurance,

&c. . . . . . . . . 236,000 Commonwealth Savings Bank . . 874,000 Increase in Treasury Bill Accommod<t·

tion . . 1,379,000

£4,370,570

During the financial :vear, securities to the value of £581.272 were redeemed bv the Trustees of the Xational Debt Sinking 'Fund.

The amount of £1.881,570 raised by the Commonwealth included £819.480 floated in Xovember, 1935, at £99 15s., bearing interest at 3~ per cent. per annum, and £1,065,180 floated in .June. 1936. at £98 10s., with interest at the rate of 3~ per cent. per annum. These loans mature on 15th NovPmbcr, 1949, and 15th November, 1951, respectively.

Of the domestic issues, £210.000 represents investments of surplus funds by the Insurance Comn1issioner carrying interest at 3~ per cent. pN annum.

Instalment stock for £874,000 was issued to the Commonwealth Savings Bank in terms of the Transfer Agreement; this stock bears interest at 3 per cent. per annum, and is repayable by ·half-yearly instalments.

The increase in the Treasury bill indebted­ness has already been explained by me.

These raisings represent new debt incurred during the year; conversions during the period will be dealt with later in my speech.

The debt redeemed by the National Debt Sinking Fund, £581,272, comprised the fol­lowing:-

£ £ Domiciled in Australia­

Australian Consolidated Stock-3l; per cent. . . 22,110 £5 Os. 9d. per cent. 400,000

Instalment Stock-4 per cent. . . £3 17s. 6d. per cent. 3! per cent. 3! per cent. St per cent. . . £3 9s. 9d. per cent. £3 2s. Od. per cent. 3 per cent.

Domiciled in New York Commonwealth Bonds-

5 per cent. 4t per cent.

2,512 11,007

1,828 2,627 3,990

52,621 48,944 3,289

11,364 20,980

548,928

32,344

£581,272

The public .debt opera.tions for the last financial year may be summarised as fol­lows:-

Gross Public Debt at 30th June, 1935

Add-Raisings during the

year . . . . 2,991,570 Increase in Treasury

£

118,846,753

Billliability 1,379,000 4,370,570

123,217,323

581,27Z Less-Redcmptions by

Sinking Fund

Gross Public Debt at 30th Jnne, 1936 .. £122,636,051

Domiciled as follows :-

Australia Great Britain United States of America

£ 52,297,766' 63,171,358 7,166,927

£122,636,051

As against the above liability, accumulated sinking funds at 30th June, 1936, totalled £789,527, comprising-

Amount invested in Sccuritic• on account of 6 per cent. American Loan

Cash Balance-National Debt Sinking Fund American Loans Sinking :Fund

£

400,044

333,429 56,054

£789,527

Allowing for these sinking fund balances, the net public debt of the State at 30th June, 1936, was £121,846,524.

LocAL CoNVERSION.

A lon.n of £2,793,350, bearing interest at the rate of £5 Os. 9d. per cent., fell due on the 31st January, 1936.

This loan, which was originally raised by the State in 1920 and 1921 at an interest rate of 6! per cent., was converted under the Commonwealth Debt Conversion Act in 1931 to the lower interest rate of £5 Os. 9d.

In January of this year holders of the latter stock wore offered the right to convert into Australian CoiLSolidated Stock at par, with interest at 3i per cent., the new securi­ties maturing on 15th November, 1949.

In placing the loan on the market the Loan Council had decided not to ask for any new cash subscriptions. Before the loan was issued the National Debt Commission agreed to provide £400,000, and this amount was utilised to redeem portion of the unconvertcd stock, the balance being found by the under­writers, the Commonwealth Bank of Aus­tralia.

The result of the conversion operation was as follows:-

£ Conversions by holders . . . . 1,632,850 Provided by National Debt Sinking

Fund Commission . . 400,000 Amount found by underwriters for

redemptions 760,500

£2,793,350

Hon. W. Forgan Smith.]

374 Financial Statement. [ASSEMBLY.] Financial Statement.

From a Budget standpoint the saving to the State by this conversion will be £50,965 per annum, as follows :-

Interest previously paid (£2,793,350 at £5 Os. 9d. per cent.) . . . .

New Interest (£2,393,350 at 3! per cent.) . . . .

Saving

SINKING FUND LIABILITIES.

£

140,715

89,750

£50,965

During the operation of the Financial Agree­ment, securities to the face value of £4,086,472 have been redeemed from moneys provided from the Public Debt Sinking Fund. The redemption of such a large amount of debt may be regarded with satisfaction, but it must be borne in mind that in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Agree­ment, all such redemptions entail an annual ·sinking fur:d c.harge of 4~ per cent. per ·annum, which Is payable from consolidated lrevenue. The amount paid in this connection last financial year was £157,007.

In addition to the amount of £4 086 472 redeemed from Sinking Fund moneys: bo'nds to the face value of £489 777 have been redeemetl br the Sp?cial ' Sinking Fund established m connection with the 7 per ecnt. 12,000,000-dollar American loan. l'Jo bonds of this loan were purchased during the year, as the market price of these 5ecurities has been above the price at which purchases have to be made in accordance with the terms of the loan contract.

INTEREST AND ExcHANGE.

The interest paid on the public debt for the financial year 1935-1936 amounted to £4,980,730, which is an increase of £46,001 in this service as compared with the previous year.

Interest paid on the Australian debt dur­ing the year increased by £76,746, but the effect of the conversion of oveneas loans in previous years was reflected in the saving of £30,745 in interest. in respect of these loans.

The average rates of interest payable on the public debt as at the 30th June, 1936, were:-

Including Exchange­Overseas debt All debt . . . . . . All debt, excluding Treasury Bills

Excluding Exchange-

Per cent 5·72 . 4·77 4·85

Overseas debt 4·56 Australian debt . . . . . . 3·49 Australian debt, excluding Treasury

Bills . . . . . . . . 3·60 All debt .. .. .. .. 4·11 All debt, excluding Treasury Bills . . 4·17

'The annual interest payable on 'the debt at 30th June, 1936, was as follows :-

In Australia In London .. In New York

£ 1,827,448 2,799,634

410,517

Per cent. 36·28 55·57 8·15

£5,037,599 100'00

LOAN COUNCIL.

Meetings of the Australian Loan Council were held in the months of November 1935, February and May, 1936. '

The November meeting authorised a loan of £7,500,000 at a rate of ·3~ per cent., and

[Hon. W. Forgan Smith.

at an issue price of £99 15s., to mature on 15th November, 1949. This loan was vvor­subscribed to the extent of £463,000.

The May meeting authorised a loan of £9.000,000, also at a rate of 3~ per cent. but at an issue price of £98 10s. to matur~ in November, 1951. A portion ~f this loan was left with the Commonwealth Bank as underwriter.

Those ~gures indicate the hardening of the rate of mterest, which is due very largely to the demand for mone'' in industry generally. •

At the February meeting the Loan Council adopted rules of procedure and defined " net loan expenditure " for the pur­poses of allocations under the Financial Agreement. Queensland dissented from the decision to include revenue deficits in that definition. That is a very fine point in law. Our reason for objectmg to the inclu­sion of deficits in the formula is based on the fact that New South Wales gets an undue advantage under the Financial Agree­ment because of the large deficits that State has had since 1927.

At this meeting also the Commonwealth proposed an annual grant of £100,000 per year for ten years towards interest and sinking fund on loans for local authority works. Queensland's portion of this annual grant is £14,450.

The Loan Council. at its May meeting, dealt with loan requirements for 1936-37, and part of the loan then authorised and raised wa.s for the purposes of that year. The original programmes for 1936-37 were re­duced, and a total programme of £22,200,000 was .approved to cover both works pro­grammes and revenue deficits. Of this total, it was estimated that £19,910,000 would need to be raised by public i&'lues. For Queens­land the amount to be so raised is approxi­mately £2.528,000, out of a total programme of £4,600,000.

ESTIMATES, 1936-1937. The Estimates of expenditure for the cur­

rent financial year have been prepared with a due regard to economy, and to the growing requirements of the State. A measure of expansion in the demands for increased expenditure is inevitable. The public utilities and the many services controlled by the State must, necessarily, bo maintained in an efficient condition, and outlay for improve­ments to keep these utilities and services up to date is unavoidable.

I estimate that Revenue receipts for this year will amount to £16,068,000, as follows :-

£ £ Amount from Common-

wealth 1,168,235 Taxation-

Income Tax .. 2,500,000 Land Tax 400,000 Licenses 101,500 Succession and

Probate Duty 550,000 Stamp Dnty 580,000 Totalisator and

Betting Tax .. State Transport Act

85,000

and Heavy Vehicles Act 75,500

Land Revenue 4,292,000 1,319,000

Mining Receipts : : 47,700 Railways.. . . 6,800,000 Other Receipts .. 2,441,300

£16,068,235

Pinancial Statement. [15 SEPTEMBER.] Financial Statement. 375

The anticipated revenue receipts are £579,000 in excess of the actual receipts for 1935-36. The economic progress of the State, the seasonal outlook and the higher price levels justify me in budgeting for an improvement in the collections for the current year.

Provision is ma-de for expenditure from Revenue Account of £16,718,000, which is £487,000 more than the disbursements last year.

I anticipate that the revenue deficit at the 30th .June, 1937, will be £650,000.

FINAKCIAL RELATIONS WITH THE COMMOK­WEALTH.

The question of the realignment of the fi.nanc.ial relations of the Commonwealth and the States still remains in an unsatis­factory position, and w hi!e this cont_inues the finances of this State will be detrimentally affected.

I have recently returned from a confer­ence of Commonwealth and State Ministers convened by the Commonwealth Govern­ment. Such conferences are now essential to the operation of our Federal system of Government and at present I will re fer only to the' chief subject of discussion a·c that conference. It is an ever-recurring subject, and it becomes more impo-rtant each year. I refer to the problem of finan· cial relations between the Commonwealth and the Statei.

At this last conference I suggested that the Commonwealth should increase its con­tributions under the Financial Agreement towar-ds the liabilities of the States tor interest and sinking fund by 25 per cent. My request was supported unanimously by all of the States. To accede to this request would have cost the commonwealth some­thing less than £2,000,000 per annum, and the relief given to Queensland would have been approximately £300,000 each. year. The Commonwealth Government reJected this request, and contented itself with a 20 per cent. increase in the roads grant from petrol taxation, which will give Queensland about £104,000 additional grant for specific pur­poses, each year for the next ten years, commencing in 1937-38.

It is important that hon. members should realise the position. The request made by the States cannot be regarded lightly. It represents a great deal more than their relative financial embarassment at the pre­sent time. It is significant that all of the States are suffering from the grossly unbalanced financial position that has developed within the Commonwealth as a whole. Some of the States suffer more than others, and the three smaller States are now receiving large special grants as a matter of normal procedure. In 1935-36 these special grants totalled £2,400,000, and to this large sum Federal taxpayers in Queensland contributed their share.

Queensland has never grudged these less fortunate States the special assistance they have received. We are part of one Com­monwealth, and we reoognise our common obligations. Other and occasional grants of a minor character are made from time to time to all the States as the Commonwealth feels more or less benevolent or obliged by the exigencies of the moment.

But it is time that every responsible citizen of this State recognised the fact that

all such temporary expedients are fast becom­ing obsolete and. indeed, intolerable, and that the financial obligations of the Com­monwealth are in need of review.

The Financial Agreement will be ten year" old next year, and a great deal has happened to increase the relative liabilities of the States since it was dictated by the then Commonwealth Government. The share of common liabilities undertaken by the Com­monwealth was inadequate at the time, and it has become more inadequate since.

It is worth while to examine the propor­tions of Commonwealth consolidated revenue which have been contributed to the States since fe-deration. I have taken out the figures for three periods-the first ten years under Section 87 of the Commonwealth Con­stitution (known as the "Braddon Clause "), the intervening period of sixteen years up to 1926-27, prior to the Financial Agreement under the several Surplus Revenue Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament, and the period since then, to 1934-35, under the Financial Agreement. The proportions for these periods are as follow :-

1900-01 to 1909-10 1910-11 to 1926-27 1927-28 to 1934-35

Per cent. 61·3 14·8 14·2

It may be objected that the Commonwealth war expenditures should be deducted. In th" following table I have -deducted these, and also the expen-ditures on the Post Office and the Commonwealth R11ilways. The propor­tions are then as follow:-

1900-01 to 1909-10 1910-11 to 1926·27 1927-28 to 1934-35

Per cent. 76·8 31·0 29·0

Taking the first period (1900-01 to 1909-10) as a base, after which the "Bradd.on Clause " provisions of the Constitution ceased to operate, it will be found that, compared with the Financial Agreement period (1927-28 to 1934-35), the average annual increase in the Commonwealth's Consolidated Revenue

·amounts to £61,232,179, or 481 per cent., as compare-d with an increase of only 248 per cent. in the average annual revenues of all the State Governments in the years under review. For the same periods the average annual increase in the payments by the Com­monwealth Government to the States amounts to £4,732,623, or 61 per cent. Excluding pay­ments by the Commonwealth under thP Federal Aid Roads scheme, the averagE' annual increase is only £2,681,642, or 34 per: cent.

The budgetary positions which are being disclosed by the various State Treasurers, and the Budget which the Commonwealth Treasurer has presented are all evidences of a. lack of balance which threatens the stability of the Federal system.

I shall not pursue this subject further on this occasion, except to say that in the readjust­ment of financial responsibility which must come the position of Queenslan-d must be given the special consi-deration which is its due, an-d which hitherto has been neglected. I am not deeply concerned as to the form of that rea.dj ustment, or a.s to whether the Commonwealth should contribute to the cos~ of social services, or take over a. larger part of the cost of development, as represented in the State debt, but I regard the formula used for the roads gr-ant as. equitable and

Hon. W. Forgan Smith.]

376 Financial Statement [ASSEMBLY.] Financial Statement.

appropriate for the distribution of any pay­ments to be made to the States as a whole.

I have one more reference to make to the relative position of Queensland so far as it affects the State Budget. I refer to the

.effect of oversea loan conversions. During rthe financial year ended 30th June 1936 loans .aggregating £51,678,384 were c~nvert~d on .account of New South Wales Victoria . South Australia, and Western' Australia: ·Queensland did not participate in these con­·-orersions, and the only option at present avail­able_ to the State is over an old loan carrying an mterest rate of 3 per cent.

---

Commonwealth .. .. .. .. . . New South Wales .. .. . . .. .. Victoria .. .. .. .. . . Queensland .. .. .. .. . . .. South Australia .. .. .. .. . . Western Australia .. .. .. .. . . Tasmania .. .. .. .. .. . .

The success which during the past four years has attended the Australian conversion operations overseas may be regarded as eminently satisfactory. The improved bud­getary position of the Australian Govern­ments is in part due to this cause and it is another indication of the confidenc~ of inve'>­tors. It may be of interest to hon. members to review the effects on the respective Budgets of those Governments, and the fol­lowing summary shows the total of the over­sea loans converted since 1st July, 1932, with the savings in interest and exchange effected thereby:-

ANNUAL SAVING.

Total Interest Loans Calculated Exchange at

Converted. on Nmninal £25/7/6 %. Total. Rates.

£ £ £ £ 32,354,818 641,209 162,707 803,916

94,829,755 1,496,199 379,660 1,875,859

22,620,392 363,792 92,312 456,104

7,109,469 138,869 35,238 174,107

19,284,918 283,148 71,849 354,997

17,830,174 223,383 56,683 280,066

4,483,750 86,702 22,001 108,703

£198,513,276 £3,233,302 £820,450 £4,053,752

It will be noted that while Queensland ha;; received some benefit, the total benefit is much less than that of all other States except Tasmania.

The Commonwealth received 19.83 per cent. of the total benefit. It should be observed that in addition to this saving through oversea conversions the Commonwealth has, during the last five years, had the benefit of a total suspension of all payments due on war debt to Great Britain, and by Great Britain to the United States of America. This suspension of payments is of an amount greater than the whole of the benefits to all other Australian Governments through oversea loan conversions. The interest and exchange represents £4,914,417.

The total savings to State Governments from oversea loan conversions have amounted to £3,249,836, including exchange. More than half of this benefit has accrued to New South Wales.. It is of interest to compare the actual distribution of thP.se savings to the States, with the proportions of popula­tion, as follows :-

New South Wales Victoria .. Queensland .. South Australia Western Australia Tasmania

Proportions of Annual

Savings fron1 Oversea Loan

Conversions.

57·8 14·0

5·3 11·0

8·6 3·3

[Hon. W. Forgan Smith.

Proportions of

Population,

39·4 27·5 14·3

8·8 6•6 3·4

I mention these facts so that honourable members will realise tllat while the result of the conversions may be regarded with satisfaction, this State has not benefited to the same extent as the others. This aspect of the position must be borne in mind when comparing our budgetary position with that of the other Sates.

GENERAL.

The year 1935-36 opened with the breaking of a disastrous drought in the pastoral areas, which had reduced the numbers of sheep by about 4,000,{)00. In consequence of this drought, the wool clip has been smaller, but wool prices recovered by about one­third and saved the position. The drought also reduced the export of beef. The summer was on the whole good over the inland pastoral areas, but many of the agricultural and dairying districts suffered from a dry season, with a consequential decline in some production. For example, only 112,500,000 lb. weight of butter was produced, as compared with 130,00D,OOO lb. in the previous financial year. But oversea prices improved for butter as they did for wool. Other export prices improved also, and .despite a decline in the total quantity of exports, the total export value in 1935-36 was slightly in excess of the preceding year's value.

A notable feature of the past year has been the increase in building operations through­out Queensland. The following statistics

Financial Statement. [15 SEPTEMBER.] Financial Statement. 377

prepared by the Bureau of Industry show the expansion in these operations during the

- ---- ----------------

Municipal Permits­Brisbane

Eleven Other Cities

Total Private Buildings

State Works

Commonwealth vYorks

Totals

Private Buildings as Percentage of Whole

The figures show that the proportionate increase in expenditure in connection with building operations during the period lnen­tionod, is:-

Y car 1933-34 1934-35

1935-36

100 154 197

In the ;vmst years of cleprecsion. th" neces­sary programme of home building fell into arrears. Eve!l in the September quarter of 1933. when statistical details wore first availabie, the number of men employed in building and construction was as low as 3,471. The latest available records give the number at 7.166. During last year the State Advances Corporation was able to assist this improvement by advances totalling £372.444. The timber industry, as well as other allied industries has benefited very materially. '

Despite the effects of last year's drought. and the continuance of .:_nbnormal seasonal conditions on the Darling Downs and the southern coastal areas, the general position has improved very considerably. The contri­butions by employers and employees to the Unemployment Insurance Fund give the best measure of this irnprovemcnt a~ affecting the people ge11orally, and for the Y' a r 1935-36 thc'e contributions increased bv £16,953 on those of the ])]'C'vious "·ear, which is equal to 5 per cont. This represents the same incre::tsn in total employment other than " relief work." The lo;;-est level was recorded fer the year 1931-32. when the contributions amounted to £274.767. During the four years from 1931-32 to 1935-36 these contri­butions have registered an improvement of 29, Jlcr cent. The figures for the three months ended June represent an increase of 1,926 contributors over the numbers for the same period of 1929.

The Savings Bank Depositors' Balances in Queensland for last year again show an increase, and this fact must be rcg·ardcd as striking evidence of the continued improYe­mcnt in cconon1ic conditions in this State.

On the 30th J uno last the deposits totalled £27,132,000, being an increase of £935,000 ovAr the figures at the end of the previous year, and represent an increase of 3.57 per cent., which was higher than the aver­age increase of all the States.

last three financial vears in Brisbane and eleven other cities : __::

1933-34. 1934-35. 1935-36.

£ £ £ 823,168 1,285,387 2,115,071

434,953 694,016 797,469

1,258,121 1,979,403 2,912,540

331,434 365,155 200,493

102,768 12,281\

£1,589,555 £2,447,326 £3,125,318

79 81 93

The average deposit per head of popula­tion for the State of Queensland on the 30th June, 1936, was £27 14s.

