House of Representatives
16 September 1910

4^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITION
QUESTION
- TARIFF
QUESTION
- CENSUS
POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- DEFENCE
QUESTION
- IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- SUGAR INDUSTRY
LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
PRIVILEGE
QUESTION
- POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- BREAK OF GAUGE : JUNCTION CHARGES
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH RENTALS
LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL
PAPER
ADJOURNMENT
- Order of Business - Long Sittings

Mr.Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3305

PETITION

Mr. GLYNN presented a petition from six taxpayers in South Australia,, praying the House to reject the Land Tax Assessment Bill.

Petition received.

page 3305

QUESTION

TARIFF

Dressed and Undressed Dolls

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

-Has the Minister of Trade and Customs, or his Department, arrived at a decision as to what constitutes a dressed or undressed doll ?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– I have gone into the matter again, and hope, within the course of a day or two, to decide that any doll which has on a garment of any sort shall not be classed as undressed ; but that, if it has only a ribbon or a piece of lace or a flower in the hair, it shall be classed as undressed.

page 3306

QUESTION

CENSUS

” Illegitimacy “ Heading.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I wish to ask the Minister of Home Affairs if, in view of the injustice done to certain children, he will, when the statistics of the Commonwealth are being collected, cause those children to be described, not as illegitimate, but as the children of illegitimate parents, and so remove a slur from innocent children?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

-At the earnest solicitation of the honorable member for Melbourne, I have decided to do that. I think it is right.

Subsequently,

Mr GLYNN:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is it correct that, in his answer to the honorable member for Melbourne, the Minister of Home Affairs said that, where the children were illegitimate, he would have the parents described as illegitimate in the census papers?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– It will be obtained where it is desired.

page 3307

QUESTION

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

Mr G B EDWARDS:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the following statement, appearing in the London Times, of 5th August -

It should finally be noted that the Secretary, of State has already twice asked for the views of the various Governments of the Dominions on the business to be discussed at the Conference next year. The first of these despatches was sent in February, 1909, the second in March of the present year. Neither has as yet produced any definite suggestions.

Are those despatches still unanswered, or have any suggestions been made by the Government as to matters for discussion at the Conference ?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I believe the statement is a fact, but the experience has been that the agenda of these Conferences generally reach the persons who are to confer at about the time they land in Great Britain.

page 3307

QUESTION

SUGAR INDUSTRY

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Minister of Trade and Customs been drawn to a cablegram, appearing in this morning’s papers, referring to frauds committed by officers of the American Sugar Trust, whereby the United States Government was defrauded of revenue? Is the Minister taking any precautions to protect this country, first, in regard to manufactured sugar, and, secondly, as to sugarcane for manufacture, upon which bounty is required to be paid?

Mr TUDOR:
ALP

– I have not seen the cablegram referred to, but have taken steps to protect, not only the revenue, but the farmers, by having check weighers appointed in certain of the mills this season.

page 3307

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Mr GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Prime Minister yet lay on the table of the House the report of the deputation that waited on him with reference to the operations of the Land Tax and Land Tax Assessment Bills?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I mentioned the matter to Mr. Sheppard, the secretary to the Prime Minister, and he said the newspaper reports of the deputation were practically verbatim.

page 3307

PRIVILEGE

Meetings at Parliament House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yesterday morning the honorable member for Lang brought before my notice a paragraph appearing in, I think, the Argus, to the effect that a meeting was held within the precincts of this building, in connexion with the appointment of the executive of the Waterside Workers. I have made personal inquiries into the matter, and find that a meeting was held here, and that nearly all those present, with the exception, I think, of one, were members of Parliament. However, I pointed out to those responsible for the holding of the meeting that they had committed a breach of privilege, and warned them that such a thing was not to occur again.

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I desire to state, by way of personal explanation, that it is with great regret that I notice that an honorable member took exception to what was done, but I quite agree that it is within the province of any honorable member to take such action. I think the practice might lead to abuse, and even to an intolerable state of affairs, and, personally, I regret that the meeting was held within the precincts of this building.

page 3308

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Perth and Bunbury Telephone Line - Salaries of Telephonists - Penny Postage : Official Post-offices.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

When is it proposed to establish telephonic communication between Perth and Bunbury, in Western Australia?
Is not this work considered a very necessary andurgent one?

