Legislative Assembly Hansard 1906 - Queensland Parliament

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 1906

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Supply. [18 SEPTEMBER.] Questions. 815

TUESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER, 1906.

The SPEAKER (Hon. Sir A. S. Oowley, Herbert) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

PAPERS.

The following papers, laid on the table, were ordered to be printed :-

(1) Report by the trustees of the Agricul­tural Bank of QueAnsland for the financial year ended 30th June, 1906.

(2) Shedule to the Estim:.tes-in-Ohief for 1906-7.

QUESTIONS. TORRES STRAITS PEARL FISHEI\IES.

Mr. HARGREAVES (Cook) asked the Pre­n1ier-

1. What amount was paicl to i\Ir. W. Saville-Kent for his report on the Torres Straits pearlshell fisheries, dated 12th October, 1905?

2. Is it the intention of the Government to introduce such amended legislation as will give effect to the

816 Industrial and Reformatory [ASSEMBLY.] Schools Act Amendment Bill.

reccJrnmendation rontained in the report referred to, as being necessary to the restoration of the pearl­shelling industry to its former profitable productive­ness?

The PREMIER (Hon. W. Kid8ton, Rock­hampton) replied-

1. Twenty-five guineas. 2. Thr nmtter is engaging the serious consideration of

the Gm·ernment.

PnosERPINE FARMERS.

Mr. KENNA (Bmrm) asked the Treasurer­!. Is it a fact th~lt farmers at Proserpine have been

asked by Dr. ::.\1a.xwell to assign their bonus for white labour cane to the mill~

2. Under what conditions or circumstances t-

The TREASURER (Hon. W. Kidston) replied-

l. Yes. 2. 'Vhrm a farmer receives an advance to make his

crop, if he undertakes to harvest the cmp. that is satisf~lctory. Il' he cannot undertake to harvest the crop, the mill l'i'(lUil'f"' the assignment of the federal bonus in order to pay the white labout· doing the work, for which purpose the bonus is provided.

SUPPLY.

HEPOHT FHOM CmnnTTEE.

The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. Jackson, Kennedy) reported the resolution passed on the 14th iustant--£300, salarv of the aide-de­camp to Hil Excellency the Governor-which was agreed to by the House.

On the motion of the TREASURER, it was resolv~d-

That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of \Vays and }leans for raising the Supply :r,ranted to His :Jiajesty.

I~DUSTRTAL AND REJ<'OR:\IATORY SCHOOLS ACT AMENDME;'fT BILL.

Srwo:s-n RE.un:s-n.

'rhe HO:\IE SECRETARY (Hon. !'. Airey, Fli-;ders): Thi" Bill, of which I am about to move the second reading, is one of a serie'3 of humanitarian mr.:.tsures which we h::tve been endeavouring for some time past to plac~ on the statute-bnok. Last year, ''" hon. members will remember, we placed on the statute·book a measure dealing with infant life protection, an<l we have in hand amendments of the Act dealing· with neglected children, which hi!Ye been im­pressed upon us hy a number of ladies and gentlemen in thio city who are interested in philanthropic work, and many of whom are intere<ted in the Society for thP Prevention of Cruelty. '\Vhen last year we passed the. rneac,ure for the protection of infant life, I said that had time sufficed I should have been only too glad to go a little fnrther, lmt I promised the ladies and gentlemen who deputationised me at th,'tt time that if we got the Bill through last se"'ion I should be only too pleo•sed, if allowed, to p,tss a Bill dealing with neglected children this session. Xow, the Bill we got through last session for the protection of infant life has been, I am glad to say, a very meful measure, and I trust tha~ in the near future we may be able to extend its usefnlness. The present Act that we have dealing with industrial and reformatory schools has been an exceedingly useful measure. A great deal of good and usrful work has been done under it, but still there are loop­holes in it which afford facilities for evasion. It is 'Vith the object of removing those defects that I am introducing this Bill. Certain amend, ments which it proposes may appear somewhat stringent, but they are very desirable. I am not proposing anything that has not been tried before, as the amendments I am embodying have

[Hon. P. Airey.

been taken principally frcm the South Austra­lian Act, and alw from the Acts in force in Victoria and New South \Vales. The most important provision in the Bill is that which proposes to raise the age of a neglected child from fifteen to seventeen yearR. At present no child over the age of fifteen can be dealt with under the Industrial and Reformatory Schools Act, ann that is a very seriotM def· et. There are a great number of young people between fifteen and seventeen years of age whose cases should be dealt with, but, unfortunately, we are not able to touch them. I find, on inquiry, that in this city we have a large number of boys and girls between those ages who are beyond parental control, and who frequent public places and houses of low repute, and we are practically unable to touch them. Under this Bill we shall have an opportunity of dealing with them in a much more efficient fashion

Mr. J. LEAHY: In what way? It is a diffi­cult problem.

'rbe HOME SECRETARY: It is a difficult problem, but, with the extended age, those young people can be committed to industrial schools with a great deal better prospect of re­form than if thev are sent to gaol. I do no!J 'ay that we shail get hold of- them all even under this measure, but we shall have more power than we now have, our only course being to send them to gaol at present. The provisions of the Bill are very simple. In section 5 of the original Act there is a definition of "child." H is defined as being anyone under the age of fifteen y~ars. In section 6 we have a definition of "neg-lected child." Those two sections will be repealed by this Bill. In the definition clause we are inserting a definition of the word "child," and there is a definition of the term "nco;lected child" in every one of the mb­clanoes of clause 3. The most imporl'ant pro­vision is contained in subclnuse (4) of clause 3-

Any child nnUer the age of seventeen years who i& d( ~,titutc and ha::; not sntncient merrns of subsistence apparent to the court, and whose parents or near reln­tives are, h1 the op1nion of the court, in indigent cir­stances and are unable to support sueh chtld, or are drunknrds, or are dead, or unknown, or eannot be found, or are out of the jurisdiction or in the custody or the law, nnd any such chilcl who is supported \VhOllJ or in part by charity.

That has been taken from the Act at present in force in South Australia. The principal changes -which might not be ap).arent at fir,t glance­are in the direction of giving greater power to the authoritif', in order that the~· may check persons wbo ha Ye hitherto, escaped. Clansps 4 and 5 simply make con,,ecruential amendments, and clau,e 6 repealii sections in the existing Act which are obsolete. I do not think there is need to fear anything from the putting in force the apparently stringent provision>. of the Bill. The prm·isions cf the e~isting _\.et also appear very stringent, but, owing to th0 way it has been ad­ministered, there have been very few nses of hardship. I have much pleasure in moving the second reading of the Bill.

HoK. R. PHILP (Tozcnsvi/le) : I thoroughly believe in the principle of the Bill, but it may be necessary to alter some of the ages mentioned in the nine suhclauses of clause 3. I was rather shocked to hear the Home Secretary say that there are numbers of young persons in BriRbane who frequent places of low repute. I hope that is not true, and I do not think it is. From my observation of the c;,,pital cities of Australia, my belief is that Brisbane is the most moral of the lot.

The Hm!E SECHETAHY : I am glad to hear you say so.

HoN. R. PHILP : I think the hon. gentleman rather overdrew the picture.

lndust?·ial and R~fonnatory [18 SEPTEMRER.] Schools Act Amendment Bill. 817

The HmiE SlWRETARY : I merely repeated the statement made to me by people who have investigated the question.

HoN. R. PRILP: Sometimes people are inclined to overstate their case. Certainly we ought to try and prevent juvenile immorality, and, if thi; Bill will tend to prevent anything of that sort, it will have my support. But it is a serious matter to pull up all young Pf">ple under seventeen year.; of age. Some boys are men at seventeen years of age.

The Ho~IE SECRETARY: This deals with those under seventeen.

HoN. R. PHILP: A young fellow may be quite as much a man at the age of sixteen years eleven months and twenty-nine :days. I know plenty of lads of that age who are doing men's work. They may almost select land when they are seventeen years of age. I think the age is too high. However, we can discuss that in com­mittee, and, if the Home Secretary can prove that the Bill is absolutely necessary, I shall sup­port it, though I think it is not a fair thing to come to this House and say that our young people are so bad, or that any considerable num­ber of them are. I shall support the second reading.

Mr. H:EINHOLD (B1'isbane Sm<th): I have no intention of objecting to the contents of the Bill generally, but I would like to say a few words about reformatories in general. The Bill is an amendment of an old Act that has been in force for over forty years, having been passed in 1865. I think everyone will agree that there are some parts of the Act which by this time need amend­ment. \Vhen it was passed there was only one institution that came under it-that was an old hulk which was moored somewhere about Lytton. Now, I see by the Estimates that there are no less than nine institutions which come under the heading of the indtE4rial reformatory schools. I think it is necessary that we should consider the position of these sc.hools before pass­ing an amending Bill of this kind, and see whether the intentions of the original Act have been realised, whether the money has been well spent, whether the State has got sufficient recom­pense for it, whether the~e institution" that come under the head of reformatory schools are really reformatory schools, and see if we cannot find out that there is some room for improvement somewhere. I tt'lke it that the motive of putting an Act like this on the statute-book is to get children whose heredity is vicious or whose en­vironment is undesirable, or in regard to whom both heredity and environment are of such a character a1 to make it almost impossible for them to grow up useful citizens.

Mr. J. LEAHY: Or for any other reasonR. Mr. REINHOLD : And to place these child­

ren under such conditions that the evil heredity in them will not have a chance to develop, and under whi<'h their environment will be such as to alter their course of life altogether. Now, the object of this Bill, as the Home S.ecretary has described, is mainly to raise the age at which a child may become an inmate of a reformatory school. I notice that "court" has be•cn sub­stituted for "justices," that the offences have been more clearly defined, and that some have been left out and others have been put in. The offences mentioned w hi eh render a child liable to come under the Reformatory Act are such as begging, sleeping out, association with undesir­able people-whether parents or otherwise­being supported by charity, being committed for offences punishable by imprisonment, etc., and occasionally owing to the de,ire of parents who have lost control of their children to have them brought under control that will make them better citizeng as they grow up. \Vhat is the condition of these children thab

1906-3E

cauees them to become subject to being arrested and put into reformatories? The first is no doubt that their education has been neglected, and that they are not amenable to discipline. They may have acquired bad habits, such as cigarette smoking, sleeping out at nights, swear­ing, using bad language, and gambling. But we must remember that these children are not criminB.Js, that they are not altogether re­sponsible for the matters that they are charged with, except in the cases in which they are com­mitted for offences that are punishable by im­prisonment ; and I think on these occasions, under these circumstances, they are not entirely to blame. We all, I dare say, agree that in a good many cases the parents of these children are themselves responsible, but there are cases in which the parents apparently do everything they can for their children--for the particular child­and yet this child is so unruly that it renders itself liable to come under the provisions of this amending Bill. Then, of course, there may be other parents-whom we might call the un­satisfactory parent, perhaps-who are either v\cious the1nselves, or, in some cases, absent, or not k> be found. I have come into con­tact with some of the children during my school life as an assistant teacher and as a head teacher, and I consider that fully 90 per cent. of the children that are sent to the reformatories are not what might be called stupid children or bad children; the most that can be said is that they are neglected; in some way or other they have been neglected or misled. Truancy is generally the first offence which they commit. From truancy, they get to sleeping out, from sleeping out to theft, and theft brings them under the opemtion of this Act, even if the other offence or neglect has not brought them under it hefore. It seems to me that the sooner these children are caught the better, and I have alway> held that an incurable truant ought also to be brought under the provisions of this Act. If a boy or a girl­of cour~e, girl.- are not tmants to the extent the boys are-if a boy will not go to school, and is what might be called an incurable truant, I would not object to the Home Secretary finding a place for him amongst these nine subclauses. What are we to do to reclaim these waifs when we get them in the reformatories? Neglect of education being the first cause of their getting there, I think the first thing we ought to do would be to make amends for the education that has been neglected, and therefore the most important part of the work should be the school work. I do not think that is quite the case in our reformatory schools, and that is the reason why I am speo.king on this matter.

The SPEAKER: Order ! I would remind the hon. member that the question of the con­duct of reformatory schools is not before the House. That matter would be more properly discussed when the Estimates are on, and the hon. member should now confine himself to the principles of the Bill.

Mr. REINHOLD : The Bill proposes to raise the age at which children may be admitted to a reformatory school. 'rhe resulb will be that

there will be more children admitted [4 p.m.] to these schools, and, more children

being admitted, I i.hink it is desir­able that we should look into the question whether there is provision for the reclamation of these children. I was j nst going to deal with the matter of what should be done with these children when they geb into the reformatory schools. Of course if I am out of order in doing­that I will not pursue it any further, but I think we ought to be very careful, when raising the age at which these children may be admitted, to see that provision is made in the schools for

Mr. Reinhold.]

818 Industrial and Riformatory [ASSEMBLY.] Schools Act Amendment Bill.

reforming their charactere. As I hold that that provision is not being made, I do not know that it would be quite out of order to point out in what way that provision ought to be made.

The SPBAKER: Order ! The hon. member must deal with the Bill as it is brought down.' This is an amending Bill, and the hon. member can only de'tl with those portions of the principal Act that it i• proposed to amend.

Mr. REINHOLD: Well, I cannot deal with the present existing reformatories, or what should be done with the'e children when they get into reformatories, but I would like to point out to the Minister one or t ,vo discrepancies that occur to me. In section 7 of the principal Act the term "child " is left without the amending words "under the age of SE'venteen years," or whatever it is propo8~d to be. I do not know whether that is intentional or not. 'l'hen in section 31 of the original Act there is another discrepancy. At prE'~ent a child may be admitted to the school up to the age of fifteen. This Bill proposes to admit them up to seventeen. Say, a boy gets into :o. reformatory school at the age Df fourteen, and has a sentence of seven years­I notice that the term is the same-namely, from one to seven years-that boy's term will be up wheu he is twenty-one. According to section 31, if that boy absconds after he has been two years there, and is sent back to the school again, he is to be kept there until he reaches the age of fifteen. I do not know whether there is o,nything in it, but it seems to me that absconding from the school gives him a reduction of his sentence. His sentence will keep him there until he is twenty-one, but if he absconds and is brought back the may be detained until he is fifteen. (Laughter.) That is a problem which I would like to have explained.

Mr. HAWTHORN (Enoggera): I think that this is a very desirable piece of humanitarian legislation. It is almost an unique position in Queensland to have an Act of Parliament that has been in force for forty years without being amended. The experience of this Act has shown that there are some defects in it, and this Bill has been introduced to amend those defects. I think it would be much better for society if, instead of punishing criminals, people would do their best to prevent children growing up from beco1ning crilninals, because '' prevention is better than cure." "\Vhen a child grows up ignorant of its proper relations to society, and is surrounded by wickedness and intemperance, it is bound to drift towards becoming a criminal, and therefore it is far better that we should get them while they are young and put them in the way of becoming good citizens. Under the present reformatory system they learn trades and are educated, and that has an influence for good on them ; they are also out of the way of the environments they were used to in their youth, and it is clearly their own fault if they do not turn out to be respectable citizens. The Act is certainly a very stringent one, but I do not think it is any more stringent thau the necessity of the case requires. Experience in Great Britain and the older countries with reference to children in industrial schools shows that 60 or 70 per cent. of them are really street hawkers, and those are the sort of children we have to cope with here. Young children are sent out to beg under the pretext of selling something, and they get into a criminal course. The position is becoming rather acute in Brisbane in many instances, and a great deal of that is due to the want of parental responsibility. If parents did their duty properly there would be far less necessity than there is for reformatory and industrial schools. The Bill seems to me to be 8, good one. The age is fixed at seventeen, and that is the age when you have to control the movements of

[ j}f r. Rein hold.

children if you want them to turn out to be good citizens.