For the information of hon. members, I desire to mention the great advance in the deposits since this Government took office in 1932. Since the 30th June, 1932, the depositors' balances have increased at a greater rate per cent. in Queensland than those of any State, with the exception of Tasmania, the respective increases being as follows :-New South Wales, 11.66 per cent., Victoria 12.50 per cent., Queensland 18.21 per cent., South Australia 17.48 per cent., \Vestern Australia 12.71 per cent., Tasmania 22.05 per cent. During the same period the deposits per head of population in Queens­land have increased by 13.20 per cent., a.s compared with the average increase of 10.31 per cent. for the whole of Australia.

These facts must he regarded as highly satisfactory aRd disclose at the same time the progress and increased prosperity of this State during the last four years.

One of th<~ problems of the present finan­cial year will be to raise sufficient loan money at reasonable rates of interest to continue our public works_ \Ve have now reached the stage when priYate business has been stimu­lated to employ more men and money, but we cannot yet afford t,o reduce the stimu­lating fd!cct of public works, nor to reduce the employment given by those works both directly and indirectly. Moreover, we have large commitments and our programmes must be carried through. The time for a drastic tapering ofi of these programmes has not yet arrived.

It is important not only that we shall be able to get sufficient moner. but that we shall get it 'vithout increasing th0 rate of interest to such an extent as to place burdens on all borrowers who are <rencrallv the most active elcmc~ts in the con~nlullitv~ \\t~e need low rates for the sak0 of tl{e tax­payers. and not le,-s for the sake of priYate enterprise. The maintenance of low rates of interest is still a loading objective of national policy, and we expect the as~ist­ancc of the Commonwealth Bank m achieving that objective.

GOVERl!l\JENT MEMBERS: Hear, hear !

Hon. W. F01·gan Smith.]

378 Wool Draft Allowance [ASSEMBLY.] Abolition Bill.

The TREASURER: Mr. Hanson,-I

"That there be granted to His Majesty, for the service of the year 1936-37, a sum not exceeding £300 to defray the salary of the Aide-de-camp to His Excellency the Governor."

The House resumed. The CHAIRMAN reported progress and

a'kod leave to sit again. Resumption of Committee made on Order

of the Day for to-morrow.

WOOL DRAFT ALLOW A:t\CE ABOLITIO~ BILL.

INITIATION Df Co~n!ITTEE.

(Jir. Hanwn, Buranda, in the chair.)

The SECRETARY FOR AGRTCULTTJRE c\:\'D STOCK (Hon. F. W. Bulcock, flarcoo) [11 50 a.m.]: I moYe-

" That it is desirable that a Bill he introduced to make unlawful the mer­cantile custom commonly known as the ·Wool Draft Allowance,' and for other purposes.''

Jt is known to all hon. members that there is a custom in the wool trade that involves the giving of 1 lb. of wool for every 112 lb. that are sold. This, for many years, has been regarded by the graziers and pro­ducers of wood as an unjust imposition. The question has been raised so strongly dur­ing recent years in Australia that aL a recent meeting of the Australian Agricul­tural Council, which was attended by .:\iinistcrs from all the States, it was decided that all States in the Commonwealth-pro­Yided their Governments wore willing­should introduce the necessary legislation to prohibit the practice. At the moment three of the States have legislation before their Parliaments. T.he State of New South Wales has not decided definitelv what action it proposes to take. We have given the Aus­tralian Agricultural Council and the Com­monwealth Government an assurance that we will introduce this necessary measure, which is being pressed for unanimously by the graziers of Australia.

It is obvious, of course, that it would not he advantageous for one State only to pass a Bill of this description, for in order to do awav with the wool draft allowance etfcctiveiy it is necessary that all States in the Commonwealth should take common action. A further understanding has been arrived at, that when e.ach State of the Commoawealth has passed the required legi'l bttion, then a common date will be agreed upon for the proclamation of all the Acts.

[ should mention that ='iew Zealand inti­mated recently that it intended to introduce legislation similar to that which we are discussing this morning. This will mean that all the wool in the southern hemisphere "·ill be sold under the same conditions in this respect--the law will carry a prohibition of the wool draft allowance.

The Bill is designed to accomplish this, but the resolution sots out that it is intra· dnced to abolish the allowance and " for nth er purposes." Tho "other purposes" arise from the suggestion that it will be necessary to prevent the continuation of this practice by subterfuge, and so certain rrohibitions against their adortion-which

~TIF.:m. W. Forgan Smith.

would be tantamount to the continuation of the allowance·--,havc been included. I have pleasure in moYing the motion accordingly.

Mr. MAHER (Wrst .llo!'(ton) [11.54 a m.]: l am very pleased that th0 Minister has seen fit to bring forward a Bill of this nature in eommon with tlw Ministers of other States of the CornmomYealth, for the purpose> of giving some relief to the woolgrower. For a long tinw. P~s the Minister mAntioncd. there has been very strong protest against the continuation of this custom. I do not know how it originated.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK: I shall tell you all about that on the second reading. It dates back to the four­teenth century.

Mr. MAHER: It belongs to the Middle Ages or the D>trk Ages. It is a continuation of a custom that probably had its origin in tho use of defective scales, as a result of which thcr£ was some confusion about the real weight of bales. Woolgrowers are losing a substantial sum of money through this wool draft allowance. 'I'he estimated wool clip for the current year is 2,655,000 bales, which would weigh approximately 3,174 tons. A draft allowance of 1 ib. in every 112 lb. of wool would mean a gift to the buyers of £355,500. There is no reason why growers should suffer the heavy loss of one-third of a million pounds per annum throughout Aus­tralia because of a mediaeval practice.

Nor is this the only loss the woolgrowers suffer. They also give away the weight of the wool packs every year. The average weight of a wool pack, as recognised by the wool trade, is 11~ lb., and arart from the weight of wool the'e weigh 30,532,000 lb. Based on the weight of wool packs alon£ the draft allowance of 1 lb. in every 112 lb. of this total would be equivalent to 272,000 lb. of wool, which at 1s. a lb. would amount in cash to £13,621. So that the woolgrower is getting it both ways.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK : 'I'he brokers are getting it both ways. The woolgrowers arc " getting it in the neck " both ways.

Mr. MAHER: Yes, the woolgrower is " getting it in the neck " both ways, as the hon. gentleman states. There is room for this legislation, and the Opposition supports it.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN (Dalby) [11.59 a.m.]: I represent a big pastoral area, and the introduction of legislation of this kind goes to show that in the past the Govern­ment have been afraid to take any steps to help the woolgrower when other interests might ha vc been prej udiciall:v affected thorebv. There should be no need for a Bill like this. The agents should have been in a position to tell the wool buyers that they were not going to give them this concession and that would have been th0 end of it. Unfortunately the agents would not take a definite stand, and the buyers were bene­fiting by this concession. It is practically robbing the woolgrower. The different Governments of Australia have decided to bring in legislation of this nature, and I am very pleased that the Queensland Govern­ment are following the example of the other States. The system with which this measure deals has beer; in operation in Australia for many years, and when the buyers and agents combine, t.o the detriment of the woolgrower, it is the duty of the Government to step in,

Dairy Products Stabilisation [15 SEPTEMBER.] Act, Etc., Bill. 379

as they are doing on this occasion. I intend to point out to the Minister other cases where his Government might step in to pre­vent a combination of agents and buyers from Yirtually fleecing the producer.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK: Have you heard of lot splitting?

Mr. GODFREY MORGA"!'<: Yes. There is the practice of lot splitting, not onlv in connection with the sale of wool. but alw with the sale of stock and. unfortunately. it takes place daily at the Cannon Hill sales. I int<md to take the first opportunitv to debat<' the matter, and I trust that I shall have the support of the Minister. The Bill is a step in the right direction. and I con­gratulate the GoYernment upon deciding to step in to protect the produc<Jrs from their alleged friends and their known enemies, but if the Government would go even further in this direction they would have my approval as a representative of primary producers. J welcome the Bill. because I know that it. will be of immBnse benefit to the man on the land, and I should welcome any other Bill that might be introduced to prevent two v<Jry wealthy sections of the community from continually fleecing the primary producer.

Question-" That the resolution (Mr. Bul­cock's motion) be agreed to "-put and pa.ssed.

The House resumed. The CHAIRMAN reported that the Committee

had come to a resolution. Resolution agreed to.

FIRST READING.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND S'I'OCK (Hon. F. W. Bulcock, Barcoo) presenwd the Bill, and moved-

" That the Bill be now read a first time.''

Qu<Jstion put and passed. Second reading of the Bill made an Order

of the Day fur to-morrow.

DAIRY PRODUCTS STABILISATION ACT OF 1933 CONTINUATION BILL.

INITIATION IN CoMMITTEE.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICUL1'URE AND STOCK (Hon. F. W. Bulcock, llarcoo) [12.4 p.m.]: I move-

" That it is desirable that a Bill bfl introduced to continue the operation of ' 'I'he Dairy Products St.abilisat.ion Act of 1933 ' (as amended by Orders in Coun­cil)."

The history of this Bill involv<Js a. survey of the dairying industry over a number of years. Hon. members will recollect that with thB threa.tened collapse of the Paterson scheme a plan wa.s evolved that subsequently became known as the stabilisation plan. It was approved by Ministers in conference assembled. The major producing States, that is to say, the States producing about 90 per cent. of the dairy produce of Australia, pa.ssed legislation which was buttressed by Commonwealth legislation for the purpose of initiating a scheme that was to take the place of the Paterson plan. The r<Jal basis of the whole scheme, as the title of the Act we passed in 1933 would indicate, was to stabilise the market for the prima.ry pro­ducer. Without that stabilised markBt his

position would have been infinitely worse than it is at th<J present time. The motive for that stabilisation wa.s supplied by the violent fluctuations of the overseas markets, which very often reacted very adversely, indeed harshly, on the prima.ry producer. Of course, it is true that he had no control over these factors. It was recognised at the out­set that dairy stabilisation legislation, though good in princinle, would involve quite a numoor of difficulties in pra.ctice. We accepted the Dried Fruits legis] ation as a precedent. but this was new legislation. embracing a field much wider and involving much more difficult problems than the field covered bv the Commonwealth Dri<Jd Fruits Act. It "was agreed in conference, a.t the request of many dairying bodies, that we should face those difficulties. So three years ago Qu<Jensland passed a Bill that provid<Jd for the stabilisation of dairy products. How well that legislation has succeeded and how well the machinery has been built is both known and appreciated by the da.irymen. There is, however, considerable apprehension in the ranks of dairymen to-day at the pos­sibility of their being robbed, cons<Jquent on thB J amcs judgment, of some benefits of that stabilisation.

I shall not at this juncture enter into any discussion on that phase of this qu<Jstion. The point I make now is that the various States agreed tha.t it was experimental legislation, and would require a great deal of forethought in order to ca.rry it through to a successful conclusion, that is to say, to confer on the industry that meed of justice and fair play to which it was entitled. Some States with less experience of organised ma.rketing than Queensland suggested that as this was expBrimental legislation, a.nd as there was always the suggestion behind this form of legislation that the Commonwealth Government should act under the Common­wealth constitution in concert with the States in introducing this type of legisla­tion, and in increasing and making it morB effective. it was decided that it should have a life of only three years.

Those three years have gone. Hon. mBm· bers associated with the dairying industry know the infinite difficulties that were asso­ciated with this scheme during the first twelve months. Had it not been for the application to the work of the Queensla.nd s<Jction of the stabilisation board, I venture the opinion that the scheme would have col­lapsed before it had had a fair trial. To-day it is an established fact, covBring 90 per cent. of the dairy commodities of the Sta.te, and its continuance is ardently desired by the producer. It can be said that the experi­mental stage has definitely pass<Jd. We know definitely and precisely how we can operat<J the powers conferred under the Act to the advantage of all those who are con­cerned.

Mr. MAHER: You ha.ve the power under the Act to extend the time limit.

'T'he SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK: No, I have not. This Act was to terminate at the end of three years from the date it was proclaimed. Jf I did not bring this Bill down then so far as Queensland is concerned stabilisation would collapse. There could be no stabilisation unle.ss we had this fortifying Bill. This Bill accordingly removes the limitation of three years. The Act says that it shall operate for three years, but at the end of that time.

Hon. F. W. Bulcock.]

380 Dairy Products Stabilisation [ASSEMBLY.] Act, Etc., Bill.

unless Parliament has determined other­wise-and this was the considered opinion of the contributory State•-the scheme shall lapse. We have faith in the scheme and desire to go on with it in spite of all the ditficu:ties associated with stabilisation schemes that arise from interstate negotia­tions and the dif!icult situation that has followed the Privy Council's decision in the J ames case as to interstate trade. I under­stand the Commonwealth Government pro­)Jo,c to take a referendum of the opinion of the people on that matter, but in the meantime we believe it to be necessary to pass this Bill.

I should mention that the other signatory States to this stabilisation e<cheme-prob­ably during the current sessions of their Parliaments-will amend their Acts to con­form with the principle to which we pro­pose to give effect by this Bill. That indicates an obvious desire on the part of those Parliaments. in company with the Parliament of Queensland, to do a meed of justice to those of their peoples who are engaged in primary production.

Had it not been for the magnificent con­tribution to the wealth of this country that has been made by the primary producers of Queensland and Australia it is safe to say that it would have been in a most parlous financial condition to-day. I believe that the people are prepared to give that meed of justice to the primary producers that is their due.

The Bill does not invo:ve anv alteration in the present position or the· manner in vvhich stabilisation is carried on. At the worst it might be argued as being a con­tribution to the carrying on of stabilisation so long as it is possible to carry it on in the existing shte of the law. At its best it may be construed and more justly regarded as a legislative enactment that concerns the State. In this connection it is wise to remember that two contributory bodies g·o to the building of the stabilisation scheme; the State with its State legisla­tion, and the Commonwea:rh with its Com­monwealth legislation, which was enacted in the belief that the Commomvealth was not bound by the implications of section 92 of the Federal Constitution.

Mr. GoDFREY MoRGA:<r: Even if the House passes this Bill-which I hope it will-its effectiveness will depend on the result of the referendum.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULT('JF AND STOCK: I can answer the hon. gcntlmna.n in a Yery satisfactory manner. The stabilisation body, as hon. members know, entered into agreements with manu­facturers and those agreements are still alive. This year, I understand, two or three people have given notice of termination of the agl'eements to which they are parties, but I do not think that is going to have any effect on the general scheme. I think, generally speaking, the producers themselves are loyal to their own interests and recog­nise the need for carrying on of this scheme.

1 will amwer thc hon. member from another angle, too. Our State has very r!efinite functions so far as sta.bilisation is concerned, and they are laid down in the original Dairy Products Stabilisation Act. What the Commonwealth does is the con­cern of the Commonwealth. The powers the Commonwealth enjoys are the powers that under the Constitution for the time bemg,

[Hon. F. W. Bulc.ock.

as interpreted hv the PriYY Council or the High Court of Australia. 'When we pass this Bill, no matter what Yicissitudes the legislation may be subjected to, at least '<'e shall be in a position to carry on the scheme.

Suppose there is a favourable answer to the referendum. If we had not passed thts Act we could not carry on the stabilisation scheme until Parliament met again to pass the necessary legislation-and it may be lliat the referendum will be submitted to the people early next year; I understand that is the intention of the Commonwealth Government. It would !Je nothing short of a tragedy if we allowed six months to elapse whilst waiting to see what might happen and making no contribution to what the future might hold.

This stabilisation scheme a"ppcals to me as something more than a stabilisation scheme for the dairying industry. It seems to me that the legislation that established it pto­vides some meed of social justice for the primary producer. I hope and I still thmk that this Act will be the forerunner of many similar Commonwealth and State enactments that will succeed in placing agri­culture on a sound economic basis, not onfy within the limits of this State, but also throughout the Commonwealth. It is obvioush· the loQical extctBion of our own commodity pooY boards and organised marketing system. It is known that we have reached the limit of our State capacity in that direction, but that there is a tre­mendous. field yet to be exp~oited if tfte Commonwealth Government wtll co-operate when they get the sanction of the people. I refer to the welding of the economic interests of the pr-oducers of Australia into one harmonous whole so that instead of tiie producers being regarded as Queensland farmers, or Victorian farmers, as the case may be, they will be regarded as prim~ry producers of the Commonwealth workmg under a common economic policy that will be to their adva.ntage but will inflict no disability on the consumers.

It has been suggested in a covert manner that stabilisation means the exploitation of the consumer; that the stabilisation board has too great a power. In order to allay any public anxiety that there may be on that score-because it is definitely raised by those people who are adverse to the appeal to the people on the constitutional issue involved nnder section 92-I would say 'that I have had very considera):>le experience of the administration of pool boards during the past four and a.-half years and I cannot give one example of a board that tried to exploit the purchasing public. These boards recognise--<Lnd rightly so­that the purchasing public must be pro­tected, that it must get a fair deal; and the principle of every commodity board is -for want of a better expression. I quote, although not with the same significance as is intended by those who use thP term, the principle of the Douglas Credit system­" the just price for the commodity."

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: You have had no experience with the coal boards ?

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK : I am not speaking of the coal boards but of the primary producers' boar.ds, but if the hon. member desires to do those things that would exercise an adverse influence on the minds of the con­suming public perhaps an interjection such

Dairy Products Stabilisation [15 SEPTEMBER.] Act, Etc., Bill. 381

as he has made is very relevant. In con­nection with the explnitation of the public, l \\ill give a concrete instance. Some eight or nine months ago, if my memory serves me rightly, the overseas price of butter was in excess of the stabilised price in Australia of £140. In London the price rose several points bPyoucl that figure. Had the stabi!isa­tion committee any desire to do such a thing they could have brought up the domestic parity to the overseas parity, but the·: did not do it. Thev said, "What we \var1t is a stabilised price. We do not desire to exploit the market. Our policy is not to affect adversely our best customers and consumers." Although the London parity was higher than the price in Aus­tralia, the latter remained.

There are two other safeguards. The first is the safeguard that lies in the hands of every Government operating under this Bill-that is, that the quotas, which so far as we are concerned represent that portion of production for domestic consumption, and so far as the Commonwealth is con­cerned represent that portion of production which is for consignment overseas, must be :-,igucd b~- rJre respectiYe lVIinisters concerned. Therefore, if there were any possibility of public exploitation it would be quite com­petent for either a Commonwealth or a State Minister, with the authority of the appropriate GO\·ernor in Council, to hold up the stabilisation quota. I ought to say that for approximately three years I have meticu­lously checked over these stabilisation quotas and the fact that I have signed them indicates that I have been perfectly satisfied with the manner in which the stabilisation committee has carried out its duty.

At this jnndure I should like to say that a 1nan '" 1w has rendered veon1an serYice to t lw stabilisation scheme ~n Australia and who j,, I think descn-ing of the gratitude of the dairy producers of the Commonwealth, is the orgaui~ing secretary of the Queensland Dairy Products Stabilisation Board, Ivlr. Chris Sheehy. He has not spared himself in making this scheme a success.

I have spoken at somewhat greater length than I had intended, but I shall curtail 1ny second rt1 ading speech as a consequence.

Mr. MULLER (Fassifern) [12.21 p.m.]: I wish to compliment the Minister upon intro­ducing this Bill. As one of those holding responsible positions on the Dairy Products Stabi!ication Board I appreciate the senti­ments he has expre'ssed. We in rmponsiblc positions on that board were surpri,,cd at the rcs11lt of the most recent appeal to the Privy Council conc~rning stabilisatlon 1Pp;i'3iation. and for rhat reason we are all the more delighted to hear the Minister's opinron that aesietancc to the primary producer is only social justice. The men in the chirying industry are perhaps the only section of 1 ftP corumunity who at the preBent time an• llOt pro~f•ctcd in son1c -way by legislation. The industrial workPr is protected through hi~ arbitration a vvarcl~. Capital is protected. and, through a fonu of control, comrnercial interests are prol<'ctcd also. Although the producer is battling all the time, he has up to tlle present recciYcd Yerv little con­sideration frmn any Goyernn10nt~ in any part of the world.