Mr THOMAS:
ALP

– The Deputy PostmasterGeneral, Perth, has furnished the following information : -

Provision is made on the current Estimates for the construction of this line. The work will be commenced as soon as the necessary material is available. Schedules are now prepared, and tenders will be invited at an early date.
The work is considered a very necessary one.

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Is he aware that the Public Service Commissioner is advertising in the Commonwealth

Gazette (date10/9/10) for a Telephonist for Wellington, N.S.W., 16 to 21 years of age, at a commencing salary of 12s. 4d. per week, and increments of about 3s. per week ?

Is it a fact that these young applicants are to have normal eyesight, clear enunciation, acute hearing, to be free from throat affections ; pass an educational and medical examination ; when standing erect reach 6 feet 3 inches, and stretch arms extended 5 feet - all these requisites for 12s. 4d. per week?
Will he convey an intimation to the Public Service Commissioner that he does not approve of such small salaries being paid in his Department?

Mr THOMAS:

– The following answers have been furnished by the Public Service Commissioner : -

An examination is being held for Telephonist at Wellington, with commencing salary of £32per annum, and advancement by annual increments to£110. After three years’ service and attaining 21 years of age, the appointee will receive the salary of £110 independently of the regular scale of increments.
These are the requirements necessary to satisfactorily undertake the work, -and are demanded of all candidates for appointment as Telephonist.
The Public Service Commissioner considered that the salary is adequate as a commencing one for an untrained youth, who will be advanced yearly as his services improve.

With regard to question 3, I would point out to the honorable member that the duties of the Public Service Commissioner are defined by an Act of Parliament, and it is therefore outside my province to make suggestions as to how they should be performed. The “6 ft. 3 in.” referred to is the height to be reached with arms upraised above the head.

Mr CANN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

In view of the decision of the Government to introduce penny postage, and the probability that the revenue from official offices will be reduced in consequence, will he consider the advisability of amending the regulation which provides that the minimum revenue from such offices shall be four hundred pounds per annum, and thus avoid the lowering of the status of many country offices?

Mr THOMAS:

– Yes, the matter will receive attention, and be dealt with in such a way as to prevent the status of existing offices being lowered as the result of the introduction of penny postage.

page 3308

QUESTION

BREAK OF GAUGE : JUNCTION CHARGES

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

What are the junction charges on -
1. General merchandise,
2. Goods,
3. Stock- between Victoria and New South Wales, at Albury?
Are these charges consequent upon break of gauge on railway lines?
What amount was so collected during year 1909-10.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– I am informed by the Victorian Railway Department that-

Through rates are operative in respect of goods in classes “A,” “ B,” “ C,” “ 1,” “2,” and “3,” consigned between Melbourne and Sydney, and Adelaide and Sydney, and also for fruit and vegetables, but otherwise goods are subject to the following junction charges : -

Goods in three higher classes, viz., “ 1,” “2,” and “3’’- 2s. 6d. per ton.

Other goods (wool, live stock, empty returns, and vehicles excepted -1s. 6d. per ton.

Empty returns -1s. per ton.

Vehicles -1s. 6d. each.

No junction charge is made on wool, and the charge for the haulage of wool from Albury to Victorian stations is the Victorian mileage rate. Through rates are also quoted for , live stock conveyed by passenger trains between Melbourne and Sydney ; but all live stock carried by goods trains, and all other stock carried by passenger trains, are subject to the following junction charges : -

By goods trains -

In live stock trucks - 3s. per truck.

In New South Wales goods. trucks - 2s. per truck.

Horses per passenger trains -

One horse -1s. 6d.

Two horses - 2s. 3d.

Three horses - 3s.

The specified “ junction “ charges represent the cost of haulage as between Wodonga and Albury, the provision of terminal facilities at Albury, and the cost of transfer at Albury of goods in the three higher classes ; and the charges are of an arbitrary character, and the proportion directly ascribable to the break of gauge has not been determined.

The amount paid in junction charges during the year 1909-10, or in any year, is not ascertainable without considerable labour, and a statement in regard to the matter is in course of preparation.

page 3309

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RENTALS

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

What is the total amount of rent paid for buildings used for Commonwealth Departments in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, and other cities?
Are such buildings conveniently situated for Commonwealth purposes?
Will the Minister obtain a report from his officers as to what would be the cost of placing all the Departments under one roof in each of the Capital cities?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

I lay upon the table of the House a return showing the information desired.
Yes, where the premises have been obtain able at a reasonable rental.
The Customs House, post office, and military offices, are necessarily located to suit their particular business ; but the matter of concentrating as many Federal offices as possible under -the one roof is being constantly kept in mind.