Mr. :B'ORREST (Brisbctne No1·th): I do not think that there is anything that is seriously objectionable in this Bill, as the general prin­ciples are understood by everybody. But under subclause (6) of clause 3 a difficulty might arise. It provides-

Any chilll under the age of seventeen years whose partnt represents that he wishps~such child to be sent to an industrial school, etc. I observe that the single number is inserted there instead of the word "parents," and I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether, in the event of either the father or the mother making up their minds to send a child to the reformatory school, can they do so? I had an unpleasant experience myself in connection with a boy whom I wished to get out of the reforma­tory. The boy was sent there for some trifling offence--nothing very serious; I was approached by the mother to get him out. Inquiries were made which were satisfactory, and showed that the boy had been of good behaviour, but just as we were prepared to go on the father objected and would not let him come out. About five or six weeks elapsed when the father wanted to get the boy out, aud then the mother objected. It W~tS altogether a troublesome job, and I washed my hands of the whole thing by telling them that as soon as they agreed amongst themselves I would set the Government in moticm. , I believe the boy has been got out since. I draw attention to thig because the word "parent" is used, and if one parent objects it might mean a great deal of trouble. I think the subclause might be altered to read that both parents should agree before a boy of seventeen can be put into a reformatory. However, that is more work for committee than it is for a second read­ing speech. I draw attention to it now so that the Home Secretary can think it over before the Bill gets into committee.

Mr. MACKINTOSH (Cambooya): I have had a great deal to do with boys from reformatory schools, including boys from the ~udgee Orphan­age and from the "\Vestbrook Reformatory. There is a good deal to be said in connection with those boys becoming good citizens after they leave those institutions. Mr. Richmond, of the '\Vestbrook Reformatory, told me that he thought the boys were allowed to be discharged from the institution at too young an age, because between the ag-e of seventeen to -twenty is the time when all boys-not only reformatory boys but boys in general-are apt to be worse behaved than at any other time in their lives. Now that it is proposed to raiF,e the age at which children may be admitted into reformatory schools from fifteen to seventeE'll, I think the age at which they should be discharged should also be extended. Of course, I am in favour of boys who are well behaved getting their discharge at an earlier age than seventePn; but there are other boys whom it would be better in their own interest to retain in the reformatory or under the con­trol of the reformatory hired out on wages. I have had a good many of these boys, and have had only one that I could not get on with. That boy I kept for five months, but I could do nothing with him, and I had to send bim back to the reformatory. I c1id not find any of them criminally inclined. f'hey had been "ent to the reformatory for stealmg a few fowls, or something of that kind, but they were not criminally inclined. The greatest difficulty I have had with them is in get,ting them to tell the truth during the first six months, but once they get over that weaknees they are worth all the trouble that is taken with them, and if you confide in them you will find them trustworthy. I have had boys working for me whom I could

Industrial and Riformatory [18 SEPTEMBER.] Schools Act Amendment Bill. 819

trust with money or anything else. I have had boys who have stopped twelve month" longer than their time, and one who stayed three years after his time expired. He is up in the North now, and the other day he sent me a letter stat­ing that it is too hot for him up there_ Those boys who are employed in the country are in­clined to stay on the land, but there are other boys who desire to get to town, and the ntOment they get to town they become contaminated, and their last state is worse than the first. I believe that this measure can be made a very useful one, and I hope that under it the time for the discharge of boys will be extended to seventeen years.

Mr. HAMILTON (G,·egory): One remark made by the hon. member for Enoggera, that parents are largely r8sponsible for crime among the children, is a very true one. A lot of offonces are speetfied in this amending Bill ; but there is one to which I should like particularly to call the attention of the House, and that is the offence of sending little children to the public­house for jugs or bottles of beer. The other day I saw a little child coming out of an hotel with a jug of beer, and on making inquiries I found that she was only eight or nine years old, and that she had been sent on that errand by her stepmother. I thillk that any parent, be she a stepmother or anything else, who sends a child to a public-house for beer ig unfit to have the cuetody of that child.

Mr. LESINA : That is provided for in the Licensing Act.

1Ir. HAMILTON: Yes, I am aware of that, but I think we should have some more restric­tive legislation dealing with the mat'ter. If we include in this Bill children who sell newsp~pers after 8 o'clock at night, we should also include those young children who are sent to hotels for beer.

Mr. MACARTNEY (Tomvong) : I have a very few words to say on this Bill. I think it is a good one, and one that should receive the countenance of both •ides of the House. But I should like to point out to the Minister a further matter in relation to subclause (6) of clause 3, which was referred to by the hon. member for Brisbane North. Under that section a parent has only to express a wish that a child should be sent to an industrial school, and the magistrate administering the Act mmt make the order, if the necessary security is given.

The HoME SECRETARY : That is in the present Act.

Mr. MACARTNEY: It may be in the present ..c'\..ct, but we are rai ,ing the age now, and it is qnite concciv,;ble that a paxent might, nnder some circumstance', unjustly exercise the po\Hr which this suoclause gives, and it is only right that a child of seventeen should be heard Bhould he or she consider that thry are being unjustly dealt with under that provision. I would suggest to the Minister that he should meet that point by some amendment when the Bill goes into committee.

Mr. LESI:L\ A ( Clerrrwnt) : I very much regret that this Bill is not of a more comprehensive character. It appear,; to me thot most of our time is occupied with legislation of a piecemeal, tinkering character; that we are just like a bootmaker tinkering :m old pair of shoes. If there is anything to 1,·hich the Government might have devoted some time, and which the whole community would have w,:>]comed, it is a com­prehensive mnsnre dealing with the whole ques­tion of the incorceration of cLildren for various offence''· But instead of the Government bringing on a comprehensive measure dealing with that subject, they give us piecemeal legis­lation of this kind. One statement made by the Minister in moving the second reading of the Bill was that there is a vast amount of criminality

among the rising generation. I have not been able to ascertain by a reference to official records, or the Blue Book, or the reports of the Inspector of Orphanages, that there is any evidence of a vast amount of crime among the children of this State. But I notice that this cry has become very frequent of late. The other night, at a big meeting, where a number of clergymen dealt with the proposal to introduce Bible reading in State schools, it was stated that our children were being brought up ii1 godlessness and paganism, that our system of education was producing nothing but seed plots of immorality, and that children all over the country were growing up in heathen darkness. And now the Home Secre­trll'y comes along and backs up that statement by saying that this dty is simply rif0 with immorality and criminality among the rising genewtion. It is not true. It is a distinct ,,lander on the rising generation of Queensland. As the leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the children of Queensland-and it is borne out by the official returns-compare favourably with the rising generation Gf any other of the Australian States, or with the rising generation of Great Britain., or the United States, or of any of the European countries. For n1any years the hon. gentlen1an who introduced this Bill was a schoolmaster, and had hundreds of cbildrei1 pas,;ing under his care and attention. Durinf" his bucoli~ schoolmaster­ship did he notice the vast quantity of juvenile criminality he asks us now to believe in ? I cannot believe a word of it; and yet the hon. gentleman, a Minister of the Crown in charge of an important department, wishes it to go forth to the world-to be wired to the New Sonth Wales Press, to be copied into the newspapers, and to be commented upon in English magazines -that the rising generation in Queensland are tainted with criminality. If that were so, why tinker with the question in piecemeal legislation such as this? But let us see what the fiwts are. Turning to the "Statistics of the State of Queensla,nd" for 1904, which is the latest return I can find, there are fonr tables relating to this subject. The first table shows the admissions into, and the discharges from, the various industrial and reformatory schools during that year, the second table shc,ws the number of inmates at various ages, the third table shows the offences for which they were sentenced or the causes of detention, and the fourth table shows the birth places and relh;ions of the inmates. The first table shows that out of 271 persons in th& in­stitutions on the htJ an nary, ninety were cases of firet detention, and eleven of redetention. The total number in the schools during the whole year was only 329 ont of a popnl~tion of 500,000, and if you compare the number under detention with the nnmber of the 8ame ~ge not under detention, you will find that the number of children in our reformatory and indnstrial schools is so s1~1all as hardly to be worthy of note at all. What, therefore, becomes of the Home Secretary's statement? \V here is this terrible amount of juvenile criminality he talks so glibly about? It is purely imaginary. The table giving the relig·ion of the inmates show that 207 were Church of England, sixty-nine were Roman Catholic,,, and thirty-six belonged to other religions.

The SPEAKER : Order ! I would point out to the hon. member that the religions of the inmateN of reformatory and induetrial schools has nothing to do with the Bill before the House.

Mr. LESIK A : I will now turn to the table showing the offences for whiCh those children were incarcerated, and it bears ouf to some extent the remark of the hon. member for Oam­booya that the majority of them were put into the institution because they were guilty of small

Mr. Lesina.l

8:20 Industrial and Riformatory [ASSEMBLY.] Schools Act Amendment Bill.

offences. Out of the il2D, 173 were there as neglected children, 127 for larceny, 1 for hor.qe­stealing, 2 for larceny from a dwelling, D for breaking and entering, 1 for being unlawfully on premises, 1 for attempting to have carnal knowledge, 2 for being beyond control, 2 for using obscene language, 1 each for begging, attempted rape, attempt to steal, absconding from orphanage and rape, and 2 for suspiciolls record. It will be noticed that there was only one child put into those institutions for begging. How is this Bill going to deal with the question? I believe, as I said in opening my remarks, that what is really required is not an amending measure of this kind, but a comprehensive measure, incorporating Captain Pennefather's suggestion made in his last report. The Govern­ment might, at a very small expense, take one of the gaols of the State, incarcerate in it juvenile criminals guilty of certain offences, and deal with them on the Borsten .system, as recomn,endecl by the Comptroller. Another weak point in the Bill was pointed out by the hon. member for Toowong-namely, that if one parent wished to put a child into one of these schools, it could be don,, with the consent of the magistrate, and the child bA compelled to hArd with other children guilty of the heinous crimee I have enumerated from the return. That would be a manifest injustice.

Mr. JENKINSON: The other parent might object to it.

Mr. LESINA: This extends up to the age of seventeen. Apparently, over that age they have to be dealt with under some other Act, perhaps the Criminal Code.

The HOl\IE SECRETARY : Under the Vagrancy Act.

Mr. LEST::'\ A: Under that Act, if a person is in the possession of 1s. Gel., or has a half­sovereign concealed in the bed of his boot, it is found a difficult matter to deal with him. Here is another matter In the educational system of this country, attendance at a State school is not compulsory after the age of twelve. They cannot go to work in a factory before the age of fourteen. There is thus a hiatus bet,veen the two periods. For two solid years they cannot tackle work of a remunerative character. \Vhat becomes of them

during those two years? They take [4.30 p.m.] to hawking newspapers and other

wares, or get work of any descrip­tion, in which the competition is very keen and the pay very low. Xow, in looking through the tables of figures, I find that it is just at that age that the children in our industrial schools are most numerous. That is the age at which they commit the most offences. Therefore the amend­ment we want is an amendment of our educa­tional ~ystem to compel children to remain at school up to the age of fourteen years, or else reduce the factory age from fourteen to twelve, or adopt some other system which I hope the Home Secretary will devote his mind to dis­covering. \Ve cannot always be supplying him with ideas on matters of this kind. He is paid to attend to this kind of thing, and, if he cannot do it without increasing the number of offences for which children are to be incarcerated, then it is not our busi­ness. I have roughly worked out particulars which will show how the passage of this measure will affect the children whom it i>' intended to deal with. Out of the 329 inmates of our indus­trial and reformatory institutions there are 18 over 17 years of age; 14 between 16 and 17; 22 between 15 and 16; 52 between 14 and 15; 66 between 13 and 14; 4\J between 12 and 13; 39 between 11 and 12 ; 32 between 10 and 11 ; 14 between 9 and 10 ; 9 between 8 and 9; and 14 under the age of 8 years. Those figures are interesting, and I hope members will look at

[Mr. Lesina.

them in Hansarcl before we get into committee, became it may perhaps enable them to take a keener or more special interest in the frame­work of these clausP<, Now, for instance, the Bill s;cys-

Any ehild under the age of iifteen year~: who as..,dci­n,te"' with or d\vells ~iih any J!Brson \'Vho, dnrin;; the last preceding twelYe month!il, has been cnnYictetl of vagrancy, or during such p<Ll'iod bas been convicted three times of drunli:enness, or who is reJ:lnted to be a. thief-would come under the operation of this measure. \Vonlcl that apply to a boy or girl in the service of a person and who had lived with that person for some time, not knowing that he or slw had been previously convicted of vagrancy? If so, it is opening pitfalls and traps all over the St,ate for many children of poor parents who are compelled to earn their own livelihood. I do not suppose it i8 the object of the Minister to do that, but it is well worth pointing out the fact that such a clanger exists. Here is another aspect of the matter. Subclause (4) says-

An~~ child uncler the age of seventeen years who is destitute :-tncl has not sumcient means oE subsistence apparenl to the court, and whose parents or near rela­tives are, in the opinion of the court, in indigent circumstances an<l are unable to support such child, or are drunkards, or are dead, or unl\:nO\Vll, or eannot be found, or are out of the jurisdietion or in t.he custody of the law, and any such chilli who is snl_Jportecl wholly or in part by cha1·ity,

may be taken away and inured in an institution for five or seven years. That means that if parents are poor or hard up, if they are unem­ployed because of poverty and hardship, their children may be taken away from them and put in such an institution for a number of years. I suppose over the age of seventeen those children would not fall into the hands of the law, but if any of these things shou[cl happen the child may be arrested and inured in a reformatory institu­tion. That is an important point. It appears to me that it is making poverty and want of employment a serious offence. The Govern­ment are, in fact, imposing additional hardship on those who are poor. It would be much more to their cre<lit if, instead of making children suffer because of the poverty of their parents, they did something in the direction of finding employ­ment for the unemployed. By reducing the number of unemployed they would reduce the number of indigent persons who cannot keep their children, but they make no effort whatever to abate the present industrial conditions, so that the undeserved and involnntary poverty of the parents may be abated. If through poverty the parents cannot support their offspring, the Government simply· propose to put the children in an inclnstrial institution. That appears to me to be a roundabout way of squaring the industrial circle. As the hon. member for Brisbane South, Mr. Reinhold, pointed out, juvenile criminality is very much due to the environment of the children and the conditions, industrial and social, which surround them. Legislation of this kind is not required for the children of the rich or well-to-do. And why ? For the very simple reason that by their­position in society they are enabled to supply their children with rational amusements and rational food and rational surroundings, which minimise the tendency to commit offences. It is only when we come to deal with the poor, who live in close and unwholesome quarters, in a squalid and fretid atmosphere, in over-populated locali­ties, that there is this strong tendency to crime. Fortunately, these conditions are not so bad in Queensland as they am in older and more thickly populated centres, bnt the time is approaching when the conditions will grow worse unless there is intervention on the part of the Government. If the Government.