Thn Dairv Products Stabilisation Board. the Fcderarhodv. has been maintained on a more or less voluntary basis and operated

sucC<:" sfully until the recent judgment of the Privy Council was made known. The M mister "ould be fa!lmg m h1s duty 1f he did not realise the seriousness of the position to-day. Stabilisation does not begin and end in the State. Unless we are given greater control than we have the whole of our organisation-not only interstate but also oYerseas-must crash before very long. Through the Dairy Export Control Board we have launched a gr<:>at scheme for adver­tising and regulating supplies to the over­seas market. It would be absolutely impos­sible to regulate supplies overseas on any basis other than as one for the whole of the Commonwealth.

I think most hon. members know the con­stitution of the Dairy Export Control Board and the method of raising the money neces­sarv for its maintenance. That money is collected by means of a levy struck in the various States. Queensland, being the largest exporting State, bears at least 40 per cent. of the burden of providing that money. Ho\\·ever, as a result of the just operation of the stabilisation boards, it has been found that although one State may be called upon to pay almost the whole of those charges in the first instance, the matter is adjusted upon equalisation of prices later.

\Ve regard organisation of this industr.y as a Commonwealth matter. It would be impossible for Queensland representatives to agree to any form of regulating shipments, however because the proportion for export in Quee'nsland is much greater than it is in either ~ew South Wales. South Australia, Victoria. \Vestern Australia or Tasmania. It would be impo<sib!c for us to agree to anv form of regulation of shipments and pa:, the storage charges involved unless the burden was spread over the whole of the Commonwealth.

We do not know the contents of the Bill, but judging from the remarks of the hon. gentlen1an this n1orning 've can .have every confidence that it will he in the interests of the producer. I am one of those who arc diametrically opposed to Government control, but so long as the l\finistcr is prepared to bring down legislation that will enable the industry to control its own affa1 rs I w11l support it.

I wrts somewhat shocked recently to lt'arn of the position in :'\ ew Z<'aland. I under­stand that all butter loaded on hoard a boat there becomes the property of the New Zealand Government. \Ve hope that that state of affairs will !lever obtain in Queens­land or in anv other State of the Common­wealth but ,~'bile industries arc allowed to control their own affairs there will be no room for complaint from anyone.

I was very pleased to hear the hon. gentleman's remark in regard to Mr. Chris. She eh v. If any peP on in Queensland has done 'anything for stabilisation, it is Mr. Sheehy, and that remark applies to his activities in the Commonwealth. He has been made manager of the Commonwealth Ecfualisation Company, which places great re iance in and ,yhose progress IS a great compliment to his ability and work in tho intcrcets of the industry.

Unless the States arc prepared to come into line, we can expect the worst in the next few montlB. It will take some littl<> time for the referendum to be submitted and decided, but I hope that when it is being

Jl:h·. Muller.]

382 Dairy Products Stabilisation [ASSEMBLY.] Act, Etc., Bill.

considered it will not be made a party matter. The only possibility of carrying the referen· dum and removing or altering section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution lies in having the unanimous support of all the States. If any State opposes that removal or alteration, we do not know what may happen. I understand that the Queensland Govern· mcnt are going to do all they can to assist in the alteration of that section of the Constitution. Failing that result I cannot sec what a State Minister or State Govern· mcnt can do to get us out of our difficulty. We may pass legislation in this State like that of other States of the Commonwealth, but it will be worth no. more than a scheme ('Stablished on a voluntary basis.

The hon. the Minister made reference to the fact that since the decision of the Privy Council had been made known, two or three factories have signified their intention of terminating their agreements. It would be a good thing if we could induce those people, and also other manufacturers, to sign an agreement and stand by it-not merely to compel them to do what the State board advises-for if they were prepared to act under the instructions of the board they could be protected just as the dairy farmers could be protected. Pt:rhaps, however, we are looking a long way into the future if we expect that to happen. It is most regrettable to have to say that, despite the fact that we have demonstrated to our people what can be done by way of legislation, wc still have to protect the dairy farmer against h1mself. In a great many cases it is due perhaps to sheer ignorance, whereas in other cases it may be regarded as intolerable greed-by a desire on the part of Rome people in the industry to secure something that does not belong to them-but whilst that state of affairs continues the industry as a whole must suffer. It is the duty of the Government to disregard party considera· ~Ions and to protect the industry against the Ignorance and the unfair tactics of certain persons engaged in it.

The Minister will have my support for any legislation that will give the industry greatel" control over its affairs.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN (Dalby) [12.32 p.m.]: I do not think that the Minister will have very much difficulty in l?assing this measure, which involves a prinCiple already contained in an existing Act. I quite agree with him that this Bill should be passed, but I doubt very much whether it can become effective, in view of the decision by the Privy Council relating to section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution. However. it is just as well to havA evPrything in readiness m case the Commonwealth Government should decide to take a referendum in con· nection with the matter and the people agree to give them the power thev seek. We should then have the necessary legislative machinery to give effect to the principle of control of primary production.

The various pools and stabilisation schemes have not been formulated with the object of E'Xlorting high prices for primary products in the local market. The primary producer is engaged in providing the foodstuffs of th,, people and it is not his wish that prices should be so high that the people will be compelled to use substitutes such as mar· garine. Under a stabilisation scheme for the dairying· industry it is recognised that if the price of Australian butter on the

[.Mr . .Muller.

English market is increased the price to the Australian consumer is proportionately reduced. That is only right. If the price ov<'rseas is increased then \Ve can afford to sell butter at a lower price in Australia, but if the price of butter falls overseas the people of Australia must be prepared to pay a little more for their supplies. \Vhen the price of Australian butter on the English market fell below lOOs. a cwt., it became necessarv for the Australian consumer to pay a higher price in this country so that the primary producers could be assured of a reasonable living.

I wonder what will be the attitude of the present Government if the Commonwealth Uovernment decide to take a referendum con­cerning section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution. particularly if the Labour Party in the other States decide to oppose it. Will the Queensland Labour Government or the Labour party in this State support it if Labour Governments and the Labour Party in the other States oppose it?

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTFRE AND STOCK: What authority have you for saying that they will oppose it?

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: I am afraid that the Government will find themselves between the devil and the deep blne sea. I think that some of the Labour Governments in the other States, in fact most of them, wilT oppose it.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK: At the last Premiers' Conference the Premier made no secret of the attitude of his Govern­ment.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: I was verv pleased to know that he stood to his gun's and I should be very pleased to see 'him stand to his guns in face of opposition from the Labour party in the other States.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK: You have no authority for suggesting that they will oppose it.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: We have nO" authority even to suggest that there is going to be a referendum, We only know of announcements in the Press from time to time. I am inclined to think that the Labour Party generally throughout the States wilt oppose it.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK : The man most hostile to orderly marketing in Australia to-day is Mr. Butler, the Country Party Premier of South Australia.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: The opposi· tion of Mr. Butler, or South Australia, would not have a very great effect of itself, as it would be the opposition of one State only, but it wonld have a very serious effect throughout Australia if the Labour Party oppose the referendum. If they do oppose it, there will be no chance whatever of obtaining an affirmative vote.

The PRE::YIIER : What is the question that. is going to be put?

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: At the present moment I only want to know whether the hon. gentleman will stand to his gnns if the Labour Party decide to oppose any alteration of section 92.

The PREMIER : I naturally want to know the kind of gun, whether it is to be a real g·un or a popgun.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: I hope that the hon. gentleman will stand to his guns when the referendum is being taken in six

Dairy Products Stabilisation (15 SEPTEMBER.) Act, Etc., Bill. 383

months' time. If the hon. gentleman does so I will support him.

The PREMIER : There are " some guns " ag"ainst it.

::\ir. GODFREY MORGAN: Very often " some guns " turn out to be merely " squibs." It is very interesting to know just what will happen in that regard. I hope something will be done to give effect to a policy of stabilisation which is neces­sarY in the interests of our primary producers.

I am very pleased that the Minister will have legislation in readiness in the event of a vote for an alteration of section 92, but without such an alteration that legis­lation will be so much waste paper. We are right to initiate measures to protect the primary producer, but without an alr!endment of section 92 our efforts will be futile.

~lr. WALKER (Co01·oora) [12.38 p.m.]: This Bill will clear the atmosphere in da.iry­ing districts. It has become a m'?st important topic. In fact, It has created qmte a stir and it is surprising to learn how many fa.rmers realise the effect of section 92 of the Federal Constitution. It is highly pleasing to know that they are taking a greater interest in the selling side of their industry than ever in the past.

\V e have had three years' experience of stabilisation legislation which is more or less tria.l legislation, The Minister knows what difficulties surrounded it. He also knows that responsible Ministers held varying opinons as to whether this type of legisla.­tion should be pa.ssed.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK: You found it very difficult when you dis­cussed it.

Mr. WALKER: That is so. The hon. member for Dalby was anxious to know whether the Labour Party were going to take up a certain attitude on the referendum. I do not desire to see that phase of the ques­tion introduced. I know perfectly well that men like Mr. Butler, the Premier of South Australia., and such bodies as the House­wives' Association in Melbourne will take up an attitude against it. 'I'hey ha.ve a right to do whatever they think proper. The people directly interested in the dairying industry and the sensible consumers will welcome legislation of this kind. The la.tter realise that up to the present time it has Hot been used to exploit them.

Legislation of a similar character has been in operation for the last ten years. It com­menced with the Paterson scheme. We had groat difficulty in convincing many dairy­men in Victoria of its wisdom anrl the hon. member for Fassifern is aware of difficultie3 that exist now. At that timo I was a member of the Dairy Export Control Board and attended many meetings in the South. They were educational in one ~espect if in no other-because of the many conflicting opinions that were expressed a3 to whether the gchemc should not be introduced. Critics stated that there were many commodities other than butter and cream to be considered. and when it was realised that the prices of baby foods amongst others wou [r[ be increased automatically it was difficalt, I admit, flll' supporters of the scheme to press their advocacy. All these objections were, of <>Ourse, urged by the few people who were actuated by the desire to kill the scheme.

The States of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland appear to be of one opinion vn the matter; nevertheless it is very doubt­ful whether the referendum will be carried. Irrespective of the result, however, I believe the ac~ion. of the Minister in introducing this Bill Is to be commended. It will relieve the minds of many dairymen who are at the present time wondering what is going to happen next. Many of them have heavy fmancial obligations and London parity price for all their product would mean ruin for them. During the long period I have been in this Chamber I have known butter to be 4d. a lb. ;;~ ~!~;:; ;:;!::' ~Anntrv_ 'T'hP action of the Minister in introducing. this measure, therefore, is a step in the right direction, notwithstandmg the difficulties that lie ahead.

We arc agreed that sect on 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution requires amend­ing in order to permit of tho effective control of primary production. A review of the splendid record of the various commoditv boards convinces one of their great value to tho producers and also the consumers. Their efforts have resulted in economies that have been beneficial to all. The problem of marketing, which is a very important one for a growing State like Queensland, has received earnest consideration, and economies resulting in the saving of thousands of pounds a year in freight, insur­ance and cold storage have been effect<>d.

The Premier may be able to offer .some suggestions in regard to the export of many of our products. The difficulties experienced in that regard have arisen during the last twenty years. For instance, great difficulty was experienced a few years ago in exporting butter and cheese owing to the fact that the boats that carried those products were not equipped with enough refrigeration spaqe. The freight costs were increased by reason of the fact that all the big boats that took our butter went direct to London, and the butter had to be conveved thence to other ports by smaller boats, ,;_,hich of course involved transhipment. Another difficultv was that in many of the large towns in the old country there was lack of cold storage capacity. Those are difficulties that we still have to contend with. More up-to­date methods will have to be adopted before the people in the old country have our produce landed at their doors at a minimum cost.

A statement by the Commonwealth Govern­ment indicating their intention in regard to section 92 would clear the air. Up to the present Dr. Earle Page is the only member of the Government to sav that a referendum will take place. "

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK: \Vhat is going to happen in the intervening period?

Mr. WALKER: That is my point. T consider the action of the Minister in mtro­d ucing this Bill is a wise one and will have the effect of clearing the air. I do not think the referendum will be carried­and therefore this Bill will be the subject of further consideration-but irrespective of the result the work of these bodies will go on. The remarkable amount of voluntary work that has been carried out is really wonderful, and I am firmlv of the opinion that in view of our experience over twenty vears of the manufacture and selling of these products we ha Ye nothing to fear in the future.

Mr. Walker.]

384 Dairy Products, Etc., Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Land Acts Amendment Bill.

The few arguments that I have noted against stabilisation are not worth consider­ing. Even though the referendum proposed b,• the Commonwealth Government is carried I" am honestlv of the opinion that the Act that it is pi·oposed to amend to-day will stand for many years to come. I should have preferred the Minister to give infor­mation as to the contents of the Bill, but I take it he is reserving that for the second reading stage.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK: Other than what I h.tve told you there is nothing in the Bill.

Mr. WALKER: It may be that I did not h0ar all the hon. gentleman said, but I desire to know if there is any time limit in the Bill. I also should like to know if it is proposed to regulate the constitution of the boards by geographical borders, as. was sug­gested by members of the OppositiOn last vf~ar.

. The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK: The Bill merely says that the stabilisation scheme shall be continued indefinitely. That is all there is in it.

::VIr. WALKER: The adoption of the sug·­f.iCstions we put forward would give a greater measure of confidence to those engaged in the industry. Of couree, if the policy is continued of having as the mem­bers of the Butter Board men engaged in the industry, as I hope it will be, I do not think we shall have anything to fear. 1'hat policy was a good and wise one.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK: That policy will be continued.

Mr. v•;ALKER: I am pleased to hear that. These men-not only Mr. Sheehy, but others connected with the butter business in Queens­land-are men of character and integrity. They have done an enormous amount of work. They, too, in addition to Mr. Sheehy, are recognised as leading authorities in the industry in Australia. They have attended the conferences in the South and taken a leading part in the discussions. 1'hey have had the advantage of being associated with ::vtr. Sheehy, who is undeniably the leading figure in the industry to-day. He is the brainy man in the butter business. He has meticulously studied all its finer points, and is deserving of a greater mced of recogni­tion than he has so far received. As I have pointed out, I have <mough confidence in the dairymen of Australia to believe that they will carry on effectively the system that has been in operation, and that there is no need to worry regarding the outcome of the pro­posed amendment of the constitution. Cer­tainly there arc ono or two who object, but that difficulty can be overcome. I do not suggest that the minions of the law be put ou them, but that they should be educated and influenced to see the advantages of the system we propose. I remember that when thoro was only a Queensland pool lmlte1· came from :i\ew South \Vales. \Ve immedi­ately sot to work to prevent this from being done. To overcome the difficulty the Southern dairymen consigned their produce through the banks. They, in turn were told that this "as wrong, and the result \vas that after a few years of working the Paterson scheme became almost 100 per cent. efficient.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND STOCK: You know that prior to stabi:isation the cash and carry stores of Brisbane were

[Mr. Walker.

obtaining a considerable amount of low­grade Victorian butters?

Mr. WALKER: Yes, I recognise that, too, but, of course, I also recognise the discrep­ancy between the two prices. The price of the Victorian butter was such that large quantities of its second and third-grade qualities were being sold in Brisba11e. I have only to say that the Sec~etary for Agri­culture and Stock at that time must have been neglecting his duty.

The principle of the Bill is a very good one, and no doubt during the second read­ing stag0 the Minister will supply hon. members with additional figures, after which \Ye shall b'e in a position to discuss the matter further.

Question-" That the resolution (Mr. IJul­cock's motion) be agreed to "-put and passed.

The House resumed. The CHAIRMAN reported that the Cam·

tnittec had come to a resolution.

Resolution agreed to.

FIRST READING, The SECRETARY FOR AGRIC"CLTURE

A::\D STOCK (Hon. F. \V. Bulcock. Barroo) presented the Bill, and moved-

" That the Bill be now read a first time."

Question put and passed. Second reading of the Bill made an OrdPr

of the Day for to-morrow.

LA::\D ACTS AMEND::WE::\T BILL. CO~DIITTEE.

(Jfr. Jlanson, IJuramla, -in the clw;• .. ! Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Clause 3-" Amendment of geetion 46-Pro­

Tisl:on in cas":' of overstocking occUJYition license"-

:Yir. :YIOORE (.-tubiuny) f12.52 p.m.] : .. I should like some more information on this clause. I think the :Y:Iinister is looking at this question from the point of Yiew of the possible overstocking of lands resumed or purchased by the Crown that have b0en taken np under occupation ]irenscs. I \Vant hin1 b look at it from the point of Yiew of the number of occupation licenses that are held as reserves or relief countrv in tim(''5 of drought. It is true that ·during cel'tain periods those lands might be oyerstockcd fol' pel'haps three or four months of the year, hnt thcv would not be overstocked for the wholP tweh-e months. Occupation license countrv is rnostlv inferior country held m rcscn-e for bad 'times. The prov'ision that the 'Minister mav determine the occ•1pation license if he consi'ders lands to be m-crstockecl is a. verv dra~tlc one and one tbat will rnake a great deal of difference to the people \Yho use those lands for legitimate purposes. I haYc neYer been much in favour of occupa­tion lic0nses as a tenure, but they are U;<e[nl to 1 he Crown and to individuals throughout the State as offering the opportunity to us<' land of an inferior class for a certain period.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: ::\o powpr >Yould be exercised to -ckt0rmine thc occupation license unless the land was 0\-01'­

stockecl deliberately. Mr. MOORE: But it would be dP!iberatr.

A man may use it as relief country and in

Land Acts [15 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 385

particular!:,- bad times would, for about tlnce months of the year, stock it to th1·ee or four t.irnes its norn1al capacity. It is used for a particular purpose. It is country of an inferio1~ class, and the tenure is inferior. Ho might not use it for two or three year,, or ho might use it for three or four months in each of seYeral years, and it would be deliberately OYorstocked during those period~. Knowing that he would not need it for long, he would say, " I want to giye relief to my own countrY and I will use this." n n cl naturally overstocks it. It might easily carry an excc.s--,IYC nnn1bcr of stork for a shon time, whereas if it \Ycrc going to be stocked for the whole twclye mont.hs the Minister would be perfectly justified in determining the license.

The hon. gf'ntleman should look at the matter fron1 both point,_;;; of Yi('W. LanU nndc1· occupation ] !vpnsc i~ n•,ccl for many different p~npo:~es. It is not Ycrv muc,h used for stocking nil thP y( :t.r rmJnd un1Ps'3 it happen:~ to l1c f'nc;o;.,od with another ar0a. It is llSC>cl in crurrgerocy, an cl COllSC'quentJ:; the clan-- 0 is n v0ry drastic· onn It dccs nnt givo an:v option. It eav,s thal tlw J\liui,ter ma'· clotcnninc the licem•' forthwith in hi.~ di<­crction-lf llf' tbink~ it i~ ovcrstockPcl. In rny npir1ion. he• should not have any~ power to sav that it is over.~tockcrl. The Nrini>tcr is o~l.v considc1·ing the occupation license of rc>'umed rneas, hut tlwre arc thousancls of occupation licenses in Queensland of land that is not rf':..;umcd areas. The-:~ cover areas. of inferior country not taken up under any otlwt· tenure and arc held from year to vear to give the holders relief or' emerg·ency country. This dame do 0 s Pot differentiate between an occupation licemc that is held :vear after year. and the occupation license that is 1nerc]y a temporary tenure used bct\Y0cn rcsum11i. ion and 1-lelcction of a, rc~urned area.

The SECRETARY FOR PL'BLTC LAxns: That JS

all that it is intended to apply to

;\fr. ;\lOO RE: The hon. gentleman may say so, but thn c]auc(' rnakcs no distinction. It makcc; it applicable to OYf>ry occupation license in Queensland, and it would make it Ycrv awkY\·ard if an officPr of the C1·own were {o go round and say, "I have to abiclc bv the Act as it is, not bY the Minister's ir;tcntion to apply this ·provision to a particular class of country.

;y1r. DuxsTAX: The words are. " in his abso1ute di:;;crction. ''

Mr. MOORE: The clause says:-

"If in the opinion of the 2\!Iinistoe UllY licrw;;cc is injuriouslY using the land comprised in a licPnse grantPd in pnr­suanct' of the provision~ of the s0confl paragraph of thl:3 section by O\'Prstocking it, the J\Iinister may require thP liccns0,~ to reduce the number of the stock t hereon to such an extent as the ::V1inistel' may think fit."