In Sydney the various premises leased for Ministers’ and members’ rooms, offices for Works Director, Public Service Inspector, Common wealth Electoral Officer, Patents offices, have been given up and concentrated in the Custom House buildings.

In Melbourne a scheme is now being considered for concentrating a number of the Federal offices into the one building.

page 3309

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from15th September (vide page 3303), on motion by Mr. Fisher -

That this Bill be now read” a second time;

Upon which Mr. Deakin had moved, by way of amendment -

That after the word “That” the following words be inserted: - “the form of land tax outlined by the Prime Minister, and provided for in this Bill, is unjust in its incidence and an abuse of Federal powers.”

Mr HARPER:
Mernda

.- In addressing myself to the second reading of the Bill, I shall deal briefly with the few points which it seems to me that we ought to ‘consider, without touching upon ‘the constitutional question, which has been so admirably discussed by previous speakers. My remarks will have a more practical application to the probable effect of the imposition of the proposed tax.

The party in power is certainly entitled to introduce a Bill to tax land, because it distinctly announced to the country its intention to do so, and a majority has been elected in favour of that course. What I individually may think of the wisdom of such legislation is, therefore, beside the question. We are, however, entitled to compare the provisions of the Bill with the statements put before the electors. There was a cry for the imposition of taxation to burst up large estates, the idea of those who raised it and supported it being that there are large estates which, by reason of the suitability of their soil and climate, and their accessibility to markets, are specially adapted for small holdings, and should be subdivided, instead of being left in the hands of a few owners. The Bill, however, not only provides for the taxation of what are large estates, but also for the taxation of what I may call constructive large estates, because it regards all the lands of any holder, whether private person, banking, pastoral, or investment company, in whatever area they may be held, as large estates. No one thought that this principle of taxing aggregations of separate landed properties would be adopted, “or that the tax would be applied to land which is now being used to the fullest possible advantage.

I do not wish to deal with the circumstances under which the land’ of the Commonwealth has been alienated, except to say that alienation has taken place in accordance with the laws of the country, it having been considered for many years that the best way to provide for settlement and to attract immigration was to get as much land as possible into private hands. The acquirement of land in British communities by the ordinary processes of law has not hitherto been penalized, but this Bill goes beyond the professed intentions of its framers, and penalizes the investment of capital in landed estate, even when improved and used for industrial and other purposes. I remember when, in compliance with a popular cry for the opening of the land, many millions of acres were forced on unwilling buyers, both in this State and in New South Wales, and that it was a common practice in the seventies, and even in the eighties, for Treasurers to ask companies and private investors whether they would not take up so much land; because they wished to make up their land revenue accounts for the half-year. The policy of rapid alienation was pursued with the consent of the State Parliaments. It has now been abandoned in the States which I have mentioned. But in Queensland, within the last two or three years, many companies and private individuals have been induced by the Government to buy large tracts of country at IOS. an acre.

This Parliament cannot deal with land matters as if it had a clean sheet. The laws of which I have spoken were passed by majorities representing the people, and were considered liberal. We are entitled to think differently from those who have gone before us, as to the wisdom of that legislation. The rights of the holders of land were acquired by the operation of laws made by the Parliaments representing the people. As fair men we are bound to recognise that, and must not treat them as if they had obtained their land by unfair, underhand, and improper means. I do not say there were not abuses and evasions of the law which might have been punishable, but even the land so acquired has since descended to others, or been bought and sold for value given and received. It is not fair to refer, as an honorable member did last night, to what happened in 18m, or in 1837. The events of those times have nothing to do with the questions with which we have to deal.

To my mind, this Parliament is taking belated action to remedy a grievance which undoubtedly at one time existed in the withholding from the occupation by farmers of tracts of rich agricultural land near to markets. There are estates which perhaps all of us would agree should be in the hands of small settlers, and the public imagination has been inflamed regarding them. For the last ten years, however, the breaking up of large estates has gone on steadily and persistently under the operation of State laws passed in compliance with public sentiment. Honorable members here are adopting, apparently without inquiry, cries which have done duty before in many a party fight in the State Parliaments, and are neglectful of the forces which are at work to bring about what they profess to desire. In this country the possession of land has never carried with it that social prestige which elsewhere has induced moneyed men to hold large tracts for very little return. Here land, like other forms of property, is regarded as possessing a certain commercial value upon which a fair return should be earned, and if a man who is raising sheep finds that by selling his land’ he can increase a profit of 3 or 4 per cent, to one of 5 or 6 per cent., and avoid all’ the troubles of management and the risks: of seasons, he willingly sells. Nature> too, brings about the subdivision of estates by the death of their holders, and their distribution amongst heirs. These processes of disintegration will continue, and if nothing is done to induce aggregation, land will be available as long as there is a demand for it, in such areas as the community will absorb.