Industrial and Rifonnatory [18 SEPTEMBER.] Schools Act Amendment Bill. 821

would busy itself about the far more important and far-reaching work of improving the indus­trial and civic conditions of tbe poor, there would be hardly any necessity for reformatory institutions at all. Unfortunately, we cannot ·close our eyes to the necessity of legislation of this kind, but it appears to me the Government would be much better occupied in trying to bring about something like decent conditions amongst the poor and indmlrial class who are not in a condition to prodde home comforts for their children. If better conditions were pro­vided, these people would not bave to resort to the Govermren t to provide protection for their offspring. The lack of opportunity afforded to .the children of the poor is responsible to a large extent for the criminality which the Home Secretary has referred to in somewhat exagger­ateLl terms. I am pleased that in glancing tcrongh the oflicirtl reports I have been able to open hon. memben' eyes to the fact chat <lespite the many bad conditions that exist in (,\lleensl::tnd, and which willc,mtinuetoexistunles,, by special legislation they are prevented, there are so few children of our working population who £ne! admiscoion to the reformatory institutions; 329 in twelve months out of a population such as that of Queensland is not a great number, and I suppose many of those children were neglected largely because their parents were poor, or 'vere vicious, or did not take a proper pctrental interest in their welfare. It is a pitiable thing that such legislation should be necessary at all. The Bill, narrow as its scope is, is making an important departure in raising the age to seven­teen, and I think, with the leader of the Opposi­tion, that it may be necessary to scrutinise that age very closely in committee before we establish it for all time. Some reform is necessary in this direction, we all admit, but I do not believe we should go as far as the Minister proposes. I mther think that the good work that the citizens of Brisbane are anxious to do, who waited upon the Home Secretary and asked for some such legislation, could be better accomplished by d vie and religious i nfluenceF, if they were brought properly to bear in the home circle. But, over and above all other conditions which should demand somo passing attention at the hands of this Government-whether they remain on these benches for a longer or a shorter period of time-i,; this need for some far-reaching economic and industrial legishtion which will enable the people of Brisbane and of Queens­land better opportunities of providing more cnmfortable homes for their children than they are at pre;,ent able to do, \Vhen we look at the low wages which some parents receive whose children will be affected by this legislation, we canno·, bu' express our astonishment that they are able to keep a roof over those children's head,s at all. That is the first place to tackle this question-tackle it by enabling parents to provide their children with food and shelter and home amusements, The only pl.,yground that many children h:we at the present time is the streets of the city. A father comes home, perhaps, from the wharves tired, earning, it may be, a wage of only 18s. a week, He comes home to a houFe full of children who are making a noise, and the only way in which he can secure rest is by tmning the children out into the Btreets, where they may be nabbed by the local policeman as neglected children up to seven­teen years of age. A boy of sixteen and a half years, out of employment for a month or two, may be taken up as a neglected child, and it may take his father all his time, with the interest of his parliamentary representative, to get the Minister in his den and secure that boy's release. All these things must be taken into -consideration. No man who has studied the

question from a sociological point of view, but must be driven to the conclneion that nearly all this legislation is simply tinkering with the evils that exist. You must go deep down to bed-rock principles if any good is going- to be done. I repeat th:<t this Government will better guarantee their sincerity in dealing with these problems if they will introduce far-reaching industrial and economic legislation wbich will give better wages t0 the wurking classes, enabling them to provide better borne comforts and home amusements for their children, Although the Bill does not go as f>tr as I should like it to go, although it is only piecemeal legislation and is not comprehen­sive or based upon broad, sound principles, still, as some small step in the direction of doing work that I think ought to be done, I shall support i1 s second reading.

Mr. MANN (Cairns): I have listened with a considerable amount of interest, if not of profit, to the speech jn><t delivered by the hon, member for Olermont; and I can only say with him that it is a pity that Wf> h>Lve need to introduce such legislation at all, The hon. member dealt with one phase of the question of how it is that we have youthful criminals; but he entirely over­looked another phase with which I intend to deal-that is, the dissemination of unwhole­some literature among the rising generation. \Ve ba ve " Dead wood Dick " and literature of that class circulating largely among school children and the rising generation, and I blame that largely for the crimes, petty and otherwise, that are committed by our youth. Some time ago-in fact, I believe the paper still exists­ther<' was a paper known as the South B1·isbane Herald-a paper which catered largely for putting in little "pars" commenting on boys and girls who were about the street corners. I believe that papers like that should, as far as pos,ible, be kept out of the hands of our young people. I have heard hon. members telling how it set people in thi' city by the ears, and I believe it is n JW run on different lines becauHe somebody took exception to one of the "pars" and sued the proprietor for damages.

The SPEAKER : Order! I\Ir. MANN : The hon. member for Gregory

dealt with the question of young people being sent to hotels to buy liquorfor their parents, and I inten'l to move an amendment that no young pers.m under the age of seventeen shall be allowed to sell any ne'"•spaper that, in .the opinion of this House, is not fit to be put mto the hands of the rising generation. If it is necessary to prevent tben1 going into hotels, it is also nece·"·:>ry that their morals sbouid not be corrupted by !J:,wking r·apers of chat deocription about the ~treets. Hon. n1ernbers 1nust know that boys who are n'.Jle t,J reMj, when sales are dull or when thev are tired, sit down and peruse the columns of these papers. It is a scandal to the community that little boys and girls ehould be out on Sunday retailing papers like Truth- I make no hones about mentionin;: the paper I refer to.

J\Ir. LESINA: They sell the Bulletin and the Wa1· Cry on Sunday, too.

Mr. MANN : They should b·· stopped selling any paper that is not decent. The hon, member is the first person I ever h01rd claaY the Bulletin with paper,; like that.

The SPEAKER : Order ! 1\'Ir. LESINA: Some of them keep their mothers

on the profits of their Sunday papers. Mr. MANN: I ,,imply wish to point out that

subclam'e (7) of clause 3 is a little too drastic, and, when the Bill gets into committee, I intend to move an amendment so that the clause will not interfere in the manner in which I think ib will. I have spoken to the Home Secretary about it, and he agrees with me that possibly

Mr.Mann.]

822 Native Animals [ASSEMBLY.] Protection Bill.

someone may be arre•ted who is not guilty of habitual loitering. I intend to support the second reading of the Bill.

Question put and passed. The committal of the Bill was made an Order of the Day for to­morrow.

NATIVE ANIMALS PROTECTION BILL.

SECOND READING.

'' The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE (Hon. D. F. Denham, Oxlr.y): The purport of this small Bill is to protect certain native animals of special interest naturally or scientifi· cally-animals that are peculiM to the continent of Australia. Those in the schedule-the tree kangaroo, the wombat, the duck mole or platypus, and the hedgehog-are to be fully protected ; the other, the native bear, is to have a close season--that is, there will be a period of the year in which it will be unlawful to destroy the native bear. Now the animals in the schedule-tree kangaroo, wombat, duck mole, and hedgehog-are extremEly rare, and at the present time are almost exterminated, and it is therefore of deep intere-;t -although we may be rather late in taking the action-to protect the remaining few of these interesting :tnimals. Further, it will be of deep impor­tance to naturalist and scientific societies that these animals should be protected. As far as the native bear is concerned, that is not only an interesting object of native faima, but it is also an object of interest from a busines; point of view. In the southern States the native bear has been pretty well exterminated, and in somo districts in Queensland it is largely exterminated. l~ecently, I was informed th:<t from the 'Warwick district, one of the houses dealing in skins in the city was in the habit of receiving as many as 35,000 native bear skins per month, and that now they rarely received 500 bearskins per month. It is, therefore, of interest and importance that the native bear should be protected. The Bill was introduced in another place, and it provides that the native be<>r shall be protected between the months of August and December. I prnpuse, in committee, to move that the period of prot• c­tion shall. be other than that indicccted in the Bill.

Mr. J. LEAHY : What do you propose? The SECRETARY :B'OR AGRICULTURE:

I propose when it goes into committee that the period of protection shall ntend from Xovember to April, because the skin has less value in summer, and it is also thought that the brefding time is more profuse in summer than the winter. I jmt wish to indicate to the House that in committee I propose to restore to clause 2 the opossum, which was eliminated in the other House- (hear, hc-cw !) -giving· the opossum protection for a period of the year, and aho other amendments defiling with the manner of destroy­ing them, making cyaniding illegal, and sub­stituting therefor the old methods of snaring. There are the usual provisinns for detecting thosewhoact inopposition to the law-that is, any persons, who have in their possession skins during the period of protection, will have to show that they came into their pnsses,ion before the period of the close season set in. It is also set out that any person at any time holding in their po3session animals enumerated in the schedule will be guilty of an illegal act. I have a number of amend­ments printed which I shall be prepared to circulate immediately the second reading has gone through, but in accordance with the Standing Orders they were not circulated before.

Hon. R. PHILP: Oauld you tell us what they are?

The SECRETARY :B'OR AGRICULTURE: Yes. The close season for the native bear and opossum will be from the 1st November until

[Mr.Mann.

the end of April. Then we restore the opossum to the Bill, giving it a clo_se ~eason. Then .we make it illegal to use cyamde m the destructiOn of the opossum. It has been pointed out that by using cyanide a very large number of animals are destroyed and never gathered up; and, fur­ther that the man who goes snaring or gather­ing is really not the gainer by cyanide, th~ skjns beino- so small as many of them are, and It bids fair to exterminate the animal altogether. Then so as to protect the orchardist-because I under­stand in the other place the reason for cuttmg out the opossum was the danger to orchardists and farmers-I uropose to insert an amendment, similar to that ~e have in the Native Birds Bill, which will enable the farmer to destroy the opossums if they are injuring his property. These are matter,; that can be better dealt with in com­mittee and the amendments are printed and will h~ circulated. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. J. LEAHY : This is a Bill in rP;;:ard to the subject-matter of which I have had some experience, and I think it is very desirable indeed. (Hear, hear !) It is desirable, not only on the grounds which the Minister in charge gave-to protect native bears and other animals as natural cm'iosities-but because it is likely to protect what is a great and growing industry­that i, the op•1ssum industry. I venture to say that hon. members, nnless they have engaged in the matter in some form or other, do not know to what extent the opossum industry has in­creased in the last few years. In one stor~ in Brisbane 40.000 opossum skins were received this week· ·30,000 were received in the same place last '~eek, and the average is considerably over 20,000 a week.

An HONOL'RABLE l\IE>IBER : \Vhat are they worth?

Mr. J. LEA HY: They are worth on the average Ss. a dozen, which will be £33 per thowmnd, or something like that. It is simply astonishing the amount of money which is being got out uf an industry of that kind. I am t:>ld in some country districts where they are gettmg them-such as those around Roma, Mitchell, and Rockhampton-a man with three or four young­sters can make from £7 to £10 a week ; they can do that and be their own masters.

:Mr. \Voons: That is only a certain portion of the year.

CYlr. ,T. LEAHY : That 'vould be six months in the year. It is very desirable _that p_eople who go out of employm~nt at a certmn porti!;n ?f the year should have tins to fall back upoi:-It is an ab,olute certamty. As the l\1Imster pointed out, not only i, it desirable to preserve them in the ordinary w.;y, but we should have a close se·los'~n, and seeing that if cyanide is U"ed in destroying them you are destroying young opossume, the skins of which may be worth 15s. "dozen in twelve months' time, we should introduce a clause to prevent the use of that substm10e. It is quite possible that mme per­sons engaged in the industry ma.y not like that r<'striction put upon them, but I venture to ny that it is in the interests of those persons them­selvc, th"' it should be done.

:Mr. KERR: It is in the interests of the persons engaged in the indnstry that it should be don,~

1\Ir. J. LEAHY: Yes. I say that it is in the best interests of those engaged in the industry that the opo,surn should be protected in the summer months. 'fheY are harmless animds, not like the rabbits, and m1Je,s indiscriminate killing is put a stop to they will become extinct. It is an

indnstry that is worth at the very least [5 p.m.] £50,000 to Queensland every year.

Taking into account the amount of wages paid, that would not be overstating the

Factories and Shops [18 SEPTEMBER.] Amf.ulment Bill.

amount, and those who live on the industry will be compensated by having a close season. I am glad to hear from the Home Secretary that the Government will limit the time within which this animal may be destroyed. This will be a very useful Bill. Although it looks a small measure, it will render more service to the State than even more contentious Bills will.

Mr. TOLMIE (Dmyton cmd Toowoombct) : I agree with the remarks of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat in connection with this Bill. \Ve have a growing industry in those skins. For several years past that industry has been progressing; it gives employment to a fairly large number of people, and any industry that gives employment to any number of people at all ought to be encouraged. I am very pleased to hear that it is the intention of the Minister to introduce the opossum into the Bill, with certain safeguards so far as the agricultural industry is concerned. \Ve know that in the agricultural districts the opossum causes a great amount of destruction ; but if the conditions were allowed to obtain as at present the farmer will be in no worse position after the passing of this Bill than he was before. But in other parts of the country remote from agricultural areas protection is necessary to be giYen to the opossum and native bear, as it will allow them to increase during the summer time, and give employment to a large number of people during the open season. I hope the speedy passage of the Bill through this Chamber will be a,;;reed to.

Mr. SPENCER (Jiamnoa) : I am very glad to see such a measure as this brought forward, as it is most necessary. The fur business is a growing industry, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Bulloo. Speaking for my own district, the skin trade in opossums and native bears]:::; very large, and a Ia.rge number of 1nen will be able to make a living out of it in the winter months. I know one man who last year made £900 out of this industry. Since then he has bought a station and become a squatter. I could mention several instances of men in ·my district who have made money out of it. The technic1.! objection that was made to the opossum in the Upper House--

The SPEAKER: Order, order!

::VIr. SPENCER: I am pleased to hear that it is intended tu include the opo·"'mm, and I am also glad to hear that the destruction of these animals hy cyanide is to be prohibited. But, in order to make it more effective, it will have to be provided for in the Sale of Poisons Act.

The SECl\ETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: It is in­tended to do that as well.

Mr. SPENCER: It will then be difficult to procure cyanide fc,r the destruction of anin1als. However, the amendment suggested is one that can b'l dealt with in committee. I shall support the secGnd reading of the Bill.

Que,tion-Thrtt the Bill be now read a second time-put and paseed.

The committal of the Bill w:ts made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

FACTORIES Al'\D SHOPS AMEND­:YIE::-;iT BILL.

REsnrPTIOll DJ<' CmrMrrrEE.

On clause 26-" Amendment of section 58"­The SEC nET ARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS

said he had an amendment to propose in this clause, but before doing so he desired to state that he had hail the Bill reprinted as amended up to and including clause 25, and that copies of the Bill as so amended were posted to hon. members

the previous day, so as to reach them this morn­ing. He moved that lines 39 to 43 be omitted with the view of inserting the following :-

In subsection two of section fifty-eight of the principal' Act,, after the words ";clo"ling hour," the words" or otherM wise contrary to the provisions of this part of this Act," are inserted.

The reason for the amendment was obvious. If hon. members would turn to subsection (2) of section 58 of the principal Act, they would find that it provided that if an employee was em­ployed by any occupier in the ordinary course of the occupier's business in any shop later than half an hour after the prescribed closing hour, the occupier was liable to certain penalties. It was proposed by the clause as it stood to strike out the half-hour limit, as it was supposed to be inserted in another part of the Bill. On looking over the Bill, he found the~t it was not inserted in another part, so far a·, shops were_concerned; he,nce the necessity for the amendment.

HoN. R. PHILP suggested that if that was all that was intended by the amendment, they might omit clause 26 altogether.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS said he could not do that, as the clause contained other amendments which he desired to retain.

Amendment agreed to. TbeSEURETARY :FOR PUBLIC WORKS

moved that the clause be further amended by omitting, on line 4t', the words " third and fourth,:' \Vith the view of inserting "and third." He propo.eed that amendment because it was desired to retain the 4th paragTaph of section 58 of the principal Act, which prmidedthat a record of all overtime should be kept, and be produced to the inRpector on demand.

