Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Council

TUESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 1915

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

JJiet1·opolitan Sewerage \

[19 OcTOBER.] Workers' Award Bill. 1343

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

TUESDAY, 19 OcTOBER, 1915.

The PRESIDE>::r (Hon. Bir- Arthur Morgan) ·took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

PAPER.

The following paper, laid on the table, was ·<Jrdered to be printed:-

Annual report of the Chief Protector of Aboriginals for the year 1914.

TOO\VONG PARK BILL.

THIRD READING.

On the motion of the SECRETARY FOR MIXES (Hon. W. Hamilton), the r~hectule >:as amended by the insertion on page 6. lme 17. after the word "this," of the word " fifteen," ;;nd by the in,ertion in the same 1ine, after the word " of," of the word "'June."

The Bill "as then read a third time, •pa•·sed. and ordered to be returned to the Assembly by mes'age in the usual .form.

Jl.lETROPOLITAN SEWERAGE WORKERS' AW.\RD BILL.

CO:\lMITTEE.

(Han. TV. F. :Taylor in the· chair.)

Clause 1-" Short title "-put and passed. On clause 2-'' Date of cor'lmencement of

nwtropolitan sc~.':erago "\Yorks enlploYees' award"- ·

Ho'S'. E. 1\-. H. FOWLES: Th0 decision of the Council on the second reading ap­/)eared to have been pretty clearly that the workmen should receive their w:tges, and that the wa:ms should not come out of the po~kets of the contractors, but should be P":Id by thn Government, ho made the mistake. He therefore moved the addition ·of the followin.~ proviso to the clause:-

" Provided always that this Act shall not commence and take effect until the Crown shall have indemnified or under­taken to indemnify the employers affected by the s_md a :wa:~ in respect of all retrospective habihty imposed upon them by this Act."

'The an_wnd:nent merely gave the Government an optwn m the _matter. I~ laid no charge :m ~he revenue.; It appropnated no money; It siml!ly provide<;! that the Act should not ·come I~to operatwn until the Government mdemrnfied t,he employers affected by the awa_rd. Io. did not compel the Government to mdemmfy ~hem; but said that, if the Goyernment Wished the monPy to be paid the Government ultimately should pay it: There was no doubt that "as the fairest way of '?'leetmg the po"'ition. 'l'he money <'ould ea,qJ3' ,be appropriated in the Supple­mentary Estimates, and he vco.s sure there would be no obj•cdion raised in another pla.ce. The clause had been drafted bv emment, co~msel out?ide that Chamber, and he had. chnr authonty for saving that it in no wa:: transgr_essed the privileges of the Assembly. It simply gave the Government two rofids to take, but did not force them to take either, or to spend one penny.

The CHAIRMAN: I have given ver;y serious consid.,ration to the amendment just proposed by the hon .. member, !'nd I have come to the followmg conclusion:­That the proposed amendment makes the amount of money payable under the award to the workmen by the employers a charge upon the consolidated revenue fund before the Act can come into operation. The prin­ciple of payment to the workmen of the money allotted to them by the award ia admitted by the Counc,J in passing the s~Jond reading of the Bill ; therefor••, tae IVithholding of payment to the workmen until the Crown has indemnified or undertaken to indemnify the' employers, is contrary to that principle, as it makes the payment a Pontingency dependent on certain conditions. Further, the amendment imposes a charge or t:rx on the consolidated revenue fund contrary to the provisions of the Constitution Act of 1867, as expreesed in sections 2 and 18, as follows:-

"\Vi thin the said colonv of Queem>­land, Her :)lfajesty shall have power, by and ,vith the advice and consent of the said Council and Assembly, to make Ia>~ 3 for the peace, welfare, and good covcrnment of the colony in all cases y,.~hat,oevcr:

" Provided that all Bills for appropri­ating any part of the public revenue for irnposing any ne\V tax, rate, or impost, subject alwa:.·s to tho limitations here~ inafter provided, shall originate in the Legislative Assembly of the said colony."

It may be argued that this is an amendment and not a Bill for appropriating any part of the public revenne, but the effect is the same, as the amendment appropriates part of tJ:>e pu_blic revenue, ":nd it is evidently the mtenhon of the section to prevent the Legislative Council from appropriating any part of the public revenue. There is also a restrictio'l placed upon the Ler.(islative Assembly, for it can only appropriate anv part of the public money when recommended by a me"age from the Governor. Section 18 says-

" It shall not be lawful for the Legis­lath-e L\sscmbly to originate or pass anv vote, resolution, or Bill for the appr•J­priation of any part of the said ctonsoli­dated reYenue fund or of anv other tax or impost to any purpose \vhich shall not first haye been recommended by a mes;oage of the Governor to the said LPgislatiye Assembly during the session in which such resolution or Bill shall be paHed."

The effect of this proposed amendment if passed, 'Yould be to appropriate a part of the pubhc revenue, which the Council has no power to do, amf the Assembly can only do by a message from the Governor. For these reasons he considered that the amend­ment was unconstitutional, and, therefore, could not be put.

Ho~. E. W. H. FOWLES': This origin­ated a most interesting position with regard to the amendment, and, with all due defer• ence to the c0nsidered opinion of the Chairman of Commit_tee'•, he must beg lc.ave to respectfully differ completely from his statements as to the diect of the amend­ment. On the face of it, it said merelv that this Act should be a dead letter unle'ss the Government liked to make it :'live. It forced the Government to do nothing but it said it fhould be a dead· letter unle~s the Government made it alive by appropriating

Hon. E. W. H. Fowles.]

1344 JJletropolitan Sewerage [COUNCIL.] Workers' Award Bill.

the money. It did not appropriate money at all. He might also suggest that there would be no need for a validating measure to come from the Governor with regard to thi, Bill. What the Chairman had ruled was that no money measure could originate in the Assembly without a message from the Governor. This part of it, at all events, did not originate in the Assembly; there­fore that ruling had no bearing whateYer, because this had originated, if it was a money measure at all, in the Council; but the point was that there was nothing what­ever to prevent the Government on the Sup­plement'Lrv Estimate' including an amount of £1,500 "to cover the expenditure, because the Supplementary .Estinoates would haYe been preceded by a message from the Governor. They "ere not there to dictate to the GoYernment in any way.

The SECRETARY FOR J\llr::-;ES: What if the Governor refused to put that amount on the Supplementary Estimate' or refused to give his sanction ?

Hm;. E. W. H. FOWLES: Then the Go­vernment could easily bring in a short Bill indemnih-ing the contractors, which could be done· in a quarter of an hour, and it was better to do that than do what appeared to him to be an injustice. vYith the greatest possible de>ferenee for the· Chair, he was in­clined to think that the same effect could be got by another amendment, although still holding the opinion that the last amendment in no way transgressed the priYi­leges of the other House, and m no way went past the privileges of the Council, because " :\Iay " said they could eYen send down a money amendment; it was for the other House to reject it. Their rights vvent to the r.ending down of a money amend­ment, which it was for the other House to reject, so tha~ they were not transgressing even if they said the Governmenl must appro­priate this amount out of revenue. But they were not doing that; they were not s":ying that the Government must appropnate; they were saying that if they made this measure a live measure then they must indemnify; they did not say from what source.

Han. P. J. LEAHY: They might give thb money out of their own pocket.

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES: They did not make a ,charge of one halfpenny on the Government.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : You lay an imposition that the Bill cannot become law unless there is an amount drawn from the public revenue. That is the stipulation.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: But they gave the option to the Government for it to be­come effective or not, and they said that it need not become effective; rather let it be ineffective than do a glaring injustice. Although that amendment was drawn by K~1inent counsel outside the House with all the authorities before them, and with their considered ownions that it in no way infringed any of the privileges of the other House or went beyond the Council's own rights, another amendment might probably pass the Chair, and be unobjectionable to the Government, and he would be very pleased if the Council would allow him to withdraw the first amendment so that he could put a second amendment, namely-

" Provided that this Act shall not impose any retrospective liability on the contractors affected by the said award."

There was nothing about imposing liability

[Hon. E. W. H. Fowles.

on the revenue there. The contractors were·· a third of those affected bv the Act. All the water and sewerage ernployec'l would come under the Act and, in fact, they were under the Act at the pre•cnt time, as they ,_,,ere being paid the extra . wages. The \Vater and Sewerage Board paid those extra. wages in defiance of the Industnal Court <end of the Full Court.

Hon. E. J. STEYCXS : J'\ot under the Act, because the Act is not passed.

Hox. E. W. H. FOWI.ES: They made the a ward rctrospecti ve before this Bill came in-and it was an act of grace on the part of the \Vater and Se1verage Board­but they did so although the men could not claim it until the Bill was passed.

The SFCRETARY FOR ::\11::-:;ES : Some of the CDntractors paid it Yoluntarily.

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES: Some of those who went insolvent.

The SECRETARY FOR :\fiXES: ::'\o; ::\Ir. :Yiidson paid it. He did not go insolvent. He was a contractor under the \Yater a.nd Sewerage­Board. It was part of the scheme of the Cabbage-trer' Creek dam.

Hox. E. \V. H. FOWLES: That brought about a pretty piece cf litigation; it cost £7.000 on one side.

The SECRETARY FOR :Vlr::-;Es : ='Jot in this matter.

Hox. E. W. H. FO\YLES: That would >till leave the Act to apply to two-thir~& of the classes of persons intended, and rt would still be left open to the Government ta do the generous thing towards th~ e~­ployees if they liked; at a.ny rat~, _rt ~hd not bind the House to do a rank lllJUStwe. He submitted, under circumstances like these, that the representative of the Govern~ent might do the graceful as well as tJ::e JUst thing, and say, "\Ve will no~ penalise the innocent contractors; we will allow the Government to make amends for their own mistake." ·

The SECRETARY FOR Jl.ir::-;ES : It is not this GoYernment's mista.ke.

Ho-N. E. W. H. FOWLES : But still they were the Goyernment, a.nd the Government went on. The Order in Council was drawn up in August last year, and that Order in Council did not include the number of people it was intended to do. He asked leave to­withdraw his first a.mendment rather tha.n give notice of motion to dissent from the­Chairma-n's ruling with a view to proposing· the fresh amendment, namely-

" Provided that this Act shall not impose any retrospective liability on the­contractors a.ffected by the said a.ward."

They said nothing about the other class of men who were employed, or the Water a.ncl Sewerage employees. 'I'hev could plea.se themselves; they were subsidised by the· Government. Why should part of the c_on­tra.ctors be subsidised a.ncl indemnified by the Government, and the other contractors outside the Government department ha.ve to­find money out of their own pockets?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES then moved hi&

second amendment accordingly. The CHAIRMAN : The second amendment

appea.rs to me to be another wa.y of getting a.t the same end. It certainly most directly seeks to impose a cha.rge upon the consoli­dated revenue. It seeks to defeat the purposfr

1'11etropolitan Sewerage [19 OCTOBER.] WorkeJ·s' Award Bitl. 1345

of the Bill by stating that the contractors shall not be liable. The secmrd reading of the Bill has been passed by the Council, and this amendment is a direct contradiction to the principle of the Bill which was affirmed on the second reading by the Council, which i3 the payment of the employe<'s, under a certain award, by the employers. I do not see how 1 can accept the amendment, and I decline to accept it for the reasons I have stated-that it is against the principle of the Bill, and would, if carried into effect, impose a charge upon the public funds.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: He would give formal notice of dissent from the Chairman's ruling. The Council had given the Govern­ment a very fair opportunitv to do the gnweful and just thing in this measure, and he almost thought the moment had come when the House might itself insist upon doing a. ju't thing. He gave formal notice of dissent in order that the matter might be fully discus,ed to-morrow.

Hm;. P. J. LEAHY said he was some­what in the dark as to what the hon. mem· ber meant by the notice he had given. He understood that when an hon. member moved to disagree with the Chairman's ruling the matter was settled by the Committee. '

Han. T. O'ScLLIVAN: Yes, but on notice:

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: That was all right, so long as they eli cl not lose their opportunity of discussing the quedtion. He was not so much concerned about what had occurred

previously as he was concerned [4 p.m.] that a ruling such as had been

given might tie their hands very much in the future.

HoN. E. J. STEVE~S: If they went on with the measure, the clause would have to be dealt with; and, if the clause were pa_ss~cl, there would be no remedy. The Mmister would remember that on the second re~clir:g, a majority •were in' favonr of not re_Jectrng the clause; and he thought the Bill ought . to be postponed until the Chair· man's ruling was dealt with. (Hear, hear!)

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: The clause might very well be postponed until the fol­l~wing day, and the Minister might approach his colleagues with the idea of getting them to undertake the responsibility. It would be very hard upon the contractors to saddle ~hem .with the payment of an amount the mcurnng of which they were absolutely in­nocent of. Hon. members desired to do a fair thing by the contractors, at the same time that they W!Jre anxious that the workers should get the extra pay.