But it is idle to make statements without supporting them by authorities which honorable members will recognise. The deputation which waited on the Prime Minister has not been treated quite fairly, the honorable memmer for Riverina having asserted, in effect, that its statements were untrue. In justice to Mr. Campbell, who saw me on the subject, I must repeat that the Prime Minister was informed that the cases put before him were actual cases, and that he could have the returns from the “estates mentioned, for the years referred to, verified by any confidential officer he liked to appoint, if he would not allow the names of the holders of the land to transpire. Naturally people do not like to have their affairs exposed, particularly when the exposure would be somewhat painful to their friends and themselves, but the Prime Minister received from Mr. Campbell a letter intimating that accounts were in the offices of certain companies, and could be examined by a confidential Government officer. It is hardly fair of the Prime Minister to say that he will not express any opinion upon the statements made by the deputation. Parliament desires to get at the truth, and to be satisfied that misleading statements are not being made to it. Whenever new taxation is proposed, hard cases will always be brought forward, but we, as the representatives of the people, ought to search out the truth, and to discover what is the actual position in regard to this measure, which will certainly be much more farreaching in its consequences than its promoters anticipate. I do not wish to put before the House statements that cannot be substantiated, and I have endeavoured to obtain information of an authoritative character, bearing upon the land question in this State. The Attorney-General, and several other honorable members have, in defence of this Bill, referred to Victoria as offering a shocking example of the aggregation of large estates, and the misrepresentation of the position in this State has caused me, as a Victorian, to feel at times rather indignant. I shall put before the House the actual position.

In March, 1906, a full inquiry was made in regard to the occupation and cultivation df the land in Victoria, and at page 609 of the Victorian Y ear-Book for 1908-9, it is stated that -

The position disclosed was that 48,489 occupiers of 11,842,695 acres of private land up to 1,000 acres each -

And taking one class of land with another, an area of 1,000 acres is not a large estate - also occupied 4,159,932acresof Crown land- a total of 16,002,627 acres, and less than half of the total area in occupation.

In other words, of the 24,000,000 acres of alienated land, 11,842,695 acres were then held in holdings up to 1,000 acres in extent.

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– Do those figures include city lands?

Mr HARPER:

– Yes. The main point, however, is that these 48,489 occupiers of holdings up to 1,000 acres in extent - controlled 70 per cent, of the total cultivation, and possessed 75 per cent, of the horses, 87 per cent of the dairy cows, 69 per cent, of the other cattle, 90 per cent, of the pigs, and 26 per cent, of the sheep.

Mr W J JOHNSON:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Then it would be a good thing to multiply their numbers.

Mr HARPER:

– That is what we are doing. The honorable member has anticipated me. The figures that I- have just given show what was the actual position in 1906. A similar inquiry was made in March, 1908, and referring to the facts then disclosed, we have the statement, at page 611, of the Victorian Y ear-Book -

Comparing the position with that in 1906, it will be observed that in land privately owned, estates of over 10,000 acres were reduced by twelve in number and 497,747, or 12 per cent., in acreage, while estates up to 320 acres had increased by 2,637in number and by ‘ 199,851 in acreage; also that the increase in the total number of holdings was 6 per cent., whilst that in land alienated was less than 2 per cent.

