House of Representatives
2 May 1918

7^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- CENTRAL WOOL COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- DISLOYALUTTERANCES
QUESTION
- SMALL ARMS FACTORY
QUESTION
- CAIRNS CYCLONE
QUESTION
- NOTE ISSUE
QUESTION
- LEATHER EXPORTATION
NATIONAL EMBLEMS AND ADVERTISING
QUESTION
- PRICE OF BUTTER
HIGHLAND REGIMENTS
PRICE OF SUG AR
QUESTION
- PRICES AND PROFITEERING
PAPER
- Compulsory Deportation of Italians
KALGOORLIE-PORT. AUGUSTA RAILWAY LANDS BILL
QUESTION
- FLOUR COMBINE
WAR PRECAUTIONS REGULATIONS
QUESTION
- CENSORSHIP
QUESTION
- WHEAT POOL
QUESTION
- PRESS CABLE SUBSIDY
QUESTION
- SHIPBUILDING
QUESTION
- POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- LUXURIES AND RACING
QUESTION
- REMOUNT DEPARTMENT: WAGES
QUESTION
- DEFENCE CONTRACTS
QUESTION
- CONSCRIPTION OF ITALIANS
QUESTION
- PRICE OF SUGAR
QUESTION
- PASSPORTS: SOLDIERS’ WIVES
QUESTION
- WOOL INDUSTRY
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
LANDS ACQUISITION (DEFENCE) BILL
- Second Reading

Mr. Speaker (Hon. W. Elliot Johnson) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 4328

QUESTION

CENTRAL WOOL COMMITTEE

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Isit true that Mr. F. W. Hughes, the managing director of the Colonial Combing, Spinning, and Weaving Company, has resigned from the Central Wool Committee? If so, will the Acting Prime Minister see that due notice of the appointment of some one else is given to the wool scourers, and that their wishes are consulted in the choice of a person to represent them on the Committee?

Mr WATT:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · NAT

– I learnt for the first timelast week, in conversation with the chairman of the Committee, that Mr. F. W. Hughes had resigned, but I have not yet discussed with Mr. Higgins how the vacancy shall be filled. When I do, Ishall bear in mind the suggestion of the honorable member.

page 4328

QUESTION

DISLOYALUTTERANCES

Mr CHANTER:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Acting Prime Minister read the paragraph which was published in this morning’s Argue under the heading, “ Babel in Brisbane at Political Gathering.” According to the newspaper account, at the meeting referred to, disloyal utterances were made by many persons. What action does the Acting Prime Minister intend to take in the matter ?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I have not read the paragraph referred to, but the honorable member has just placed it in my hands. It is worded as follows: -

BABEL IN BRISBANE.

disloyalpolyglotgathering.

Brisbane, Wednesday. - MayDay was celebrated in Brisbane at a large meeting of Socialists to-night. The gathering was remarkable for its polyglot nature, there being a real babel of tongues and a jumble of nationalities. The sentiments expressed were socialistic, anti-capitalistic, and anti-militaristic. Disloyal speeches were delivered in English, Russian, French, Polish, Greek, and Esperanto. Russian songs and recitations were rendered. One of the features of the evening was, apparently, to have been the presence of a German comrade. It was announced that he was un able to attend, as he said he feared internment. The chairman, Mr. J. S. Collings, said:- “I want to say here, and I hope the press will note it, that it is through no fault of ours that the German speech is not delivered here to-night. (Applause) If there are any German men or women in this room they are to understand that every time we use the word comrade they are included in it. (Loud applause.) The chairman, at a later stage, referring to the Russian situation, said that he claimed Trotsky and Lenin as comrades. Finally the meeting agreed to a motion protesting against the calling up of 40,000 Australian men for home defence Cheers were given for the Internationalists and the “ Bed Flag” was sung.

I shall see that the paragraph is at once placed in the proper hands.

Later :

Mr HIGGS:

– Apropos of the determination of the Government in regard to a recent meeting in Queensland attended by Russians, Frenchmen, Italians, Esperantists, and others, I desire to know whether the Acting PrimeMinister proposes to suppress the poems of one Tennyson, which contains a reference to the parliament of man and the federation of the world?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must point out that it is altogether out of order to ask questions arising out of an answer given by a Minister to a previous question.

page 4328

QUESTION

SMALL ARMS FACTORY

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence able to reply now to the question I asked yesterday regarding unemployment at Lithgow among persons who were employed in the Small Arms Factory there?

Mr WISE:
Honorary Minister · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NAT

– I have not yet been furnished with a reply, but the matter is receiving attention, and I hope to give an answer to-morrow.

page 4328

QUESTION

NATIONAL EMBLEMS AND ADVERTISING

Mr.FINLAYSON.- Some time ago, I called attention to the use of national flags and emblems, coats-of-arms, and so forth, for trade and advertising purposes.

Some good resulted; but the practice is creeping in again, and I desire to know whether the Acting Prime Minister will favorably consider the issue of a regulation to prohibit such use of national emblems, making it subject to permission, with a view to their display being confined to national or patriotic purposes?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but my colleague, the Acting Attorney-General, informs me that he has been dealing with it for some time, and hopes shortly to complete his proposals respecting it.

page 4329

QUESTION

PRICE OF BUTTER

Mr TUDOR:

– I understand that the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Greene), as Assistant Minister, is in charge of price fixing, and I desire to know whether it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that the price of butter has been increased by l½d. per lb. ; and, if so, in how many States such increase will take effect? I also desire to know whether the increase is due to the shortage of butter in Australia, or to the fact that too much has been shipped away, thereby creating an artificial shortage?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The only two States in which there has been any increase in price are Tasmania and Victoria, and it has become necessary, owing to a very rapid decline in supplies in Victoria, following the dry conditions, particularly in the Western District - a decline more rapid than I think in any other season for some considerable time past. As a consequence, it is necessary to import into Victoria a considerable amount of butter, probably over 3,000 cases a week. Under the circumstances, it is necessary to raise the Victorian price to enable the butter to be imported from Queensland - the only Statethat has any considerable surplus at the present time.

Mr Tudor:

– The 3,000 boxes is only 75 tons, and we use four times that amount, or 300 tons, a week in Victoria.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– That is quite true; but the honorable member, as an exMinister for Trade and Customs, knows perfectly well that it is not possible to have two prices running side by side in one State; therefore, the price in Victoria has to be raised to the level at which butter can be imported from other States.

Mr j H Catts:

– It is significant that the price goes up by 1½ per lb. the minute you get into office.

QUESTION

PRICES AND PROFITEERING

Mr TUDOR:

– Has the Minister for Trade and Customs seen a paragraph which appeared in the commercial columns of the Argus on Saturday last, on the question of price fixing, to the following effect : -

In isolated cases a certain section of traders in Melbourne and Sydney may lay themselves open to censure through creating artificially high prices. This especially applies to chemical lines, such as cream of tartar and acids not under control, and also to certain classes of jutegoods.

Then follows a comment that this is not the time for profiteering. If the Minister has seen the paragraph, will he have it brought under the notice of the Minister in charge of price fixing, with a view to action being taken to stop the alleged profiteering?

Mr JENSEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · BASS, TASMANIA · NAT

– I have not seen the paragraph, and I ask the honorable member to address his question to the Assistant Minister in charge of price fixing.

Mr Tudor:

– The Assistant Minister has heard the question.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– All I can say is that I shall look into the matter, and. take whatever action is deemed necessary in the public interest.

Mr FENTON:

– Has the Minister in charge of price fixing noticed the very drastic action by the British Government for the purpose of dealing with profiteers ; and will he endeavour to induce the Government to take the same action in Australia to protect the consuming public?

Mr.GREENE. - If the honorable member will bring any particular case under my notice, I shall look into it.

page 4331

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Reinforcements - Report of the Proceedings of the Conference convenedby His Excellency the Governor-General on the subject of the securing of Reinforcements under the Voluntary System for the Australian Imperial Force now serving abroad (held atFederal Government House, Melbourne, April, 1918).

Ordered to be printed.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

Compulsory Deportation of Italians

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received from the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) a letter intimating his desire to move the adjournment of the House today, to call attention to a matter of urgent public importance, namely, “ the compulsory deportation of Italians resident in Australia for compulsory military service overseas.”

Five honorable members having risen in their places,

Question proposed.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- I had hoped that a motion of this kind would have been rendered unnecessary by wiser and juster counsels prevailing with the Government. It appears, however, that the Government are not disposed to do the right thing in connexion with these forcible deportations, and that nothing remains for us - I think I may say all honorable members on this side of the House - but to express our indignation and our protest against the application of conscription to people in Australia in face of the most definite pledge and assurance to the contrary by the Prime Minister. It must have come as a very rude shock to the majority of the people in this country to learn that within about a week of the definite declaration on the part of the Prime Minister that he was done with conscription, and that voluntarism was nailed to the mast, conscripts were openly paraded through the streets of Melbourne. I do not know that the principle becomes any more justifiable by reason of the fact that the censorship has been invoked in all the earlier stages of this proceeding in order to prevent the people knowing what is taking place. In spite of the censorship, the people do know, and partly in spite of it and partly because of it, they are deeply indignant at what the Government are doing. I sometimes think with regard to this Government that they ought to substitute the ostrich for the emu in the Australian coat of arms, so prone do they appear to be to put their heads in the sand by means of the censorship, and by stifling discussion conclude that they have stifled public feeling and public indignation. There is not much consolation in the fact that the men who are to be deported are not people of our own race. They are, however, people of an allied race; they are people who have been attracted to Australia by the BritishFlag, and who have come on our invitation and our representations as to certain conditions prevailing here, only to find that in regard to themselves the best traditions of the British race, and all that is signified by the British Flag, have been either discarded or dishonoured. It was part of my duty on Friday of last week to attend a deputation introduced by the Leader of the Opposition to the Minister for Defence in respect of this matter, and I submitted to the Minister, as I submit now to the House, that when the people of Australia definitely, emphatically, and by a very large majority, declared on the 20th December last against a policy of conscription, their declaration was not limited to the conscription of our own people, but meant that they were unfavorable to the conscription of any white man in Australia for military service overseas.

I propose to show that thepeople and the Government of Australia are solely responsible in this matter. The Acting Prime Minister has been very courteous and conciliatory, but he cannot shelter himself or the Government behind either the Imperial Government or the Italian Government, because the responsibility for doing the right thing, according to British law and tradition, rests with the Commonwealth Government, and they alone must answer for what they are doing. When in speaking at the deputation to the Minister for Defence, I said that Australia’s declaration against conscription applied to all white men in Australia, the Minister replied, “If conscription had been adopted in Australia, it would not have applied to these very men in whose behalf you are speaking; these men have deliberately determined to remain Italian subjects, and not to become, as they might have done by naturalization, British subjects.” Doubtless, the contention that aliens in conscript countries may not be required to serve is substantially correct; although they may be called upon in certain circumstances. But if it is a fact that aliens in this country would not have been conscripted under a conscription law passed as the result of a referendum of the Australian people, it is equally true that the Commonwealth Government in acquiescing in a request by the Italian Consul to conscript these men, would, in the event of conscription here, have been on infinitely stronger ground than they occupy to-day, having regard to the fact that conscription has not been adopted in Australia. Therefore, it is idle to suggest that, in those circumstances, these men would have been immune from military service. Personally, I would still have offered objections to the conscription of any men, for reasons which honorable members of this House doubtless know perfectly well. But my objection would have had considerably less force if we had adopted conscription in Australia, and that conscription had not in itself applied directly to these aliens, but, by arrangement with the Italian Government, had at a later stage been so applied to them. I shall say something a little later about the request from the Italian Government. For the present I shall content myself with saying that, so strongly do I feel with regard to the conventions of civilized nations on the question of deportation and extradition, that I venture to say that no direct request ever came to the Commonwealth Government, either directly or through the Imperial Government, from Italy, that we should deport these men.

