Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 9 OCTOBER 1900

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1218 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Criminal Code, Etc., Bill.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

TUESDAY, 9 0mOBER, 1900.

The SPEAKER (Hon. Arthur M organ, Warwick) took the chair aL half-past 3 o'clock.

CORRECTION. Mr. NE WELL (Woothakata): I wish to make

a correction in a speech of mine in Hansard No. 19, page 855. Speaking on the Mount Garnet Railway Bill, I am reported to have said-

! agree with a great deal that the hon. member for Cairns says about thh; line from Mareeba and Atherton to Mount Garnet being the best. I do not say it would not be the best; I say I would like to see that line built. I say it would go through the finest agricultural land, I suppose, to be found in Australia. I speak from my own knowledge of that, because I have been on the country. I h~:~.ve lived on it for over twenty years, and I do know it very well. One side of the proposed line will touch the centre of that disttict, and they say it is only going to benefit ~iount Garnet. The district I meant is not the Atherton district, but the district between 55 miles on the Chillagoe Railway and Mount Garnet.

PAPERS. The following papers, laid on the table, were

ordered to be printed :-(1) Report of the Public Service Board on

inquiry into the alleged susp<·nsion of Mr. Frederick Bell, accountant in the Department of Public ·works, by the late Mr. Robert Robertson, Under Secretary.

(2) Return to an Order, relative to evidence taken by the Public Service Board in the Bell-Robertson inquiry, made by the House, on motion of Mr. Kidston, on the 4th instant.

(3) Return to an Order, relative to claim of lessee of East Haldon Run, made by the House, on '!lotion of Mr. Armstrong, on the 27th September last.

(4) Return to an Order, relat.ive to tele­graphs and telephones on certain pro· posed lines of railway and tramway, made by the House, on motion of Mr. J'enkinson, on the 4th instant.

QUESTIONS. BURDEKIN BRIDGE.

Mr. LESINA (Clermont) asked the Secretary for Rail ways-

1. Is it true that the new and costly Burdekin Bridge '~ill carry nothing heavier than aB 15 engine?

2. If it is so, who is responsible for this want of foresight or engineerjng bungling?

The SECRETARY J<'OR RAILWAYS (Hon. J. Murray, Nornumby) replied-

1. It is not true.

ALLEGED AFFRAY AT INGHA,I. Mr. LESINA asked the Home Secretary­Will he instruct the police authorities to make

specialinquirv into the circumstances surrounding the recent. affray between kanakas in the In!>h'lm district 1

The HOME SECRETARY (Hon. J. F. G. Foxton, Carnm·von) replied-

On further inquiry being made, it is reported that about midnight on the 8th September a dispute occurred amongst some islanders who were holding a feast near Halifax. Some people were passing along the road at the time, but were not interfered with, and no serious results of any kind are reported. I have a.le:o ascer­tained that on 24th September an idander named Tyseen was fired at by another named Drugha, but was not injured. Drugha has been committed for trial. 'This occurred at Conn's Crossing of I-Ierbert River. 'l'hey are the only incidents that have recently occurred 1n the Ingham district that app~ar to bear any resemblance to the ''affray" assumed by the question to have taken place, but neither dates nor localities correspond.

QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICK UNDER SECRETARY FOR \VOHKS.

Mr. LESINA: I beg to ask the Secretary for Public ·works, without notice-Is it true th" t Mr. J. T. Bell, member for Dalby, is to be appointed to the vacancy which has resulted through the death of the late Mr. Robertson, Under Secretary for Works?

[No reply.] PETITION.

CONCILIA~'ION AND ARBITRA'l'ION BILL. Mr. W. HAMILTON (Gregory) presented a

petition from a number of resident> of Winton and district in favour of the introduction of a Conciliation and Arbitration Bill on similar hnes to the rr,easnre in force in New Zealand.

Petition read and received.

JUDICATURE BILL. THIRD READING.

On the motion of the ATTORNEY­GENERAL (Hon. A. Rutled'(e, llfaranoct), this Bill was read a third time, passed, and ordered to be transmitted to the Legislative Council for their concurrence.

CRIMINAL CODE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Co~DIITTEE.

Clause 1 was put and passed. On the ~;chedule-The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained the

corrections which it was proposed to make in the Code. :First of all, an amendment, or what par­took of the nature of an amendment, was to be made in clause 51. As that clause stood there were three subsediPns, and to the 1st sub· section there were two paragraphs-(u) and (b). The 1st subsection read as follows :-

Any person who in contravention of the direetions of a proclamation by the Governor in Council in that behalf. Those were words which qualified the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b). By this amendment it was proposed to strike out the words "in contravention of the directions of a proclamation by the Governor in Council in that behalf," and insert qualifying words of that character in each of the subsections. Section 51 would then read-

(a) Any person who in contravention of the directions of a proclamation by the Governor in Council in that behalf, etc.

(b) Is present at any meeting or assembly of persons held in contravention of the directions of any such proclamation, etc. It made better English, and avoided the absurd tautology. Another reamu for the alteration was to make the word "exercise," which in the Code \Vas singular, into the plural "exercises," in order that it might be in harmony with the similar words "movements': and "evolutions " which followed, and which in the Code were in the plural. A further reason for the proposed alter11tion was that the form of expression " the

Criminal Code Act [9 OcTonEn.] Amendment Bill. 1219

directionR of a proclamation of the Governor in Council " was incorrectlv used. The correct form was a proclamation " by " the Governor in Council, and it was necessary to make that amendment. The next section dealt with is section 58.

Mr. DAWSON: \Vho is the genius who put in the word "placitum"?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He had pointed out on the second reading that no work of the kind ever undertaken by man no matter how carefully it had been · perfo;med could without· numerous revisions be regarded as absolutely literally perfect. Thttt Cude had not o~l~ been befor~ the Chief Justice, who rmgmally framed 1t years ago, but it had been before a body consisting of all the jndges and the Crown prosecutors, and after careful revision those matters escaped them. Afterwards when it was printed and passed through that House they had escaped detection, anri it had only ~een ':"hen the Chief Justice was going through 1t agam for the purpose of extracting the neces­sary matter for the preparation of the regulations that his critical eye disco\'ered that all those little trivial things had escaped attention.

Mr. DAWSON: I asked who is the genius who put in that fourth word in italics-" placitum"?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That was a technical expression, the English e1uivalent for 'Yqich was ''determination," ''dictum," or ''expo~ sition." . Mr. DAWSON: I looked it up in a Latin dic­

twnary,, and found it meant something agreeable or pleasmg.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought they need not quibble about the employment of a word like that, which was well recognised by leg-al draftsmen. Practically, it meant "it pleases me to declare," or "to determine " or "to lay down." In clause 58 of the Code it was provided in the 1st paragraph that-

Any person wbo-{1) Being duly summoned to attend as a witness or

~o pr~duce any '!Jook,document, or other thing, 111 h1s possesswn, before either House of Parliament, or before a committee of either House, or before a joint committee of both Houses, authorised to summon witnesses or to call for the production of such thing, refu~es or neglects, without lawful excuse, to attend pursuant to the summons, or to produce any­thing which he is summoned to produce and which is Yelevant and proper to be produced; or

It would be seen that in the 2nd paragraph of the clause the reference to a "joint committee of both Houses" was omitted, and it was intended b:y; the proposed alteration that a joint com­mittee should have the same power in regard to the matters referred to in that 2nd subsection as were conferred upon a joint committee under the 1st subsection. It was simply an omission which had previously escaped attention. The next correction was in section 157. In the Code section 157 contained three sub,;ections, but the 2nd subsection was not divided as in the Bill before the Committee into two paragraphs. He would show how necessary it was to make that alteration. In the Code the word " knowingly" was inserted before the word "make" and then in the 3rd paragraph of the origi~al clauge bringing down the qualifying words "Any pe1·son who," the clause went on to say-

(3) Buys, sells, receives, pays, or disposes of, any counterfeit copper coin at a lower rate of value than it imports or was apparently intended to

. . import, or offers to do any such act ; u:; guilty of an offence. He might tell hon. members in brief that the proposed alteration provided a new defence to a mat! charged. wit!1 buying, selling, receiving, paymg, or d1spnsmg of any counterfeit copper coins. As the Code now stood, any man who

bought for 5s. a number of counterfeit copper coins, to melt them, or present them to the museum, or do anything else with them in an innocent way, would be liable as for an offence. The amendment, in such a case, provided a new defence for a man charged under the section ; so that a man charged witb an offence should have every defence open to him that it was possible for him to plead. It would be a cruel thing, because of a mistake in the Code, to make a man a criminal because he bought counter­feit coin, althOLlgll he was going only to make an innocent use of it. He thought there would be no objection to that amendment. Then the word "value" was put in, which was a simple improvement, and the word "act" was

altered into "any such thing." [4 p.m.] Thn'e were simple alterations, which

would commend themselves. to hon. members and would tend in the direction of good legislation and fair play. Section 317 was the next dealt with, the word "apprehension" being omitted and the word "arre';t" inserted.

Mr. DAwSON: Give us a rest. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He wanted

the other evening to give hon. members a rest by putting the. Bill through at once, but tbey were anxious for more information. In section 347 after the word " wnman " it was proposed to inoert the words " or girl." That was the rape clause. The word " woman" had a com­prehensive meJ,ning, no doubt, but as they had used the distinction in other part.s of the Act between "woman" and "girl" it might, under a well-known rule of construction, be held that inasmuch as a girl was not referred to distinctly and separately in that p~rt of the Bill it was intended that the clause dealt only with grown­up women. The alteration was for the purpose of mn,king the offence of rape applicable to young girls as well as to women.

Mr. GrvENS: Are not offences against girls provided for elsewhere in the Code.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes; but this clause referred specially to rape. The unlawful carnal knowledge of gir Is under a certain age was separately dealt with. No hon. member would dream of contending that, where a forcible offence had been committed on one who could not be called a woman, the offender should not thereby escape punishment. The amendment simply made the matter clear. Some judges might hold that the word "won1an" was a generic term, including females of all ages, some might hold otherwise; and the amendment simply did a. way with all doubt on the subject. The next altera­tion was in the title to Chapter XL. The heading in the Code read, " Obtaining property or credit by false pretences : Cheating." It was proposed to omit the words "or credit." Under the existing insolvency law it was a criminal offence to obtain credit by making a false representation, but the Code did away with that. It was decided by the commission, and endorsed by Parliament, that it was going rather far to make a man a criminal because, when he wanted to obtain goods, he made a false statement. So that the provision making it a criminal offence to obtain credit by means of false representation was knocked out. If t.he title were left as it stood, with the words "or credit " left in, it would be very misleading.

Mr .• TENKINSON: \Ve are not bound by the title.

The ATTORNEY.GENERAL: No, but it would be absurd for the title to indicate that obtaining goods on credit by false representation was a criminal offence, and yet on turning to the sections themselves to find that there was no such offence. In section 434 there was a formal amendment omitting the words "recovery by owner," and inserting the words "change of

1220 Criminal Code Act [ASSEMBLY.] Arnenrlrnent Bill.

ownership." He now came to section 467. Hon. members would see that that section dealt with the subject of obstructing railways with the intention of injuring property. ThA corre­sponding section, 319, dealt with interfering with rail ways with intent t<J injure per­sons travelling by rail. The object of the amendment was to harmonise the form of the two clausee. In each case it was the same kind of action, but with a different in tent. There was no reason why there should not be a cc:mprehensive section, properly drafted, dealing w1th the ca"e of the person, and another com­PICehensi ve section, yroperly drafted, de a ling ~1th the attempt to mjure the property. Then 1t was proposed to insert the word " testa­mentary" in section 495 before the word "in­~truments." The secti~m dealt with testamentary mstruments such as WJ!ls, pro bates, and the like, and the amendment was necessary to limit the meaning of the word "instruments" to testa­mentary instruments. Section 539 was the next. That section now read-

Any person who attempts to procure another to Clo any act or make any omission, whether in Queensland or elsewhere, of such a nature that, if the act were done or the omission were made, an offence would thereby be committed, whether by himself or by that other person.

As it stood, the section w~s ambiguous a.nd possibly misleading. It was prnposed now to limit the too wide expression of the section as it had been in~ended to limit it, by inserting after the words ' an offence would thereby be committed" the words "under the laws of Queensland, or the laws in force in the place where the act or omission is proposed to be done or made." Those worde were proposed to be inserted in ord~r to avoid all ambiguity, t?make it perfectly plam that the words had no wtder meaning than was intended to he puo upon them. The next was section 540, which provided-

Any person who makes or knowingly has in his posses~ion any. exp~osive substance, or any dangerous or noxious engine, Instrument, or thing whatever with intent by mcHns thereof to commit, or for the pt~rpose of enabling any other person to commit.

It was proposed to insert the words "by means thereof" after the words "other person " so as to make it clear that the "other person" ;eferred to in the seccion was another per.<on who by means of those explosives, committed the off~nce dealt with in the section. Then section 562 dealt ~ith per~ons who were charged by an ex o;{ficio mformatwn. An example of that was where an offence had been committed-say the offence of conspiracy. Without wniting to have the person or persons who were guilty of the offence charged before a police magistrate, and then committed for trial to a higher court upon which the Crown Prosecutor found a t~·ue bill and then laid his information, and pro­ceeded to t~y the person accused, the Attorney­General htmself presented an ex officio infor­mation to the court without any such prelimi­nary procedure at all. The object of the amendment was to meet the case of a person who had to be tried, but who did not appear at the time appointed for the trial-to ensure the attendance of those persons who had been com­mitted on an ex officio information, just as effectually as their attendance was secured when they were committed for trial by a magistrate. That was a very necessary correction to make, and he hoped hon. members would agree to it. Then .~ect.ion 698 was the last section that required to be corrected. That section now read-. If, on the exa.~ination of any person whose affairs are In course of admmist.ration under the provisions of the laws relating to insolvent debtors before a court which has jurisdiction to examine )!im in the COl<rse of such

administration, it appears to the court that he has, when incurring any debt or liability, obtained eredit by a false pretence or by means of any other frand. It was proposed to omit the words, "has, when incurring any debt or liability, obtained credit by a fabe pretence or by means of any other fraud," as those words were wrongly used there altogether, because, as he had sai<i, the Code altered the insolvency law by abolishing the offence of obtaining credit by false pretences­that was, by making a lying statement. Those words were contradictory to the rest of the section, as they appeared to recognise as an offence that which the Code r-aid was not an offence, and therdore it was proposed to knock them ont. He did not know whether hon. mem­bers wished him to go through the amendments in Schedule III., whieh were only mechanical amendments. He had expbined as far as he could the objects of all those ~CJrrections-because they were re:dly corrections and not amend­ments, and he hoped that hon. members would accept that explanation and pass the schedule.

Mr. DAvVSO~ (Charters Towers) wished to state, in the first place, that he stood there that afternoon on that green carpet in the very happy position of having received the gracious consent of the literary staff of the Courier to his making a few observations on this Bill. If he had not received that consent he would not have had the supreme audacity to have said a word. Of course the Attorney-General might be perfectly in order, and this mode of procedure was not a wise one­it was not the usual couree of procedure in this House. In making these amendments in this Bill the htm. gentleman was amending one of the longest Bills ever pas,;ed by the House. He had moved amendments in clnnse 51 and right up to clause 698, and he moved the whole of his amenrlments in one motion. As far as his pnrlia­mentary experience went, when a Bill was intro­duced when the Speaker was in the chair, hon. members were only. permitted to discuss the general principles of it; they were not permitted to discuss the Bill clause by clause. The invari­able rnling had been that hon. members would have to wait until the committee stage to discu"s a Bill clauoe by chuse. Mauy members might have objections to certain clauses in a Bill, and their protection was in committee, when a measure could be discussed clause by clause. But the hon. gentleman, in one sweeping act, and wit.h the Chairman's permission, had entered into a second reading speech, and had discussed amendments in clau,-.e 51 right up to clause G!l8 in one speech, and hon. members who followed the hon. gentleman would be supposed to make second reading speeches, and they might intro­duce twenty different principle; in committee. As far as his parliamentarv experience went, this procedure was utterly" unknown in that Assembly; but he did not intend to raise any point of order, because personally he agreed with most of the amendments sought for by the hon. gentleman, and he believed that they would he apprO\ed of. But some of them were very objecticmable. He referred particularly to the first portion of the schedule from line 10 on the 1st page to line 5 on the 2nd page. He had gone carefully through the principal Act, but he could find no sohtary mention of those words there-not a word.