It must b~ in the opinion of the Minister. It does not sav that the Minister can deter­mine necupatiOn licenses of 3.n:v part1C'ular cla,, Tt applies to alL and the hon. g-entle­rnan n1u~t kno·w that a great deal of land i;:; held under this tenure. The hon. member for Gyn1pic. who tvas formerly a St~crctary for Public Lands, knows that the 11inister himself does not inspect such land, but off1cials of his department. They read the Act as it is and when they come to land

1936-o

nnder occupation license that is OYf'r:-;~od~L L-1. theY do lJOt considf'r ·what is in the rntnd. or \vhllt is th0 opinion, of the Minister, but the:'\' adrninish~l' the Act as it is.

1\lr. DcXST\X: The l\'linistor has the last say.

Mr. MAHER (>Vest Jioreton) [2 p.m.l: I know that there have been requests to the Minister at different times from the Selectors' A"ociation and others to protect the interests of successful a pp lican ts fnr land on reumed areas by preventing its bcinO' overstocked under a.n occupatron licen~c from the time of resumption until it is snrv0yed, subdivided, and actuallv avail­able to the incoming tenant. There must; of necessity be a considerable lapse of t1mo between the resumption and the occupatwn of tha hJ.ocks by the new settlers, during which time the '!and would be idle if the rviinister did not tnako it availab~e to some pf't: on under an occupation license. It ,,~ould be foll v not to do so. It has been the prac­tice in some cases in the past for the licensee to overstock the resumed portion to such an 0xtont that whf'n the new settlers entered upon the :and they found that it W>1S r·~'ten out. They tnay posscf:s flocks of their own but. unfortunately. thf'Y arc compelled to wait for several months until the season changes and a good rainfall makes it possible for them to place their flocks on their new selections. I think that that happened at Mount Abundance, Prob­ably the hon. member for Maranoa can bear me out. I recollect that when that property was repurchased by the Crown. it was made available under an occupation license to Mr. A. B. Nagel, of Dillalah, near Charleville, and he is reputed to have so heavily overstocked the property dnring his occupancy-under an occupation license-;­that when the new selectors came on to the1r respective blocks they found them eaten out.

The Minister has alrcadv stated that the object of the clause is 'to prevent that practice in the future, hut 1t empowers hnn to apply the new provision to all occupation licenses.

The SECRETARY FOR PnBLIC LANDS: \Vhy not if he is dcliberatelv overstocking the property? "

Mr. MAHER: It is an interference ·with the ri«hts of the licensee. It is not as if the countr~· really belonged to incoming selectors, as in "the case that I have just described; it is countrv that has been leased bv the Crown to a "man who wants to make tempo­rary use of it.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: He must not abuse it.

Mr. MAHER: As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said occupation l.icens.es, as a rule, arc given in re::;.pect of 1nfer1or countrv, and if it is overstocked and erLLen "out nobodv suffers. Even after an occupation licenee expired no one would \vant to use the countrv for f:Olne tunc and there would be amr;le opportunity for generous rains to fall and grass to grow aaain The clause a1nounts to an unwar­r~ntcd interference with tho rig·ht' of the licensee. ·what does it matt<'r if a man overstocks an area of country for three months instead of allowing it to lie idle?

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC LA:>~DS : There is not much pastoral country anywhere that is idle to-day.

lJfr·. Maher.]

386 Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

'1 r. J'dA HER : I concede that. Even \Yorst class of country is in occupation)

is a g·oocl thing. Thoro should not b, <tll~T intcrfC'rence with tlw rights of an DCL'll pa tion Jicrnsec. There is no need under ordinary conditions for an occupation licemee:_the license may be for t,., clvc Jnonthe or two ~·cars-to flog it out bv OYer~tocking it. I-iis concern is io conserve a~ Hluc.h feed as he can for a:3 long a period a~ he can.

The SECRETARY FOR Pcnur L.\NDS: He \Yill not be interfcrecl with under those ci1-cunlstances.

Mr. MAHER: \Yhy not insert a proviso limiting the application of this claU··e to areas rc,umed for the purpose of closer :o<>ttlcment? If that is done tho objections Df the Opposition will be met.

The SECRETARY FOR Pl"BLIC LANDS: After r<'>urnption has taken place it is Crown land.

::VIr. MAIIER: But a different principle is inYol ved. In cases where it is intf'ncled to leaso the land afterwards obYiouslv it is essential in the interests of the ineon1ing soJ,•ctors that thev should haYe feed on their arcns, and it is d'istinctly wrong to allow the licensee to allow the whole of the fr'cd on the property to llfl eaten out. Bnt this is

11 different ease, whore the licensee is con· corned with getting a benefit out of an occupation license for a short period-twelve rnonths or b:ro years, 'vhichcver is granted by the Minister. He is just as concerned to stock it reasonably as he would be to use his own freehold land properly. As a rule, land under occupation license is u~ed onl:v as a reserYe, and the licensee ·will not abu oe it.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAXDS : The Crown will sec that he will not abuse it.

:VIr. ;\,L\HER: The Minister will have usclps~ worry and expense checking up oecnpation licensees throughout Queensland.

The SECRETARY FOn PuBLlC LAXDS: The nwn to .do that a re there already.

:VIr. i\lAI-TER: The Minister will be well advised, as I have said, to confine this clause to areas resumed for selection. If he does RO, >vc will suppmt thG clause. As it is, it opens up too great a possibility of interfer· ing IYith the rights of an ordjnary licensee.

Th,, SKncT\BY FOR Pr·Ruc LAxns: 'ihe Cron 11 has a right to ~et out the conditions.

Mr. :\1:_\HER: Tbe Crown certainlv has that right, but why insert a new principle in onr ocrupa.tion licensE's that has never appL'arNl in tlw pa8t? This is establisbing a prccerlcnt. There is no evidence before th0 Committee that the licemees have abused land under occupation licenses that is intended for ckscr settlement.

The SECRET.\RY FOR PcBLTC LAxns : }\" o abu.'e. no action ~ \Vhat is wrong vvith that?

:\Jr. c>IAfiER: En'n if there was abuse, wbv should the Minister interfere? The :\Ii~Jister i" not concerned about the matter at all. He is going to get outside it.

It is, moreoyer, most difficult to say when country is being OYE'rstockcd, a lrno~t as cliffic.dt r,s to decide \Yhen a man is drunk. An atca 1night be (·apab]e at one pPriod of the Year of carrying a shePp to 10 acres. but. in a fln'-'h p("'riod the san1e area n1ight carry a chcl'p to the acre.

[Jfr. Maher.

:\Ir. KIXG: Could not that be decided by the Department of Public Lan·ls.

:'Ir. :\L\HEH: It ha" to be proved. Tlw :\finistcr will ban• the difficult\· of praYing ·dJl'lhcr thP property is m·er ·tacked or not. For 1nanv --;cars ·:se have hrtd thon:-,aucl-:1 of arc·as U!1de1: thi.s tenure and r:o illflirult.-;· has Lcn1 Pxpcricnrf'cl in rrgard to ovcrstoc~\:in~~. That tY•ing so. why <;;hould tl1rs0 dif!ieultics he fTPRtecl for occupation Iicell~e- ~ '? I think the Mini,tPr would bP well ach·is •d to accept an amendment that will ha\"c tlw effect of C'onfinin!T this clause to are<-ls that h 1.YC been rc::;unH'd for sel0ctlon.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 6. both inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 7-" Amendment of the Land ,1rts A mend m ent Act of 1921-X ew section JCB­Pro·vision for rcliej in certain cases"-

:VIr. MA HER (West Jloreton) [2.12 p.m.]: I should like some further information fr'?m the Minister in respect of tbis clause, wh1clr enRbles the Minister to help lessees who have experienced drought and fluctua_tions of prices and other athersitv. It applws to the

of s0lcctors who we're granted conces­in 1931, during the depression period.

n nd proyic\es that 1nCn IIlf1Y make application for a rccon:-:;dr>rntion of tht'ir cases ''"ho have failed to meet the conditions of their k•srs. Thet is \"Cry goocl as far as it goes. v\"hat of the men "A ha ha Ye faithfullY observed the conditions of their leases? On the intra· duetory stage of this Bill the Minister stated that a man who had failed to meet the con­ditions of his lease might make applicntjon for some easing thereof and his applicatwn would b0 considered bv the board. or he might surrender his !Pa.se. Tbo implication is that the board. taking all facton into account mav decide to modifv the cond+ons of th~> lca:-:e and grant an exten-.,~on of 1t. For example a lease may have fifteen ~·ears to run but because of hardships and fluctua­tions "in prices and other adversitv the l\finister mav decide to accept the surren· d0rf'd ]pase and issue a ne'v lease for tv.·cnty­<'i<cht or thirtv years. So far eo good. but is· the man who has faithfullv obsen0d the conditions of his lease and. succeeded in overcomirw the difficulties that confronted him to suffer bv comparison? Is the sqme lwlp to l•c available to him? Is the man who has honourablv met his obligations and oycreorne everv obstacle that lwset h;m to ~nffPr in comp'fuison with the man w~o h1-;

tried and failed or who has not even tried?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS !Hon. P. P0ase. Hcrl1rrt) ["2.15 p.m.l: The Leader of the Opposition i"s worried about doing something for a man who is not in n0ed of any help or conce'8ion. He :vho will receive help is the one who has fa1led through no fault of his own. If it should happen that a man has taken up land and failed through his own sins of omissior: or commission, irrespective Df other conditions. he will not receive anv concessions. The Bill distinctlv sets out' that a man shall only obtain help if he has failed through ';O fault of his own. \Vhen a. man succeeds m all he_ has set out to do, h" does not need anv relief, but if a man. through no fault of· his O\Vn, has got into ~uch <>ircun1st:rr~1CCS that he cannot curv out the conchtJOnS imposed on him. if r;e has fai:ed rrnd wants another chRnce. the Cw\Yn ought to have the right to giYe it to him witho11t LJI'('Jng hnn to go through the procedure that h:1s to be

Land Acts [15 SEPTEMBER.) Amendment Bill. 387

followed at present, which might involve forfeiture.

Hon. members on both sides of the Com­mittee who know anything about stud leases know what a wonderful thing they have been to the State. As I have pointed out pre­viously, it is only a few years ago that stud sheep for Queensland were imported from the other States. To-day, we are not only breeding our own stud sheep, but are also in the happy position of being able to export them. Victoria and New South Wales are now taking Queensland stud sheep. What a wonderful result of the work of a few years !

The aim of this clause, I repeat, is to help the man who cannot carry out the condi­tions imposed on him because of no fault of his own. For instance, a person may submit to certain conditions regarding ring­barking. He fmds that he is net "uccecding_ He may have undertaken to ringbark a large area of timber, but in pra.ctice he finds that some of the country does not respond to that treatment. \Vhy should he be forced to con­tinue the ringbarking if it is not doing his country any good ? Such is a typical parallel case that has brought home to us the need for the Bill.

Another man may have undertaken to carry 5, 000 stud ewes, but he finds that his area is capable of supporting only 3,000 sheep. These men should have the right to come to the Crown and point out all the circumstances. To-day they do come to us, and we may do certain things, but we have not the statutory authority to do all the things we ought to do. 'I'he Land Adminis­tration Board considers, and I and the Gov·ernment agree, that we should be able to help these people in the stud sheep industry. TheY are entitled to the best service that the· State can give them. We should do everything to encourage and nothing to hamper them in what they are doing. Every­one who saw the wonderful exhibit of sheep at the Brisbane Show. and also exhibits at the various district shows throughout the State, realises what a wonderful work is being done. We do not want to hamper them in any way. \Ve want to ·encourage them. Hon. members opposite should not be questioning this clause merely because it happens to be sponsored bv a Labour Govern­ment. vVe are doing eve.rything we can for the welfare of the State, and this is an instance where W<l are able to do something tangible and real. '

Mr. DEACON (Cunning ham) [2.19 p.m.]: I cannot quite follow the arguments of the hon. gentleman. H'c says he is not able to give any help at all to the man who has succeeded, but he intends to give all the concessions to him who has not.

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC LANDS : The n:an who succeeds does not want conces-SlOllS.

Mr. DEACON: The hon. gent:eman may also meet with a good liar, and it may be he who YYill get the concession, whereas the honest man will not. The Minister could very well take pmYer to extend the conces­sion to those n1en \vho have succeeded. Sorr1e men will O\Terconl£' circun1stancef-succccd in spite of them. Others will not even try. On his own showing, the Minister will reward the lattrr, but give the former no conces­sion. H n says he does not deserve any con­cession, because he has succeeded.

The SECRETARY FOR PVBLIC LANDS : The cas0s arc not parallel.

Mr. DEACON: Of course, they are. The SECRETARY FOR PVBLIC LANDS : It is

the man who is in difficulty, through n0 fault of his own, that we are concerned with.

Mr. DEACON : In some cases a man might not have bothered to comply with the con­ditions, and the Minister intends to encour-age such a man. ·

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : Do you want us to give him a bonus?

Mr. DEACO~: That is apparently what, he is going to get. Is the man who did nothing to reap a reward whilst the man who did his job gets nothing? Both are entitled to concessions.

~\1r. JEssox: How do you make that out?

Mr. DEACO~: The Minister says that if a man succeeds he does not deserve anything.

l\Ir. FOLEY : H0 did not say that.

~fr. DEACO~: He is not going to give him anything.

The SECRETARY FOR PFBLIC LANDS: He do<'.; not want anything.

Mr. DEACON: The Minister propos0, to give concessions to those who have not. oucceeded, whether they deserve them or not.

Mr. FOLEY: 'fhat is not the position. Mr. DEACON: That is the position. Mr. JESSON : Tell us what you would du

if you were in the Minister's position.

Mr. DEACO~: I should leave the mattm· open. I should take each case on its merit.;. If the man who does not succeed is entitled to an extension of lease, how much more so is the man who does his work well?

Mr. FOLEY: He has got a concession. H'' is getting the advantages.

Mr. DEACON: There are cases in which there are clearing and stud conditions. Those who do not carry them out will get the reward.

Mr. Dc:NSTA:;- interjected. Mr. DEACON: Circumstances are verv

often as they are painted. A good liar ca;1 make out a ·good case.

Mr. KING: You speak for yourself. Mr. DEACOK : I do not think the hon.

member should say that. He might be ab!" to make out a much better case than I could on those same linos.

The CHAIRMA~ : Order ! Mr. DEACON : I move the following

amendment :-"On page 3. line 2, after the word­

'lease' insert the words-

' or the lessee of any grazing selec· tion which is heavily. infested •;'~}' scrub and/or any noxious plant.

It is possible that the Minister may have power to consider these cases as thP clause stands, but I move this amendment so that it will be clear that he has that power. The Minister could then take into consideration any grazing selection on which conditions have beet1 imposed. The hon. gentleman bus (]uoted casPR '"here ~omf' 1nen ha vc been unable to carry out certain condition,, and he proposes to take then into consideration. There are other cases whore conditions of clearing and ringbarking arc imposed, and the Minister should be in a position to take

Mr. Deacon.]

388 Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

tht m into cons:clpration aLso. If he does rJ;t con ':I ilL r tlwt it is warranted, he nccU HOT

gr~uJt a concession. There are case~ abo wht r.~ it is found in practice that it :'j

iillllO, ..:;iLle to earry out ccrtai11 C()nditions. '~he ~\Iinister should hay~ povYer to consicl~.._·T tllO_je rnatters. Surcl,\', a .. ~ n~asonahlc rncn, lllf:.'lllb1~rs of tho UoYcnlnlent can han~ no ol!jcdion to the l\liuister havi11g lW\I'Cr to <·on~ider all th,~·;;;,c things·:

Clfr. ::VlAIIER (West Jiorcton) [2.26 p.m.]: I should like to support the amendm(•nt proposed by the hon. member for Cunning­barn: I think there is a strong case for the sceub lessl'P. Most of these areas in the brigalow and bclah countrv are mado aYail­able under grazing hor~wstead selection tl•Imt·e, which runs for twenty-eight years. ).n.vonc who has had experience of brigalow a1Jd bclah country, particularly if it is infested "·ith pear, will recognise that it is a lifetime work for an individual selector \dhout capital to carve out a home and make a profitable lin•lihood. There is need in casH like that to extend the period of the lease. After all. they aro men on \Yhat the Crown has adjudged to be onlv livin~ arP'iS. The,~ are struggling against a· great bdeal of difficulty and expPnse to mak<' headwav. and about the time when tht•y come to J:P'tP a profJt from the property the lease expires and although the) have the prioritv of selec­tiOn for a living areft, it is difficult for anv of th0m to be sure of ';·h>tt will be adjudge;] a. hnng area twonty-CJght years hence. In ddf<•rent parts of Queensland there arc men on thes.<' blocks with. a good deal of capital expendrture confronting. them. Frequently they have to leavo then properties to go away and ea;rn more money to keep their properties gomg and to meet rates and taxes and general obliga.tions.

There is a feeling that the period of this class of grazing homc•·,tead tenure-in fact all gTazing selP<:'fion tcnurf'~ -could br wPl1 inrrensoii from twent.v-eight years to fortv ,-ears. That applies to men on areas that arf' adjudged bv the Crown to-dav to be living areas. There is room for all Pxten­sion of the lease to gi Ye these men a chance tt? reap_ some measure of profit from their p1oneonng efforts. They go into the yirgin scrub. ringbark and fence it. put up a home. and earn·. on for twenty-eight vears in the ha 0 kbreakmg struggle that men on the land haYc to ('nrlnre in our inland arf:~as. In New South \Vales the need for action of th's ki11d '\Vas recognise~] some years ago, and tenurrs for t\vC'nty-e1ght years were exh:~r1de<i IF the Xew South \Yales Denartmcnt of Public Lands to forty Yenrs. 'That was n rpcognihon of the pfin~iplc I arn puttiLg before thP Committee this afternoon.

Quite recently. the selectors of Goondi­windi nwt and ·discussed this problem. C\1r. .J. T. Flood. who was a councillor of tho 1'\aggamba Shire Council. suggested that a JWO'losal should be made to the DepartmPnt of Public L'mds that leases in the Goondi­wincli and other districh h,, extended fl'D··1r twent.v-f'lght Years to forty ~.-f'ar<;;. :\fr. Flood said that new settlers were rmt in the scmh. on unimpro,-ed and waterlcse land. and thr•ir Jn·opr>rt ... T \'vas just a bout a g-oing concern wlwn their twenty-eight ;~·ears' lease expired. If thcv could ,ecure a lease for fortv vcars lt -wolild bn- n1uch easier to arrange fin8ncC'. Thn should ask for a lease of forh- vears and· prefer0ncc to a liYing area at th~ pnd of fmtY Yf'ars. According to a report of the 1nel•ting in the Goondi,,rindi "~-\rgus." of

[Mr. Deacon.

Friday, 21st February. 1936, on the motion of ::VIos,rs. Flood and Rogers, it was clecJded to approach the Department of l'ublic Lands IYith a Yicw of securing an extended h>,ase of all !iYing areas to forty yea;·s, with a prC'ferential right to a liYing area at the expiration of the lease.

Mr. Flood also made the very important statement that he would lift his hat to any man who had made a succoss ·Of scrub land in twenty years. That is the considered oninion of a man who has lived a lifetime in scrub country in the Goondiwindi dis. trict. He is reported further as saying-

" That was his opinion after handling scrub country for tlfty years. On one occasion he had thought that the easiest way to clear such country was to put a fire into it, but to-day it was necessary to have a stick to find one's way through that part of his country. With thick scrub country no one could come out at the end of twenty years as well off as he went into it."