HoN. R. PHILP : There were only two copies of the principal Act in the Chamber, and it was impossible for seventy members to look at them. He thereiore hoped the Thiinister would explain' the nature and effect of the amendments he proposed.

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

On clause 27-" Hawking, etc., after shop ch·ing hours prohibited"-

The SECRETAHY FOR PUBLIC WORKS nwved the omis'1ion of thn wnrds "during the hours," in line 54, with the view of inserting the words "at any time later than half an hour after the time." He thought the amendment wonld speak for itsdf. It gave the hawkers half an hour's margin, the same as the shops themselves had got.

Mr. J. LEAHY: Supposing the Act were extended to a district in the far \Vest, such a, provision might result in great incon.venience. It often happened that a hawker arrived at a stRtion or a sbearin~r-8i1ed at G c·r 7 o'clock. vVhat was to happen in st1ch a case? '\Vas he to move on?

Mr. BO\V.MA::\ : It might meet the difficulty by providing fee> the rxemption of hawkers who who w~re a certain distance away from towns~ Thev should not be pre>·ented from earning theil' living because; they happened to arrive at . a station more tha.n half an hour after the shops m a town 20 miles away had closed. •

Mr. McDONNELL : The object of the clause was to protect shopkeepers in outside districts. Otherwise a hawker might arrange to be at a cert!tin phtce by a certain hour, and so ent~r into undue competition with the shopkeepers m the township. Take the case of a sh?pkeep:r !'t Townsville. It would he very unfair t,,, h1m 1f, after his shop had been compulsorily closed f~r that night, hawkers were allowed to sell their goods 10 miles outside that town.

Mr. HA:MILTOJ'\ : It was a common practice in the \Vest for hawkers to reach a station or a

Mr. Hamilton.]

824 Factories and Sltops [ASSEMBLY.l Amendment Bill.

Bhearing-shed by sundown ; and, as the shearers had to work all day, the night was the only time they had to make their purchases. As to unfair competition with the ·western shopkeepers, it was not by the hawker but by the shopkeeper in Brisbane through the parcels post. It might be provided that hawkers should not follow their occupation after a c ,rtain hour within a certain radius of a township. The difference between town and country conditions should be borne in mind. Such a provision as the one now pro­posed would work harshly against hawkers in the \Vest.

Mr. \VOODS hoped the amendment would be carried. In North Queensland the majority of hawkers travelling about the mining camps were aliens, and they trave:lerl for financial .firms in the South.

Mr. BARBER: It is the same on the sugar "fields.

Mr. \VOODS: Alien hawkers travelling for Southern houses were the curse of North Queens­land, and in nine cases out of ten they travelled on the same license.

Mr. MAXWELL: They would not go there if they were not patronised.

Mr. \VOODS: The hon. member knew per­fectly well that the Northern miner

[5.30 p.m.] did not want tu patronise the alien hawker. Such an interjection was

a libel on the Northern miner. An HoNOURABLE iYIEii!BER : There are no new

licenses issued t,1 aliens now.

Mr. WOODS :There was no necessity to issue them, because nine-tenths of the alien hawkers were travelling on one license.

Mr. MAKN": Thera was a great deal in what bad been said by the hon. me m hers for Bulloo, Gregory, and Fortitude Valley. The difficulty would be met if hawkers were prevented from Belling within the radius of existing shops; otherwise the hawker would be selling at night when shopkeepers were compelled to close.

Mr. MAX\VELL : If they extended the area to 10 or 20 miles it would not me:ot the <:~se. If a district w \S created in his elector~te there would be hawkers selling their goods 30 miles from Georgetown at the different mining camps. It was the working man's own fault if he patronisecl the alien hawkm·, and the hawker would only go where be could get patronage. If the alien was pennitted to live here at all, he should have the same conditions ex~ended to him as were extended to other people. He never had anything to do with aliens himself, and there v, as no necessity fur otber.s to have dealings with them unless they wisbecl. It seemed to him that some members were indulging in a little electioneering over the matter. It did not matter bow they framed the amendment it would not meet the reqniremellts of the store­keeper, because if people wanted to buy from alien hawkers tlwy would do so. There were plenty of white people to deal with, aud aliens were only kept here ber:-cuse they were patron­ised.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: At preseut"bawkers could sell anywhfre, and it was only intended to apply the restriction where shopkeepers were restricted also. As to the objection raised by the hon. membRr for Bulloo, he admitted at once that there wa'l something in it, but, as a m%tter of fact, "district" was defined under the Act as "a district constituted for the purposes of this Act" Districts were practinJly only towns, so that the objection in reference to selling in scattered districts really -did not apply. It had been pointed out with a great deal of force that at present hawkers -could compete with shopkeepers in towns, and

[Mr. Hamilton.

the question was whether tint was a fair thing. If there was a restriction on shopkeepers there ought also to Le a restriction on hawkers.

Mr. J. LEAHY : ·when he sugge'lted his objection it struck him that there was an absence of any definition of "district." He bad suc­ceeded in his object in calling the attention of the Ivlinister and the officer· administering the Act to the mcessity, especially in the \Vest, of placing sorlle limitation on districts. That would cover the ground exactly.

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause-put and negatived.

Mr. LESINA understood that the clause was proposed specially in the interests of the shop­keeper,;, and the general public were not con­sidered in the matter. It was proposed to pre­vent a man in South Brisbane selling fish or fruit or crying out his wares though he might be utterly incapacitated from following an:v other occupation.

:Mr. :i\:IcDoNNELI. : Those are exempted trades. Mr. LESINA : He knew there were certain

exemptions under the principal Act, but it was not only in connection with those shops that the hawkers would not be permitted to pursue their calling. There were several big settlements of 200 or 300 pe>ple outside Clermont, for instance, at Black Ridge and elsewhere, 18 or 20 miles distant from the town. How would a hawker be affected in cases of that sort, if he sold a bar of soap or 20 yards of calico?

The CHAIRMAN: I woulrl like to remind the hon. member that there is an amendment now before the Committee, and he should confine his remarks to that amendment.

HoN. R. PHILP asked if there had been any call for the clause from any district outside Bris­bane? So far as he could s••e, it only applied to Brisbane.

i\Ir. BARNES : There has been a call for it from the. hon. gentleman's own electorate.

Mr. PAULL: .And from Charters 'l'owers. The SECRETARY FOR PcBLIC \Vomcs : The

co1nplaints against conjpetition, I an1 iDforn1ed, are m<"tly from Brisbane ; but there are some from other parts of the State, though not many.

HoN. R. PHILP: In Townsdlle he under­stood that the storekeepers complained about ha\vkers going out on Saturday afternoon to the meatworks, and it was within hii knowledge that the meatworks v. ere not included in the diRtrict.

The SECRETARY FOH PUBLIC \VORKS: If there is any net1d, we can extend the district.

~1r. BAR:'·U~S: There were objec'.ions from many country people. He had beard of tmvellers going to wmntry towns and exbibiLing nmples at time·; v.hen the local storekeepers were com­pelled to close, and doing business at such thm s. Tbac occurred in the electorate which the Minister himc.,lf represented.

HoN. R. PHILP: At pre,ent they were dis­cussing- hawker,; and not the phase of the question to which the hon. memL ;r referred.

The CHAillJI.IAN: There ic an amendment now before the Committee, and, as I pointed out to the hon. member for Clermont, the dis­cussion should be confined to the amendment. When it is disposed of, the clause itself will be oven for rliscussion. -Mr. McDOX:NELL remembered the store­

keepers of Townsville taking action some time ago with reference to the competition of hawkers at the meat work" outside Townsville.

Hon. R. PHILP: But this will not get at them. Mr. McDONNELL : Yes, it would. A

gentleman who came down from Townsville, who was in the grocery and general trade,

Factones and Shops [18 SEPTEMBER.] Amendmrut Bill. 825

-~omvlained that the hawkers went out on Sattirday afternoon to the meatworks and did a trade there when the shops in town were closed.

Mr. J. LEAHY: It was really a more im­portant matter than it looked. He and the hon. member for TownsYille were directors in the meatworks at Townsville, and he was in a t-•osi~ tion to say that there w-·:re about 500 persons employed during· the gTe1ter pat't of the year at the meatworb, which represented a total popu­lation of between 2,000 and 3,000 people. That was more than the population of many country to·wnB, and the rrlini:-:;ter n1ight gi V8 some gnarantee that what was complained of would not be permitted.

~1r. McDO)!:s"ELL: They ''"e protected under this clause.

Mr. J. LEAHY: Xot unless the boundaries were extended, and the Minister would not say that he would extend them. He suppObed hon. members on the other side were opposing it because it emanated from the hon. member for Townsville. The Minister should be jJrepared to define the boundaries of the Townsville district so as to include the meatworb.

The SECRETARY ~'OR PrBLIC ·woRKS: I will look into the matter when I get the opp<>rtunity. I will not make any promise without looking into it.

Mr .• J. LEAHY: Did not the hrm. gentleman know enough about the Bill to make a promise? The hon. member for Townsvil!e had been a Minister for ten years rtnd was a director of the meatworks, and when would the hon. gentleman get his information if he had not got it now?

Mr. \VooDs·: \Vhy didn't the bon. member for Townsville see to it when he pac,ed the original Bill?

Mr. J. LEAHY: There was a great deal that had to be discovered after anv measure was passed. Xn doubt in fonr or five year'> this Bill would have to be amended.

The SEOl\ETARY POR PuBLIC \VoRKS: I am anxious to extend the Bill to wherever I can.

Mr. J. LEAHY: All the hon. gentleman was anxious about was passing the Bill, but they should endeavour to pass useful legislation. It was the first tim,• hP h ,d ever heard an hon. gentleman in charge of a Bill give as a reason for not doing something that he knew nothing about it.

The SEcm;v. UY FOH PUBLIC \VOHKS : Y on "·honld not mhrepre•ent what I say.

Mr. BARBER: During the last three or four years there had been many complaints about alien hawkere from Bundaberg going out to the various plantations, and the same thing applied to the Isis district. Some five, six, seven, or eight aliens hired a house in some part of the town, ran four or rive vans, and spread th'm­selve' all over the distrid. He believed that most of their goods were made by cheap alien labour, and were got through alien firms in BrisbRne. In the evenings '"hen they knoeked off v;ork on the plantat.ion, h:t wkers would rneet the "br.y::;" at the gate. In sorne ct~es the plantation owners had blocked the ha,> 'kers from going on tlk property at >oll, but thly did a good bit uf bu~iness with the white men. Some white men d1d not. care about g·1ing into the town, and bought a considerable quantity of goods from the hawkers, who thus came into competi­tion with the storekeepers and shopkeepers in town. If thie provision were inserted to prevent alien hawkers from pursuing their calling after ordinary clo,·ing hours, it would be a good thing for the storekeepers in the towns.

Mr .. LESINA: The difficulty might be met in this way: Instead of stopping the hawker from going out to the plantations and selling a pair of braces or a cake of eoap to a person who did not want to go into the town, a wise storekeeper

would fit out a van to compete with the alien hawkers on the S[Jut, and it was being done in son le cases. "\V e encouragPd 1nen to cnme front Victoria an:l New South \Vale' to work in our plantations, and then wanted to hem them in and make them a close preoerve for the loc,tl storekeepers. \Yby should they not spend their money in their own way? The hawker did not take them by the throat and make them buy. He was a considerable convenience to most of them, and the argument that he had heard mostly used again'\ him was that he was a black man, a Hindoo, or something else.

Mr. BARBER : Syrians, mo,t of them. They can live on the smeil of an oil rag, like a China­man.

Mr. LESIK A : He knew several of them, whose children went to the same school in South Brisbrtne as his cbilrl ren, paid more rents and taxes perhaps than he did, and in some cases a bigger income tax. That was an aspect of the matter which was worthy of more than passing consideration. He did not offer it as a defence at ail; but these hawkers would go t<;> the sugar-mills, plantations, meat.works, and ra1lway works to sell their wares, and in many cases they were a con vonience.

The CHAifl;\IAN: I must ask hon. members to confine thtm;elves to the amendment. The Committee have omitted certain worrls already, and now it is proposed to insert other words.

HoN. R. PHILP: If the Minister wanted to assist his constituents at 'fovmsville by not allowing- hawkers to go to the meat works, this would not do it.

'l'he SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC \VoUKS: This applies not alone to meatworks, but to the whole State.

HoN. R. PHILP: He understood the Minister to say that only Brisbane would benefit from it.

The SECI\ETAHY FOR PcBr,rc \VoRKS : I said principally Brisbane.

HoN. R PHILP: He had lived in Brisbane a long tinw, and had not seen much hawking after hours. He had seen unfortunate men who could not earn a living- goinQ about with a basket sell­ing rPels of cotton. Surely that was not a sin! The hawkers were more numerous in the out· skirts of the State.

The SEORE'rARY J<'OR PuBLIC \VonKs : This won't interfere with them in outside districts­it will only interfer0 with them in proclaimed districts.

HoN. P. PHILP : When be first spoke of the amendment the :'11inister snappishly told him he did not understand it, bnt evidently the 'Minister did not nnderstand it. He only f>aid t.h .• t some­body in Brisbane wanted to stop these hawkers. The hawkBrs, as a cla'·', were of great benefit to the State. He bad travellh! tbous::mds of miles this year and last year inN orth Queen,land, and had not seen many alien hawkers. They were nearly all white men.

:Mr. BARNES asked in case of a man who was doing a little ha'' king on the i::lr"turday afternoon with fruit in his van, and in adrlition had a pound of butter, \Vhat would be that man's position? It seemed to him that this was leg-islation gone mad. He ·bad contended all along that we should do nothing to send people practically to Dunwich, but that was what they were going to do.

Amendment (11Ir. O'Sullivan's) ag-reed to. On the motion of the SECRETARY FOR

PUBLIC WOHKS, a similar [7 p.m.] amendment, applying to commercial

travellers, was agreed to. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS

said he had another amendment to propose in clause 27.

Hon. T. O'Sullivan.]

826 Factories and Shops [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

HoN. R. PHILP : He had a prior amend­ment. Lines 7 to 11, on page 13, read--

It shall not be lawful for uny employee or a com­mercial traveller as aforesaid employed by an occupier of a shop to take or solicit orders at any house or place within a district during the hours when such shop is required to be closed underthi~ Act. This would prevent a commercial traveller from doing any business :~fter 7 or 8 o'clock. If he could only du busines< during- the honrs when the shops were open he would not be able to show his samples at all. In all country places where a traveller arrived at night, and h"d to leave early in the morni.ng, it was necessary that be should be able to show his goods in the evPning and do business. Half the busine.os done in CJueensland would be stopped by that clause. He moved that those lines be omitted.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS recognised that there was a great d<a! in what was stated by the lt"der of tile Opp<mition, and he had got an amen<lment framed for the pur­pose of dealing with that very objection. The clause as originally drawn was drawn for the purpose of dealing with employ<n in houses in certain places who went to oth,or places after their own hou,~s were clv·ed, and entered into unfair competition with the shop.s there which had to cloc n at a certain hour. His o.ttenti-Jn was then drawn to the objection to the clause, such as had been raised by the le.>der of the Opposition, and for the pur6ose of retaining the original clanse, and at the sanw time not. inter­fering with what he might term the legitimate commercial traveller, he proposed the following amendment :-

Omit "within a district. during the hours when such shop is " and lnsert ·· situated iu any district and distant less than twenty-five mile!'l from such shop during the hours when shops conductin;;:: the same class ui bu~'iness within sucn Ul'ltl'lct are·•

He thought that would meet the wishes of the leRder of the Opposition and at the same time stop a real grievance.