Mr Watt:

– The honorable member is wrong.

do not deny the power of the Commonwealth Government to eject these men. I am not going to argue that question, since I believe the Government have the power, arising from more than one source, to do so. I am prepared to admit that their power to eject is co-relative with, and equal to, their power and duty to protect these men within our shores. Since it is a fact that the parent State may not interfere., in a British community, to do what it conceives to be justice to one of its sons within the limits of our community, it follows even more strongly that it cannot interfere to lay violent hands upon him. My honorable friend the Treasurer has referred to these conventions, and doubtless- he will say that the Government, although a non-conscriptionist Administration, is bound to give effect to a request of the Italian Government. I wish to remind the honorable gentleman that his is a non-conscriptionist Government - that he stands here as the guardian of the policy of no conscription for Australia. There are no two parties in Australia on the question of conscription. At least, I assume in favour of the Government that there are not. I assume that when the Government say that their policy is voluntarism they mean it, and that they do not mean that it is their policy only so far as they cannot evade it, get round it, or defeat it. I assume that they honestly and candidly mean that voluntarism is the policy of the Government and of Australia. Therefore, when Italy comes to us - if she does - with a request as to her citizens resident in Australia, what must our answer, as a responsible self-governing people, be? It is perfectly clear that, if Italy should say, “ You should apply conscription because you are our Ally,” or if Britain should say, “ You should apply conscription because we are all fighting together,” and if Australia should choose to stand on her rights - as she can stand on her rights - and say that the matter of how we shall enlist troops is entirely something for ourselves, no one could dispute that position. The Imperial Government recognises this fact, and has not sought to interfere with us in this regard. If the Italian Government, a friendly Government, an Ally of ours in this war, and one to whom consideration within the limits of our duty should be extended, makes a request that we should seize certain men in Australia, I can conceive what our answer should be. The Treasurer must not for a moment forget the essential fact that it is the Commonwealth Government that has to do this thing, and not the Italian Government. They do not seek to do it. They ask us to do it, and whatever is done must be done by us according to the standards of international law and British practice. If we are asked to deport these men it means that we must lay violent hands on them, that we must arrest them against their will, that we must enter their homes in the last resort and wrench them from their families, and. that we mustleave their children in Australia provided for orunprovided for, but nevertheless bereft of the breadwinners and those who they had a right to believe would be by them in every emergency. It is a very serious thing to arrest these men, to enter their homes and do violence to them.

Mr WATT:

– I have heard many of the facts of the lives of these men from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition, and the members of the deputation that he introduced to me. I speak with full sympathy with them, but with a sense of responsibility as to what a Government must do when a request is made by a friendly or allied Government. In wartime many traditions are modified, and many conventions altered, I venture to think that out of this great war will come, perhaps, the establishment of new traditions in relation to nations that have fought together against the common enemy. I have always been sympathetic with the dependants of naturalized and unnaturalized Italians. I understand that their position was fully stated to the Minister for Defence at the interview to which the honorable member for Batman referred. Since then we have had an opportunity of consulting as to how the relatives of those men shall be treated. The separation allowance which the Italian Government allows is mighty little for a woman to maintain the conditions under which Australian women try, or hope to live; and we are doing our best to meet the circumstances, with no expectation of any repayment; it is purely an act of grace to meet special cases.

.- I regret exceedingly that the occasion has arisen for the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) to move the adjournment on such a question. This is not quite such a new trouble as the Acting Prime Minister would lead us to suppose. As a matter of fact, about 26th March two women waited upon me regarding it, and I wrote to the Prime Minister, from whom I received the following reply, dated 3rd April: -

With reference to your letter of the 27-th ultimo, on the subject of Italians in Australia called up by the Italian Government for active military service, I am directed to inform you that the Commonwealth Government has arranged to pay the difference between the Italian and Australian rates of separation allowance, but that it does not propose to make up the difference in the two rates of pay.

The matter is being brought to the notice of the Consul-General for Italy.

I quote that letter merely to show that the question is not so new as the Acting Prime Minister seems to imagine. I am glad to know that the Government, since last Monday, has reconsidered the position so far as the hard cases are concerned. This may have nothing to do with the general question, of conscription, but we cannot get it out of the mind of some people in the country that it is the thin end of the wedge. However, we have the assurance which the Acting Prime Minister last Monday gave to a deputa tion of ladies, some of them Italian, and some born of Italian parents in Australia; while others were Australians, of British parents.

– I should like the honorable member to explain the difference between the two positions. Take the case of a Canadian who comes to Australia, a,nd who, owing to his being born in another British Dominion, becomes a citizen here; if we agree to Italians being called up at the request of their Government, we must also grant a similar request made by the Canadian Government, which has adopted conscription.

I regret the limitation of this debate to two hours, which is all too short a time in which to deal with a question so important. We are laying down ‘a precedent - making history, and, from my point of view, very bad history. The other day, as I say, a deputation of ladies waited on the Acting Prime Minister, and amongst those present were two young ladies born here of Italian parents, one of them over twenty-one, and the other a little younger. It was stated that in one family there were two brothers, one of whom was three months old when he landed in Australia. He is an Italian citizen, and has been seized for deportation for service overseas.

Mr Boyd:

– Has he not become naturalized ?

Mr TUDOR:

– His father, became naturalized after the boy’s birth, but the naturalization of the father does not carry with it the naturalization of’ the son. Honorable members who were in this Parliament when we were dealing with the Old-age Pensions Bill will recollect the difficulties we experienced in regard to naturalization. On two or three occasions we had to extend the time allotted for aliens to become naturalized in order that they might qualify for an old-age pension. A brother of the young Italian I have mentioned is under twenty-one years of age, and will be left in Australia while his brother is forcibly deported. Recently, a Conference was held for thepurpose of promoting harmony in the community, but actions of this kind lead to discord.

Mr Archibald:

– The honorable member is arguing like a Petticoat Lane Jew.

Mr TUDOR:

– No doubt the honorable member is a good authority on Petticoat Lane, and on Jews also. He looks as wise as an owl, but is as simple as a kewpie. I was glad to hear the Acting Prime Minister say that, in order to afford some relief in cases of hardship, the Government have agreed to increase the allowances to dependants of Italians who are being sent overseas. If it is difficult for the Australian woman whose husband has gone to the Front, and who has children dependent upon her, to make both ends meet, how much more difficult will it be for the Italian women, many of whom cannot speak a word of English? I regret exceedingly that the Government have acquiesced in the deportation of these men, but I hope they will take every possible step to modify the hardships that are imposed, in order that we may fulfil our part in the present great struggle.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

.- Boiled down, the Acting Prime Minister’s explanation was merely a statement that the Government take the responsibility for aiding the Italian Government to force Italian citizens out of this country. The honorable gentleman made no attempt to justify the complaisant attitude adopted by the Government, except to say that Australia would have been disgraced if the Government had refused the request of the Italian Consul for the rounding up of Italian residents, and shipping them to Europe in order that they may be brought under the jurisdiction of the Italian military authorities. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, there could be no difference in principle between the request from the Italian Government and a similar request from the Government of Great Britain, or Canada, or any other of the conscript selfgoverning portions of the British Empire, that persons born under their jurisdiction, and now resident in Australia, should be conscripted, and sent abroad to fight. The Australian people must watch this sort of thing very carefully, otherwise they will find that, in spite of their emphatic pronouncement against conscription, tacit understandings between the various conscriptionist authorities in the Empire and the Government in Australia will result in the wishes of the Australian people being defeated, leaving only Australianborn citizens in the Commonwealth to be dealt with by the conscriptionists when the time is opportune. The same people who, at the time of the conscription referendum, rent the air with cries about the disgrace of getting other nations to fight for us, will point to the fact that Italians resident in Australia were conscripted without any great outcry being raised, and possibly that Servians, Frenchmen, and Americans, who were in Australia, have been treated in the same way, without any public protest being made. Who is to say that the British Government will not request that Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen, who are liable to conscription in Great Britain, but are resident in Australia, shall be treated in the same way as the Italians have been, and deported from Australia to fight against their will? If such a request were made, the Commonwealth Government could offer no objection, and I have not the slightest doubt that they would acquiesce in the deportation of Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen as tamely as they agreed to the deportation of the Italians. The Acting Prime Minister said that this question is apart from the conscription issue. The forcible deportation of Australian residents for compulsory military service overseas is absolutely bound up in the conscription issue, and represents an attempt to defeat piecemeal the verdict of the Australian people against conscription. The honorable gentleman also told us that if the Government had refused the request of the Italian Government, Australia would have been disgraced. If that be true, how much more would Australia be disgraced if a similar request by the Imperial Government in regard to Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen resident in Australia were refused. I have not the slightest doubt that such a request would be granted by the party now in power.

Again, the Acting Prime Minister stated that naturalized Italians who have been seized, and are now in camp, can please themselves as to whether they go to Italy, or remain in Australia; if they go abroad, they will go voluntarily. If that is the position, why do not the Government release these men from camp? If they are naturalized British subjects they should be released immediately, and be free to exercise their own choice as to whether or not they join the forces fighting overseas.

Lord Forrest. - The plan of the honorable member is to prevent anybody from going.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I would offer no objection to the departure of anybody who wanted to go to the Front - even a peer of the realm. Despite the assurance of the Acting Prime Minister that naturalized British subjects will not be forcibly deported, they are still detained in camp.

Lord Forrest. - They are in camp of their own free will.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– They are not.I have received a letter from the secretary of the Amalgamated Miners Association, Broken Hill, in which he says -

The Italian members had a meeting last Sunday, and decided in a body not to be conscripted. They are desirous, if possible, of finding out what stand is being taken by their fellow-countrymen in other .parts of Australia. . . We would point out that they are crying out here that they have not enough men for the purpose of raising ore for munitions, and yet we find that the Government is prepared to allow 200 men who are working in the mines raising ore to be taken away for the purpose of conscripting them for the war. Each of the Italians at Broken Hill has received notices from the Italian ConsulGeneral for Australia intimating that he will’ be here the second week in April for the purpose of enrolling them to take part in the war. You might be able to find put for us from some of the authorities in connexion with the Act as to whether or not they have the power to do this.

I have copies of the orders issued in Italian by the Consul for Italy, in order to call up all Italian subjects who are fit for military service, but apparently Broken Hill proved a very unproductive field. I understand that the Italians there have refused to answer the call of the Italian Consul. There is not the slightest doubt that public feeling is overwhelmingly against the action of the Government. The people have become aware of the facts of the case, in spite of the suppression of news through the censorship. All mention of Italian conscripts was carefully kept out of the press, but the day before a batch of Italians marched from Spencer-street through the city paragraphs appeared in the press stating that the loyalty of the Italians would be shown by a parade of these men, who had been rounded up by the Australian Government at the instance of the Italian Government, in order that they might be compelled to fight. Then we read in the press next day of the “ patriotic fervour “ that blazed in the eyes of the Italians as they caught sight of their national flag. Not a word was said about conscription, or about forcibly taking men to the barracks to ascertain if they were medically fit. Not a word was said about an Italian who was rejected as medically unfit and then grabbed again by a military squad, which was waiting at his home, and taken back to the barracks and subsequently released. Not a word was published about the protest meetings held in Melbourne and elsewhere and attended by thousands of people, but there was a whole column about the “patriotic fervour” of men who are forced to go away and fight. Then we talk about the privileges which residents in Australia enjoy. As the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) has said, the aliens resident here are liable equally with the native-born citizen to every penalty provided for a breach of the civil or criminal law. The Acting Prime Minister has offered as the only excuse for the action of the Government the statement that it would be disgraced if it did not acquiesce in the request of the Italian Government. This action in regard to the deportation of Italians for military service must be fought here and now. If we allow these Italians to be deported, it will not be long before British-born subjects resident in Australia will be called upon, at the special request of the British Government, or as the result of the Prime Minister’s visit to the Old Country, to return there for military service. In that way we shall be getting nicely behind the verdict of the people on the question of conscription, and there will remain in Australia so few that have not been conscripted that a referendum on the subject will be of no material consequence. When that stage is reached, the Government will probably pluck up sufficient courage to say, “ You must have conscription, whether you like it or not.”

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- I do not propose to occupy the attention of the House for more than three minutes. I rise to express my sense of satisfaction that the Government propose to make a compassionate allowance to the dependants of these Italian citizens, and so to save them from the otherwise inexpressible rigour of this proceeding.

Mr Higgs:

– The honorable member admits the “ inexpressible rigour “ of the proceeding?

Mr KELLY:

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– I regret that I offended the honorable member for Wentworth. I certainly had no intention of doing so. When he used the words, “ inexpressible rigour,” I desired to remind him. that the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) had suggested that we could not understand the language of a cultured gentleman like the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan), and that he should, therefore, make his speech, as far as possible, monosyllabic. I agree with the honorable member for Batman that Britain has alwaysbeen known as the home of freedom. It has received political refugees from almost every country, but has never given up one. In this case, however, a different attitude is being taken up. We invited these Italians to make their homes here. The Queensland Government sent a representative to Italy to secure emigrants from that country, and many gladly came here. Honorable members sitting behind the Government may not agree with me, but I consider that the action of Australia in defeating the conscription proposals of the Government at both referendums was the very best advertisement she could possibly have secured. After the war there will be in all the belligerent countries many who, like the Germans after the FrancoPrussian War, will be anxious to get out of those countries where militarism is rampant. They would, but for the action of the Government, have turned their attention to Australia, but we are now destroying the value of the action which was taken by the people of Australia. We have been asked to produce foodstuffs for the Empire and the Allies, but the action of the Government in taking away Italians will deprive the great sugar industry of Queensland of thousands of workers. I understand that there is a desire to close the debate almost immediately. All I have to say, in conclusion, is that the Government, in view of the opinion expressed by the people of Australia at the last referendum, when” conscription was defeated bya larger majority than ever, could easily have side-stepped the matter, and it would have been very much better if, instead of sending Italians out of the country by means of conscription, they had asked Italy whether she was prepared for peace by negotiation.