There we have the voice o.f experience, the opinion of a man who fully appreciates tho [lroblcm. I also have lived in that area and I know the tremendous struggle th<tt has to be made in bringing virgin brigalow and bdah country in the Goondiwindi and other inland districts to a profitable state. rt is no oasy task. and it is the oo·nsidered opinion of Mr . .Flood that a man cannot come out showing a profit after twenty years of work, during which he must pro­vide water by puttmg down subartes1an bores or constructing tanks, fence and dog­net the area, and ringbark. The country is so thicklv timbered that ringbarking cannot be carried out at less than 5s. or 6s. an acre, which on a 10,000-acre block mea.ns an outlay of £2,500 for ringbarkmg alone, and including fencing and ether necessary improvements a selector cannot bring such a block to a profit-making point without incnrring a capital outlay of £1 an acre. So that when a man takes up 10,000 acres of scrub country he must he ready to earn £10,000 from some source or other to make it prof•t producing-suitable for cftl'rying sheep. It means that he has twenty years of struggle ahead of him. Mr. Flood was quite right in saying that h0 would take off his hat to any mall WIJCJ

could ma],o a succoss of his block in tha.\·, time.

If the Minister is prepared to concede " lease of forty years for land of this typn he will giYe greater security for the selector, who will then find financial intitutions more eager to advance the necessary n1oney tu enable him to accelerate the pace of develop­ment on his property, and this will enable him to obtain a quicker income than other· wise would he the case. I submit this very important amendment to the Minister, and I ask him to consider it Yery carefully before making a decison.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LA~DS (Hon. P. Pease, Htrbert) [2.33 p.m.]: I cannot accept the amendment. Hon. mcm· bers will notice that clause 7 reads-

" The lessee of any pastoral holding or the selector of anv grazing selection, to which pastoral holding or grazing selection have been extended the pro­visions of section fourteen or .~'oction fifteon of this Act, or the lessee of any pastoral development lease or stud hold­ing, or the selector of any development

Land Acts [15 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 389

graz!ng homestead or development grazmg farm who, owing to adverse circumstances, has been unable to com­pletely fulfil the development or stud c>onditions of his lease, ma,- apply to the 1\finist.cr "

The Bill deals specifically with stud con­ditions and applications for concessio.ns in respect of the development of difficult country, and I can consider only conces­~ions in respect of those two matters. It is not within my power to consider any others at the prec.ent time. Hon. members oppo­site cannot expect me to consider the whole ambit of land legislation on this Bill.

:\or should they cxpe>ct me to deal in ,,uch a haphazard way with all the matters that they suggest for consideration without carefully considering their implications and cost. This Bill seeks to provide concessions for the holders of the classes I have men­tioned. Therefore, I could not possibly accept the amendment.

r.1r. GODFREY MORGAN (Dalby) [2.35 p.m.]: The Moore Government conceded Yerv liberal conditions to stud lessees in m·dcr to encourage the breeding of stock to enable Queenslanders to obtain sheep bred in their own State at an economical figure. The pr0sent Government regard the con­·ccssion as a very good one that has resulted in an enormous amount of good. I agrco in that respect with the Minister.

The Minister must remember that thoso per"'ons who obtained special concc~s1ons from the Government had to do certain things. Thee· had, for example, to breed a -certain nnmbPr of rarns and ewes ever"~ ye::tr fot sale. but O"\ving to circurnstance~ over ,,-hich they had no control find it necessary to ask for still more fayourable conditiom, and the Government agree that this course is justified. I do not object to that-we do not want to crush those lec,qees because they have been unable to fulfil the conditions of tlwir l<·o.scc. The ·!\Iinistcr must remember, too, that most of these stud properties had alrPady been improved. Several properties m my electorate were very wc!l-improvcrl. l1ut owing to drought conditions, over which the lessees had no control, their carrying ·capacity was considerably reduced r-o thal instead of being able to produce say, 4,000 or 5,000 rams for sale each year they have been able to breed only 2,000 or 3,000. The present lessees did not have to spend a great deal of money to improve their leases and the non-fulfilment of their conditions was <:lue to circumstances over which they had no control. Stud leases in brigalow scrub country haYe been more difficult to work than tho,se in bclah scru!:>. Brigalow scrub conntr.r can be ringbarked this vear and two or three years hence the suCI~crs \viil be so dense that it will cost more to dcstrov them that it did to ringbark the origimil trees. A number of people have tokPn .up land in that country and have had no help.

The SECRETARY FOR PeBLIO LAXDS : Thev haYy• received help by special loans aggr~~ !'a( mg £500.COO to ringbark and improve their country.

:C.jr. GODFREY MOHGA:\': The \fuor•' Govc·rrnncut adopted a sctilemcnt policy \\ ith the idea of encouraging nH•n to brcE- l Hud ~tock. The l\iini~tC'l' has (•ndor~cd tha.l policy and has pul it in\o effect, but tlwre a re other people also deserving of consideration.

The SmllF.TARY FOR Pl:BLTO LAXDA: \Yh·, did you not bdp thcn1 when you \rt~re in power'?

Mr. CWDFREY ::\lOUGA:\': The hon. gcntl('n1an kno\YS rlJ-...t a p;rcat part of thi·:. bri~alo,v countr,, "\ya:-; c·lcarc·d cf prickly-pear and opened to selcctcon towards the end of the Moore GoYrrnrncnfs tcrn1. \Ye then thought that ihe conditions applying to .selections 'Ycre quit0 fair and liberal, just .as we thought. that tho condition~ rsopectlng ~crub la11ds ''"ere fair and rca~onablc. l know many of the pe>op]o V\'0 hnYe in vjE'\V

felt when theY obtained a stud lea'e that they had g-ot '.something that was equal to winning the first prize in the " Golde:n Casket." In :;;on1e cases tirne has prayed_ otherwise, for if it had been so this amend­ment would not haye been introduced. The conditions of lease were evidently not so generous after all. The Government have discovered that what was looked upon as an exceptionally liberal lease has turned ant to be the opposite. Hence this Bill. The men who held this countrv under a lease of another type did not enfov the favourable concessions that are now offered.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : Those conditions were in the Act in 1927 when Mr. McCormack was Secretary for Pnblic Lands.

Mr. GODFREY M ORGAN: When the Moore Government assumed office the Act was altered considerably, and more liberal ~oncessions were granted. The point I wish to make is that it is now found that a number of people who have taken up this brigalow country are not able to fulfil the conditions of their leases, and we ask the Minister to accept an amendment to enable him to give them relief. Throu!!,h no fault of their own they are experiencing gra ye difficulty.

The argument of the Minister in regard to les"'cs of stnd holdings is a very good one. The Minister stated that these people should not be broup:ht before the court, because thev were not able to fulfil the condition laici down, but thev shonld be able to present their case to the Tllinister, who should have the power to grant some conce,sion if he was satisfied that it was warranted ..

The SECllETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : The court does not forfeit snch a man's lease. Forfeiture only takes place in extreme cases.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: under the Bill the Minister will have power to deal with the occupier of a stud holding who has not been able to fulfil the conditions of his lease. the reason being that it is con­sidered proper that the lessee should not be put to tho trouble or expense or even called on to face the risk of forfeiture. That is a very proper provi,ion, and I strongly urge that the same principle shonld be made to apply to the lessee who has not a stud holding. The Minister should have power to grant concessions to lessees of other hold­ings who have been unable to fulfil the1r conditions. Such lecsees should not be com­pelled to forfeit their land any more than those the Minister is helping.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAKDS I Hon. P. Pease. H erbet'f) [2.44 p.m.]: If the Committe had listene<l carefully to my remarks there would not be anv misunder­standing. The Bill applies t,;· the lessee of a grazing selection. pastoral holding, pastoral development leaw, or stud holding.

Hon. P . .Pc-:-se.]

390 Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Arnendment Bill.

Any of these lessees is entitled to the same concessions. vYo take power under this Bill to enable the grazing selector, the pastoral lessee, the pastoral development lessee and the stud lessee to go before the Land Administration Board and to the Minister without going to the court. and without being liable for forfeiture. If the hon. member reads the Bill carefullv he will see all these lessees are covered--graz­ing selections, pastoral holdings, pastoral development land and stud holdings are mentioned in section 14 of the principal Act. This clause deals. as a perusal of it will show, with all of those classes covered by that section. Therefore a lessee who comes within those classes may make applica­tion for a concession whether he has a stud holding· or some oth0r form of tenure.

As a matter of fact, we are doing it to-day. The hon. member knows that it was done when his Government wore in power. The only thing that we <:~esire now to do is to make it quite clear that >t is by statutory authority we do such things. As everybody is a 1vare, forfeiture is rccornrnendcd in ma.ny cases by land commissioners and others but since I hayc been in chargB of the depart· ment forfeJturP has on] v been resorted to in Yery extrmnc cas-es. Everyone is given an opportunity to rehabilitate himself and it is only in the extreme instances that for­feiture has been insisted upon. Part IV. of " The Land Acts Amendment Act of 1927 " was headed : " Development of difficult country."

it. Mr. GODFREY MoRGAN: I think that meets

Thf' SECRETARY FOR Pl:BLIC LA:'-JDS: The Lands Act did not meet the case. but >ve have been pursuing a certain procedure, and we desire that it shall be done quite openly and under statutory authority.

Amendment (Mr. Deacon) negatived. Clause 7, a.s read, agreed to.

Clause 8-" A m rndm en! of Land Acts Amendment Act of .lDJl-Extcnsion of Wool Relief Rents "-

Mr. GODFREY l\IORGAN (Dalby) [2.47 p.m.]: I move the foE owing amendment-

" On page 4, lin0 28, omit the word­' two'

and insert. iu lieu thereof the word-' five.'''

The 2\1inister should be a little more liberal and make the period five years at least. E.-erv case could then be dealt with on its merits. People who have taken up st.uc:l leases ha vc undertaken to fulfil certain con­ditions. Thcv mav not have been so for­tunate as their colleagues, and may have been able to make only very sma:l improve­ments. Their .areas mav he situated in districts that have been affected by the ch·ought to a greater de"rec than others. The,e men will not be assisted. In 99 per cent. of the cases in which the conditions have not been fulGlled, the reason is not. that the lessees ha.-e not been willing to do so. but that drought and similar condition' ha>'e prevented them. Some may only need th<' concession of one or two years, whereas others more unfortunate may require five. The clause should be liberalised.

}forcover, the hon. gentleman may find that this Bill does not provide the necessary rc!ief, and he »·ill be forced to introduce

[Hon. P. Pease.

another Bill, perhaps in another two years_ There should be a provision to enable the, Crown to extend the period of those lessees who are further behind than others, and consequently the Minister would do well to make the period five years. He should accept this most liberal amendment.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAXDS (Hon. P. Pease, Herbert) [2.50 p.m.]: l cannot accept the hon. member's amend­ment. 'fhe circumstances that have been mentioned bv the hon. member fer Dalby have been co!1sidered from year to year and the Government have given consideration to the ruat.tcl' for two years on this occasion because the Land Acts were not amended last vear. \Ve continued the concession. hut nOW WO desire to have statutory autl1or­itv to do so. Surelv hon. membei;s realise that when. dealing with a valuable conces­>ion like this, involving a. considerable amount of money, it would not be wise t.o tie the Go>'ernmBnt's hands for a term of vea.rs? vVe might grant the concession for a term of five years and in three yea~·s' time­conditions might be altogether drfferent. vVo might have higher prices for our wool anc:l other products. Hon. members oppo­site know that it would not be wise for a· Government to look so far ahead when granting those valuable concessions. If con­ditions arc bad at the expiration of the pro­posed :crm this Government or a.ny Govern­nlent in power, can consider the matter again. It must be realised that we have to balance our Budget and if, by reason of our giving awav such valuable concessions as these, WO are not ab]e to do SO, We shall be asked at future financial conferences of the Stafes \Yhv we grant these conceosions (Opposition lau.ghter.) The ex-Leader of the Opposi­tion may laugh, but any Government that did not consider the circumstances of the State yea.r by yBar, when giving such a valuable concession, certainly would be lack­ing in the discharge of their duty._ vVe must o'ive consideration to every sect10n of the· ~ommunity. Everyone realises that that h what Labour GovBrnments do. First <1f all we consider all the people of the State, then those who are providing its assets. It must be admitted as evervono realises, that we have been giving all sections a fair deaL

To give this most valuable concession for five vcars would not be justified. What a howl' there >You!d be if the Industrial Court increased the wages of the workers to the same extent as this for five years ! There is no talk about that. One can quite imagine >Yhat an outcrv thPre would be from the employers if the Industrial Ccmrt decided to have stabilisation for five years and gave the workers of this State a basic wage, say, of £5 a week for that term. Everything is done on a, fai J' basis bv this Government, who- do not intend to tio their hands for fl.Ye vea.rs This most valuable conces'3-10n .,-ill be reconsidered when the time expires ..

Mr. MAHER (West 'Moreton) [2.54 p.m.]: I am sure that all those who are affected are grateful to the Government for the concc,sions they have given. This amend­ment is not prompted hv lack of appreciation of »·hat concessions hFLvo 'Qeen g-iven, but. rather bv a desire to give an cxtr·a measure of help· to an industry that is having a very bad time.

The l\1inister's reason for refusing the amendment is hardly sound. After all, it is a two years' extension that he proposes

Land Acts [15 SEPTEliiBER.] Amendment Bill. 391

Mr. JESSON: They cannot get the stock either.

Mr. MAHER : That is ridiculous. If the man has the money he can get the stock.

Mr. JESSON: At an uneconomic price.

Mr. MA HER: Not neccssarilv. The finan­cial institutions keep a tig-ht rein on graziers iv regard to the price they pay for stock. Moncv is being found by banking institutions and they see that the value is received and that · do not become too rash and too

and force the value of stock up. a fair return can be secured

That is the position, for Kennedv knows

is not a grazier. I do something about the

grazing industry are comcrOHL their financiers who are not

to permit undue and rash speculation to the price of sheen to such a level

becomes nnprofitable. If any of men in the areas where re-stocking is needed to-day could find the could get the stock. The industry parkus plight because men cannot money. They have suffered such losses through drought that it will years to recover.

To those men who have been able to make a partial recovery and get in a position to partirJly restock, a continuation of this con-ceession for five vears would be absolute godsend. That l.s the object of amend-ment. It is not intended in any to embarrass the Government, but to Bxtend the generosity of the Mini,ter. We

appreciation of the continuation of concession for two years, but we say an

Bxtension to five years would be a greater incentive to financiers to help 'these men with to restock and get established

Furc great come Treasury.

hon. gentleman to the amendment

think that his budgetary him to

if good. Why say

two years? The SECRETARY FOR PcBLlC L.IKDS: The Bill

does not say that.

stud holdings and t.hat ment, but further than all remember intention to especially the

It

ment find it necessary to help him along. further and give the JVhmstor or the eo m t power to increase the period of relief up to five years? No harm will be done and nobody will lose anything. The Minister has not adva.nced a single sound argument why he should not increase the period from two to five years.

Mr. MOORE Minister refuses view that it is tionary power the court.

The

now you say power.

Mr. MOORE: The Minister says "as reduced by the Minister or by the court."

Mr. Moore.]

392 Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

I do not know why the Minister objects. He has not forward any sound reason. 'fo suggest the Industrial Court decides wha.t wages operate in other industries is altogether beside the point. This legisla­tion was introduced by the Government for the purpose of enabling owners in a difficult position to secure reasonable ,finance to

on. That is what the Government are They reeognise that wool is a national

and that woolgrowers are a national asset, too, but they err in limiting the cession to two years. The amendment give the Minister, the court, the the opportunity of saying, " you c-an get assistance to carry on period and that finance will enable you to restock and secure a return from the land we will give you concessions up to years." If these lessees are not placed position to restock it will have a reflex on budgetary position, becausi' they will not able to pay any rents. The Minister has everything to gain and nothing to lose by accepting our suggestion, because the dis­cretionary power in the clause would still exist. One man may be able to obtain finance for six months. A man in the North­West may not. Our suggestion will give him a longer period to secure finance to restock.

Mr. P. K. C'OPLEY (Kurilz,a) [3.8 p.m.]: The Opposition contend that a two-year extension of the rent concessions will restrict to a great degree the ability of the lessee in the West to restock. That in itse:f may be a boon to Queensland because if a five-

period was granted, as the Opposi-urge, we should find the graziers of the

West again stocking up to the limits of the carrying capacity of the land. Every hon. member will agree that, in some cases, drought conditions arc hastened or accentu­ated by overstocking. If, because of the amendment, financial interests advance only enough finance to ensure it's return in two

the Minister will have done some­in the interests of Queens] and, because

the grasses will be given an opportunity to ag.ain, and the carrying capacity of

land will return to what it was prior to overstocking. I the Minister on refusing to the amendment, par-ticularly on the very argument used by the hon. member for Cunningham.

Amendment (J1r. Godfrey ll1 organ) nega­tived.

[M1·. Moore.

Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9--" Amendments of 'The Prickly­

pear Land Acts '~section 11 (.9)~

The SECRE'I'ARY FOR PUBLIC LA:\'DS (Hon. P. Herbert) [3.11 p.m.J: I move the amendment~

" On page 6, line 26, omit the word­' thirty'

and insert in lieu thereof the word-' sixty.'"

of the amendment is that be the time specified, instead at present.

I foreshadow a further to pro-if

[3.12 p.m.]: has pro­

well agrees but there

that I amendment

a much more moved bv

the omission insertion of The

by day of the of the

When the pear is being insects, why the need for

money on poison and labour that otherwise usefully employed on the property? This is an every-day problem to tbe men who live on the pear areas. Here is a proposed law that deals with the destruction of prickly-pear and necessitates the purchase of poison in order to comply with the con­ditions of the lease, and side by side with it is the fact that the pear is disappearing day by day and month by month before the attack of these biological agencies. What is the common-sense line of conduct to adopt in that case? Is it fair to call upon a lessee to destroy the pear on his property,

if we gave him days in which some rewlt 9 not rather

rneantimo? The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS

effect of the amendment suggested hon. member would make the plete the work within twelve my amendment leaves it to Land Commission to decide.

the out

Mr. MAHER: I do not think the Minister would force a person expoud rnoncy poison and carrv out if after • inspector effectively be against

Land Acts [15 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 393

~ug:cc~t that the hon L:C'ntlcman forcro his ~lll;<'!Hhncnt for the ~n·e 1 h<tYC circulated.

The SECRETARY Jo'OR T'cBLIC LANDS : Sec the next amendment. The Commissioner will haYe really full power.

Mr. l\IAHER : You have a further amend­lnrnt?

The SECRE'rARY FOR PcBLIC LANDS : Yes.

i.\Ir. GODFREY l\10RGA:\ (Dalby) [3.17 ]l.ln.]: It is a well known fact that it is only tYYicc a year that the cactoblastis larvae can be obtained. A man may be served witlr a notice to clear the pear. and the cacto­blastis may not be aYailable in the sixty d~. .

The SECRETARY FOR PLBLIC LANDS : The: Prickly-pear Land Commission is lenient.

Mr. GODFREY MORGA:\: The point is that certain powers are being bestowed on the Prickly-pear Commission to step in and do the work. The present personnel may be lenient, but in twelve months or two years

.the commission m11y be con-tituted differently. The prickly-pear is now being destroyed by biological means, and in these days it would be almost a criminal act on the part of the GoYernment to force a man to buy poison to destroy the pear.

The SECRET.\RY FOR PcBLIC LA:-!DS: \Vith the exception of frecholders, the Prickly-pear Land Commission has had that power all i his time.

1\L-. GODFREY MORGAN: We know ihat. Those people who have taken up prickly-pear perpetual leases and other leases know what they haYc to do. But suppose a man has taken up land under a lease that includes a clause that he has to destrov so much pear ill, say, five years, and he isv ful­ftlling that condition. Will the amendment that the Minister proposes alter the condition so that although the man had five years in which to kill a certain amount of pear he must now do it in a lesser period?

The SECRETAHY FOR PCBLIC LANDS: To-dav thf~ con1mission has full power over every-­thing but freehold land.

Mr. GODFREY l\IORGAN: The leases laid it down that the pear must be destroyed by biological means. An injustice may be done by serving a notice to destrov the pear within sixty days when the lessee can only <:>btain larvae at certain periods of the year.

The SECRETARY FOR PVBLIC LANDS: If the amendment is accepted he is not restricted to the sixty days.