Mr. BOUCHARD pointed out that "Em­ployee" in sect.ion 4 of the principal Act read-

Xor does it includP. commercial travellers, meaning by that term persons employed by wholesale m· retail mer­chants as commercial travelling agents for the vnrpose of selling goods without delivery, or taking orders for goods without deliverv.

Therefore, he did not see that the objection of the leader of the Opposition to the clanse was a valid one.

HoCS'. R. PH.lLP pointed out that previously wholesale houses were not included in the Bill, but that it was n.)w proposed that they should be treated as emploj r s under this clause.

Mr. J. LEAHY understood that under the proposed amendment commercial travellees could solicit business in the ordinary way, provided thty were 25 miles from the centre they were operating from, and he did not think that would interfere with business very much.

Mr. PETRIE thought the proposed amend­ment would me~t the objection which had been raised by the leader of the Opposition. He recently had the honour of waiting on the l\1inister in connection with a wholesak and retail firm who were exercised ab<,ut this par­ticular provision, and he could say that, after hearing the explanation of the Minister and the amendment which he intended to propose, they were perfectly satisfied.

Mr. BAR:'\'ES asked if the repres•,ntative of a Brisbane firm which did both wholesale and retail business would be allowed nnder the amendment to do business in Toowoomba after honrs?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: There is nothing to prevent him.

Mr. BARNES : \V as it fair that a Brisbane firm who might, perchance, do only a rektil

[Hon. R. Philp.

business, and have travellers out, should be allowed to go into a city like Toowoomba and do business there after hours, while the people resident in that particular city could not do business after hours?

The SEORE1'ARY JWR PUBLIC \VORKS: The preceding paragraph deals with that.

HoN. R. PHILP: \Vhy should not a com­mercial trareller do business in Brisbane as well as in 'Toowoomba?

The SECRETARY FOH PUBLIC \VORKS : Because· Brisbane is within the 25-mile limit. If the Committee wish, I will make the limit 20 miles.

HoN. R PH1LP thought they should strike out "commercial traveller" altogeth. r, as ~ne­half or three-quarters of the stuff bought in this State was bought after hours, and th1s clause would prerent that stuff being sold.

2\Ir. HA>IILTON: A lot of cJmmercial travellers sell by retail.

HoN. R. PH!LP: They were not allowed to sell by retail, but in any case that matter was dealt with in the preceding paragraph.

The PREl\IIEH: You might withdraw your amendment now.

HoN. R. PHILP : He would like to see the Minister make the limit 5 miles. Even if the amendment were passed r,s drafted, a com­mercial traveller from Sydney could come , to 13risbane and do business after hours, while our own trave!ler8 would be deb 1rred hom doing business at su~h times.

The SECRRTARY FOR PCBLIC ·woRKS: \Ve have no jurisdiction over them.

Mr. BOUCI-L\.RD would like eo know what the ~1 inister had to say reg.trding the clelit:ition of" commercial traveller., as given in sectwn 4 of the principal Act. If that definition were :l.nnlir>';;b!P to the clfl.t);qe l!.!!der disca~sion, he was of ,~opinio~ ~that the clause was nut np•n t_o _the objection taken by the leader of the OppositiOl!, but if the definition were not applicable, then 1t would be open to that objectiqn, It was well known that commercial travellers did most of their bu;iness after honro, and if they were pr?­h,ibited from doing that, instead of a tnp· occupying two or three months, it would take six months, owing to their having to catch stParners, and :'30 forth.

Th" SECRETARY 1TOR PUBLIC WORKS could- not see the difficulty raised by the hon. member. If the word "employee" only were usecl in the clause, that would not include com­mercial tuweller, and as they did not think it fair to allow a commercial traveller to do what an employee was forbidden by the clause to do,. they had inserted that term,

l\fr. HA \V THORN did nfJt think that any hardship would be imposed on commercial tra­vellers, or that business would bo res'ricted as long as a commercial tr~vell~" was allowed to ~o business after hours 2o rrnles away from Ins home.

:.VIr. ,J. LEAHY: Supposing that on board a ste , .. mer g-oing to a Northern port there were two or thr''' Xew South \V..des commercif<l travellers and two or three Queensland commercial t<·avel­lers. Would it be right to allow the Xew South \Vales men to take orders and to prohibit our own n1en from doing Ro?

The SECRET.l.RY ~'OR PuBLIC 'NORKS: The preceding paragraph dealt with that.

Mr. J. LEAHY : He was only asking for in­formation. \Vould it apply to travellers from New Sonth \Vales?

The SECRETARY FOR FcBLIC \VORKS: Yes, to all travellers.

HoN. R. PHILP: He would prefer to see "corrnnercial traveller" omitted.

The SECRETARY POR PUBLIC \VORKS : Tha would open the door to evasion.

Factories and Shops [18 SEPTEMBER.j Amendment Bill. 827

HoN. R. PHILP: It would then read "any employee of a shop." A commercial traveller was not an employee of a shop in the ordinary sense of that term; he did not go. to private, houses for orders. The clause, as it stood, would prevent a commercial traveller going from Bris, bane to Ipswich or from Ipswich to Brisbane.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: He would make it 20 miles if the hon. gentle­man liked. If they left in the word "employee" only, a man who broke the law as to employtes would say at once that he was a commercial traveller, and, if llecessary, get a certifk'tte to that effect from his employer. It would open the door to evasion right a'' ay.

Mr. KEOGH: That was the most drastic measure ever introduced into any l)arliament in the Commonwealth. V erv few members had ever occupi,"d the position of storekeepers; if they had, they would never vote for a Bill of that kind. If the House passed the measure, he hoped it would be thrown out in another place.

Amendment (Hon. R. Philp's) put and neo-a-tived. b

The SECRETAHY :B'OR PUBLIC WORKS moved the omission of the words ''within a dis. trict during the hours when such shop is," with the view of inserting the words-situated in any district and <listant less than twenty miles from such shop at any time htter than half an hour after the time when shops condncting the same class of b~usiness within such district are

HoN. R. PHILP objected to the 20 miles. On the branch railway lines there were many places less than 20 miles away from a town where the Act was in force. "\Vhy should thev prevent a commercial traveller going from one town to another to sell goods after hours? A 20-mile limit woul~ prevent, for instance, a man going from IpswiCh to sell at Rosewood. If the :\linister wished to have a limit at all, he would suggest that it b8 5 miles.

Mr. KEOG H was of oninion that there should be no limit at alL He certainly did not see why

such an arbitrary radius should be l7.30 p.m.] fixed when there were in existence

such important trading c'"ntres as Ipswich, Laidley, and Harrisville which would be affected. He thoroughly agreed with the leader of the Opposition, and thought (,lueens­land would bP far better served if his suggestion was adopted.

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question-put and negatived. (~uestion-That the words pl'oposed to be in·

serteJ be so inserted-put. HoN. R. PHILP thoug·ht the Minister was

taking up an unreasonable position. , Surely he could not be conversant with business conditions thronghout Queensland. He should take the advice of someone who knew something about the matter, instead of following his own inclina­tions or the advice of the inspector. He would only make thP. Bill a farce, It was almost a farce already, and he was satisfied that if the amendment was agreed to it would be laughed at, and when the Bill reached the Upper House it would be knocked out.

The SECRJ<.JTARY :B'ORPUBLIC WORKS: HR was not going on his own information or the advice of the inspector. He was accepting the advice of a deputation of business men who were introrluced by the hon. membsr for Toom· bul. That deputation was p8rfectly satisfied with the proposal, and they were a fairly repre­sentative body of men. 'He understood that hon. members opposite would prefer the 20-mile limit, and he had altered his amendment accord­ingly. He was sorry to say that he could not see his way to reduce the.20 miles to.') miles.

HoN. R. PHILP would test the feeling of the Committee by moving the omission of "twenty" and the insertion of "five."

Mr. PETHIJ~ : The deputation he introduced was repre8entative of one large firm engaged in both wholesale and retail business. They offered objection to the clausA as it stood in the Bill, but after consultation with the Minister he pointed out that he had an amendment tu move such as that which he had proposed, and they were agreeablfl to accept that. "\Yithout such an alteration they represented that the original pro­vision of the Bill would stop altogether their retail bueinebs. There was no doubt that the amendment moved by the ::\Iinister would suit a lot of Brisbane people, but, as the leader of the Opposition pointed out, they had to consider people in bminess all over the State. He thought probably if the amendment was knocked out altogether it would be an improvement on the Bill, but if an ~mendment was moved reducing the limit to 5 miles he would support it. "\Vhile he wished to see the condition of the employees improved, he thought they were doing things which they would be sorry for afterwards. He therefore hoped that the amendment would be further considered before being finally passed.

::\lr. BAHNES : If it was lawful for people to trafle at certain hours, he did not see why there should be any limit at all. It seemed to him utterly absurd to prescribe a limit of 5, 10, 15, or :JO miles. It was apparent that neither the Minister nor the Committee had grasped the meaenre as they should. Apparently they were hopelessly tied up, and were really taking a leap in the dark.

Mr. LESINA did not understand exactly what Wi\S sought to be attained by the amend­ment. He asked the Minister or the hon. mem­ber for Toombul to explain why they were being asked to legislate at the behest of one or two firms? He wa' not going to vote in the dark on the question, and, unless either the :Minister or the hon. member for Toombul made ,,;ome ex­planation, he would not be able to vote one way or the other.

Mr. FORbYTH could not understand the object of the clause at all. The Minister said that it was the result of a deputation that waited on him; but it would simply have the effect of restricting the businesq done by commercial travellers. A traveller might arrive in a place after busine s hours, and be might want to leave by train the first thing the following morning, f>J that be must do his buciness at night or not at all.

'l'he PRE)JIER : He will not be reqtricted at all.

::\Ir. FORSYTH: He could not do business within a 25-mile ro"dius. "\Yhat arguments had those whole~ale · houses used to induce the ::Ylinieter to proprse such an amendment As ~"·~'she could see, it wao dead against their own In~.rerests.

:\Ir. CAMP BELL: One of the strongest arguments that could be used against the pro­posal W[l3 that travellers from the other States would be able to compete ouccessfully against local traYellers.

The PREmER: They will not have any advan­tl1ge over local travellers if the local travellers are 25 miles frmn their own centre.

::\Ir. CAMPBELL :' But they should be in the same position. A Sydney traveller would be able to do business here, while a Brisbane traYeller would have to go 25 mileo away before he could do anything.

The PREMIER' The Rockhampton traveller will be in exactly the same position in Rock­hampton with regard to the Brisbane traveller. There is no reason why the local travellers should do business at night.

Mr. Gampbell.]

828 Facto1'ies and Shops [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL : A traveller had to get through as much business as he could, otherwise he would soon get the "sack." The Premier showed that. he was not a business man when he spoke like that. In the interests of the whole State it was very necessary that the limitation should be removed.

HoN. R. PHILP did not know why the :Minister should seek to impose a restriction on our own people. A Sydney man could du busi­ness here, whilst a Brisbane man could not sell anything. If a Brisbane man went to Rock­hampton he could sell, but the Rnckharnpton man could not.

i\1r. CowAP: \Vh,- cannot men do busine.;s during the daytime?"

HoN. R. PHILP: Traveller, migM arri,-e at night by train, and, if they were precluded in doing their business that night and leaving the next morning, it would simply mean that th­people would have to pny more fur their stuff. The amendment would handicitp the travel­lers belonging to the State. The Secretary for Agriculture must know that the whole thing wits a farce. He was at a wool sale on Saturday aftern<'Oll. \V uolbuyers came from all parts of the world. They c~me the night bef'lre, and left on the Saturday night to attend it sale in Sydney. This clause would stop that sort of thing for the future. He could not understand any reasonable man putting forward it clause which would paralyse business and shackle our own people. Travellers did not deliver goods, but simply took orders, and very often men in business could not find time to see travellers during the day.

Mr. MoDONNELL said the position would be serious if there were not itnother side to the question raised by the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman stated that a commercial tmveller from a southern house could cume here and sell his goods, whilst the lO("~l houses were prevented fron1 ~elling the sarne c]ass of goods, but he should not forget that we always ,had the local houses here, whose hours were convenient enough for the local people to deal with them, but the southern men only came up once each 'eason and spent it few clays or it week here, itncl their work WitS done both day and night.

Mr. BARNES : \Vhy should you penalise local houses?

Mr. McDONJ'<ELL : They did not penalise them, because retail people were able to do busmess with the local houses during the hours they kept open, out the nmn from a distance had to do his business itfter hours because his time was limited, and he had a nun.ber of people to see.

HoN. K B. :U'ORREST could not understand the Sydney traveller being given a preference over our own people. It seemed that it traveller for a Sydney firm could come up here and sell till further orders night itnd day. Take the case of the won! sitles as an illustration. :\1en c•1me here one night, Sitnq,Jed wool in the morniug, and it was sold in the afternoon and up to 9 o'clock at night. He hope<i the Minister would let the amendment drop. He could not under­stand the Premier allowing this sort of tom­foolery to go on.

The PREMIER: It wccs lmrcl for the Minister to see this tomfoolery going on. There h~d been more talk over this itmendment thnn was neces­Sitry for the whole Bill. The shopkeepers who had to close their shop under the operation of the principitl Act pa;·,ed by hon. member;, opposite, had to endure the competition of the more or less bogus commercial travellers who came round their own district at night and sold their goods, while they were prohibited by htw from selling after 6 o'clock. The clause was originally drafted for the purpose of correcting that abuse, but, its

[Mr. Campbell.

it was shown that the clause as drafted would interfere with the legitimate business of corn" merciitl tmvellers, who were under con•iderable expense and very often compelled to do bnsiness at night "'ith storekeepers who could not see them during the clay, the Minister had made an amendment for the purpose of doing itwity with the difliculty.

OPPOSITION MEMBERS : But it does not do itway with the difliculty.

The PRE::YIIER: Yes, it did. A commerciitl traveller representing a Brisbane house had no necew-ity to work at night, because the whole­sale ho;1se was there all the time, itnd people could send round their orclPrs. But it was quite a different thmg when the same tritveller went to another district itnd it "as necessary for him to see a couple of customers in it little town where he itrrived in the afternoon. It WitS only fitir to give him an opportunity of seeing them after G o'clock, so that he conl<l get away by tritin in the morning. If they did not do thitt, it would compel travellers, at considemble expense to their employers, to wait unt.il the shopkeepers had time to see them during the dity, and the itmendment removed that difficulty. \Vhen they were away such a distance from the central place of business, sity, 20 miles, as made it convenient to do business in the evening without interfering with the retail sho]Jkeepers in the district, then the liberty Wits given; but where they were running about their own neighbourhood it was not necessary that the employee, dressed up as a commercia:! tmveller, should have the liberty to sell the same class of goods which the ordinary retRil shopkeeper was forbidden to sell after a certain hour. The hon. member for Brisbane North, who talked about us giving a benefit to Sydney travellers, surely understood that there was no disability on loc'll travellers its compitred with them. \VhC'n the Brisbane man landed in To(JWOomba, the fact that he WitS that distance away from his place of business was it reason why he should be given facilities for doing business in the evening, as he was under heitvy travelling expenses, whieh he did not incur when he was in the district where the centritl place of busine.cs was situittecl. He did not think the Minister would object to a small alteration of the mileage.