Mr. GrvENS: Yes ; there is. Mr. DA WSON : He could not see it. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL; The tautoJ, gical

qualifying words are knocked out, to make the Inatter more clear.

Mr. DA WSON : If the hon. gent lernan admitted that the amendment did not make any difference, that he only wanted to make the section more sensible, then he was with him ; but he doubted whether he was doing that,

Oriminal Oode Act [9 OcTOBER.] Amendment Bill. 1221

The ATTORNEY-GENERAI,: I said I was not amend~ng the Act, but only making literary correctwns.

Mr. DA \VSON: \Vas it merely the insertion of the word "proclamation " that necessitated the whole of the amendments being inserted in the Act?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that section 51 was corrected so as to knock out an unnecessary qualifying paragraph, which wa·; real!:· l:autnlogical ; that one word in the singular was altered to the plural to make it cnnsistent with other words ; and that the word "by " was sub­stituted for "of."

Mr. DA WSON: What he particularly objected to was on page 2, line 6, where it stated, " the offender may be arrested without warrant." He could not finrl all these alterations from the singular to the plural, and so on, necessary in the original ~\et.

The ATTORNEY-GE)-[ERAI,: It is easier to have an entirely new paragraph than a lot of small alteration>.

Mr. DA \VSON: He would like hen. members to take the original Act and the Bill and say where the alterations came in. Did the hon. gentleman want a provision enacted twice? He hRd strong objection to t.he words he had referred to, and trnsted the hon. gentleman would take them as a separate amendment instead of asking that the whole of the schedule be considered as one motion. He wished to test the feeling of the Committee on that particular provision as he considered it was a bad one for the people of the colony. Hon. members should have an opportunity of expressing their or'inions on the matter. The hon. gentleman said the provision was already in the principal Act. He knew it was, but that was no reason why it should remain there for ever. It was a most pernicious principle-one of the worst thing-s that they cuuld possibly have-and he would like to test the opinion of the Committc e on the question, and he believed other hon. members would like to do the smne. At any

rate he should like the coun1 ry to [4'30 p.m.] know who were iu favour of sub-

section 3 and the tail end of sub­r.;ection 2, and who w~re ugainstthnHAHnbsections, and facilities ought to be affrmled to compel hon. membere to take one side or the other.

:Mr. GrvENS: You can move their omission, cRn't you?

Mr. DA \VSON: That would hardly meet the case. He strongly objected to the first portion of the amendments, but to the balance of the amendments he did not object, t>Bd if a division was taken on the question as it was now framed, what kind of a vot.e woul<1 he be supposed to give?

Mr. ,TENK!)-[SON: A hybrid vote. Mr. DA WSON : It would be a hybrid vote.

Hitherto the Attorney-General had a.!" ay a met hon. members on that side of the House in a very gentlemanly spirit, and he hoped the hon. gentleman was not going tu depart from that method of procc>dure on the present occHsion. It was utterly imposRible for anyone to give an intelligent vote on the three different questions contained in the amendment,, t>nd he hoped the hon. g·entleman would ~gree to put them separately.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not appre­hend when he committed the Bill that any hem. member would consider that there was any attnnpt in the Bill to revise the law they passed la't ,;e csion. He had explained thn,t the reason why the schedule was moved as one question was because it did not contain a lot of clauses with separate provision~. La!4t year ·when dealing wit.h the Crimiun,l Code Bill, they dealt with the selwdule as if it were a Bill, taking it clause 1>;- chnse, because there were a large nu m her of

clauses which dealt with separate matters, which were the subject of fresh legislation. Under those circumstances it was both convenient and right to take the schedule clause by clause, but in the present instance they had a schedule which contained a number of minor and comparatively unimportant corrections, which were not in the furm of clauses, and how much of one particular pu,rt of the sched ul.e and how much of another particular part was to be put by the Chairman? Thfl Bill was not brought down for the purpose of reopening any question on which the House had already come to a decision, and which was embodied in the Criminal Code Act passed last year. It would have been just as easy, though tl')t quite so clear to hon. members, if instead of brin~ing in the chuse with the alteration, and making it read as it ought to read, to have adopted the tedious process of saying that in the second line of such a page the word "of" should be omitted with the view of inserting the word "by," and that in such a line of another page the letter "s" should be Rdded to the word "exercise." The object was simply to change the form of the section which was already law, and not for the purpose of opening up a discussion to see whether they should go back on that law. If that were allowed, then unde~ that Bill hon. members would have an oppor­tunity of trying to draft some amendment on the Criminal Code Act which was passed last session. That was impracticable and undesirable, and he hoped that hon. members would see that by the amendments they were doing nothing more than making the work they did last session absolutely correct in expression, grammar, or form. \Vhile he was anxious to meet the reasonable views of hon. members on the other side, he should certainly consider that he was travelling outside the scope of the Bill if he agreed to the introduction of some alterations in the principles of the law they had already passed, and he hoped the hon. member would not press his objection.

Mr. DA WSON : The only alteration there was made in clause 51, as shown by the Act which he had in his hand, was the substitution of the word " by" for the word "of."

J\t1r. ~TENKINSON: And "exercises" for "exer~ chm.''

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Read the 1st line of the amended clau.;e, and then read the 1st line of the section in the Act.

Mr. DA WSON: All the hon. gentleman had to do, according to parliamentary practice, if he wanted to substitute one word for another, was simply tn move an amendment to that effect.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No. Surely you have not looked at the beginning of the clause.

Mr. DA vVSON: That had been the practice ever since he had been in the House, and that was fr 'Ill 18!J3. The nni versa! practice during th"t time had been to move that one word be omitted with the view of inserting another word in i~ R place. ....

The ATTORNEY-GENER ',L: Do yon see no differ­ence between the first part of the clause and section 51 in the Criminn,l Code Act? Read the section in the Act.

Mr. DA WSON: He would read it­Any person "\Vho in contravention--The ATTORNEY-GENEHAL: Oh, no, that is

wrong, and it is proposed to pnt it right. Mr. DA WSON: Did the hon gentleman

mean to say that the Government Printer had made a mistake? Let any hon. member follow him in the Bill and see if he was reading cor­rectly.

The A~"rORNJ<W-GllNERAL: Of cour·:e you are reading correctly from the Code, but it is proposed to do away with the qun,lifying

1222 Oriminal Code Act" [ASSEMBLY.] .Amendment Bill.

words in the first part of the section in the Code, because you have got those words repeated iu paragraph (b) iu the Code.

Mr. DA WSON: There was no paragraph (/J) in the amending Bill at all.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: They are two sub­sections in the Code.

Mr. DAWSON: Any person who, in contravention of the directions of

a proclamation by the Governor in Oonncil in that behalf, trains or drills any other person to the use of arms or the practise of military excrcise-

Mr. J ENKINSON: "Exercises" in the amend­ment.

Mr.DAWSON: or is present at any meeting or assembly of persons held in contravention or the directions, etC.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAl,: There are altera­tions in those paragraphs.

Mr. DA WSON: Did the hon. gentleman mean that the alteration of the term "exercise" to "exercises" was of sufficient importance for him to reproduce the whole of those sections?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. meruber would look at the Code he would see that there was a general qualifying clause, sup­posed to deal with both paragraphs (a) and (b), and hence it read-

l. Any person who-( a) In contravention of the directions of a pro~

clamation by the Governor in Council in that behalf . . .

(b) Is present at any meeting or assembly of per­sons hE·ld in contravention of the directions of any such proclamation, etc. . . .

There they had the same thing over again in subsection (b), and he proposed to do away with the tautological error in paragraph (b). Those were purely literary corrections, not amendments of the law.

Mr. DA WSON : If it were purely a literary amendment they could understand it. The only thing he wished to urge was that there was little or no material difference between the phraseology of the principal Act and what was propoeed to substitute for it; but there was a very grave issue involved, and that was, was this a Teasonable or legitimate opportunity for raising the que,tion of amending the principal Act? He took it that while it might be com­petent for the Attorney-General to edit any Act, or improve it, that once it got into committee, it was open to members of the Committee to amend it. It was particularly on this section that he raised objection on the second reading and also in committee; and what be really desired to know was whether the hon. gentle­man was prepared to divi<1e his motion instead of taking about forty questions on the vote?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot do that. Mr. HIGGS : He must do it if we wish. Mr. DA \VSON: Of course he could if he

liked. The only thing he (::Yir. Dawson) could do if the hon. gentleman would not do it graciously vas to make an effort to get hon. members to express their opinions on the matter, and he begged to move, by way of amend­ment, that the words-

The offender ma.y be arrested without warrant. (3.) A prosecution for any of the oiTenceR defined in

tlds section must be begun within six months after the offence is committed-be omitted.

Mr. GIVENS (Cairns) : Objected to the amenrlment, because it was the very opposite of whaL they wanted. He would suggc.st to the hon. member for Charters Towers that he should move the omission of the words "the offender may be arre>ted without a warrant," on line 6, because there were sHcral hon, nwmbers who Wfre prepared to vote for that who would not vote for the whole thing. If the words "a

prosecution for any of the offences defined in this section must be begun within six months after the offence is committed" were omitted, the charge might be kept hanging over a man for an indefinite period. Six months might be a little too long, but in the far Northern parts of the colony there might not be a District Court sitting at which a man conveniently could be tried much before six months. Therefore, he objected to those words being omitted until he knew what were going to be substituted for them. He did not see any reason why a warrant should not be dispensed with in the case of these particular offences. It would be a serious and grave reflec­tion on the efficiency of the Police Irorce if they could not keep any person whom they wanted to arrest, until they saw a justice of the peace and obtained a warrant for him. It was their duty to preserve for our citizens every possible safe­guard, and one of those safeguards was that no man should be arrested without a warrant. There was no reason why that provision should be abrogated with regard to offences of this character. The Attorney- General should seriously consider the amenrl ment he suggested.

Mr. DA WSON was thankful to the hon. mem­ber for Cairns for his excellent suggestion. The only object he had in view was to prevent a re-enactment of a provision which he had a li veiy recollection of in connection with the Peace Preservation Act, by which a man could be incarcerated for six months without being brought to trial. The hon. member for Cairns had shown him that he was not going the right way to accomplish the object he haC! in view, and, lNith the consent of the Committee, he would amend his amendment by moving simply the omission of the words "the offender may be arrested without warrant," and he would follow that up by moving the omission of the word " six," in line 8, with a view of inserting the word '' three."

The CHAIRMAN : Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the hon. member amend his amendment?

HoNOURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear ! Question-That the words proposed to be

omitted(" the offender may be arrested without warrant ") stand part of the schedule-put.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was sorry and surprised that the hon. member for Charters Towers should have moved that amendment. The hon. member for Rockhampton, Mr. Kidston, in the few words he had addressed to the Hou~e the other night had heartily approved of the clause. As to what had fallen from the hon. member for Cairns, he pointed out that, as a rule, unlawful assemblies for the purpose of drilling people for revolutionary purposes would be held m the dark. In the experience of other places it had very often been found that foreigners had been in traduced for the pnrpose of drilling persons unlaw­fully in the use of arms. That had been so in the Transvaal. A company of persons unlawfully met for the purpose of drilling in that way would take care that they did not go into a room where they could be identifierl; and, without identifica­tion, how was a warrant to be issued for their arrest? The police were not omniscient, and the only way to get at such people was to go and arrest them where they were found to be unlawfully assembled. If a number of people meeting in that way in the dark saw a policeman coming they would be off lik':' a lot of kangaroos, and there would be no tlme to get a warrant for them. How was a police­man to get the name of one of them? It would be no use asking his mates enga.ged in the same unlawful enterprise what his name was. And how could he be arrested at all if he could not be arrested without a warrant. He asked

O'i'zminal Oode Act [9 OCTOBER.] Amendment Bill. 1223

the hon. member for Charters Towers not to press the amendment. There had been ample time for the discussion of the whole question last year, and the clause before them was the decision which had then beenarrivedatwithoutadivision. Were they going to be children and play the farce of saying that they did last year what they had no right to do?

Mr. \V. HAliiiLTON: How was the Bill passed last year? In the small hours of the morning, when everyone was asleep.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This clause had not been so r "~ssed, and from his own personal experience he could say that intellectu­ally hon. members were as keen and bright m the small hours of the morning as thev were then. \Vas it really worth while on a Bill introduced for the purpose of correcting a few trivial mis­takes in the Code to enter upon a discussion of the principles of the Code again? Hon. mem­bers wanted to say that what they did last year was wrong.

Mr. GIVEKS: You are s>1ying it yourself, in asking us to !1m<"nd it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No. That Bill did not propose in any W!1Y whn,tever to alter the provisinns of the law in any respect from that originally fixed by the Code. If that had been proposed, he would say there wae >1 legitimate excuse for hon. members saying, "You are going to alter the law we passed last year in one particular, and why should we not alter it in another particular." But that Bill was only for the pnrpo·e of making certain corrections >1nd avoiding liter>1l errors. He must express his grave di">1ppointment at the hrm. member for Charters Towers, who knew so well what the object of the Bill was, trying to drag the Committee into a discussion upon some­thing quite irrelevant to 1t. He >1sked the forbearance of hon. members. Surely the qumtion raised h>1rl been sufficiently discussed last year. He could give other reasons against the amendment, but on its m- rits tbe discussion of the l1.menomcnt was not worthy cf the intellectual calibre of hon. members opposite.

Mr. HIGGS: The Attrmwy-General!Htdavery superior sort of way of looking at things. Did

the hon. gentleman anticipate that [5 p.m.] in anything like a revolutionary

m•>vement there would be any difficulty in ascertaining the names of the persons who were drilling for revolutionary purposes? They had to look to the future, and he shoulc1 not feel surprised if they found within the next few years hon. members opposite taking part in >1 revolutionary movement. Notice had been given of the amendment of the Standing- Orders, but when the Opposition h~d control of business and put into opemtion the amended Standing Orders, he had no doubt that those opposite would go out into the highways for the purpose of getting up a revolution.

The ATTORNn-GENERAL: \Ve will admit that the majority must rule.

Mr. HIGGS : What he said was likely to prove correct, because in times gone by, when a certain party in the House of Common" brought down very stringent St.,nrling Orders they were put into operation agaimt themselves. He did not expect hon. membf1rs opposite under those circumstances would be as amiable as the Attorney-General. Judging from the very war­like and belligerent uttemnces of wme hon. members lately there would be warlike and belligerent tendencies on the part of those h<m. members whPn they got into the colrl shades of opposition, :md had the amended Standing Orrlrrs applied to themselves. He hoped the Attonwy-General woulrl accept the amendment,

because when hon. members opposite committed offences they would then have to have warrants issued ag>1inst them.

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the schedule-"put; >1nd the Committee divided :-

Al:F:s, 32. Messrs. Phily, Rutledge, Foxton, Dalrymple, Dickson,

Murray, Kidston, G. Thorn, Smith, T. B. Cribb, Callan, Glassey, Boles, Curt.is, Forsyth, Anuear, Leahy, Jenkinson, J. Hamilton. Groom, Stephens, Maxwell, Forrest, Moore, Stodart, Stephenson, Bri:lges, Campbell, Ilanran, Lord, Story, Armstrong.

NOES, 16. Messrs. Da.wson, Fisher, IIardacre, Dunsford, Givens,

W. Hamilton. Turley, Reid, Bowman, McDonald,ltyland, Jackson, J\'IcDonnell, Higgs, Stewnrt, Lesina.

Resolved in the affirmative. Mr. DA WSON moved by way of amendment

the omission on line 8 of the word "six" with a view of inserting the word "three." He thought the provision by which a man could be imprisoned for six months before being brought to tri>1l for an offBnce under section 51 was one of the most dangerous provisions in the whole Criminal Code. They h>1d not had a very large experience of such matters in Queensland, but they had the experience of other countries to guide them. They had experience of the various Urimes Acts passed in the old country and of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, anCI they knew of the danger of allowing the authorities to incarcerate a man for six months without being compelled to bring him to trial. In was only a reasonable request in a colony where they boasted of the impartiality of British law, and of their desire to grease the wheels of justice even for persons who were accused of very serious crimes, so as to bring them speedily before the court. The very least they could do was to demand that >1ny man who W!18 accused of any crime dealt with iu the Code should be brought to trial and proven guilty or innocent within three months, and it was with that object in view that he moved the amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the hon. member was losing sight of the real nature of the provision. There was no possibility under their l>1w of >1 man lying six months in gaol.