:Vlr. GODFREY MORGAN: The Bill pro­vides that thirty days' notice shall be given and if something is not done within that period to the satisfaction of the commission the land can be forfeited. The Minister proposes now to make the time sixty -days. The Leader of the Opposition has moved that it be made 365 davs. I -do not see the slig·htcst difference betYveen the Bill with its thirty days and the amendment for sixtv d>tys. with the exception of the time. 'I should think that 365 days would suit the G oYcrnrnent better. If the Minister can see bis way clear to accept this amendment the clause would meet with the approval of all 1wn. members on this side.

:\Ir. MOORE (Aubiqny) r3.22 p.m.]: The Minister says in his amendment that effec­t in? n1easures to eradicate the pear must be conmwnced within sixty days, not that it must be extirpated within that time. The

}linister was telling us the other da\' of tlw enormous losses that had been suffered in ihc \Yarwick district in clearing the land of poaJ·. The circumstances referred to b:· the hon. ,gcntlernan iuyolYed an agrePment with the 0\Yners of the land. The Crown said. " \Ve will take O>'er the land and vou shall haYc the right to take up a lease' of portion of the area "-hen it is cleared.n Cndcr this Bill the Crown gives a man notice to take stops to extirpate and destroy the pear upon the land within sixty days-that is. to do somethinp; which the Minister's statements the other dav show is uneconomic for the landholder. i'Ie proved that the land YYas not worth clearing, that the cost of clearing was greater than the value of the land. Of course, there is no recognition of that fact in this case !

The Bill says that all expenses incurred by the commission in extirpating and destroying the prickly-pear shall be a charp;e upon the land on which it existed notwith­standing that the notice related to a part only of the land. The pear may be so bad that the expense of clearing it would not be warranted. It might cost fiye times as much as the land is worth, yet because it happens to be part of a holding the commission ma_v make a charge on the whole of the land. I do not know whether the GoYernment intPnd to exercise the power contained in this clause. but they may do so.

It is suggested that the clearing of this pear is not as costly as it was. Vv' e all recognise that some years ago there wer" manv cases in which the cost of clearing the pear- would ha Ye been infinitely greater than the value of the land. That may happen under the operations of this Bil1 also. 1\ o limitation is placed upon this clause. It savs distinctly that the expenses incurred eh;ll be a cha~-ge upon the land on which the pear existed, notwithstanding that the notice relates to part only of the land. The area concerned might be a very big one, but the Crown would be taking awav the whole of that man's propertv simply because he did not clear a portion of the land. e;-en though the expense im,olvcd in clearing that area would not be warranted. It seems to mc that the power that is put into the hands of the Minister or the Commissioner is a very great one in view of the statements the hon. gentle­man has made in this rh11mber about thc spread of particular classes of pear. their location and density, and the extr11ol'dinary cost of clearing it. It appears that the individual is to suffer.

Freehold land is the class of land that counts, but it may happen that the pear is on a part of a freehold estate, and the cost of clearing it may be sufficient to put the man off the whole propnty.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: In that case >tl vVarwick. if it was not cle~tred it might have extended over the who'e district.

Mr. MOORE: That was a case where the whole of the area was infested with pear. This includes cases where a small portion onlv of an area is affected. A man n1ay ha,;e 10,000 acres, and there may be 1.000 acres of pec,r on part of that 10,000 acres that is not worth clearing, 'l'he Crown has power tD put in men and clear it, and make the cost a charge on the whole of the area.

The SECRETARY FOR PFBLIC LAXDS: vV e ha vo got power to take legal action.

Mr. MOORE: I should think the hon. g ... mtleman would have to take legal action-

M1', Jlfoore.]

394 Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

and ht~ rna0 have to take legal action after this. It seeu1s an extraordinary po\Ver to take.

The SECllETARY FOR PUBLIC LA::-:rDS: It may bP- necessary.

Mr. :;1.100RE : It may be necessary from a Crown point of view, but it 1nay not be fair to the individual.

The SECHETAHY FOR Pcnuc LANDS : The hon. member found it necesasry in \V ar­\\·ick.

l\Ir. MOORE: \Vc found it necessary to take steps to protect the re't of the area, but it was not a charge on the individual. This is making the cost a charge on the individual who happens to have part of his area infested \\ ith pear. It does not seem to be fair at ail. It might be advantageous to the Crown to have a plague-spot wiped out, but it is hardly fair to make an indi­vidual responsible for the clearing of it.

The SECRETAHY FOR PcBLIC LANDS : If the individual does not do it he is liable now. The Crown can institute an action against him and make him responsible not only for <he value of the land, but for all his estate.

Mr. MOORE: Yes, but the Crown has to go to the court to do that, and the court has some semblance of regard for the prin­ciples of justice in deciding points like that. This give' power not to the court to decide whether it is fair, but to the Commissioner or the Minister to do the work, and make the cost a charge on the w ho:e of the pro­perty.'

Mr. DEACON (Cunning/wm) [3.28 p.m.]: In a place like v:arwick it is not a bit of use putting on the land the charge contem­plated by this clause.

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC LANDS : The hon. member would have made a very bad mistake if we had not come into the picture.

Mr. DEACON: I did not make any mis­take. I was leaving the man there to have a chance afterwards. The hon. gentleman was trying to ruin him because he had pear on the land, and he did not know it was there. It was all covered with grass when he bonght i1. and it might have been there for ten or fiftnen years, or perhaps for more. The Minister must know from his officers that when there is long grass all over a property it is very dif!icult to find the pear.

'I'he SECRETARY FOR Pc:BLIC LANDS : You ignmed your officer's recommendation and report in that particular case.

Mr. DEAGO:'oi: No, I did not. I read the report and went up and had a look at the land and agreed to do what was necessary. The members of the Prickly-pear Land Com­mission suggested that I should go up with them and examine the property. It threatened to become such a grave danger to Queensland that the Prickly-pear Land Commission decided that this and other seed beds should be cleaned out regardless of cost, but the Minister proposes to place the whole of the cost on the landholder who is not responsible and never was responsible for its being there. The landholders in the case mentioned did not realise that it was such a pest or that it existed in such quantities. They thought that it could be easily exterminated. The Minister ruined them, and he is going to ruin others in the same position by calling

[Mr. Moore.

upon them to bear the whol<' cost of killing the pear.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : You were going to ruin the State.

Mr. DEACO.'\: Not at all. How is the Minister going to collect the cost from the Jandholdtlrs if the land is not worth that arnount 't l-le canllot get, blood out of a stone. If the value of the property does not juc.tify the )l:lyment. of the cost 'of killing this pest then the holder will not pay, and the land will revert to the Crowll for sale to the best huver. EYen if the work he mentioned invohcd an ont\ay of £500,000 it would haYe to be undertaken by the Uovcrnment in the interests of the State as a whole. If it had been allowed to spread any further not all the money in Australia could have stopped it. lt wa, a dangerous pest, far worse than the ordinary prickly-pear.

Mr. JESS0:-1: Is this your defence?

Mr. DEACON: I am pointing out to the Minister that he cannot expect to recoup the whole of the cost from the landholcler. I want him to be fair, and to understand that he must combat the post rega.rdless of cost, and that the landholder should not be called upon to pay the whole of the cost, bnt only his fair proportion of it. I repeat that it is impossible for the Minister to expect the lanclholcler to boar the whole of the cost.

Mr. JESSON: If you cannot get it you cannot get it, and that is the end if it.

Mr. DEACON: Then why provide that the ''hole of the cost shall be borne by the landholder ., I am sure that the hotl. membe1· for Kcnnotlv does not wish to be regarded as a fool, Lut what \mule! the landholder& iu his e!cctomte say if they knew that he supported a foolish Bill like this? The :\lini,ter might as well realise at once that the landholder can pay only a reasonable proportion of the cost involved.

The SECHETARY FOR PuBLIC LANDS: I am providing for that.

Mr. DEACON: The Bill says that the lan-rl.holder shall be responsible for the whole of that cost, which is not reasonable. Sooner or later the Minister will have to realis<• that he can collect only what the land is worth after it is cleared, even if the cost of clearing is £500,000.

The SECHETAHY FOR PuBLIC LANDS : I will not undertake to spend £500,000.

1\Tr. DEACO:L\: The Ministet· will have-to spend enough to clean it ont: hf' must not let t.'Jl on the job even if he has to. spend day and night. He must do this to protect tho other grazing areas of the State. Tht' near will not rem-ain in this district. The further north or we ,t you go the more cxp0n:..:1Ye the extcrrnination 1vill hf'cOlne. \V e. mtL<;:_i do it now, n hPn it i~· po-,sible. The J\tinistt'r should get the co-opc'ration of lancl­owner ... -make it ~xorth their whilE~ for their own :--Rke..:: to come to the C ovcrnmcnt and ~et a,sistance: not to hold on to the land ~nd get '·'hat the~- can from it while the rwar is spreading all the time.

This question must be dealt with in a c:~111n1on-sensc '.HLY. \VP ar0 not dolng ::-o nncler this BilL \Ye are not taking effective steps to eradicate tiger pear, ,,-hich I take it i, the type of pear aimed at in 1 hi, clause. It would be as well if the Minister made that clear. I understand that

Land Acts [15 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 395

prickly-pear under the Prickly-pear Lands Acts mcludes any form of cactus. The Minister should make it clear to the Com­mittee that he is seeking power to deal with anv form of cactus he considers is a danger to the State.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Commit­tee at the present time is not considering the definition clauses of the Bill, but a clause dealing with the eradication 'lf pear in specified cases.

Amendment (Mr. tPease) agreed to.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LA"\DR (Hon. P. Pease, H erbert) : I move the fol­lowing amendment:-

" On page 6, lines 28 to 30, omit the words-

' period of thirty days the prickly­pear upon the land or specified por­tion thereof has not been extirpated and destroyed '-

and insert in lieu thereof the words-• period of sixty clays the commis­sion is not satisfied that reasonable steps ha Ye been instituted and j or are being continued to extirpate and destroy ihe prickly-pear upon the land or specified portion thereof.' ''

'The incorporation of this amendment will .mean that after sixty days has expired the owner of the land can, if the Prickly-pear Land Commission is sati~fied he is complying with the requirements of the Act, continue his work of extirpation for even more than twelve months.

I would mention for the benefit of the Committee that the Prickly-pear Land ·Commission is c<mtinuously engaged m making experiments. In the Warwick drs­trict a part of the area infested with tiger ,pear is being cleared by spraying With arsenic pentoxide and on the remaining portion insects have been distributed, and I am Yery pleased to say arc making .inroads on it. It is remarkable, though, to note how nature comes to the aid of a plant \mob as prickly-prcar. The Qacto­hb.stis is doing all that is required of 1t, but where it cannot operate on the body of the pear the latter is growing rapidly. 'The slightest portion of tiger pear carried away by an animal or marsnpial will propagate. Nature is all the time respond­mg to the attacks made on her. It is also worthy of remark that the infestation of this area has resulted in the development of a particular kind of cactoblastis, which is doing the _job more effectively than the original spec1es.

Reflections have been cast on the Pricklv­pear Land Commission, which it is said Is not a body from which the same judicia.! decision may be expected as from a judge. !'\ow, the commission is the Land Adminis­tration Board, men who were appointed by the J\1oorc Government as \Yell as by onr Government. 'l'hey arc exactly in the same category as judges of our courts. Their· salaries are yoted, not with the ordina.rv denartrncnlal items but in the Scheatilc"s of· the Estin1ates. Their potvers are cJn~ tro~led by Parliament only, as arc those- of a judge. If ther do not pcdorm their ftmc­tions proper!:;- Parliament can call them before it and dismi" them. At the instance of the ::.\Icort' GoYetnnlent. Parliament appointed thc·m till they reached the age of seventy years; which clearly demomtrates thnt hrm.

members opposite must have had great con­fidence in them. Yet to judge from the remarks from the Opposition benches this afternoon, one would imagine that hon. mem­bers had no confidence in them. The duties of the chairman of the Land Adminstration Board were defined by hon. members opposite when they were the Government, and his salary was increased by them, and he is the chairman of the Prickly-pear Land Commis­sion that will have the duty of administering this Bill when it is passed.

l\Ir. MOOHE (Aubigny) [3.43 p.m.]: I was interested in the Minister's lrttle homily, in which he compared the mem­bers of the Land Administration Board with our judges and told us that they held their offices till they reached the age of seventy years, but, after all, like " the flowers that bloom in the spring " that has nothing to do with the matter under dis­cnssion. What I am objecting to is that part of the clause which reads-

" And all such expenses so incurred by the commission in extirpatinil" and destroying the prickly-pear. shall,'

not ''may''-" shall be a chargE) upon the land on which it existed (notwithstanding that the notice related to a part only of the land) and shall be recovered from the occupie.r or person in charge of any such land."

That does not refer only to the land upon \Vhich the pear was growing. It clearly indi­cates that the Land Administration Board have not the option of saying how much it shall be. The clause says it " shall " recover the expenses even if the land from which the pear was cleared was only a por­tion o: the land that belonged to the same owner on which it existed. The Minister must have known that in many cases in the past men fenced ofl' parts of the land be(ause it was not worth clearing. Under this clause it does not matter whether they fence it ofl' or not; the commission " shall " take the cost of cleariug such a. part from the value of the whole of the land of the individual owning it.

The SECREHRY FOR PCBL!C LAXllS: \Vlio has to clear the part that is fenced off?

Mr. MOORE: C\oborly. It wasn't wodh clearing.

The SECR!•;TARY FOR l'cBLJC L.\XDS: vVhom does it b8Jong to?

Mr. MOOHE: l'\ow there is no use in fencing it out. There is to be a liabilitv over tho whole of the man's area for the coct of something that has -been done, not to protect himself. bnt to protect the com­munity. He has to bear the whole burden. Previously, he could come to the court and that bod v was llot bound bv the Act to the extent that the Bill will bir1d it. The court could take into consideration chc -,,hole of the circurn~tances. L~nder this clau::::o there i3 no discn~tion at all-the con1mission is to l'CCOYCr the atnount \.Yhatcvcr it mav be. That is unfair. The v~-ork i.s done n~L for tlH~ sake of the ind.i,·idual, but for the bondlr of all in dw COlnlnunitY. Ho,Ycvcr, tllf• whole of the eo~,t is plac(~{_f on the indi,Tidual, and tlw only thing· that he can possibly do is to sdl out as quiddy as he can if he fmds he has such an ana of land.

The SECHETARY FOR PuBLIC L\XDS: That ~an1e po,ycr is in the Act.

Mr. llloore.]

396 Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

l\Ir. 1\IOOHE: It is not the same at all. This P"''"r is spccificall:· put in to cover fru:holcl land. lt was included bceausc of the cxperic·ncc thot the :\linietcr h>t<l in clearing- 1_1g-cr pear on frcPhold land at \\ arwick. tk~caLL"C it cost tlw Crov;n a goo 1 deaL dt8 11iui::-tcr lJO\V 1\'allts to ca:st tfw bnrd(•JI on to the individunJ on a portion of \\ ho:-:;e lalld this tiger pear i;-; growing-. ,:-\t ihat pal'ticular tiuw the :\Ilnjster rna(h_-' <U1 a.rrangemPnt, but this is not to b:.: :t

question of alTttngciHPllt nt alL It i:J to hn a quc:::tion of enforcing- the l('gal power CO!l­

talucd in the Bill, \Yhich I say i~ rnost unfair.

:\Ir. '·L\IIER (lrcsl Morctnn) [3.47 11.m.j: In view of the irnpro·;~._·n1cnt to the• clause in col.i...-;PlJLll'tJC'C of the an1l~lldtnent bv th~~ ~1.1iui:3ter, l will not prc.-:~~ ruy anlCiidrnZmt in rc,pc•d of the lirct p;uagraph. However. 1 wa.., jn~iified in drawing att'Jntior: to ihu fact that it is \Yise to allow timo to elapse' so that the c!l'ect of the work of tho cact"­blasti. can be fnlly considered by tlw Prickly-pear LaHd Cumrnission. Aftr~r hear­ing the discussion on the amendment moved by th0 lion. gt:ut1crnan I arn sarislied Hw t that will Le done. The in~Qriion of tht~ \Yorcb, '· reasonable steps " cover th::; eo:t dition.

Amendment (Jir. Pcosr:) ag-reed to. Clause 9, as arnendcd, agreed to. Clause 10-'' A.nundmr:nt of section 19-

Duty of Commission-Extension of terms of gra.>ing selection "-

)l~r. UODFREY l\IORUAK (Daluy) [3.43 p.m.]: This is the most dangerous clause in the l3ill and the one that savours most of rcpudiation-revudiation so far as the les~ep is cor~ccrncd. l arn sorrv that I could not speak at the f'8C01Hl reading stage; unfor.­tt:L'ttd: J had to t<.ndeq:;o <1 slight oporatcon ou that, i'JJL:Tno:nL The lvlinister allud~Jd tP the fad that I was n:ot pre·cent when he made certain remarks in reply to statements I made at tlw introductory stage. I llld rnake certain stat0ment". but I was not altogether in accord with them when I discovered the coltt.cnts of the llill. l am \'ery pleased that rny nm1arks were not in print ~D far as th:s Bdl is concerned.

Tlw ;\finister, by way of interjection, led me to believe that all prickly-pear selec­tions would come• under the clause that i:; now before the Committee, for during the initiation stage he said-

" EYcrvbodv kno,vs that in almost cYery a;ea !he pridd:~~-pea?.~ has been cleared bv tho insect cactobla,tis cactonun. " Before that iuscct was rolca::-:•d, the mnn wbo took ur) prickly­pear land~ftnd this is not many years ago-had a ycry heavy task in froJJt cJ hin1. The de~truetion of the pear took LPJ the \V hole of his time. However, aiong ca1nr· the Pric:k1y-pcar Land Com.­nlission and adopted proper rnethods to rlo the job. It introduced this lii.tle insect which relieved him of the wor!: and so changed the prickly-pear outlook. It is lhcrc'fore desirable that holding-' of prickly-pear lands should again be brought inlo line with holdings octtsiclc these areas.

" :Vir. Godfrc;; :\10l'gan: \Yill that apply to ordinary prickly-pear selections?

" The SECRETARY FOR PcBLIC L-IKDS: YPs."

[111r. Moore.

That is why I made the remarks to which he later referred. I was under the impres­sion from the :Minister's reply to my inter­jection that this Bill would deal with all forms of prickly-pear selections, and that those selections that can be made freehold after a certain period would be included in the operations of this clause.

The SECRETARY FOR PunLIC LAxns: I ha H' always said that all contractual obligations will be met by this Government.

:'vir. GODFREY MORGAJ\': Yet, by this clause the Minister proposes to altct' thP lease under which the man orig-inall0· took up the land. At present his lease provides that onlv after twentv years will the rents be reappraised. Now tho~ Ivlinister propo;;es to alter that.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLlC L.I)[DS: I do not. This is after his term. He still goes on for his term.

::Vlr. GODFREY ::V10RGAJ\': The first period is all rig-ht, but tho '\:linistcr propos•.;s to reduce the period of reappraisemeHt under this s0ction. Although at the p1·c•scnt n1on1rnt the h'ase says that there will be rt twenty­year period between reappraisements, he proposes to alter the time to ten :cears. After the fir_ .. t period grazing lands wil1 b0 reap­pntist'd every seven ye<Jrs instead of four­teen. and perpetual loescholds every fifteen years. The Government propose to say that although the man's lease proYides for thirty­year periods his land will be rcaj1praisecl eYcr0• fiftee-n years after the first period.

Th0 SECREnRY FOR Pl:BLIC LAJ>:DS: It is to hi.- benefit.

l\Ir. GODFREY l\fORGA:\': If it is to his be:Jcfit. ·,rill the ::Vlinister make it optional llnd allow the man to decide the question for him.-elf?

Thr• SECRETARY FOR Pc:BLTC LAXDS: '<o. :\lr. GODFREY MORGA='J: This. rtgaiu.

is repudiation. The Minister cannot got awav from that. He san that the Uovcrn­mecnt do not depart from their contracts in any way: yet here he proposes to alter a man's lease. 'l'he lease says that he has a second period of thirty years before reappraise­ment. The Minister sa vs that he must submit to reappraisement at the end of fifteen years. L: nder existing circumstances, after the first period. the rent would not he increased furthL·r until the expiration of another thirk Year~ but now tho J\finl'<ter dc~ircs tO increase it at the end of fifteen years.