Mr. J. LEAHY had been in~lined to think that a distance of lii n:iles would do, but now ihe

le,_der of the Opposition proposed [8 p.m.] 5 miles. 'There WitS a difficulty in

the last clause with regard to wool sales, which he found came in under this clituse itlso. He thought the Premier would do all he could to foster the wool s,\les, and anybody who nnderst-Jocl anything itbout them knew thitt considerable quantities of wool did not fetch the reserve, a1icl itfter the ordinary sales were over buyers itncl .cellers frequently met at their hotels at night, and sometimes £30,000 or £40,000 worth of wool was sold at that hotel. Now, were they commercial tnt vellers or employees ? They must be either one or the other.

The SECRETAlW FOR PUBLIC \VORKS: \Vool is not one of the itrticles.

Mr. J. LEAHY: Ye'; wool, hides, and tallnv W<Jre sold every day in the week in Bris­bitne, though perhaps not in large quantities.

The PREMIER: Is wool sold retail? If not, it will not itpply.

Mr. J. LK'I.HY: It did apply, because the definition of "shop" had been itmendecl to include wholesale houses. As a rule, a com­mercial traveller did not do retail business. If the clause was carried as it stood, it would pre­vent the wooleales being carried on in Brisbane after the usual sitle is over.

The ATTORNli:Y-GENERAL : The woolbuyer would not come in at all.

Factories and Shops [18 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 829

Mr. J. LEAHY: Tbe woolseller would come in. It was a cnmmon thing to sell £40,000 or £50,000 worth of wool after the ordinary sale was over, and mo,;t of it w:cs R<J!d after 8 or 9 o'clock at night. If wool was exempted, it was all right, but the clause as prupooed would make it punishable for any auntiuneer, or any of the~e employer~, to meet after 8 o'clock at night and sell wool.

'fhe SECRET AllY Jo'OR PcBLIO \VoRKS: You are dealing with th'~' next paragraph.

Mr. J. LEAHY: No, he was de,.,Jing with the paragraph before the Committee. They were either commercial travellers or employees. The next p:tragraph referred to the wool sale.< ~tt the rooms, but he was speaking about the sales that took piace at night after the ordinary sales were over.

Hon. R. PHI LP : If it refers only to retail we will pass it at once.

Mr. J. LEAHY : He understood the Premier to interject that it applied only to retail selling. If the clause were altered to that effect there would be no objection to pa5sing it right away. If the bu, iness was not done under the circum­stances he had indicated. then it would not be done at all. 'The result viould be thr.t the Bris­bane wool sales would be broken up, a lot of people would lose their emp1.oyment, and the sellers of the wool would not be able to see their wool sold.

Mr. BARNES : The Premier stated distinctly that this clause related to retail buying, and he would knock that argument at once from under the hon. gentleman's feet.

The PREMIER: I •-aid it refers to goods ,,•old on retail in the dis'rict ..

Me. BARNES: 'fhat would suit his argument just as well. If it was unfair for a man to sell goods retail after hours in Briilbane, was it not equally unfair for a man to sell them at Too­woornba? If there was to be a law to protect the people of Briilb.>.ne, surely there should also be e. law to protect those people at a distanQ,e from Brisbane. He would remind the Minister in charge of the Bill that it applied with equal force to his electorate of "'iV arwick.

Mr. SPENCER: Another point was in regard to commission agents. They went round after honrs and did bu"iness in the "ay of buying and selling stock. \V ere they to be debarred from doing this?

:Mr. HARD ACRE citPd an illustration where a commercial traveller from Rockhampton stopped at a small township on the rail way line, , engaged an empty shop, opened up at night and sold his samples retail. He also went round the town soliciting ordero, He would be permitted to do that under the clause, as he was 25 miles away from his shop at Rock­hampton, but the local man could not. That should not be allowed.

TheSJWRETARY :FOR PUBLIC WOUKS agreed with the hon. member for Bulloo that under the new definition of " shop " this clause would apply to wholesale as well as retail dealer.', and he also recognised that there was some force in the contention that the pro1·ision was rather too wide. He therefore proposed, with the permission of the Comrmttee, to with­draw his amendment for the present, and then to move that after the word '' plac3 " there be inserted the words " for any class of goods usually 'old by retail in that district"; if that amendment were ag-reed to, he wonld then submit the amendment now under considera-tion. •

The CHAIRMAN : I would point out that before the Minister can withdraw his amendment it will be necE>ssary for the leader of the Opposi· tion to withdraw the amendment he has pro­posed.

Hox. R. PHILP said he had no objection to withdmw his ameodment, but at the same time he should like to see the clause confined to retail detling.s.

Amendment (Hon. R. Philp's), by leave, with· drawn.

Amendment (ill;·. O'Sullivcm's), by leave, with· drawn.

The SECRET.\RY :FOR PUBLIC WORKS moved that after the word "place" on line 9 there be inserted the words "for any class of goods usually sold by retail in that district."

HoN. R. PHILP: That would not help matters, because all goods sold by wholesale were also sold bv retail. It would be much better to say "sold. in reta1l quantities "-that was, that such goods should not be sold after hours in retail qu mtities.

:Mr. J. LEAHY: The clause was unnecessary altoaether. All that members on that side had don~ had been to trv to improve it, and the posi­ti•m of the hon. m~mber reminded him of the ruan who proceeded to break the crockery in order to show his feeling.

The SECRETARY :FOR PUBLIC WORKS asked leave to amend his amendment to make it read" usually sold in retail quantities."

Amendment amended accordingly. :\fr. JENKINSON: That would not meet the

case. If there was any amendment made at all, it should be prior to the hon. gentleman's amend­ment. If the amendment were altered to read "for the purpose of retailing any class of g-oods usu:~,JJy sold by retail in that district," that would meet the objection which had been raised by the leader of the Opposition and other hon. members.

Mr. LESINA: The matter dealt with in the clau·~·e w'cs one about which there h<td been some complai,,t in the Central district. Rockhampton travellers went to Emerald, Springsure, or Cler­mont, opened up their goods in the sample~ room of an hoLd, or in an empty shop, and sold those goods after hours, when the loc~l storekeepers were compelled to close their businesses. !'£e had no obiection to commercial travellers domg their ordi:i{ary business after nightfall if it was nece~sary for them to do so in order to catch a train the following morning; but he was glad to ,,ee that the clau~e, as amended, would prohibit the practice he had referred to, and he had therefore much jJlh>Slu·e in supporting- the clause in its altered form.

Mr. HARD ACRE: The proposed amendment would not meet the difiiculty. It simply pro­vided that a man could not get orders aft,er hours for articles which were sold by retail in the district. All kincls of articles were sold by retail in a district. They wanted them to be ~tble to solicit wholesale orders, but not to sell articles by retail of the kind sold by other shop­keepers in the district. It would be !_letter t? provide that goods shouM not be ~old 111 retarl quantities.

HoN. R. PHJLP: In the former paragraph it was provided that it should not be lawful for anv commercial traveller to sell by retail. \Vhy not word that paragraph in the same way? It would cover the whole matter.

'l'he SECgETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: That di<l not mean anything. A man might get a retail order for £200.

Mr. :FORSYTH: It was the evi<lent inten­tion of that particular paragraph, as originally printed, to deal with retail shops. \Vhy not con­fine it to that and le»ve wholesale houses alone?

Mr. PAULL: The amendment would not effect what the Minister intended. Every article sold in a retail shop was first bought wholesale, and if a commercial traveller was not allowed t<>

Mr. Paull.]

830 Factories and Slwps [ASSEMBLY.J Amendment Bill.

sell the things sold by retail in the district, what was the use uf his going there? He would not sell anvthing.

Mr." HA WTHOR~ : The paragra)Jh shonld be so amended as to show that the goods were to be sold in wholesale, not in retail, quantities.

Mr. l\IACARTNEY: The Committee were getting very much mixed up over the clam e. The paragraph, os originally printed, had reference to retail shops. and that seemed to be the ground of the misunderstanding. The previous para­graph prevented any commercial traveller from selling by retail. It was clear that the 2nd paragraph was never intended to affect any one but retailers. If any amendment was required it was the one suggested by .the hem. member for Carpentaria, making it clea1· that it was appli­cable to retail shopkeepers, and that could be done by inserting the words ''the occupier of a retail shop."

Mr. HARD ACRE suggested that the clause should be postponed for reconsideration.

The PRE11IER: There has been too much time wasted over it already.

Mr. HAHDACRE v>'as satisfied that the clause, as proposed to be amended, did not meet the case at all.

Mr. LESINA: First they had an amending Bill, and then in the last two weeks

[8.30 p.m.] other amendments had been drafted, until members were da~ed with the

sheaves of amendments which were brought down.

The PREMIER asked if the hon. member was in order ?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member is not in order in discussing anything but the amend­n1ent.

Mr. LESINA wantecl to hack up the sugges­tion of the hon. member for Leichhardt thr.t the clause should be temporarily withdrawn. He objected to the attempt of the Premier to gag him. Under section 4 of the principal Act the term "employee" did not include "commercial travel! er." They could supply goods without any interference. It was a common complaint that when commercial travellers arrived in a town they displayed their L<Lmpled at the local hotel, and whilst enga:;e"! in taking wholc.ale orders they also <·ngaged in reLtil trade. He did not say that the better class of commercial tra vel!ers did that, but there were many who did, and who kept open until 11 and 12 o'clock at night ancl would sell shirt or a )Jair of boots. That w~s the kind of competition which the local man resentrcl. The J\Iinister's an1end1nent, r-::tod in connection with the definition in section 4, made it perfectly clear that the commercial trayeihr, whether en­gaged in w he le&:. le or retail trade, '\va.s not jnter~ fered with in his legi'.imate business. He was therefore prep;. red to support the mnendment.

HoN. R. PHILP : The amendment would not meet the case.

The PRE:IIlllR : Then vote against it. HoN. R. PHILP was trying to get the Bill

through. 'rhe PRE,\IIER : You are adopting a peculiar

method. HoN. R. PHILP: When the Premier was

away he had voted three times with the Guvern­ment to get their Bill through, and then the Minister said he was trying to block the Bill. 'J'he Bili was first of all meant to apply t.) retail shops. Since then ·:bey had altered it to apply to wholesale houses, but he did not know any wholesale house in Brisb~ne which went about soliciting retail orders. There were, however, houses in Brisb,ne with travellers all over the State whom the clause would aifect. If the clause was confined to retail shops he woulJ let it pass, but it was not. He wanted to see the Bill a fair one, but the amendment was making

[Mr. Paull.

it so unfair that there would be considerable difficulty in getting it through. Let it be con­fined to preventing retailers soliciting orders in an unfair way alld he had nothing more to say.

Mr. ,TEKKINSON: The hon. member for Clermont had referred to section 4 of the prin­cipal Act, but he was entirely at sea with regard to that. He only bore out the contention that commercial travellers within 20 miles would be prevented from selling goods within that radius. Section 4 dealt with tbe word "employee," and not with ''commercial travellers." It said clis· tinctly that the word "employee" did not include "commercial tra;·ellers." K ow it was sought to bring the commercial traveller under the amending Bill, and the contention wa'· that a c:nnmercial traveller repre,;enting a bnsiness firm at Ipswich would absolutely be prohibited from taking orders in Harri::wille, Rosewood, Lowood, :Forest Hill, Laidley, Gatton, or any of the surrounding small towns, but the Brisbane man could do that. They objected to Bri,;bane being the octopus of the State, and he was sur­prised at the Premier bowing down to the Bris­bane shopke·'per. It was not the attitude he used to adopt, and what had brought about the change? The Secretary for Public \Vorks had tried to meet the views of the leader of the Opposition, but had entirely failed. It was a distinction without a difference which he was now submitting. If the hon. gentleman would not go any further, would he be inclined to sup­port the 5-mile radius, which would meet every case? \Vhy should there be any objection to a reasonable amendment coming from the Opposi­tion, which was immediately stamped on, while amendments coming from the Government side were accepted with open arms?

:!\Ir. :FOHSYTH: As this was a matter more connected with retail shops, he would ask the J\Iinister whether he would accept an amend­ment restricting a traveller in a "retail" shop from soliciting or taking "retail" orders? That would meet the whole difficulty. • The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS should be happy to accept the amendment if he agreed with it, but they wanted two entirely different things. He wanted the restriction to ap}Jly to commercial travellers from wholesale houses, and the hon. member did not. The issue was perfectl.v clear.

HoN. R. PHILP : According to the clause, it was lawful to sell goods by wholesale but not by retail. It was also lawful to deliver goods sold by wholes"lf, but not to solicit orders ;~hnlesale. The fir,;t p.:,rt of the clause clearly laid it dccwn thttt it should not be lawful' for a commerci:tl ttaveller to sell by reteil, but he might sell whole> ,t]e; the next pnt of the clause provided that he could not solieit orders for goods either wholesale or retail. Did not that .·how whttt a farce the whole thing v. as ?

Mr. ~IACART.i'\EY : The Minister said that he knew exactly what he wanted, and also that he knew exactly what members of the Opposi­tion wanted. The hem. g·entleman "aid th:,t what he wanted was to prevent connnercial travellers representing wholesale huusn selling by retail.

The SECHE1'ARY FOR Pl:BLIC \Vomcs : I did not e~y that. I want to prevent them taking orders.

Mr. MACARTNEY: There wes a difference in the verbiage, bnt he could not see the difference between soliciting orders and offerin~ goods. In the hi paragraph there was an absolute prohibi­tion of commercial travellers selling by retail, and that was virtually what" the 1Iinister said he "J,nted.

The PRE11IIER: One of the things. Mr. MACARTN.EY: The hon. gentleman

was harking back to the distinction in verbiage

Factories and Shops [18 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 831

of which he had just spoken. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would explain what the difference was.

The PmmrER : He has explained it far too often already.

Mr. ::vi:ACART:-<EY: They had had no in­telligent explanation of it up to the present. It was a pity they could not discuss things reason­ably and fairly ; hut it appeared that when the Minister determined upon a certnin course of action he was going to carry it out whether it was right or wrong-.

HoN. R. PHI LP did not think it was right to ram the cl::tuse down their thro:cts. Bv includ­ing wholesale houses, they wet·e preventing com­mercial travellers all over Queensland from soliciting orders when and how they could. If, ·in the 1st pamgraph, they debarred them from selling by retail, why sh<ould they not also debar them from soliciting orders by retail? That was all they asked for.

The PREmER: \Ve have had all this argument several times already.

HoN. R. PHILP: But they had had no reason why the Minister would not accept it. The Secretary for Agriculture could explain how ridiculous the proposal was, and he might get the Parliamentary Ikaftsman to draft an amend­ment that would meet the case; but the Secre­tary for \Vorks did not understand the Bill. He had plainly said so several times.

The SECRETARY l!'OR PUBLlC WORKS: He propose<;l the last amendment to meet the hon. gentleman.

Hon. R. PHILP: But it does not meet me at all. The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS

asked leave to withdraw the amendment. He only proposed it to meet the objections raised by the other side.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. MACARTNEY moved the insertion

before the word "shop, "in the 9th line, of the 'vord ''retail."

The CHAIRMAN : The hon. member cannot move that amendment, as the Committee have already amended the clause further on by omit­ting the words "within a district during the hours when such shop is." The hon. member cannot go back.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS moved the insertion of the words-situated in any district and distant le&>; than twenty 1niles from t~uch shop at any time later than half an honr aftel' the time when shops conducting the same class of business within snch district are."