The SEC"!!ETARY fOR MINES: .You know very well that It was mtendecl to mclucle them in the award, and they know that, too.

Hon. W. STEPHENS : But they were not represented on the board.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: That was their lookout.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: It was not their lookout. If they had been represented on the board, he would be the first to saddle them with the cost; but they were not re­presented through a mistake made bv the late Government. It was all very well for the Government to say that they were not responsible, and that their predecessors were at fault-, but the Government was continu· ous, like the King, and the present Govern-

1915-4 0

ment were responsible for the actions of their predecessors. If the contractors had been placed in an unfair position uninten­tionally through the action of the late Go­vernmt'nt, it would be a good thing, and a popular thing, and certainly a meritorious thing, if the Government would undertake the responsibility. The Minister might very fairly say that h" was prepared to suggest to his colleagues that means of escape from the difficulty. He, for one, did not want to disagree with the Chairman's ruling. That \\as a very strong position to take up, and one that hon. members were not desirous of taking up if they could possibly avoid it. The Minister might have told them that, since the discussion on the second >:eacling, he had placed the matter before his col· leagues, and that they were prepared to do a fair thing by the contractors.

HoXOl!RABLE MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The

suggestion of hon. members really involved dropping the Bill, but, if that were the position, they should have clone it on the second reading. 'rhe whole principle of the Bill ~vas involved in the clause under dis· cussion, which provided that the award should have retrospective effect. The award was published on 7th September, and it was to be deemed to have come into opera· tion on 14th June.

Hon. E. "\V. H. FowLES: We agree to the principle of the Bill.

Tho SECREL\.R Y FOR MI~ES : Hon. members did m_,t agree to it. They said that it should not be retrospective.

Hon. E. "\V. H. FowLES: '!.'he question is, who shall pay the amount?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The men were now getting the amount stipulated by the award, and the Gov·ernment intro­duced the Bill to provide that the contrae· tors should pay the difference between 14th June and 7th September, because, had the original Order in Council not been defective, they would have had to pay the difference during that period. If the Committee was of opinion that the Bill should not have that retrospective effect, then they should wipe the Bill out altogether.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: We do not want to do the men out of their money.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: If the Bill were dropped they would be clone out of it. To give effeet to the wiohes of ho11. members would involve the introduction of another Bill, because the money would then be a charge on the Treasury, and such a Bill could not be introduced without a mes· sage from the Governor recommending the­appropriation.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Do you not think that, .as a matter of fairness, the amount should be a charge on the Treasury? (Hear, hear!)

The SECRET'ARY FOR MINES: The Bill had been sent to the Council from another place. and, if hon. members liked to accept it, well and good. If they liked to throw it out, they were strong enough to do so.

Hon. W. STEPHENS: What is your opinion· about the fairnc~s of our. proposal?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He had got his own opinion about it. (Laughter.) His opinion was that the clause ought to stand. It had been sent there by the representatives of t.he people, and, if there was anything;

Hon. W. Hamilton.]

134& Sewerage Workers' Bill. [COUNCIL.] 1\lfeatworks Bill.

wrong with it, it was their lockout. If the Bill was not to have the retrospective opera­tion proposed by the clause, then it was absolutely useless.

HoN. T. O'SULLIVAN thought the Minis­ter would be well advised to allow the further consideration of the clause to stand over until the following day. The bon. gentleman said that they had agreed to the principle of the Bill-that was, to its retrospective effect­but the retrospective effect operated in two ways-one as against the contractors and the other as in favour of the men. They had no objection to the retrospective operation in favour of the men, but they did not want the retrospective operation agaimt the contrac­tors. The Full Court had already decided that the contractors were not liable. This Bill now sought to impose liability on the contractors and to make them pay money that the court had decided they did not owe. The majority of bon. members had expressed the opinion that that was an injustice and that they did not wish to be a party to that injustice, and the amendment proposed by the Hon. Mr. Fowles to remove that injustice had been met by a point of order. He would not expren any opinion adverse to the"Chair­man's ruling on the point of order, but thought the matter should stand over until the following day. If the Minister would not agree to accept the amendment, the Committee would have no option but to negative the clause altogether.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : That means negativing the Bill.

HoN. T. O'SULLIVAN: ThEre was no need to do that, because han. members were prepared to allow the men to be paid so long as the Government would indemnify the contractors with respect to the liability cast upon them.

HoN. W. H. CAMPBELL thought the Minieter should consult with his colleagues with a view to finding some way out of the difficulty. vVhen the contractors entered into their contracts, they supposed the wages would remain as they were. 'I'hey did not know that they were going to be raised, and it seemed unfair that they should now have to pay the difference. As the Water and Sewerage Board had paid the increased wages to their employ<'es, they should also pay the increase to the contractors' · em­ployees, and he did not suppose the Govern­ment would object to that.

The SECRET<RY FOR MINES: The largest contractor paid his men_

Hon. W. STEPHENS : K ot the largest.

HoN. W. H. CAMPBELL: It would not matter very much if it was made a charge on the board, because every ratepayer would haYc to pay then, instead of the Government having to find the money. If the Minister would ·move the Chairman out of the chair and report progress, and cnnsult his col­leagues, he felt sure that the whole matter could be amicably arrar.ged before the fol­lowing day.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: To meet the wishe•, of hen. members, he would move 1.hat the Chairman do now leave the chair. report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.

Qu<ostion put and passed. The Council resumed. The CHAIRMAN re­

ported progress. and the Committee obtained leave to sit again to-morrow.

[Han. W. Hamilton.

BRANDS BILL.

FIRST READING.

On the motion of the SECRETARY FOR MINES, this Bill, received by message from the Assembly, was read a first time. The second reading was made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

MEATWORKS BILL.

CoMMITTEE. (II on. 1T'. F. J'aylor in the chair.)

Cl.a u'e·s 1 to On dause

troller"-

4, inclusive, put and passed. 5-" Appointment of con-

Hox. E. J. STEVENS : In discussing the Bill on the second rea·ding he drew atten­tion ~o this clause, which he thought was very unfarr. It ga,·e the Govemor in Council power t) appoint a controlkr, with absolute control of the works. It also stated-

" The Governor in Council may, in like manner, direct how >1md bv whom the remuneration, charges, and" expenBes of the controller 3hall be borne, charging them, if deemed just ·and proper, on the property of the owner aforesaid in priority or other\YiBe to existing cha!~ges thereon."

The poi,rt he wished to make ""s this-that when the Government gave up the works and restored th~m to the owner the works might have deteriorated conside{·ablv under the management of the controller. Possiblv he might not be as good a. 1run as t·he origiu~Ll o\vner of the \Yorks, and knovvincr tha-t hi:·· job would not last long would not be as careful in what he did, and. most likely there might be lofo'•CS in other direc­tions. There was nothing in th:• Bill to pro­vide t[tat the owners of the plant should be recom1Jenscd fOl' any .dmr,qge which might happon to it, or for any Ios,es that might be c,auscd. He understood lwhre tlw Bill :ame into the Hou•e that the persons chief!:: m.t<'rested in the meat" arks would arrange wrth some ·han. member or han. members to see that they got fair play in this Bill, but appar!·ntlv they had either overlooked the clause, or' those who thev had asked to look after their interests in the matter had over­looked it. He did not propose t~ move an amendment, but it <:tppeared to ·him that if those who were interested <:lid not look ·after their interests they could not expect a11yone else to do so, but it was a vEry unfair clause.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES moved the omis­sion, on lines 22 and 23, of " de.1irable in the public inteno">t," and the insertion of "expedipnt for the purpose of the succeoo­ful orosecution of the war." The Minister ha<f.indicated that this was genuinely from beginning to end a war measure, and would cease six months ·after the end of the war. '!'he amendment was to make it quite dear beyond any caviL even thre·e or six years from now, that the object of this measure was for the purpose of the successful prosecu­tion of the war. Those words were taken from corresponding English Act; they were words that ha·d av,roved themselves to tlw mothf'l' Parliam<emt, and might very ·well be put in, instead of the vague and, perhaps. undesirable words "desirable in the public interest," which was altogether

1348 }\1 eatworks Bill. [COUNCIL.] .}leatworks Bill.

Governor in Council had the powN to inter­prC't the dauee. he did _not see that tl~ey had any cauee for complam~. As. regards the other remark of the Mmrster wrth regard to stock, the ''"me remarks had bc~n made else­where with regard to other tlungs, an? the in£~ reure-in £;-xct, it \Vas 1norc' than an Infcr­cmce-was that the price of stock ancl other thi;1gs had bcPn deliberately raised uy the owners to make a profit out of the war. He· "'aS quit"' sure bon. 1nc1nber.:; ''rould at once put their foot down on any attempt on the part of any class t'? n;akc use of the war fc:r the purpose of enriChmg themse~ve'S. To hrs mine!. the increao.e m the pnce of stoc.k and other things was solely due to economiC causes. The law of supply and demand was greater tl1an any law Parliame'llt could make.

lioN. F. T. BRENTi'rALL a"ked h'?n· members to refer back to Clause 2, 'vhrch specifically provided-

" Thi·J Act shall remain in force only during the continuance of tJ::e present ,, ar and during such further hme there­after. not exceeding six months, as ohall be declared by proclamation."

'l'hat definitely fixed the object of the Bill. The Governoi· in Council had no power, under that clause, to extend the operation of the Act more than six months beyond the duration of the war.

'I'he SECRETARY FOR :>liNES : They would require a sp2cial Act of Parliament to do it.

Hox. F. T. BRENTNALL: That was so. With that clause before him, he really could not '"" what harm or what good wao going to be done by passing an am<;nd­ment which meant exactly the same thmg. He did not know what the difference might be in the minds of those responsible for bringing in the Bill between the phrase " desirable in the public interest " and the expression '· expedient for the purpose of the prosecution of the war." 'l'he amend­ment simply confirmed the principle of the 2n·d clause. end limited again the duration of the Bill to the duration of the war and six months bevond. It made it perfectly clear that the measure could be applied to the war, and to nothing else but the war. Whilst it might be thought sufficient to provide in the 2nd clause that it should be a war measure-and the Minister had just declared that it was a war measure-what harm could be done by repeating the assertion in clause 5? 'I'he phrase " in the public interest " was somewhat ambiguous, and might mean a good deal outside of war interests, and on that account he could see no harm in the amendment.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN felt c<1rtain that, if the Minister had consulted the drafts­man with respect to the amendment, he would have c::>me there prepared to agree to it, because the words " desirable in the public interest " wert' in accordance with the old drafting, which was intended to make the measure applicable for all time, and gave the Government any special powers they wished to take under the Act. From the fact that in the clause the words "that the business thereof should be carried on for any period under State control " were used. it was apparent that the necessity for an amendment limiting the duration of the measure to six months after the war had been overlooked, otherwise the clause would

[Han. P. J. Leahy.

have read, "that the business thereof could b·J carried on for any period for the purposes of this ~\,ct."

The SECRETARY FOR :MINES : A proclamation might be issued ~aying that it should bE' carried on for two n1onths or three months~ It cannot exceed six months.

EoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: The amend­ment followed the wording of the Imperial Act. which had been drafted by some of the b<c~t minds in Great Britain, so that it should be a valuable precedent. Under all the circumstances, the Minister might accept the amendment, wnich made the clause clearer, and brought the Bill into conformity with tho English Act.

Ho:><. B. FAHEY: It appeared to him, from the manner in which the question was being a.rgued, that they were entering upon a superfluous debate. One han. member had quoted a previouo clause which distinctly defined the objects of the Bill. Tt distinctly stated that it '·'as a war measure, and that it could only be kept in existence for six months after the war ceased. 'I'hen the a'ftcndinent canw in with the Yie'v o£ C'In­phasising that tho war was the object of the Bill. It was quito unneceesary to repeat and. omphasi'o the object of the Bill. Even if it were not elearlv declared to be a wa1· measure, anvthing the Government could do must be clon'e in ihe public interests. Xot a hand or a foot could thev move inside the> four corners of this Bill ul1less in the public interest'. lilfhatever was done for the ar authorities was done in the publiQ interest, and for that reason he did not think there was any great nocessitv to combat some state­ments made by the :Ylinister regarding hon. members' patriotism. The amendment; in his opinion, was quite superfluous.

Hm:. W. H. CAMPBELL asked the Minister how clause 7 would be affected. which gave the Government power to take· possession of meatworks by purchase?

The SEC'RETARY FOR MINES: The Govel'!1-ment will not take possession unless the­owners refuse to carry out instructions. \V e· will debate clause 7 when we come to it.

lioN. W. H. CAMPBELL: He was only asking how that clause would be affected by the amendment.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : If the Govern­take over meatworks, it will be in the public, interests.

