V0\8



v-Z



-.-IL








5
1
6

4 :
9 ■
6 I



■ 33

■ "^

• Q

• o



Queensland, Governor.

Queensland. Correspondence
respecting the reserved bill
for abolition of the legis-
lative council.




>'rl



n




'..




i



QUEENSLAND.



CORRESPONDENCE

RESPECTING THE

RESERVED BILL

FOR

ABOLITION of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.



Presented to Parliament by Command of His MajeMy.

April, 1922.




LONDON:
PUBLISHED BY HIS MA.IESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.



To be purcliased tlirougli :iuy Bookseller or directly from
II. Af. STATIONEKY OEFU'E at the followiiif: aiKlresses:
Imvkhiai, liorsE, Kincjsway, I.on-hon. W.C.2. and J.S. Aiunodon Stkeet, Lo\noN, S.W.I;

37, I'ETEK SXKtET, M.\NCHE.STEU ; 1, St. ANDKEWS OkE.-^CENT, CARDIFF;
'-'.'), FollTIl StKKET, ]".I)IX1U itr.H ;

..!■ from EASON & SON, Ltd., 40 & 41, Lowkk S.\ck\it.i.k Strbbt, Dublin.



1922.
[Cmd. 1629.] Price One Shilling Net.



TABLE OF CONTENTS.



No. 1.— Despatch from the Governor. 1st December, 1921. Trans-
mits with relative papers, Eeserved Bill to amend the
Constitution of Queensland by abohshing the Legislative
Council, and reports generally on the situation.

No. 2.— Despatch to the Governor. 11th March, 1922. In reply
to No. ], transmits an Order of the King in Council,
declaring His Majesty's assent to the Reserved Bill.



OUEENSLAND.

COllllKSPONDENCE RESPECTING THE RESERVED
BILL FOR ABOLITION OF THE LEGISLATIVE
COUNCIL.

No. 1.

The Governor to the Secretary of State.

( Received lOlh Januari/ , 1922.)

Government House,

Brisbane,

Isi December, 1921.
Sir,

I have the honour to forward herewith for the signification of His
Majesty's pk^asure thereon, a Parchment copy of a Bill to Amend the
Constitution of Queensland by Abolishing the Legislative Council
{'■ The Constitution Act Amendment Bill of 1921 "), which passed
through both Houses of the Parliament of Queensland in their recent
Session. I also transmit 20 copies of the Bill and for convenience of
reference a full re[)ort on the debate which took place on the 24th,
25th and 26th October, extracted from the Hansard Report.
(Enclosure 2.)*

2. The Bill as originally introduced was intended to abolish by its
second clause the Legislative Council, membership of that Council,
and all Offices in or in connection with it, and to make Parliament
consist of The King and the Legislative Assembly only. The third
clause, subsequently removed from the Bill as explained below, estab-
lished a standing Revisory Committee of the Legislative Assembly to
ensure that the provisions of any Bill were a clear expression of the
will and intention of Parliament, and that so far as it dealt with existing
legislation, it dealt with it clearly and effectively. The fourth clause,
which subsequently became the third, was to preserve to existing mem-
bers during life, or for a period to be notified, certain privileges, of which
the principal were a free railway pass, and the use of the Parliamentary
Library. The fifth clause, which subsequently became the fourth,
re[)ealed enactments or privileges inconsistent with legislation by a
Parliament constituted as was to be provided for by the second clause.

3. The first debate on the Bill (i)p. 1729 to 1744 of Hansard Report)
was on the Preinier's motion in the I^egislative Assembly on October
24th that the Committee of the whole House should consider the
desirableness of introducing the Bill. In this debate the two sections
of the Opposition took different lines, the Country Party, which
constitutes the larger section, accepting the abolition of the Council
with a view to the substitution therefor of an elective body on a
restricted franchise, and the Nationalist Party desiring to retain the

* Not printed.
(b 3-213)q a 2



Council, and to reform it on an ekctive basis with an adult franchise.
The Country Party made clear that their acceptance of the proposal
for abolition was to get rid of the difficulty and delay which a Council
with a hostile majority would, in the event of a change of Government,
interpose in the way of reform. They did not make equally clear how
they would restrict the franchise for the election of the Council,
though they stated that it was to be open to every adult resident
British subject having the qualification of a real interest in the State
by payment of rates, taxes, rent or otherwise. The Nationalist Party
thought the reconstitution of a Council would be more difficult to effect
than its reform, and that a vote for abolition would show hostility to
the bicameral system, in which system they strongly believed as a
guarantee against hasty and ill-considered legislation, and would fur-
ther be in opposition to the direct vote of the people, which by a
majority of close on 63,000 had shown itself against abolition when the
question had been referred to them in 1917. They ]3roposed that the
reformed Council, elected by adult franchise, should consist of 30
members, three from each of the 10 federal electoral divisions, and that
it should have the same powers as now. Both sections of the Opposi-
tion voted against the closure of the debate, which the Government
carried on two occasions by 35 to 33 votes. The Country Party
amendment was supported by their full strength of 21 (less 1 absent),
and opposed by 35 of the Government and 5 of the Nationalist Party,
the other Nationalists not voting. The Nationalist Party's amend-
ment was defeated by 45 votes (35 Government and 10 Country Party)
to 15 (13 Nationalists and 2 Northern Country Party), and the Govern-
ment resolution to consider the Bill was carried against the same
minority by 52, consisting of 35 out of the 37 Government, and 17 out
of the 21 members of the Country Party. The first reading was carried
by 51 votes to 14.

4. On the following day the Premier moved the second reading
in a speech (pp. 1772-1780 of Hansard Report), in which he said that
the Legislative Council, introduced as a check on democracy, was
either an obstruction to the Assembly, in which case it was an evil, or an
echo of that body, in which case it was a superfluity. It might be the
former if the Council were elected on a restricted fi'anchise, against
which Mr. Theodore quoted authorities and warnings, or if, owing to a
longer tenure of Office, the Council dififered in its political character
from the Assembly, and it might be the latter if there were no such
difierence in constitution or tenure. With appeals to the people not
less than once in three years there could be no danger to their interests
in a unicameral system. He then went on to state that the aboUtion
of the Council played a very prominent part in the election campaign
of the Labour Party in 1915, when they swept the polls. There was no
campaign before the 1917 referendum in the matter, the party being
then engaged on the federal election which took place on the same day.
At the referendum also the question was not clearly put, and the
matter was further confused by the action of the Licensed Victuallers'
organisations in connection with a poll for the reduction of licences also



held on tliat day. At any rate, when the same question of abohshing
the Council was made a prominent issue in the 1918 campaign the pohcy
was unanimously endorsed, and in the 1920 election, when the National-
ist and the Country Parties came out with a policy of Council reform,
38 out of the 72 constituencies endorsed the Labour Party's ])rogramme,
wiiicli included abolition. Dealing next with the constitutional
asj)ect, the Premier pointed out that since the passing of the 1908
Constitution Amendment Act, held by the High Court of Australia
to be a vahd and eft'ective Act of Parliament, a simple majority in both
Houses could amend the Constitution Act, and this opinion was sup-
ported by the decision of the Privy Council in the McCawlay case
that no special formalities were required in order to secure an effective
amendment of the Constitution. The Premier maintained that
though the abohtion of the Legislative Council was an innovation in
Queensland, it was not so elsewhere— that seven out of the nine
provinces of Canada had single Chambers — that in South Africa the
Provincial Councils were unicameral — that the complete abolition of
the House of Lords had been seriously contemplated in England.
He dismissed the argument of the alleged danger to the community
from the abolition, by pointing out that generally the poUcy of Govern-
ments was held by Oppositions to be dangerous and pernicious, but a
majority partv was bound to carry its policy into effect if it was honest
and courageous. He held that the interests of the people would be as
well safeguarded by a Parliament consisting on one Chamber, as by a
Parliament consisting of two Chambers, and that there would be in
favour of the former system an advantage, inasnmch as legislation
could be dealt with with despatch, without delay, and with less expense.
While the Council had from time to time made alterations in legislation,
some of them perhaps beneficial, these alterations had been more or
less verbal, and provision was made in the Bill for a standing Advisory
Committee, which would perform all the useful functions of the Council
in that direction. In the past the Council had done more harm by their
amendments than good. He absolutely and em])hatically denied the
allegation that the Abolitiou Bill had been introduced at the present
juncture at the instigation of any Labour Conference, and he appealed
to those members of the Opposition, who had stated at one time or
another that they would like to see the Council abolished, to support
the Bill. On the statement that had been made that the Bill was only

being introduced because it was known that the Governor would not

....

assent to it, the Premier stated that, under the provisions of the
Austrahan States Constitution Act of 1907, the Governor must reserve
the Bill for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure, and expressed
the hope that the ])oliticians within or without Parliament would not
attem})t to influence the King in the exercise of his discretion as
regards assenting to the Bill. It was not for the Imperial Authorities
to consider whether what the Queensland Parliament proposed to do
with respect to the abolition of the Legislative Council was a wise
course ; that was a matter for the Parliament itself in the first instance,
and then for the electors, who could correct what they might consider
to be a mistake, on the next appeal to the j^eople. There was not the

(b 3-213)q a 3



slightest ground for any interference on the part of the Imperial
Authorities, and, in his opinion, it was inconceivable that the Imperial
Authorities would interfere. (A prominent member of the Nationalist
Party interjected by saying that he quite agreed with the Premier
that they should settle their own affairs.) The Premier concluded by
referring to Lord Carnarvon's despatch, dated the 27th March, 1877,
from which he inferred that there was to be no exercise of the preroga-
tive to withhold assent to a Bill that dealt with a subject of purely
internal concern, and expressed the hope that the Bill would not only
pass through Parliament in a constitutional way, but that it would
receive assent when it was reserved for the signification of His Majesty's
pleasure. He moved the second reading.

5. The Leader of the Country Party (Mr. Vowles, p. 1780) followed
by justifying his Party in voting for the Bill, in spite of the 1917
referendum, by the change that since then had been made in the
constitution of the Council which resulted in their being dominated by
an outside authority. He gave an assurance that it was not his inten-
tion as leader of the Country Party to send any Memorial against the
Bill to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He was, indeed, going
to vote in favour of clause 2, which provided for the abolition of the
Council, but against clause 4, which rewarded the persons who had been
put into the Upper House for their political perfidy by giving them
privileges for the whole of their lives. The Leader of the Nationalist
Party (Mr. Taylor, p. 1782) did not contest the constitutionality of
the proceedings by which it was proposed to abolish the Council. He
took, however, the strongest possible objection to the proposal to give
free railway passes and other advantages for life to those who went into
the Legislative Council with the specific object of abohshing it at the
earliest possible moment. He also objected to the provision in the Bill
to appoint a Revisory Committee, who would no doubt receive payment
in addition to their Parliamentary salaries. He disputed the Premier's
suggestion that the question of abolition had not been clearly put to the
people at the time of the 1917 referendum, when they were told to say
whether they voted for or against the abolition Bill, and decided by
179,105 votes to 116,196 against it, 61 or 62 of the 72 Queensland
electorates thus negativing the proposal. He claimed that there
should be a further referendum now to decide the matter. Like other
members, he thought that they should settle their own national
matters, and not have recourse to Great Britain with regard to them.
A similar view was expressed by Mr. Corser (p. 1784), a Countr}^ Party
member, who stated that he would sooner see this legislation carried into
effect even if it were twice as objectionable than that assent should
be withheld to it on the advice of the Colonial Office. He also objected
to the privileges to be given to existing members of the Council and to
the clause of the Bill dealing with revision of Bills before assent. A
prominent member of the Nationalist Party, Mr. ElphiuvStone (p. 1787),
who was desirous of seeing the abolition of the Council so that the
decks might be clear when the Opposition assumed power in the
Assembly, held that a revising Chamber was absolutely essential imtil



much of tlie jnesent power ol tJic Stalin legislutiire had been usurped
by the Coinuionwealth Parliament. It had been made more so by the
recent trend of events which showed an outside control of Parliament,
in the direction of a system of socialisation of industry and exchange.
He explained the Nationalist Party's pro])OKal for converting the
Legislative Council into an eloctive body, with three members elected
for each of the Federal electoral areas, the Legislative Assembly being
reconstituted at the same time with six State electorates in each Federal
one. The broader area for the Council electorate would ensure a
difference in point of view between the members of the Council and of
the Assembly. Another momber of the Nationalist Party (Mr. Sizer,
p. 1790^ moved that instead of being read a second time the Bill should
be " referred to the people by means of a referendum, for the piu^pose
of securing a definite expression of their will." The motion was duly
seconded and supported by the speeches of several members. In
one of these speeches (p. 1791) there was set against the Premier's
reference to unicameral constitutions the contrary instances afforded
by the new constitutions in Germany, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia and
Jugo-Slavia, as well as the fact that democratic Norway, Switzerland,
Denmark and Sweden had t1ie bicameral system. The right of veto
of the Dominions Parliament in Canada and in the Union Parliament
of South Africa over the legislation of the Provincial Parliaments in
the former and Provincial Council in the latter, made these different to
the position of the Australian States, which were more in that of the
United States, each of which had its two Chambers. The same speaker
(Mr. Swayne) stated that with the abolition of the Council the provision
for a referendum would be lost. After some further repetition of the
arguments of the leaders the debate was clo.sured, and Mr. Sizer's
amendment negatived by 35 votes to 34 in each case. The second
reading of the Bill was carried by 39 votes to 30, the majority
including 4 and the minoritv 17 members of the Country Party
(p. 1798).

0. The two sections of the Opposition voted together against the
motions for closure which punctuated the connnittal, the committ«
and the third reading stages of the Bill ())p. 1799 to 1811). For the
first — the short title clause — ^35 of the Government and 8 of the Country
Party voted against 13 of the Nationalist iuid 9 of the Country Party.
Foi' the second and main o])eiative clause 35 of the (Tovernment
and 16 of the Country Party votx^i against 13 of the Nationalist and
2 Northern Country Party. The tliiid clau.se providing for the re-
vision of bills before assent was dropped without division. On the
fourth, which retained for existing members of the Council certain
privileges, the two sections of the Opposition united, as they did also
on the 5th or repeal clause, but they were defeated by 34 votes to 30
on the former and 34 to 28 on the latter clause. The schedule was
carried by 38 votes to 16, both the majority and the minority including
4 of the Country Party. On the third reading the voting was 36
Government and 10 Country Party against 1 1 Nationalist and 6 Country
Party.

(b 3-213)q a 4



8

7. There was no long debate in the Council except on the second
reading, which the Secretary for Mines (Mr. Jones, p. 1709) introduced
in a short speech faintly reflecting the arguments advanced by the
Premier in the Assembly, and stating that the Council had been obstruc-
tive in the past, was ineffective at the ]n-esent time, and had never
been and was not now a revisory body. He quoted the divisions on
the Bill in the Assembly as making it useless for him to argue the
matter. Six members of the Opposition spoke against the Bill. Mr.
Leahy (p. 1824) laid stress on the 1917 referendum, attempted to
explain the voting in the Assembly, referred to the general concensus
of the countries of the world in the advisability of bicameral Parlia-
ments, quoting the United States of America, Brazil. Ulster, New
Zealand, &c., and maintained that a party had been introduced into
the Council for the express purpose of destroying it, and that its
abolition had been dictated by a body outside Parliament. He
concluded b}^ arguing that if there were only a single chamber it would
be able to do what it thought fit, to prolong the life of Parliament
indefinitely, to raise the salaries of members, to prevent the Auditor-
General giving reports, to control the judiciary, and to carry out the
instructions of the Labour Conference. Di-. Taylor (]). 1828) rehearsed
the constitutional reasons given against the abolition of the Council
when a Bill with that object was introduced in 1917. These reasons,
in so far as they at present apply, are set forth in paragraph 11 of
the Memorial which forms Enclosure 3 to this despatch. Mr. Brentnall
(p. 1834) introduced no new arguments into the debate. Mr. O'Shea
(p. 1848) claimed that the Council had been helpful in the past, and
announced that he would move an amendment in Committee to submit
the Bill to a referendum. Mr. Hawthorne (p. 1852) also dw^elt on the
referendum of 1917, referred to the proceedings of the Privy Council
with reference to the former Abolition Bill, and suggested that the Bill
would not be assented to by His Majesty. Mr. Fowles (p. 1853)
considered that the constitutional point wdiether the Parliament could
abolish the Legislative Council had not been settled by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council which in 1918 had not been called
upon to settle it as the question was then an abstract one owing to the
fact that the Bill which proposed to abolish the Legislative Council
had been rejected at a referendum. He was inclined to think that
the Home Authorities might treat the matter in the same way as they
had done the proposal to abolish the Governor, that is to wait before
giving a decision until the matter was brought up in all the States
affected. Mr. Fowles stated also that there were very few cases in the
civilised world where they had not the bicameral system, and quoted
Mexico and Bidgaria as such cases. No public desire had been ex-
pressed and no mandate given for the abolition against which there
were a variety of arguments which he briefly summed up. One Labour
member, Mr. Page-Hanify (p. 1830) spoke against the Bill because it
had been separated from the Initiation and Referendum Bill which he
stated had always been associated with the abolition of the Council
in the Labour progi'amme. He thought that one chamber without
such control by the people as the Initiation and Referendum Bill



secured would be duugerous. It was not right, in ius view, to legislate
contrarv to the result of the 1917 referendum, nor to legislate with
what he described as unseendy haste.

8. Seven members of the Labour Party in addition to the Minister,
spoke in favour of the Bill. Mr. ColUngs (p. 1830) read the pledge which
bound Labour members on all questions affecting the party platform
to vote as a majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party might decide.
{See Appendi.K B to Enclosure 4 to this despatch.) He looked on the
whole procetlure of the Council as wasteful of time and money and that
the abolition of the Council would be a start in the right direction
and that the example would ultimately be followed throughout Australia.
Until the Council had been rendered ineffective two years ago the Labour
Government had not legislative control of the country and they had not
yet, owing to the way that administrative offices had been filled by
former administrations, complete administrative control. Complete
control by the Labour Government might result in the social reconstruc-
tion, which would entail the horrors of civil war in other countries
including Ireland and Britain, being brought to its culmination in
Australia by tlie ])eaceful methods of evolution. Mr. Bedford (p. 1840)
followed with a republican s])eecli, quoting " A Plea for Parliamentary
Government " by Edward Mellant. Mr. Finlayson (p. 1842) in a speech,
marred by the way in which it was interrupted, spoke of the uselessness
of a body wliich could be manipulated to serve any particular end or
any particular party. The best argument in favour of the abolition of
the Council was that the people were demanding the o])portunity to
get to close grips with the essential things of life, to get rid of aU those
things which interfered with their being able to accomplish what they
desired. The speeches of Mr. Sumner, Mr. Colborne, Mr. Dunstan and
Mr. Thom])son were of less interest than those quoted. The second
reading was carried by 28 votes to 10, the former numln^r re])resenting
all except two of the Labour Party and the latter only about
one-third of the 28 members in the Upper House constituting the
Opposition.

*.). In Conmiittee (pp. 1857 to 1802) the amendment proposed by
Mr. Fowles that the Act should not come into operation until its pro-
visions had been duly submitted to and ratified by a referendum of the
electors of Queensland was defeated by 27 to 9, and one by Mr. O'Shea
embodying all the clauses of the po])ular Initiation and Eeferendum Bill
was ruled out of order. The main oj)erative Clause 2 was then passed
without further division. Clause 3, retaining for members of the
Council their existing privileges, was passed by 28 votes to 6, and
Clause 4 with icgard to repeals was passed without discussion. Mr.
Leahy moved the postponement of the third reading for six months for
the reasons which are embodied in the 1 1th ]>aragraph of the Memorial
forming Enclosure 3 to this despatch. The amendment was negatived
by 28 votes to 8 (p. 1803).

10. On the 3rd November the Attorney-General in reply to my ques-
tion rei)orted that in his opinion 1 was required imder the provisions of



10

" Tlie Australian States Constitution Act, 1907," to reserve the Bill
for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure. On the 10th the noti-
fication that I had so reserved it was published in the Government
Gazette.

11. On the 3rd November the Memorial which forms Enclosure 3
to this despatch was presented to me by the nine members of the
Legislative Council whose names are appended to it. Four of them
had not, for one reason or another, voted when the BiU was before the
Council, and five members of the Coimcil who did vote had not signed
the Memorial. It sets forth the history of the attempted legislation
which led up to the referendimi of the 5th May, 1917, and the result of
that referendum. It refers to the decision of the Privy Council in
March, 1910, as leaving unsettled the question of the validity of any