Mr. :B'ORSYTH moved that the amendment be amended by the omission of "twenty" and the substitution thu-efor of" five."

The S1WRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: If the hon. member would be cctti,fied with 10 milco, he would accept the amendment.

Mr. FORSYTH altered his amendment ac­cordingly.

Hox. R. PHILP: Ten miles Whs better than 20 miles, but this was putting the Brisbane people tct a dic'>d vantage to the S0 dney pe')ple, the Rockhampton people at a dib'tdvantage to Brisbane people, the Townsville people to the llockham pton people, and so on. \Vhy did the Government wish to )_Jenalise our own people? It was absurd to insert any mileage, and there was no advantage in having 10 miles. \Vr did all we possibly could to stimulate trade, and were now going to allow people from the southern States to come here with an ad vantage over our own people.

Mr. J. LEAHY asked the Minister if he would accept 10 miles as he promised. If they were not caretul, they would be doing a great injury to trade.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WOEKS: \Vhenever a member made a request in cour-

teous language he liked to answer him cour­teously. At the same time he would point out that he introduced the amendment at the request of hon. members opposite to meet them ; they had spent an hour discussing it and then he had to withdraw it, and he did not seem to be able to please hon. members, Under the circum­stance~, he proposed to waste no more time on it.

Mr. HARDACRE : If the proposed amend­ment were carried it would prevent the getting of orders of rtny kind, wholesale or retail, beyond the 10 miles. He wonld ask the Minister to make it 5 mile' when the Bill came up for rec. nn mi ttal.

HoN. R PHILP understocd the Minister to agree to 1nake it 10 rnile~.

The SECRETARY "'OR PCBLIC \VORKS : Yes. Hox. li. PHILP : But the Premier anrl the

Minister put their backs up now against the very proposition made by this side of the House.

The PREmER: \Ve are just accepting it, and you won't let us.

HoN. R. PHI LP: They were putting our own people under a great disability.

The PRE:I!IER : Is not that tedious repetition? Hnx. R. PHILP :It might be, but ttpparently

some men wet·e so thick in the head that you had to repeat it to make tbem understand.

The CHAil\MAN : Order, order ! HoN. R. PHILP: \Vhy should a commercial

traveller living· in Brisbane be put at a greater disability than a man living iu Sydney, and the man in 11aryborough than the man in Brisbane, and so on ::ell over the State?

The SECRETARY FOU PUBLIC \VORKS : \Vhy should one man have to close his shop at 6 o'clock and another not?

HoN. R. PHILP: Because all retai shops had to close. Luckily we had some commercial men in the other Chamber, and they would knock this thing- out.

Amendment amended by substituting "ten" for "twenty,n and agreed to.

Mr .. J. LEAHY: He thought the next para­graph was most objectionable, e,,pecially in regard

to wool sales. As he had pointed L9 p.m.] out, it frequently happened that

wool sales were continued in the evening after the ordinary wool salP'J were over, and if that para~;raph were allowed to remain as it stood thAy could not continue tho'e sales in that '>'ay, He mov•.od that the clan se be amended by inserting the words ''by retail" after '' sold " in line 14.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS accepted the amendment.

Arrendmr nt ag-reed to. ::\Ir .• H~KKIK80X drew attention to the last

paragraph of the clam:;e, under which two nersons could be punished for the one offence. ·It put enonnous 1wwer into the hands of an nnRCl'U­pnlous 8l11ployee who might commit an offence under the seejon, and then his employer would be drawn in too. It seemed a harsh thing that two pereons ohould be made to pay a penalty for ot'e offence.

TheSRCEETARY FOil PUBLIC WORKS: ·It would be a great hard"hip to make two person, g·uilty for the :<Ct of one, but the hon. member ought to know enough of criminal law to be aware that an offence under it depended upon the state of mind of the individual who committed it. If the emyloyee acted outside the scope of his employer's authority it would not be an offence against the employer. He did not think the dang-er the hon. member anticipated was likely to arise.

Clause 27, as amended, put and passed. Clau&e 28 put and passed. On clansn 29-" Amendment of section G5"­Mr. JE:t\KINSON : The amendment was

introducing a new principle into the Bill, as it

Mr. Jenkinson.]

832 Factories and Shops [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

gave power to the Chief Inspector to institute prosecutions and to do other thir;gs g·enerally carried out bv the :i\linister himself. The JYiinister wa" tllways getaUJJ1e, and the matter of instituting pro~ecutions should remain with the ~Iinister solely and not with the Chief Inspector.

Clause put and passed. On clau~e 30-' 'Po\ver to appoint Eipecial wages

board to fix price for certain work"-The SECRETARY FOR PL:"BLIC WORKS

moved that, in lines 21 and 22, the words- " In every district within the State, or with jurisdic­tion limited to a district or group of districts to be specified," be omitted, with a view of imerting "throughout the whole State, or with jurisdiction limited to any specified locality." The reason for the amendment was that the clause was taken from the Victorian Act, where it applied to the whole Sta~e, but, in Queens­land, the only !•laces to w htch it would apply were those districts which had been proclaimed. The proclaimed districts would be practically the townP, and it might be inconvenient for the working of the Act if they were confined to the proclaimed district. They might want to estab­lish \\ages boards in other localities.

1\I.r. LESii'\ A: The eh id defect in the clause was that it was not compulsory. The whole matter was entirely in the haud.s of the ~1inister or the Go,·ernment of the day, and if they did not care to e,ctahlish the board there was no prospect of it being established at all. He would like to Eee the clause so altered that there could be no pDssible doubt about the establishment of these wages bortrds, not that he had any great faith in these wages boards. They had d<me very little or no good at all in Victoria, and he expected they would do very little good here. The Governor in Council had power to "P!JOint a special wages board, consisting of not less than four nor rnore than ten member~ and a chairman.

The CHAIR1IAN : The Minister's amend­ment comes first. The hon. member wi!.l have an opportunity of discussing the constitution of the wctges boards later on.

Amendment (ilir. O'Sullivan's) af,reed to. ::'vir. LESIN A thought that the constitution of

the board was open to objection. Half the members were to be employers and half were to be employees. In other words, half the mem­bers of the board would be dep<cndem upon the other half for a living, It w,cs something like the Railway Appeal Board, where one member sat alongside another member upon whom he was dependent for promotion-who might prevent him getting promotion if he should prO\·e hostile to him on the bo.wd. Another objection to the clause was that the appointment of a special wages board was dependent upon the Minister or the Governor in Council. The prGsent Minister might be sympathetic, because he wa.< associated with what was called a Labour Government; but he would not be there for ever, and the man who took his place might not be so sympathetic in his adminis~mtion of the Bill. He had not very much faith in wages boards, and it was a matter of indifference to him whether this Biil went through or not, because it excluded the large body of employee' in the State, and its benefits were confined to a few favoured trades and the employees engaged in those trades. It would have been much better if the Government had been loyal to the com­pact entered into with the party sitting behind them when they fir8t formed this coalition Government, and had, in compliance with the promise made by the various Premiers they had had, introduced, instead of this special wages board, a comprehensive and up-to-date Arbitra­tion and Conciliation Bill. He did not view this measure with any satisfaction. The other

[Mr. Jenkinsrm.

day a report of an interview with ::\Ir. Prender­gast, of Victoria, appeared in the Worke,., in which that gentleman showed how defective the wages board principle had proved in Victoria, or, at any rate, how little good the wages board wail doing in that State. The organ as,qociated with 10,000 or 15,000 workers in Queensland condenn1ed this lYJeasure.

Mr. l\IcHPHY: Y nu know the TVorkc1' praised. the principle when the hon. member for Forti­tude V alley introduced it a few years ago.

Mr. LESIN A : Yes, it praised the principle; but that was a different thing from praising these provisions. It was to be hoped that some good would come out of this measure, but he confessed that he did not think that the placing of this particular principle on the statute-book would do that amount of good which the l\IIinister probably anticipated it would do. He supposed they would be debarred from improving the provi­sions as they should be improved, as in doing so they would be going outside the scope of the Bill or the order of leave, and it would, therefore, be uselegs to propose the necessary amendments. Ho~. E. B. FORREST wished to know

whether the phrase "such loweet prices or rates" meant the minimum wage or the average mini­mum \Vnges, as there was ~ vaqt dist-inction between the two.

The SECRETARY POR PCBLIC .WORKS: Clause 3S is the one which really deals with that matter.

Clause, as amended, put and passed. On clause 31-" Constitution of board"­

"Representatives "-and "Term of office"-i\fr. CAMPBELL moved the omission on

lines 34 and 35 of the words "or shall have been." He submitted that the people who should adjudicate on matters coming before, or have a voice in the decisions of, the wages board should be employers of the day, and not P''rsons who "have been" employers. That couid be much better effected by men who were actual employers, familiar with present-day conditions. The employee,,, he understood, would be men actually working, and the same rule should hold with regard to employers.

The SEORETARYFORPUBLIOWORKS: He regretted that he could not accept the amend­ment, which, if passed, would place an unneces­Hry restriction upon the persons competent to form a tribunal. A man might have been an employer for forty years, and have retired, and yet be a far more desirable per ,on to act on a tribunal than another mcw who was an actual employer· at the time. He thought the amendment, if acc;,pted, would be a blot on the Bill.

Mr. FORSYTH: An employer who had been twenty years out of business, or an employee who had not been in work for a long time, might not be a desirable member of a tribunal, because the conditions of a trade might have completely altered since his time. He thought the amend­ment a most reasonable one. It brought actual employers and actual employees together, and surely they could settle points in dispute far better than men who had been out of business ten, twenty, or thirty years. He failed to see in what sense such an amendment would be a blot on the Bill.

Mr. CAIYlPBELL: There was a clause else­where in the Bill which provided for employers and employees coming together by agreement, so that the principle was recognised in that case. He failed to understand why the Minister should describe it as a "blot on the Bill." He spoke as an employer, who knew perhaps more on the subject than any other man in the House. His firm had been in business for fifty- two years without a strike of any kind.

Mr. "'WooDs: Because you pay pretty good wages.

Factories and Shops [18 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bilf. 833

Mr. CAMP BELL: Whether that was the reason he was not prepared to say ; at all events, they had had no strike during the whole of that time. He, as an actual employer, wa• in touch with all the circumstancee connected with his business, and aole to deal with any question concerning it that came up, whereas a man who had been out of the business for twenty-five years would be totally unfamiliar with its conditions.

Question-That the words proposed to he omitted (lVIr. Campbell's amendment) he so omitted-put ; and the Committee divided :-

Mr. Airey , Barber

Bell Blair

, Bowman , Bridges ,, Burrows , Cowap

Den ham , Dibley , Fudge , Grayson

Hamilton , Hardacre , Hargreaves

Hawthorn ., Herbertson , Kerr

AYES, 36. }fr. Kidston

, Land , Lesina

Mackintosh 1'Iaun Maxwell )icDonnell

, Mitchell Mulcahy }1urphy Norman O'Keeffe O'Sullivan Payne Scott Smart Turner

, \Voods Tellers: Mr. Bowman and Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. Barnes Bouchard

, Campbell Cribb Forrest

, Forsyth Fox Hanran Jenkinsou

Xo>:s, 17. 1Ir. Keogh , J. Leaby , Paget

Paul! , Petrie , Philp , Spencer H Stodart

Tellers: :Mr. Barnes and l\Ir. Spencer.

Resolved in the affirmative. Mr. CAMPBELL moved, on line 38, after

the word "trade," the insertion of the words "not being paid officials of any trade unions in such trade." His object was to bring about peaceful solutions of difficulties. He took it that the parties would try to arrive

at a solution of the difficulty, buu [9.30 p.m.] be thought paid officials of any

nssociation or trade union would be likely to be biassed. Those directly concerned were the people best able to decide, and they should be free from anv interference which would he likelytostirupstrife. He trusted theMinister would accept the amendment in the spirit in which it was offered-namely, that there should he a genuine attempt on the part of the parties interested to solve their difficulties among them­selves, without any interference.

Mr. WooDs : Do you not think the same thing applies to employers?

Mr. CAMPBELL: Quite so, and he had said so.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS was sorry he could not accept the amendment. In the first place, there was the objection that it only referred to one side, though he understood the hon. member would be willing to include employers who were paid officials. But the real objection was that persons on either side who were competent to form the tribunal should not be excluded simply because they earned money as officials. The fact of the hon. member being a paid official of an employers' union, if he was one, should not disqualify him from taking part in the settlement of a dispute. There was no reason for disqualifying representatives from either side.

Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. gentleman did not deal with the amendment in the spirit in

1906-3F

which he introduced it. He submitted that a paid official from either side would be anxiOus to" bring f,•rward evidence in favour of his side, and in that way probably strife would be stirred up.

Mr. BowoiAN: Not necessarily. Mr. CAMPBELL: Yes; quite neceBsarily.

He was satisfied that the spirit in which the Bill was conceived was being interfered with. If there was no chance of the amendment being accepted he would not press it, hut he thought if members were disposed to look at the matter from the proper point of view they would see it" as he saw it.

Mr. LESINA: The hon. member need not agitate himself over there being a design to prevent the representative of any class who" might be nominated on the board doing his duty. There was no danger for him as an employer. If there was he could rest assured members on the front Opposition bench would have been up in arms long ago. But they had received the Bill with open arms, which was a distinct guar­antee that it was harmless. They could pass th& Bill becanse it was absolutely harmle~s and use-" less. It was a miserable substitute to make some kind of recompense to the outraged workers for" the breach of faith on the part of the Govern­ment in not introducing an Arbitration and Conciliation BilL

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! The hon. mem­ber is not discussing the amendment.

Mr. LESIKA repeated that the hon. member" need not agitate himself oYer the loss of his amendment, for there was nothing in it. If there was, the leaders of the Government would, have spoken up long ago.

HoN. R. PHILP would have spoken to the amendment if he had thought there was any"' chance of rts acceptance, but it seemed hopeless to propose amendments from that side. They all understood that the Bill was not to be a partY. question. ·'

The CHAIRMAN : Order! I hope the hon. member will confine himself to the question. Ho~. R. PHI LP: He did not think there

should be paid officials from either side. Only independent men should sit on the boards. If they were paid by the unions or employers' as· sociations, they would want to do some­thing for the money they were getting, to justify their existence. Just fancy the hon. member for Fortitude V alley, Mr. Bowman, as one of the arbitrators !

Mr. BmnrAN: I would be a very fair one. HoN. R. PHILP: He would bring about a

strike in three days. The hon. member for JVIoreton wanted employers and employees to work amicably together, and there was not the slightest chance of that if paid officers of trades­unions or of employers' associations were intro-­duced into the ll!atter. If employers and em-­ployees worked together there would be some chance of a peaceable solution.

Mr. LES IN A : This part of the Bill would not. apply to the great mass of workers. Iu would not apply to the seamen, the shearers, or the miners. The great body of men who put the present Ministry in power were deliberately excluded and would receive no consideration at all. A few persons engaged in the rag trade and persons engaged in factories and shops would come under the Bill--a miserable moiety only of the workers.

Mr. BOWMAN : The leader of the Opposi~ tion seem to fear that if any paid officials of organisations were on the wages boards, it would; he to their interest to prevent the settlement of disputes. In all the disputes they had had one of the great difficulties of the leaders was to prevent men striking, (Opposition laughter.) They had stopped a strike among the wharf labourers a year or two ago. "

Mr. Bowman.]

834. FactoTies and SJwps [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. JEXKINSON: It was the Rev. C. E. James who sbpped that.