The SECRETARY FOR Pc:BLIC LAKDS: The one in which you are int0re:c-tcd -cmncs up in 194q. If vou a re here in 1948 .,-e shall see "·hat hapiwns.

Mr. G0:0FREY MORGA::\f: 'I'he unes 1 am interost0el in poreonally are sub-freehold. I am Ycry pleased to know that the Bill will not interfere with ordinary prickly-pear selections, but it does interfAre with the pcrpdunl prickly-pear selections. I am not perscnall~T concerned. but. I have a son -,vho is interest cc! in a lea:~c of that kind. In 1948 he ·.yilJ come up for rcappraieement. T_;ncler his prccent lease, he WOu'd COme U[l

for rcapprai :cment in another thirty 0·cars, but this meaeurc will shorten the period to fifteen years.

The SECRETAP.Y FOR PcBLIC LAKDS : Ho will lw nry glad of that.

:\Ir. GODFREY ::\10RGAN: \Vhv does not tlte hon. gentleamn giYe him the 'option of

Land Acts [15 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 397

saying which he prefers? How hon. mem­bers can sav that that is not repudiation is bevond me: There is the printed contract un"der which the land has been taken up, and now it is to be broken. Looking at it as a politician, and from a propaganda point of view, it is a weli-known fact that all of those people took up their perpetual lease selections not from choice, but because thev had no other alternative under the Labour Government's legislation. The Moore Givernmcnt altered the tenure from per­petual lca-ehold to freehold, and gave people an opportunity of converting from perpetual leasehold to fre<-hold, and 90 per cent. availed themselves of that opportunity. That, by the way, proved "hi eh tenure they preferred" Previous to the defeat of the McCormaok Government, the Nationalist Party gained a great number of votes because men on the land said that although they had to take up land under perpetual lease they would vote for a Government whose policy was freehold.

If the present Government are going to repudiate their contract with the land­holders in this respect it will moan that there will be a 100 per cent. vote in favour of the Country Party. The people will not stand for repudiation or for failure to honour the contract into which they have entered with tho Government. They should be given the option. If it is for their benefit to take the shorter period the Minister proposes they will accept it, but if the contract is repudia­ted, the Government will lose their vote. I do not care what form repudiation may take, it is wrong, and the Government should not repudiate in this case.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : ·what about the repudiation of your election pro­mises?

:Ylr. GODFREY MORGAN: I never repudiated my election promises. I am not one of those simpletons who go to an election and mako promises. I have been too long at the g;amo to be caught in that way. I hope that the Minister will not persevere with this clause, unless he inserts an amend­ment that will at any rate give the present l·.'ssee a choice. If this is for his benefit let him make the decision, but do not force it upon him. It is wrong in principle for any Government to repudiate a contract; it smacks very much of Communism. vVhen Communists take control of a country they take possession of everything and regard it as the property of the State and in his great anxiety that the Crown should possess every­thing the Minister is perhaps working towards that ideal Whether he is or not I do not know, but that is the communistic ]Jrinciplc that is approved in Russia and in other countries that have adopted that system of society-that the interests of the individual should be subservient to the interests of the State.

::11r. TAYLOR: Upon what principle does Fascis1n operate?

At 4.3 p.m., Mr. GLEDS0:-1 (Ipsu-ich), ono of the panel

of Temporary Chairmen, relieved the Chair­man in the chair.

:\h. GODFREY MORGA?\: Just the onposito. I should say-that the Fasciet order of soC'ict:v .is in favour of private enterprise and-although this is not within the scope of the dc•ba\le-I can assure hon. membCl"s that the time is not far distant when the nations of the "orld "·ill have to decide whether they

arc on the side of Communism or whether they are prepared to fight for individualism.

Mr. PowER: 'What has Communism got to do with the Bill ?

Mr. GODFREY MORGA?\: It has got nothing to do with the Bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order !

:VIr. GODFREY MORGAN: I was drawn off the track by the hon. member. 'Ve approve of the Bill in the main but we object to and must vote against this clause involving repudiation, unless the Minister is prepared to accept a proviso to the effect that the settlers concerned may exorcise their option as to whether they will come under it. I object to the clause because it repudiates existing contracts.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS (The Hon. P. Pease, H erbert) f4.3 p.m.]: I propose to show the absurdity of the attitude taken up by hon. members opposite on this clause, The hon. member for Dalby does not even know the conditions under which the land he mentioned was taken up.

Mr. GODFREY Y!ORGAN: I do.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC I~ANDS: Is the hon. member quite satisfied that be does?

Mr. GODFREY MoRGA::>r: Yes. Go on.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: The hon. member is wrong. This block, No. 1316, 5,000 acres, was taken up at 2s. 6d. an acre under conditions that provided for reassessment every fifteen years. The selector declined to accept a reassessment period of thirty years, It was taken up in 1933 and it comes up for reassessment in 1948. I am very glad that the hon. membc1· for Dalby brought up this case.

::V[r. GoDFREY MoRGAX: I did not bring that case up.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LA :-lDS: That is the case that he was quoting. Hco brought it up to prove that the GoYOI'll­ment were repudiating a contract ·md when l asked him if it provided for what 1night be called a double reassessment period he said that it did. I have aecertainPd 1hat i~ provides for a reassessment period of fifteen years and so we are not repudjati:1g a contract.

Mr. GODFREY J1.,1oRGAN: You are going tu repudiate contracts with other people.

The SECRETARY FOR Pl'BLIC LAJ'\DS: The hon. member now changes his ground. The speeches made by hon. members opposite on this clause are intended as smoke screens because thev are satisfied that the GoYern­mcnt arc doing something in the interests of the selectors. They ant to mislead the people into belieYing that that is not th' intention of the Bill. but the onlv cctse the>" quoted v,as that of land taken up· in 1933--.:._

::\fr. GODFREY ::liORGAK: I did not quote it.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAXDS: The hon. member did and he told me dis­tinctly that it provided for a reassessment nc1·iod of thirtv years, whereas !h·· 1 C'riocl is fifteen years and it comes up for reassess­mcr.t in 1948. It show·, ho,,- sillv are the arguments of hon. rnembcrs oppos'ite. ThP\. use the en of repudiation belie ·iJJ:;· it to be> good political propaganda, \YhPreas Wf" a ro really preserving the interests nf the sottln·

Hon. P. Pease.]

:398 Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill

by gi.ving him every protection. I am glad to have been in a position to bowl out the hm,. member for Dalby.

If hon. members look at the position from a sensible point of view, and from the point of ,·iew of a Government irrespective of party, they must admit that there must. be " termination some day of the prickly-pear .conditions, ju·~\t as there was a termination ,of the soldier-settlement conditions at the end of a certain period. The special soldier-5ettlement conditions ended with the Pike Commission, when they came under the .ordinary land laws of the State. Prickly­pear leases will in the same way also come ·under the ordinary land laws of the State. It would not be fair to allow prickly-pear lessees to continue indefinitely under the .conditions of their original leases, simply :because at one time their land happened to be covered with prickly-pear. Every one realises that the destruction of prickly­pear was a very difficult task, and that is why special conditions were given by the Government. When the prickly-pear lessees rE•alise that their land will not come up for reappraisement until 1948, and that tho next reappraisement wilL not take place for a further period as stipulated in the lease, they will recognise the justice of this legisla­tion, because them must bn finality at some time as to special conditions.

The idea is that prickly-pear land that has been cleare-d of pear should come under the ordinary land laws. Is that not fair? If not, the other landowners will say "Why .can we not have these special concessions, and be treated in the same way as the prickly-pear lessees?" Is not fifteen years 11 fair time to stipulate before the land should be revalued? The Land Court will reappraise the land, not the Commission or the Minister. I say, as I did in the course of my second reading speech, that it is onlv reasonable to assume that the value of thee land at the end of that period will be much higher than it is to-dav. This shows the absurdity of tho contentions of the Dpposition, and their lack of knowledge of the question, especially when an ex-1\iinister did not know that members of his own family had elected to do what is now being sug­gested.

Mr. MAHER (T:Vest Morcton) [4.8 p.m.]: There is no doubt that the Minister in his second reading speech definitely mislead the House.

The SECRETARY FOR PCIBLIC LANDS: Xo, I did not.

:\1r. MAHER : I put the pointblank question to the Minister on that stage of the Bill " Does the Minister intend to respect existing leases?" and he replied, "Yes." It is very clear from our subsequent study of this rather intricate amendment, involving as it does amendments of the principal Act and subsequent amending .\cts, that the Minister is committing- a breach of contract with the lc,sees. The orig-inal conditions of the pastoral lessee, the grazing selector, and the perpetual leaseholder are being departed from by the Crown 'sithout their consent. That is straight-out repudiation.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: You will say anything.

:\1r. J'vTAHF:R: That is definite. Whv was the Minister not frank \vith the House.? \Vhy did ho not say what he was enclea.vour-

[Hon. P. Pease.

ing to accomplish instead of deluding it and giving an explanation that \Yas not correct: The position is clear. In the case of the pastoral les3ee the first period under ordinary circumstances is ten year,, but under the prickly-pear concession lease the first period is twentv years, that is to say. double the period must elapse before the lessee has to face reappraisement. Therefore, the man who took up a prickly-pear pastoral lease in 1924 would not come before the court for reappraisement before 1944. The Minister does not disturb that condition. But after that the prickly-pear pa.,toral lessee would under the original terms of his lease have another twenty years, that is, until 1964, before there would be a further appraisement. Under the Bill, however, the Minister decides that this lessee will have to submit to a reappraisement in 1954, ten years before the time laid down in his lease. The second period of the lease is halved for the purpose of reappraisement ! Why did not the Minister tell the House that in the beginning?

'I'he SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: I told you, but apparently you were too stupid to understand.

Mr. MAHF:R: The Minister did not tell us. The hon. gentleman stated that the lease was respected in its entirety. It is not just that the Minister should mislead the House deliberately in that way, when he well knew what he was seeking to do. The Bill amounts to a breach of contract. It can be described in no other word than repudiation on the part of the Crown with­out the consent of the lessee in the matter of the reappraisement period. A very high principle is involved, and the lessee should have the promise kept that the lease wi] be respected in it" entirety until it has expired. Thereafter the Crown may enter into any fresh agreement that may be necessary.

The reason for the attitude of the Govern­ment is not far to seek. The reason is to be found in the Minister's second reading speech on this Bill:-

" 'Vhen those lands were opened years ago, conditions were very different from those of to-dav. The evidence will show how much tl1at land has increased in value. It is safe to assume that thP valuations will be increased. If this Bill had not been introduced the increased valuations would have to stand for four­teen years instead of being reassessed every seven years (as is now proposed) in common with other land tenures."

That is a, very specious bit of special p~ead­ing, if I may use the term. The Minister knows full well that he has broken fa iti: with these lessee·'·, beca,uso ho recognises that the leases have increased in value because of the work of destruction c:trried on by the cnctoblastis insect. The hon. gentleman now saYs that the Crown desires to increase n•;1tals because of increased values, and so he has decided to halve the second period of reappraisement stated in the lease.

It is onlv reasonable to assume that with the improvement of the land, rrs a result of the work of the cactoblastis and the improYe­tnents the lessee carries out. rt"3ulting in increased production, the Minister will be able to make out a strong case before the Land Court for increased rentals in the second period. Tho J\Tinister is not satisfied to carry out the terms of the lease, he is not satisfied to get the increased rental oYer

Land Acts [15 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 391)

the whole of the second period of reappraise­ment (which goes up twenty years in the case of a pastoral lease), but brings the lessee closer to a further increase cf rental b:y halving that period provided in the lease. Why does not the hon. gentleman stick to honourable political conduct in this matter, and see that these men are justly done by?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : 'I'he hon. gentleman looks very annoyed this after­noon.

Mr. MAHFJR : I am. wardness and frankness matter of this kind. We if the lease was to be exempt us that it wonld be respected but on close investigation we is to be an interference with terms the lease that amounts to a breach of tract on the part of the Crown with lessee. No wonder that I express annoy­ance 1

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC LANDS : Do you say there should be no termination of the term of prickly-pear leases?

Mr. MAHER: The termination of the agreement is when the period of the lease expires. The. 'hon. ge~tleman. is governed by the lease entirely. H1s case Is parallel with the difficulty with the pastoral lessees of 1921, which involved the Theedere Govern­ment and caused a deputation to proceed to Great Britain. The Theodore Government discovered it could not be done. 'rhis is a similar case of breach of faith, breach of contract, and definite repudiation of an agreement entered into with the• selectors. When the second period expires there may be an increase in the rental-nobody can visualise what will 'happen in that review by the Land Court-but we are concerned with the maintenance of this high principle that an agreement between the Crown and a lessee as expressed in an instrument of lease shall be adhered to in all circum­stances.

Mr. O'KEEFE: What a.beut the reverse case when the Minister re.duees rentals?

Mr. MAHER: There is net much like­lihood of the Minister bringing forward legislation if such a prospect was in sight. It is only the prospect ef increased rentals that forces the Minister to consider legis­lation of this kind. He says that the lands have a now value because of the work of the cactoblastis, but instead of allowing the men who have worked and struggled on thosa lands to enjoy these benefits-'and be it remembered that his land was not wanted in 1924-8;nd instead of abiding by the terms of the ongmal agreement entered into with the Minister seeks to repudiate his contract because he sees a prospect of getting mcreased rentals. There is no doubt that the land has improved in value but why should not the original lessees 'those who took all the risks and the ch~nce of that increase in. value, be allowed to reap the benefit of 1t? Why seek to take it from them 1 They are the men who 'have done the country's job. All these men on the pnckly-pear areas are entitled to sympathetic consideration from this Government. I am surpriEed that the Minister and the Govern­ment 15enerally. are lending themselves to an. actwn of this kmd, whereby they break faith w1th tho prickly-pear selectors.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: We did not break faith. As the hon. member fot

admits, 'his son took up the land on conditions.

Mr. GoDFREY MoRGAN: That was his own funeral.

The SECRETARY FOR PcBLIC LANDS : He is one of thousands.

MORGAN: You repudiate the thousands.

FOR PUBLIC LA:-!DS: No, '""

I make this final appeal to the gentleman to recognise the eqmty of position of the prickly-pear lessee whether he be a pasteral lessee, grazing selector, ol'

perp:tual leasehelder involving prickly-pear conditions. Once again I ask the hon_ gentleman to consider favourably the amend­ment that is being proposed to clause 12 ar:c.l m. turn affects this clause: to give the pnckly-pear l_essee the option of saying whether he Will come under the provision.> of th1s B1ll or not, thereby restoring Parlia­rr:entary and (!"overnmental good faith with him. If the Mmister will accept that amend. Ir!ent on clause 12 it will obviate the neces­Sity for dividing the Committee on this clause. It will also be evidence that the Minister wishes to preserve good faith with the t:mants of the Crown, and that there is no risk that a lease entered into by the Crown and its customers-as the hon. gentle­man was pleased to term them-will be broken by an act of this Parliament. I appeal to the Minister to give me an assur­ance that he will accept that amendment.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN (Dalby) [4.20 p.m.J.: My son took up 01. perpetual lease se~ec;t10n on a fifteen-year period, and the Mm1ster does not propose to repudiate that.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: No.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: But the hon. gentleman proposes to repudiate the con­ditions of the leases of those people who took up land on a thirty-year period. B":c":use my son d!d ": certain thing, the Mm1ster says he rs ng'ht and wishes to bring all other p,eople under the same con­ditions. But at the time 'he took up that la!'d m~ son 'had the option of taking it wrt]:t either fifteen-year or t'hirty-;year periods. He select.ed the fifteen-year periOd. Whether 'he was Wise I do not know neither do I care, but the point is th~t those selectors who now have a thirty-year period should not oo made to follow in his foot­steps.

'I'here is not the slightest doubt that the Minister is altering their leases. The Leader of the Opposition WOI.s perfectly cor­rect when he said that the Minister misled us on the initiatory stage of the Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : Do you not think that prickly-pear leaseholders should come under the provisions of the Land Acts at some time or other?

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: I do not care what happened in the past or what

Mr. Morgan.]

. 400 Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill •

will happen in the future. I say that if the Government have an agreement with an individual they should stick to it whether they stand to win or lose. If the agree­ment is in their favour they will stick to it; if it is against them they should stick to it. "The Government should be sports. If l .sell the lease of a run-down hotel for a period of ten years at a rental of £1 a week and a gold mine breaks out within a few hundred yards of that hotel, and a. town springs up, will the Minister say that it is right and proper for me to say to the purchaser of the lea.se, " Now that this town has sprung up around the hotel you will nave to pay me £5 a week, although I sold you the lease for ten years at £1 a week when there was nothing here" ?

'l'here is no doubt that the Minister wants .these leases to come up for reappraisement .at an earlier date because he wants to get more money out of the tenants as soon as possible.

The SECRETARY l)'QR PUBLIC LANDS : They will not come up at an earlier date. Every· .one will come up at the date set down m the lea.;;e.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: That is for the first pericd, but during the second period he will be called up earlier than provided for in his lease. The second and third .reappraisements will not be in acoordanoe with the lease. Why not admit it?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Neither will the land be prickly-pear land once :it is cleared.

Mr. GODFREY M ORGAN : I can show the hon. gentleman land in my own elec­torate to-day with as much pear on it as there is on the floor of this Chamber. If he cares to go over that land in twelve months he will see tha.t the seedlings have sprung up all over it and that the pear will be as thick as the hair on a eat's back. The seeds are in the land. We ,know that the seed will remain in the ground for at lea.st eight years before it germinates. If it pa.sses through the body .of a bird or an animal it will germinate sooner, but under ordinary conditions it may not germinate for eight years, There­fore, we cannot say that we are rid of that pear until after at least another eight or nine years, or perhaps longer.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : You have a great imagination.

Mr. GODFREY M ORGAN: The hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about when he says that. We have proof that what I sa.y is correct. Mr. Payne, the Oha.irman of the Land Administration Board,, -will. agree with me. Dr. Jean White, who experimented in all these pear areas, and who was responsible for the dis­covery of arsenic pentoxide as a. destroyer of the pear, ha.s shown that if a seed is treated with acid it will germinate in a few days, but if not so treated it will remain in the !>round for years She has proved also that it will germinate quicker once it, passes through the body of a bird or an aniinal.

But that is not the point. The point is that the Government have entered into a lease with certain people, and they are repudiat­ing- that contract. If the people do not fulfil that contract the Government have power to step in and forfeit their leases. "That is right, but now they are going to say

[Mr. Morgan.

to these people, "Notwithstanding the faet that you are fulfilling the contraet and that we have got nothing against you, we are going to alter your lease in a certain particular." That lease ought not to be altered in any way.

Mr. BELL (Fassifern) [4.26 p.m.]: During his second reading speech, the Minister made statements which led us to believe that there would be no interference with the existing contracts of the settlers. When the hon. member for Aubigny was discussing a certain amendment that he proposed to move, the Minister interjected and said, " Make it optional." I thought the Minister would have accepted the amendment, as it would overcome most of the difficulties that we could see in this Bill.

I want to endorse the remarks of the Lea.der of the Opposition. This side will not stand for the slightest scintilla of repu­diation, and whatever the Minister may say, this Bill does repudiate a term of ,a contract that the Government made with its lessees.

Mr. MOORE (Aubigny) [4.27 p.m.]: When the Prickly-pear La.nd Act wa.s passed in 1923, a section was to enable lessees of prickly-pear land to come under its pro­visions, so far as the extension of the period of their reappraisement was concerned, within six months of the passing of the Act or such further time as the Minister might agree to. A large number came under it, and one of the rea.sons was because of the security that the longer period gave them. Now the Minister says that because the lands have increased in value he is going to wipe out that period, and provide that this clause shall be deemed to have been put into the Act cf 1923.

The hon. gentleman is as pleased as a child with a new toy, because he has dis­covered that the son of the hon. member for Dalby took up land under the principal Act and sel-ected the fifteen-year and not the thirty-year period. What has that got to do with it? Because he took it up under that condition-by choice-the Minister has no right to alter the tenure of other people, the ninety and nine that did not ta.ke it up under that condition.

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC LANDS : We should have had to alter the tenure sooner or later.

At 4.28 p.m., The CHAIRMAN resumed the chair.

Mr. MOO RE: It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to say that. All I can say is that these people selected land under a special Act of Parliament of 1923, and under certain definite conditions. One was that if they wished there should be double periods instead of a. single period for reappraisement.

The SECRiETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : They got that double period.

Mr. MOO RE : Yes, the first period, but it was to continue for the second period. An option was given to come in under the Act so as to get the greater-because the longer-security. Now the Minister says he is going to bring these people within the ordinary provisions of the Land Act, and take away the special provisions under which they took up the land. That is absolute repudiation. 'I'here is no need to put that clause in the Bill, and say that it shall be deemed to have been put there in 1923. It

Land Acts [15 SEPTEl\IBER.] Amendment Bill. 401

is taking away the rights and privilegBs that were given to lessees by a special Act of Parliament passed in 1923. Nothing is to be gained by the Government. What is the object, except that the hon. gentleman thinks he might got a little more rent with the seven-year period than with the fifteen, or the ten-year period instead of the twenty, or the fifteen-year period instead of the thirty.

The gain to the Crown will be infinitesimal co:nparcd with "hat it will lose by alterillg­the existing terms and conditions. It may gain a little by way of increased rcntals in the future when the reassessment~ are made, but the Minister said that he would not be here then and so that did not matter.

I ob.iect to the Government's disturbing a tenure granted under a special Ad of Parliament merely because the Minister say' that special circumstances have increased the value of the land. If we were to repudiate every contract because special circumstanBos had altered conditions there would be little security anywhere. I do not suppose that the clause wili mean more than an additional £50,000 for the Government by way of revenue, but it will make a great difference to the settler in his feeling of less security. I s_trongly object to the principle. It is entirely wrong, and I cannot sec how the Crown will reap any advantage. The clause :will not opera~e for a number of years and 1t would be time enough to deal with the matte1· then. On a previous cl a use the Mnnster refused to accept an amendment to increase the concossional period from two year~ ~o five years, and pointed out that if conditiOns became worse another Bill could be introduced, but in this clause ho is anti­cipating ~hat s'?mething will happen at the very earliest e1ght vears hence. \Vhv not lea Ye it until then f ·

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: We hav" to alter the tenure of prickly-pear lands now.

Mr. 1\100RE: The Mini•tor is speaking J1S 1f pnckly-pear was non-existent in Queens­land. Why, there are millions of acres of prickly-pear in the State.

The SECRETARY FOR PCBLIC LAKDS: And millions of acres ha,-e been cleared.

1\lr. MOORR: I grant that, but we do not know how rapidly the seedlings will reappear Plenty of land that was almost cleared of pear 0ighteen months ago is carrying a thick growth over a foot high to-clay.

The SECRETARY FOR PCBLTC L\KD;: 'The Land Court will take all those matters into consideration when reassessing the land.

1\Ir_ MOORE: It may do so, but whv alter the conditions? If the Land Cour't ~t·ill do that there is nothing to be gained by the clause except the disturbance of the original tenure.

The SECRETARY FOR PCBLIC LAKDS: That destroys your ovvn argument.

Mr. :c\IOORE: "'o. The Minister wants to take a special case and make it of general application. l-Ie said that a lot of land had been c:eared. We hope that it is. A lot of it has been brought under cultivation and "-o hope it will continue under cultivation, but I cannot see what advantage is to accrue to the Crown from this clause. It will mean only e, disturbance of the original terms and ~onditi'?ns, which will make for a feeling of 1nsecunty.

There is no reason vvhy the :.\1inister should not accept an arucndnr0nt to make it ovrional with the settler. As he is not prcparu,_l to do that, then obvious!:,- the clause is not fm the benel1t of the settler, but for the oenefit of the Crown. It will bring about a feul;ng of insecurity by destroying an existing fl grce­ment between the sett !er and the Cro 'Yn,

Mr, DEACO:X (Cunninoham) [4.33 p,m.l: The other day the MinistPr assured us that the existing contracts would continue, but it is qnite vlain frorr1 his rernarkR to-day that the other party to the agreement is not to be consulted and that the terms and condi­tion'" entered into sorne _yeara ago are to be altered to the disadvantage of the settler_ lle is to be placed in a worse po.:;jtion sirnply because the Minister is of the opinion that the land has turned out to be more valuable than he expected. vVhen those lease, wore granted the Crown was only too pic,,scd to mduce people to take up the pnekiy-pear country, to clear it and bring it under pro­duction, but having done that the Minister proposes to override the, contract bv substi­tuting another a good deal wm:sc. ;'./ o Government has the right to alter conh-acts relating to land simply because the land turns out to be more valuable than as expected. If a man contracts to get wag8s for a specified period that agreement cannot be varied.

Mr. POWER: You took many workers awav from the Industrial Court.

Mr. DEACO::-.J: The hon. member knows very well that a worker who has a contract with a private employer to receive certain wages and conditions can enforce that con­tract or obtain damages for breach of it. In this case, the Government are seeking to break the conditions of a lease with certain leaseholders. That, in itself, is a distinct breach of contract. The 1\'Iinister has admitted that the conditions of th" lease will be altered for the worse. If the Government affirm that principle in the case of the prickly-pear lessee, they can act likewise in respect of any lessee. Years ago the Govern­ment sold land at a certain price, payabl<? in instalments. It is possible that some of that land is now "'orth more than the present owner, originally paid for it. If the Govern­ment can treat the prickly-pear lessees in this manner thev can also review the con­ditions of those sales.

The Minister has no right to take thi,; action and will not gain anything by it. It is dangerous to break a contract. n did not help a previous Labour Government to do so \vith the pastoral lessees. Their action darnagc'd the credit of the State then to such an extent that it could not obtain a loan becausf> investors were afraid of a Govern­ment that would not respect the sanctity of a contract. If the Government enact that principle in this Bill then sooner or latc-r the country will pay for breaking faith with these lessees. Everv Government that en ten into a contract mu~t stand b:,· that contract Ol' suffer the consequences.

'\h. ED\YARDS (Xananqo) r4,39 p.m.l: Tlw Government treat settlers wrongly. Confidence is the principal feature of success­ful land settlement. The new settler must h:1Y8 confidence that after clearing and in111roying- the land for a number of years b) bring it to a stage of dcvelopn1ent where it will be reyenuc producing, his <:onditions

Mr. Eclu;anls.l

402 Land Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

will not be interfered with. The GoYerH· uwnt do not seem to take that fact into con­sideration. It 5eerns that if the opportun ty arises for the Governrn,·nt to ol1tain an extra pound or two from the settler the,· will not hesitate to take it. The GoYernment are to-day carrying out a policy sirnilar, in many respeds, to the policy carried out by the Labour Government under l\1r. lVIcCorrnack. I remember introducing a deputation to that gentleman, on behalf of married returned soldier settlers, who after clearing their land had been able to make a bare living from it. The revaluation board had decided, in its wisdom, to write off all unpaid dues of sing-le men. These dues mostly concerned ach~ances for the falling of scrub. A number of single men abandoned their land after falling the first portion of scrub or fmest. whereas the married men stnck to thcie holdings and completed its improvement. For doing so they were called upon by the Government to repay the whole of the advances owing. 11r. McCormack asked us-

" If I do not take the money from you, whom will I get it from?"

That is a wrong policy to adopt in land settlement. The Government obtain benefit from land settlement in many directions. After all, there is no better spender in the community than the settler, who spends the mone!· he receives for his produce on develop­ing his property and buying machinery; he increases the wealth of the State and creates employment.

The inclusion of a clause of this nature will have the effect of destroying that con­fidence in contracts that is essential to suc­cessful land settlement. A visit to the farm­ing and grazing centres convinces one that that degree of confidence is not present. The outlook of the settlers is chiefly to get out as soon as they can get enough money to go elsewhere.

Mr. HEALY: What is creating the lack of confidence.

Mr. EDWARDS: The hindrances that have been placed on the settler.

Mr. l-IEALY: The financial institutions are responsible.

Mr. EDW ARDS: No, taxation is largely responsible for that lack of confidence. The people on the land do not know what is going to happen next. Providing for the reap­praisement of land at a different period than was provided for in the agreement with the settler will destroy the confidence of the settler still further. As I said a few days ago, the Government are pursuing a wrong policy. They should do everything that wicl improve conditions in the country and create confidence in the people on the land. If that were done our unemployment diffi­culties would vanish. It is in the country that people should be employed, and the lack of employment in the country is largely due to the fact that the people have lost the confidence that is essential to the develop­ment of a holding, whether large or small.

Mr. KIXG: That is not right.

Mr. EDW ARDS: I know why the hon. member says that. Owing to the large num­bers of voters in the big centres of popula­tion, hon. members who represent those centres are not game to tell them that they will hetve to make a sacrifice and help in the development of this country by going further

[J1r. Edtcards.

out for \York. Hon. members are prepared to encourage and assist those \Yho flock to the larger centres of population in every possible way, irrespective of the financial drain on the country. \Ve have a huge country that requires an enormous an1ount of finance and much hard work to develop, yet we are bleeding it white. \Vhen the Government realise that fact, and adopt the means I suggest, three-quarters of their uncmploy­meut problems will .-anish.

~~ucstion-" That clause 10, n::; rcacl. stand part of the Bill "-put; and the Committ'"' diYided :-

l\ir. Brassington Brown Bruce Bulcock Cl ark Collins Conroy Cooper Copley, P. K. Dash Duggan Dunstan Foley Gair Gledsoil Haycs Healy Hi !ton Hi slop Hynes

Mr. Kane Keogh King Larcon1be lHann J\IcLean :IIullan O'Keefe Pea~e Power Smith Taylor ·waters Weiiington \Villian1s, H. \Villiams, T. L.

'fellers: .lesson Riordan

l'\OES, 12.

.\1r. Clayton Daniel Deacon Edwards M a her Moo re M organ

Mr. Nimmo Russell Walker

Tellers: Bell Nicklin

Resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 11-" ,t m end m cnt of section Vi­Periods of Xe10 Holdings "-agreed to.

Clau,se 12-"0JICration of amendment"­

Ylr. 1IOORE pul'i(fny) [4.52 p.m.]: I pro pose to move the following amendment :-

'After line 32 insert the follo' ing rroviso :-

' Provided that any lessee of a pastoral holding or selection affected by such sections may in the pre­scribed manner within six months after the comm~ncement of this Act, notify the Minister of his desire to have his lease excluded from the provisions therein contained, and m such case his lease shall not be affected by such provisions.' "

When we were discussing this Bill on its second reading, the Minister, either jocularly or otherwise, suggested that the amendments affected b,- this clause be made optional. I said that if the Minister was prepared to make it optional our objections to the Yar~-­ing of the conditions of the lease would be overcome. \Ve have no complaint if the Minister makes it optional, but we do object to a lease being altered without the oonsent of the lessee, as is proposed by this 13ill. The Minister seems to think that he can excuse his insertion of this clause by saying that the prickly-pcfLr tenure must be altered at some time or other. All leaseholds-with the exception of perpetual leaseholds­expire exactly as the Minister proYidcs in clause 11 for nRw lea 3CS. The ~\Iinistcr is

Land Acts [15 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment BZ:ZZ. 403

not satisfied with that. In addition to .applying to new leases, he wants the pro­visions of this clause to apply to existing 'leases. agreements that have already been made. [ should not. have the slightest

•e>bjcction to the Minister laying down such conditions as he thought were equitable in ·connection with new leases. If he though~ .that seven, ten, or fifteen year periods wer<o ,prderable to fifteen, twenty, and thirty y•mr periods, that would be perfectly in Ol'del•­the people taking up those leases would 'know the conditions under which they were doing so-but I do object to the alteration •of an agreement with a tenant of the Crown without that tenant's consent. If the Minister was prepared to give an option-and if. as he says, this is for the benefit of the settler. he should have no fear in doing w-I should be satisfied.

It must be recognised that the cactoblastis cactorum is a comparatively recent introduc­:tion. In 1923, when the Prickly-pear Land Act brought all pear selections under the Prickly-pear Land Commission, much work was being carried out, and as the Minister Df that day said when he was introducing the Bill, he desired to give the people who had taken up this land, and were putting in a lot of hard work and getting very little :return, a r:oncession and security as a cam­ponsation for the class of land that they had taken up. Compensation and security ! 'Those were the two leading features in his speech. He desired to give them both to those people who had taken up this parti­'Cular class of land. Now, in 1936, thirteen years afterwards, be<2ause conditions have altered to a certain extent-by no means to the extent that the Minister would have us belieYe-he wants to terminate that com­pensation, and destroy that security even to the extent of altering the terms and

·conditions of their leases by providing that his amendments shall be deemed to haYe been made in the Act of 1923 ! That is the principle to which we object. My amendment would still give the Minister the opportunity of determining a lease. Whether the remarks of the hon. gentleman during his second reading speech were jocular or not I ask "him to make it optional so that the' people may have a chance of choosing which form of tenure they prefer. The terms of their contracts should not be altered conclusively by an Act of Parliament.

'll1e SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LXi\'DS (Hon. P. Pease, H erbert) [4.57 p.m.]: This Bill is entirely for the bendit of the settlers, and the sole purpose of the Government is to take care of them. Since I made mv Bpcech hon. members opposite haYe accused rne of saying various things, but they have left out of account what I actuallv said. In no imtancc did I say the things that hon. members opposite hav~ mentioned.

\Y o arc taking care of our custon1ers. The first reappraisement will be due in 1948. I do not think that very many of us will Le hen' then-I do not expect to be Secretary for Public Lands then-but we do say that the Land Court shall determine the reap­praisement period on the conditions existing in 1948. Taking- a long-range view and a con11non sen~e y]ew. \Ve realise that the Land Court will make the rent very much higher than it is to-day. The settkrs of that day whoee rent will be increased should have the same rig-ht as settlers under other tenures ·who will then only be reassessed for the

ordinary periods in the Land Acts, and that is the purpose of this clause. I am, however, quite prepared to make it optional.

I have said several times during the passage of the Bill, that there must be a time when the special conditions affecting prickly-pear lands will cease. That has been provided for in clauses 10 and 11. Clause 12 deals with what is called the operation of the amendments made by clauses 10 and 11, and I am quite prepar"d to let the present settler elect to retain the double reappraisement period in 1948 or take the single period.

I cannot accept the amendment, because I do not think that it quite covers the posi · tion, but I am prepared to move an amend­ment providing for the insertion of a new clause 12A, as follows :-

" Any lessee of a pastoral holding or selection affected by sections 10 or 11 of this Act may in the prescribed manner within six months after the commence­ment of this Act, notify the Minister of his desire to have his lease excluded from the provisions contained in the said sections, and in such case his lease shall not be affected by such sections."

Mr. MOORE: That is acceptable to me. Clause 12, as read, agreed to.

".Yew clause 12A "-

The SECRE'I'ARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. P. Pease, Herbert) [5.2 p.m.]: I move the following amendment-

" On page 7, after clause 12, insert the following new clause-

' 12A. Any lessee of a pastoral hold­ing or selection affected by sections 10 or 11 of this Act may in the pre­scribed manner within six months after the commencement of this Act, notify the Minister of his desire to have his lease exc:udcd from the pro­visions contained in the said sections, and in such case his lease shall not be affected by such sections.' "

New clause agreed to.

Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to. Clause 15-" Amcnd111ent of 'J'he Irriga­

tion ,-lets A.mr"nd1flcnt ;1rt of 1933 '-Occupa­tion licenst:s "~

Mr. MAI-IER (West Moreton) [5.3 p.m.]: I move the fo!Cowing amendment:-

" On pa"e 9 lines 30 to 33, omit the \vords-

0

'

' (2). The :Minister may in his dis­cretion without notification grant to any person an occupation license in respect of any Crown land "·ithin an irrigation area at such rent per square mile as may be fixed by the J\1inister.' "

I do not like this clause·. which saYOLUS of an opportunity for political patronage. The l\hni:3ter can grant an occupation licen' e without any notification to people who may wish to compete for it that the land is to be m:>de available. I think that every reasonable-minded member will agree that it is liot good in principle that the j\linister should be aJowed to grant an occupation lic•:nse in any district without notification that the land is to be made available under that tenure. Tilt-re art: ahvavs a nun1bcr of people in a district who hax'8 their eyes on a block of Crown land that is likely to become available under occupation license,

JJ1r.1J1aher.]

404 Land Acts Amendment Bill. [ASSEJ\1BLY.) Questions.

and it is only right that they should be given a fair chance of securing it. The Land Acts 1910-1931 contain this section:-

" The ::\'1inistcr rnay, in his di~CTPtion. hv notification, declare any Crown land to be open for occupation under occupa­tion license-"

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC LANDS : That is not right.

Mr. MAHER: It is taken from the Land Acts.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAKDS: "\Yith­ont notification."

Mr. MAHER: :'\o. I specially looked at it.

" The Minister may, in his discretion, by notification, declare any Crown land to be open for occupation under occupa­tion license, and in such case the follO\Y· ing provisions shall be applicable:-

(i.) Such notification shall specify the area to be occupied and the rent per square mile. and appoint a place and a time, not being less than twenty­eight days from the date of the notifi­cation, at which the land will be so open; and at and after the time so notifwd the land shall be open for occupation accordingly;

(ii.) Applications for licenses shall be lodged 1rith the land agent;

(iii.) The first applicant shall be entitled to the license:

If there are simultaneous applica­tions, the Commissioner shall, at the time appointed for considering them, cause the land to be offered at auction to the s8\·eral applicants and to no other persons; and the applicant who makes the highest bid for such land. and pays the amount of the rent so bid bv him to the land agent shall be declared thc> sucrecsfnl applicant, and the annual rent pay­able by him in respect to such land sha l1 be the amount so bid instead of the notified rent."

That is a Yery sensible provision. It insists that the Minister shall give notification that the land is ayailable under occupation license so that those who YYish to compete for it can do so. I did find in the principal Act a fnrthrr ~ection that rcad:-3 \ crv rnuch like the one in the Bill. but just wh.v that form should ],, adopted in this clause I do not kilO,~:. The position ~hon1d be cleared np, and \Vll('l'8 orcupation licenses are concerned notification should be given bv the Minister in the district where tlw land is situatcc1 in order that all interested persons ma.y have an opnortunity of securing- it bv tl1c men,ns the principal Act sets out. "

The SECRETARY FOR Prm.H; LA:'\TJS (lion. P. Pease, Hrrbcrt) [5.8 p.m.]: All the provisions of the Lands Art applv to land affected by this Bill. If the LPader of the Opposition reads th0 Bill he YYill sec that il so. I do not know where the hon. gentleman found the section from which ho read. bnt it is Ynong. Section 46. which he purported to quote. reads-

" Tbc ::\Jinister maY, in his discrct'on. vi-ithout notification. grant to anv person an occunation Eren-:c in r·'snc'ct of anv Cro1-Yn land nt s11ch r0nt per .lsquar0 rnilC as rnay b2 ftxrd by the ~I-1nistcr."

Y1r. :\1AHEH: I admit that s0ction e"Cicts. The section I read was 45.

[Mr. Maller ..

The SECHETARY FOR Pl'BLIC LANDS: All the provision· .. of the principal \et are applicable, to land under this Bill, that is to say. this Bill is g·overned b:v all nrovisions contained in tho principal Act. This clause is designed to bring irrigation lands into line with the Land Acts. PrcYiously irriga.­tion lands were subject to a special Act. but now they are brought under the_ pro­Yisions of our general land la.ws. I w1sh to as3ure t)w Committee that every provision of the principal .. \et is applicable to lands tmrler this Bill.

)\lncndment (Jfr. Jfahcr) negatiYed. Clause 15, as road. agreed to. Cl a uses 16 an cl 17 agreed to. The House remmed. The CHAIR1IAK reported the Bill with

a rncndrnents. Third reading of the Bill made an Order

of the Day for to-morrow. The House adjourned at 5.12 p.m.