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

– I indorse every protest that has been uttered against sending Italians away. I can imagine what would have happened in the days of Palmerston if England had dared to say that she would give up political refugees. These Italians have come to Australia. The law does not permit them to become naturalized until they have been here a certain number of years. I informed the Minister yesterday of one case, in which a man who had been previously turned down as being physically incapable of bearing arms had been threatened with a bayonet and kept under control for about three hours.

Question - That the House do now ad journ-put. The House divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 30

Majority . . ..18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 4344

KALGOORLIE-PORT. AUGUSTA RAILWAY LANDS BILL

LordFORREST. - I wish to know from the Minister for Home and Territories whether clause 12 of the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway Lands Bill, which passed this House yesterday, will not cover claims for compensation submitted prior to the passing of the Act, and whether the clause will not be operative in regard to the claim for £70,000 submitted by a pastoral lessee for water from a well not used by him, and which cost him nothing? I would also like to know whether, during the passage of the Bill through another place, the Minister will make provision in it, so that the right of the Government to make counter claims under clause 12 in regard to claims submitted prior to the passing of the Act will not be impaired?

Mr GLYNN:
Minister for Home and Territories · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The question submitted by the right honorable gentleman has reference to that provision in the Bill which stipulates that where a claim is submitted by any person for compensation, and the High Court finds that the property had reallybenefited to a greater extent than the amount of the claim, the excess will have to be paid by the claimant to the Crown if the Justice so orders it. The right honorable gentleman wishes to know whether that provision should not be extended to existing claims. On the whole, our legislation is never retrospective, except in very rare instances, and there are very few claims, not involving more than 6,000 or 7,000 acres of land, which can be regarded as outside the scope of this Bill - that is, land acquired and not paid for - but there is one big claim, amounting to £104,000, which, as I said last night, the Department assesses at £3,355. That case is now going before a High Court Justice. I scarcely think that we should be justifiedin amending an Act of Parliament in order to apply a new principle to a case which is actually before a Court. Furthermore, the principle of betterment is not provided for in the Bill with which we dealt last night. It is merely provided for incidentally in respect to claims for compensation ; it does not apply to all the lands affected by the railway. The object of the measure is to prevent claims, which might be regarded as unfair, being submitted in the future, and as those to which the right honorable gentleman has referred are existing claims, the principle laid down in clause 12 as a deterrent to unfair claims could not possibly operate in connexion with them.

page 4345

QUESTION

FLOUR COMBINE

Dr MALONEY:

– Has the attention of the Acting Prime Minister been drawn to a paragraph in this morning’s newspapers pointing out that Mr. Elmslie, the Leader of the Opposition in the Victorian State Parliament, has drawn the attention of the Premier of the State to a case in which flour has been refused to bakers who will not conform to the price fixed by the combine who hold the flour? It was also pointed out that one man at least had been pushed out of business. In view of the fact that many of our War Precautions Regulations impose imprisonment as well as fines on those who commit breaches of them, will the Acting Prime Minister consider the advisability of gazetting a regulation by means of which a person who refuses another the right to live may be put in gaol for twelve months?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I know nothing of the matter, but I recommend the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Greene), who has recently assumed control of the matter of price fixing, to consider the suggestion submitted by the honorable member.

page 4345

WAR PRECAUTIONS REGULATIONS

Mr J H CATTS:

– I would like to know from the Acting Prime Minister if we could not adopt the practice of treating amendments to the War Precautions Regulations as amending Bills are treated, that is, by some attempt at consolidating them. I have in my hand a War Precautions Regulation No. 98 of 1918. A certain regulation is amended by thirtyeight others. In such circumstances I find great difficulty in arriving at the meaning of any regulation, but if the principle I have suggested could be adopted we should see exactly what each regulation was intended to mean.

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I think that the honorable member has misread the regulation to which he has referred. It does not amend thirty-eight other rules; they are merely cited for certain purposes.

Mr J H Catts:

– It says certain rules are amended by certain others, and it mentions thirty-eight.

Mr WATT:

– There is, I admit, a good deal of interlocking as the reguations now run. It might involve considerable expense to codify in every case, but I shall consult the AttorneyGeneral to see whether it is not possible to effect consolidation now and again.

page 4345

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP

Mr FENTON:

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether the censor has prohibited the transmission to the London press of the terms of the Opposition Leader’s amendment on the Ministerial statement?
If so, will the Minister have such prohibition removed?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– ‘It is not proposed in future to answer questions as to whether a particular message was or was not detained by the censor. In the present instance, however, an exception will be made, and the following are the replies : -

No.
See No. 1.

page 4345

QUESTION

WHEAT POOL

Certificates: Commission on Consignments.

Mr LYNCH:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether it is a fact that the returns and advances made on the 1915-16 Wheat Pool have largely gone into the pockets of speculators and commission agents, and that huge losses, involving ruin in many cases, to actual growers with wheat in the other pools are certain from the same causes, unless drastic action be at once taken?
Will the Acting Prime Minister have a return prepared by each State Wheat Pool showing all particulars of all transactions in wheat certificates, and showing in each case what price was paid to the grower?
To insure accuracy in such returns, will he have, under the War Precautions Act or otherwise, a regulation immediately issued compelling all persons, firms, or agencies to make returns of all dealings involving the purchase, acquisition, or mortgaging of wheat certificates?
Pending the adoption of a comprehensive system of wheat certificate financing, will the Government take immediate steps to stop the exploitation of growers’ by placing adequate sums of money at the disposal of each State Wheat Pool, through which advances may be made at the rate of, say, 8 per cent, per annum on the assessed value of certificates, or where the grower insists on sale, purchase may he made of such certificates for the benefit of the Pool?

Mr WATT:
NAT

-The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

I am advised that, at the request of the growers, this scrip was made transferable, in order that farmers might realize immediately, and purchasers took the risk of the ultimate value of the scrip. Although personally unaware of details, I think, as the result, speculation has taken place. Before the sale of 3,000,000 tons to the British Wheat Commission, values of scrip were considerably below values ruling after the announcement. Publicity has been given as early as possible to all transactions having material effect upon values.
Each State office has charge of the handling of wheat within the State, andhas power to regulate or prohibit the sale of scrip. I da not think it advisable to limit the authority of States in this respect, and I do not feel justified in asking the States to disclose what were the private transactions between buyers and sellers; moreover, the preparation of the return would be a workof such magnitude that the State, officers would be seriously hampered in the discharge of their duties.
I do not consider this advisable.
I do not regard this as practicable. The value cannot be assessed till the wheat is sold.

Mr PIGOTT:

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether it is a fact that £ 113,000 has, up to date been paid as commission to London agents on account of the Australian Wheat Pool consignments?
If so, will the Government be able to reduce the commission on account of future consignments, seeing the greater part of the wheat is sold to the British Government, and, therefore, carries no risk?

Mr WATT:

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

Yes.
The present agreement with the selling agents only applies to the seasons 1915-16 and 1916-17.No arrangement has yet been made as regards 1917-18. When this is being discussed full consideration will be given to the aspect referred to.

page 4346

QUESTION

PRESS CABLE SUBSIDY

Mr HIGGS:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

On what date was the first payment of the press cable service subsidy made, and to whom?
On what date was the last payment made, and to whom?
What was the total amount paid, and to whom ?
Will the Minister lay on the table of the House the correspondence and papers connected with the subsidy?

Mr WATT:
NAT

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

The first payment was made to the Independent Cable Association of Australasia in November, 1910.
The last payment was made in August, 1917, to the Independent Cable Association of Australasia.
£12,9341s.8d., to the Independent Cable Association of Australasia.
It is not convenient to lay the papers on the table of the House of Representatives, but they are open for inspection at the Prime Minister’s Department.

page 4346

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Sydney Harbor Dockyard Sites : Unused Slips: Isherwood System

Mr RILEY:
for Mr. Mahony

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

Whether the special facilities for shipbuilding in Sydney Harbor are being overlooked by the Government?

Mr POYNTON:
Honorary Minister · GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– No. Consideration is now being given to proposals for the construction of ships at three sites in Sydney Harbor.

Mr. RILEY (for Mr. Mahony) asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

Why the three slips now lying idle at the Naval Dockyards, Cockatoo Island, are not being used for shipbuilding?

Mr POYNTON:

– There is only one slip suitable for shipbuilding not in use at present, and the question of its utilization is engaging the attention of the Government.

Mr. RILEY (for Mr. Mahony) asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

Have any payments been made by the Commonwealth to J. W. Isherwood?
If so, (a) what amounts have been paid; (b) for what purpose?

Mr POYNTON:

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

No; but, as stated on 4th April, in reply to a question by the honorable member, fees are payable to J. W. Isherwood at the rate of 3s. 4d. per gross ton, equivalent to about £550 per ship, for the preparation of classification plans, &c.
See No. 1

page 4347

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

PostalRobberies -Soldiers’ Letters.

Dr MALONEY:
for Mr. West

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Has he seen the report in the press of Inspector Walker, of the New South Wales Detective’ Department, that he could not supply any further assistance to the Postal Department, although postal robberies arestill taking place?
Owing to the serious nature of these robberies, and the apparently contradictory statements from the Postmaster-General and the Chief Commissioner for Railways, New South Wales, on the subject, will the PostmasterGeneral recommend the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to make inquiries into the matter?

Mr WEBSTER:
NAT

– The answer to the honorable “member’s two questions is “ No.”

Mr WEST:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

If his attention has been drawn to a publication called the Transmitter, of the 18th February, 1918, the official organ of the Post and Telegraph Association?
If not, will he obtain a copy and peruse an article headed “ The Army Postal Service - A Peep Behind the Scenes,” and, if he approves of the article, will he take steps to provide for a wide circulation of the information contained therein, in order that it may assist in the despatch and delivery of letters to our soldiers and sailors during the war?

Mr WEBSTER:

– I have seen the publication and the article referred to. It was submitted by the general secretary of the association with a suggestion by the honorable member that I should have it inserted in the press. Before doing so, I desired to know if the article was authentic, and if it was original and the property ofthe Transmitter, but, although the general secretary was asked for that information over a month ago, no reply has yet been received.

page 4347

QUESTION

LUXURIES AND RACING

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the promise made by the Prime Minister some months ago, will the Government further tighten up the restrictionson imports of unnecessary costly luxuries, particularly wearing apparel, jewellery, &c, in order to induce appropriate economies in war times, and to allow more shipping space for essential utilities required for primary and secondary production within the Commonwealth ?
Will the Government also reduce the number of racing fixtures in populous centres, which are alleged to be an unjustifiable dissipation of the country’s wealth at a time when every pound is needed for the effective prosecution of the war?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I am making inquiry, and will furnish the information as early as possible.

page 4347

QUESTION

REMOUNT DEPARTMENT: WAGES

Dr MALONEY:
for Mr. Mathews

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Whether it is a fact that the men of No. 7 Remount Depot, who only receive 8s. per day, are not paid an allowance the same as other units?
If so, why?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Works and Railways · for Mr. Wise · NAT

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows: -

All members of the permanent units, whose normal rates of pay are less than those of corresponding ranks in the mobilized Garrison Artillery, receive an allowance equal to the difference between the respective rates. Should any member of the No. 7 Remount Depot be not in receipt of a special allowance, it is for the reason that his rate of payment is, at least, equal to that for his correspondingrank in the mobilized Garrison Artillery.

page 4347

QUESTION

DEFENCE CONTRACTS

Dr MALONEY:

asked the Acting

Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he give the following information, specifying each case separately -

The fines imposed for all breaches of contracts with the Department of

Defence in connexion with the supply of food, clothing, &c, showing the names of individuals, the amount of fines, the nature of offences, and where committed, from the beginning of the war to the present date?

The names of the firms or individuals against whom complaints or reports have been made for any of the breaches mentioned above?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– I shall endeavour to furnish the information, in the form of a return, at an early date.

page 4348

QUESTION

CONSCRIPTION OF ITALIANS

Mr CONSIDINE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice - .

Whether it is a fact that a number of Italian-born naturalized British subjects are at present detained at Broadmeadows and other military camps?
If so, are these persons being held by arrangement with the Italian Government?
If a statement was made by Ministers that the conscripting of naturalized British subjects for service abroad would not be permitted, will the Minister give instructions for the immediate release of such persons?

Mr GROOM:
for Mr. Wise · NAT

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

No naturalized British subject is detained at Broadmeadows or any other camp.
Some naturalized British subjects have voluntarily enlisted for this service, but no compulsion is placed on them in the matter, and no arrangement with the Italian Government in respect to such persons exists.
If the name of any naturalized British subject who is alleged to be detained against his will is supplied, the matter will be immediately investigated, and the necessary action taken to insure that such naturalized British subject is not kept in camp against his will.

page 4348

QUESTION

PRICE OF SUGAR

Mr MACKAY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

How is the difference between the price of refined sugar at £295s. per ton and the price of raw sugar at £21 per ton accounted for?
What was the estimated surplus of sugar on hand at 30th March, 1918?
Is the cost of sugar destroyed by the recent cyclone in North Queensland to be a charge on the Consolidated Revenue or the sugar fund?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I am having a detailed reply prepared, and will furnish it to-morrow.

page 4348

QUESTION

PASSPORTS: SOLDIERS’ WIVES

Mr CONSIDINE:

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether it is a fact that the British Government are refusing passports to the wives of members of the Australian Imperial Force who wish to join their husbands in Australia?
If so, what is the reason for such action being taken?