Mr. DAWSON : He can lie there for five months and twenty-nine days, anyhow.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The object of the section was that the prosecution must commence wit,hin a certain time. They might not be able to identify a person as the man who had committed a certain crime within a month. They miaht not h>1ve known of the commission of the offence by that person until three or four months after it bad been committed. Under the ,T ustices Act it was provided that in all those offences regarding which justices had summary jurisdiction, a complaint h>1d to be made within six months of the time of the commission of the offence. The reason for that was that a man should not have the liability of a prosecution for an offence hanging over his head for an indefinite time. The provision was made in justice to the man who was liable to be accused.

Mr. DAWSON : You give the Crown six months to work up a case against a man.

The ATTORN:BJY-GENERAL: There were many cases in which you could not. discover within six months that a person was gmlty of an offPnce. Take, for instance, cattle stealing, or larceny of a poor man's goods in the bush. Somebody might know who had committed the theft, but might keep his mouth closed on the subject, an cl the owner might be un>1hle to get at the thief until that other person ultimately gave

1224 Criminal Code Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

him the information. Why should that owner, because four or five months had elapsed before he actually had in his possession proof of who was the guilty party, be debarred from bringing that guilty party to justice?

Mr. FISHER : What constitutes the beginning of the prosecution ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Laying the complaint or the information. In the present case it was an indictable offence, and the com­plaint or the information must be laid certainly within six months. According to the present general law and practice the Supreme Court sat every three months in Brisbane, and it sat in the circuit towns at other intervals; and then they had the District Courts; so that it did not at all follow that a man would lie incarcerated in gaol for anything like six months. Justices had jurisdiction to give bail in any case but murder, and he had known of cases in which a man was committed for trial on a charge of murder, but where the offence was manifestly only man­slaughter, in which bail had been allowed. When he had himself administered the affairs of justice, in a case in which a man had been committed for trial on a nominal charge of murder, but in which he knew, from the informa­tion laid before him, that it was only a case of manslaughter, he had advised the justices to let the man out on bail. There was no crime except a capital offence of a very serious character for which bail was usually denied under the present law.

Mr. STEW ART: There are plenty of cases in which bail is refused.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the magis­trates refused to admit a man to bail, he could apply to a Supreme Court judge.

Mr. LESINA : What is the average working man to do in a case like that? He has neither money nor influence,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He does not need money to do it.

Mr. STEWART: He wants a lawyer. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No. Any

man can appear in person before a Supreme Court judge, or before the l<'ull Comt, without counsel, so that the question of expense has nothing to do with it.

Mr. G IVJ<JNS : Supposing the I'Oor man is in gaol? , The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If he is in gaol, it is the same thing.

Mr. LESINA: Why, there were two men in your own electorate who were three months in gaol before they were tried.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There was no hardship involved in the matter at all, be­cause a m:<n could be tried at the District Court. He always insisted that a man should be tried at the court nearest to his residence and to the locality where the crime was committed, so that he. might have the opportunity of getting his ey1dence on the spot. Every protection was giVen to accused persons by the law, and the only objection in the case under discussion was because a time for the commencement of the prosecution was fixed, and the time that was fixed was that which was given in the case of justices who dealt summarily with offences. It was importing that into the more serious offences, and saying that no more than six months should ?e allow.ed to t~e Crown Law Oflicers to lay an mformatwn agamst a man, or to have him arrested on a charge of this kind.

Mr. DA WSON : They can lock him up for six months and work up the case against him.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It could not he done. Every man who was in one of H_er J\fajesty's gaols committed to any court had hts name on the calendar, and, when the Supreme

Court sat, the judge held what was called a "geneml gaol delivery," when he would deliver all in that gaol, and if a man who was not put upon his trial was there charged with an offence, he would discharge him.

Mr. DAWSON: That is at the discretion of the· judge.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No. There was a general gaol delivery, and he would deliver the gaol of all whose names appeared on the calendar. There was no fear whatever. It was no inversion of the principle of British liberty. He was rather surprised that his hon. friend, wbo knew something about the law, should raise such an objection.

Mr. DA WSON : I know a man who was in four months under this very provision, and who was never brought to trial.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Probably the man was committed to a District Court in some place, and he was of such a bad character that he could find no one to go bail for him.

Mr. DAWSON: Under this provision they can keep a man in for four months.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No. Mr. DAWSON: \Veil, they did. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: To illustrate

the posit.ion : A District Court was held at Cler­mont two or three times a year, and was it not better for a man to wait three or four months for his trial at Ulermont, where he could easily get all his witnesses, than for him and his witnesses to be dragged down hundreds of miles to the Circuit Court at Rockhampton? All possible safeguards were made in the interests of accused persons.

Mr. HIGGS (Fortit,de Valley): He had a good deal of sympathy with the amendment, because he c<,uld understand that under certain cireumstances a case might be trumped up against an individual. Objection had been taken by the Government and other people to what were termed by them insurrectionary move­ments-revolutions-:md if attacks were made on the Government of the day, what was likely to be done? Some military individual, who took exception to the :Jets of the Government, might form the idea that he could get an army together. On reading the papers, he might 'ee that certain persons declared that they declined to be muzzled any longer, and he would ask them to join his army. There would be sufficient publicity to enable the police to lay their hands on such a man at once, and they would do it. 'Why should six months be allowed to hang over any man's head, in which time a charge of inciting people to revolt might be trumped up? There was nothing secret about these insurrec­tionary movements.

Mr. STEW ART: Have you taken any part in them?

Mr. HIGGS: He scorned the idea. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: A very pertinent

question. Mr. HIGGS: \Vhy was it a pertinent ques­

tion? He supposed the hon. gentleman meant that if he had done his duty he would at once invite people to come out, and that he would endeavour to drill them and take up arms against a private syndicate Government. But he had too much respect for the law to do any­thing of the kind. He was satisfied that the arguments of hon. members on his side would convince the people that the present Government should be relegated to oblivion.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr. HIGGS: He hoped the hon. gentleman

would not draw him off the track. He was anxious tn have the matter "ettled in a proper way. He wns showing that there was no secrecy about those revolut.ionary movements. In 18Dl Mr. Tozer wns fully aware of all the

Criminal Code Act [9 OcToBllR.] Amendment Bill. 1225

revolutionary movements going on in Queens­land, and he was able to put his hand on the guilty parties at once. The proposed clause was quite unnecessary, and it would be unfair to persons of the O'N eill and Leigh type, who were responsible for the incarceration of certain persons in St. Helena. If any person were guilty of an offence under the 51st clause the police would arrest him forthwith ; but to allow the clause to remain as it was in the schedule might mean that some belligerent member of the Assembly in the future might be attacking the Government in a constitutional way, and some person who thought he was an undesirable politician might trump up a charge against him.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He would have a swinging action for damages for malicious prosecution.

Mr. HIGGS: That would not compensate for his being deprived of his influence and his vote in the House if such a charge were brought against him, the result of six months' hatching on the part of unscrupulous persons outside. He hoped the hon. gentleman would accept the amendment and get on with business.

Mr. LESINA (Clermont): Objected to the limitation in subsection 3 because six months was too lung a time to allow in which a charge might be laid. During the 1891 and the subsequent strike, when the stories were started about the poisoned apples and the poisoned tanks, paid spies were ready at a moment's notice to swear away the lives of the workers in the West. Those spies had been employed by the Home Secretary's Department to obtain information in connection with these so-called revolutionary movements; they might he so employed again, and they might be able to work up a case in six months and gaol a man for two years. There was not an hon. member in the Com­mittee who, if he were a"ked, could say where he was on Wednesday or Tuesday morning five months ago, and he might have a good deal of difficulty in proving an alibi if he was charged with being at a gathering of this description. This limit of six months would simply be the means of encouraging paid spies to put money in their pockets by laying informations against innocent individuals in times of political and social excitement, and it should be cut down to three months. He would therefore vote for the amendment.

Mr. DAWSON very much regretted that the Attorney-General was unable to see his way clear

to accept his amendment. The [5·30 p.m.] clause only covered certain offences

which were committed at extra­ordinary times, such as times of political excite­ment. They were not offences like those com­mitted by the ordinary sneak-thief, or a mur­derer, and the persons who committed them ought not to be considered crimina.ls in an ordinary sense. They might break the law, and might be convicted of breaking the law, but no conscientious person would be justified in calling them felons. So far as he could understand the matter, if on the occasion of the strike in lSHl, which was a contest between station-owners and the rouseabouts and shearers---

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This provision would not apply to those cases at all.

Mr. DA WSON: He ventured to say that that was exactly the provision which did apply to cases of that kind. There was a dispute then between the squatters and banks on the one side and the shearers and rouseabouts on the other, and supposing those in authority sent out the military,.and an agitator like his friend the hon. member tor W11rrego went on the platform and made a speech asking the shearers and rouseabnuts Lo resist the demands of their employers, then thttt provision would enable the

authorities to arrest him without warrant, and hold him in gaol for six months without bringing him to trial.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, no; it does not apply to such a case at all. There must, first of all, be a proclamation forbidding men to meet and drill other persons to the use of arms for revolutionary purposes.

Mr. DA WSON: The hon. gentleman knew perfectly well that if three persons assembled in any particular p0rtion of the colony, and the ordinary policeman was of opinion that they had met for disorderly purposes, that might be held to be a meeting of conspirators, and the police­man could run them in without warrant, and under that provision they could be kept anywhere in gaol for six months before they were brought to trial.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, the provision has nothing to do with such a case, and you . know that very well.

Mr. DA WSON": He did not know that very well. He knew that under this particular pro­vision, under instructions from Sir Horace (then Mr.) Tozer, the whole of the strike committee in 1891 were arrested, and later on another com­mittee was arrested at Augathella, travelled down in chains to Rockhampton, and lodged in gaol there for about three months before they were brought to trial. If a man was considered to be an anarchist or revolutionist he ought to be arrested, bnt once arre•ted three months was long enough to keep him in gaol before putting him on his trial. He strongly objected to men being incarcerated for six months in order to allow the authorities to work up a case against him.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: You know that that could not be done under our law.

Mr. DA WRON : It could be done, and they had ample evidence that it could be done. As a matter of fact, they had men in St. Helena to-day who were branded as felons, whom the hon. mem­ber for Niackay, if ever there came to be a con­test on the matter between the two sides in that House, would be delighted to call felons and criminals thirsting for the blood of their fellow­creatures. Those men were sweltering now in St. Helena, owing to the extreme power given to the police authorities under their laws, and it was because of his knowledge of thE' power which the police had, and of the disability under which men who were arrested laboured unless they were in a position to fee an acute lawyer for their de­fence, that he had moved his amendment.

Mr. KIDSTON (Rockhampton) : As he under­stood the provision, it was a protection to a possible offender rather than an oppression on him, because it stipulated that a man who might be guilty of the alleged offence could only be punished if he was charged within six months after the commission of the offence.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is so. Mr. KIDS TON : He thought that if such wa:3

the interpretation of the provision, it was one which should he there; but at the same time itJ would obviate any difficulty in the matter if the Attorney-General would make it clear to the Committee that a person arrested without war­rant under the provision must be brought up for trial at the first District Court.

Tlw ATTORNEY-GENERAL : He had already pointed out that a man could not be kept in gaol waiting his trial at the pleasure of the Government. The Habeas Corpus Act comes in at once.

Mr. DA WSON : I did not say it would be through the Government; I said it would be through the courts.

The ATTOH,NEY.GENERAL: If a man were kept in gaol while the authorities hunted up a ca'e against him they would be hounded

1226 Criminal Code Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

out of the country. If a man were committed to the Supreme Court, or the Circuit Court, which was a branch of the Supreme Court, the judge must have his name on the calendar, and he would discharge him if no charge were brought forward against him. This was a perfectly imaginary grievance. As the hon. member for llockhampton put it, the clause was a protection against a man having the liability of an accusa­tion hanging over his head for longer than six months. 'Why, if a man were ~uilty of the felony of stealing, or wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm-if he committed the offence this week he could be charged with it five ye::trs hence. That was generally speaking the law with regard to those indictable offences. The law with regard to the ordinary offences w hi eh magistrates could take cognis •nee of-which they could punish with six months' imprisnnment or

. by a fine-was that the complaint mast be lodged within six months; and the present section was not to provide that a man should be brought to trial within six months after complaint made, but that the complaint must be laid within six months after the offence had been committed. That was the distinction. \Vhen a man was guilty of this sort of felony, which, he submitted, was a felony of a seriom; character­that of drilling men in arms with the object of rising in some sort, of rebellion-instead of being liable, as he would be as the law stood now, to have a charge made against him years after­wards, he would only be. liable to a charge laid against him within six months of the commission of the offence. The first step in the prosecution must be commenced within six months of the commission of the offence ; and the law took care that when the charge was made the prosecution followed in due course.

Mr. HmGS : \Vhy six months? The ATTORNEY- GENERAL: Became

there might be a hundred and one circumstances which prevented the fact coming to the know­ledge of the authorities in a less period than six months. That was the reason why you must fix some limit. It was, of course, an arbitrary limitation. In the case of a trumpery offence, like stealing a pair of boots worth £1, the bench could not deal with it after six months from the date of the commission of the offence. The same merciful consideration was here extended to a serious offence like this.

Mr. KmsTON : That is, that a man cannot be arrested for such an offence more th~n six months after the commission of that offence?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Quite so; the prosecutiun must be commenced within six months, and if the six months had elapsed there could be no proeecution.

Mr. J. HAMILTON (Cook): Every additional month that elapsed after the offence lessened the power of the person who was accused to prove his innccence. Though, as the Attorney-General had stated, many offences might not come to the knowledge of the authorities in less than six months, offences of thi~ kind-the drilling of men, which would probably be done in the pre­sence of many witnesses-would probably come to their knowledge a short time after they were committed. That being the case, if action were not taken within the first two or three months it should be barred. He therefore thought that three months would be a fair limit.

Mr. I-IIGGS agreed with the hon. member for Cook that every day and every month that elapsed after the commission of an offence made it more difficult for a man to prove his innocence. It was just that they should remember that an innocent person might be charged with an offence as well as a guilty one. Also, he thought it was possible in a time of great public excite­ment, when the public were incensed with

the authorities, that a man might take part in a rebellions movement which in quieter times he would not dream of doing. This clause could only come into operation against a revolutionary movement which failed. He could understand a man who had taken part in the drilling of men being very sorry afterwards, and there should he some reasonable time during which he would be liable to be prosecuted. The hon. gentleman had s::tid that this would not apply to industrial disturbances. He would like to ask what it would apply to if it did not. There were very few instances in Au&tralia of the drilling of men to take part in a rebellious movement which had not been connected with inclustrhtl disturbances, rare instances like that of the :Eureka Stockade.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The instances are very rare, and I hope the law will never require to be put inta operation.

Mr. HIGGS: If it did come into operation itJ was just as well that they should be able to pro­tect innocent persons from trumped-up charges. They knew that that did occur in times of industrial disputes. In the Broken Hill strike, for instance, one or two men proposed to drill miners for the purpose of compelling the mineowners to accede to their demands. It was his opinion that this clause in the Code was P'rticularly directed to the suppression of industrial disturbances. He would not insinuate that the Attorney-General would be guilty of anything like what had been done in this colony before, when mrn who had very little connection with the rebelliom part of industrial disturbances were ·arrested and thrown into gaol on the most flimsy evidence. If that paragraph was to remain in the Code, he had no doubt some tyrannous Home Secretary, who wanted to get certain political opponents into trouble, would offer rewarrls, and unscrupulous persons would be found-if they were only given six months­to work up a charge against someone. He thought that even a further amendment might be moved to have the whole of that paragraph struck out.

The ATTOR"'EY-GENERAL : That would mean that men could be arre,ted after five years. If you do not limit the time, they would come under the ordinary rule of indictable offences.

Mr. DA WSON : Hon. members on his side had admired the attitude taken up by the Attorney-General in passing the Criminal Code Bill through the House, hut the hon. gentleman was not now adopting the same conciliatory tactics at all. The hon. gentleman must now have the clauses of that ~ill exactly as the draftsman had put them into his hands, and he would accept no suggestion or amendment from either side. The hon. gentleman's closest friend, the hon. member for Cook, might be indicted as a criminal under this schedule. He saw nothing in the Bill to differentiate in that matter between a member of that House and an ordinary citizen, and the bon. member for Cook was guilty under this section, as he had been teaching him (Mr. Dawson) the sword exercise for months past, and had offered to te,ch him how to shoot with a revolver. He understood that the object the Attorney-General had in view was to give the police authorities power to imme­diately stop a riot-that was why he wanted a man arrested without a warrant. And he further wanted to stop a panic, and to be able to incarcerate persons until the panic was over. Personally, in such times he had not much objection to th::tt, and the police might have a power to lock peor le up for their own good, but in times of peace and calm a person teaching another the s" ord exercise might be arr.,sted unrler this schedule. He was not quite sure that Dowridge, of George street, could not

Oriminal Code Act C9 OCTOBER.] Amendment Bill. 1227

be arrested under it. They had one or two judges who did not listen to counsel or to evidence, but went very carefully into the terms of the Act under which a charge was brought, and summed up in that way. If a case was brought under that clause against the Govern­m;mt whip, before Chief Justice Griffith, not­Withstandmg how much the evidence might be in the hon. member's favour, and notwithstand­ing what mercy he might plead for, the very fact of the Chief Justice interpreting the words of the Act as a lawyer would secure the conviction of the hon. member. Having a profound respact for the hon. member, he objected to such a clause.