HoN. W. H. CAMPBELL: But they wouM remain in the possession of the Government for more than six months after the war. They would not return them to the owners, would they?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: They might return them in a. month. . Ho:x. W. H. CAMPBELL: They could not sell them back to the owners, could they~ The owners of some meatworks would rathet like the Bill. When he was chairman of the :Meat Royal Commission, the owners of two meatworks in Brisbane offered thei1 works to him on behalf of the Government.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES : There were three reasons whv the amendment should commend itself to- the wisdom of the Com­mittee. In tho first place, it followed the exa.ct wording of the Imperial Act, so that they might take it that .it had some wisdom

]Jieatworks Bill. [19 OCTOBER.] ]}Jeatworks Bill. 1349

"behind it. In the second place, it stated most . dearly what the Minister said was the genuine' object of the Bill.

Han. A. HINCHCLIFFE: That is stated most .-specifically in clau"e 2.

HoN. E. W. H. FO\VLES: Clause 2 did not state what was the object of the Bill at all. 'l'hat clause did not say that works

, could be taken over during war timP.. It only fixed the limit of time. If the duration of t_he war w!'' three years and six months, durmg that tune and for six months beyond the GovernJ?ent could step in a.nd run the meatworks m the interests of the war and for the successful prosecution of the war.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Is not the suc­<"essf!'l prosecution of the war a. matter of ·pubhc mtercst?

Hox. E. W._H_. FOWLES: Yes; but "a matter _of pubhc I!'t.erest " was a very elastic

·expressiOn.. It might include a dozen other thmgs besides .the ~uccessful prosecution of the w.ar. It might mclude a dozen wild-cat expenmental schemes. He did not think there was any intention of doing that.

. The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Clause 7 dis­tmctly statP' the reasons for which the 'Government may take work over. \V e do not want to h:>vc these works on our hands. All we want Is to see that the intention of the Act 1s carried out.

" Ho:;. E. ~Y. H. FOWLES: The phrase desHa ble ;n the public interest" would

;oYer any~hmg that the Government chose ·,o dcte1:!mne was " desirable in the public mtei:e~r. The amendment would lay down -explicitly tha_t mea.tworks were only to be ·taken over. If at all, for the purposes of the succes•-ful prosecution of the war.

(~tJ(·•l-ion~That the words proposed to he ·DmJttecl .Plr. Pou·1es's amendment) Btand p~rt of the dause-put; and the f'onunittPe ·<hnded :-

Ron. CONTENTS, 6.

il'. H. O~mpbell Ron . .A. Hinchcliffe ~; Fahey. F. McDonnell

. Hamrlton , P. Murphy Telle1': Han. A. Hinchcliffe.

N OT-OONTENTS, 12. 'Hon. F. T. Brentnall Ron . .A. Gibson

C. Campbell T. )£. Hall "L .T. Carter P .• r. Leahy .T. Cowlishaw A. H. Parnell G. ~- Onrtis "L H. Whittingham E. I\. H. Fowles

Teller: Ron. A. G. 0. Hawthorn.

RPsolvcd in the negative. Amendment agreed to.

IIox. E. W. H. FOWLES : The amend­:1wnt which fol!owed was one of considerable Importance. He moved the insertion, on line 33, ?f the words "in priority," and the in­sertiOn of the word "subject." He did not know whether all_ the meat companie•; in Qu~enslnnd . were m the happy position of owmg nothmg to. any_body ; but, if any of the meat compames ~hcl owe anything, then the clause >yorke.d a manifc;;t injustice. The dauso provide-d-

,, The powers so conferrC'-d maY include any powers of controllin~, conductinO' continuing, extendino- r0stricting varY~ ing. or Jiscontinuing' thP ,busin~ss and

operations of such meatworks, and the power to create charges on the property of the owner thereof in priority to exist­ing charges."

Suppose the bank was owed £80,000 on pro- · pPrty worth £85,000-and they worked on narrow margins in drought timP,l-the Go­vernment could immediately step in and de­preciate that security almost to vanishing point, and simply say, "Although we cori1e in later than tho bank, nevertheleos we take first grasp of any security t.hat the meatworks have." Surelv that was not a fair position for the Govei-nment, of all persons in the land, to take up! No private person would be allowed to take up a position like that, because it would be consi·rlered dishonest; and the Government, if anyone, should set un example of commercial honcBt~·. He felt sure that this provision had not been thoroughly considered b~· the Government, or fhev would never have inserted it. It allowed the Government practically, by pro­elamation, to make \Y<lste paper of securities held by banh and other institutions who lent monev to meatworks: it allowoo them to step in and take over the business and run it on the rocks, or do anything they liked with it, and make their charge a prior daim to money that might have been lent ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago. 'r.hut was su.relc- a manifest injustiee, an-d the an,end­ment would improve tho position. The word " priority" occurred a little further down, but was not subject to the same objections as it was here. To insist on the Government having priorit:} over all existing charges 1vas insisting on the Governn1ent doing an unjust and commercially dishonest thing. He said nanling about the fact that the controller nTig.ht o:' 1night not be an exp£>l't Inanager­there was nothing here to sav that he was tc1 be. Under the Commom:ealth Trading with the Enemy Act reference had to be made to the High Court bdore they could appoint a controller, so that was done in davlight: but under this Bill a Government mi.ght, by prof'lamation, appoint any man controller~it did not matter whether he was an expert or not-and that man could dis­continue the thing· in two year~ or do any­thim; ho liked, and the Government could sav,- "We will wine out the meatworks if we cannot work them ·at a. }Hofit." They could also say thev would wipe out the securities with-,a stroke of the pen. He did not think the Government intended to do that, an-d it was incumbent upon them to say that they did not intend to -do it.

The SE\'RETARY FOR ::\HKES: He was not going to accent the amendment. Thig was another verifieation of the statement "Alarmed capital had many friendr." and there was no doubt that it had a very strong friend and advocate in tlw Han. Mr. Fowles.

Han. E. W. H. FOWLES: I look at it from the legal point of view.

Han. T. M. HALL: And the honrst point of view, too.

The SECRETARY FOR :YII~ES: Every­one knew that thi' was a war measure, and tho Government asked for extraordinary powers under it. In the Imperial measure, the British Government 'had to take extra­ordinary powen, and the Commonwealth Go­vernment had hod to do the same. There was no getting a"·ay from the fact that this wac; a war measure, because its operation

Han. W. Hamilton.]

1350 11ieatworks Bill. [COUNCIL.] ~1ieatworlcs Bill.

was limited by claw;B 2. The Governmnnt had aekod for these powers in the rnablic interest, but the hon. meml:er's amendment luvd knocked that o Llt. The public interest was not to be etudiod at all. Bv the amend­ment just carried pri 1·at" interest<> were placed above public interests, because they had wipz'd puLlic intere-ts out.

Hon. A. H. \VHITTINGILEII: Oh, no !

The SECHE'TARY FOH 11I::-JES: If not, then what v. as the mf'aning of the limit? Everything done for the successful prosecu­tion of this war was done for the public interests.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: \Vhat are you com­plaining about?

Th0 SECRETARY FOR .MI='IES: They had wiped that out, and were evidently going to furt;1er emasculate the Bill by this amcndn1Bnt. He \Vas not going to \Vaste any more breath on the amendment. If hon. membm·s were bent on putting ve~ted interests above the interests of the people by their action on these amend'11ents, they could do what thev li!<ed as far as he was con-cerned. ·

HoN. F. T. BREKTNALL hoped they were not going to be ha rangu0d day after day about the interests of the people, and about the Council setting itself up in opposi­tion to the intf'rest<> and the wishes of the people.

T1w SEC'RETARY FOR ::\IE\ES: You are doing it.

HoN. F. T. BREKTKALL: They had had a good deal of it <lh'f'ady, and, if it was going to be continued day after day, there would be trouble. He hoped they were not going to tolerate the accusation that they were wilfully and wickedly obstructing the will of the peopl<'. He would have some­thing to say b~- and by, if necessary, as to what the will of the people meant, and what it mE'ant wllE'n it sent the present Govern­ment into power.

The SECRETARY FOR 11IXES : It is a pity that some of you do not have to go before the people, and let them have an opportunity of showing you what they mean by their vote·.

Ho;,~. P. ,J. LEAHY: He did not see anv nee' isity for introducing heat into the de­bate. He W;'s not int0rc·sted in meatworks. He clid not think it would matter £5 to him if etock W<'nt <lown in pri"''· \Vhy should he be op;.o,scd to the public interest?

The SEC'RET.IRY FOR ::\fiKEB : Why should vou vote for the amendment if you are not?

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Becau''e he con­'·idend that voting for the amendment would not injure the public. After all, the matter was one for the Government. Thev had a duty to perform, and thev had to 'make it quite clear that, whilst tl{ey were. prepared to do certain things in connection with war mensures, they were not prepared to do the ~!arne with n~casures of a.nother characte·r. \Vith rc:gard to the amendment, he had read the el;mse thrc0 or four times, and at first wao inclined to think that this power might rest with th" Governor in Council, but, after reading it ca1efull;v over again, he thought it meant that thE' c:mtroller appointed by the GovernmE'nt would have the power of making

fHon. W. Hamilton.

this chargt<. Supposing there was alre·ady a­nlortgagc upon n1catwork;-3, it appt;ared to

11im that under th:1t clause the [5 p.m.] controller could borrow more

money, and the discharge of that liabilitv would have priOl"ity over the mort­gage o'f tho' old owners. That was an abso­lutely dishone't proposaL After tho experi­E'nce in \Vesrern Australia, he hJd not much confidence in the Government management of anv busirHYBs enterprise; but. if it was propoS0d to giYe them pow0-r , to borrow money and make it tho first charge on the asset,, it was distinctly dishonc,t, and in making tho amendment proposed the Com­mittee would bo doing something that it was the duty of any honest body of men to do.

HoK. B. FAHEY: The clau~e was a very peculiar one, as far a, the reading .of it was eonc··'rned. and it looked to him to be rather· a cJi .. honest clause'. It was evidently .inserted in pursuance of the old principk in common law that the Government had priority ovm" private intC'rests in ease of emergency. He­was not going to vote for such a dishonest proposition as th0 cl:luse proposed. \Yhen works were taken over by the Government, ten or t"·enty or ftfty people in the com­munity might haYe legitimate liens on those works, and if tho5o li<ms were confis<:ated­as they would be confiscated according to the wording of that clame-those people might be ruined.

The SECRETARY FOR iVIIXES: Do von think the Government would do sn~h a· dishonest thing?

Hox. B. FAHEY: He did not say that, but they might have an incompetent servant. The controller might be unfit to manage the works successfullv, and circumstances might arise \vhi~h would entail a cost on the works of £10,000 or £20,000, and it was not fair to saddle the owners of the meatworks. with such a charge upon their property. He did not bclit>ve that was a sound or an honest principle, and for that reason he did not intend to vote for it.

c~ucstion-That the words proposed to be, omitted in clause 5 (Jfr. Fou·l,s's amend­If/ r n t) stand part of tho clauoc-put ; and: the Committee divided:-

CONTENTS, 4. Hon. W. Hamilton Hon. F. McDonnell

A. Hinchcliffe , P. Murphy Teller: Hon. P. Murphy.

:XoT-CONTENTS, 15.

Hon. 111. T. Brentnall Hon. A. Gibson C. Campbell T. M. Hall IY. H. Campbell A. G. C. Hawthorn c\. ,J. Carter P. ,J. Leahy ,J. Cowlishaw ,\_ H. Parnell ~\. Dunn E. .T. Stevens B. Fahey "\. H. Whittingham E. W. H. Fowles

Teller: Hon. P. J. Leahy. R"colwd in the negative. AmendmC'nt agre·ed to. Clause 5, as amended, put and passed.

On clause 6-" Power to regulate meat­'vorks''-

Hox. E. \\·. H. FO'WLES moved the in­sertion in the 1st linP, after the word "may," of the 'vords, " if he considers it expedient for the purpose of the successful prosecution of the \Yar." It was a consequential amend· ment.

1Vleatworks Bill. [19 OcTOBER.] ~'lieatworlcs Bill. 1351

Question-That the words proposed to be inserted in clause 6 (,vir. Fo10les's amend­mr nt)' be so inserted-put; and the Com­mittee dh·ided :-

CoNTENTS, 13.

Ron. F. T. Brentnall Ron. T. YI. Hall C. Campbell A. G. C. Hawthorn A .• T. Carter P. J. Leahy .T. Cowlishaw A. H. Parnell A. Dunn E. .T. Stevens E. W. H. Fowles A. H. Whittingham A. Gibson ·

Teller: Ron. A. H. Whittingham.

NoT-CoNTENTS, 6. Ron. W. H. Campbell Ron. A. Hinchcliffe

B. Fahey F. McDonnell W. Hamilton , P. Murphy

1'ellel': Ron. B. Fahey.

Resolved in tile affirmative.

Ho;.;. E. W. H. FOWLES moved the omis· sion of the words " in the public interest," on line 9, with the view of inserting the words " for the purpose of the successful prose,:ution of the war."