Mr. BOWMAN: He was one of them, but he (Mr. Bowman) took a hand in it too. The paid officials looked well after the interests of the men they represented. The secretary of the Aus­tralian Labour :Federation, the Hon. A. Hinch­cliffe, for instance, had as keen a know ledge of organisation as any man in Queensland, and he would be one of the very brst men they could -select in connection with his own trade-the Typographic<tl Association. The 3ame could be said of the secretary of the Butchers' Union, and of the Wharf Labourers' Unicn. Then the Em­ployers' Association would not consider any board complete unless l\Ir. :F. Ran son, their secre­.tary, was a member. It was not likely that one salaried official would overrule the four or ten other members of the board. Hon. members seemed to think that officials might be biassed and likely to prolong disputes, but he did not think they would. In his experience they had never been a barrier to the settlement of a dispute.

Amendment (L1fr. Campbell's) put and nega­tived.

Clause put and passed. On clause 32-" Appointment after nomination

without previons notice"-" Objections to nomi· nateclmembers "-"Appointments"-" Election if nominees objected to by one-fifth"-

1\Ir. CAMPBELL desired to have the clause negatived with the view of inserting the following :-

Within one month after the commeneement of this ~:ict, the employers and the employees shall elect their respective proportions of a special board for their par­ticular trade.

Upon receiving the names of such elected pm·sons, the l\1inister, by notice published in the Gazette, shall appoint such persom~ as representative of employers and representative of employees to be members of such special board :

Provided, however, that, should the employers or the employees fail to make such election within the time set forth in the preceding paragraph, then the :J.Iinistel' may, by notice published in the Gazette, nominate :persons as representatives of such employers and employees failing to make such nomination.

The clause pr•)posed that the Minister should nominate certain representatives from the ranks of the employers and of the employees respec­tively, and then the employers and em· ployees were to object to 9,ny of such nominees whom they might consider undesirable. That placed those parties in a very invidious position. His proposal would be a quicker way of choosing the men wanted by either party, inasmuch as it would enable them to elect their representatives themselves. The Minister could not possibly be qualified in every case to select the mont sc1itable men.

The SECRE'rARY :FOR PUBLIC WORKS would be glad to hear what hon. members had to sav on the amendment. At present he did not feel inclined to accept it, but he did not wish it to be thought he had any objection to the amendment because it came from the other side. The hon. member for Moreton had put the reasons for the amendment as strougly as they could be put, but he thought he had overlooked one or two objections to it. :First of all, the scope of the clause was that the Minister mnst take the initiative, and we were !allowing the example of Victoria in that respect, and he had heard nothing to make him think there was any objection to the working of the clause in Victoria.

Mr. 0A;l!PBELL : ~Why should we copy Vic­toria if we have got something better?

The SECRETARY :FOR PUBLIC WORKS: If they fonnd a provision working satisfactorily -in Victoria for nine or ten years, that was in

[~vir. Bowman.

its favour. The strongest objection to the amendment was that it would curtail the Minis­ter's power, and put the initiative into the hands of the persons who were to make the selection later on. But the amendment would really have the opposite effect, because, as soon as a month expired after the commencement of the Act, the power to make a selection was gone out of the hands of the employees altogether. The call for the appointment of a wages board in any particnlar trade might arise in twelve months' time, but because it had not arisen within a month their right to get a board would be irrevocably gone. He was sure the hon. member did not see the effect of it. He conld see no way of getting over the difficull y. ~When he first saw the amendment be felt disposed to accept it, and it was only after going into the matter that he saw the objection which he had pointed out..

HoN. R. PHILP : If that was the only objec­tion which the l\Iinister had to the amendment, it could be easily altered. "What they wanted was that the Minister would accept the prin­ciple involved in the amendment-that the trades themselves should elect their own board, not the Minister.

The SECRETARY FOR PcBLIO ~WORKS : That principle is in the Bill now, only the Minister takes the initiatiYe.

Hox. R. PHILP : Plenty of people would not care about objecting to men on the board, but if they had the choice they would not elect them. He certainly thought, now that they were allowing such a wide range of people to select from-men who had been in business; men who had not been in business; and em­ployees who had retired for a number of years­the employees and the employers ought to select their own men, as it would give more satisfact.ion all round. The other side said that we should trust the people. They wanted to trust the people, bnt the Minister said, "No; I know more about it than the people do ; I want to select them." The Minister had raised no valid objection to the principle which the ban. meml-er for l\Ioreton wished to introduce, and he hoped he would accept the amendment.

l\Ir. BO\V::\IAN favoured the amendment of the hon. member for 2\Ioreton for the reason that be thonght that any trade which was anxious to form a board were the hest judges of the repre­sentatives who should sit on the board. If the Minister nominated, he must do so from infor­mation he received from the trade, and if he did not do that be nominated at random.

The SECRETARY l<'OR PcBLIC \VoRKS: ~What happens after a month if they do not elect their representatives?

Mr. BOWMAN: He had no fear about the men not appointing them within a month. His only fear was that too few would have an oppor­tunity 0f nominating them. On the second reading they were told that only certain trades registei'ed under the J!'actories and Shops Act could come under the provisions. ~Wharf labourers, bricklayers, carpenters, seamen, shea,rers, n1unicipal labourers could not come under it. Of course they had to accept the Bill as the best of a bad job, but, as the hon. member for Clermont stated to-night, it was not suffi. ciently comprehensive to take all trades and cailings in. He did not think there would be any difficulty at all about trades electing their representatives, and he hoped the Minister would disabuse his mind in that respect. He knew there was an anxiety to-day in connection with almost every trade to take advantage of this particular Bill to sett,le any difference that existed between themselves and their em­ployees. He thought the majority of fair­minded employers were also anxious to come

Facto?'ies and Shops [18 SEPTEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 835

-within its provisions so that they might be safeguarded against many men who to-day competed with them by unfair conditions. The hon. member for Moreton Yery clearly stated that the opportunity should be given to the em-

ployers and employees to pick their [10 p.m.] own men, and he knew himself that

that would be better. Take the boot trade, for instance, or the ironworkers. The men engaged in these trades, and their bosses, would have a far better knowledge of the men who should represent them on the board than the Minister could have. He hoped the Minister would see his way clear to accept the amend­ment; and, if there was a difficulty, it could be overcome by the Parliamentary Draftsman, or the ll>finister suggesting something to add to the proposed new clause.

Mr. FORSYTH suggested that the 1st para­graph of the new clause should read-

\Vithin one month after such special board has been decided on, and notice given to employers and em­ployees, the em plovers and employees shall elect their respective proportions of the special board. That would meet the case in one act, and do away with all objections.

The SECRETARY FOR PimLIC 'WORKS: l under­stand that the member for l\Ioreton has some­thing further to propose.

Mr. CAMPBELL : Out of deference to the wishes expressed by the Minister, he prOIJOsed that the 1st paragraph of his new clause should re.ad-

1Vithin one month after the notification by the J.Hnis­ter, published in the Ga: Pltf!, of his intention to con­stitute a. special board for any particular trade or business, the employers and the employees in snch trade or business shnll elect their respective proportions of such special board for such trade or business.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: That seemed to meet the objection he raised, and he was willing to accept it.

Hon. R. PHI LP: 'fhat is because the member for the Valley r,pproved of it. If the member for the Valley had not a!Jproved of it, we would not have got it.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC '\VORKS: That is all the thanks we get for trying to meet you.

Clau"e 32 put and negatived. New clause, as amended, put and passed. On clause 33-" SIJecial board for furniture

trade to be appointed without election"-Mr. FORSYTH : He noticed the special

board who had to fix the rates for pers:msemployed in the furniture trade were not to be elected. He presumed the reason for that was becausP. there were Chinese engaged in that trade. Could they not have the election >tmongst the white people engaged in that business, apart from the Chinese altogether? Why should it be left in the hands of the Minister to appoint the repre­sentatives for that trade?

The SECRETAllY FOR PUBLIC '\VORKS: If you allow the people employed in the trade to elect the board, you mnst let the Chinese do it.

Mr. FORSYTH: Why should they exclude anyone in the trade from electing their own board, whether they were white or Chinese people?

Mr. BuRROWS : They are taking advantage of the experience of Victoria.

Mr. ]<'ORSYTH: The objection he had to it was that it left it in the hands of the Minister.

The SECRETARY FOll l'CBLIC '\Y OHKS : You must expect a Minister to uso his powers reasonably.

Mr. FORSYTH: The persons a,ppoiuted in matters of this sort should be experts in their particular business.

HoN. R. PHILP thought the Minister might tell them why this provision had been inserted.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: It had already been explained that it was in­serted becau.~e the furniture trade in Brisbane was principally in the hands of Chinese.

HoN. R. PHILP thought the hon. gentleman was mist»ken in that statement, because a good deal of the furniture made in Brisbane was manu­factured by white nwn. Certainly one very large furniture factory in this city did not employ any Chitwse. The hon. gentleman might ask the Chief Inspector of 'Factories and Shops what pro­portion of Europeans and ChinesE' were emp:oyed in the trade.

Mr. LESINA did not think the Minister was right in stating that the bulk of the furniture trade in Brisbane was in the hands of Chinese. The employees in the trade were about equally divided between Enrope:cns and Chinese.

The SECRETARY FOH PVBLIC \VORKS: Do you want Chinese to elect the tribunal?

Mr. LESIK A : No, he did not. It had been said that this pro>ision was taken from the Victorian Act. \Vel!, there were hundreds of Chinese engaged in the furniture trade in Vic­toria. At the same time he •.vould remind hon. members that the Victorian Act was fought very strongly by the Labour party in the Lower House.

Mr. McDoNNELL: Kot the wages board. Mr. LESINA: They fought to widen the

wages board. A meetsure of this sort had been working in Victoria for some years, and Mr. Prendergast told them that all the worst provi­sions in that Act were inserted at the instigation of a certain class, and that Labour members here should be on their guard and see that such pro­visions were not included in this Bill.

Mr. McDONNELL: A good number of Chinese were employed in the furniture trade in Brisbane.

Hon. R. PHILP: They do not constitute most of the workers.

Mr. McDO:NNELL was not prepared to say that they were in the majority at the present time, but he knew that a few years ago, when a deputation waited upon the then Home Secretary, Mr. Foxton, and asked him that proYision should be made to have furniture made by Chinese stamped, there was keen competition with Chinese. It was just possible that any day they might ha Ye a considerable increaRe in the number of ChineRe workers at that trade in Brisbane, and in that case, if they were allowe'i a voice in the election of members of the wages board, they might dominate the board. A few years ago there were more Chinese than white workers at the furniture trade in Brisbane, and the provision in that 2lause'pmvided against something which might happen. The hon. member for Clermont, who had been talking all night about the wages board, had stated that it had not been a success in Victoria. Asamatternffact,, thewagesb<Jardin Victoria had improved the condition of the workers very r,mch. 'fhe :Yiinister had omitted from this measure the objectionable y rovisions of the Victorian Act, and the amendment of the hon. member for l\Ioreton, which the hon. gentleman had accepted, w c<s an improvement to the Bill, as it would give confidence to the workers. As to the Labr>ur party in Victoria having fought against the measure which was in force in that Stc,te, that wets not a fact.

Mr. LESINA: They fought against some of its provisionr.:.

Mr. l\,IcDO:N:NELL: The Labour party in that State fought for the measure, and ::\Ir. Pea­c •ck, who introduced the measure and put it through, was at that time the most popular man in Australia.

Mr. HAWTHORN thought it was a very good thing to prevent the Chinese workers from ha"ing a 8~Y in the election of members of a wage~ board. There was no doubt that a great

Mr. Hawthorn.]

836 Factories, Etc., Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Questions.

proportion c,f the furniture in Brisbane was made by Chinese, as there were several large employers of Chinese who made furniture. He thought the last report of the wages board in Victoria showed conclusively that the general effect of the appointment of that board had been to raise wages all round, and be believed that would be the effect of the appointment of a wages board in Brisbane.

Mr. BOWMAN: The latest report of the In­spector of Factories and Shops in Victoria showed that in the furniture and wood-carving trades in Melbourne the number of factories registered as factories in which white men were employed was 264. The number of males em­ployed was 1 ,011, and of females 57. In 1905 the number of factories was 273, the number of males employed 1,012, and of females 32. In 1904 the Chinese in Melbourne had 145 factories, and 672 male employees. In 1905 they had 173 fac­tories and 70R male employees. One could under­stand, therefore, why the Victorian Parliament was not prepared to give those Chinese a voice in the selection of the board. He did not think the number of Chinese here was in anything like the same proportion. According to the last report there were thirteen or fonrteen ChineRe factories. The proYision in the Bill was a very wise one.

Mr. ]'ORSYTH : The total number of Chinese employed in all sorts of factories in Brisbane was only seventy-five, while the total number of white men employed in fnrniture factoriec1 was 129, showing that the proportion of w bite men was very much greater than that of Chinamen.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: The figures furnished to him by the Chief Inspector showed that the proportion between the whites and the Chinese was ·63 and ·ii!J respectively. In other words, the nnmbers were about equal, so that, under the circumstances, it would be better to let the clanse stand.

Clause put and passed. Clause 34 put and passed. Clauses 35 and 36 put and negatived.

On the motion of Mr. CA:\fPBELL, the fol­lowing new clause was inserted to follow clause 35:-

In the event of any vacancy occurring from any cause whatsoever in any special board, the same shall be filled by the employers or employees whose repre­sentative has caused such vacancy, ancl the Governor in Council shall appoint the person so elected to fill such vacancy as representative of the employers or employees (as the cage may require) for the unexpired portion of the term of office of the member who dies, or resigns, or is removed.

On clanse 37-" Nomination and appointment of chairman"-

HoN. R. PHILP: The clause provided that the members of a special board should nominate, in writing, within fonrteen days after their appointment, some person to be chairman of the board. The period might be too short with regard to places at a distance from the capital. He moved that the word "fourteen," on line 2, be omitted, with the view of inserting the words "twenty-eight."

Amendment agreed to.

A similar amendment was made in line 9.

Mr. J. LEAHY: The clause provided that in the event of such recommendation not being received within the specified time, "the Governor in Council may appoint the chairman on the recommendation of the Minister." \Vhy on the recommendation of the Minister? The thing looked ridiculous.

[Mr. Hawthorn.

1fr. LE SIN A : The Worker called the measnre­a Bill to legalise low wages, and, in his opinion,

the principle was altogether wrong. [10.30 p.m.] He was doubtful whether the

Worker believed in any form of wages bmtrds. However, the next clause was of a great deal more importance, and they would see then whether they were to be browbeaten or have their way.

The CHAIRMA~ : Order ! The hon. mem­ber must confine himself to the clause.

Mr. LESIN A : The point raised by the hon. member for Bnlloo was an important one­namely, whether the Minister should have power to suggest to the Governor in Conncil the ap­pointment of chairman. The present Minister might be sympathetic, but he might pass away and an nnsympathetic Minister t'ike his place, and the chairman appointed might not be a gentlem!tn who would fill the position in an eqnitable manner, or hold the scales of jnstice evenly. He thonght the boards should elect their own chairmen. If they could be sure that the ::Y1inister would continue to sympathetically administer the Act, they might safely leave such a power in his hands, but he feared that power niight not always be administered wisely.

Clanse, as amended, put and passed.

The House resumed. The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the Committee obtained leave to· sit again to~morrow.

The Honse adjourned at twenty-five minutes· to 11 o'clock.