Mr. J. HAMILTON: His excuse for havin« committed such an offence as that of having taught various members of the Opposition the use of offensive weapons was that he might induce them to emulate the example of the Kilkenny cats, and thus confer a benefit on the colony. When the hon. member for Charters Towers confessed that he had been guilty of an offence under the Code he might have suffered martyrdom in silence instead of rendering him (Mr. Hamilton) also liable to seven years, and causing the Government to lose his valuable services for that length of time.

Mr. HIGGS hoped the Attorney-General would accept the amendment. It

[7 p.m.] was very necessary to exercise the . greatest caution before passing such

a strmgent paragraph. 'fhe ATTORNEY-GENERAL: You passed it last

year. Mr. HIGGS: The Criminal Code Act of last

year, consisting of 730 clauses, was passed more out of sympathy for the hon. gentleman than for any other reason. The very amiable way in which t~e hon. gentleman met the Opposition, and their almost overweening anxiety to do bnsiness--

JY~r. LoRD: ·which you have not got this sesswn.

Mr. HIGGS: The occasions were very different. The Criminal Code Act was in the interests of the public, but this session the Government desired to rnsh through five syndicate rail ways to the exclusion of all public busmess. That accounted for the attitude of hon. members.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Towards this Bill? Mr. HIGGS: No; they were simply availing

themselves of a passing opportunity of getting an amendment to a clause which they had over­looked last year. The second reading of the Bill was passed very expeditiously, owing, in a large measure, to the Attorney-General's kind­heartedness, which was an exa.mple to members on his own side. The subsection said-" A pro­secution for any of the offences defined in this section must be begun within six months after the offence is committed." They wanted to make the term three months.

Mr. MOO RE : And end when ? Mr. HIGGS: That depends upon the law

officers. If they wished to string out a prosecu­tion over a number of years it would not sur­prise him. The point was that time should not be given to work up a charge against an innocent person. The Government would very easily know the offenders agaimt that clause. It was not possible to drill an army in a back room. They would have to come ont into the open where they could be seen, and the offenders wonld thus be well advertised. If a person wap allowed to be imprisoned for six months before being tried, it was easy to imagine that a charge might be worked np against him. It was necessary and desirable that the guilty person shouid be punished, but it was more necessary that the innocent person should be protected. ·when the

revolution had died out, and the warlike, mili­tary individual had become a peaceable citizen once more, it was not desirable that the Govern­ment should have power to come down upon him and indulge in a species of persecution. Hon. members of the Opposition had assisted the Attorney-Generallast year in passing the Criminal Code Bill, and surely it was not asking too much that the hon. gentleman should give way in a small matter like this.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Undo our work of last session ?

J\.Ir. HIGGS : Not at all. Perfect a noble measure. It was a monument of legislation, and only wanted a few artistic touches snob as that amendment to make it the admiration of all peoples and all times. The people who deserved the most consideration were those who, with the very best intentions, were anxious to maintain the rate of wages.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! Mr. HIGGS: He proposed to show that the

people who were anxious to maintain the rate of wages. might possibly he the people who would be drilling other people. In their an.xiety to try to protect the working classes, they might perhaps-foolishly, no doubt-attempt to mill certain people with a view to resist law and order ..

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! Mr. HIGGS : Surely they did not wish snch a

man to be thrust into prison after an interval of upwards of five months, and when his efforts had proved futile ! At the end of that time he would no doubt be back at h1s ordinary avoca­tion again, and all that the Opposition asked was that after three months the authorities should cease to take action against snch a man.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! I have called the bon. member to order once or twice already, because I consider that he is tediously repeating what he and other hon. members have said. Will the hon. member please confine himself now to something fresh and relevant to the amendment?

Mr. HIGGS: Did not the Attorney-General think three months was ample time in which the polioe authorities should make their in­quiries and consult all the people who were likely to know anything about those warlike individuals who were drilling other people? If the hon. gentleman wanted to quell any in­dustrial disturbance, three months was all that was necessary. Hon. members would remember that when the present Agent-General was Home Secretary he said that all that was necessary to pnt down an industrial dispute was to arrest the leaders, which he did. One of those who was arrested withont a warrant and never brought to trial was Mr. Gilbert Casey. He was sure the Attorney-General would never agree to follow the example of Sir Horace Tozer in that respect. Surely the hon. gentle­man would see that three months was ample time in which to make arrangements for stop­ping an industrial disturbance

The ATTORNEY-GENEl\AL: It does not apply to those cases.

Mr. HIGGS: The clause applied to that class of disturbances, and to no other. 't'he hem. gentleman surely did not contemplate, because the Government were anxious to get through five syndicate railways--

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! Mr. HIGGS : That so':ne person outside the

Assembly was going to instruct the followers of that great party in the use of warlike weapons and in military drill. Supposing that at some fntnre time the firm of Burns, Philp, and Co. wished to reduce the wages of their employees, and some enthusiastic individual

1228 Criminal ('ode Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

wished to train some of the Premier's employees in the use of arms and in military drill, that w<ts a class of disturbance that was contemplated by the hon. gentleman's colleagues in passing that chusL 'rhere was not likely to be an industrial dispute in the West while the pastoralists were a,;king Parliament for relief; but after they got that relief, and their bank balances were swelling, but were not swelling enough for those engaged in the pastoral industry, no doubt they would have a strike an.ongst the Western bush men on arcount of an attempt being made to reduce their wages. 'rhPn some unfortunate individual would be dis­covered foolishly trainingthe bushmenin the use of arms and drilling them on the banks of the billa­bongs, and he did not want severity to be shown to these enthusiastic individuals, by having them brought up on a charge six months after such a dis­pute had ended, and the enthusiasts had seen the error of their ways. The hon. membet' would never administer such a provision; he would leave that to some soulless Home Secretary who would be in power later on. He wished to emphasise three points. The first was that no injustice should be done to an innocent person ; the second was that the longer time that was allowed to elapse frum the time of the offence to a man being charged with its committal, the more difficult it was for the person charged to prove his inno­cence. The third was that the drilling of people -teaching them the use of the rifle, sword exer­cise, and so forth-only occurred in times of great stress nnd disturbance of public opinion, and when the little ''storm in a teacup" harl passed away, and those drillers got back to their ordinary avocations, they should not be allowed to be arrested six months after the storm had subsided, for foolishly drilling their fellow-workmen. That w~.s a preposterous attitude to take up, and he hoped the hon. gentleman would see his way to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Charters Towers. He (Mr. Higgs) had no desire to drill a multitude of people in order to effect a revolution, and if the hon. gentleman thought so he was quite mistaken. He had no such evil design. He was sorry that the hon. gentleman even b.v a nod of his head, did not indicate that he would accept the amendment. If there was a time when a number of men would be likPly to drill in order to overthrow a Government, it was now, seeing that hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches were trying to force through private syndic<>ie railways to the exclusion of very impor· tant public legislation. But the air was perfectly calm : there was no whisper of any drilling in the back streets or in the dearl of night.

The AT"rOl\NJCY-G!CNJmAr,: You told us that if business other than private syndicate railway buHiness was introduced, it would go through mpidly?

Mr. HIGGS : How did they meet the hon. gentleman when he introduced the Criminal Code Bill? They pAssed 780 clauses in a com­paratively short tim<>, which it would have taken the Home Secretary five years to pass. Because the Hon. the Attorney-General was so gentle and sna ve, they allowed the measure to go through qt1ickly. But hun. gentlemen opposite were trying to force private syndicate mit­ways down their throats, and yet the Hon. the _\ttorney·Genctal requested them to allow this measnre to pass the House without dne considera· tion. They could put up with a good deal, but hrm. gentlemen opposite were coming it a bit too strong-piling up the agony tc,o much. He wished to emphasise the three points he had mentioned. They should see that no injustice was done to an innocent person. Six months should not be allowed to elapse in which unscru­pulou:-:; pen;fms, n1aliciow~ rogueR, and vagabond:; would be able to trump np charges again:-{t inno­c,•nt persons--

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I draw the hon. member's attention to Standing Order No. 131, which says-

:lir. Speaker, or in a Committee of the Whole House, the Chairman. may call attention of the House or the Com­mittee, as the case may be, to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition on the part of a member, and may after such warning direct the member to discontinue his t:;peeeh: Provided that the member so directed may require ).1r. SpE'aker or the Chairman, as the case may be, to put the question that he be further heard, and shch question, if so required to be put, shall be put without debate. I would be very sorry to have to put that Standing Order into operation ; but I shall be compelled to do so unless the hon. member refrains from tedious repetition and irrelevance.

Mr. HIGGS: He was very anxious to keep to the point, but the hrm. gentleman had cast a reflection on his (Mr. Higgs's) character in saying that he had not carried out his promise. Any reasonable request would l;e acceded to by hon. members on his side. If they could be sure that the proclamation of the Governor in

Council would be published in every [7·30 p.m.] newspaper in the colony-in the

Worker, which was the federated organ of the workers of Queensland, and in various other democratic publications in the colony, and in all the anti.Government organs in the provinces-then they would be somewhat assured that the proclamation would be known to everybody. But they knew the habits and customs of continuous Governments; they knew that it was not their habit to publish proclamations in all the newspapers in the colony. The only proclamation he had ever seen in the Worke1· was one which was inserted at the instance of :Mr. Barlow, when that gentleman was a member of the Assembly. A very justifi­able complaint had been made that no Govern­ment advertisements were inserted in the Worker, and hon. members would be amused to hear that the proclamation which came along from the Government on that occasion was a proclamation offering £1,000 reward for informa­tion which would lead to the arrest of some person who had set fire to a woolshed. Hon. members had no reason to believe that a ]>roclamation of the Governor in Council, under the provision now before the Committee, would be published in all the newspapers, democratic and otherwise, throughout the land. They had a prett,y good idea that an anti-Government journal; a journal which did not believe in syndicate rail ways, and in the Secret~ry for Rail ways himself, would not rece1 ve any advertisements, so that ·any warlike individuals who might be anxious to train their fellow-beings in the art of war would not receive due information of the wishes of the Government. 'rherefore, the reasonable modification of that drastic clause suggested in the amendment was one which should be at once accepted by the Attorney-General. What influence was at work to prevent that usually warm-hearted gentlem:m from accepting the amendment? \Vas it that the continuous Govern­ment wanted to keep up their traditions? \V ~s it that the hon. gentleman wanted to follow m the footsteps of Sir Hm·ace Tozer? Sir H orace Tozer, by the way, was, it appeared, returning to the colony to take part in the federal elections.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! Mr. HIGGS : He merely mentioned thn.t by

the way in order that those people who had a lively recollection of Sir Hoace T• zer might vote against him when he C»me.

The CHAIHMAN: Order! Mr. HIGGS: He was sure that if the

Attorney·General was the leader of another Government he would not propose such a clause as that now before the Committee, but would see

Criminal Code Act [9 OcTOBER.] Amendment Bill. 1229

at once that sympathy should be h;,d for the innocent person, the man against whom a. trumpery charge might be made by people who were anxious to obtain a reward. Advertise­ments would appear in all the papers offering a reward for the arrest of some individual who was supposed to have contravened a proclama­tion, and some unscrupulous person would trump up a charge--

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have repeatedly called the hon. member to order, and I have warned him of irrelevancy and tedious repetition. The h<m. member still continues to ttdiously repeat himself and to speak irrelevantly to the subject under con,ideration. I thereforP, under Standing Order 134, order the hun. member to resume his seat and discontinue speaking.

Mr. HIGGS: I beg to move that you do put the question that I be further heard.

QueHtion-That the hon. member for Fortitude V alley be further heard-put; and the Committee divided:-

AYI·:s, 14. ~VIessrs. Dawson: Turley, Stewart, Hardncre, Kidston,

Higgs, :McDonald, Givens, Bowman, 1V. Hamilton, Dunsford, Lesina, Ryland, and Fitzgerald.

No:ES, 27. lVIcssrs. Philp, l~'oxton, Rutlodge. Diekson, l\!Iurray,

Dalrymple, Callan, J. Hamtlton, Hnnran, Campbell, J,ord, Stodart, J\ionre, Plunkett, Krogh, "\V. 'J.1horn, Jenkin!:'on, Boles, ::\1acdonald-Paterson, Cnrtis, Story, Stephenson, Newel!, T. B. Cribb, Cowley, G. Thorn, and Katcs.

Resolved in the negative. Question-That the word "six" proposed to

be omitted with the view of inserting "three­stand part of the question-stated.

Mr. DA \VSON expressed his very great surprise at the hon. gentlewan in charge of this Bill not seeing the reasonableness of an amendment such as he had moved. He had no intention of delaying the House, of irritating the hon. gentle­man, nor "f exhausting the patwnce of the hon. members who might be listening to him, but he could assure them that this matter was a very serious one to him. He had known quite a number of people who had suffered a great amount of injustice from the louse wording of an Act, and one of the most serious things they could deal with was the liberty of thA subject. Any enactment which would deprive a man of his liberty and put him in to gaol for a certain number of years, because he might be accused of a certain crime, was one of the most serious things they could deal with, and in making an enactment of that kind they should he particu­larly careful to safeguard the liberty of the subject. It was very easy, particularly in times of industrial strife and ]Jolitical excitement, tu get a man into goal, but once you get him into gaol it was a tremendous task to get him out again. The Home Secretary knew how hard it was to get men out of St. Helena, who, in his heart of hearts, he thought ought to have had mercy extended to them, and he found it very difficult.

An HoNOURABLE MEMBER : What has all this got to do with it?

Mr. DA vVSON : It had everything to do with it. They were dealing now with an amendment of the Criminal Uode, and with a particular class of those who came before our courts, who were not, in the ordinary sense of the word, criminals. They were not the men who stole boots, \V ho burgled a safe, or who would waylay a member of Parliament and sand-b::g him and take his monthly pay from him. They were the men who came within the clutches of the law in times of political or industrial excitement-precisely the same kind of men who got into gaol in the older countries of the world in times of agrarian disputes. That W8)s the aspect of the question

he de, ired hon. members to look very carefully into. There were e'ses in Q'1eensland at the present time, of men who had been sent to gaol -one for ten years and another for fifteen years­who were tried in a time of great excitement. If those men were tried to-day, be was :tbso­lutely certain-as certain as he wus that he was sttcnding on that carpet-that if they were brought before the same judge and jury, they would not get more than twelve months, if they got that. Still those men were in gaol, and, as far as he could sec, there was very little prospect of getting them <>ut. It was because thev realised what those things were that they "felt so keenly about giving the authorities the power askPd for by this Bill. He believed he had had more experience with the Home Secretary's Department in connection with the extension of mercy to prisoners in their gaols than any member of the House, and he knew what the difficulties were. The difference between hirr.self and the Attorney-General was that, while be contended that the wording of the clause meant that a person might be arrested without warrant, and incarcerated in gaol for any term under six months, without being brought to trial, the hon. gentleman said the provisions meant that he could not be incarcerated for longer than six months a waiting trial, and that without the provision he might be ten years, or a lifetime. He knew the hon. gen­tleman also argued that it must be six months after the offence was committed. That was not the opinion of the District Court judges, in Calling's case. \Vhat was the opinion of the District Court judge in Gilbert Casey's case? There, simply because the man sat down outsicle the courthouse he was arrested without a warrant, and locked up for over a month in gaol. The reason he was not kept more than a month was that in the meantime t!Je strike collapsed, and he was let go without a trial, and without ever having an opportunity to defend himself in a court of law or to explain for the satisfaction of his friends why he had been incarcerated as a criminal. Hon. gentlemen must not think they forgot those things. If that strike had continued for the six months Gilbert Casey would have been kept in the Rockhampton gaol for the six months. After that they would of course have been compelled to bring him to trial. What his amendment meant was that a person arrested on a criminal charge should he able to demand by the law of the colony that within three months he should have a trial and be brought face to face with his accusers. That was not an un­reasonable thing, and whatever a majority of that Committee thought of it he was sure a majority of the people of the colony would not think it unreaRonable.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could assure the hon. member that he was not irritated, and was not likely to become so, hut be was exceed­ingly anxious that hon. members should take a right view of the question before the Committee. The hon. member's eloquence had been entirely misapplied, as what he had said so forcibly was foreign to the matter before them, which dealt solely with revolutionary assemblies in contra­vention of a proclamation issued by the Governor in Council against persons being assembled and drilled in the; use of arms. Such an assembly under such Circumstances could only have one meaning-that some revolutionary movement was contemplat.ed. The section declared such persons so assembled guilty of a crime, and provided that a pro>ecution for an offence of that sort must be commenced within six months. vV as that not the most harmless thing in the world, and was it not exactly in the direc­tion of the shield the hon. member wished to throw over the suspected person? He could

1230 Criminal Code .A.ct [ASSEMBLY.] .Amendment Bill.

not see why such an offence should be considered as less than that of a person who stole a pair of boots worth 15s.-and who, under the Justices Act, mmt be charged with the theft within six months. The hon. member proposed that in the case of an offence for which a man might be punished with seven years' imprisonment, the charge must be brought within three months.