'rhe SECRETARY FOR MINES: He was certainly not going to accept the amendment. He was here as the representative of the Government, to protect those interests. If the Council said, as the amendment indi­cated, that the public interest was not to be protected, hon. gentlemen here should never open their mouths again about the present Government not trying to control the price of food or bring the necc•,sarie·s of life within reach of the people. If hon. gentlemen were going to move amendments like this in a \Var Bill, then, if they liked to commit political hari-kari, that \vas their lookout.

Hox. P. J. LEAHY: He would like the Minister to tell them in what waY the public would suffer if the amendmen't was carried.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Why rlo you want to wipe out those words " in the public interest " ?

Ho'\. P .. J. LEAHY: They did not do it for the purpo,.3 of doing anvthing against the public inter0:.t. ·

The SEOR!rrARY FOR MINES : I know why you do it. You could not makp the public believe that all you are telling them was true.

HoN. P .. J. LEAHY: He certainlv made them believG it for sev<>n or eight yecn·"·

The SECRE'rARY FOR ::.\1I'\ES : But the•• would not take you on the second h·ip-thev had enough of you the first time. ·

Hox. P. J. LEAHY: He had loop• 1 aft0r the first atnenclment 'Yas car1·ieJ that tho Minister would not hr,ve \1 tsted his time and energy in pre,c:3in'l' these rna ttf'l's, be­cause the same principle was involved right throntrh. \Yhether the:· curied this amend­ment or not, he did not think the public inh~rP't WM going to be affc>~ted one .iot, but the;- wrrnted to make it perfectly clear that th1s ,,-a •. a, war measure, and that it should be interpreted and carried out as such. It had been stated in another place that it was a war measure, and, if so, what obicction could there be to stating it in this clau•·e? He could not believe the hon. gentleman had consulted his colleagues on the matter. They were reallv fighting for the assertion of a principle. If there- was any waste of time, it was the hon. gentle­man who was rP'ponsible for it.

RoN. B. FAHEY: The Minister had said they were only wasting time, but the. mover of the amendment said they were fightmg for a principle. It was plain that tho me.-l'sure \vas a war measure, and anything which the GJvcrnment could do in furthering the interest". of the Imnorial authoritie' must be in tho public interc:ts, and, under the circum­stances, it was splitt~ing straws ~o. try an?, eliminate the words "in tho pubhc mterest.

Hon. P. ,J, LEAHY: But we must pass the amendment in ac•:ordanco with what we did before.

Ilo:-:. B. FAHEY: But they had already embodied the principle that it was a war measure. and there was no object in wasting time trying to get an unnecessary amend­Inent in.

Hon. E. W. H. FoWLES: It is to limit the time.

Ho:-:. B. FAHEY : He would oppose the amendment.

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted (Jir. Fowles's amendment) stand part of the clause-put; and the Committee divided:-

CoNTEN'l'S, 6. Ron. W. H' Campbell Ron. A. Hinchcliffe

B. Fahev F. McDonnell W. Hamilton .. P. Murphy

Teller: Ron. F. McDonnell.

Xor-CoNTBNTS, 13. Ron. F. T. Brentnall Ron. T. M. Hall

C. Campbell A. G. C. Hawthorn A. .T. Carter P. .r. Leahy .T. Cowlishaw A. H. Parnell .\. Dunn E •• T. Rtevens E. \Y. H. Fowles A. H. Whittingham o\, Gibson

7'eller: Ron. T. M. Hall.

Resolved in the negative. Amendment agreert to.

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES moved, as a conseaucntial amend!nent, tho o1nission, on

• lines 22 and 23, of the words [5.30 p.m.] "in the public interest," with a

view to inserting the word,; " for the purpose of the successful prosecution of the war."

Que-.tion-That the wc,rds proposed to be omitted (Jir. Fou·/c.<'s amendment) •·tand part of the clau,c-put; and the Conrnitteo divided:-

CoNTE~Ts, G. Hen. \Y. H. Campbell Ron. \ Hinchcliffe

B. Fahey F'. J\IcDonncll W. Hamilton P. 1lurphy

Teller: Ron. B. Fahey.

'XOT~CONTENTS, 12. Ron. F. T. Brrntnall Ron. ,\. Gibson

C. C~mJlbrll T. ]f. Hall .\ . • T. Carter ,\, G. C. Hawthorn ,T, Cowlishaw J' .• T. Leahy .\. Dunn _\. H. Parnell E. W. H. Fowles , A. H. Whittingham

Teller: Ron. A. H. Parnell.

Resolver! in tho negatiYe. Amendment ag-reed to. Clause 6. a< amfmrlod, put and passed.

On clause 7-" f?o\''.cr to acqu1~e n1e~d­'vorks under C'crt.a1n crrcrnnstancos -

Hox. E. \Y. H. FO\VLES said that the amendnlPnt he had to propose gavE' the Go­vernment the ns0 and full control of the meatworks, instead of giYing thom abwluto

Han. E. W. II. Fowles.]

1352 ll!Ieatworks Bill. [COUNCIL.] ll1eatworks Bill.

ownership. That was a matter upon which everybody might. have a free and unfettered opinion. \Vas It really necessary for the Government to push the thing EO far as to aGquire works outright and pay for them in debentures?

Han. W. H. CAMPBELl,: That ~vould not mit some of the meatworks. .

RoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Probably some ·of them might like to sell outright, if they got cash. He eould not find any provision in the Bill making the Governmimt liable to pay for depreciation. About the only qualification required of a controller under the Bill was that of accountant, and they might have a man who did not know any· thing about meatworks, and in the course of three years the plant might depreciate very considerably.

The SECRETARY FOR MIXES: Do you think this Government is any more dishonest than previous Governments?

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES : If the Govern­ment intended to pay for depreciation, why not put it into the Bill? The Government were not proposing to pay for the works in cash. They were proposing to give deben­tures bearing interest at the rate of not less than 4 per cent. or more than 5 per cent., which· meant i·hat they would probably pay 4 per cent., and anyone could get 5~ and 6 per cent. interest at the present time. \Vas that fair? There was no reference in the Bill to payment for depreciation, and Go­vernments were not in the habit of chasing individuals with money. In fact, in several departments people had to wait before they could secure payments for small amounts.

Hon. W. H. C.U1PBELL: Didn't they do that for the Jimbour lands?

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES: hardly finished :ret.

That was

The SECRETARY FOR ;);liNES: This Govern­ment was not responsible for the purchase of the Jimbour lands. They were bought by a Government that the hon. gentleman sup­ported.

HaN. E. W. H. FOWLES: In that Cham­ber they supported all GoYernmentP, and they criticised all Governments. They sup· ported the present Government, and they were supporting nine-tenths of this Bill. Tho essence of a number of the amendments he had to propo'e in the clause gave the Go­vernment the right to enter into possession and to have full control of the works. 'I'he only thing that would be kept from them was a legal title to the works. They must give the Government ample powers in cases of emergencies, but the Bill was making ''"ar on pastoralists and not on the Germans.

The SECRETARY FOR ::\1INES: Pastoralists can look after themselves pretty well. While they 'have advocates like the hvn. member they are not in any danger.

Han. P. J. LEAHY: The pastoralists did not own the meatworks. ·

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: There were a large number of shareholders who were not pastoralists. He saw there was a later amendment providing for the payment of compensation on a fairer basis than that laid down in the clause. He did not know whether it would not satisfy all the meat­works if they got fair compensation.

Han. P. J. LEAHY: I think mv amendment will cover everything. '

[Hon. E. W. H. Fowles.

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES: After reading the han. member's amendment, he thought it would cover everything. He would th~re­fore only move the first amendment standmg in his name. He moved the omission of the words-

" is sati&ed that the owner of any mf'at­works has failed to comply with any of the provisions of any proclamation, and that such failure of compliance is con­trarv to the public interest, of which facts he shall be the sole judge"-

with a view of inserting the words-" considers it expedi~:mt, for the purpose of the successful prosecution of the war, that the sole right of using any meat­works and of carrying on the business thereof during the continuance of the war should be vested in His Majesty."

At fifteen minutes to 6 o'clock,

'l'he CHAIRMAN called upon the Hon. W. H. Campbell to relieve him in the chair.

Hen. W. H. CA}IPBELI, took the chair accordingly.

Hox. F. T. BRENTKALL: The further they wPnt the more manifest it became to him that this was neve1· intended to be solely a "ar mpasurc. (Hear, hear !) It was intended to give the Government the absolute right to take over at its own sweet will any meatworks that might exist in the State when it suited the purpose of the Government, and what were called time after time .. the public int<:'re.,t." That was the object of the Bill,· and all the amend­ments referring to the duration of the war, and the working of the respective meatworks during that period, had all had to be in­serted because llomewhere, on somebody's motion, the limit .ttion in clause 2 was in­serted bv way of amendmPnt. He could onlv com"e to that conclusion from inferences which he h11d drawn. 'l'he insertion of the amendment in clause 2 had altered the character of the Bill, and the amPndments of the Han. Mr. Fowles hac! been moved in order that tlwre should be consistency and unity from beginning to end of the Bill, and it was necessary now to go a step further and insert the present amendment. It ap­peared to him that it was never intended that this Bill should be solely applicable to meatworks as a temporary measure during the duration of the war, but that the Govern­ment intended to take absolute power to take over the meatworks as a matter of public utility at any time when it should please the Governor in Council to declare that it was necessary " in the public inter­est." To bring the Bill into unity with p!·evious amendments, they would have to amePd it to the very end, bPcause they were altering the whole character and scope of the mpa,;ure from what it was when it was first introduced.

Han. P. ,J. LEAHY: It was altered in another place in the titlP.

HaN. F. T. BREN'l'"i"ALL: 'l'hey got the condition inserted that its operation should exist during the war. and six months after the termination of the war, and that had necessitated all thPse amendments.

At twelve minutes to 6 o'clock, The CHAIRMAN resumed the chair. RoN. B. FAHEY: He did not pretend to

be in the secrets of the Government, but he was justified in endorsing the statement made

~11eatworks Bill. P9 OCTOBER.] M eatworks Bill. 1353

by the Han. Mr. Brentnall regarding the action of the GoYernment. In his opinion, the GoYernment were exceeding in this clause the powers which they had a need to take for their purpose. They had power under the Bill, in C"ase the owners of the works or their managers failed in any way in their "estimation to carry out their obligations, to .appoint their own controller, and take pas· "Session and full control of tho works. But this clause went beyond that, and empowered the Go,-ernment to step in and take full possession of the freehold property, works and all.

The SECRETARY FOR Mr~ES : Only if they refuse to carry out the instructions contained in the Bill.

HoK. B. li'AHEY: But they had quite sufficient power to control any person in '<'harge of the works who would not carry "out the instructions contained in the Bill. For that reason lw would be against the ·GoYernment this time.

HoN. \V. H. CAMPBELL: He had Yoted for the first amPndment, and must consis­tently support the other amendmPnts. He did -~ot see any great harm in the Bill, even if 1t was not a war measure. He had had a lot to do with meat companies in Australia, and had some knowledge of the association ·of which the Hon. Mr. Leahv was vice­president, and he could say that' only a year ago members of that association '"ere red­hot against managers of meatworks whom thev had accused of combining to I~eep the poor selectors and grazing farmers from getting proper prices. He did not know whethPr they did it honestlv or not. but thev -tried to show that they ~vere not making great profits by saying that they were trying to sell out.

Hon. P . .J. LE\HY: The Government want to take over the meatworks.

Hox. W. H. CAMPBELL: Had thev not got that power already? \Vas not the' hon. member a supporter of a Government which, in 1906, said that, if they wanted to take the land of the lesseE's, they would take it?

Hon. P . .J. LEAHY: What Act was that?

Hox. W. H. CAMPBELL: The 1906 Act for compulsory acquirement.

Hon. P . .J. LE.\HY: Whom did we take it from?

Ho~. W. H. CAMPBELL: What were ~ailed the capitalist;-the people who hold the land-and the present Government wished to take certain property from the owners -of the meatworks, and he did not see any difference. He did not think thev would be doing very wrong in taking action, if they •considered thev should commandeer the meatworks. M(my of the shareholders in the meatworks would be very glad to get rid of them at a fair price.

HoK. P . .J. LEAHY: He would like to point out that the Grazing Farmers' Asso­ciation did not care for any monopoly­Government or any othPr. They were noc at all confident that, if the Government had supreme control under this Bill, thev would be as well treated as if there were a· number of meatworks in competition for the stock. 'They fe'l.red that, if the Government were to have supreme control, they might close down the meatworks and that thev might have to take a vpry low price for stock. ·which would l1C' a sprious detriment to stoC'k-

owners. All that he desired was to see jus­tice done. whether to owners of meatworks, owners of stock, or anyone else.