Mr WATT:
NAT

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows : -

In a cablegram dated 5th November, 1917, on the subject of the issue of passports in the United Kingdom for Australia, the High Commissioner advised that the Imperial Government were adhering strictly to the existing regulations, which only permitted women and children to travelin case of extreme and urgent necessity. These cases were accepted on the recommendation of the High Commissioner after the fullest investigation. The women accepted were mostly wives and mothers of invalided soldiers, and could travel only by ships convoyed and escorted through the danger zones. In a cablegram dated 26th February, the High Commissioner reported that the practice outlined above was still adhered to,but that the authorities regarded the term “extreme necessity” as applicable to bona fide Australians who require to return home and satisfy the High Commissioner as to urgency. Women were only permitted to travel by guarded liner. The most approved cases were those of women domiciled in the Dominions who needed to return to their families or rejoin invalided husbands. The High Commissioner added, however, that there were still a large number awaiting accommodation, and that the rule will be strictly interpreted. It was not possible to provide at the present time for soldiers fiancees, nor for persons desirous of settling in Australia. ‘

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Did the British Government waive its right to the profits arising out of the Australian wool manufactured into wool tops and not required for military purposes?
Did the Australian sheep-owners signify in writing, or in any other way, their willingness to forego their share of the profits on wool sold in Australia under the BritishAustralian wool scheme and not required for military purposes?

Mr WATT:

– Inquiry is being made, and the information will be furnished as earlyas possible.

page 4349

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1st May (vide page 4265) on motion by Mr. Watt -

That this Billbe now read a second time.

– The collection of the income tax, for instance, would be administered from Collins House, in Melbourne, and later on, if that proved a success, there would be an agitation for the taking over of various other State instru mentalities. I need only refer to the

Post Office and the Northern Territory to remind honorable members that the Commonwealth is not very successful in administering the powers it already possesses. I have no desire to throw cold water on the efforts of the reformers, but I feel sure that the State legislators will view the matter in the light in which I have stated it, and will refuse to adopt the proposal to be brought forward by the Treasurer.

This is largely a machinery measure, and although it was admissible, and, indeed, advantageous to the House, for the Treasurer in his second-reading speech to deal with the Bill clause by clause, in order to let us know exactly what he proposes to do, I shall reserve my further remarks until the Bill reaches the Committee stage.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– I join with the honorable member who has just resumed his seat in congratulating the Treasurer on his excellent exposition of the Bill. All taxation measures are full of intricacies, and very difficult to follow. I think it was a happy idea to call together the officers of the Commonwealth and States who are engaged in the administration of taxation, with a view to arriving at some degree of uniformity, if possible. The suffering public have indeed had a sorry experience in the manner in which they have been harassed and harried by the multiplicity of returns they have been required to furnish, and there is an incumbent duty upon the Commonwealth Parliament to endeavour, if possible, to put an end to this multiplication, and minimize the difficulties and expense borne by the general public, in addition to the privilege of paying taxation. Iam sorry that I have not had an opportunity of refreshing my mind in regard to the proceedings of the Conference of Taxation Officers, but I recollect having been impressed with the number of outstanding differences which had been dealt with and the genuine effort made to arrive at a common understanding between the Commonwealth and the States. But there were some differences of a fundamental character that had not been settled, and towards the reconciliation of which I hope we shall bend our energies. One of those was mentioned by the Treasurer yesterday, namely, the different systems of taxation. The States, following the British taxation laws, have adopted the system of taxation from the very source. In the Old Country, and under the State laws, a company is required to pay taxation on the whole of its profits. There is no doubt that objection can be, and was, taken to that mode of taxing the whole of the profits, on the ground that if a company had a large number of small shareholders, many persons, who were not directly taxpayers, became subject to this mode of taxation. If that defect could not be overcome it would be a very grave objection to the system. It is not regarded as a serious objection in connexion with State taxation, and no means exist for the purpose of granting relief to the small shareholders; but, as we would in this Parliament regard . it as objectionable, I shall indicate to honorable members the steps that are taken elsewhere to afford that relief. No doubt the taxation of companies upon the whole of their profits is a very simple method, and has a great deal to commend it. The Commonwealth method is to first tax the undistributed profits of companies, and to then tax the distributed profits in the hands of the taxpayers. Thus we have an aggregation of income and a graduated taxation. I think most honorable members approve of that system as being fair and reasonable; therefore, the Federal Parliament is not likely to forego the system of graduated taxation. If we were to adopt the State system of taxing at the source, without the precautions which I shall indicate later, the maximum taxation would be1s. 10½d. in the £1, representing the ordinary tax, of1s. 6d. and the super-tax of 25 per cent. Having regard to the fact that the Commonwealth taxation reaches 6s. 3d. in the £1 in connexion with very large individual incomes, it is obvious that a vast amount of revenue would be lost, as steps would be taken by taxpayers to convert their properties into proprietary companies, and thereby get the advantage of a lesser scale of taxation. What we should endeavour to do is to find some workable compromise between the systems of the States and the Commonwealth. I believe that a compromise on the lines of Imperial taxation is capable of accomplishment - a compromise whereby the States would conserve their methods with some qualification such as I have referred to, and the Commonwealth also would maintain its system of taxation.

It is possible to devise a scheme embracing the fundamental features of the two systems. I suggest to the Treasurer that the Commonwealth, following the system in force in the States and in Great Britain, should tax income at its source, or, in other words, that companies should be taxed on the whole of their profits. ; The effect of that would be that the company would pay the tax on dividends of shareholders who were in receipt of incomes up to £800 a year, and would be liable for the taxation rate of1s. 10½d. in the £1. It is obvious that, following the system adopted by the States, the income tax arising from shares would be collected by the company and paid by the company. Then in order to conserve our system of aggregation and graduated taxation, the Commonwealth should follow its present practice of compelling all shareholders to include in their returns dividends drawn by them from corporations, but such taxpayers should be entitled to a refund of the amount which had already been paid by the company in respect of income tax on the dividends so drawn. A taxpayer’s schedule would practically be drawn up just as it is at present. Income from dividends would be included in the schedule, and we would be able to follow the present Commonwealth system of aggregation. It has been objected that if we were to tax the whole of the profits of a company, the result would be the taxation of small shareholders who would not otherwise be taxable. The British Government, however, have already adopted an effective means of meeting that objection. In Britain a coupon is issued to every shareholder in a company, and upon the return of that coupon to the Finance Department a shareholder who would not otherwise be a taxpayer is enabled to collect his proportion of the amount paid by the company on the whole of its profits. He is required to make a declaration, the form of which is furnished to him, and in this way the objection that has been taken to the system is completely met.

Mr Glynn:

– The position is altogether different in England, because there they are nearly all large shareholders.

SirROBERT BEST. - I do not think it is different; even if there were only a limited number of shareholders in a company, the principle would be exactly the same. Where but for this system of taxing a company on the whole of its profits, a small shareholder would not be taxable, he is entitled to a refund on presentation of his coupon. The coupon has to be verified.

Mr Glynn:

– The States, with the object of securing greater simplicity of administration, have discarded that system.

SirROBERT BEST. - It was never in force in the States. The States have not found it necessary to adopt it. Their ideas of taxation are different. Speaking generally, the taxation of companies in Victoria is higher than the taxation of individuals. In Victoria, I think the taxation in the case of individuals runs up to something like1s. in the £1, whereas the taxation of a company is in excess of that amount. Under the Commonwealth system the taxation of individuals runs up to something like 6s. 3d. in the £1, whereas’ our company taxation is only 1s.10½d. in the £1.

We have the precedent set by the Mother Country for the proposal I make, and I contend that it would furnish a sound and working compromise as between the Commonwealth and State systems. It would get rid of the present cumbersome and complicated Commonwealth system under which we deal first of all with the taxation of undistributed incomes, and subsequently, in the case of shareholders, with the distributed dividend in their hands.

Mr Glynn:

– I do not think the system is found difficult to administer.

SirROBERT BEST.- Clause 10 is, I think, of the most complicated character.

Mr Glynn:

– It is designed to correct a mistake in our previous legislation.

SirROBERT BEST. - Iam aware of the mistake to which the Minister refers, but the principle for which I am contending is practically conceded in the last two provisos to clause 10.

Mr Glynn:

– That is only to prevent double taxation. It does not touch the question of taxing at the source of income.

SirROBERT BEST. - It does not; but I am dealing with the objection that has been raised to the taxation of the whole of the profits of a company, rather than the undistributed profits. The principle that I am advocating appears to be conceded in the last two provisos to clause 10. The first of these reads-

Provided further that, where the Commissioner is satisfied that the holder of debentures or share stock payable to bearer is a person who is not liable to furnish a return, the Commissioner may refund to that person the amount of the tax paid by the company in respect of the debentures or share stock of that person.

That applies to cases where stock is issued’ to bearer, and will enable a refund to be made, just as I have said should be done in the case of the small shareholder who would not otherwise be taxable.

Mr Jowett:

– Does the honorable member prefer the English system?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– In that connexion, I do.

Mr Jowett:

– Because it is less complicated ?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Yes. I contend that the present State system is far simpler than our own, but I realize that to attempt to apply it to the Commonwealth would be to lose revenue, and to give rise to difficulties, unless with the safeguards to which I have already referred. The last proviso to clause 10 is as follows : -

Provided further that, where a company pays tax under this sub-section on any dividend or interest, and the member, shareholder, ov person includes that dividend or interest in his return, the proportionate amount of tax paid by the company in respect of the dividend or interest shall be deducted from the total tax payable by the member, shareholder, or person.

That practically’ admits the principle for which I have been contending. I have no desire to reflect for one moment upon our taxation officers. We were very fortunate in the choice of our first Commissioner of Taxation, and we are equally fortunate in the present Commissioner. I am aware, however, of the vast volume of correspondence that takes place, and of the irritation which is caused to a large number of taxpayers by reason of the adjustments which become necessary under the present system. Our object should’ be to simplify that system, and we should endeavour also to amalgamate the systems in force in the States, together with “ the main principles of our Federal taxation. In this way it is possible, as I have shown, . to secure a good working compromise.

Under the system at present in force in the Commonwealth, it is necessary that the Commissioner shall first of all ob- tain a list of shareholders, and then carefully trace every payment of dividends to the individual. That, in itself, is a complicated process.

Mr Glynn:

– If companies furnish, returns regularly, they have only to be checked from time to time.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Under the present system, every dividend paid to a shareholder has to te traced by the Commissioner, whereas under the process I suggest a company pays on the whole of its profits, and the individual shareholder has the responsibility of furnishing a return in order to secure a refund of the taxation paid by the company in respect of the dividends drawn by him. My scheme would largely serve the main principle of the State system, while it would completely meet our system of aggregation and graduated taxation. Those are two fundamental features of my proposal. The third is that, under it, the small shareholder would be protected by the issue of coupons. The responsibility is cast upon us of securing a uniform method of taxation throughout Australia, and if we can bring about a working compromise in the way I have indicated, we shall make a great stride towards that uniformity and central administration which are so necessary in the interests of economy, as well as to avoid irritation and annoyance to the taxpayer.

It is a very serious matter to introduce anything of a retrospective character into a taxation measure. Clause 48 provides -

The amendments of the principal Act made by paragraph e of section two, section five, paragraph d of section eight, and paragraph 6 of section ten of this Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the date of the commencement of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1915.

The commencement of the Act was in September, 1915. The object of this amendment is to tighten up the Act and remedy some defects which have been’ discovered by certain decisions of the Court. In the Meares’ case a system had been adopted of placing profits - I think it was £26,000 - to an appropriation account, but the Court held that this was not a profit and loss account, and consequently could not come within the provisions of the Act dealing with profit and loss and profits accumulated prior to the 1st July, 1914. There were also the Commercial Bank case and the Bank of New South Wales case, where the practice of the Department was differed from, rendering an alteration necessary. The object of this amending clause is to cure these defects in the Act, and make the taxpayer, other than the men who got their judgments, retrospectively liable. Clause 8. which was not emphasized by the Treasurer last night, has this purpose in view. It amends section 14, which is to be altered to read as follows : -

Provided further that where a company distributes to its members or shareholders any undistributed income accumulated prior to the 1st day of July, 1914, the sum so received by the shareholder shall notbe included as part of his income. For the purposes of this proviso, amounts carried forward by a company in its profit and loss account, appropriation account, revenue and expenses account, or any other account similar to any of the foregoing accounts, shall notbe deemed tobe accumulated income.