Mr. DAWSON: Suppose he is arrested the day after he has committed the offence?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Then the hon. member could accept his assur:mce, as that of one who knew something about the law, that in such a case that Bill provided that the prose­cution must be commenced within six months.

Mr. l<'ITZGERALD : What is the beginning of a prosecution ?

The A TTORNEY.G ENERAL: The laying of the information was the first step.

Mr. l<'ITZGERALD: Supposing that is with­drawn?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If it was withdrawn that did not give another six months within which to issue a sec•cnd inform:>tion, because the offence was committed before the laying of the first information, and under the section it was six months from the time of the commission of the offence, and not from the time at which anyone chose to lay an information. Where was the hardship? It could not ha]>pen,

as the h,m. member contended, that [8 p.m.] a man could be put in gaol and kept

languishing there for six months. When a person was charged with an indictable offence, the information must be acted upon. He was committed to the first court held after his committal. He might have only a week to wait. He knew nothing about the cases referred to by the hon. member, and could not controvert any statements made about a subject of which he was in entire ignorance. Hon. members must bear in mind that the section had nothing to do with industrial disputes, and the ca"es tried in Rockhampton were not tried under that section at all. They could not be.

Mr. DAWSON: Could they not? The ATTORNJ<JY-GENERAL: Riots or

tumultuous gatherings did not come under that section. 'l'he offE>nce mentione.d in the section must be first preceded by a proclamation. ·where was the proclamation in the case referred to by the hon. member prohibiting I?ersons from f;athering together to be trained m the use of arms?

Mr. HARDACRE : There was a proclamation iswed under GovHrnment regulations.

The ATTOHNEY-GENEllAL: That was not the law now.

Mr. DAWSON: Did not Sir Samuel Griffith issue a proclarnation?

The ATTORNEY-G~JNERAL: He was telling the hon. member what t.he Bill proposed to do. He did not know what was done in that case. At that time he was neither a member of the Government nor a. member of Parliament, and took no interest in politics. He could not allow himself to be drawn into giving an opinion upon a matter he knew nothing about. He was not associated with politics from 1893 to 18D9. He was not engag-t•d on one side or the other in connection with tbe cases mentioned by the hon. member, and he had something else to do besides reading newspaper reports, and gather­ing facts concerning matters which did not concern him. The section in question related exclusively to gatherings held in defiance of a proclamation prohibiting gatherings held for the purpose of drilling in the use of arms. The prosecution must be begun within six months; but if the authorities were able to go on with it within a week, they would do so. They could not keep a man languishing in gaol

for six months without bringing him to trial. The general law provided for what the hon. member wanted to guard against. And here was a remarkable thing: The hon. member said not a word about the punishment of seven years for the offence named. He apparently thought the offence was so bad that seven years' imprison­ment was not too much, and yet he said it was an injustice to limit the time within which a prosecution was to be commenced to six months -the same time as was given in the case of a man who had stolen a pair of boots. vVhat were they to say of the attitude of the hon. member? He could only attribute it to the fact that he misconceived the object of the sec· tion. Why waste so much energy about it? He trusted the otience provided against was never likely to occur. He had sufficient faith in the character of the people to believe that whatever might be their disputes they were never likely to take up arms, or prepare to take them up, for the purpose of setting up a president like Mr. Kruger, with the intention of upsetting the form of government under which they lived. What the hon. member had said might be very good as applied to the right subject, yet the offence dealt with had nothing to do with indus­trial disputes, and to insist that it had was more than insinuating that he (the Attorney-General) did not know what he was talking about.

Mr. DA WSON : Jmt as the bon. gentleman was sitting down he was almost convinced that he had been in error, but the hon. gentleman concluded by saying that what he (Mr. Dawson) had said was quite correct as applied to the right subject. What he contended was that no sub­ject of Her Majesty should be incarcerated for six months before the courts had an opportunity of deciding whether he was really guilty.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: But the information must be laid under this section.

Mr. DA WSON : Did the hon. gentleman con­tenrl that he, as Attorney-General, had the right to determine who was the right and who the wrong subject? 'fhat was what be had said.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: You misunderstand me again.

Mr. ])A WSON : What did the hon. gentle­man mean hy "right subject"?

The AT1'0RNEY-GENERAL: Assuming that there was a question under discu&-<ion which involved the legality of a man lying in gaol for six months before he could he tried, then the hon. member's observation would be appropriate. But that was not the subject under discussion. Assuming that they were discussing a subject to which the remarks of the hon. member would be relevant, they would be very powerful remarks ; but, as far as that Bill was concerned, they were entirely wide of the mark.

Mr. DA WSON : Did the hon. gentleman con· tend that it was not within the province of any policeman to arrest, and any gaoler to detain for six months, a person guilty of drilling or exercis­ing in the use of arms other periHJllS--

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: 'l'here is no such right, and this section does not give it.

Mr. DA WSON: And that it also did not give the right to arrest any man and detain him for six months without bringing him to trial?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The first, but not the second.

Mr. DA WSON : But the hon gentleman said " No" at first, and now he said, "The first, but not the second."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. member asked him a double· barrelled qn< stion. He had pointed out earlier in the evening that a revolutionary band was not likely to meet in the day light, but would choose the shades of evening to meet in some secluded place. It would there­fore be almost impossible for any policeman to

Criminal Code Act [9 OcToBER.] Amendment Bill. 1231

identify a man sufficiently to lay an information against him by name. The object wa• tu enable the men w hu drilled those people to be arrested without warrant, but the clause did not empower a man to be kept languishing in gaol for six months.

Mr. DA WSON: That was wha.t he had been trying to get at all the evening. The hon. gentle­man might have desired to frame the clause so as to prevent a man beiug arrested without warrant and incarcerated for six months, but he had not succeeded. If a man was arrested without a warrant, how long could he be detained in gaol without being brought to trial? TheATTORN.l<~Y-GEN.l<~RAL: He could not

be detained longer than the first court that sat in the place.

Mr. DA WSON : vVhere is that here? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That was

the general law that applied to all persons who were arrested or charged with offences, and the law was not repeated in ev('ry Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is: "That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the question "--

2\1r. LESINA: Mr. Grimes--Tbe CHAIRMAN: 'l'hose who are of that

opinion .3.\.ay "Aye,'~ on the contrary, "No." I think the "Noes" have it.

Mr. DA \VSON: Mr. Lesina was on his feet before you put the question, Mr. Grimes.

Mr. 'LESINA: I rose before you had put the question.

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lesina. Mr. LESINA said that he took a somewhat

similar view to the hon. member for Charters Towers.

Mr. JENKINSON rose to a point of order. \Vas the hon. member for Clermont in order in discussing the question when the Chairman bad called for the voices and given his decision?

The CHAIRMAN: After putting the que"­tiun, rr.y attention was called by the Clerk to the fact that the hon. member for Clermont h"'d risen and addressed me before I bad finished putting it, and I therefore had the right to give the hon. member the opportunity of speaking.

Mr. JEN KIN SON did not rise for the purpose of stopping the hon. member for Clermont speaking, but for the purpose of having the Standing Orders ob"erved, and he maintained that after the Chairman had declared the voices--

Mr. FITZGBRALD (lliitchell) rose to a point of order. Was the bun. member for Wide Bay in order in discussing that question?

The CHAIRM.AN: The hon, member, having raised a point of order, has a right to state his voint of order.

Mr. FITZGERALD: You have overruled him. Mr. JF,NKINSON: The point of order was

this : He had distinctly heard the Chairman say that the" Noes" had it, and he wiohed to know whether the Chairman still adhered to his decla­ration, or was going to allow the discussion to con tin uP.

The CHAIRMAN: I have already decided that point by saying that my attention was called to the fact that the hon. member for Clermont had risen and addressed me befure I had fully put the question, and, therefore, he has a right to be heard.

MEMBERS on the Government side : Hear, hear!

Mr. LESINA: The Attorney-General had pointed out that a crime of that character would be committed under circumstances entirely dif­ferent from those surrounding crimes of a dif­ferent character. For instance, persons engaged in drilling would be apt, in order to avoid that particular clause, to drill in the dark, away in some gidya scrub. His reading of the clause was that

any person who happened to be present at such a gathering, although he himself took no part in the drill, could be punished for being present at a gathermg which had been proclaimed illegal. If a police spy happened to have a quarrel with a neigh hour five months and fourteen clayc< after that gathering, he might lay an information against him for having practised the goose-Rtep in a certain gidya scrub, and it migbt be impos­sible for th& accused person to prove an alibi­to prove that he was not there on a particular night. No hon. member, if he were charged with t~king part in a street riot, a free fight, a drunken brawl, or evPn a burglary six months and seventeen days ago, would be able to prove an alibi. It would flabbergaster him if he was asked to prove an alibi with regard to a particular night. The average man could not say where he bad been five or six nights back, and in many cases he would not care to say where he had been. Here was the point : The provision would enable spies to put money in their pockets by swearing information against persons with whf)~ ~hey had fallen o_ut, and he suggested the add1t10n of the followmg words-" Provided that a person cannot be con­victed of an offence under this section on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness." The charge under this proposed section was a seriou~ one, and the pumshment was two years imprisonment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : The hon. member failed to S(·e that the difficulty which he had mentioned would apply in other cases, and why should they not provide with regard to every offence that no person should be convicted on the evidence of one witness? As to what had been said about spies, every person was liable to have false charges made against him. But, supp,,sing any ruffian brcmght a charge against any hon. member of having committed a felony on a certain night two years ago, would there not be the same difficulty in their saying where they were on that particular night? At present an informa­tion could be laid at any length of time after certain offences were alleged to have been com­mitted. It might be that two persons compired together to commit an offence; one quarrelled with the other, and gave information to the authori­ties which led to the discovery of the crime. Did the hon. member say that the offender should not be prosecuted, simply because there had been a falling out? Why should this [Jarlicular case be picked out for special exemption? Judges a! ways took good care to see that the evidence was conclu.·iive bef(lre a man was convicted, and, in cases where there was only one witness, they always reminded the jury of that fact, anrl of the character of the evidence. A man was liable to very, very severe punishment for some offences that could be proved by one witness ; and he, as Attorney-General and Crown Prosecutor, had allowed dozens of men to go, because he had not been satisfied with the testimony of the one witness. 'I' he law was never strained to get convictions on the testimony of one witness, and unless there was a great dtal of ciroumst>mtial evidence to corroborate his statements, the prisoner was 11elilom convicted. He could not accept the amendment.

Question-That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the question-put and rassed.

Mr. GIVENS (Cairns) drew the attention of the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill to the fact that the punishment in section 457 was the same as the punishment prescribed in clause 319, which read-

Any person who, with intent to injure or to endanger the safety of any person travelling by any railway, whether a pRrticular person or not·-(l) Deals with the railway or with anything whatever upon or near the

1232 G1·iminal Code Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendtnent Bill.

rail way in such a manner as to affect or endanger the free and safe use of the railway or the safety of any such person, etc., is gnilty of a crime, and is liable to imprison­ment with hard labour for life, with or without whipping, which may be inflicted once, twice, or thrice. Under this section a person who merely stopped a train at a certain point by re.ising a signal, and not with any malicious intent, would be sub­ject to the same punishment. He was opposed to flogging altogether. It was a remnant of the old barbarous days, and he suggested that the word "whipping" should be left out altogether. If the hon, gentleman acceded to his suggestion, the offence would be punishable

with imprisonment with hard labour [8'30 p.m.] for life, which was a serious enough

punishment for an offence which might only be the hoisting of a red lamp at night or a red flag in the daytime in order to stop or ob;trnct a train, without any intention to cause injury to life or limb.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. member for Cairns knew very well that he was not an advom;te for whipping as a rule, and that last year, when the Criminal Code Bill was before the Committee, hR agreed to knock out the puni,hment of whipping for every offence except those few for which it was now retained in the Act. They had a long discusdon about the matter on that occasion. The punishment for the offence statPd in the amending clause was really not under discussion. What was proposed by the schedule in that Bill was not to amend the clause further than to state the definition of the offence.

Mr. GrvENS : But it is permissible to amend the whole of tb1at section, as we are now amend­ing nine-tenths of it.

The ATTORNl~Y-GENERAL: He did not think it would be in order to amend the clause in respect to the punishment. He agreed with the hon. member that to some extent there was a difference in the intent in the offence mentioned in that clause and the offence set forth in section 3HJ. The intent might not be so heinous in the c<1se of the one as it was in the case of the other. Under section 3Hl the intent was to be with the object that somebody should be .injured. The intent under the clause before the Committee was to obstruct a railway or to injure the vro­perty of the railway. But the hon. member should not lose sight of the fact that a man intend­ing to do the one thing might do the other.

Mr. GrvENS: Does not the intention count fur something in every crime?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That was where the trouble came in; it would be im­possible in ninety-nine cases out of 100 to prove that there was any animus against any person on a rail way where a person interfered or tampered with a railway with the view of obstructing a train, but he might, nevertheless, accomplish the very mischief referred to in section 319. Surely if he injured a railway in such a way as to cause the loss of life he was, as regarded the mischief he had done, as bad every whit, as morally responsible, as a man who went out with the intention of causing the loss of life.

Mr. ,JgNKINSON: \Vould he not then come un<ler the provision of SPction 319?

The ATTORN:EY-GENERAL: No, he might have no malice against anybody travelling on the line; he might not want to injure anybody's limbs, or destroy anybody's life, but merely to damage the property of the railway. But if in doing that he went further than he intended, and caused persons to lose their lhes CJr their limbs, why should he not be punished as pro­vided? There was no doubt that if no other injury resulted than injury to railway property whipping would never be awarded. Whipping would be awarded for the higher offence,

where there was an intention to cause disastrous results. A great deal would depend upon the amount of damage done as to the view the judge would take of the offence, and the punishment he would award. However, he thought they should not resurrect that question, which was very fully debated last year, when hen. mem­ber• agreed that if he would knock out the punishment of whipping in the other clauses they would allow it to remain in those provisions.

Mr. GIVENS: As the hon. gentleman was not inclined to accept an amendment, and had always treated hon. members courteously and fairly, he was not disposed to fight the matter any further. But he entirely dissented from the doctrine enunciated by the hon. gentleman, when he stated that a man was just as guilty mm·ai!y for the effects ot his acts as if he intended them to have such effects. The intention had every­thing to do with the moral responsibility of a person for his acts. A man might kill another person bypureaccident, without intending it, and would the hon. gentleman say thftt in such a ca'e he would be as morally responsible for the death of that person as if he had deliberately tried to kill him? He (Mr. Givens) held that the inten­tion had a great deal to do with the moral and legal responsibilily of a person for his acts, and that the punishment in the case under considera­tion was an extreme one.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The punishment will only be applied in extreme cases.

Mr. G IVJ!;NS : The punishment would depend upon the state of the judge's liver. If a prisoner came before a judge when he was thirsty or wanted to dine the judge might look upon his offP.Uce as an awful crime, whereas, if he came before him after dinner when he had drunk of champagne, the judge might regard it as a light offence which would be met by a sentence of five years' imprisonment. These things should not be left to the discretior: of the judge or anyone else. 'They were supposed t" make laws for the guidance of the judges, and they should prescribe the limitations within which this punishment might be inflicted. The punishment was a barbarous one-a relic of a barbarous age-and the Attorney-General ought to be ashamed to embody it in the Code.

Mr. STEW ART (Rockharnptnn North): He would like to direct the attention of the Attorney­General to third placitum. It read : "By any omission to do any act, which it is his duty to do, causes the free and safe use of the railway to be endangered." He wished to ask the hon. gentleman what would be the position of an engine·driver, a guard, or a signalman, who, during the time of a dispute between railway servants and the Government, or between rail­way servants and a private syndicate, which might own the rail way, left his particalar employment at a particular time settled upon or arranged uvon by his fellow employees ? If he left his employment in that fashion, would he be brought under this clause? Would he be obstructing the use of the railway or injuring the pro)Jerty on a railway by leaving his engine, his signal-box, or whatever it might be, while the business of the railway was being carried on? He wished the hen. gentle­man would make that point clear. At the present moment the engine-driver, the signal­man, or other employee could be dismissed at a moment's notice. That being so, ought not the employee have the right to leave as it suited him? He did not say that that was possible or desirable, but what was sauce for the goose ought also to be sauce for the gander. Could men who left in this way be brought under this section-were they subject to imprisonment for life with one, two, or three whippings?

Criminal Code, Etc., Bill. [9 ( 1CTOBER.) Cal!ide Railwa!f Bill. 1233

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That case would not come under this 8ection, because it would be observed by the qualifying words, that not only must the Act be unlawful, but it must be done with the intent of obstructing the u<e of the railway or injuring the property of the mil­way. He did not think anyone was likely to hold that because a man in the assertion of what he considered his rights were to leave his engine and go somewhere else, he did that with the intention of obstructing the use of the railway or injuring the property of the railwnv. If any of the things mentioned in the section were done with that intention then the offence was com­plete.

Mr. LESTN A : He found that in the amended form of the Criminal Code, section 477 pro­vided-

That any person who, by an unlawful act. or by any intentional omission to do any act which it is his duty to do, causes any engine or vehicle in use upon a rail­way to be obstructed in its -passage on the railway, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable t.o imprisonment with hard labour for two years. Apparently that was now tacked on to the amendment. He would like to know whether that was so?

The A1"J'ORNEY-GENERAr,: No; chuse 477 is not attached to this amendment.

Mr. LESIN A : They seemed to read very much alike. He merely wanted to know whether one bore any relation to the other?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No. Mr. FITZGERALD (JJiitchell) would like to

know what was the object of omitting from sec­tion 698 the words "has, when incurring any debt or liability, obtained credit by a false pre­tence or by means of any other fraud or"?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He had ex­plained that when the hon. member was not present that afternoon. Under the Insolvency Act of 187 4 it was an offence for a man to obtain goods on crediL by telling lies or making a false pretence to the person who gave him credit. The commission which had dealt with the Criminal Code had decided that that ought not to be a criminal offence, and this no longer being an offence the words were entirely unnecessary.

Mr. DA WSON nskeil what was the meaning of the word "placitum" as uBed in the schedule. He had a pp lied' to the nse of the word in the schedule the me•.ning he had found given in the library copy of" Smith's Latin Dictionary,'' and it had onlv made confusion worse confounded. He wished particularly to know the legal inter­pretation of the word, as in the days to come he might have to write a love letter to some female, and would like to know if he could use that word without legal reBponsibility.

The ATTORNEY· GENERAL : You had better give the dictionary meaning.

Mr. DA vVSON: The dictionary said it meant "pleasant" or "agreeable," and unless the hon. gentleman had some Supreme Court librarv which gave a different meaning, it appeared that the hon. gentleman was introducing a Matrimo­nial Act into their Criminal Code. He would like to know whether the hon. gentleman, Mr. \Voolcock, or the adviser behind him, had been responsible for the use of the word?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL anticipated that someone would ask the question. Neither Mr. \Voolcock nor himself was responsible for the nse of the word, which had been put in by the Chief Justice. The word was used in con­nection with drafting, and in legal terminology it meant" dictun1," ''determination," or "state­ment." There was a wide divergence from the original Latin word, but tha.t was a common thing with English words.

1900-4G

Mr. DA WSON: If the English equivalent for the word had been useil it would have· been P'lsily understood, and those law phrases should be kept out of any amendment of the principal Act.

The ATTOR"'EY-GENERAL: The word will not appear in the Code at all.

Schedule put and passed. The House resumed. 'rhe CHAIRliiAN reported

the Bill without amendment, and the third read­ing was made an order for to-morrow.

CALLTDE RAILWAY BILL. On the Order of the Day being read for the

resumption of adjourned debate on Mr. Murray's motion-That the Speakm· do now leave the chair-on which Mr. Kidston had moved-

That the question be amended by the omission of all the words a.fter ·· rrhat," with a view of inserting, in their place, the words, "this Order be discharged from the paper, and the Bill be referred to a select com­mittee.

u 2. That such committee have power to send for personR and papers, and leave to sit during any adjourn­ment of the House.

"3. 'fhat sueh committee cm:sist of seven members, to be selected by ballot."

Question stated-That the words proposed to he omitted stand part of the qunstion.

Mr. DUNSJ<'ORO: I believe I moved the acljourmnent of the debate when this matter was last before the House. A motion bad been moved that the Speaker leave the chair, in order to carry the Cal!iue Railway Bill to the com­mittee stage. The hon. member for Rock­hampton, Mr. Kidston, thought the time had not arrived to consider the Bill in the committee stage, and that fuller information should be obtained by the House ; and he thought that could be best obtained by the appointment of a select committee. Jlilany rea>•,Ons have been given by hon. members why this committee should be appointed, and I. with others, think that in a matter such as this, where it is prop0sed to give certain persons the power to become public carriers by means of a private railway, we should obtain all possible available information. Experi­ence has taught us that the appointment of a special commission or a select committee is the best means of nbtaining such information. But the hon. member fnr Rockhampton h"s inserted in his amendment something which is rather of a novelty, in proposing that the committee should be elected by a ballot of the House. I am unrler the impres.,,ion that that would not be advisable, and would not be an improvement upon the present system of appointing these committees. I remember some time ago we did succeed in

electing a committee, and that both [9 p.m.] ,ides were very busy in "making a

book" on the result of the baJlot. I do not think we get better results by having a ballot, because v·hile a select committee is appointed by the Government, it is possible for this side to be represented by one or two mem­bers, yet if it is elected, the Government majority would very likely elect all Government supporters, and I would not like to see that done.

Mr. KIDSTON: That is all the more reason for the Government consenting to the amendment.

Mr. DUNSFORD: I do not know even then that it would be a good thing from the Govern­ment's point of view. As a rule, select com­mit tees are not the success we would like them to be. Some do good work, no doubt, and arrive at a sound verdict, but on other occasions the result is not all that could be desired. Be that as it may, we have eve1·ything to gain by getttng further information, although it may not be so complete as we could wish. Hon. members have really had no official informa-tion placed before

1234 Oallide [ASSEMBLY.] Railway Bill.

them up·m this particular railway. \Ve have heard Ministers and others say that it will lead to a great deal of g"<lOd to the mining section, and that it will be a paying concern ; and only last Satnrday night the people of Glad,,tone passed a resolution to the effect that it is a desirable line to construct. At the same time they passed a resolution condemning the action of the Labour party in blocking the measure. This is the report of what was done at Gladstone. It is head en, in large letters, "Obstruction in Parlia­ment by the Labour Party''-

G1ad~tone, Oi~tober 9. A public meeting was held here last night to protP"',t

against the continued obstruction in Parliament by the Labour party to the private railway bills. A reRo­lution was pas!:led to the effect that the action of the party during the de Date on the Callide Bill \vas viewed with regret, and. considering the support this eleetorate has giYen them for a number of years, the party should now give more favourable consideration to the general interest of the colony. It was decided to present the resolution to the Labour party by a deputation if no arrangement is come to to-da:v to allow the Biil to pro­ceed without further obstruction.

I hope the resolution was not passed, or the meeting held with the view of coercing the Labour parcy. They have followed a certain line of action that has been dubbed by certain people and the Press as "obstructioi>." \Veil, I do not care what term they use, so long as we know that what we are doing is in the best interests of the country. That part nf the reso­lution which says that., considering the support which Gladstone has given this party, we should give more favourable consideration to the general interests of the colony, is rather queer. \Ve are of opinion th"t we have been considering the general interests of the colony. It has been contended, as a reason for appointing this select committee, that there are many pro­posed routes to this Calli de field. That in itself is a strong rea~on. The individuals owning the line first of all wished the Government to build it, then they wanted the local authority to undertake it, and failing that they come to this House and ask power to build it themselves. I do not think it has been cl,·.~rly proved that the line is wanted at all. I am distinctly under the belief that this and the other private railways that have been under discmsion for so long are not required. There are many lines in districts where we have settled populations that are needed, and I believe they ought to be built by the State. I do not think it nf ce>sarily follows that prosperity will follow upon the laying down of so many miles of rail­way. There are some railways which I have in my mind which it would have been better for the col<my if they had never built, and which might almost be pulled up for all the good they are. I might instance the line towards the Palmer Gold Field as one. We should be very careful how far we go in railway building. We want above every­thing else population, and if there is no popula­tion at the proposed terminus of a railway I fail to see how it is going to pay. I would not be a party to countenancing the construc­tion <>f a line if there is to be a loss to investors, If there is to he a loss to the 8tate, it is bad enough ; but, if there is to be a loss to investors -I do not care whether they are Australasian investors or British inv<·stors-if we know that we are deliberately passi>Jg tbis Bill, knowing that it cannot pay, we are not justified in passing it. Many hon. members, no doubt, t.hink it will pay. I differ from them in that. :::\till, since we al'e not in possession of all the information which we might have had, I fail to see how we can come to any just conclusion. \Vhen the Bill gets into committee-and I hojje it will get into committee soon, as I do not want the agopy prolonged-

the Government will carry their re;;olutions-and now that they have given notice of the amend­ment of the· Standing Orders, it is absolutely certain that when the Standing Orckrs are amended, all these Bills will become lmv- I per.sonally desire to s:.e them get into committee as soon as P'•ssible, when I hope there will be full and ample opportunity given to haves full discusoion of all the details of each of tbe Bills; because, all the second readin[" having been passed, it now becomes our duty in committee to see that the Bills are improved where nece3-sary. I hope that the committee stages will be entered upon shortly, and I hope that ultimately the Bills will he pccssed in such a form as will be to the bPst. interests of the co]m,y.

Mr. BOWMAN ( Warrego): I think the amend­ment which has been eubn,itted by the hon. member for Rockhampton is one that might wisely be accepted by the Government. 'I'he hon. member for Rockhampton proved con­clusively last Thursday eYening that there was a division of opinion among the people in that particular district as to whether the Callide or the Glassford Creek line would be the best to construct, and if, as the hon. member for Rock­hamptun states, one line would accomp:ish the object of the two, it would be wise on the part of the Government to accept the hon. member's propcsal. It has been stated by many hon. mem­bers-and I think with a great deal of truth-that the informa.tion respecting this particular line is extremely vague, and, if for no other reason than to arnve at the true <:omensus of opinion of the J>eople in the district, it would be wise for the Government to accede t,, the reason>thle request that has been made. The select committee might get informatinn that would be gratifyir;g. Other propo~als have been submittEd which WPuld have been more sati~factory tban the one we are now discussing-namely, the propcral to submit the question to the ]WO)•le of the colony by means of a referendum. Of course, that is not before the Chamber at the present time; but, seeing we conld not achieve that, the next best course to pnrsne is that which has now been pr"J'osecl. Of coun~e, the GovernrnPnt, frmn all we can hear, are determined tbat these Bills are going to become law, but I hope that befurn they becon,e law there will be->tnd I think there is a possi­bility of-a revelation bdn.( mede in this Chamber t!Jat may yet ulock some of these Bills-~

The SPEAKER : Order ! Mr. BOWC\lAN: They are at present under

the consideration of this House, aud that those who are directly interested-~

The SPEAKJ!iR: Order! Mr. BOWMAN: Wdl, Mr. Sproker, seeing

that I am not allowed to pursue that line of argument, I hope that when we g·et into com­mittE·e we may be allowed a little more latitude than is given when one has to confine his remarks tc the amendment before the House. But I woulrl urge, as one who believes in a select committee, that having ad'lpted the principle in connection with our State r ·ilways, we should adopt the same principle in c<mnection with these private rail way propnsalR. vV e have bad select committeh on railways going- all over the country, and, in all probability, those pro~ oeals will be warmly accepted by members of this House. If that applies in connection with our St.at e proposals it should also apply to syndic~tte railways, and, therefore, I shall ~upport the , nL dment to eubmit the question to a select committee, and I truc<t that the Guvernment will see 'heir way to accept it.

Mr. STEW ART (Bockharnptnn North): I have much vleasure in supporting the amend­ment that this measure be referred to a select committee. Seeing that we are to have private

Callirle [9 OCTOBER.] R,tilu•a,y Bill. :235

railway bmlding in the colony, I think it is desirable-and, indeed, I go further, and say that it is absolutely neces<nry-that we should follow the example set by Great Britain in this connection. Every private railway, I under­stand, which is brought before the British Parlia­ment is firot submitted to a select committee. The promoters of any· particular line have got to prove their preamble. They have got to make good their case. They ha.ve got to give all the necessary information before Parliament is asked to decide whether they shall get the powers they ask or not. That is a very excellent method, and it is one that ought to be followed here. We are asked to give a particular company certain powers, but we have no information. We have merely bald assertions in this preamble. We do not know whether they are correct or the opposite; and I submit that, before we are asked as intelligent men, acting as trustees for the people of the colony, to enter into any agreement on behalf of the colony with any particular eet of persons in connection with this railwav we ought to have all possible information before us. We ought to have all the information that can be got so as to enable us to come to a conclusion as to whether the bargain we are asked to enter into with this company is one that we should consent to. That is the position I take up. I was greatly surprised when the hon. gentleman in charge of this Bill, and the members of the Government generally, refused to have this Bill submitted to a select committee, in order that we may get the information that is desirable. I would almost go so far as to say that asking this Assembly-which is presumably composed of intelligent men, who have a due and fitting sense of their responsibility-to enter into an agreement of this character without proper information is tantamount to offering them an insult, alt.hough I don't say that the Government mean it as such ; but that is what it amounts to. They say, practically, "\Ve don't care two straws about you on the opposite side of the House; we have made up our minds to enter into this contract; we have all the information we desire, and we don't want you to know anything about the matter." We are asked to open our mouths, shut our eyes, and swallow what the Govern­ment like to give us, without question. That is the position the Government take up ; and I protest against that sort of thing. I have been sent here to look after the interests of my constituents and the country, and I consider it to ba my duty to get all the information I can on every matter that is brought before this House. \Ve have no information really with regard to this Bill. We ask for all inform"­tion, and the only way we can get it is by referring the matter to a select committee, wit.h power to call for perwns and papers, a.nd with power to probe the matter to the VE1ry b· .. ttom-to get facts and figures-so as to enable us to come to an intelligent conclusion, and gil·e our votes accordingly. Seeing that we are going to make a frAsh departure, why don't we adopt the course suggested by the hon. member for Rock­hampton? Is it not necessary that we should have all the facts before we agree to this bargain ? 1 s it common sense that we should clecide on this matter before we have all the information? I venture to say that not a single hon. member would decide on a, private business matter unl~,;s he had all the information he could possibly get. That is the general conduct of business people. But here in this House we have most important legislation forced upon us which we are asked to pass without sufficient information-legislation which will affect the welfare of men, women, anrl children in a large district; which will affect the natural resources of the colony. This is acting entirely in opposition to common sense,

rflason, and sound judgment. Therefore I sub­mit that the Government are not warranted in rehBing to agree to this amendment. It is a slight and an insult to hon. members to ask them to consider this measure on the scanty information we have. I don't wish to accuse the Government of any motive in the matter, because that would be exceedingly improper, and not in accordance with the rules of parliamentary debate; but as a common-sense individual I think we should ha.ve all the information that this select committee would undoubtedly be able to obtain.