Ho~. B. FAHEY: He was sorry t~1at the Hon. JYll . Campbell had insinuated that some of the shareholders in meatworks would be very glad to get rid of their undertakings. The inference was that the Go,-ernment would very likely buy them because of that and other reasom. There was one other aspect of the question. Supposing the Government felt inclined-he did not suppose they would, and he would not impute it to them-to take over some nwatworks in Queensland, the machinery of which was not very good -obsolete, in fact-and tho shareholders wanted to get rid of it. They might go to the Governrr.ent and ask them to buy those worb, and the Government might buy them -he did not mean to say that a Labour Government would do it. Since Labour had been in politics, his experience had been that politicK had been a great deal cleaner.

The SECRETc\RY FOR Mr!'iES: Hear, hear!

Hm:. B. FAHEY: But he did sav that an opening would be presented thereby to any Government, if they were inclined to be cor­rupt, to aYail themsPlves of the opportunity of buying r.n infe'rior propPrty from any of their friends. The clause would give an opening in that direction.

Questiun-That the "-orcis vroposed to be omitted (Jir. Fon·lts's amendment) stand part of the clau"e-put; and the Committee divided:-

CoNTENTS, 5. Ron. W. H. Campbell Ron. F. McDonnell

W. Hamilton P. Murphy .\. Hinchcliffe

Teller": Han. F. McDonnell.

NoT~CoNTENTS, 11. Han. F. T. Brcntnall Han .• \. Gibson

C. C"mpbcll T. M. Hall ,f. Cowlisha'" P. ,f. Leahy .\. Dunn A. H. Parnell B. Fahev A. H. Whittingham E. W. ir. Fowles

Teller: Hon. A. Dunn.

Resolved in the negative Amendment agreed to.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES moved the omission of the words "meatworks of such owner in Queensland," in lines 34 and 35. with a view to inserting " sole right of using such meatworks." The amendment was purely consequentia.!.

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted in clause 7 (Jir. Powles's a.rnendrnent} stand part of the clause-put; and the Com­mittee divided-

CoNTENTS, 4. Hon. W. Hamilton Han. F. McDonnell

A. Hinchcliffe P. M.urphy Telle>•: Hon. F. McDonnell.

NoT-CONTENTS, 10. Ron. F. T. Brcntnall Ron. A. Gibson

C. Campbell P. ,f. Leahy G. S. Curtis A. H. Parnell A. Dunn W. Stephens E. W. H. Fowles A. H. Whittingham

Teller: Han. P. J. Leahy.

Resolved in the negative. Amendment agreed to.

Han. E. W. H. Fowles.]

1354 MeatworkB Bill. [COUNCIL.] "vleatworks Bill.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES moved the omission on line 37 of the words " such owner " with a view to inserting " the owner thereof." This also was consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Hox. E. W. H. FOWLES moved the omission of the word "are," on line 41, with a view to inserting " and carrying on the business of such meatworks during the con­tinuancp of the war, is." This also was a consequential amendment.

Question-That the word proposed to be omitted in clause 7 (Mr. Fo,vles's amendment) stand part of the clause-put ; and the Com­noittce divided-

CoNTENTS, 5.

Ron. B. Fahey Ron. F. :ll:cDonnell W. Hamilton P. :ll:urphy A. Hinchcliffe

Teller: Ron. P. :ll:urphy.

~ OT-CONTENTS, 11.

Ron. F. T. Brentnall C. Campbell G. S. Curtis A. Dunn E. W. H. Fowles A. Gibson

Ron. T. :ll:. Hall P. J. Leahy A. H. Parnell W. Stephens .-\.. H. Whitting·ham

Teller: Ron. W. Stephens.

Resolved in the negative.

Amendment agreed to.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES moved the omission of the words on line:' 44 to 50-

" all property mentioned or referred to therein shall cease to be the property of such owner, and shall become and remain the absolute property of His Majesty, freed from any mortgage, charge, lien, or other encumbrance thereon whatso­eYer; and the ]ate owner,"

with a view to inserting the words " the owner.''

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He was certainly not going to accept th<:: amendment. It would force the Government to pay any

mortgage on a meatworks, even [7.30 p.m.] if it were 50 per cent. over its

value. It said " freed of any mortgage." That was taking it for granted that the Government would confiscate or take over the meatworks without considering any lien that anyone might have on it. .\c2ord­ing to the amendment, if it were mortgageci, even above it·"· value, and the Government had to take it ova, they would have to pay the mo1·tgage price for it. They could not take it at a valuation. If it were mortgaged for £100,000 and the actual value was £70.000. the Government would have to pay £100,000. .

Ho~. E. W. H. FOWLES pointed out that he proposed to move a further amend­ment that would obviate that entirely. The possession which was proposed did not mean title or ownn-ship at all. It was used in t.he legal sense, what thev would ordinarily mean by occupation or ·user. Thev were striking out the words to whieh the :Siinister objected.

[Han. E. W. H. Fowles.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: He did not think: that the clause, as proposed to be amended, would bear the imputation which the Minister suggested. The words he objected to were reallv in the clause at present, and Mr. Fowi'es proposed to strike them out.

Question-That the words proposed to be· omitted (Jir. Fo~vlcs's amendment on cza,se 7) stand part of the clause-put; and the­Committee divided-

CoNTENTS, 4. Ron. W. Hamilton Ron. F. McDonnell

A. Hinchcliffe P. Murphy Teller: Hon. A. Hinchcliffe.

NoT-CONTENTS, 12.

Ron. F. T. Brentnall Hon. A.Gibson C. Campbell T. M. Hall G. S. Curtis P .• T. Leahy A. Dunn A. H. Parnell B. Fahey W. Stephens E. W. H. Fowles .l. H. Whittingham•

Telle1·: Ron. G. S. Curtis.

Resolved in the negative. Amendment a"greed to.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES moved th€,. omission on lines 2 to 6, page 5, of the fol­lowing words:-

"and all the title and property of the· late owner therein shall be changed into· a right to receive payment for the value thereof in the manner and to the extent·. provided by this Act."

The amendment was purely consequential.

Question-That the words proposed to be· omitted (.11r. Fowlrs's amrndm,·nt on cla,se· 7) stand part of the clause-put; and the· Committee divided-

CONTENTS, 4. Ron. W. Hamilton

A. Hinchcliffe Teller: Hon.

Ron. F. :ilfcDonnell P. Murphy

F. :ll:cDonnell.

~OT-CONTENTS, 12.

Ron. F. T. Brentnal! Ron. A.Gibson C. Campbell T. M. Hall G. S. Curtis P. J. Leahy A. Dunn A. H. Parnell B. Fahey W. 8tephens E. W. H. Fowles A. H." hitting ham'

Teller: Hon. T. }f. Hall.

Resolved m the negative.

Ho~. P. J. LEAHY moved the om1ss1orr of subclause (v.) and the last paragraph of the clause with a vic:w to inserting the fol­lowing:-

" (v.) The owner of such property shall be enti tied to be paid, in respect. of the exercise by His Majesty of the powers conferred upon him by this sec­tion, such reasonable amount as may b8 necessary to compensate him for any loss or -damage suffered thereby.

" The amount of such compensation shall be determined by the Land Appeal Court. constituted as provided by the· Land Act of 1910; and, for the purposes of such determination, the Land Appeal Court shall have all the jurisdiction, power, and authority in the last-men­tioned Act and any rules thereunder· provided.

" Any party dissatisfied with the de­termination of the Land Appeal Court

}vfeatworks Bill. [19 OCTOBER.] 1vleatworks Bill. 1335

mrt~·, within twenty-one days thereafter, appertl to the Supreme Court from such determination. Such rtppe3l shall be in the nature of a rehearing, and shall be heard and determined by one judge of the Supreme Court sitting without a jury, whose decision, subject as herein­after proYided, shall be final and con­clusive.

" On the hearing of such appeal such judge shall have all the powers of the Land Appeal Court, and may, if he thinks fit, refer by way of special case any point of law arising on the hearing of such appeal to the Full Court for its opinion. The Full Court shall there­upon hear and determine the questions of Ia w raised by such special case. and shall remit the matter to such judge with an exprPssion of its opinion thereon, and may make any order it thinks proper as to the cost of such special case.

" Subject as afore'aid, the cost of any such appeal shall be in tho discretion of the judge hearing such appeal."

The amendment would give the owners of meatworks a fair value for their property. Any person in business was entitled to some­thing more, in the event of his property being taken from him by the Government, than the bare value of his land, buildings, and stock in trade. Something ought to be allowed for goodwill, because the business might bring him in a very handsome return. While han. members were perfectly willing that the Government should have all the power they desired to help them to carry on the war successfully, they did not desire that the owners of meatworks should loHe through any l0gislation that was introduced. The amendment also provided for an appeal from the Land Court to a judge of the Supreme Court, and in certain contingencies to the Full Court. Xo one had a higher rP9pect for the present Land Appeal Court than he had, but he did not think they had ever been called upon to arrive at Yalues anything approaching what they might be called upon to decide under the BilL In some cases they might run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. But, whetlwr the amendment was large or whether it was small, it v-as not fair that the Land Appeal Court should fix tho value of property with­out the owner having a right of appeaL It might happen that the Land Appeal Court would fix an c xcessive value, and the amPnd­ment would give the Government the right to appeal to a judge of the Supreme Court. The amendment was therefore deJigned as much in the intcre,ts of the Government as it was in the interests of owners of meat­works.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES did not intend to accept the amendment. In the first place, it wa' out of order. Subclause (v.), which the hon. membf'r wished to omit, fixb the sum which the owners of meat­works will be rmtitlcd to receive for their property, on the valuation of the Land Ap­JlCa! Court. This provision could only be acted upon if tho owner refused to conform to the l't'!Sulations of the Government. Thc•P meatworks were public utilities, and were "" much the proper snbicct of regulation as the granariPs of the "Gnit0d States or t.he su"ar­mills of Queensland. It was only where they refused to carry out instructions that

resumption would take place. If they were paid full compensation, there would be no mducement to the companies to obey instruc­tions. Full compensation was not paid ex­cept where the Government resumed in ordi­nary r;; ses, not as a punitive remedy in time of war. The whole amendment was out of order as dealing "'ith a mom:y matter, be­Yond the Council's well understood powers, ~s it inYolved an increased charge on the r( venue. In further connection with this m<dter, it might be observed that, on the occasion of the passacre of the Labourers ilrcland) Act of 1906 through tho Imperial Parliament, the Honse of Lords proposed a l'ertain arnendment to a clause-

,, R0gulating the practice of the courts under the ft ct whereby the rules of court .... shall proYide that the costs pay­

a bit> bv the rural district council incident to th0 ·payment out of court of any money shall not exceed ten pounds,"

whereb:c the follo"·ing words should be in­'erted after ''pounds," namely-

•' unless the court shall otherwise order.''

The House of Commons conveyed to the Lords a message disagreeing with such pro­posed amendment, giving their reason in the following terms:-

" Because they impose a further burden on thE district coun~il; and they con­sider it unnecessary to offer any further rea •• on, hoping that the above reason may be deemed sufficient."

l n the above instance this reason obtained even in a proposed amendment as to a power to make rules limiting costs which, up to the maximum amount of £10, would be in the discretion of the court, which costs would be payable out of the funds of the district council. How much more so would the same principle applv in connection with the pro­posed amendm"ent, the whole tenor of which was the fixing of a basis of compensation pavablc on a much increased scale, which eompensation would he payable out of con­solidated revenue? He might also refer to· "·hat was so.id on the Workers' Compensa­tion Bill on the 'luestion of " imposing a charg·<' "-i.<'., as to the mod<' of levying it. 'rhe ·Earl of Halsburv, in his treatise on "ParliamPnt," gave ~the following as one of the heads of tho priYileges claimed by the Cun1n1onR :-

" That the Lords ought not to amend m· aJt,,· any l0gislative propo•al which is contain0d in any public Bill sent up for tlocir conrnrrcnc<> bv the Commons in such a way as to alte'r the amount of any charc:o ur>on th0 people. or the mod0 of levying it or its duration, distribu­tion, management OJ' collection.

" Whilst admitting the right of the Lords to amend any provision in a public Bill, althoug-h the measure in question ma.;r incidcnt:1llv impoee a charge upon the people, when such pro­vision does not refN to such charg<', the Commons have persi.otently denied to the Lords the right of altering or amending any provision in such Bill when it actu­allv refers to the charge, or to the mode of 'levying it. or to its duration or dis­tribution. or to the management or col­lcC'tion of it."

The amendment imposed a charge on the

Han. W. Hamilton.]

1356 Meatworks Bill. [COUNCIL.] 1'\!leatworks Bill.

Treasury, and was thC'refore an interference with the privileges o£ another place and was out of order.

HaN. P. J. LEAHY: He had listened Yery carefully to the hon. gentleman's remarks, and perhaps eyen more carefully to the authorities he quoted, and he had come to the conclusion that the hon. gentleman had given them one very interesting piece of information, inacmuch as he admitted that the proposal was to acquire mcatworks for less than their value.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear : The SECRETARY FOR ::VliXES : I did no such

thing.