Thus in two years about 500,000 acres were converted from large into comparatively small estates. There were 2,637 additions to the number -of freeholds up to 320 acres, whilst the number of large holdings materially decreased. An ounce of fact is worth a bushel of argument. Unfortunately, particulars under these headings were not obtainable in respect of last year, but we have in the Year-Book information as to the changes in estates exceeding 5,000 acres up to March, 1909. In March, 1906, there were 220 estates of from 5,000 to 10,000 acres, comprising a total area of 1,567,251 acres, and in 1909 the number had decreased to 202, with an area of 1,423,000 acres. In March, 1906, there were 195 estates of 10,000 acres and upwards, comprising an area of 4,134,067 acres, and in 1909 the number had been reduced to 168, with an area of 3,327,360 acres. In the three years twenty-seven of these large estates were broken up, and the area held in estates of 10,000 acres and upwards had decreased by 806,707 acres. To summarize the position, in the three years there was a reduction of forty-five in the number of estates of 5,000 acres and upwards, and a reduction of the acreage of these large estates to the extent of 950,269 acres. Seven or eight years hence, at this rate of progression, the whole of the lands will be broken up. Advices which I have received from authoritative sources lead me to believethat the progress made up to 1908-9 has since been accelerated, and that at the present time, without the imposition of any “ bursting-up “ tax by either this or the State Parliament, estates arc being subdivided. We cannot rush men on to the land without capital or experience in a wholesale fashion. We have to obtain settlers of the right class, and I contend, on the facts disclosed by the Victorian Year-Book, that the public demand for land in this State is being amply- met in a legitimate and natural way . I fail to see, therefore, any reason why this Parliament should interfere with a matter with which, after all, it has not much concern.

– Naturally. The pioneers knew what they were about, and it is natural that the State which is the most densely populated should be sending forth people to increase and equalize the population of more sparsely settled parts of the continent.

At page 612 of the Victorian Y ear-Book for 1908-9 we have the statement -

Under each heading -

– It is a long return and very important, and I think that the rule might be relaxed a little in such a case as this. Hansard is practically the only means we have of conveying to people outside exactly what is said in this House ; and that publication contains a vast amount of information useful to the electors and the community generally. However, as I desire the return to appear, I shall read it, as follows : -

– It may be a fact, but it is not relevant to my argument. I havedrawn attention to facts which are not answered by interjections as to how thesethings come about. I am trying to ascertain our reasons for interfering with a state of things which is going on without our assistance, and with which we are interfering only by a stretch of our authority under the Federal pact.

I never yet knew of a Bill being introduced to impose a tax without some explanation, on reasonable grounds, of the basis upon which the return of the tax was calculated. I have carefully read the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, and found in them hardly anything that is informative as to the revenue the Government expect to get from the tax. The Prime Minister says he reckons, and wishes to get £1,000,000. That is all the information he gave us. But the Attorney-General, in a remarkable passage, which I regret that a gentleman holding so responsible a position should have put. forward as argument, gave particulars of.: certain land-owners in Australia holding: estates of over ,£5,000 and up to £6,250,. unimproved value, and others holding estates of from £6,250 to £12,500. and soon, and then said, as reported in Hansard, at page 2225 -

Roughly speaking, there are less than II,000persons who will pay under this tax, excluding absentees. There may be fewer than 11,000, and I think there will be, but we are unable to tell. A man may have aggregations of estates in various States, and so it is impossible to compute the number exactly. But roughly speaking, 10,000 persons own £127,000,000 worth of unimproved land values, that is to say, reckoning the unimproved value to be 50 per cent, of the total value, 10,000 persons own about £254,000,000 worth of landed interests in the Commonwealth. Or one-four hundred and fiftieth of the population own three-eights of all the landed interest of Australia…..

The bare telling of these facts is a sermon more eloquent than the finest oration ever delivered. One-four hundred and fiftieth of the population own three-eights of the entire landed wealth of the country….. I ask the

House to contemplate a state of things where, not 10,000 persons, but 1,000, or even 10 persons, shall own three-eights of the entire landed wealth of Australia. That is no wild exaggeration. Already in the United States a handful of men absolutely control half of the entire wealth of the country, and the time is rapidly coining in Australia, unless we check it, when a handful of people will own three-eighths of the landed wealth of Australia, lt is because that state of things is absolutely incompatible with the well-being of the country that we ask the House to assent to this legislation.

That is the whole of the information given by the honorable member as to how we are to arrive at any estimate of what the tax is likely to produce. I have already shown that that passage is absolutely unfounded. The honorable member raises a bogey about a state of things which he says will come about here, but which all the statistics show to be impossible, seeing that the disintegration of the large accumulations of land which have fallen into the hands of individuals is going on at a rapidly increasing and really surprising rate. The honorable member could only have made those statements in ignorance of the facts.

Mr Hughes:

– Does the honorable member deny the correctness of those figures?

Mr HARPER:

– I shall not deny them, because I do not know how the honorable member arrived at them, but I shall make certain use. of them. He says in ‘ his speech: -

No statistics are available, and one might as readily endeavour to compute the number of souls in hell as find the amount of property that each person holds in this country. For some inscrutable reason these statistics have not been prepared ; but, so far as one can judge by figures available from -other sources - and then he makes the statements which I have already quoted.