Mr. KmsTON: \Ve might then pass the Bill. Mr. STEW ART : I am not going to say

whether we would pass this rail way or not. In any case, we should be able to give an intelligent vote on the matt'lr. \Ve should have a clear grasp of the interests of the country and of the syndicate's interests, so that we could strike a balance betwe~n the two, We would be in a position to say whether this bargai~ is fai! and equitable to the country and to th1s particular syndicate-whether this Ryndicate is being given too much power, or whether we are giving away the rights of tbe community. \Ve shonld be in a position to deal intelligently with all the issues involved in this matter, but we cannot do that as we have not the desired information before us, and there is no prospect of us getting it unless this select committee is appointed. It is quite possible that owing to our ignorance in this matter we may do an injustice to this syndicate. That is possible, but I don't think probable. Ignorance is always likely to make blunders, and I confess that I am entirely in ignorance as to the resources of this particular district, as to this proposed route, and as to many other things connected with this pro­posed railway. I have not been able to get that information for myself, and I don't know that I am bound to do so. In any case it is the duty of the Government to give hon. members all the information they desire in a matter of this character, so that they may be able to say "yea." or "nay" to this proposal. \Ve are here almost in the posi­tion of judges; we have to inquire into the merits and demerits of this barg'1in, and we should also have evidence as to whether this bargain will advance the interests of the country or of the syndicate. No judge would decide any cause without evidence being called on both sides, and we want to be in the same position as a judge on this matter. \Ve may confirm this contract or reject it. But I submit that we can neither affirm nor reject

it intelligently without having the [9 '30 p.m.] facts before us; and we have not

those facts. If the hon. gen tie­man in charge of the Bill will accept the amendment, we may get those facts ; we prob­ably will g-et them, and we shall then be in a positi<•n to judge the matter dispassionately. \Ve shall know nearly everything in connection with the whole affair, and we shall be in a position to give our votes intelligently. The Secretary for Rail ways did not give any reason why the amendment should not be accepted, but simply said the Government were not going to agree to it, which is no rea,son. This is not a ]Jrivato Bill, certainly. It is a Bill in which the interests of the public are no duubt concerned, but in which also private individucch are concerned, and we know that everywhere in English-speaking communities Bills of this character are first submitted to select committees. If that custom has been fonnd to be such a good one elsewhere, if it has been found to be necessary-as I presume it has been because otherwise it would not have been followed-why do we not follow that custom in

1236 Callide [ASSEMBLY.] Railway Bill.

Queensland? I certainly would not advocate a slavish adherence to the customs of peoples in other countries, b>1t when we find that those customs are continued for a long time, and that they have been productive of t.he best resll!ts, and also that they appeal to our own common sense, would we not be .. vise to adopt them? There is no precedent, so far as I have been able to ascertain, for the refusal of the Secretary for Railways to submit this Bill to a select commit.tee. Have we got all the information we desire ? We have not got any information ; we know very little about the matter ; all the information we have got is the little that has been dribbled out to us by the hon. gentleman in charge of the B1ll, and even he contradicted him­self several times in di~cnssing the measure. First be said that the resources of the district were wonderful, and that there was not the slightest doubt that the venture would pay the syndicate.. Later on he said that the proposal was of an exceedingly speculative character, and that it was very doubtful whether any money would be made out of it or not. The hon. gentle­man himself furnbhed the moet excellent reasons why this measure should be referred to a select committee. We want to know something of the resources of this district, and whether the com­pany which proposes to build the railway to Callide is likely t'> make money out of the venture or to lose money by it. Some hon. members say that it is no concern of ours whether the syndicate will make or lose money by this speculation. But I do not take that view of the matter. I say it is onr concern w hethPr the syndicate make or lose money. \V e are told that the syndic,,te have some person in London waiting until this Bill is passed to bring the concession before the English money-lender. \Ve, as representing the people of Queenslai,d, h~ve a responsibility in this connection. If the representations which are made to the people who are willing to advance money on this enterprise are afterwards found to be incorrect, then the responsibility will lie upon us, and it would be charged against us that we granted this concession without having ever made the slightest inf[uiry as to whether the facts warranted the assertions made bv the promoters of the syndicate, and that would tell most serious! V against the good name and fame and the credit of Queensland. Our national honour is something which it is desirable to maint1tin, and if we gh-e our consent to this Bill passing without gecting the necessary information we shall not be conserving our national honour. The Secretary for !{ail ways accused hon. members on this side of a mere desire to wa,te time in asking for this select committee. I submit that a mem­ber may be in favour of the principle of the Bill, and vote for its second reading, and yet insist upon the measure being referred to a select committee, and I do not think the hon. gentle· man was justified in making the accusation that our sole intention in bringing forward this amendment is to waste time, or to defer the pa,sage of the Bill. There is no doubt that I am personally pledged to vote against private railway measures, and if I could defeat them I certainly would do so, but as I am not able to defeat them, and I find that the majority of the House are in favour of building railways by private enterprise, I conceive it tu be my duty to amend or improve these Bills as much as possible, and in order that I may be in a position to do that I claim that this Bill should be submitted to a select committee. If the Government brought in a State railway, th,·y would at the samP time submit plans and spfcifi­caticms of that railway, and a report from the Commissioner showing the route, the probable cost, the probable traffic, and everything in con­nection with the railway. Why is a difference

made in this case? Are we not entitled to as much information in the case of a private railway as in the case of a public railway? If it is necessary in one case, it is even rnore necessary in the other; but I Bay it is necessary in both. \Vhy does not the Government agree to the amendment, which would get at that information? If this Bill were submitted to a selP-ct committee, we would ve1 y shortly be in possession of every fact which could be brought to bear upon our coming to a conclusion in con­nection with it. As I have already pointed out, we would then be in a position to intelligently discuss v,ucl vote upon the question. Now, we are not. Vl e find that there is more than one route mentioned. The1e ought to be something definite upnn that point. We ought also to know what are the nature and extent of the resources of the particular district which this rail­way is intended to traverse. There is a good deal of information, which would certainly be obtained for us hy a >elect committee, and which wonld enable us to vote intelli­gently upon the me:1sure. I submit, there· fore, that, if the bon. gentleman in charge of the Bill is desirous of carrying on the business uf the country in a common-sense, legitimate f,.shion, he will assent to this amendment. If, on the other hand, he is going to adoJ,t the high, handed action of a Caesar, and is simply going to dump his measures down upon the tab!e of the House without condescending to give any ir,formation, "ithont condescending to let us have the ~lightest enlightenment on them, then he will refuse to consent to the amendment; bnt I submit that if he does that, he will be violatin:; the very fin;t principles of parliamentary govern­ment, which Iequire that Parliament should have all the information which is possible to be obtained, so that, upon any given subject, it may give an intelligent decision. Now, I have no desire to unduly protract this debate--

An HoNOURABioE :MEMBER: Go on. Mr. STE\VAR'l': But the matter seems to be

of ,-ery gn•at importance. lYir. BRIDGES: Now you have ttlmost con­

verted us, why not take a vote? Mr. STl~W ART: 'l'he hon. member says now

that we have converted the hon. gentlemen op]'osite, why do not we take a vote? I do not know whether the hon. gentlemen are converted or not. If the Minister for llailways will turn his face this way, and signify that he agrees to the a,mendment, I can assure him that the di~cussion will stop at once, so far as I am concerned.

Mr. BurDGES: He is only one. Mr. STEW ART : I have yet to learn that

the hon. member for Nundah has usurped the functions of the Hon. the Minister for Hail ways.

Mr. DA WSON : You do not know him yet. Mr. STEW ART: I c<rtainly do not think the

hon. member has. I would be very gh;d if the hon. member for Nundah would vote with us, but we "hall want more than the hon. member's vote to carry this amendment.

Mr. BRIDGES : There are plenty of us. Mr. STEW ART: I think I am jusiifi'd in

coming to the conclusion that we have not yet converted the hon. gentlemen opposite.

Mr, BoLES: Hear, hear! J'vir. STE\V AR'r: I am sorry to hear the hon.

member for Port Ourtis say, "Hear, hear." It is an evidence to me that he has degenerated. I know that at one time in his political career he would have scouted, he would have scorned the very idea of swallowing a Bill like this upon the meagre information that we have before us, and no hon. member in this Chamber would haYe been ],,uder in his demand for a select committee than the hon. gentleman, but because, forsooth, the railway is m his own eh·ctorate, everything must go to the winds-everything must be

Oallide (9 0CTOBER.j Railway Bill. 1237

whistled to the winds, because a meeting in Gladstone has declared in faYour of the rail­way, _an~ has _also cenHnred the Labour party for stJClnng to 1ts platform, which the hon. mem­ber who has just interjected has not done; and we must refrain from oppnsing this measure or from criticising or asking for more informa­tion. But we are not bound tr; do that, although the hon. gentleman may feel himself constrained to do so. \V e have made certain pledges to our constituente, and we must abide bv them or t.ake the consequences. One thing that we have bound ourselves to do more than any other is to see that the interests of the colony do not suffer, and we mURt have all the information ~hat can he obtained upon the particular Aubject m hand before we are asked to give a decision. That is the position I take up. I think it is absolutely necessary ; and, indeed, so far as I nm c0ncerned, I really cc•uld not pretend to vote intelligently upon this Bill without having that information. If I vote "Yes" for a p •rt'icnlar clause, I may be doing the community an injustice. If I vote "No" on some other claure I m"y be dning the syndicate an injustice · and all for lack of information. I sny let us 'have this information. Let us not depnrt from what is the custom in the other colonies, and in every country, and which has been the custom in this colony np to this date, or since I remember. At least, there is no record, so br as I can gather of nny private Bill being introduced-- '

The SPEAKER: Order ! Mr. STEW ART: -Which was not referred to

a select committee. The SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member

is not in order in referring "o the Bill before the House as " privnte Bill. The House has nlrea.-ly decided that. it is a public Bill. '

Mr. ST1<~WART: I recognise that I was in err~1r in referring to the Bill as a private Bill, s•.•emg that the House has said that it is some­thing else. The House has snid this is "' public Bill, and I quite recognise thnt we must not cn,ll it a priv,te Bill, but then it appen,rs to me that it is different from the ordinary public Bill. The ordinary puhlic 13ill refers' to the entire colony. If we build a railway, for inst>tnce, hetween Gladstone and Rocldmmvton the re· &onrce• of the whole of the colony are <lrawn n pon to build teat railwny. nnd we are all responsible for any loss which may be incurred in the running of it, and we all benefit by any g-ain whichnuyaccrue. B!'t in so far as this railway is not to he built w1th State money; that any loss on its running­is to be sustained by priv»te individuals, and that any gain upon its running- is to gr> into the pockets of private individu"ls, this Bill is in th~t s•ms~ different from the ordinary public ra1lway B1ll. \Ve ought to be more careful in dealing with a Bill of this char ·cter thnn even with l1 public railway Bill, because while in the case of a State milway Bill we have reports from the Commissioner, the engineer, and other public officials, nnd various sources of information to enable us to come to a conclusion npon it here we have nothing. The Railway Commis: sioner m;d other officials make no report, and the syndwate m::tkes no report. It simply nmkes certai1; statements in the prenmhle of the Bill, on winch we must take the word of the syndi­?ate or ~·f the Secretary for Railways, for there 1s no evHlence cell<cd in support of those state­ments. If this House h"'d n,ny respect for itself it would object to go on with this Bill without the inform~tion that is asked for. If there was that freedom amongst members thnt there ought to be, and if we had pn,rliamentary fOVernment here as it ought to exist, a n10a.~nre of thi.~ character, without infonnation being tendered with respect to it, nnd in faet with thnt infor­mation absolutely refused, would never he

permitted to pass. Members who allow this measure to go through without that informatiorl are guilty, if not of a crime, certainly of what I conceive to be malfen,sance of duty. They are simply decidinf( the queAtion without having heard t!.e evidence. That is not a desirable position for any as"emhly of representative men to occupy, and it is a position that this Chamber ought not to be asked to occupy, If the hon. gentleman in charge of this measure had nny respect for hon. members, or any respect for government by Parliament, he would never ask us to acc~pt this measure in this fashion; but he would table all the information available to enable hon. members to come to an intelligent conclusion, and he would then ask them for their verdict. Instead of that he comes forward with the bare bald Bill and refuses information. That is an extraordinary position for the bon. gentleman to ta,ke up. Hon. gentlemen opposite may be gifted with second sight, and ml1y have thi" information; but they should have some consideration for members on this side who are not so fortunate. We do not profess to be able to see through a brick wall.

Mr. DAWSON: We can't see what isn't there. Mr. STEW ART: At nny rate we do not

pmfess to see what does not come within the scone of our vision.

Mr. DAWSON: Or to know what doesn't exist. Mr. STEW ART: I will not eay that certain

things do not exist. \Ve know that coalmines exist at Callide, that there is a proposal to build a railway from Glarlstone to Callide Creek, and we know that there is a certain syndicate pre­pared to builcl it. \V e know these things in a vague indistinct fashion. But we want some­thing concrete. \Ve want something we can tn,ste, touch, and bundle. \Ve want information in conneotion with this measure, which I have no doubt a select committee would be ahle to get for us. I would like some hon. member on the other side to get up and say why he opposes the appointment of this committee. With the exception of the Secretary for Railways, no hon. m"mher on the other side has got up to say why this amendment should not tJe agreed to. ~h. BoLrs: You won't give them"' chance. l\1 r. STR\VART: Hon. members opposite

have had chance after chance, and even the hon. member hirnsdf, who is the member for th:tt district in which it is proposed to construct this railway, has given us no reasons why this select committee should not be appointed. If there is a member in thiR Chamber who should get up and demand a select committee on this Bill it is that hon. member. He is in fn,vour of this Bill.

He tells us that his constituents are [10 p.m.] in favour of it. If he is so confi-

dent that it will be a good bargain for the Sbte and the syndic:.te then he should welcome investigation. Not only that, but he should demand investigation. The more a good cnse is investigated the better it will appear. The hon. g"ntleman would be placing himself, his cun&tituents, and the syndic::tte on a foundation of rock if he demanded investi­gation. But he doPs not. \Vhat conclusion cnn I draw from his actions? Only thnt the hon. gentleman, knowing that he has a bad case, is determined to bnrke investigation. No man with a bad case likes in ,·estigatinn. He wravs the veil of secrecy round it and refnses to raise the curtain. On the other hnnd, I have nlways observed that when a man has a good ca.-.e he welcmnes investigation, bec:<luse he knows perfectly well that the more his case is investi­gnted the better it willnppel1r in the eyes of the public.

Mr. BoLES: Your oiJject is to block the Bill. ~1r. D.nvsoN: Nonsense!

1238 Oallide [ASSEMBLY.] Railway Eill.

Mr. STE\VART: The hon. member is not entitled to assume that that is my object.

Mr. Rroos : It is a positive insult. Mr. BoLES : I am only going by your leader's

own statement. Mr. STE\V ART: I do not know what the

hon. gentleman is going on at all. I only know that he is not entitled to assume that my inten­tion is to bl<lCk the Bill. If this sort of thing wem carried on in the everyday affairs of life, where would we be? What figures we would cut. \Ve would be acting like children.

Mr. CAMPBELL : You are doing that now. Mr. STI~W AHT: Sn[Jposing the hon. member

for Port Curtis wanted to sell me a house at Gladstone, which he thought worth £500. I ask him how many rooms it contains, and he says, "Oh, you want to know too much ; you do not want to buy the house at all." I think, under such circumstances, I would come to the con­clusion that the hon. gentleman was an exceed· ingly bad business man, and that he was desirous of taking me in-that he wanted me to "buy a pig in a poke." If the hon. gentleman had something re~tlly good to sell he would say, "The house has so many rooms ; there is so much land attached to it; and you had better come up to Gladstone and examine it for vourself."

The SPEAKER : I must ask the hon. gentle­mrm to come back to the question before the House.

Mr. ~:r'EW AR'l.' : I was merely illustrating the positiOn as between the State and the syndi­cate when compared with a matter of business between two privatf> individualil.

The SPEAKER: 'rhe hon. gentleman has used that argument in illustration numbuless times within the last hour.

Mr. S'l.'EW ART: I was not sensible that I had used it numberless times, but if I h~t,-e repeated the same argument, perhaps it would be as well to use some other. I might have used it more than once, but I would not have repeated it if hon. gentlemen opposite would li,ten in silence instead of interjecting, and attempting to throw me off my track. Now, I make <me more appeal to the hon. gentleman in cha.rge of this Bill to agree to the amendment and give us the information we desire. I say he is bound to give it, and if he refuses it we would not be justified, even if we favoured the Bill and had voted for its second reading, in passing it through committee. I think it is absolutely essential that the Bill should be referred to a select committee in order that there may be placed in our hands the moat reliable information obtainable.

Mr. DA WSON: I desire to make a few observations on this question, and I may say that I have no desire to detain the House for long, or to make members angry by repeating arguments that they have heard over and over again. But there is one thing very apposite to which I would like to draw your attention to, Mr. Speaker, and, through you, the attention of the hon. member for Port Cnrtis. That hon. member seems to have got it into his mind that every hon. member who opposes this particular concession has got a special enmity to his district, and that any objections that may be urged against the terms of the Bill are nrged because hon. members desire to see that dis­trict remain undeveloped, and because they have a real down on the hon. member's district. That is a peculiar position for the hon. mem­ber to take up, because some lit.tle time ago he used to give hon. members on this side credit, even when he thought they were wrong, for holding honest opinions and for honestly stating them. But now, because he has got a proposal in his own particular district, he has come to the conclusion that every body on this side of the House is simply dishonest, and that the

real reason why they urge any objection to his pet scheme is because they object to the develop­ment of his district.

Mr. BoLES: I said I was simply going upon what your leader said on the second reading.

l\lr. DA WSON : Surely to goodness the hon. member has been long' enough in Parliament, and long enough used to party politics, to know that on this kind of thing every member is not responsible for the statements that may be made by the leader of his party! I would ask the hon. member if he is willing to take the responsibility of the utterances of his own leader, the hon. member for Toowoomba? I would a"k the hon. member w hetber he is willing to acce1,t the responsibility of the utterances of that hon. member if he should make a speech in this House to-morrow? '\-Vhat is the use of the hoB­member saying that because one member of a party ha[Jpens to say something the whole of that party are supposed to hold a similar opinion? I ask the hon. member now, what is tne particular statement that was made by the leader on this side of the House which has so incensed him? If the hon. membc·r will let me know the particular statement he complains of, I shonld be only too willing to do my best to give him an explanation, which, if not quite satisfactory, at any rate would be truthful.

'rhe SPEAKJUt : Order ! Mr. DA WSON: I should like to satisfy the

bon. member, if it is not against the Standing Orders. I have always been known as ttn obli,­ing person, and, if the hon. member is not quite sure what the statement is, perhaps he might move the adjournment of the House to-morrow to refer to it. I do not ask him to give the par­ticular words, so long as I get the idea that the hem. member objects to.

The SPEAKEH,: Order! Mr. DA WSON: ·while the hon. member is

looking that matter up, I will go on with another aspect of the question, because I can revert to this again. The object that the hon. member for Rockhampton seeks to attain, I understand, in moving this amendment is that the fullest po,sible information should be supplied to hon. members before they are called upon to decide whether the construction of this railway is justi­fiable or not. I think that is a very reasonable request. So far as public railways are con­cerned, the usual procedure is that the Secretary for Railways is compelled, before this House is asked to take any action, to lay on the table of the House the plan, section, and book of reference of the proposed railway, together with the reports from the rail way officials.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: This line has not been surveyed.

Mr. DA WSON: If the hon. gentleman had not been reading the report of the Works Com­mission, but had been lisLening to me, he would have understood what I said. If this railway had been proposed by the Government, the hon. gentleman would have been compelled to lay on the table of the House for the information of hem. members, the plan, section, and book of reference, together wiLh the reports of the Engineer-in-Chief, the surveyor, nnd the Com­missioner for Railways. That would have been the first step, and, even after that information had been supplied, it is competent, under our Standing Orders, for any member to move-and it is the usual practice for anything like a reasonable requeo,t to be acceded to by the Government-that the proposal be referred to a select committee, to collect evidence, and fnrnish a r~port to the membf·rs of this Chamber. Even after it leaves this Chamber, being a pnblic railway, [lnd goes to another place, it is absolutely neeessary-there is no option at all-for it to be referred to a select

Oallirle [9 OcToBER.] Railway Bill. 1239

committee before they can entertain it at all; so that, so far a' the f!eneral public is concerned in the construction of a public mil way-that is, a rail way constructed by the Rail wac' Depart­ment, and under the cont.rol, and maintained by the State--we have ample safeguards, and we have all possible avenues of information open to us. But, when it comes to a private railway­that is, a railway that is c1lled a public railway, hut wLich is to be owned by priv.tte persons-we are not supplie£1 with any of this information at all. \Vhere are Lhe phw, section, and book of refer­ence? \Vhere is the snrveyor's report? \Vhrre is the re]Jort of the Commissioner for Rnil ways? \Ve havA nothing; no information whatever; 1tnd in the ab8ence of that information I do not think we are jn.-·!ified in inviting peop!P, either insi!le this colony or outside of it, to speculate their monf'Y in building this CalErle railway. vVe have a right to collect all the information that it is possible to collect from our own otfici".l", an£1 to be satisfied in om· own minds that the construction of this rail way has a possibility of paying expenses. Otherwise, we are not justified either in buiJ,'ing it ourselves or allowing any­body else to build it. That is the actitude T assume on this subject. I know the :\linister for Hail ways has laid it dmvn as "' dcctrine that the more you prove the impossibility of a line payillg the more you shonld approve of a priv:tte syndi­co.te constructing that r:1ilw>ty. I absolutely dissent from that doctrine. I say that, :cfter collecting all the infnrmation that it is possible for us to collect from respomible officials, there is a possibility of developing the country the railway will traverse-a possibility of paying the cost of construction and maintenance of tlw railway-it should be hnilt, owned, and controlled by the State. If, after that information is collected, it is seen there is n<>t n possibility of that bf'ing done, I say the State has not any ri,;ht at all to induce other people to put their money in in order to lm'e it. I dissent entirely from the dic'um of the Minister for Railways that it is a person'e own fault if he goes into "bad specu­lation. vVe have a right, as far as we po,;"ibly can, t0 protect the investor who desires tn invest his capital in this colony. It is not only the railway we have ,to consider. It is the peO)Jle who may invest, say, in this Callide railw~ty. We have to consider the influence they will exercif:;e, snppo~ing their speculation turns out barl, and suppo.<ing they know thf'Y have not received the necessary information f10rn the Government of the colony to let them know there was no )1CJ"'ibility of its turning out a paying- speculation.

The SPEAKER : Order ! Mr. DA WSON: Perhaps I may have gone a

little over the border line, hut what I wish to emphasise is that it is our business to protect the credit of the colony.

The SPEAKER: Order ! The hon. member is quite departing from the question before the House.

Mr. DA WSON: I do not know exactly how far I may be permitted to go. 'l.'he amendment is that we should cubmit this to a select committee, the idea being that we should get all possible information on the subject b,v calling witnesses and furnishing a report to l'arliament; ond I am endeavouring, as well as I can-perhaps I may be doing it in a very awkw~trd rrmnner-to point out the great import.auce of this evi!lence being collected s.n£1 this repnrt being furnished to the Chamber. And to my mind-you, Sir, may not agree with me, ~tnd other hon. members may not agree with me-the most important thing tho.t is desired is the saving of the credit of the colony. I was just going tn say, if permitted, that I could furnish a most concrete iliustralion <>f this very thing.

The SPEAKER : Order ! The bon. member is now traversing ground that has already been traver,ed on the second reading. The amend­ment now before the House is to refer the Bill to a selfct committee, and the hon. member is nut in order in reorJening the debate on the general question of State policy.

Mr. DA \V80N: I have no desire wh~ttever to renpen a second rending dehate on th.e rneasure. I did not speak on the sec·md readmg, and I thought it was competent for me to give my own reasons whv this select committee shoul<l be appointed. H<;wever, as you, Sir, seem to hold a different opinion, I will not pursue that subject further, exCclpt to say t.hat my stro:1gest . argu­ment in f~tvonr of the select com1mttee IS the saving of the public credit of the colony. There is just one matter in thi-• connection th tt I would like to dmw attention to. It has been urged, since this ~1mendment was moved, that, after all, this so-cal!etl railw.ty is only a tramway. '!.'here is a vast difference between a rail way and a t.ramway. The statement of the Th1inister for Railways is true to the extent that this is a railway to be constructed by certain mineowners in order to develop their own property and to get the product of their mines to the coast. But it means lllt>re than that. It means that they deal with the geneml public just as a State railway would do. They carry produce for private individuals, they carry passenger><, and they arP permitterl to charge not only the price the H.ailway Commissioner would cbarge1 but 25 per cent. over. On the other hand, li1 no singiA Tmmway Act on our st1tt>;'e-book are the proprietors allowed to deal _with the g_et;eral public; and I draw the attention of the Mnuster for R,tilw<1YS to that bet. Every Tramway Act that has been passed sinCl' Queenslan£1 has had a Parliament ha' been strictlv confined to the carrying of material and go.ods for their own mines and for nobody else. In this case tbey are catering for the J.JUblic, which makes all the difference.

The SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member must see that the question of the difference between a tramway and a railway has nothing wbo.tever to do with the amendment before the House. The hon. member's remarks are entirely out nf order.

Mr. DA \VSON: I have no desire to raise a discussion on the matter ; but on

[10"30 p.m.] thiq debate the Minister for Rail­ways raised the question, though he

had been already corrected. He had not taken the lAsson to heart ..

The SPEAKER: Order! Though the hon. member has no desire to raiee a debate, he is initiatin.r a matter that will necessarily give rise to debate, and the hon. member will not be in order in discussing the difl'erence between a railway and a tramway on the question now before the Home.

Mr. DA WSO:\f : I have no desire to pursue that. The first point I m>tde was that I thought it was eminently de«iral,le that before we went into the sc:rious discnssion of any of these par­ticular Bills, we shonld be pnt in possession of all the information obtainable, and the very best means of obtaining that inforrn1ttion is by a selEct committee. Of course there is the method of getting information by means of a Royal Commission, but that does not sit as a gener~l rule during the sitting of the House, and that 1s rather a cumbersome method. '!.'ne fact that the hon . .gentleman in charge of the Bill presses it so much is proof that he considers it of great importance, and that being sn, I should like to know why he objects to obtaining the latest ~tnd fullest information. Is he afraid of information? Is the member whose district is concerned-is

1240 Oallide Railway Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Adjournment.

he afraid that if witnescleo are called and cross­examined by members of this Chamber their evidence, when submitted to this Chamber, will not bear examination ? If he is not afraid of that, why does he object to this select committee being appointed? If they have a good ca'e they ought to court investigation. The man who has a nugget of gold is not afraid of the retort-he puts it in cheerfully; but if he has something that is 1 part gold and 5 parts copper it is a very difffrent matter, and it appears to me that this Bill is somewhat similar. I would just like to draw attention to a paragraph here. This is "Knight's Store of Knowledge," and I think this will show conclusively the absolute need, when the preamble of a Bill is doubted, of refer­ring it to a select committee. Other bun. mem­bers have doubted tbe preamble of this Bill, and I think they have made out a very good ca-e against the truthfulness o£ that preamble ; at any rate there is a dispute about it. It says here-

If the committee allow that the allegations of the preamble have been proved, they proceed to consider the Bill clause by clause. But before we quit the sub­ject of the preamble, the modern practice concerning railway Bills may be adverted to. rrhere are so many grounds upon which the preamble mn.y fail to be provedJ and so many points on whi.ch the committee should be informed before a just decision ca.n be given, that in 18~6 a rule was established which obliges the committee to report in detail. On recclving the report the Hom:,e is now acquainted with the chief particulars from which the expediency of the measure ma:r be collected. The length of the line-the probable expense of the works, and the sufficiency of the estimates-the revenue expected from passengers and from agricul­tural produce or mercl:andise, with the grounds of the calculati.on-the engineering ditliculties-the graclient& aud curves, are nll distinctly ~tated. This system mh;ht be extended with great advantage to other classes or Bills; but it is confined at present to railway Bills alone. Now, this is a work writlen on private Bills, and this is the kind of information insisted upon by the English House of Commons ; and if they insist upon having that information in England, where the railways have always been constructed by private enterprise, surely to goodness, whe.n we are going to inaugurate the very same system, the least we can do is to copy them in regard to insisting upon all that kind of information being supplied. And how are we going to get it unless we have this select committee? Are we going to get it by CJ.Uestioning the Minister for Rail­ways? I would not insist upon appointing the select committee if the hon. gentleman would promise that by way of question we could get the information from him bPfore we were asked to go into committee 0n this Callide Railway Bill. Will the hon. gentleman furnish the information ?

Mr. LEAHY : Yes. Mr. DA WSON: The hon. member for Bulloo

says, " Yes." He is the Minister in the wind. The only object I have in view is to be supplied with the necessary information. I could read other passages-I have them marked--but I have no desire tc~ detain hon. members by reading them. I tbmk, however, that we are entitled to the kind of information that is supplied to the House uf Commons in regard to private railways in I~nglancl, and we ought certainly to be sup­plied with all the in formation furnished to hon. members when the :Minister is putting State railways before the House.

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the CJ.uestion-put; and the House divided :-

Ans,30. Me~srs. Philp, Rutledge, Diekson, Mnrray, O'Connell,

Foxton, Dalryrnple. Newel!. Co\Vlfly, C~lllan, Curtis, Boles, I.ea.hy, l~ors}'th, 1\r. rrhorn, Rates, Keogh, Btory, :M:oore, Armstrong, Campbell, Stepllcnson. Lord, Iranrun, J. Hamilton, Bridges, rr . .U. Cribb, Stodart, Grimes, and G. Thorn.

No,;s, 23. Messrs. Fil:lher, Lesina, Dawson, Hardacre, Browne,

Fitzaera1d Kidstoo, McDonald, Dunsford, Bowman, Rehf, Ker~·. Jackson. Glvens, Dibley, VV. Har~ilton, Ryland, Maxwell, Higgs, Jenkinson, Stewart, 1urley, and 1\!IcDonnell.

PAIR.

Aye-)Ir. Smith. ~o-Mr. Fogarty. Resolved in the affirmative. TheSJ~ORETARY FOR RAILWAYS: Mr.

Speaker,-I beg to move that you do now leave the chair.

Mr. BROWNE : I have no intention of detaining hon. members or of raising a discus­sion ; but I want to offer one reason why I object to your leaving the chair and the House going into committee on this Bill to-night, and that is because I think there is a better way out of the difficulty, especially in view of the notice of motion that we have heard this afternoon from the Government. ·

The SPEAKER : OrdBr ! Mr. BROWNE: I am giving a reason why I

think we sbould not go into committee on this Bill now. I say there is a better way out ~f the difficulty, On behalf of the party of whwh I have the honour to be leader, I can guarant€e that every member of the Labour party will assist the Government to get on with the business mentioned in the Governor's Speech and the Estimates, and then we are prepared to go to the country straightaway on the direct question of these privatesyndicaterailway proposals. That is as fair as I can put it. I don't want any discus­sion on the matter to-night; but that is the position we take up. If hon. gentlemen opposite are confident that the country is with them on these railway proposals, there is a direct challenge. I don't wish to delay business; and I am quite prepared to carry out the pledge I made on the first day of the session when I assumed the leadership of this party-that I would assist the Government in every shape and form in passing important and desirable l<:gisla­tion, but I also said I would do everytbmg to prevent these private syndicate railway Bills be­coming law. I have now thrown down the gage of batt:e, and I think the Government should accept that gage, and after. passing necessary legislation, go to the country, so that we may see who are in favour of these private syndicate railways and who are not.

MEMnllRS of the Opposition : Hear, hear! Mr. J. HAMIL'rON: Take just the business

you want. Question-That the Speaker do now leave the

chair-put and passed.

COMi\!ITT!lE. The PREMLB~R: The House had heen four

or five days trying to get into committee on this Bill, but he thought nothing would be gained by going on with business at that h0ur. He there­fore moved that the Chairman leave the chair, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Question put and passed ; and the Committee obtained leave to sit again to-morrow.

AD.JOURNMFJNT. The PREMIER: I move that the House do

now adjourn. The first business to-rnonow will be my motion to amend the Standing Orders. The leader of the Opposition made a very brave offer just now, when he stated that we should put through the business he wanted put through--

Mr. BuoWN!l: No; that you wanted put through.

The PREMIER: And that he would then be prepared to go to the country. I can only say thttt when a Government find that they are

Judicature Bill. [10 OCTOBER.]

unable to get through any business at all they are not justified in retaining office, but I am going to use every constitution<>! means in my power to carry on the business of the country.

Mr. DA WSON : You promised two Bills last year.

The PREMIER : I did; I have promised a good many Bills, and I am prepared to carry them through the House, but the Government cannot be dictated to by tbe minority in this House as to what business they shall put through, and what business they shall not put through.

MEMBhJl\S on the Government side: Hear, hear!

The PREMIER: They are quite prepared to go to the country when there is need to do so, but at the present time we have a substantial majority in this House, and there is no sign that the country want the present Government to resign. It is quite the reverse; as far as I can see, the country are very anxious that we should put through the legislation we have now;n hand. It will do a great deal of good to the country, and we purpose going on with it.

MElfBJ<JRS on the Government side : Hear, hetr!

Question put and passed, and the House adjourned at eight minutes to ll o'clock.

lieaith Bill. 1241