The effect of the case mentioned was to exempt the taxpayer from a substantial amount of taxation. In the case of that firm, it was held by the Court that an appropriation account was not a profit and loss account, and did not come within the exemption provided in section 14. The amending clause will rectify this matter in avery desirable direction. Although I protest against retrospective legislation and claim that it is vicious and undesirable, I do not propose to take the responsibility of opposing it in this case, because I believe that the success in the case mentioned was more technical than on the merits, and that the administration of the Department was in accordance with the spirit and intention of Parliament, and that if the law were allowed to remain unaltered it would involve, as in Meares’ case and in other cases, vast sums of money.

Another principle which should be embodied in the Bill is one which was incorporated in the War-time Profits Tax Assessment Act, providing for an independent tribunal where disputes exist between the Commissioner of Taxation and the taxpayer. I have complete confidence in the fairness of the present Commissioner, but there is not the slightest doubt that many taxpayers have suffered endless embarrassment and irritation by reason of matters which are legitimately the subject of dispute, in which they feel that they have been harshly treated, and that the law has been unjustly interpreted against them. It is true that they can resort to litigation, but many people would rather suffer the present loss than go to the expense of litigation in this connexion. If we can concentrate our efforts on simplifying the form of returns and of avoiding the multiplicity of them weshall be doing very valuable work. In some respects the provisions of the Bill have been tightened up so far as penalties are concerned. The words “wilful” and “ intent “ have been deliberately omitted. That may be all very well when there is a fair-minded man administering the Act. but the innocent taxpayer is liable to most harsh treatment. Many men send in returns according to their interpretation of the law, and in some cases there are quite unintentional omissions, with no view to defraud, but in both cases the taxpayers nominally are liable to the severest penalties, although they may have been quite honest and most innocent in what they have done. I am afraid that I cannot go very far in objecting in this matter, because, on many occasions, I have had to defend the Customs Act, which was framed on similar lines, and that fact could be flung at me; at the same time, there has been a distinct advance in this direction by reason of the drastic provisions which appear in the Bill before us.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– Could not greater simplicity be achieved in regard to the forms?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I would hardly be justified in saying that they could be simplified very materially, but there is room for reform in that direction. We cannot simplify the forms until we simplify the mode of taxation, and that is What I am aiming at. By simplifying the system, we can simplify the forms, andno doubt we should concentrate our efforts as far as possible towards simplifying the machinery and simplifying the forms, and towards reducing the multiplicity of them.

In the former Act, section 15, now repealed, made resident agents representing British or other merchants liable for the taxation on their principals. Clause 46 provides for certain refunds, but the

Bill does not go far enough. As the Act stood, the agent was held to be personally liable for ali taxation due by his absent principal after 30th June, 1915. Clause 46 provides that, where an agent has had to pay or has actually paid on behalf of his principal he can secure a refund from the Commonwealth Treasury; but that provision is grossly unfair to those honest absent principals who have actually paid the taxation according to the law which was then in force. Those who did not pay will not be called upon to pay, but those who paid promptly will not be permitted to obtain a refund. It would not involve a large sum of money to remove this injustice. I hope that the Treasurer will give his best attention to the scheme, which I have submitted as a compromise between the Commonwealth and the States, and I hope that it will result in a simplification of the existing forms. 1

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

– In common with other honorable members, I desire to congratulate the Treasurer upon the manner in which he has presented the Bill to us. It saves a great deal of trouble on the part of honorable members to have the old sections with the amending clauses immediately beneath them. If that system were followed throughout, it would be of great advantage. I realize thai; this is a machinery measure, and one which could he better discussed in Committee; but there are one or two matters to which I wish to briefly refer now, because I consider that they should receive a little further consideration before they are finally incorporated in the Bill

It is the desire of the Government to prevent duplication in connexion with income-tax collection, and the Treasurer has told us that the Commonwealth machinery for the collection of the tax will save the taxpayer something like 2^. per cent- on the cost of collection through the States. There can be no difference of opinion as to which Government should collect the income tax; Commonwealth and State Governments serve the one set of people. But if there is - any way in which we can economize in-our public expenditure we should adopt it, and the collection of income tax by one authority would both effect economy and convenience many taxpayers who at present have to fill in two or more forms at different times in the year, and make two or more payments. It would be a good thing for all concerned if an amicable arrangement could be come to in this matter between the Commonwealth and the States.

I wish now to direct attention to the effect of the Bill on co-operative societies. Hitherto, we have wisely excluded the profits of those societies from taxation, realizing that the societies are composed of persons who have put their money together to purchase necessaries and other requirements, distributing by way of dividend or discount anything in the way of profit over and above their expenditure and working expenses. To tax the profits of these societies will do injustice to many persons. We are desirous of avoiding double taxation, and the Treasurer stated that the object of some of the amendments is to prevent double taxation in respect of the proceeds from mining investments, but the provisions relating to the taxation of co-operative societies will bring about the double taxation of their members. Under the law, as it is proposed to be amended, persons with dependants, whose income is less than £156 per annum, and persons without dependants’, whose income is less than £100 per annum, will not be taxable. In my district, and in many other districts, there are many such persons who are members of co-operative societies. If. the profits of those societies are taxed in the aggregate, and also taxed as shown in the returns of their individual members, there will be double taxation of their members.

Mr Falkiner:

– The co-operative societies could reduce their prices, and thus extinguish their profits.

Mr CHARLTON:

– They must have a margin on which to work. Suppose, for the sake of the illustration, that a cooperative society makes a profit “of £3,000, its taxation will probably be at the rate of 2s. in the £1, a little more or a little less. The aggregate’ profits of the society will be taxed at that rate. In addition, the individual members of the society will be taxed on the amounts of profit or dividend distributed to them - £5, £6, £7, and similar sums. On thi* the rate might be 5d. in the £1. Therefore the members of the society will be doubly -taxed, and at two different rates. Furthermore, many of these members, as they do not earn £156 per annum, would properly not be taxable at all, but by compelling them to make a return of the profits distributed to them they will be taxed, notwithstanding any exemption. A man having less than a taxable income might receive a dividend of £5 from a benefit society, and if that were taxed 2s. in the £1 he would be forced to contribute 10s. to the revenue, although properly not taxable at all. A co-operative society is a different thing from a company or private business, being run merely to enable its members to make cheap purchases. I shall do my best in Committee to prevent the taxation of these societies.

Coming to another matter, the Bill provides that an employer may be compelled to recover money owing by a taxpayer who is in his employment. That provision may work very unsatisfactorily. I do not know why it would not be enough to provide for the prosecution pf defaulters. Some employers might dismiss men rather than be bothered with the collection of taxation due by them, and the non-payment of taxes might cause a mark to be set against a man, preventing him from getting employment.

As to the penalty for the making of false statements, I would point out that it is the easiest thing in the world for a man to make a mistake when filling in a return, though he may have no fraudulent intention, believing that his return is absolutely correct. But for such honest mistakes the man will be liable to prosecution. We must not lose sight of the fact that, by reason of the reduction of exemptions, many persons will be compelled to furnish returns who have had no experience of this kind of thing, and do not know what is required of them. Take such persons as men working in a mine and being paid by results. These men do not keep accounts of their earnings -week by week with a view to making a return concerning them at the end of the year. A party of several men may draw their money on the one ticket, but they keep no accounts, and cannot tell at the end of the year exactly what they have received or what their expenses were. Nor does the mining company keep an- account of the off-takes, because it cannot know what these have been. The men put in a re turn which is as nearly correct as they can make it, but on comparison with the return of the mining company for which they have been working it may be found incorrect. Moreover, mistakes occasionally occur through the Taxation Commissioners attributing to one man payments which have been divided between two or more. The man may make a mistake in regard to his deductions, and is liable to a penalty if he makes a deduction which is not permitted by the . law. How many men are there in the community - employers or employees - who know much about the provisions of the income tax law? All that most of us know is that we must go to the Post Office and get and fill in a return every twelve months. Most men put down whatever deductions they think they are entitled to make, and they are to be liable to penalties for mistakes, which , may have been made with the best intentions.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– Is the honorable member sure that he has stated correctly the provisions of the measure in regard to co-operative companies? Would not tha returns from such societies be treated similarly to the dividends distributed by ordinary companies or partnerships?

Mr CHARLTON:

– The Bill says that income is to include, in the case of a cooperative company or society -

All sums received from members in payment for commodities supplied to them, or received in respect of commodities sold by the company or society, whether on its own account or on account of its members.

– As a general principle, I say that to tax a man for an unwitting error is absolutely monstrous. I quite concur in the statements which have been made in regard to both the late Federal Taxation Commissioner and the present Commissioner. But I have a lively recollection of a State Commissioner in New South Wales taxing me to the extent of 10 per cent, for having put in my return a fortnight later than the prescribed date - which was equivalent to imposing on me a fine of £100. A suggestion has been put forward that mining companies should be allowed to deduct from their income any money which has been expended upon development or plant. Nobody has been louder than Ministers in urging the producers of this country to increase production. Now, we all know that the rabbit pest is one of the most serious menaces to production in Australia, especially since the trade in rabbits has become a commercial industry. As a result, people are now able to make money out of them, which they could not make before. At the present time, ifa land-owner, instead of playing with the pest by spending only a few hundred pounds per year in their destruction, destroys them absolutely, that expenditure is regarded as one in the nature of an improvement, and he is taxed upon it.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– Last year a promise was made to give redress in that matter.

Mr FALKINER:

– I understand that the right honorable member for Swan (Lord Forrest) promised to consider allowing expenditure on the destruction of rabbits to be deducted, and in acceptance of that promise many people have destroyed the rabbits on their property. I do not think that the subscriptions paid to clubs should be taxed.

Mr Tudor:

– Some clubs are in debt, and are trying to liquidate their debt. Their subscriptions are to be taxed as income.

Mr FALKINER:

– Very few clubs, at the present time, are paying their way. I should like to see a higher graduation of the income tax. The bachelor tax should be abolished, and those men and women who have had the self-denial to accept the obligation of rearing families should be given a really substantial exemption for each child; in fact if a man had a certain number of children, he ought not to be taxed at all.

I agree with the remarks made by the honorable member for Kooyong (Sir Robert Best) in regard to retrospective legislation. This is a most pernicious principle, and was unknown in our legislation until it was introduced by the Labour party. I think it is quite right to tax the estate of a man who has died during the financial year. I see no reason why, because a man has died during the year, his estate should not pay any income tax. Some estates, I understand, have avoided taxation on that ground. Whilst the taxpayer is subject to all sorts of penalties for any evasion of the law, wittingly or unwittingly, the man who sells a property, and practically sells his income, is not taxed at all. In regard to landed estate, a man may have held land for a number of years, and paid rates and taxes upon it, and if he has not used the property he may be out of pocket when he sells. In such cases, it might rightly be contended that the proceeds of the sale should not be taxed. But if a man buys a pastoral property off the shears, and sells it before the sheep have been shorn, or before the ewes have lambed, he makes a profit, providing he bought wisely, representing the year’s income from the property. Such a profit is treated as accretion ofcapital, and is not taxed. I say that such profit should be taxed. By the taxation of income which has been sold, the Government would gain a tremendous amount of revenue, and they could then afford in other ways indicated, to give relief to producers.

Mr Hector Lamond:

– How could the profit on the sale of income be ascertained ?

Mr FALKINER:

– If the value of a leasehold in Queensland can be ascertained, for taxation purposes, there need be no trouble in arriving at the value of the wool on the sheep, and the probable increase from lambing. Viewing the amendments as a whole, they seem to represent a tinkering with the principal Act ; and I think that, before introducing any amending Bill, the Government would have been well advised to have reviewed the whole system of taxation in order to meet the enormous military and civil expenditure which is now being incurred by the Commonwealth.

Sitting suspended from 6.25 to 7.45 p.m.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- I realize that this is a measure that can be dealt with in Committee; but there are some clauses to which I wish to refer before that stage is reached. When the Treasurer was speaking yesterday, I interjected in regard to the alteration made in the case of clubs. The Bill provides -

Income includes -

In the case of a club, society, or other similar association, the subscriptions and entrance fees of the members.

– Then the secretaries have had to pay the tax under a misapprehension. If the money has been wrongly collected from them within the last two years, I presume that under this Bill they will be able to get a refund. It is a serious matter for the clubs, and I hope we shall be able to relieve them of this liability in cases where they are not run for profit. If a club is piling up huge profits, and spending money on erecting grand-stands, and improving its property in times like this, perhaps we have a right to make it pay a little, but it was never intended that clubs of the kind which I have described should be taxed, in this way. In many cases where the club is in debt, the debenture holders have received no interest for years. The clause introduces a wrong principle as far as many clubs are concerned, which I hope we shall remove.

– They can, but. not if they decide to have their cases tried by the Minister under Part XV. No doubt Mr. Ewing, Commissioner of Taxation, knows all about that procedure, because he was in the Customs Department. Persons who neglect to furnish returns ought to be punished, and the section making them punishable has worked well. I do not think that any one will say that they get off too lightly, nor can it be said that they are punished too severely for the offences they commit, but persons who commit simple errors, with no fraudulent intent, ought to be dealt with simply, without being dragged into Court.

– Well, I have not been guilty of that crime, and no doubt the honorable member isan authority, and therefore I will not dispute the matter with him.

I desire now to refer to the proposal to make the measure retrospective. Where there is reason to believe that fraud is being committed through the Act not being made retrospective, I would favour making it so ; but the principle is bad. I have always objected, as far as the War Precautions Regulations are concerned, to any proposal to make them retrospective, because the Government may, by that method, use a regulation to catch some one. The principle is vicious; and in regard to this Bill it should only be applied in cases where there is reason to believe that persons are endeavouring to perpetrate a fraud on the revenue. Whenever we introduce an alteration of the Customs Tariff, the Customs Houses throughout Australia are closed on the day that the Bill is introduced, and the new duties, as a rule, date from 4 o’clock in the afternoon. That is a fair method; but it is altogether a vicious principle to say that a taxation proposal such as that now under consideration may be dated back three months, six months, or three years. Unless the Minister in charge of the measure can show good reason for breaking away from a time-honoured principle, the departure should not be made. I am heartily in favour of the proposal to tighten up the measure to meet the cases of persons who are endeavouring to evade the payment of income tax, and I shall give the Government every assistance to prevent fraud, because all people should pay their fair share of taxation, particularly at this time, when every pound is required to meet our obligations and overcome the difficulties that confront us.

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

– I can heartily indorse the remarks just made by my leader (Mr. Tudor). I have always regarded the attitude of the Government towards Tattersall’s sweeps in Tasmania as being rank hypocrisy of the vilest type. It is absurd for the Government to say they cannot stop Tattersall’s sweeps. Whenever I go to Tasmania I usually take a ticket, and, notwithstanding all the “ wowser “ yelping and yapping at the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) the other day, I urge that the Government, during the war, at all events, should take over Tattersall’s sweeps. A friend of mine who attended a drawing told me he could see nothing wrong with it. It is the height of absurdity for the Government of this mighty Commonwealth to say that they cannot stop it if they want to. We know, however, that Tasmania depends upon it for a certain portion of her income, and that may be the reason that prevents this Government from using their powers in the direction of prohibiting the sweeps. Whenever we go down our streets we can see wheels of fortune humming round, and, in my judgment, it is hypocrisy to pick out Tattersall’s for special treatment. Let us run these sweeps in Melbourne or Sydney under Government supervision, and let everything be above board.

Mr Lynch:

– With war bonds for prizes?

Dr MALONEY:

– That is a good suggestion.

I regret deeply that we are not taxing wealth as it should be taxed to meet our obligations in regard to this war, and I honour men like Sir John Grice, the chairman of directors of the National Bank, who stated the other day that men of great wealth were able to get from war bonds a return of7 per cent., and even more than that, whereas smaller investors, who invested all they could spare, could only secure a return of 4½ per cent. I do not accuse Sir John Grice of providing a peg for Labour agitators like myself to hang arguments upon. I think he was wisely looking into the future, and could see the debacle that would probably come upon Australia after peace is declared if the Government continue the policy of exempting war loan investments from taxation. I have given much study to this subject, and I know what a terrible commercial crisis ‘came upon Prussia after conquering Prance, notwithstanding that Germany had £200,000,000 in gold stored in the fortress of Spandau. Sir John Grice, I repeat, was wisely looking into the future when he uttered his warning, and could see the disastrous effect which the withdrawal of a large sum of money invested in our war loans - about £130,000,000 in round figures- from the area of taxation would have upon our financial position. He could see the danger ahead of this country, and realized that we are standing on the brink of a precipice, because that large amount cannot be withdrawn from taxation without making the burden fall more heavily upon the middle classes and the poorer sections of our community. We all know how countries in Europe have been devastated by this war, for which the brutal and bloodthirsty scoundrel of a Kaiser lias been responsible; and, even if I weary honorable members, I repeat that I hope one day to hear of the Kaiser’s body, as well as the ‘ body of every kinglet and princelet who caused this war, swinging in the streets of Berlin, in spite of what might have been said by Archdeacon Hindley, who does not hesitate to avoid telling the truth occasionally in the pulpit.

There is not one of those who have been engaged in trade and commerce in all its varied forms who would not thank his Creator if he could get back to those devastated places, even if he did not have one penny profit through all these terrible years of war. But what have been the profits of the big companies in this community during this war? I take this opportunity of thanking the Bulletin for its weekly summary of financial news. One may look through any issue of that paper and see what is happening. I have here a copy, and find that Paul and Gray, of Sydney, in 1913, the year before the war, had a reserve fund of £16,000, and, in 1917, it was £39,000. Let me take another. Finney, Isles, and Company, of Brisbane, in 1913, had a reserve fund of £44,000, and paid 8 per cent, dividend. In 1916 they wrote down £31,000; and yet, in 1918, they had still a reserve fund of £43,000, and still paid 8 per cent. Wunderlich, in 1913, had a reserve of £61,000, and, in 1918, £98,000. The Vacuum Oil Company, in 1914, had a reserve of £600,000 ; in 1915-16 it had increased to £800,000, and in 1917 to £1,600,000. According to the Bulletin of the 18th April last, the Commercial Bank of Tasmania had a reserve of £224,000 in 1913, and, notwithstanding the fact that two amounts- of £4,200 have been written off in the meantime, and dividends of 24 per cent, have been paid, that reserve has been increased this year to £283,000. The Cascade Brewery Company, of Hobart, paying a dividend of 6 per cent., had a reserve fund of £18,781 in 1913, but that reserve increased to £34,462 by the end of 1917, though the same rate of dividend has been paid. The South Australian Brewing Company had a reserve of £50,968 in 1913, and,, notwithstanding the fact that £69,000 has been written off since that date, it has now a reserve fund of £54,384. The Civil Service Co-operative Company, in Sydney, has increased its reserve fund from £49,011, in 1914, to £51,590 during the present war, although large amounts have been paid away by way of bonuses to shareholders. If honorable members will look at the Wild Cat column in the Bulletin, they will see from week to week how the wealth of companies is increasing, and how very rarely it is that a loss is shown, or that a company’s accounts balance fairly.

In addition to thanking Sir John Grice, I wish to place on record my appreciation of the manly statement made by Mr. Baillieu, that our war-time profits taxation does not touch him or people like him. Mr. Baillieu is now on his way to reaching his second million. I do not care how much money the Broken Hill Companies may make, because I know that when our party come back to power the Government will take its share. Fifty per cent, of our men have enlisted, but we have not reached 50 per cent, of the last shilling yet. In her hour of danger Australia ‘ asks her children to help her, and she, the kind mother, in her generosity pays -4£ per cent. How many of the great patriots of Australia have lent their money to the Government free of interest? I dare say that if the request was flung wide throughout Australia, asking people to lend their money during the war time free of interest, there are many who would give it. The Secretary to the Treasury has informed me in a letter that eight persons have loaned to the Commonwealth £640, for various periods, free of interest, that four persons have made free contributions of £40 10s., that interest on war loan bonds, amounting to £20 17s. 6d., has been repaid to the Commonwealth by five persons, and that donations have been made to the War Contributions Fund of £87,785 17s. 3d., this amount having been donated by a large number of persons, a number, however, being unknown to the Treasury. If the names of those who have contributed that £87,785 could become known, it would be “ up “ to the Commonwealth to grant them a certificate of honour similar to that which was issued to any person who voted at the Federation referendum.

America has been in the war for a little over a year, but J. D. Rockefeller, on an income of £12,000,000, pays £7,600,000 in taxation; Andrew Carnegie, who is not a resident of the United States, pays a greater proportion, namely, £1,300,000 on an income of £2,000,000; Henry Ford pays £600,000 on an income of £l,0O0,00P; and J. Pierpont Morgan pays £450,000 on an income of £700,000.

Once when I was in the Victorian State House, and the Probate Duties Bill was under discussion, there was a proposal before honorable “ members to impose a graduated scale of duties on estates rising from £10,000 to £100,000. The hour was late, and I endeavoured to have the words added “ and shall continue in the same ratio.” My amendment might have been carried had not one man, an unfortunate Scotchman, whom I have always blamed, got up and said that he did not object to the increase which his young friend, as I was termed in those days, had proposed, if the proportion ceased’ to rise at £200,000, because that would mean more than 20 per cent. I was pulling his coat tails at the time, trying to persuade him to let the amendment go, and have it knocked out in another place, because I was exceedingly anxious to get the amendment passed. If it had been agreed to it would have meant 30 per cent, on estates valued at £300,000, and that on estates valued at £1,000,000 everything would go to the State. In America, Mr. Ford pays 60 per cent, on his income of £1,000,000.

The income of the Broken Hill mines can remain the same with a limited output, because of the increase in the price of the metals. The metal is there to be mined, but it is found that with a smaller output they can still earn the same revenue as was earned prior to the war. Having the same income as they had prior to the war they escape our wartime profits taxation. That is the statement which they make. They are perfectly open on the matter. They say that they will escape all taxation under the War-time Profits Tax Act.

According to the Bulletin of the 14th March last, the North Broken Hill Limited paid a 20 per. cent, dividend in 1913, and had a reserve of £78,753. That reserve rose to £109,000 by the end of the year, but in 1917 the company, after paying dividends of 40 per cent., increased its reserve fund to £528,482. According to the Bulletin of the 11th January last, the Mount Morgan Company made a profit of £144,000 in 1913, and £141,000 in 1916. That was a case in which there was a drop of a few thousand pounds, but the profit increased to £168,000 in the following year.

Mr Falkiner:

– Can the honorable member suggest how we can make these companies increase their output?

Dr MALONEY:

– I cannot offer any suggestion. When these mines threatened to close down at the outbreak of war, the only way that I could see of keeping them going was for the Commonwealth Government to purchase all their metals at the cost at which they were selling in London previous to the war. For example, silver was selling at 2s. per ounce. I suggested to Mr. Andrew Fisher that we should do this in consideration of the companies keeping on full time, and that if. they failed to do so, the State Government, by the law of eminent domain, should seize the mines and work them in order to keep the town going. We have no keener instance of a town depending on mines than in the case of Broken Hill. The Age was kind enough to publish in its best columns a letter which I sent in dealing with this subject. It drew more attention to the matter than any remarks I made in the House would do. The outcome of it was that the Baillieus asked me to meet them. I gladly complied with their request, and we went into the matter thoroughly. After a few conversations, Mr. Baillieu empowered me to offer to Mr. Fisher the output of the mines at 30 per cent, less than the selling price in London. Had that offer been accepted it would have brought down the price of silver to ls. 4 4r5d. per ounce. I understand the price is now 4s. 3½d. per ounce. An ounce of silver will coin bullion to the value of 5s. 6d. If £1,000,000 worth of our Australian notes had been expended in so many ounces of silver at ls. 4 4-5d. per ounce, it would have given a profit of 300 per cent. But there was no necessity to have- the silver minted. It could have been kept in ingots at the Treasury. I said to Mr. Fisher that if, for argument’s sake, the German arms prevailed, and the German Fleet came here, the value of our notes or our bank balances would be nil, but that if we had all these ingots in the Treasury every citizen could take out his savings in gold and silver in the proportion of 25 per cent, gold and 75 per cent, silver, and plant, it in his back” yard. . I could not persuade Mr. Fisher to adopt my suggestion, and an opportunity of paying a large portion of the war expenditure was lost.

However, I would go further than America has gone. I would allow every company to make a profit equal to that which waa earned prior to the war, and I would take everything in excess. We are not feeling the war as those who are on the frontiers of the fighting are feeling it. We are only in the shadow of it. We see a uniform here and there in the streets, and we see, unfortunately, one of God’s images minus a limb, and the sadness of the sight grips our hearts, but we do not know what war is. I have never seen an actual war, but I passed over a battlefield shortly after a battle had taken place, and the’ horrors and miseries attendant upon war were very patent from what I saw there. I say that in our hour of need, as a part of the British Empire, we should not allow any one to retain profits in excess of the pre-war profits of his business. I am always thankful to Sir Alexander Peacock for putting on record the increased profits shown by insome tax returns. In one case, he showed that the increase during war-time was over 2,000,000 per cent, of the pre-war profits. The number of businesses started only a few years before the war must be comparatively small, and an examination by accountants would soon disclose the profits that should be allowed in such cases on a fair basis of, say, 10 per cent.