– Yes. The tax starts at1d., but it accelerates in accordance with that peculiar formula which the honorable member said was as meaningless to him as the French on a menu card. On an average rate of 4d., the tax would bring in twice as much as the Minister estimates. On a tax of 3d., which is a very low average, the return would be £1,500,000; but these figures make no allowance for the estates which by means of the “aggregation” provisions would fall under the Bill. If the tax on those estates were taken into consideration, I believe that the return would be £3,000,000.

The measure was advocated in the country as one needed for the bursting up of large estates, and, therefore, it seems to me that that should be its dominating purpose. The taxing - of aggregations of freehold landed property was not contemplated even by the Government, and the Prime Minister had not such a thing in his mind when he made his Gympie speech. Let me show how I arrive at my figures, which I think are more reliable than are those of the Attorney-General. In all the States there are local governments, which practically embrace their whole area. In New South Wales, Queensland, and’ Western Australia, these local governing authorities tax unimproved values; in Victoria and Tasmania, improved values are taxed, and in South Australia revenue is obtained from a tax partly on improved, and partly on unimproved, values. This, want of uniformity makes it difficult to estimate the actual improved and unimproved values of landed estate for the whole of the Commonwealth. In New South Wales, however, an estimate has been made of the unimproved and the improved values of the land of the State, and, according to our Year-Book, the unimproved value of the lands of Sydney and its suburbs is £44,007,668, and the improved value £105,502,428, making the value of the improvements £61,494,760, or 58.3 per cent, of the improved capital value. The unimproved value of the country lands of the State is £20,104,983, and the improved value £44,784,238, making the value of improvements £24,679,255, or 55.2 per cent, of the total capital value. I have applied these proportions to the statistics for Victoria, the improved value of whose cities, towns, and boroughs is £106,149,960, while that of her shires is £136,538,811, a total of £242,688,771. Applying the New South Wales ratios, I find that the improved value of the land in Melbourne and its suburbs is £94,885,708, and the value of the improvements £55,349,991, the net unimproved value being £39,535,717- The improved value of the other Victorian cities, towns, boroughs, and shires is £147,803,063, and the value of the improvements £81,587,256, the net unimproved value being £66,215,807. Applying the same principle to the other States - and any difference can only be very slight - I find that the unimproved value of all the lands of the Commonwealth is £269,504,901, of which Melbourne and Sydney freeholds unimproved represent £84,000,000, leaving £185,012,000 as the unimproved value of the rest of the land of Australia. The improved value, which amounts to £551,175,277, is made up of £105,000,000 for Sydney, £95,000,000 for Melbourne, and £350,000,000 for the rest of the Commonwealth.

Mr Chanter:

– Does not the honorable member take into consideration the value of the land in the other capitals?

Mr HARPER:

– I have not ascertained separately the value of the land in Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart, and Perth, which strengthens my position, because nearly half of the total landed wealth of the country consists of the improved properties in the capital cities and in the cities, towns, and boroughs. I prefer, in propounding an argument, to understate rather than to overstate a case. Half the total improved value comprises estates which cannot be regarded as estates which it is necessary to tax for the purpose of bursting them up. Of course, it is competent for us to tax all land, and no one could take exception to an all-round tax for defence purposes. But the case for the imposition of a tax to burst up large estates has absolutely failed.

– I am glad that I have achieved something, even if it is not what I had in view. Let me now put before the House a letter from a thoroughly reliable correspondent dealing with the position of a small farmer in the Western District of Victoria -

A farmer of twenty years ago rented 30 acres, and, by careful management and good farming, saved a little money and bought 20 acres on long terms. By thrift and the help of his boy, just able to work, he gradually reduced the debt, and bought 30 acres more - in all 50 acres. By degrees he cleared off all the debt and released his certificate of title last year, worth £2,500. The 50 acres were too small for the sons, who are now young men, so, as they wished to keep together, he bought 60 acres more, and to do so borrowed £3,300 for five years on both properties, being 60 per cent, of the value. His - own interest in the land is 40 per cent. When we have a depreciation of value of 40 per cent., what becomes of the hardwon earnings of the lifetime of this first-class producer? When there is not sufficient margin the trustees who lent him the money must withdraw it, and he loses his land.

Sir William Lyne:

– According to that statement the man will not come under this Bill.

Mr HARPER:

– He will if his land is worth more than £5,000. Honorable members opposite seem to have made up their minds, and are impervious to argument. I am stating facts. This man obtained a loan of £3,300 on land worth £7,000, and, therefore, he will have to pay the Federal land tax on £2,000.

Mr Jensen:

– No. The unimproved value of his land would have to exceed £5.°°o-

Mr HARPER:

– It would seem as though, like Tennyson’s brook, we were going on for ever.

Mr HARPER:

– I am sure that I do not take up much of the public time.

Mr PAGE:

– If the honorable member shut himself up in the telephone cabinet in the corridor until Monday, and then came into the chamber, what would be the effect upon him? Would he not when he came out have a larger view of things? And so a visit to the other States would broaden his views. I come now to the statement made by the honorable member for Parkes, that ours is a policy of revenge. I leave it to the people of Australia to say on the facts whether that is true. The honorable member says that we are out on a policy of revenge, and that we mean to make the “fat man” sit up. That, he says, has been our intention ever since the great strike of 189 1. If that were really our object, have we hot had many chances of achieving it long before this? I say fearlessly that no one in my electorate, whether he be a squatter, shearer, rouseabout, or bullocky, has ever appealed to me in vain to do him a service when I believed him to be right. I entertain no feelings of revenge towards any one, and the fact that at each election I am returned by a large majority proves that that is so. When I first took up the cudgels on behalf of the Labour party, I certainly had in me the spirit of revenge. After a man has had to “waltz Matilda” over the plains of western Queensland, mile after mile, and to visit shed after shed, only to find himself “blacklisted”; after a man has had to resort to fictitious names, and to use fictitious references, in order to get a day or two’s work here, and another day or two’s work there, only to be told to push on again, it is not surprising that such treatment should engender in him some feeling of revenge. But the members of our party have forgotten all that, and we are out, not for revenge, but to carry out the policy that we have enunciated since we first banded together. If I, or any other Labour man in. this House, had made statements such as some mem- bers of the Opposition have made, the honorable member for Parkes might very well say that revenge was our object. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition once said that he did not believe in paying for land at all. He made this statement -

I do not believe in paying for land at all. I believe in taxing it. And if we tax it to its full unimproved value we shall have no need to sell it ; indeed, no one will buy it. When a man wants a bit of land in this Colony he has to go hundreds of miles back into the’ bush behind his strong neighbour, who has picked out the eyes of the country. We ought to tax the strong neighbour for every ounce of privilege which he possesses over the man who proposes to go into the bush.

We are going to shift you and we are going to appropriate your lands ; and we are going as a State to use that land just as we use our railways.

He went on to say that the land system of New Zealand was a farce; that there were many unemployed there, and that real prosperity was only to be secured by the nationalization of the land. Then, again, Mr. J. C. Watson, a former leader of the Federal Labour party, said on one occasion, “ Tax the value out of the land,” while Senator Pearce said, “ Make it too hot to hold.”

This measure will have a very bad effect in that it will frighten capital from Australia. It will make money that ought to be available for loans on mortgages on small and large properties harder to get, and in time to come, as the man on the land gets poorer, and has a smaller margin of security to offer, he will have to pay more interest for what he does get. To satisfy honorable members that New Zealand is not as prosperous and a* rosy as has been made to appear, I would point out that the Argus, of 25th June last, published an interview with Mr. D. J. Nathan, a visitor from that country, in which he said-

Sir Joseph Ward has also intimated that the new penal impost under the graduated land tax will have to be repealed. This heavy tax on both town and country estates over a certain value has only recently come into force, but the nature of its effects is obvious. Propertyowners are quite willing to bear their share of our expenses of government, and even of the cost of our humanitarian experiments. It is not solely or even mainly for selfish reasons that the heavy graduation is opposed. The real reason is that it operates to restrict enterprise. Land and buildings of considerable value are required for almost every industrial undertaking, for woollen mills, for jam factories, for warehouses, and so on. Penalizing the ownership of such land and buildings is penalizing the trade and industry by which the country lives. What we are feeling already in New Zealand is less the immediate burden of the taxation than the fear which it has created. The policy is bad, because it has made every would-be investor in industrial and pastoral undertakings afraid that yet another turn may be given to the screw - that in response to extremist demands at some crucial point in the history of a Ministry or party, the penalty may be increased or that the level at which it begins to be enforced may be lowered. Even as it is, every industry in the country, save mining and shipping, which are unaffected by the tax, is being hit. No one is prepared to launch out and put up a costly factory or warehouse on land which may have to bear so heavy a burden. As a natural consequence, there is stagnation in spite of the recovery from the recent tightness of money. Though the bank returns are showing steady accumulation, and the prospects for the year are good, there is no movement to extend industry.

He was then asked -

If Sir Joseph Ward repeals the penal tax, and “ goes slow “ on Labour legislation, that will come right? and replied -

I am confident it will. The Government has made a wise change in its closer settlement policy. It found that the compulsory purchase system was really raising prices against itself, so now it is prepared to finance voluntary subdivision of estates. It will advance the money to a group of purchasers, and let them deal directly with the owner. When the owner receives his purchase money, we should, of course, like to be able to offer him sufficient inducement to reinvest it in New Zealand, and it is because the penal land tax lessens the inducement that many of us dislike it. At the present moment any company or individual with anything over £39,999 would be foolish to buy further land, or property, or shares in any undertaking requiring land, as he would immediately be subject to graduated tax, and also to a further penal tax. Consequently men and companies of this description are sending their money and capital out of the country. Owing to the unfairness of incidence and collection, this graduated tax is paid more than once. Our experience of the close connexion between a high graduated tax on land and property, and the discouragement of industrial enterprise should be worth the study of Australians.

I say so, too, because in many of its features the picture that gentleman draws is similar to what has to be contended with here. We, too, have a lot of extremists who are in a position to push the Government on to twist the screw to any extent they like. An indication of that is to be found in the fact that before the present Caucus party faced the people we never heard of a land tax of more than 4d. in the£1, but now the rate is pushed up to 6d., showing clearly that, amongst the new members who have come into the House owing to the late elections, there must be a great many extremists who are able to make their presence felt. I shall reserve for Committee some of the other matters I intended to speak about, and statistics which I proposed to quote. I believe this tax when put into operation will be found to be most unjust and inequitable, and that, instead of tending to open up land that should be closely settled in Australia, it will not have that good effect, but will lay on us the burden of having done something which is really immoral in lowering by a legislative enactment the fair and reasonable price of that land.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Fenton) adjourned.

page 3338

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL

Bill returned from the Senate, with an amendment.

page 3338

PAPER

Mr. KING O’MALLEY laid upon the table the following paper -

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired under, at Pennant Hills, New South Wales - As a site for a Wireless Telegraphic Station.

page 3338

ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business - Long Sittings

Mr FISHER:
Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

.-In moving-

That the House do now adjourn,

House adjourned at 5.9 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 September 1910, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1910/19100916_reps_4_57/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives16 September 1910

PETITION

QUESTION

TARIFF

Mr PAGE:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr TUDOR:Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

CENSUS

Dr MALONEY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr KING O’MALLEY:Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr GLYNN:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr KING O’MALLEY:ALP

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Mr THOMAS:Postmaster-General · BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr Fisher:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr THOMAS:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr THOMAS:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr THOMAS:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr THOMAS:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

Mr THOMAS:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Joseph Cook:

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Mr PAGE:

Mr FRAZER:Minister (without portfolio) · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr Page:

Mr FRAZER:

QUESTION

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

Mr G B EDWARDS:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr FISHER:ALP

QUESTION

SUGAR INDUSTRY

Mr BAMFORD:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr TUDOR:ALP

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Mr GROOM:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr FISHER:ALP

PRIVILEGE

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HUGHES:Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Sir JOHN FORREST:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr THOMAS:ALP

Mr RILEY:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr THOMAS:

Mr CANN:NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr THOMAS:

QUESTION

BREAK OF GAUGE : JUNCTION CHARGES

Mr JOHN THOMSON:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:ALP

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RENTALS

Mr FENTON:MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr KING O’MALLEY:ALP

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Second Reading

Mr HARPER:Mernda

Mr PAGE:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

Mr HARPER:

Mr W J JOHNSON:ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr HARPER:

Mr Fowler:

Mr HARPER:

Mr Thomas:

Mr HARPER:

House of Representatives
16 September 1910

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr GLYNN:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

Mr THOMAS:
Postmaster-General · BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FRAZER:
Minister (without portfolio) · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr G B EDWARDS:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr TUDOR:
ALP

Mr GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr THOMAS:
ALP

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CANN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

Mr HARPER:
Mernda

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

Mr W J JOHNSON:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP