/
19011004_reps_1_5.xml
3313 lines (3313 loc) · 221 KB
/
19011004_reps_1_5.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1901-10-04</date>
<parliament.no>1</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>5641</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para>House ofRepresentatives. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1901-10-04</day.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker</inline>took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>5641</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>THE FEDERAL CAPITAL</title>
<page.no>5641</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5641</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L17</name.id>
<electorate>DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILKS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr WILKS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I should like to ask the </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Minister for Home Affairs whether he has made any definite arrangements with a view to the selection of the Federal Capital site, and the erection of temporary buildings in time to permit of the Federal Parliament holding its second session in the Federal Capital? </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5641</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate>HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Minister for Home Affairs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM LYNE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have made no definite arrangements, but I hope that it will be possible before the end of the session for members to visit some of the principal sites that are to be submitted for our consideration by the State of New South Wales. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>THE ELECTORAL BILL</title>
<page.no>5641</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5641</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXO</name.id>
<electorate>MARANOA, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PAGE, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr PAGE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I should like to know from the Minister for Home Affairs when we shall get a peep at the Electoral Bill ? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5641</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM LYNE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am pushing the matter on, and I know the AttorneyGeneral is also doing so. I had an interview with the draftsman yesterday, and another one this morning, and I hope that the Bill will be in type next week. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5641</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PAGE, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr PAGE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is it the intention of the. Government to push the Bill through this session 1 </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5641</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM LYNE</name>
</talker>
<para>- That will depend entirely upon the state of public business, but as far as I can push it through I intend to do so. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PACIFIC ISLANDS LABOURERS BILL</title>
<page.no>5641</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5641</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4R</name.id>
<electorate>BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WATSON, John Christian</name>
<name role="display">Mr WATSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I desire to ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he has seen the statement, appearing in the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> this morning in the form of a telegram from Brisbane - evidently on the strength of a communication from Melbourne to Brisbane, giving as the author the name of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Paget,</inline> the member for Mackay, in the Queensland Legislative Assembly - that some of the labour members consider the Pacific Islands Labourers Bill too drastic. I can say distinctly that so far from that being the case, any feeling about the Bill amongst the labour members of this House .is rather in the contrary direction. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5642</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate>BALLAARAT, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Attorney-General</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr DEAKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- J .have observed the statement, but I am .not' aware that there is any foundation for it. 1 do not think that there could be a better authority on that point than the honorable member himself. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>5642</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>RAILWAY PASSES FOB, RIFLEMEN</title>
<page.no>5642</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5642</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- T desire to ask the Minister for Defence if the Government have determined to refuse to issue any free gasses to the members of rifle clubs ? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5642</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFJ</name.id>
<electorate>SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Minister for Defence</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FORREST, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir JOHN FORREST</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Ministry have decided not to pay the State Governments for passes issued to members of rifle associations. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5642</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is to say that if the State Governments will not grant free passes there will be none issued I </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5642</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FORREST, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir JOHN FORREST</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes ; that is the natural inference. I have tried, both officially and personally, to induce the State Governments on this occasion at any rate - there are only two States, Victoria and New South Wales, where rifle matches are pending - to do as they have hitherto done, hoping that before the next matches the whole question may be considered and put upon some satifactory basis. -However, the Premiers of both New South Wales and Victoria refused. I then submitted the matter to the Government, and we have come to the - conclusion that if 'the State Governments will not grant passes to their own people, we are not justified in doing so, seeing that Parliament has not considered the matter, and that there are no funds available for the purpose. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>EXCISE BILL</title>
<page.no>5642</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para class="block">
<inline font-style="italic">In Committee</inline>(consideration of Senate's amendments resumed from 3rd October, <inline font-style="italic">vide</inline> page 5599) : </para>
<para>Clause-66- </para>
<para>The manufacturer shall mark upon every package pf manufactured tobacco cigars cigarettes or snuff his name and address a consecutive number the gross weight of the package and the net weight of the contents before it is removed from the factory. Penalty: £20. </para>
<para> Motion- proposed - </para>
<para>That the committee agree to the Senate's amendment, omitting the words " cigars cigarettes," line 2. </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5642</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEW</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia, Minister for Trade and Customs</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Minister for Trade and Customs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KINGSTON, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr KINGSTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have made further inquiry into this matter,. and I have come to the conclusion that we ought -not to oppose the amendment. I find that it was made in the other House at the instance of the Government, on a report obtained from the chief officer in control of the Excise department, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Ferguson,</inline> who gives reasons for the advice which he tenders. This report is dated 27th September, and is as follows : - </para>
</talk.start>
<para>It litis been pointed out that the provisions of clause 08 could not be carried out without serious inconvenience to the cigar and cigarette manufacturers, and without injuriously affecting those who sold in limited quantities. </para>
<para>I think if the words " cigars cigarettes," were omitted the wishes .of the trade would be met. </para>
<para>Another reason advanced for amendment is that the weight of cigars vary to such an extent that the weight in every single box could not, without incurring delay and trouble, be correctly determined, mid that cigars and cigarettes are sold by the hundred or thousand, not loy weight". </para>
<para>For the same reasons the same words in clause 65 are asked to be struck out. </para>
<para class="block">This, of course, will require the reconsideration of our previous decision upon the' amendment of clause 65. The report proceeds : - </para>
<para>But another clause to the following effect must be added : - " The manufacturer shall, before removal from his factory, mark, brand, or stomp upon every package containing cigars or cigarettes the number of his factory, a number representing the State in which the cigars or cigarettes were manufactured, and the words ' made in the Commonwealth of Australia.' Penalty: £20." </para>
<para>This we have done. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Ferguson</inline> advises that the words "made in the Commonwealth" should be inserted, but I do not think them necessary. He goes on to soy : - </para>
<para>Another clause following the above must be added. "The collector shall forward to each manufacfacturer the number of his factory, and a number representing the State." </para>
<para>Manufacturers in a small- way-say they have good, sale for their cigars to wholesale houses, but their own names being on .the boxes would prejudice such sale. Large houses sell cigars, but they do not wish their customers to know by whom they were made. </para>
<para>Manufacturers seem-to think that if the name of the State were to be branded on each package there would arise on the part of the , public a jealousy, and thus be the means of one State's production carrying, no sale - in the other States. Jealousy will arise when intercolonial trade is free, and at the commencement of the Commonwealth manufacturers think it is better to give each State a number, as is done in America and Canada </para>
<para class="block">It appears, therefore, that the amendments we find here are really fully warranted by the suggestions of the officer. It may be that there ought to be stricter legislation with reference to trade marks, but I think we should deal with that question in a broad and comprehensive way at an early date, and not pass specially disabling legislation with regard to particular trades. The matter is one of the greatest importance, and the sooner we deal with it the better. I can assure honorable members that it is the policy of the Government to take it in hand at the earliest possible date. </para>
<para>An Honorable Member. - What is the objection to putting the name of the State on the package ? </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5643</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEW</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KINGSTON, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr KINGSTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- If we require that, it will cause some trouble, although perhaps to a lesser degree. I do not mind saying that the Government are considerably influenced in dealing with this matter at this particular moment, by the necessity for getting the Bill passed and in working order in time for such action as may be necessary under the proposals to be submitted to the House in the forthcoming week. The Government propose to accept the amendment, and trust they will have the support of the committee. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. MAUGER</inline>(Melbourne Ports).Since last evening I have been communicated with by a number of the journeymen interested in the cigar industry, and I am exceedingly sorry that the distributing trade is in such a condition that there is a considerable degree of force in their contention that if the distributors knew where the cigars were made imported cigars would take the place of the local article. In view of what the Minister has stated as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the introduction of trade-mark legislation, and also having regard to the more telling fact that the passing of the Bill is a matter of urgency, perhaps the honorable member for Bland will take my view, that under the circumstances, matters should be allowed to stand as they are. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5643</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4R</name.id>
<electorate>Bland</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WATSON, John Christian</name>
<name role="display">Mr WATSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I hold as strongly as ever the view I expressed last evening as to the desirability of encouraging our local manufacturers generally, and the necessity of having trade marks properly regulated, but there is some force in the statement of the M inister that we should not deal piecemeal with a matter of such undoubtedly large importance. Perhaps, therefore, it would be wiser to wait for the introduction of a measure dealing with the whole question of imported goods as well as those of local manufacture. It would certainly be hardly fair to subject cigar makers to conditions different from those under which other local producers are allowed to work. The whole question of labels and trade marks ought to engage the early attention of Parliament, because the present want of regulation is a prolific source of fraud upon the public. But I am impressed with the argument that we have no justification for singling out any particular industry, and I will, therefore, let the matter go for the present. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5643</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWL</name.id>
<electorate>Yarra</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TUDOR, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr TUDOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to the amendment. When I spoke last night I was anxious to see that no injustice was done to our local manufacturers. I believe that the question of trade marks and labels should be dealt with by this Parliament at an early date, in order to protect fair-deal ing manufacturers against those who are using trade marks which they know to be false. I hope that the Senate's amendment will be agreed to. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Amendment agreed to. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5643</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEW</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KINGSTON, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr KINGSTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- As it would be almost consequential that we should reconsider our disagreement with the similar amendment made by the Sens te in clause 65, I ask that that clause may be reconsidered with a view to our agreeing with it. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Senate's amendment reconsidered and agreed to. </para>
<para>Remaining amendments agreed to. </para>
<para>Reported that the committee had amended the proposed new clause to follow clause 23, and had agreed to the" remaining amendments of the Senate. </para>
<para>Report adopted. </para>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PROPERTY ACQUISITION BILL</title>
<page.no>5643</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>
<inline font-style="italic">In Committee</inline>(consideration resumed from 3rd October, <inline font-style="italic">vide</inline> page 5607) : </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5643</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate>HumeMinister for Home Affairs</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM LYNE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I move - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>That the following new clause be inserted to follow clause Iti : - . </para>
<list type="decimal">
<item label="(1)">
<para>Where the valuation of the land, or of the estate or interest of the claimant therein, together with the valuation of the damage, if any, in respect of which <inline font-style="italic">a</inline> claim is made, does not exceed </para>
</item>
</list>
<para class="block">Two hundred and fifty pounds, the compensation shall, if the claimant so desires, he settled by arbitration. </para>
<list type="decimal">
<item label="(2)">
<para>Unless the claimant and the Minister concur in the appointment of a single arbitrator, who shall be either a District or County Court Judge, or a Police, Stipendiary, or Special Magistrate, the compensation shall be settled by two arbitrators, one to be appointed by the claimant and one by the Minister. </para>
</item>
<item label="(3)">
<para>For the purpose of carrying this section into effect, the laws relating to arbitration in force in the State in which the land is situated shall be applied as nearly as practicable. </para>
</item>
<item label="(4)">
<para>The costs of and incident to the arbitration as settled by the arbitrators shall be borne by the Minister, unless the sum awarded by the arbitrators is the same or a less sum than was offered by the Minister, in which case each party shall bear his own costs incidental to the arbitration, and the costs of the arbitrators shall be borne by the parties in equal proportions ; but if the sum awarded is one-third less than the amount claimed, the whole costs of and incidental to the arbitration and award shall be borne by the claimant. </para>
</item>
</list>
</quote>
<para>This clause has been introduced to meet as far as possible the views expressed by certain honorable members when the measure was under consideration the night before last. The honorable member for Gippsland and the honorable member for Flinders upon that occasion raised the question of whether some power ought not to . be provided for the appointment of arbitrators before any case in which a dispute was involved concerning land which the Commonwealth had compulsorily resumed came before a Judge of the High Court. It was suggested at that time that there should be a limit placed upon the value of land which might form the subject of arbitration, and the new clause fixes that limit at £250. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5644</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRO</name.id>
<electorate>GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>PROT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLEAN, Allan</name>
<name role="display">Mr A McLEAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I hope that the Minister for Home Affairs will see his way clear to strike out this limit. When we talkod about a limit the other evening it was not in connexion with the question of arbitration, but in connexion with the question of whether a property of small value - if its value was to be settled by a court at all - should be determined by the High Court, where the expense involved would necessarily be out of all proportion to its value, or should be settled by a lower tribunal such as the Police Court or the Count}' Court. "With regard to the principle of arbitration no limit should be imposed. Our contention was, that the claimant whose property was taken from him compulsorily should have the option either of taking his case to the court, or of referring it to arbitration. That, I think, is a fair principle to lay down. This question is a very serious one. In my opinion it is utterly impossible for a Judge who has never seen the particular land in dispute, and who cannot reasonably be expected to know its worth, to accurately appraise its value. In such a case any number of people could be secured to swear that in their opinion the land was worth so much. But the opinion of one practical conscientious man would be worth the testimony of a gross of such witnesses. It is not necessary that an arbitrator should be a professional valuer. Probably the claimant might know some person in the neighbourhood who was qualified to act, and whose decision he would be prepared to abide bj'. Very often a person is picked as an arbitrator, because he is a thorough judge of the matter in dispute. Probably he would give his services for nothing, as is frequently done in such cases. On the other hand, the Government would appoint their expert, and I am sure that if two men were secured who were thorough judges of laud, and they visited the property in dispute, and assessed its value carefully, there would not be much difference in their respective estimates. If they were both judges of the value of land their estimates would almost certainly be within a very narrow margin of each other. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5644</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGINS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HigginS</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is a great mistake. I have seen experts of the highest character differing tremendously. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5644</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRO</name.id>
<electorate>GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>PROT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLEAN, Allan</name>
<name role="display">Mr A McLEAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I may tell my honorable and learned friend that I have had a great deal to do with the subdivision of large estates, and with putting a value upon each block, and I have rarely been more than a few shillings out in the price per acre. Possibly, in the case of land worth £25 an acre, I might be £1 an acre out. But I have always found that any expert in valuing land, who is acquainted with the district in which the land is situated, is rarely out more than a very small sum. I admit that in city or town properties the case is different, because one cannot then estimate the value of the land upon its income-earning capacity - as is the case with country land - and what it will bring is therefore a matter of opinion. But in country districts it is very easy for an expert in valuing land to know what he can make of the land, and, of course, the true value is the capitalization of its income. All values based upon the income-earning capacity of the land, if accurately assessed, are sure to be close to its true worth. It would be folly to bring such cases before a 0 'udge who has never seen the land in dispute, and who cannot reasonably be expected to pronounce an expert's opinion upon the value of such property, because he has not devoted his life to the business. In Victoria, I am aware that there are one or two County Court J Judges who are experts in the value of land, and to whom I should \>e perfectly prepared to trust the valuation of any property of mine. But to trust to a Judge who was compelled to be guided solely by the evidence which comes before him would be a mistake. Why not give the parties interested the option of having their disputes settled either by arbitration or by the court? When the Commonwealth, for public purposes, takes away from a man the piece of land by which he lives, thereby depriving him of his means of livelihood, surely it is reasonable to allow him to have the value of that land assessed in the way in which he believes to be best. If he is willing to allow the matter to go to the Court by all means let it go there. But if he distrusts - as I would - the valuation likely to be placed upon his land by the court, why not allow him to have the matter decided by experts <inline font-style="italic">1</inline> I thoroughly approve of the manner in which the Minister has d nif ted the Bill. Where two parties are content to agree to one arbitrator, I think that the arbitrator ought to be either a County Court Judge or a Police Magistrate, because it is possible to select men in that capacity who are experts, and who would be willing to visit the land in dispute. But I should not like to see the value of the property of any person left to the decision of a Judge who had never seen it, and who was guided by the irresponsible statements of persons who were prepared to say that in their opinion it was worth so much. I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to give the person whose land is compulsorily resumed, the option of having its value assessed by arbitration, or by a Supreme Court Judge. That is a fair and reasonable thing to do. 1 hope that the Government will be prepared to concede this principle to the citizens of the Commonwealth, and thus avoid litigation. We do not live by litigation. I have never heard of a nation that was made prosperous by litigation. Why then should we force it upon people in every possible direction ? I am perfectly sure that the Minister for Trade and Customs in his inner mind agrees with what I say. I am certain that he does not allow his professional views to bias his judgment. Many of ray best friends belong to the legal profession. But if the Minister wanted a wet-nurse he would not send for a Judge. There are many things which require to be done, and which a Judge is not the best person to do. There are some Judges, I admit, who arc exceptions. For example, there is J udge Chomley. I should be perfectly prepared to allow that gentleman to assess the value of any land of mine. This is a very important matter, because when we take away a man's property which perhaps forms his sole means of living, it is very hard to create heart-burning by compelling him to go to a tribunal in which he has no confidence. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter, and strike out the limit imposed. He admits that that principle is right in the case of small properties, and if so, surely it is also right in regard to large properties. The question which the committee have to decide is - "Which is the way in which we are most likely to get an accurate value of the land <inline font-style="italic">V</inline> 1 say that we ought to leave it to the judgment of the applicant himself. Let us give him the option of having any dispute which may arise settled either by arbitration or by the court. If there is any Government which should be careful not to err in the direction indicated, it is the present Government, which is composed chiefly of lawyers. If every Bill which we pass is calculated to provoke litigation, public attention will soon be directed to the fact. If the Government wish to do what is fair and just to every citizen of the community, let them give some evidence of it by showing that they do not wish to force people into the law courts whether they desire to go there or not. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. HIGGINS</inline>(Northern Melbourne).I have to express my sympathy with the honorable member in his views. But I wish to point out that he is mistaken as to the effect of this clause. The Crown and the person whose land is resumed may agree upon arbitration, if they think fit. If the Crown resumes certain land, and cannot agree with the owner as to its value, the parties need not go to law. It is quite open to them to allow some person whose judgment is mutually acceptable to decide its value. People are sure to do that in small cases. It is perfectly competent for a claimant to say - "I will take the decision of so and so." But the whole meaning of this clause is to give to the claimant the right to go to arbitration against the wish of the Crown. The question for the committee to determine is whether it is advisable to enable the claimant to force the Crown to arbitration. I think that the dread of arbitration, and ignorance as to how long proceedings will occupy, are enough to make a Government hesitate, because we all recognise that the Government usually come out worst. . I agree with the honorable member for Gippsland as to the inexpediency of going to law if we can possibly help it, but people can always arrange amongst themselves as to whose opinion they will accept in order to arrive at an agreement. It is open to them to say - " We will take the opinion of so and so." In nine cases out of ten it will be found that the claimant is willing to accept some person's opinion. If the land in dispute is a small piece, he will be sure to adopt that course. The question raised under the first subclause is, whether the Crown ought to be forced to go to arbitration if an agreement cannot be come to with the person from whom the land is taken. It happens sometimes that a claim for £1,000 is made for land which is really worth only £50, and there ought to be first an attempt to arrive at an agreement by leaving the matter to some impartial person. I do not want the Crown to be forced to go to arbitration in those unreasonable cases, because no one can tell how long an arbitration will last, and, while Judges are paid by the State, the parties have to pay the arbitrators. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRO</name.id>
<electorate>GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>PROT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLEAN, Allan</name>
<name role="display">Mr A McLEAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Not always. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGINS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HIGGINS</name>
</talker>
<para>- Ordinarily the parties have to pay the arbitrators. I have known cases, in which the arbitrators have been weak or unskilled, spun out for weeks over the question of. a small piece of land. The Crown, knowing that, submits to be fleeced rather than go to arbitration. I am speaking from a good deal of experience, and if it is thought that it is in the least in my interest to refer thus to settlement by arbitration, I shall say no more. I want people to get a fair price for their land, but I do not desire to see the Crown fleeced simply because it is possible to force the Crown into a corner. The proposal of the Minister goes too far in forcing arbitration. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRO</name.id>
<electorate>GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>PROT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLEAN, Allan</name>
<name role="display">Mr A McLEAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Going to -law is the living of lawyers </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGINS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HIGGINS</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member, in talking in that way, is doing an injustice to me, and to all the lawyers in the House. Outside the House he may use such arguments as much as he likes, but in the House I think it is recognised that lawyers are quite as anxious as is the honorable member himself to do what is just. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRO</name.id>
<electorate>GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>PROT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLEAN, Allan</name>
<name role="display">Mr A McLEAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I know that; but lawyers are accustomed to litigation, and advocate it as a means of settlement. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGINS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HIGGINS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have intimated that I am anxious to help the honorable member for Gippsland to get optional arbitration, because there are cases in which that is the better course. The best way, in disputes of this kind, is to choose a fair man, by whose opinion the parties will be bound. If an agreement cannot be arrived at, there is still the option of appointing arbitrators ; and if, even then, there is not an agreement, there are cases in which it would be best to have the assistance of a skilled J udge. It is only in cases where experts differ that the assistance of the court will be called in - cases where experts on oath differ widely as to values. I have known experts say, on the one side, that land is worth £500, and experts on the other side say that it is worth only £50 ; and it is only in cases where there are such egregious differences that it is advisable to call in the assistance of the court. The only value of expert evidence in regard to land is where the witnesses or some of them cannot be believed, and the advantage of having the assistance of a Judge is that from long experience of witnesses he is able to differentiate between evidence that is of use and evidence that is of no use, and to come to a conclusion. No doubt the best mode is for the assessors to look at the land for themselves ; but the honorable member for Gippsland must have known cases in which the arbitrators were in . Melbourne or some other town where expert evidence is called from the whole countryside at a huge expense. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Deakin</name>
</talker>
<para>- And every expert contradicts the other. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRO</name.id>
<electorate>GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>PROT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLEAN, Allan</name>
<name role="display">Mr A McLEAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is so in town cases ; but it does not apply to country cases. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGINS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HIGGINS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am speaking of country cases. The ideal way of assessing the value is to leave the matter to some men who are experts, and be bound by their decision ; but arbitration is not necessarily leaving the matter to experts in that way. Arbitration very often means calling a long list of witnesses, and then estimating the value of their evidence. If the Crown has to be forced to arbitration, it is reasonable to have the limit of £250. I would not, however, go so far as the Minister has gone, but would say that after the writ is issued, or after a claim is made, a Judge may have discretion to select assessors whose decision should bind the parties, and those assessors may go and look at the land, or do \yhatever they think fit. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2G</name.id>
<electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMILLAN, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- We all know that there are processes in law which are very long and harassing. We know the terror which a court, and the delays of a court, possess for some people. At the same time, as the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne has pointed out, arbitration is very often a much longer process than proceedings in the court, though it must be remembered that the arbitration suggested in the clause is not on a very complicated question. It is a matter of arriving at the value up to £250, and the arbitration, ought to be confined to matters of this kind. I have known cases in the resumption of land where small people have been practically ruined by the delays of the con rt. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRO</name.id>
<electorate>GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>PROT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLEAN, Allan</name>
<name role="display">Mr A McLEAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Why fix the limit at £250 <inline font-style="italic">I</inline> The matter is more serious in big cases. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2G</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMILLAN, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- It may be more serious in big cases, but a man in such cases is supposed to have something behind him and to be able to stand delay a little better than a small man. The owner of laud of small value may not be able to come to terms with the Minister - we know that Ministers are very arbitrary in some cases - and it would be a good thing to allow arbitration, which ought not to last more than a day : the moment the arbitration is completed the claimant ought to be able to get his money. Although not perhaps quite relevant to the question under discussion, I may express the hope that in the resumption of land by the Commonwealth prompt payment will be made. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William Lyne</name>
</talker>
<para>- Payment must be within a month, or interest paid. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRO</name.id>
<electorate>GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>PROT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLEAN, Allan</name>
<name role="display">Mr A McLEAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- It would be a good thing to limit the fee to be paid to the arbitrator. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2G</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMILLAN, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- The fee always depends on the character of the case and the amount involved ; and in a matter of only £250 a very big fee cannot bc allowed. It would be better to adopt the clause as it stands, because it gives a right and meets the sentiment of some people, who are absolute!}' in terror of going to the High Court, owing to the expense, which may be very great indeed. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFI</name.id>
<electorate>FLINDERS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GROOM, Arthur</name>
<name role="display">Mr A C GROOM</name>
</talker>
<para>- There should be no limit to the amount. As to the cost of arbitration, and the statement that the amount is generally given against the Government, I would like to quote from this morning's <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> the results of six or seven cases in connexion with the Lilydale and Warburton railway line. In one case, Messrs. C. W. and H. H. McLean claimed £364 lis., while the trust offered £95 16s. 3d., and the amount awarded by the arbitrators, for whom Judge Chomley was the umpire, was £50, or £40 less than the amount offered ; Messrs. J. C. and T. C. Wildman claimed £2,500, while the Government in the face of the enormous amount claimed, declined to make an offer, and the arbitrators awarded £50 ; Messrs. M. <inline font-style="italic">A.</inline> and E. A. Vernon claimed £387 10s., while the trust offered £50, and the arbitrators awarded £90 ; F. A. Sargent claimed £665, while the trust offered £1 16s., and the arbitrators awarded £50 ; J. R. Meikle asked for £600, while the trust offered, and the arbitrators warded, £75 ; <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. W.</inline> J. Barnes claimed £463, while the trust offered, and the arbitrators awarded, £75 ; <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. E.</inline> A. Janson claimed £3,000, while the trust offered £241 7s., and the arbitrators awarded £260. The total amount of the claims against the trust was £8,.994 18s. 6d., while the trust offered £538 19s. 3d., and the arbitrators awarded £682. These cases clearly show that, by going to arbitration, the Government benefited in every way, and the costs were much smaller than if there had been process at law. There could not be better evidence in favour of arbitration, as in the interests not only of the Government, but of the public generally. We desire to limit the cost, but there ought to be no limit at all of the amount in regard to which a person shall have the right of election between arbitration and the courts. In ordinary cases, tried every day, a person has the right to say whether he will have the cause tried by a judge or by a jury, and in this case we merely ask that he shall have' the right to say whether the question shall be tried by a court or by arbitration. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I see a few- difficulties in the application of the clause to which I will direct the attention of the Minister. This is a valuation not of land only, but also of the estate or interest of the claimant therein. In some cases it may be merely the valuation of land, where there is only one person interested and only one person claiming ; but the scheme of the Bill also recognises separate interests in land, if they exist, so that there may be a claim by a life tenant or a tenant in remainder. That is clearly set forth in sub-clause (3) of clause 12; in fact, it is recognised in the first line of the new clause by the distinction between the "valuation of the land, or of the estate, or interest of the claimant therein." That appears in the new clause, in clause 1 2, and in several subsequent clauses. Is it safe to hand over to the special magistrate the valuation not of the land, but of the life interest, or interest in remainder ? The latter is an interest, not of the person at present in possession, but an interest of a person who is to come into possession at the extinction of the life interest. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2G</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMILLAN, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William McMillan</name>
</talker>
<para>- Can the magistrate not get evidence on the subject? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is a matter for actuarial calculation. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2G</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMILLAN, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William McMillan</name>
</talker>
<para>- The magistrate can get that actuarial calculation. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- If honorable members think the provision is safe, well and good ; but in relation to succession, it is difficult to ascertain what is the value of each interest when succession duty has to be paid. That is a matter of actuarial calculation. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2G</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMILLAN, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William McMillan</name>
</talker>
<para>- Would an arbitrator not do exactly what a Judge would do, namely, get an actuarial calculation? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- A Judge, of course, is a much bigger man than a magistrate. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2G</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMILLAN, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William McMillan</name>
</talker>
<para>- But he could not get a better actuarial calculation. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- He would have to call evidence. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William Lyne</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is a question whether a Judge is a much bigger man than a police magistrate in dealing with the value of land. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- What I have pointed out shows the difficulty of the whole matter; and the difficulty will be rauch greater if we hand over the actuarial assessment, not to a Supreme Court Judge, but to special magistrates, whose jurisdiction in New South Wales is limited in many cases to £200. In South Australia these magistrates have a jurisdiction up to £495. At all events, I say that it is not safe, putting New South Wales aside, to leave this matter to special magistrates in some of the States, lt is not obligatory in some States to have lawyers as District Court J Judges. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William Lyne</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does the honorable and learned member say that in some of the States laymen are made District Court Judges <inline font-style="italic">1</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is so in South Australia, where the District Court Judge is sometimes a lawyer and sometimes a layman, and has jurisdiction up to £495. The question whether it is advisable to hand over to a special magistrate, who is a layman, and who may live perhaps 250 miles from Adelaide, the calculation of the value of interests in land which it would require an actuary to explain to the bench, is one which ought to receive a little consideration. In sub-clause (4) there is a provision as to costs, to the effect that they shall be borne by the Minister if the sum awarded is the same or a less sum than was offered by the Minister, in which case each party shall bear his own costs. I think that where the amount awarded is the same as was offered by the Minister, each party should bear his own costs, but where the amount is less, but not less by one-third than the amount claimed, it should be left to the discretion of the Court to award costs. Supposing for instance there is a claim for £9,000, and the Minister offers £8,000, and the award is given at £7,500. That would not be less by one-third than the total amount claimed. That is a case in which the Judge ought to have the right to say whether one party ought to bear the whole of the costs. A provision of this sort, leaving it to the discretion of the Court to award costs, would prevent a good many bogus claims from being presented. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5649</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KY9</name.id>
<electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PIESSE, Frederick</name>
<name role="display">Mr PIESSE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I think that the experience of the honorable member for Gippsland, with regard to arbitration, has been of a very favorable character, because most people have not found it a cheap and satisfactory method of settling disputes. Therefore I am not inclined to extend the power of resorting to arbitration in the way that he has urged. I wish to direct attention to the wording of sub-clause (2), which states that when the claimant and the Minister concur in the appointment of a single arbitrator, the compensation shall be settled by two arbitrators, one to be appointed by the claimant and one by the Minister. In most laws relating to arbitration, it is provided that the compensation shall be settled by two arbitrators, or by an umpire appointed by only two out of three arbitrators ; and therefore I think that it should be provided that, unless the claimant and the Minister concur in the appointment of a single arbitrator, reference shall be made to two arbitrators. I think that will bring the wording into accord with the form in which similar provisions exist in the State laws, and that it will probably obviate difficulty when these matters have to be dealt with. I move - </para>
</talk.start>
<para>That the words "the compensation shall be settled by two arbitrators," in sub-clause (2), be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, " reference shall be marie to two arbitrators" </para>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. A.</inline>McLEAN (Gippsland). - I quite agree with the honorable member for Tasmania, and I think there must have been an oversight in the wording of this clause. </para>
<para>Mr.Deakin. - The intention was the same, but the proposal of the honorable member for Tasmania more clearly expresses it. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>5649</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRO</name.id>
<electorate>GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>PROT</party>