HaN. P. J. LEAHY: That was the plain meaning of the hon. gentleman's words. He was going to penalise them in this way be­cause they would not hand over their works to the GovNnment to deal with them ai' they pleased. It was something like the highwayman, who said to the other fellow. "Hand over your purw, or there will be

-certain consequence,." The Government would say to the owners of meatworks, .. \Ve want to run your works without buying them, and, if you do not consent, WE' will take them over for lE>ss than they are worth." \Vhat kind of condu~t "as that for a Government that calle·cl itself honour­

.uble? The SECRETARY FOR MIXES : I never said

anything of the sort. This Gowrnmellt is just a": houourablu as any Governn1cnt you have ever been connected with. ·

Ron. F. Mr:DONXEI,L: You are twi;,ting the. 0\Iinister's words.

HoK. P. J. LE~.\HY: He did not think he was twisting the hon. gentleman's words. He did not say that the hon. gentleman's Government was dishonest. .He should be

,-ery ~orr:, to say the han. gt~ntle­[8 p.m.] man hiimelf was dishonest, be-

cause he was sure he \vas not. He was quite sure that in his own private affairs the hon. gentleman would not think of doing what the Government proposed to do in this case.

The SEGRETARY FOR MIKES: He would ask the Chairman's ruling as to whether the amendment was in order.

The CHAIRMAN: The proposed amend­ment is not in a strict sense what might be termed a tax on public funds. It is a question of purch",sc and payment, and of assessing thn valtie of the artt('le purchased. and therefore it is different altogether from the amendment wn had this afternoon, by which a .direct tax would be imposed on the public funds without any compensation. This appears to me to be only a case of a pur­chase in ,~·hich the value has to be as~;,es"ed, so that I am of opinion that the amendment is in order.

Hox. P. J. LEAHY: He desired to reply to an interjection that tho Minister made that this Government was more honed than any Government of which he (Mr. Leahy) had been a supporter. He thought it quite possible that the Government did not know the meaning of what they were proposing-. 'I'hey might not have intended to be dis­honest, but all the Governments he had been connClcted with were honest Govern­ments, and, more than that. they knew the meaning and effect of legislation. '

[Han. W. Hamilton.

Hox. P. JVIURPHY: He did not think the Hon. Mr. Leahy was quite correct in hi:; statement that the Minister said that the Government intended to take over the meatworks without paying full value. \Vhat he understood the Minister to say was that the Bill provided that they could take over the "·orks without paying for goodwill. He did not obj cct to that wher~ the g?odwill of any business was practically ml, and "•pecially meatworks which were closed up. It was not likely the Goyernment would hamper themselves in carrying on businesses which were troublosome to conduct, unless the necessities of the Empire demanded it. It was neces,ary at tho present time to give the Government extraordinary powers in connection with these matters, and he questioned if it, was wise to hamper them and laY down rules and regulations as they would "in ordinary times. He knew some businesses that were for sale at the present time, and they w.tntcd to g-et what this Bill provided th0 mcatworks should get--full YaluP for the works, stock. machinery, etc. It mig-ht fairly be left to the. Government to ciccidn the value of these thmgs, and there ,1·us no doubt thE'y would allow reasonable goodwill.

The SECRFTARY FOR JVlD!ES: In to-clay's !'a per there is a noti~c,lt!on that the_ En~~ish Government are cons1denng the adv18e.b1hty, in the public inter0st, of taking over meat in England.

Hox. P. :MURPHY: If he remembered 1 i"htlv the last Prcmi Jr of Queensland said rl~at tl~e Home Government had asked him to take steps in the direction proposed under thi& Bill. It was an understood thing that the Federal Government would be in a position to take oyer any proportion . of_ a maa's property for the purpoc•e of ass1stmg the Ernpire in carrying on the \Var. A man might have " big balance in the bank, and +he Federal Government, he understood, \\ uuld be able to seize & proportion of that balance, Tho majority of th•' people be­lieved that the real object of the recent pro­JCertv census was to enable the Government to decide how much they would take from each one. If a man was worth £100,000, the Government might take £40,000.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: They might take it all yet.

Hon. A. H. \VHITTINGHAM: It was given out that the war tax cards were not for the l''ll'pose of taxation.

Hox. P. MURPHY: He was not behind the scene" in the matter. There was no doubt that s110h things had been done before.

The SEORETARY FOR MINES : Sir William Irvine was advocating it in to-day's paper that in these times people should give tho whole of their income·.

Hox. P. MURPHY: And yet they were wasting time over the que,tion of the good­will of a business that was not, perhaps, worth anything at all

Hox. G. S. CURTIS was of opmwn that, if the properties were taken over by _the Government, the owners should be fairly com,Jensated, and aho that the owners chou'ld have a right of appeal in case the propertiPs ,,-ere undervalued, and the amendment would provide for that. If the amendment were ruled out of order, it would preveqt the Council from remedying

JJ:leatworks Bill. [19 OCTOBER.] 5Ieat-u·orks Bill. l35T

the gro~~est injustice: because it 1night in· crease the burd<·n upon the Treasury. Th~y had no r0ason to doubt that an appeal court would 1\0t give the best consideration to the y aluc of tho property to be taken over, but 'YPn courts 1nade 1nistakes. and, if an error was made, it would be an injustice if tlw r,,vner of th-P property had not the right of appeal.

Ho::-~. B. FAHEY: He was plea,•ed to hear tho Chairman rule the amendment in order. He supported the amendment for the reason that this was a transaction which was not finally settled, and the Council was quite competent to dh1l with it; but he was not going to agree that the goodwill-which was a problmnnti0al que.~.tion at any tirne­should be considered by the purchaser. These wore exceptional timPs, in which tho intere.:;t;c of the Imperial authorities wore seriously concerned. Tho property taken over \vould be .-alued honostl.' by a competent tribunal. .~nd ho was not going to ;-ate for goodwill. \V h:ch n1ay not exist, being paid for.

Ho::-~. P. J. LEAHY: He had not said bat goodwill would have to be paid for, a3 there might be none at all; but, if there was any goodwi!l, the cou:t >vould have the ricrht to allow for it. If there was none, th~rc would .be no payment made, but he did nor thmk 1t was fair th-at three or four rcople 'hould hdp the Empire bv, perhaps looincr £1,000 which they were eJ1titlcd to. ' If th~ Empire was to be helped, it should be helpe·d all round by those who had we~lth and men who owned meatworks should not be· singled out more than anvbodv else. He again submitted that his amendment was reasonable.

HoC'!. B. FAHEY: The han. member seemed to think that the Government should pay eomething above the intrinsic .-alue as it appeared to the valuators. The Government had nothing at all to do with the valuation. They referred it to a tribunal and surelv that tribunal of high officials w~s not going to; penalise any citizen whose property was taKen over, or fa.-our the Government anv more than the citizen. ' ·

The SECRET.IRY FOR ;\frNES : It is only where they refuse to carry out instructiollil that resumption will take plaoe. The Go­vernment do not want to take these things over.

Han. G. S. CuRTIS: The amendment does not say anything about goodwilL

HoN. B. FAHEY: It was inferred ali the same. He would not for one moment desire thnt any citizen or owner of property should suffer to the extent of one shilling. He did not desire that three or four any more than 300 or 400 should suffer unnecessary incon­venience or injustice unless for the benefit of the Empire. Whatever was done by the Government under the Bill was done entireh· at the expense of e;-ery taxpayer in the country. Every man in that House and every man in the State was bound to make and must necessarily make, sacrifices in th~ interests of the Imperial authorities, and whel! they ma.de thos.o sacrifices they we1·e makmg them m the mterests of every tax­payer and householder in Queensland.

H~N. P. J. LEAHY: It was necessa.ry to remmd tho Han. Mr. Fahey of paragrap1l {a)-

'" (a) In tho case of land buildings Plant, and equipment, represent£ th~

,,etual valu<' thn·eof without making any CJ.llowance for compuhury purchase, or sp0cial adaptabilitv to the late owner's ·:nv-i:nt:ss. or for disturbance, severance,. or good\vill."

There wa€ a claup,,, in the Bill which p!'O­vidcd that, if f!Oodv.-ill existed, the Land Cou!t was not permitted to make any allow­c~nce fm· it. Did the lion. :Mr. Fahey j ustif~, that? lt was a mandatory provision that, if gocldwill .-xi<>tcd. they should not consider, ir. IIow could thev know whether the Go­·vcrninent. \YO$ g·oing to be right or '\Vrong.

.tnd. bciorc tlH'Y could decide, they would '""~ant to know voha~ in;;;;b:uctinns tho GoYern­n:t..nt \VCre go:"ng to giYe.

The SECREnRY FOR ::YJixF~: Tlw Govern­nwnt eonlcl not dictate to a tribunal likD the L21nd ( ;ourt.

Hox. P. J. LEAHY: Tlw Government, 'culd di<::tate to the ownN. They could say that tlh·v war:tod him to hand oYer his, rneatwo:-I{s on certain tern1S 7 which might be hursh, and the clause' placed them in a posi­tion to say. "If you do not do it, we will go to the Land Court, and the Land Court (·,\nnot g-ive you that coinnenFation." It was. unfair pre<.:~nre to put upon a 1nan.

Ho:\. B. FAHEY: Apparently it was not for one moment the desire of the Go.-ern­ment to int'rferc with anybody in thfr, po;,sp;,sion of property or busiiWc•S. The han. member )Jrcsupposed that the Government wne both dishmw-;t and vindictive, that they might p:o to a person who was not persona grata ,;l'ith thelY. and say, " \Ve will give 'ou um·<>asonable instructions. Our desires. are so and so." which might be unreasonable, improper, and Yexatious.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : The instruc­tions >vould hHve to be g,,neral. 'l'hey could not be given to any individual.

HoN. B. FAHEY: The Government, from the top to the bottom, were respectable, honourable members of the community, and mrely they must give them credit for being, S'msible men ! If they were going to be extreme in their legislation, it was the duty of the Council to prevent it, but it was only a matter of war business with them. They must not deal with the Government in this, unreasonably suspicious way.

HoN. G. S. CURTIS understood that the­Han. Mr. Fahey was not speaking of the present Government, but of any Government. He supposed they would have a change of Government in Queensland some day. Th& amendments laid down that allowance was to be made for any actual injury or loss sustained. Nothing was said about good­will. If it could be shown that they were suffering by having their property taken over, surely it would be only right to com­pensate them. Surely it was reasonable enough to say that due compensation should b"' made for injury or loss actually sustained. Surely no one would wish the Government of Queensland, or any Government, to seize a person's business for any purpose whatever without paying a fair price. As the amend­mont was qualified, he did not think the· Government should offer any objection to it The meatworks business had been built up by the owners, and the present cessation owing to the drought was only temporary. and, considering the benefits that they had

Han. G. S. Curtis.]

1358 Mea!works Bill. [CO"UXCIL.] Meatworks Bill.

conferred on the people of Queenol_and through thP enorn1ously increased Y~lue g'IYen to stocks and herds. they were entitled to a fair price when their busine·s'H?S WE're taken from them.

HoN. F. T. BRE~'rNALL: He would like to ask the han. member whether he meant that it was fair to pay for the actual va)ue -of the property and to exclude _everythmg in tho nature of damage or goodwill? It was said that there was no reference in the amendment to goodwill, but it was men­tioned very distinctly and emphatically in th<· Bill and he took it that the amendment was to 'strike it out of the Bill. That was a matter of personal opinion. \Vhen th<? Bill came to the Council, it wa,s not strictly a war Bill, but thev had made it so. Clause

·2 seemed to have been a new chuse inserted somewhere, and it was out of harmony with the oth<?r portions of the Bill. They had

. 'been endeavouring to bring those other por­tions into harmony with it by m~king it a ,,, ar mea••Ure. Where a Bill wa,s brought in under extraordinary circumstanceo, to me<?t an emerg-ency, they did not ask for arrang·e· ment~ such as would be made between thr• seller and tho purchaser of property in which -there was no special interest. The Govern· ment was coming in by proclamation and tttking possfwRion of the rneatworks because of the exigencies of the case. In the pro­damation they stated that it wa. wanted bcmmse certain produ~ts must be produced there. lf the ownc r of the property refused

to produce that particular corn­[8.30 p.m.] modity, th<:' Government coulcl

tnke pr~,·,,(>"~ion f'f thG pronm·ty. All the circum<tanc-es of the case being tll'g<:'nt. it seemed to him that it was ju<ti­Hub~e ff r p.,,e Goyernrnr-nt to tnke < \ Jl' the prop0rt:v without taking gondwill into con­~idf'rot;on. It was not a ca'<' of the· sale of an ordinary businc•.s. The subclause which the hon. member proposed to omit Tead-

" {v.) Tho amount which the late owner of such property ehall be entitled to be paid upon the acquisition thereof under this •CJction shall be such sum as-

(a) In the c1s0 of land. buildings, plant, and e'quipment, represents the actual value thereof without making any allowance for compulsory purchase, or special adaptability to the late owner's business, or for disturbance, severance, or goodwill."

'That would be a very great hardship under ordinarv conditions. It would possibly be an iniustic" under certa.in circumstances, but the Bill proposed to deal with exception>tl circumstances of national danger-circum­stances in which it became absolutely neces­sary that certain things should be done, and tho owners of the meatworks refused to do those things. This had been done fifty times over probably in Great Britain within th, !a st t,,, clve months, and the question of goodwill was ignored in every ca,n. Hon. members should consider whothm· the circum­stances did not justify the Go'. ernment in !.,,._ ing violent hands on that property inasmuch as the o·•.:ners would not comply with the demands of the proclamation issued by the Gowrnor in Council. He did not know that the Committ~e would be justified in trying to wipe out e.ltogether the conditions laid down in the Bill, ucJ the amendment would wipe

[Han. G. S. Curtis.

out tho words he had just quoted. He felt in a difficulty about the a.mendment, but he tl1ought the Hon. Mr. Leahy wo_ul<l: act wi~elv in withdrawing it, because It mter­ferecl" with the central principle of the measure Where it was intended to apply to. speci~l conditions of danger, it was their duty to stand by the intereets of the country and help the Government. !Hear, hear!)

HoN. P. ,J. LEAHY: There appeared to be a good deal of misconception with regard to the meaning of the words he proposed. to omit, and, perhaps, s_ome misco:.rceptwn with regard to the meanmg of the .words he propoeed to insert. Most hon. members ~ho had spoken appeared to be ;mder the Im­pression that the words he wished to delete required the acquisition of property by ~he Gm·ernmont for all purpo,,es, and runmng over a period not •8XCeeding six months after tho duration of the war, but the subclause ho proposed tv omit meant something very much wider than that. It meant that the Government would bo able· to acquire the freehold, and, once they acquired the free­hold during th<" currency of the Act, they could ke-ep it fm all time. If the subclause oulv meant that the Gm·ernment could do these' things during the curNmcy of the war, and that the:v could only use the meatworks, he would not have proposed his amen~mer:t. PPrht~P" the ainendmeLts movr,d earlier In the Bill b: the Han. ::\Ir. Fowles limite.d the

of the m··-a,ure, but he did not think went the length of preventing the Go­

vernment. from acquiring tho freehold. If the Ibn. ::\Ir. Fowles's amendm0nts limited the Gowrnmc·nt to the right of using th<? prop0rty, that. was a suffi,~ient reason why thev .houlcl stnko out ,_ubC'lause (v.), becausr• 1~. \n_1Ul{l bf' inconsi" ·ont with tho a!ncnd­IhC'nts rJr -:-~dy <'8'Ticrl. ~Iurh as he wa3 im­pn --.cd by come o~ the. orgumcnts. h~ saw no rea-on to alter h1s athtnde. for the simple rca,·on thnt the clauGc g·aye the GoYernrnent the pm.-or to acctuiro the freP-hn!d of l~md, and thov could keep it a long as they Irked after th'e war was over. He~. F. T. BRE~TNALL asked the hon.

membn to bear in mind that svmebody had proviclcd for all that by inserting in cl:mse 2 the abcolutG limitation of the powers of the Act to war purpose··: and war time~ .. H_e _did not suppco anyone would be so :nJudwwus as to hand over his property, with a pro­vision like· that in tho Bill, unle-is he was anxious to get rid of it. There would have to be 'omething like fair dealing in com;ec. tion with the transaction.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Under the clause as printed tho Goyernll!ent . could acquire nH~ab-\~orks undc1· c0rtain Clr'?um· stances, but, as they had amended it, the GoY<>rnmcnt could haw• full control of the work- without having the title deeds. Tl,at pov, cr would only la~t d'!-r~ng the period of th0 war. 'C'ncler the ongmal clause there was very great need for the Hon. Mr. Lcahv's amendment. Under the clause as amcn:dcd. there was still need for the ame?Id­ment but not so much as before. Supposmg anv ~mforcseen and accidc-ntal loss occurred to' tho nwatw Jrks, the amendme·nt provided that that locs should not fall entire!~, upon tho owners, who ha-d not any control over tho wcrks. Under the clause as amended, the Gcwernment could not acquire the' free­holc1.

Hor1. T. M. HALL: Then the clause will be· a contradiction in that case.

Mea,tworks Bill. [19 OCTOBER.] 1VIeatworks Bill. 1359

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: It would be a ·contradiction.

Hon. F. 'I'. BRENTNALL: 'Where is any­thing said about acquiring the freehold?

HoN. E. W. H. FO'\VLES: Paragraph . (v.) (a) JCrovided that the Government might acquire the freehold. As it stood, that para­graph was inconsistent with the first part of the clause, and it should be omitted in any case, no matter what was put in its place. It seemed fair that the owners should get compensation for any exceptional loss or

-damage that occurred while the works were being run b) the Government, and that, after the termination 1oif the war, they would not be handed back a wrecked con­

·cern. They could not claim compensation for ordinary wear and tear, but for excep­tional loss and damage they might fairly daim compensation.

Hon. F. T. BRENTNALL: There would bu some goodwill attached to it if the works were worth taking over at all, and, if they were not, the Government would not want them.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: It was a ques­tion whether the goodwill would pass to the Government.

Hon. F. T. BRENTNALL: The goodwill be­c{)Omes dead for the time being, be<'ause it is a wctr measure. You might as well talk of the goodwill of a mansion blasted down by one of the German mortars.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Or where the Government makes the hotels close hours before closing time.

Hol<!. E. W. H. FO'\VLES : He did not think there would be verv much goodwill if the title did not pass. "

Hon. F. T. BRENTNALL: There is no more goodwill in this c1.se than there is in the life .of a young fellow who v,oes to th.· frcnt and is shot there. '

The SECRETARY' FOR MINES called attf'ntion to the very first paragraJCh in the claus'', which showed that it v·as only under -certain conditions that thn Government -could take poc;sese·:on. It read-

" If at any time the Governor in Council is satisfied that the owner of any meatworks has failed to comply with any of the provisions of any pro­clamation, and that such failure of com­pliance is contrary to the public interest, of which facts he shall be the sole judge, then, in addition to, and without pre­judice to, any other right or power conferred by this Act, or any liability to punishment imposed by this Act, the following consequence~ may ensue:-

'They took it over on those terms only where the owners absolutely refused to obey the instructions or carry out the proclamations. If the owners obeyed the proclamation which might be issued by the Government while the war was in operation, the Government had no legal right under this Bill to take over the works; it was only where the ownf\rs disobeyed. If the Government paid the actual value for the goods and chattels, land, and evel-ything else, it would be an inducement for some who wanted to get rid of their works to refuse to recognise the proclamation, in order that the Government might take the lot over.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY said they were giving, and ought to give, the Government ample power to deal with matters of this kind in the present crisis, and were not limiting their power so far as acquisition of the meatworks was concerned. They had passed the amendments moved by the Hon. Mr . Fowles, which permitted the Government to use these works, but if the other portion stood which he wanted to delete, it would permit them to acquire the freehold, and the two provisions were inconsistent.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES said that clause 7 gave the Government the most ample powers to deal with the matter.

HoN. P. MURPHY said that, if a majority in the Council were not prepared to trust the Government in the matter, they ought to say so, but they ought to give power to somebody.

HoN. T. M. HALL said that the Minister, while declaring the Bill to be purely a war­measure, had, by other statement•, indicated quite dearly that it was a question of utility, which meant that they would use the war conditions as a pretext for a seizure of rneatworks, which, under ordinary circum­stances, would not be permitted by an honest community. If the meatworks were to be taken over and utilised only during the con­tinuance of the "ar, there should be noth­ing paid for goodwill, and anyone who stood in the way of the Government doing a fair thing should be penalised for his opposition to the Government. If this was only a war mt<tsur~, tncrc should be no compensation to any persons whoec medworks were utilised by the GoYernmenc during the period of the war.

Hox. P. J. LEAHY said that, if it would meet the objections which had been raised to his amendment, he would be willing to omit the words-

" In computing such compensation, due allowance shall be made for any loss or injury due to disturbance of any business of such owner, whether carried on in Queensland or <"1sewhere, or to severance of any proper!Jy." -

As he had pointed out, those words must come out, because they were inconsistent \Vith the amendm<·nts of the Hon. Mr. Fowles which had been carrieJ. That would per­haps meet the views of hon. members who did not see eye to eye with him (Mr. Leahy). With the permission of hon. members, he would alter h1s amendment in the way he had suggested.

Amendment, by leave, amended accord­ingly.

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted (J[r. Leahy's amendment) stand part of the clause ;-pnt; and the Committee divided;-

CoNTENTS, 5. Han. B. Fahey

W. Hamilton A. Hinchcliffe

Teller: Han.

Han. F.- M oDonnell P. Murphy

A. Hinchcliffe.

NoT-CoNTENTS, 10. Ron. C. Campbell Ron. T. M. Hall

G. S. Curtis P. ,T, Leahy A. Dunn A. H. Parnell E. W. H. Fowles W. ~tcphens A. Gibson , A. H. Whittingham

Teller:' Ron. A. Dunn, Resolved in the negative.

Hon. P. J. Leahy.]

l3GO lvieatworks Bill. [COUNCIL.]

[9 p.m.] Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, put .otnd passed.

On clause 8-" Pavment bv Government stcck"-- " "

HoN. P. J. LEAHY moved the omis,ion of subclaus<os (1) and (2), as follow:-

" (1.) ."l.t the option of the Governor in Council tho amount of money represent­Ing tho value ascertained under this Act of any property acquired under this Act may be paid to the late owner of such property by me.otns of Government stock is•3Ued at par, and the late owner of such property shall be bound to re­ceive snch Government stock to the amount aforesaid in full satisfaction of the obligation of tho Government to pay such value.

"(2.) Such Government stock shall be of such description, shall have such cur­rency, and shall bear su"h interest, not less than four pounds pe; centum per annum and not exceeding five pounds per centum per annun1, us the Governor in Counc·il by proclamation shall declare."

with a view t0 inserting the following:-

" Tho amount of any compensation <lS determined under this Act sh<1ll be paid to the owner of such property in cash, or at the option of such owner may be paid by the issue to him at par of an equivalent amount of Government stock with a currency not exceeding ton yea:s and bearing interest at a r<lte not exceed­ing the rate of five pounds per centum per annum, or at the option of such owner .may be paid partly in ope and pm·tly 111 the other of such modes of pay-111ent. ''

The <1mendment dealt with a matter on which he had previously spoken at consider­able length, and it simply meant that the Government should pay the proper value. The owner would not get something under the value by having to take debentures. That certainly would bc.<l fair deal. He did not think there could be <lilY objection to the amendment.

Hon. F. MAcDoNNELL: Is it in order?

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: He thought it W<ls.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES asked the Chairman whether the amendment was in order. It was absolutely varying the terms and conditions under which the Bill

• propo10ed to <lequire the propertv, and it imposed <1 certain charge on the 'I'reasury.

HaN. P. J. LEAHY: Before the Chair­man gave his ruling, he would like to say that he thought the amendment was on quite "' different footing from matters which, under the Standing Orders, they had no right to interfere with. The principle of the Bill, especially <lS they had amended it, was th<lt the owners should get fair treatment and fair compensation. The amendment provided for that. Were they in a subsequent clause to give the owner something less than that to which he >vas entitled? It was not some­thing contrary to the principle of the Bill. There were lots of things that they might -cb which might deprive the Government of revenue. In a Land Bill they might m<lke an amendment affecting the amount of

[Hon. P. J. Leahy.

revenue the Govcrnn1r,nt 1night get, bnt he· had never hoard that thev were not able t<:> do it. If the idea were earricd out that the Hon. the )ilinister had suggested, they could hardly make <1ny amendment. It wa•' an attempt to unduly limit the rights of the Chamber.

The CH_\.IRMAX: This amendment does not appe1u to me to be in order, strictly speaking, because it fixes the rate of interest,. and that entails a charg·e on consolidated reycnue. I am of opinion. therefore, that the amendment is not in order.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: He took it that he would be in order if he were to follow the practice of the Bon. :VIr. Fowles earlier in the afternoon and giYe verbal notice of dis­sent from the ruling on undertaking to give written noti~e later on.

Hor;. E. W. H. FowLES: How would it be tu n10YC an .ainE'ndment leavir.g a blank_ in .tead of ''five"?

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: There was some­thing in tho sug-g·esti_on,. but i~ might come· ba~k with "three" m It. wh1ch would be­wo~se than it now was, so 'that he thought h-e had better stand as he was. HG ha·d a reasonable amount of confidence in the Go­vernment, but it did not do to have too much confidence in anybody.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES suggested that, i! thev omitted subclause~ (1) and (2), the Government would have to pay by legal tender, the same as any individual.

Hon. 'I'. }'[. HALL : The Government are not sup nosed to be taking the works over, according to previous clauses. They are sup· posed to be using them.

Hox. P. J. LEAHY: The Hon. Mr. Fowles's suggestion \vas a new view of the· matter, but there might be a question whether the Government would make any payment. He _did not kno:v whether the .Ch<1irm<1n's rulmg was agamst the words he proposed to omit, or the words he pro-posed to put in. .

Hon. E. W. H. FowLES: Against the­words you proposed to put in.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Then he supposed ha would be in order in doing half of .wJ:at he intended to do and move the om1sswn of the words. Possibly they might not put. in any words at all.

The CHAIR::y{AN : What are you going to· put in?

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: He took; it J;.e could strike out words and put nothmg m. He moved the omission of subclauses (1) and (2).

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He was. certainly not going to a.ccept the amendment. If hon. members had come t?ere with the intention of destroying the B1ll, they could· not have accomnlished it better than they had done. The -Bill, with the amendments. of the Hon, Mr. Fowles and the Hon. Mr. Leahy, was absolutely useless,. an~ he ':"as not going to waste any more t1me m saymg· that he would not accept this or that. They could put in this or that, or ta.ke out this. or that. He did· not think any self-respecting Government would stand the mutilation of their measures in the way in which the Bill' had been mutilated.

1]![ eacworks Bill. [19 OCTOBER.] Meatworks Bill. 1361

Ho". F. McDONNELL : He had under­stood that the amendment of the Han. Mr. Leahy was contrary to the Standing Orders. However, he was very glad that the repreGen­tative of the Government had spoken in the manner he had, because anybody who had come into the Chamber and listened since half-pa;t 3 o'clock to the Hon. Mr. Leahy and the Hon. Mr. Fowles could have come to no other conclusion than that they came there with the predetermined intention of destroying the Bill. They certainly had done so. The• Bill was a war measure, and the representatives of the banks, pastoral institutions, and moneyed interests, who waited upon the Minister asking to have it recast and made a war measure were evidentlv satisfied with the amendment in clause 2. The Bill was passed by a very large majority in the other place. Sacrifices had to be made at the present time on account of the war, and yet they found patriots like the Hnn. Mr. Fowles and the Han. Mr. Leahy taking up the time of the Council for hours in moving amendments which simply destroyed that war measure, which fully nine-tenths of the people of Queensland were anxious to see passed. The representatives of those concerned, as the Han. Mr. Whittingham had stated, suggested th.o amendment which the Government adopted.

Hon. A. H. \VHITTINGHAM: I did not say that. I say they suggested that it should be made a war measure.

HoN. F. McDON::-.JELL: And the Govern­ment made it a war measure, and now they found the Hon. Mr. Leahy and the Hon. Mr. Fowles mutilating the Bill, and saying in the most definite way that they had not th8 slightest confidence in the pledged word of the Government. He was not surprised at the representative of the Government feeling indignant. It was no wonder that the representative, of the people in the other Chamber should be indignant that measures which should appeal at the present time to hon. members should be so mutilated. The han. members' own colleague, the Hon. Mr. Brentnall, admitted that the Han. Mr. Fowles's first amendment was unnecessary as clause 2 provided that it should be a wa; measure. Yet the Hon. Mr. Fowles was not satisfied. but had kept them there for hours while he was proposing every possible precaution, and was showing the utmost distrust in the Government and in everything they proposed. He strongly protested against such action. Although the hon. members ~ight contend that they were exercising their rights as members of the Council, yet the Government de-;erved some consideration and scme recognition for their action in this matter. In no other Parliament in Australia had war measures been treated as they had b<;en in thBt Chamber, where they had met with the most determined opposition.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: In justice to himself and to hon. members who shared his views he could not permit the remarks of th~ hon. member to go uncontradicted. He chal· lenged the hon. member to show how he had done anything to prevent the Govern­ment carrying out their intention to help in the successful prosecution of the war. Noth­ing had been done in that Chamber to hinder the .G:overnment in the slightest degree acqmrmg control of meatworks and doing

1915-4 p

m·erything possible to help the Imperial Government in obtaining meat supplies. The han. member said, further, that. what had been done on the present occasion was only on a par with what they had done on other occasions of a similar kind. Surely the hon. member must have a short memory. Last year, when there was another Govern­me·nt in power, in a quarter of an hour they put through a most drastic measure giving the Government control of the whole of the stock in Queensland. Other war measures had not been mutilated, and he defied the hon. member to point to a single Bill of a war character that had been mutilated. He did not admit that this Bill had been muti~ated. They had amended it so as to pl'OVIde that the person who owned meat· works should get reasonable protection, an6 that their property should not be taken from them without some kind of recompense. They had allowed the Government the very fullest power to issue proclamations, to appoint controllers, and to run the meatworks on their own account. All they had done was to put in certain limitations. He challenged anyone to prove that they had done anything that put the Government in a bad position with regard to supplying the Imperial Go­vernment with meat. They had given the Government as full powers as the Imperial Government has got in other matters, so that there was no reason for complaint. He disclaimed indignantly any desire to prevent the Government giving all the assistance they could. He had clone nothing to put the Government in an awkward position, and none of the amendments he h&d still to move would mutilate the Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Do you think the Government will accept your amend­ments?

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Whether the Go­vernment would accept his amendments or not was not the question. The soldier at the front ·did his duty regardless of consequences. He might fall in the attack and he might suffer. Hon. members were there to do their duty according to their lights, and they were not there to be browbeaten and to be told what some other place might do. The other place might have their rights, but hon. members had their rights. He protested against threats being made to interfere with them in the conduct of their business.

HoN. A. HINCHCLIFFE thoroughly and heartily endorsed the remarks made by the Hon. Mr. McDonnell. The whole afternoon had been spent in discussing amendments which were quite unnecessary to ensure that it was intended for war purposes only, in view of the amendment which had been made at the request of the bankers and others representing financial interests who waited upon the Government. Their desire was em­bodied in claus"o 2. Yet the Hon. Mr. Leahy, in conjunction with the Han. Mr. Fowles, had occupied the whole sitting in discussing amendments having for their object the pro­tection of the sacred rights of property and making provision for goodwill at a time of unprecedented crisis. At the very time that those hon. members were clamouring for the rights of property, thousands of men were sacrificing their live" at the front without any recognition whatever in the way of com­pensation or goodwill. There was not the slightest doubt that the whole attempt was to mutilate the Bill. Ron. members had

Bon. A. Hinchcliffe.]

1362 Meatworks Bill. [COUNCIL.] Meatworks Bill.

accomplished that object, and the whole afternoon had been wasted without any hope whatever of securing the end that was desired.

RoN. A. H. WHITTINGHAM wished to say a word or two by way of reply to what had been said by the Hon. Mr. McDonnell and the Hon. Mr. Hinchcliffe. They were there in that Chamber to discuss measures, and not to rush them through. Yet those hon. members spoke as if hon. members had abso­lutely no right to talk at all unless they were of the same way of thinking as them­selves. The deputation which waited upon the Minister requested that the Bill should be made a war measure, and on that occa­sion he (Mr. Whittingham) said-

" Now that the Minister had heard the views of the deputation, he hoped he would advise the Government to fur­ther consider the matter, and, if possible, t<> drop the Bill or to amend it. (A voice: Make it a war Bill.) If this Bill was broug;ht in as a war Bill, not a man probably would raise a finger. If it was a war measure, that would put a dif. ferent face on the matter altogether."

Judging by what the Minister said when he first spoke on the Bill, he could not regard it as a genuine war measure. The amendments that had been moved to-day had evidently been well thought out, and were necessary to supplement clause 2, to which they were really consequential amend­ments designed to make the Bill thoroughly a war measure. For that reason, it was unjust· to accuse the two hon. members of wasting time who had been singled out.

HoN. E. . W. H. FOWLES : If the Bon. Mr. McDonnell were more frequently in his place, he would not have made so many mistakes. He was glad to welcome the hon. member there on that occasion.

Hon. F. McDONNELL: I do not receive any fee for being here.

BoN. E. W. H. FOWLES : The bon. mem. ber did not seem to have read the Bill or to understand the amendments. Probably, being bnsy outside, he had no time to read the Bill or to understand the amendments. He (Mr. F.uwles) considered it his duty to go through every clause of every Bill and to endeavour to see that the Bills were returned to the other place in a fairly workable con­dition. It would have been very easy to say that, as clause 2 had been amended and the Bill was now declared to be a war measure, they had done their duty. But it was necessary to go through every clause and to see what consequential amendments were necessary to make the Bill plain Eng­lish, and for doing that they were criticised and accused of wasting time. They had wasted thirty-five minutes in taking unneces­sary divisions, but he was not going to find fault with the Minister who had called for those divisions, because probably the hon. gentleman had a very good re'ason for call­ing for those divisions which he had not given to the Committ"ee. Nine-tenths of the amend­ments that had been moved that afternoon were consequential amendments. There were some consequential amendments necessary in clause 8, but he proposed to let them go. 'I'hey might be made in the other Chamber, or the Bill might be returned and the Council might be asked why those amend­ments had not been made. Really, the only

[r!c•n. A. Hinchcliffe.

alteration they had made in the Bill was to omit the principle of the Government buy­ing the meatworks straight out, but they had given the Government full control of the meatworks for the purpose of the success­ful prosecution of the war. That made it a genuine war measure. All the other amendment~ were neceBsary alterations from that, which had commended itself to the wisdom of the Council. If it was a genuine war measure, what more did the Govern­ment want'? The 2nd clause only said that the Government could acquire the meat­works during the period of war, but said nothing about their actions during the three years. It did not stop the result of their actions at the end of the war. Under the Bill as. it was originally introduced, sup­posing the war lasted three years, the Go­vernment could take over the meatworks for three years and six months, and at the end of that time they would still belong to the Government.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: What are the grounds which empower the Government to take over the meatworks 1 Look at clause 7. The Bill does not empower the Govern­ment to take over ·any meatworks where they comply with the regulations.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: The regula· t~ons were simply brought in by proclama­tiOn. The Government could make a pro­clamation and interpret the regulations very harshly under certain circumstances. From a Government which had brought in the :Yietropolitan Sewe·rage Workers' Award Bill they might expect anything. The Hon. Mr. McDonnell said they were wasting time in this discu,~ion while the shadow of a great war was upon them, but what had the Go­vernment done in connection with the Sew­erage Bill?

The CHAIRMAK : The hon. member must confine himself to the question before the House, which is the proposed deletion of subclauses (1) and (2).

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: That brought them to the necessity of such an amendment. \Vould any hon. gentleman give bad sover­eigns in change? In these two subcla uses the Government were going to give counter­feit sovereigns in return for the purchase of meatworks. 'l'hey were going to give 4 per cent. debentures.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: They can give 5 per cent.

RoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: Would anyone give 5 per cent. when they could give 4 per cent. ? If the Government could buy at 4 per cent. under the Bill, they would not give a fraction more than 4 per cent. That was the rank commercial dishonesty which was incorporated in this Bill. It was burglary by Act of Parliament, and it was supposed to be advocated by men of commercial honour outside of this House.

Ron. F. McDONNELL: And accepted by the men who own the meatworks-the banks.

RoN. E. W. H. FOWLES : If any mem­ber of the Council had to pay a bill he would pay it in legal coin; he would not say he would pay it in promissory-notes which would be only worth 90 per cent. of their face value. '!'he man who did that ought to be on the other side of the bars. They proposed to omit the subclause and to

Paper. [19 OCTOBER.] Questions. 1363

>:rescue the Government from the stigma of osimply being commercial swindlers in the ·purchase of meatworks, and they were ac­·-cused of wasting time. He could not under­.stand how the Government, with all the re­sources of Queensland at their back, gave depreciated debentures when they bought meatworks. If they were out for patriotic objects, the right thing was to increase cattle,

·sheep, and agricultural products rather than make a mean bargain with the meat­works. Every man who dealt honestly with his neighbour would say thev ought to pay full value in cash for the meatworks.

Question-That the words proposed to be ·omitted (Mr. Leahy's amendment) stand part of the clause; -put; and the Commit­tee divided;-

CoNTENTs, 4. 'Ron. B. Fahey Ron. A. Hinchcliffe

W. Hamilton , F. McDonnell Teller: Ron. F. McDonnell.

NoT·CoNTENTS, 5. :Hon. G. S. Curtis Ron. A. H. Parnell

E. W. H. Fowles A. H. Whittingham P. J. Leahy

Teller: Ron. A. H. Whittingham.

The CHAIRMAN: "Contents," 4; "Not-· Contents," 5. There being no quorum in the Committee, I must report that fact to the

•Council. The Council resumed.

The CHAIRMAN: I have to report that ·a division having been taken, there was no •quorum present.

ADJOURNMENT-XC Q'CORl':);L

The bells having been rung for three minutes, as required by Standing Order Xo. 19,

The PRESIDENT said: ThE>re not being a quorum present, the Council will stand

. adjourned until the next sitting day. The Council stood adjour!led at twelve

• minutes to 10 o'clock.