Honorable members must, in this connexion, bear in mind that we are dealing with enemies within our gates. We have many such enemies. Every man who has raised rents during the war, and every man who has unduly raised the prices charged for foodstuffs is, in my view, an enemy more vile than the enemies in front of us with weapons in their hands. They are our avowed enemies, but the man who, for the sake of filthy lucre, makes excessive profits during the war in the time of his country’s need, is a viler being than is the enemy who tries to destroy us with a rifle in his hand. That will be found to be the view entertained by the mothers in Australia who, after all, are the really heroic amongst us. The woman who is striving to keep a roof over her children, and to bring them up on very limited means, is a real .heroine. Hers is a life of constant worry and annoyance, and she is under a constant feeling of dread every moment in every day of the week, from the time of the landlord’s knock on Monday morning until he knocks again on the following Monday. A Jewish gentleman in this city, when I questioned him about raising rents, gave me an answer which I shall never forget. He ‘ brusquely refused to reduce ‘ his rents, and was careless of what I proposed to do in consequence. I informed him that I was going to do it, and do it hard. I received a courteous letter next day, asking me to come down and see him, and when I did so, he told me that he had considered the matter after I left; that he wanted only his 6 per cent. ; and that as he had decided that there ought not to be an increase of profits during war time, he would not increase the rents of his houses until the war was over. He said that he had thought it right to tell me that, and when’ I inform honorable members that he was the owner of fifty or sixty houses, they will understand the nature of the concession he was prepared to make. But he said to me, “ Why does not your Parliament bring in a law to stop landlords doing, this? Why should it be necessary for you to come down as you did last night and bully me to prevent rents being increased?” Well, I also ask why Parliament does not attend to this matter, and also the question of the increase in the price of foodstuffs 1 There should be a simple list posted up at every post-office in the country giving the local price over the counter of different kinds of foodstuffs, and there should be posted with that list the name of an officer to whom any one might address a post-card which would be followed by a prosecution where an overcharge was made. That would give the people a chance. A member of one of Mr. Gladstone’s Governments is credited with the saying that the introduction of the income tax made the English a greater nation of liars than did all the taxation that had ever been introduced before.

There are some amendments proposed by this Bill with which I agree. I have not been able to give a great deal of time to its consideration, but there are questions involved in this form of taxation which it will be somewhat difficult to deal with. I take the case of an orchardist, and it will be admitted that from the time he begins the laying-out of his orchard he must look forward to seven or eight years of continual expenditure without any practical’ return. During that time, he must spend money in wages, in the purchase of plants, in fencing and wire netting. He cannot deduct anything for this expenditure from his income during that period. In the eighth year he may derive a small income from his orchard, and in that year his expenses may be deducted from that income. I point out that the income derived in that eighth year is not the results of the orchardist’ s efforts in that year, but the accumulated effect of his efforts during the preceding seven years. After a little advice I received from the Commissioner of Taxes, I can quite see that it would perhaps open lie door to defalcation; but I point out that, whilst we can never hope to entirely prevent burglary, we can make it very awkward for the burglars whom we catch; and in the same way we could make it very awkward for the man who studiously endeavours to rob his country by falsifying his income returns. The same problem arises in the case of many settlers upon’ the land. If land is not cleared, it is merely an asset for the future. It brings in no return to the owner, and supplies no produce to add to the traffic upon our railways, or to be of use in meeting the requirements of the community. Some time is occupied in the clearing of land before it can be made productive; and I understand that if a man puts up a new fence on land he cannot deduct the expense from his income, whilst if he repairs or patches up an old fence, he mav deduct the expenditure which that involves.

On the whole, I believe the Bill is one which we can support, and for the introduction of which we may commend the Government. I trust that it is only the herald of another Bill which will serve to repeal that fraud upon finance known as the War-time Profits Tax Act. I do not know how any fair-minded man can support such a measure The party on this side objects to any loans the interest upon which is to be free from taxation;’ but what are we to do later on? The problem before us is one which will tax the keenest of our financial minds if we are to save our face and still keep our contract with the people.

I want to say that, so far as repudiation in this connexion is concerned, I shall not have anything to do with it in any shape or form. I cannot see how any good could possibly arise from it. I can recognise the nation’s need, and that necessity knows no law; I can understand that the nation may have to appeal to its members, and may, even by force if necessary, have to take what is needed for its preservation; but as for repudiation, I will have none of it.

Suppose we come out of the war with a debt of £300,000,000, I shall strongly object if it is proposed that’ future generations of Australians shall’ be called upon to pay for a war initiated by the Kaiser and his gang. I am with Sir John Grice all the time when he says the removal’ of so much money from the field of taxation must limit advances by banks and other financial institutions to manufacturing and similar concerns, because the removal of money invested in war loans from the field of taxation must produce the effect of increasing the taxation upon other forms of investment. I do not intend to speak at any greater length, but I may say that if honorable members will turn up almost any issue of the Bulletin they will find cases reported similar to those which I have quoted.

Our country needs revenue at the present time. In the Home Land for every £3 raised by borrowed money they raise £1 in revenue; whilst here we do not raise £1 in revenue for every £10 of borrowed money that we spend. We cannot continue in that way. I have said all that I intend to say on the second reading of this measure, but I hope the Government will introduce a Bill which will force those who have accumulated huge profits during the war to pay a fair proportion of those profits to meet the needs of the country.

Mr GLYNN:
Minister for Home and Territories · Angas · NAT

– One or two honorable members haveasked that I should say something about the position of co-operative societies under the Bill. There is really no change made upon the existing law. A co-operative society is taxed upon the income it has made, but this income is earned in order to be distributed to the members of the society. The managers of a co-operative society may accumulate a part of one or two years’ profits, but it may be generally assumed that a distribution of all profits takes place, because a co-operative society is established for the mutual benefit of its members, and not” for the accumulation of capital.

Mr Charlton:

– Then the1s. 6d. flat rate will not apply to the profits of such societies ?

Mr GLYNN:

– It will apply so long as the income of the society is not distributed. When a distribution of the income takes place, the individual members of the society will have to account for what they receive in the way of a dividend from the society, in the statement of their ordinary income, and the taxation levied upon it will vary with the taxation chargeable upon the income of the individual member. I agree with the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. Charlton), that there are cases where the co-operative company may have to pay the flat rate, and the individual member will then receive a little less than he would receive if the company were not taxed, but it is impossible to frame any system of taxation free from all inequalities.

Mr Charlton:

– What I understand is that the method of taxation will continue asat present, except where money is placed in reserve by a co-operative society, when it will be taxed at the flat rate of1s. 6d.

Mr GLYNN:

– Yes, but if it is ever distributed in dividends to the members of the society, the individual members will have to pay income taxation in respect of the proportion of the income of the society distributed to them.

Mr Watkins:

– They will not be taxable on the amount of money they have paid for the purchase of goods in cooperative stores.

Mr GLYNN:

As regards the club question, perhaps I ought to speak with bated breath, because I do not know what should or should not be done. There has been a decision of the High Court, in the case of what is known as the Bohemian Club, to the effect that the subscriptions of clubs aTe not regarded as revenue in relation to the taxation of those bodies. This Bill proposes to regard them as revenue of a club, and that, therefore, taxation will be levied. The point arises whether these clubs should or should not be taxed. II a man pays for the benefits which he gets from the club it will be an expenditure by himself, and, so far as it was not all gone, the balance would return to the same pocket. If three or four men paid in sums for certain particular benefits, the whole of the contributions not spent - the balance - would go back to their own pockets. It will be said, therefore, that the payments made should not be regarded in any sense as income. The theory is, however, that a club is an entity, as is a corporation, distinct from the members, and that, therefore, what it receives from its members is revenue. I think that is the theory on which the Act is based. The subscriptions are regarded as revenue, and the ground taken by the Court was that it was not revenue because it was a capital payment by the members themselves. I have not had an- opportunity to look up the matter ; but I might mention that, in connexion with the Defence of the Realm Act in England, there were two decisions as to companies. In one it was laid down that a company was quite distinct from the shareholders, and although 99 per cent, of them might be Germans by origin, the company itself might be English, and, therefore, would not be subject to the War Precautions Act. ‘ The matter went to the House of Lords, and I think they decided that the colour of the company depended on the colour of the shareholders as a whole. I do not know exactly how that touches clubs. I thought I would just open the question,’ and leave it to the common sense of honorable members in Committee to deal with it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 4372

LANDS ACQUISITION (DEFENCE) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1st May (vide page 4294), on motion .by Mr. Glynn -

That this Bill bc now read a second time.

Mr GLYNN:
Minister for Home and Territories · Angas · NAT

– I do not think there is much to delay honorable members in regard to this measure. The question was raised last night as to what was likely to occur with respect to the parks if this acquisition took place. I believe there is a park named Leichhardt Park. I mentioned last evening that there was a number, of other parks within 2 or 3 miles of the site of these five acres. Leichhardt Park is only about 300 yards away, and it is a very pretty spot. It was stated also by honorable members that children, played upon the ground in question, and that if we took it away they would be deprived. There is this Leichhardt Park for them, and two others near at hand. Besides, this particular place is not suitable as a park for the district. It is cut off by a railway from the very population which is supposed to discharge its children upon this ground for recreation purposes. Objection was also taken on the ground that big ships ‘ could not come- up. It is not intended that they shall do so. It is not proposed that they shall go under the bridge. The whole of the work in Darling Harbor, T understand, is done by lighters and barges, so that the depth of 9 feet at high tide is sufficient for the passage of vessels of that class. Reference was also made to a reserve named Callan Park. There is a sort of prorogation to take place at the Asylum there, I understand; the lunatics are to vacate it, for a time, and it has been suggested that we might acquire it. But I would point out that the railway is about 3 miles behind the Callan Park site, whereas one of the chief recommendations of the site which we are discussing is that it possesses a water frontage, that it is near the city, near the manufacturing centres, near the trams, and close to the railway.

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

– Cana suitable foundation for the buildings be obtained there?

Mr GLYNN:

– According to Mr. Swinburne’s report, “Yes.”

The only other matter to which I desire to refer is the suggestion that the Government will be taking away this park from the people without giving them another in its stead. I have here a telegram from Colonel Sands, addressed to the DefenceDepartment, which I did not read last night, because I really did not know whether it was confidential. It reads -

Kindly advise the Minister, also the Minister for Home and Territories, that I attended special meeting of the Leichhardt Council, and that no antagonistic public attitude need be expected from that body. In fact, they say the proposition is a good thing for their municipality. They intend approaching the State Government, however, to get the purchase money allowed to them, so that they canbuy another site. The State Government will be in favour ofdoing this.

The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) has already promised that if the Bill be passed in its present form, when we shall merely have acquired power to take over the site, regard will be paid to the views put forward by honorable members that we ought not to finalize matters until some definite assurance is forthcoming that the money will be applied by the State to the acquisition of another park to serve the purposes of this particular district. If that be done, everything that honorable members desire will have been attained. I do not believe in depriving our citizens of their parks. But paragraph 15 of the Defence Committee’s report refers to thenecessity for securing some suitable site for ordnance stores in Sydney, which are at present scattered all over that city.

According to Mr. Swinburne’s report this is the best site that is available.

Mr Higgs:

– How much are you pay- ing for it?

Mr GLYNN:

– That has not been finally determined. We have merely obtained a valuation. But there will be sufficient money for the purchase of a new park. I am also informed that the existing buildings for ordnance purposes will realize something like £70,000 or £80,000. They are admirably adapted for business purposes, so that there will be quite a lot of money available for the erection of ordnance stores.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The House divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 11

Majority . . . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 (Short title).

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- I move as an amendment -

That the words “ Lands Acquisition Act “ be struck out with a view to inserting the words “Robbery of the Public Parks Act.”

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:

– I spoke in the Leichhardt Town Hall on the iniquity of the State Government destroying that same area of land by erecting big stores there, thus spoiling the utility of that particular site for a park. They took away so much that what remained is of very little value for park purposes, because it is surrounded by very ugly buildings, and has an overhead railway at one end of it. I should like the money paid for this park land to be spent in securing three or four smaller parks in the congested parts of Leichhardt. This area is on the extreme edge of Leichhardt, and far removed from the congested area in that suburb. It is in close proximity to a very fine park overlooking the foreshore, and is in a direct line with the large open space around Callan Park Asylum, which, I hope, will soon be converted into park lands. If the promise of the Minister, that the money spent in acquiring this land is to be applied to the purchase of other park lands for Leichhardt, is carried out, I am sure that the local municipal council will be able to indicate an area in the district which can be better used for park purposes, and will be more serviceable to local residents than is this particular area.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– It is certainly most cheering to find that honorable members on both sides are beginning to realize their responsibilities in regard to the preservation of the open spaces in our big cities. It is quite a recent development, and ought to be encouraged. I support the contention of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) that we should hasten slowly in this matter, so that the people most concerned may have an opportunity to express their views in regard to it. I do so for the special reason that in all probability the Public Works Committee, which has been specially created by this Parliament to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of public moneys, will be called upon, in all probability, to report on the class of buildings proposed to be erected on this site. The very fact that the land has already been acquired will prejudice the minds of the Committee, and will prevent them from arriving at a reasonable and unbiased decision in regard to the erection of the buildings. There was a somewhat similar case in connexion with the Postal Department. When Mr. Agar Wynne held office as PostmasterGeneral, he purchased a piece of land in a lane off Castlereagh-street, Sydney.

Mr Spence:

– And, as PostmasterGeneral, I referred the matter to the Public Works Committee.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– When the Public Works Committee proceeded to examine the plans for the erection of a telephone exchange in Sydney it visited this site, and unanimously refused to recommend the erection of the proposed buildings on the site in question. The land, which was purchased at a very high cost, is now being used, I understand, as a sort of dumping ground for certain postal material. The proposal to erect buildings upon it has not been proceeded with, and I question whether it will be. The same situation may arise in connexion with this site. If the site be purchased before any reference is made to the Public Works Committee, it will then be too late for that Committee to report that it is not suitable. It may be eminently suitable for the purpose for which it is required. I am willing to admit that, from my rather cursory acquaintance with the district, the site possesses some exceptional qualifications, but, even if it possesses every advantage, I venture to suggest that there are two features of this proposal which ought to condemn it. In the first place, the site is part of achildren’s playground, and in the second, there can be no necessity to acquire it, since there must be quite a number of suitable areas in the neighborhood. Obviously, we cannot say definitely whether there are or not, but if the question were referred to the Public Works Committee, I am sure that Committee could find a site at least equally convenient, and probably more advantageous, from the view that its acquisition would not involve any encroachment on park lands.

It is rather significant that the Government have found it necessary to introduce a special Bill to cover this particular transaction, notwithstanding that’ we have a Lands Acquisition Act on the statute-book. That in itself is a suspicious feature, because under the Lands Acquisition Act there must be quite sufficient power to acquire all land necessary for public purposes.

Mr Glynn:

– The Chamber of Commerce was consulted in relation to manufacturing matters. If it were not for the fact that we had to ask for the Bill, the question of whether the site was suitable for the purpose or not ‘would not have come before honorable members. That is not the issue before us to-night. The only issue is- whether we should or should not take away this nominal park land. Mr. Swinburne also said -

At present large stocks of waggons are placed in the Agricultural Grounds and Moore Park, which have to be removed from time to time. . . . Mr. Kendall informed me that a receiving station would be placed very near the site, probably at a carting distance of 300 or 400 yards, which in itself would be a distinct advantage. . . . The water frontage, although of limited benefit in peace time, is, and may become, especially in the future and during the war, a distinct advantage. The Quartermaster-General and Mr. Brown, the Director of Stores, were both of the opinion that water carriage would not -be used to any extent, except for big loads or heavy material, which are of rather rare occurrence. At present 9 feet of water is available in the canal.

Mr WEST:

– I am afraid there is something behind it. Why did not the Government give us an opportunity to consider this Bill 1

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

– It was placed in our boxes eleven days ago. I read it eleven days ago.

Mr WEST:

– -There is nothing in connexion with which there has been so much swindling and robbery carried on as there has been in connexion with the acquisition of land. Any one who has any knowledge of what has taken place in the New South Wales Parliament will take good care that no Government has a free hand in dealing with a land matter. The honorable member for -South Sydney (Mr. Riley) has directed attention to a site purchased for the Post and Telegraph Department in Castlereagh-street. There were certainly four sides to it, but none opened upon a street or lane. It was surrounded by buildings. There was an opening 15 feet wide and 15 feet high to the main street, but the acquisition of that site was recommended by the postal officials. Another site in Oxfordstreet, adjacent to the Post-office, was also recommended. The street had a grade of one in six, but the place would have been built chiefly along a 15-ft. lane, into which a butcher’s shop emptied its offal, and there would have been an eatinghouse opposite the main door. Yet this post-office had a bigger income than any other in New South Wales, with the exception of the General Post Office. I could not convince the honorable member’s predecessor of the need for another site, but, to the credit of the present Postmaster-General (Mr. Webster), I say that he did what was necessary. Mr. Agar Wynne, Mr. Oxenham, and a few others went out in a motor car and took their stand at the top of the hill, but from mere it was impossible to look at the site, because the frontage to the street was only 18 feet, and the lane frontage was 100 feet. I spoke strongly on the subject in this chamber when the honorable member for Darwin (Mr. Spence) was PostmasterGeneral, but my words had no more effect on him than they would have had on a piece of cold steel. Some of the departmental officers told me that if the Government spent money on a building at this site it would be wasted, because no one would see that the post-office was there. It is cases of this kind that make members anxious to know whether suitable sites are being chosen. The reports that the Minister has read to us deal only with the need for ordnance stores, which I do not question. He has not read any report on the site itself. There are in Sydney business men who are as keen as any in the world. When Ministers go there they are entertained by the President of the Millions Club, a gentleman who has sold more land on time payment than any v other man in Australia. He is very plausible, and the equal of* any Commonwealth Minister, and no doubt wins them over to a number of things which they are afterwards sorry they promised. Ministers know whom I mean without the mentioning of a name. I understand that the site for the proposed ordnance stores fronts the harbor and a canal. Ministers should remember, however, that when we were dealing with the Lands Acquisition Bill of 1906 it was the view of Parliament that public parks should not be resumed. Some of the recommendations of officials in these matters have been scandalous. The resumption of land elsewhere was not mentioned in this connexion until the Opposition showed a determination to have daylight upon the proposal. We heard nothing about it until late last night. When Mr. Archibald was Minister, members on both sides showed plainly that in their view public parks should not be taken away from the people. We are not like mere aldermen, trying to make what we can out of our positions, but are men above reproach, and we should insist on a most searching examination of proposals of the kind now before us. I have certain information which I am not able to make public, because of the manner in which it came to me; but I am told that there is an estate in the district in which the site is situated on which there is a large house, which I know very well, having carried out a contract there some years ago. The property has been ‘for sale for a long while, but they cannot dispose of it because of its distance from the tram, and because the house is too large for any one without considerable means, and persons with means prefer localities in which others similarly situated reside. A good many years ago, the late Dr. Renwick built a large house in this district, but after his death his family could not keep it up, and it was eventually pulled down, the neighbourhood not being a fashionable ohe. Wealthy persons prefer to live at Rose Bay, on Bellevue Hill/ and on the North Shore line, where there are the finest residential sites in Australia. To get to the North Shore you have merely a pleasant trip across the harbor in the ferry and fifteen minutes’ run in the train, during which you ascend 500 or 600 feet. Why do not the Government go to other sites, a considerable distance away, and not take this park, with its water frontage? Mention was made by Mr. Webster of Petersham Park. There are plenty of persons in Australia whose fowl-yards are as big as Petersham Park. Here, in the National Parliament, I regret to find a desire on the part of certain members to rob the people of a recreation reserve;, and is this sort of thing to be without protest? We want to be satisfied that there is nothing in connexion with the whole transaction that will not stand investigation. If we give our assent to this action without knowing whether it is right or wrong, we shall be as culpable as the principal parties in the matter.No honorable member who desired to retain his dignity and maintain public respect for his character would allow the Government to take away land like this without first making sure that the business was above reproach. The PostmasterGeneral, when he was in Caucus, was always careful, whenever there was any business proposed to be brought before the House, to see that the Government introduced only such measures as were sure to receive public confidence. Mr. Poynton was of the same mind; hut I am afraid both those honorable gentlemen are losing their characters by the company they are keeping.

I have nothing against the purchase of this land, hut I implore the Government to consider the proposition seriously.If it is to be in the public interest, it will not be easy to deny the claim of the Government; but it would be only fair to see that they give in return a site equal to it in all respects. I do not think it is possible, however, to provide another such park with a foreshore frontage. We should do our utmost, even at this late hour, to conserve the parks wherever they have water frontages. I admit that the Minister in charge of the measure is giving the subject his best attention. Nevertheless, I detect a lack of enthusiasm, because he feels that he is handling something he does not like. That is not the spirit in which a Minister of the Crown should come before the National Parliament, when the Government want to rob the people of one of their parks. I am always determined in watching anything that may be the means of conserving the public health. In accordance with the principles which have actuated me during the whole course of my life, my vote will never be cast to rob the people of a park for recreation purposes. If we could secure a vote upon this question free from all party ties, I venture to say that a majority of honorable members would affirm the view which I have been voicing. I plead for delay in the consideration of this clause. If the Government will consent to postpone the debate upon it until next week, I will undertake to get some of my friends and friends of the Government to inspect the site- men who are well qualified to let us know what is the precise position. The canal to which reference has been made during the course of this discussion is merely a cemented stormwater channel, which is subject to tidal influence. Of course, if the Government obstinately refuse to listen to my entreaties for delay in this matter, I can only find consolation in the reflection that at least I have done my duty. The principle underlying this clause is one which concerns the whole of the people of Australia. In the Commonwealth Parliament of 1906, I am proud to know that there were some exceedingly honorable men who declined to empower the Government to take over park lands under any Lands Acquisition Act.

Mr Higgs:

– Where are they to-day?

Mr WEST:

– They are not on the opposite side of the chamber. I do not know whether the Minister intends to accede to my request to delay the consideration of this question for a few days.

The CHAIRMAN (Hon J M Chanter:

– Order ! The honorable members’ time has expired.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 9

Majority . . . 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule.

Amendment (by Mr. Glynn) proposed -

That all the words after the word “plan” in the penultimate line of the schedule be left out, and the following words inserted in lieu thereof: - “ catalogued Ms. 4767 . SY Roll in the Department of Lands of the State of New South Wales.”

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment.

Motion (by Mr. Glynn) proposed -

That the Standing Orders be suspended, to enable the remaining stages to be passed without delay.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

. -I ask the Minister not to press the further stages of the Bill to-night. The suspension of the Standing Orders is only intended to he resorted to in connexion with urgent business. This Bill is not urgent. It cannot reach the Senate in time for consideration to-morrow.

Mr Watt:

– Why not?

Mr TUDOR:

– If the Government desire the Bill to reach the Senate tomorrow, we shall try to prevent that happening. There should be an inquiry into this transaction, and the people in New South Wales who are affected by this proposed transfer have a right to he heard. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Mahony) has returned to his constituency in order to consult the people there. I ask the Acting Prime Minister to defer the third reading of the Bill until to-morrow.

Mr WATT:
Acting Prime Minister and Treasurer · Balaclava · NAT

. -From one point of view the Bill is urgent, because we desire to give another place some work to do. I hope the Oppositionwill allow the Bill to pass tonight. The honorable member for

Dalley said that he knew the locality well, and had no need to refresh his mind.

Mr Tudor:

– It is a question for the people interested to decide.

Mr Glynn:

– We twice sent to Sydney to consult the local municipal council.

Mr Tudor:

– But the people may not know of the proposal, even though the council knows of it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn. House adjourned at 11.9 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 May 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1918/19180502_reps_7_84/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 2 May 1918

QUESTION

CENTRAL WOOL COMMITTEE

Mr HIGGS:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr WATT:Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

DISLOYALUTTERANCES

Mr CHANTER:RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATT:NAT

Mr HIGGS:

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

SMALL ARMS FACTORY

Mr TUDOR:YARRA, VICTORIA

Mr WISE:Honorary Minister · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

CAIRNS CYCLONE

Mr BAMFORD:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr WATT:NAT

QUESTION

NOTE ISSUE

Mr FENTON:MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr WATT:NAT

QUESTION

LEATHER EXPORTATION

Mr RILEY:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATT:NAT

NATIONAL EMBLEMS AND ADVERTISING

Mr WATT:NAT

QUESTION

PRICE OF BUTTER

Mr TUDOR:

Mr MASSY-GREENE:Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr Tudor:

Mr MASSY-GREENE:Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr j H Catts:

Mr MASSY-GREENE:Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr WEST:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MASSY-GREENE:Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

HIGHLAND REGIMENTS

Mr WISE:NAT

Mr LIVINGSTON:BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr WISE:

PRICE OF SUG AR

Mr MASSY-GREENE:Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

QUESTION

PRICES AND PROFITEERING

Mr TUDOR:

Mr JENSEN:Minister for Trade and Customs · BASS, TASMANIA · NAT

Mr Tudor:

Mr MASSY-GREENE:Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr FENTON:

PAPER

Compulsory Deportation of Italians

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr BRENNAN:Batman

Mr Watt:

Mr BRENNAN:

Mr Watt:

Mr BRENNAN:

Mr Watt:

Mr BRENNAN:

Mr Watt:

Mr BRENNAN:

Mr Bamford:

Mr BRENNAN:

Mr Kelly:

Mr BRENNAN:

Mr BRENNAN:

Mr WATT:Acting Prime Minister and Treasurer · Balaclava · NAT

Mr Brennan:

Mr WATT:

Mr Brennan:

Mr WATT:

Mr Tudor:

Mr WATT:

Mr Blakeley:

Mr WATT:

Mr Blakeley:

Mr WATT:

House of Representatives
2 May 1918

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr WATT:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr CHANTER:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATT:
NAT

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

Mr WISE:
Honorary Minister · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr WATT:
NAT

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr WATT:
NAT

Mr RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATT:
NAT

Mr WATT:
NAT

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr WISE:
NAT

Mr LIVINGSTON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr JENSEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · BASS, TASMANIA · NAT

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
Honorary Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

Mr WATT:
Acting Prime Minister and Treasurer · Balaclava · NAT

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne