Senate
3 October 1924
9th Parliament · 2nd Session
- PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- PAPER
- STATISTICAL BUREAU (TASMANIA) BILL
- INCOME TAX COLLECTION BILL
- LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- ENTERTAINMENTS TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- ZOOLOGICAL MUSEUM AGREEMENT BILL
- INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- GRAFTON TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY BILL
- INCOME TAX BILL
The Deputy President (Senator Newland) took the chair at 11 a.m. and read prayers.
page 5094
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Co-operative Estates Limited, Hob art.
Senator NEEDHAM brought up the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, on certain transactions between the Co-operative Estates Limited, Hobart, and the “War Service Homes Commission.
page 5094
QUESTION
DRIED FRUIT PACKINGCASES
Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
- Is he aware whether Senator Gardiner produced in the Senate portion of a packing case, indicating that certain people engaged in the dried fruit industry are using packing cases -made in Sweden?
- What is the duty on dried fruit?
- What is the duty on packing cases?
- Have any representations been made to the Tariff Board by the manufacturers of packing cases in Australia for a higher duty?
- If so, what were the results of such representations?
Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT
– The information is being obtained.
page 5094
QUESTION
MAIN ROADS GRANT
Tasmanian Roads
Senator J. B. HAYES (for Senator
Payne) asked the Minister representing the Minister for. Works and Railways, upon notice-
- Did the Commonwealth . ‘Engineer (Mr. Kill), when visiting Tasmania last year, in response to inquiry, indicate that there might be a possibility of the regulations under the Main Roads Development Act being sufficiently elastic to suit Tasmania’s needs, and that representations in this direction have been made to the Government?
- If so, will the Government meet thespecial difficulties which apply to Tasmanian roads by arranging for the sufficient elasticity of the regulations to meet the case as it has been presented ?
Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow: - 1 and 2. - No; so far as is known in the department. The Engineer (Mr. Hill) is at present in Western Australia, and is being referred to by telegram. Correspondence, which the senator is welcome to peruse, has taken place between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments. The money for this year having been voted by Parliament for specific . purposes it is hardly possible to vary the conditions now, but, before any further vote is taken, it is proposed to have a conference of representatives of Commonwealth and State Governments.
page 5094
QUESTION
BOUCAUT BAY COMPANY
Shareholdingsof Mr. W. L. Smallhorn
Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES
asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -
Will the Minister make a statement to the Senate as to the result of the inquiry into certain share holdings of an officer of the department in a certain company, which is associated with another, operating under a contract with the Commonwealth Government?
SenatorPEARCE. - As the answer to the honorable senator’s question is somewhat lengthy, in order to comply with the Standing Orders, I ask leave to make a statement.
Leave granted.
SenatorPEARCE (Western Australia- - Minister for Home and Territories’) [11.5]. - It is presumed that the honorable senator’s question relates to the contract of the Boucaut Bay Company. Inquiry into this matter has been made by the secretary to the Home and Territories Department, as the permanent head of the department, under the Commonwealth Public Service Act, and he has summarized his findings and conclusions in the following statement: -
Mr.W. L. Smallhorn, the officer to whom the question evidently relates, acknowledges that he isthe holder of 249 shares in the Elcho Island Naphtha Petroleum Company.
So far, however, as it has been possible to ascertain, there is no ground for believing that Mr. Smallhorn’s position as a shareholder in the company referred to has at any time been other than that of an ordinary shareholder, or thatany of his actions in relation thereto has been of a dishonorable character.
Section91 (2) of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922, provides as follows: - “ Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prevent an officer from becoming a member or shareholder only of any incorporated company, or to any company or society of persons registered under any act in any state or elsewhere.” and it seems clear, therefore, that Mr. Smallhorn was within his legal rights in becoming a shareholder of the company.
The company is one that was formed primarily for the purpose of prospecting and mining for oil, and for general mining purposes.
The branch which Mr. Smallhorn controls has nothing whatever to do with the granting of oil licences and leases, or with the administration of the mining and land laws of the Territory, and he was consequently not in a position where he could, by advice or recommendation, influence the administration of the law so as to secure favours or concessions for the company.
No justification has been disclosed for any suggestion that the holding of shares by Mr. Smallhorn in the Elcho Island Naphtha Petroleum Company contributed to, or influenced, in any way, the decision to accept the tender of the Boucaut Bay Company for the Northern Territory Coastal Shipping Service.
The tender was, as far as could be judged on the information available, the most suitable of those received. It was not accepted until after theHuddersfield. one of the vessels proposed to be employed under the tender, had undergone a special speed trial under the supervision of the Commonwealth Navigation Service, and it was a condition of the acceptance that certain improvements should be made to the accommodation, and a clean certificate from the Navigation Service should be forthcoming.
So far as can be ascertained, the Elcho Island Naphtha Petroleum Company held no shares in the Boucaut Bay Company at the time the tenders were under consideration.
The shares since allotted to the Elcho Island Naphtha Petroleum Company number 250, and represent anything’ but a controlling interest.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is not seen that any ground exists for imputing improper conduct to Mr. Smallhorn in connexion therewith.
page 5095
QUESTION
BRISBANE-KYOGLERAILWAY
Decision at Premiers’ Conferences.
SenatorNEEDHAM asked the Minister representingthe Prime Minister, upon notice -
What were the names of the delegates attending the Premiers’ Conferences of 1920 and 1923?
What States did they represent.
Was the question of the construction of a railway between Kyogle and Brisbane discussed at such conferences?
If so, what decision, if any. was arrived at? ‘
If a decision in favour of the construction of such railway was arrived at, will the Minister give the names of the States so agreeing?
Has such agreement since been ratified by any of the State Parliaments?
If so, by which?
Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. May, 1920-
New South Wales -
The Hon. John Storey (Premier),
The Hon. J. T. Lang,
The Hon. P. F. Loughlin,
The Hon. G. Cann.
Victoria -
The Hon. H. S. W. Lawson (Premier),
The Hon. W. Hutchinson,
The Hon. F. G. Clarke,
The Hon. S. Barnes,
The Hon. D. Mackinnon.
Queensland -
The Hon. J. A. Fihelly (Acting Premier ) ,
The Hon. J. H. Coyne,
The Hon. A. J. Jones.
South Australia -
The Hon. H. N. Barwell, LL.B. (Premier),
The Hon. G. Ritchie,
The Hon. G. B. Laffer.
Western Australia -
The Hon. J. Mitchell, C.M.G. (Premier),
The Hon. J. Scaddan.
Tasmania-
The Hon. Sir W. H. Lee (Premier),
The Hon. Sir N.E. Lewis, K.CM.G.,
The Hon. A. Hean, C.M.G., P.C.
Commonwealth -
Rt. Hon. W. M. Hughes, P.C. (Prime Minister),
Senator The Hon. G. F. Pearce,
Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Cook.P.C., G.C.M.G.,
Senator The Hon. E. D. Millen,
The Hon. L. E. Groom.
July, 1920-
Commonwealth -
Rt. Hon. W. M. Hughes, P.C. (Prime Minister ) ,
Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Cook; P.O., G.C.M.G.,
Senator The Hon. E. D. Millen, The Hon. L. E. Groom.
New South Wales -
The Hon. John Storey (Premier),
The Hon. J. T. Lang,
The Hon. J. Estell.
Victoria -
The Hon. H. S. W. Lawson (Premier),
The Hon. W. M. McPherson,
The Hon. D. Mackinnon,
The Hon. P. G. Clarke. .
South Australia; -
The Hon. H. N. Barwell, LL.B. (Premier),
The Hon. G. Ritchie,
The Hon. G. R. Laffer.
Tasmania -
The Hon. Sir N. E. Lewis, K.C.M.G.,
The Hon. A. Hean, C.M.G.
Queensland -
The Hon. J. A. Fihelly (Acting Premier ) ,
The Hon. J. H. Coyne.
October-November, 1921 -
Commonwealth -
Rt. Hon. W. M. Hughes, P.C, K.C. ( Prime Minister ) ,
Senator The Hon. E. D. Millen,
The Hon. L. E. Groom,
Senator The Hon. E. J. Russell.
New South Wales -
The Hon. Jas. Dooley (Premier),
The Hon. J. J. G. McGirr,
The Hon. W. Dunn,
The Hon. P. Loughlin.
Victoria -
The Hon. H. S. W. Lawson (Premier), .
The Hon. D. S. Oman,
The Hon. ‘ Sir Alex. Peacock, K.C.M.G.
Queensland -
The Hon. E. G. Theodore (Premier),
The Hon. J. A. Fihelly. -South Australia -
The Hon. H. N. Barwell, LL.B. (Premier),
The Hon. G. R. Laffer,
The Hon. J. G. Bice.
Western Australia -
The Hon. Sir Jas. Mitchell, K.CM.G. (Premier),
The Hon. H. K. Maley.
Tasmania -
The Hon. Sir Walter Lee, Kt. (Premier).
January, 1922 -
Commonwealth -
Rt. Hon. W. M. Hughes, P.C, K.C (Prime Minister),
The Hon. S. M: Bruce,
The Hon. R. W. Poster.
Victoria -
The Hon. H. S. W. Lawson (Premier),
The Hon. W. M. McPherson,
The Hon. D. Oman.
Queensland -
The Hon. E. G. Theodore (Premier),
The Hon. J. H. Coyne.
South Australia -
The Hon. H. N. Barwell, LL.B. (Premier),
The Hon. W. Hague.
Western Australia -
The Hon. Sir James Mitchell, K.CM.G. (Premier),
The Hon. H. K. Maley.
Tasmania -
The Hon. Sir Walter Lee, K.CM.G. (Premier).
May-June, 1923 -
Commonwealth -
The Hon. S. M. Bruce, P.C., M.C. (Prime Minister),
The Hon. E. C. G. Page,
The Hon. L. E. Groom,
The Hon. Austin Chapman,
The Hon. P. G. Stewart.
New South Wales -
The Hon. C. W. Oakes, C.M.G. (Act-, ing Premier),
The Hon. Sir Arthur Cocks, K.B.E.,
The Hon. T. R. Bairn,
The Hon. R. T. Ball,
The Hon. E. H. Farrar.
Victoria -
The Hon. Sir Wm. McPherson, K.B.E. (Acting Premier),
The Hon. Sir Arthur . Robinson, K.C.M.G.,
The Hon. Sir Alex. Peacock, K.C.M.G.,
The Hon. D. S. Oman,
The Hon.S. Barnes.
Queensland -
The Hon. E. G. Theodore (Premier),
The Hon. W. F. Smith.
South’ Australia -
The Hon. Sir Henry Barwell, K.G.M.G. (Premier),
The Hon. Sir John Bice,
The Hon. W. Hague.
Western Australia -
The Eon. Sir James Mitchell, K.CM.G. (Premier).
Tasmania -
The Hon. J, B. Hayes, C.M.G. (Premier),
The Hon. Sir Walter Lee, K.CM.G.
- Yes. 4, 5, 6, and 7. As a result of the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers held in Melbourne in October-November, 1921, the proposals were embodied in a draft agreement printed and circulated to each of the State Ministers on the18th November, 1921, and circulated also at the conference in January, 1922. Each of the states agreed to the basis of payment, viz., one-fifth by the Commonwealth, and remaining four-fifths by the states on a per capita basis. At the conferences referred to, the States of Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia were in agreement generally that the works proposed by a royal commission (estimated to cost £21,600,000), should be put in hand; but Victoria and South Australia, whilst accepting the standard gauge of 4 ft.8½ in., and agreeing that “the adoption of a uniform gauge . . . essential to the development and safety of the Commonwealth,” would not assent to the work being proceeded with for the present. Acceptance by the states’ was subject to approval of the respective Parliaments.
page 5097
QUESTION
POSTAL REQUIREMENTS
Senator DUNCAN (for Senator
McDougall) asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
Is it a fact that the new 200-wire cable for the Sydney, Newcastle, and Maitland cable extension has been ordered from overseas? 2.Isit a fact that the Metals Manufacturers Limited, Port Kembla, have protested, and state that they arc capable of producing this class of cable?
Is it a fact that about three weeks ago some 200 employees in the telephone cable section of these works were dismissed owing to slackness of trade?
Is the Minister aware whether Mr. Hughes, when in England, entered into a contract with this company for the supply of all cables required for a term of ten years?
Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow: -
- No order has yet been placed.
- No; on the contrary, the company have intimated that in present circumstances they are not in a position to manufacture the particular class of cable, required.’
- No. It is understood that the origin of the dispute had no relation to slackness of trade.
- There is no knowledge of such a contract being entered . into.
page 5097
PAPER
The following paper was presented : -
Railway between Kyogle and Brisbane: Particulars re conferences on, and agreement arrived at.
page 5097
STATISTICAL BUREAU (TASMANIA) BILL
Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to.
That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to approve an agreement made between the. Commonwealth of Australia and the state of Tasmania.
Bill presented by Senator Pearce and read a first time.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for. Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move-
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders he suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.
As this is a very small measure, I ask the indulgence of the Senate to permit the suspension of the Standing Orders for this purpose, with this assurance, that if, after hearing my explanation, any honorable senator desires to have the debate adjourned, I shall raise no objection. As honorable senators are aware, we are approaching the end of the session, and this bill has not been before another place.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the bill be now read a second time.
This is a bill to approve an agreement entered into between the Commonwealth Government and the State Government of Tasmania, by which the Commonwealth undertakes the collection of statistics in Tasmania for both Commonwealth and state purposes. I am sure honorable senators will approve of this object. The amalgamation of the work of collecting statistics will result in a certain amount of saving to the taxpayers. Instead of having two collections of statistics, and two printings of ‘ statistics, the work will be done by the Commonwealth office, and any statistics the state may desire, “in ad-; dition to those compiled by the Commonwealth, will be printed. This agreement is the result of an amicable arrangement arrived at between the Commonwealth and the states in the interests of economy, and I hope that other states will follow the example of Tasmania. The amalgamation of statistical work is on the lines already adopted in order to have a common electoral roll.
Senator Duncan:
– Has provision been made for taking over the state statistical staff ?
Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931
– Yes, they will be taken over under certain conditions which are agreeable to the state and the Commonwealth, and will fully safeguard their rights. The Government of Tasmania is very anxious that this bill should be passed as early as possible, because it affects their estimates of expenditure, and will mean the saving of £2,000 or £3,000 to the state, at incidentally very little additional cost to the Commonwealth. The step which has been taken . is one which all honorable senators will, no doubt, welcome, and, therefore, I ask them to put the bill through all stages to-day, so that its passage through another place this session may be assured.
Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria
– The Minister has moved the second reading in very few words.
Senator Pearce:
– If the honorable senator wishes to have the debate adjourned, let him move the adjournment.
Senator FINDLEY:
– I do not wish to have the debate adjourned.
Senator McDougall:
– Why not move the adjournment of the debate?
Senator FINDLEY:
– No, I have only risen to elicit a little information. The Minister has told us that the State Government is extremely anxious to have the bill passed through as speedily as possible, because it is preparing its estimates of expenditure. If the bill does not go through those estimates will be higher than they will be if the measure is passed. The Minister has also told us. that the passage of the bill will mean a saving of between £2,000 and £3,000 to the state, and that the state staff, now engaged in compiling state statistics, for state purposes, will be taken over by the Commonwealth.
Senator Pearce:
– Not all of them. Some of them will be absorbed in the state service. As a matter of fact, some of them are already doing other state work.
Senator FINDLEY:
– The salaries of those who will be taken over by the Commonwealth will have to be paid by the Commonwealth. Probably other states will hand over their statistical work to the Commonwealth, which will eventually have to meet heavy additional expenditure in this respect. The Government should say if it is their intention to undertake the statistical work for the states, as is being done in connexion with the compilation and printing of electoral rolls.
Senator Pearce:
– That is what I said.
Senator FINDLEY:
– The Minister did not say it is the intention of the Government to adopt this policy in connexion with other states.
Senator Pearce:
– Similar offers have been made to all the states. Resolutions have been carried at conferences of Commonwealth and state ministers since 1916 in favour of the Commonwealth undertaking the statistical work of the states.
Senator FINDLEY:
– I am not likely to be carried away by any motions adopted at conferences of Commonwealth and state ministers, because these gatherings until recently have, in a sense, been super-Parliaments.
Senator Pearce:
– As apparently the honorable senator wishes to debate the motion, I suggest that he ask leave to continue his remarks.
Senator FINDLEY:
– I ask leave to continue my speech at a later date.
Leave granted: debate adjourned.
page 5098
INCOME TAX COLLECTION BILL
Bill read a third time.
page 5098
LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
Bill received from House of Representatives.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.
I feel sure that when honorable senators hear the explanation I have to give concerning the urgency of this measure, they will see that it is absolutely essential that it should be passed to-day in order to empower the Government to appoint an Acting Commissioner of Taxation. If the motion is agreed to I shall state the reasons in moving the second reading of the bill.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I am opposed to the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders at this stage. It would suit the convenience of the Minister if he submitted the motion after delivering his second-reading speech. If the Senate is then of the opinion that the bill is of an urgent character, there will probably be no objection to its remaining stages being taken to-day. Possibly the. measure may afford an opportunity to deal with matters other than those with which the Minister will deal.
Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria
– Why should the Government desire to push business through in this way by asking the Senate to suspend the Standing and Sessional Orders? Is it their desire to push business through at express speed? If that is so, I wish to record my protest. It has been stated in the press that the Government have no desire to rush measures through Parliament, and that they are prepared, if necessary, to continue in session until Christmas.
Senator Pearce:
– If the honorable senator would permit mo to briefly explain the provisions of the bill, he would understand why it is urgent.
Senator FINDLEY:
– It has also been stated in the press that Parliament may sit an additional day each week.
Senator Pearce:
– If we were going to sit for another six months, this bill would still have to be passed at once.
Senator Foll:
– The length of the session does not concern the honorable senator, as he is living at home and is in close touch with his constituents.
Senator FINDLEY:
– I thought that every honorable senator entered this chamber with the object of doing the country’s business in a proper way. We should not be always thinking of the time when the shutters are to be put up and wondering what the duration of the recess will be.
Senator Pearce:
– Such a statement comes with extremely . bad taste from a Victorian senator.
Senator FINDLEY:
– I endeavour to perform my duties to the best of my ability, and I am as regular in attendance in. this chamber as is Senator Foll.
Senator J B Hayes:
– And the honorable senator is also able to return to his own home every evening.
Senator FINDLEY:
– The interjection by Senator Foll was not in any way dignified. I object to the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders, not only in respect of this bill, but on almost all occasions. Two measures have been submitted this morning, and in each instance the Minister has asked for a suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders.
Senator Pearce:
– The honorable senator should be prepared to allow honorable senators from distant states the privilege which he enjoys of going home, and being in close touch with his constituents.
Senator FINDLEY:
– If, then, it is the desire to get business through as quickly as possible, so that honorable senators may return to their respective states to get in touch with their constituents, the action of the Government is to some extent understandable. If, however, there is anything in the statement that Parliament is to continue in session until Christmas, there is no necessity to carry the motion. If there is some urgency in this instance, as is indicated by the Minister’s statement, I shall not be so vigorous in my opposition to the motion.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill (on motion by Senator Pearce) read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Honorable senators will, I think, very quickly see that the duration of the session has nothing whatever to do with the urgency of this bill. The facts are these: The term. of the appointment of the Commissioner of Taxation expired at midnight last night, and if this measure is not passed there will not be a Commissioner of Taxation.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– And no collection of income taxation.
Senator PEARCE:
– And also no collection of land taxation. The Government are faced with two difficulties in this connexion , One is that they have the power to appoint a Commissioner, of Taxation under the Land Tax Act.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– But not under the Income Tax Act.
Senator PEARCE:
– No. At the present juncture a royal commission is investigating the administration of the officer who has held the position of Commissioner of Taxation. Honorable senators have only to consider the position to “realize that it would be inadvisable for the Government to re-appoint an officer while an inquiry into his administration is pending. The Government are, therefore, forced to consider the appointment of the Commissioner as an acting Commissioner until the inquiry has been concluded. When the Crown Law officers investigated the question of the appointment of an acting Commissioner, they raised a doubt as to whether the Government had the power to do so under existing legislation. This bill is simply to give the Government power to appoint an acting Commissioner, and nothing else. The Government propose, when the bill is passed, to appoint Mr. Ewing as the acting Commissioner until such time as the inquiry has been completed and the report of the commission made available. In view of these facts, honorable senators will see that the measure has no relation to the desire of the Government to terminate the session. It is essential that the hiatus should be definitely closed. We should have power to appoint an acting Commissioner to control our Land and Income Tax Department.
SenatorFoll.- Will Mr.Ewing’s status be in any way affected if he is appointed as acting Commissioner?
Senator PEARCE:
– Not in any way. He will have the same powers, and will not be deprived of any of his rights. The bill is merely to clear up a legal doubt raised by the Crown Law officers.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 5100
ENTERTAINMENTS TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
Bill read a third time.
page 5100
ZOOLOGICAL MUSEUM AGREEMENT BILL
Second Reading
SenatorPEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Home and Territories) [11.33] - I move-
That the bill be now read a second time.
A little more than twelve months ago Dr. Colin MacKenzie of this city, who for many years has been collecting valuable specimens of Australian fauna, generously donated his entire collection to the Commonwealth. This is one of the most handsome gifts that have been made for public purposes since the inauguration of the Commonwealth. Dr. MacKenzie’s collection is the result of very many years of careful research and the expenditure of a considerable sum of money. It will . be known as the National Museum of Australian Zoology, and will form the nucleus of what we hope will one day be a more extensive collection to be housed, ultimately, at Canberra. It is regarded by the medical profession as an exceedingly valuable collection, especially for the teaching of medical science and the study of human anatomy. Some of the specimen ts are almost unobtainable now. In the opinion of scientists no fauna in the world is so . valuable for scientific research as the -Australian fauna, and particularly those forms of life, such as the platypus, which are rapidly becoming extinct. I understand that as much as £6,000 has been paid in New York for a specimen of the platypus. The Government gratefully accepted the gift on. behalf of the people of the Commonwealth. The agreement for its acceptance has been drawn up, and, following the judgment of the High Court in respect of all such gifts, it is now presented, in the form of this bill, for the ratification of Parliament. It is provided in the agreement that Dr. Colin MacKenzie shall continue as the curator of the museum. In conclusion, I desire to express on behalf of the Senate and the people of Australia our high appreciation of the splendid public spirit which prompted Dr. MacKenzie to make the gift, and to express the hope that he may be long spared to act as curator of the museum and to continue his work in the interests of medical science.
Senator PEARCE:
NAT
– At Dr. Colin Mackenzie’s own home on St. Kildaroad, and in a reserve at Healesville under arrangement with the State Government. The gift comes to the Commonwealth free of cost, but, of course, the Government will be responsible for its maintenance in the future.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate.
Report adopted.
page 5101
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
Second Reading
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move-
That the bill be now read a second time.
It has always been the experience of taxation authorities in all countries, that more or less frequent amendments of taxation measures, especially of income tax assessment acts, are necessary to meet the ever-changing- methods and conditions under which the affairs ofa community are carried, on. A further experience is the discovery of the insufficiency of existing legislation to achieve all that may have been expectedand intended by the legislature. The unexpected limitations placed by courts of law upon, the words used in the statutes sometimes expose the revenue to loss or prevent taxpayers from obtaining those benefits which the law obviously intended they should enjoy. The experience of the administration of the Commonwealth law has been no exception to these rules. The Government is, therefore, introducing this measure in order to rectify difficulties which have been discovered in the existing law. The main features of the bill are: -
- Restoration of the former powers of the Commissioner of Taxation under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1915-1921; and the rights, privileges, liabilities, and obligations of taxpayers and the revenue under that act in respect of all assessments for tax for financial years prior to the financial year 1922-23.
The manner in which the act of 1915-21 was repealed by the 1922 act, repealed all the powers of the Commissioner of Taxation in respect of assessments for the earlier years, and prevented the Com* missioner from making any assessments for those years, notwithstanding that it was clear that the assessments should bemade. This provision will operate from the date of the passing of the 1922 act.
- The effective expression of the intention of the Government in relation to the treatment of live stock in returns of income, and for purposes of assessment of tax, namely, that owners of live stock in choosing between market values and cost price for adult, stock to be shown in their returns, will exercise’ the choice once and for all, and that those who elect to omit natural increase of live stock shall make one such election to be applied to assessments for all future years, and that the- “ cost “ price for natural increase of live stock selected by the owner who decides to include his natural increase in his returns, shall also be made once and for all.
This provision is necessarily lengthy in its expression. It will be found in paragraphs (a) to (f) of clause 4 of the bill. It has been rendered necessary owing to the force of a number of technical claims which have been raised under the present law by taxation agents seeking advantages for their clients. The Commissioner of Taxation has been advised by the Crown Law Department that the proposed amendments are essential in the circumstances..
- . The clearer expression of the present provision of the law which seeks to collect income tax on bonus shares distributed by companies out of trading profits derived since the 1st July, 1914, and on which the company had not paid income tax at the time the shares were distributed. The present act seeks to tax these shares under the general description of shares paid for out of the profits which the company is liable to include in its return for purposes of its current assessment. This wording, however, is not precise in stating what is a “ current assessment “. The Crown Law Department has found difficulty in determining the correct legal meaning to be applied to the term. It is accordingly proposed to describe in the section those profits which will not be taxed when distributed in bonus shares to shareholders, thus leaving a residue of profit which would be taxed in the hands of the shareholders if it is distributed to them in the form of shares. This provision does not, of course, affect the portion of the present law which imposes a tax on any trading or similar profits distributed by companies in cash to shareholders. I would remind honorable senators that the act exempts to a company and its shareholders profit resulting from the sale by the company of an . asset which was not acquired for re-sale at a profit.
- Provision to circumvent the present movement amongst some companies of forming their shareholders into a separate company merely to hold the shares in the primary company, and thus prevent the Taxation Department from following the shareholders through the holding company in cases where it is found necessary to collect, from a primary company, the tax or additional tax which would have been payable by its shareholders if the company had made a distribution or a larger distribution to its shareholders than was actually made. The amendments to secure this protection of the revenue will be found in clause 4 i and j and clause 6 of the bill.
- The limitation of section 17 of the principal act to profit arising from the sale of trading stock in walk-in walk-out sales, or by way of discontinuance of businesses. These sales are fairly common in the case of pastoral properties, and in some instances are made at considerable profit. The proposed amendment seeks to prevent any. loss of revenue which would arise from retention in the present wording of section 17 of . the principal act of the phrase “or in any other manner whatsoever.” It is desirable to point out that when live stock, which is ordinarily used for breeding purposes by the vendor, is sold in the manner indicated by the amended section 17, it will be treated as the “sale, of a. capital asset, and the proceeds of the sale will not be’ subject to tax.
- The amendment of section 21 of the principal act to meet the altered conditions arising from the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1923, which imposes a tax on the whole of a company’s profits in the hands of the company. These altered conditions have been found to expose the revenue to great risk of loss, through shareholders in a company forming themselves into a separate holding company, which then becomes the shareholder in the primary company, or by the shareholders vesting their shares in trustees with directions to pay all moneys to the beneficial shareholder. These plans for defeating the act and the revenue are at present being followed in some instances.
- The exemption from tax of all profits derived from mining operations in Australia, principally, carried on for obtaining gold. This exemption will apply to dividends paid to shareholders by goldmining companies. The Government thinks that this exemption may encourage investment in gold production enterprises in Australia. It is well known that at the present time the gold-mining industry in Australia is not in that prosperous condition which is so necessary and beneficial to the Commonwealth.
- The increase of the general exemption from £200 to £300.
- The allowance of a deduction for depreciation of plant, &c, used to produce income, representing a fixed proportion of the cost calculated by reference to the estimated life of the plant, &c. At present, deduction for depreciation of an asset ceases immediately the asset ceases to be used in the production of income. It frequently happens that long before its useful life has expired, an asset may be discarded because of the necessity to use a more up-to-date item of plant. Under the proposed amendment of the law, it will be possible for a taxpayer who replaces an item of plant with a, more modern article, to continue to receive a deduction in his assessment in respect of the discarded plant, until its cost has been recouped. In that sense a deduction for obsolescence of plant, &c, will be allowed. The amendment will not permit a deduction to be made of a reserve of profit to provide for possible obsolescence. It is proposed, , to make some of ‘these amendments operate in respect ‘ofassessments for1922-3 and future years; others to operate in respect of assessments for 1923-4 and future years, and the remainder to operate from the date of the passing of this Amending Act.
- Allowance of deductions for - Expenditure by pastoralists and farmers on wire netting, for the construction of vermin proof fences in districts infested, by animal pests: medical and funeral expenses in case where the taxpayer’s taxable income does not exceed £600; dona-
Lions of assessable income by taxpayers for public research into the causes, prevention and cure of diseases of human beings, animals or plants.
- The repeal of the provisions of the principal act relating to taxes on lotteries. The object of this is to permit the state of Tasmania to re-impose the Commonwealth tax in addition to its own, and it is proposed that the repeal shall take effect from a date to be proclaimed, so that the Commonwealth will continue to collect the taxes until then. This will enable the Parliament of Tasmania to legislate for the imposition of the additional taxation equal to that now collected by the Commonwealth.
- Authority to what is known as the “ hardship “ board, which deals with applications for release from liability to pay tax, to refer applications to a member of the Income Tax Appeal Board for preliminary investigation and report to the “ hardship “ board. Recent experience has shown that a number of cases which have been submitted to the “ hardship “ board require most critical examination which the “ hardship “ board is unable to give owing to the time which would be required. The proposed reference of the case to a member of the Appeal Board will enable the taxpayer to appear before that member in person or to be summoned to so appear or to appear by representative so that his case may be fully explained by him or on his behalf and thoroughly examined by the investigating authority.
Honorable senators will see that the provisions of this bill can best be examined and discussed in committee. I have no objection to the debate being adjourned, but I should prefer to proceed with the measure now.
Debate (on motion by Senator McDougall) adjourned.
page 5103
GRAFTON TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY BILL
Second Reading
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
-I move-
That thebill be now read a second time.
This is an important measure, which deals with the great problem of the diversified railway gauges of Australia. I propose to give the Senate a short historical review of the events which have led up to its introduction. Without such a review it would not be possible to obtain a proper conception of the bill. I have been somewhat amused at a section of the criticism that has been levelled at the proposal in this city. Those who have indulged in that criticism have entirely shut their eyes to the events of the past. The uniform gauge movement dates back a long way, but it assumed definite shape in May, 1920, when the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth met the Premiers of the states in conference, and it was decided that it was urgently necessary to establish a uniform gauge. In July, 1920, the Prime Minister again met the Premiers of the states. It was then resolved to appoint a royal commission to exhaustively investigate the whole matter, and to report upon the best means for unifying the railway gauges of Australia, and the probable cost of conversion. A portion of the resolution passed by that conference reads : -
The Commonwealth and the states agree to abide by the decision of this tribunal.
Senator J B Hayes:
– Was that resolution arrived at unanimously?
Senator PEARCE:
– It was. It was also resolved that the Commonwealth, should bear one-fifth of the total cost, the remaining four-fifths to be borneon a per capita basis by the five states concerned. As a result of those resolutions two eminent engineers were appointed, one from Great Britain and one from the United States of America, with an Australian, who was not an engineer, as chairman. After exhaustive investigation they submitted their report on the 21st September, 1921, unanimously recommending 4 ft. 8½ in. as the standard gauge for Australia. They also submitted estimates for the conversion of the whole of the railways in Australia to a standard gauge at a cost of £57,200,000, and for linking up the capitals of Australia, and the conversion of the broad-gauge lines of Victoria and’ South Australia, at a cost of £21,600,000. The latter scheme was recommended by the commission, and was strongly advocated by the Commonwealth Government of the day. The commission definitely reported that it would not recommend, the adoption of the third rail or mechanical device, as time and money spent on that or any other similar device would be wasted. Its report was considered by the Prime Minister and the Premiers, in conference, in November, .1921, and again in January, 1922. That conference unanimously agreed to adopt 4 ft. in. as the standard gauge for the Australian railway system. It was further agreed that the adoption of a uniform gauge was essential to the development and the safety of the Commonwealth. It is important to stress those essential facts. First of all, the Prime Minister and Premiers, representing the different governments, agreed to appoint a royal commission and to abide by the decision of that commission. After the commission had reported, they adopted its recommendation regarding the standard gauge, and passed a resolution declaring that the adoption of a uniform gauge was essential to the development and the safety of the Commonwealth. The adoption of the 4-ft. 8$-in. gauge as the standard for the Australian railways was a marked advance, because it definitely indicated to all the Governments of Australia that that was the standard, and the various railways commissioners, irrespective of the system controlled, knew that in planning for the future they must take into consideration an ultimate general conversion to the standard gauge agreed upon. Although the conference in November, 1921, and January, 1922, agreed that the adoption of the uniform gauge was essential to the development and the safety of the Commonwealth, an agreement to commence the work could not foe arrived at between the whole of the five states affected. But, realizing the importance of the work, the Commonwealth Government has not allowed the matter to rest. A great deal has been written, and pamphlets, &0. have been distributed, keeping the matter before those responsible for railway extensions, and before the people of Australia generally. In May and June, 1923. shortly after the present Government came into power,, a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers was held, at which the gauge question was again fully considered. As there was no possibility of arriving at agreement between the whole of the states concerned, the Commonwealth put forward certain proposals : the one, a first instalment of the uniform gauge work, namely, the provision of a standard gauge railway between Sydney and Brisbane, via Grafton and Kyogle - the subject of the bill now before the Senate - the other, a connexion between Sydney, Port Augusta, Kalgoorlie and Fremantle. Agreement again not having been arrived at, the Governments of the Commonwealth and of New South Wales and Queensland considered giving partial effect to the’ recommendations of the royal commission by linking Sydney and Brisbane by (a) the construction of a railway of standard gauge between Kyogle, in New South Wales, and South Brisbane, in Queensland, so as to connect Sydney and South Brisbane; and (6) the re-grading- and relaying of the existing railway between Grafton and Kyogle in order to bring that railway up to a prescribed standard. This work represents the construction of 97 miles of new railway. 70 miles being in Queensland, and 27 miles in New South Wales, as well as the standardizing of 85 miles of railway between North Grafton and Kyogle, in New South Wales. Several conferences were held between the three parties immediately affected, and agreement has now been arrived at. The agreement, which is set out in full in the schedule to the bill, has been signed by each of the three parties, and contains the following : -
Each party hereto agrees to take every practicable step’ to have this agreement approved (without any restrictions or amendment) by its Parliament as soon as possible.
The estimated cost of the works contemplated by the agreement is £3,500,000, which it is proposed shall, in the first instance, be provided by the Commonwealth. Of this amount, £800,000 is for standardizing the 85 miles of railway between North Grafton and Kyogle; the balance is for the construction of the 97 miles of railway between Kyogle and South Brisbane. The cost will he proportioned as follows: - The Commonwealth will contribute one-fifth, plus the amounts which Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia would have contributed if they had come into the scheme. New South Wales and Queensland respectively will contribute towards four-fifths of the cost in the proportion that the population of each of the two states bears to the total population of the five mainland states. The Commonwealth will pay interest on one-fifth, and, in addition, will,, for thu time being, pay interest on the shares which, had agreement been arrived at by all the mainland states, would have been paid by Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia. This is to be subject to review as each of the states comes to agreement on the railway gauge proposals. New South Wales and Queensland will pay interest on their respective shares on a capitation basis. The earnings from the railway in excess of working expenses will be used to defray the interest charges on the capital invested in the following order: - Firstly, on the amount representing the sum which the states of Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia would have contributed had they been contributors; secondly, on the amount contributed by New South Wales and Queensland; and thirdly, on the amount contributed by tho Commonwealth. There is no doubt that the railway will be a paying one, and that the whole of the interest on the cost of construction will be met from the revenue received, with, possibly, something over. If all the mainland states had been parties to the agreement, the allocation for contributions would have been approximately: -
Under the provisions of the agreement, in addition to finding one-fifth of the cost, and meeting the interest on that amount, the Commonwealth will meet the interest on the amounts representing the sums which Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia would have contributed had they been contributors, adjustments being made as other uniform gauge works are undertaken. As three only of the parties are contributing, the contributions are -
The expenditure in New South Wales will be £1.657,000, and in Queensland £1,843,000.’
The railway, which will be built for high speed and for carrying heavy loading, will be ballasted and have 80-lb. rails and fastenings. It will cross the rough and broken MacPherson Range country on the border of New South Wales and Queensland, and there will be several tunnels, one approximately threequarters of a mile in length. The larger tunnels will probably be built to accommodate double lines. That will provide for proper ventilation and for duplication should such be found necessary. There will also be heavy bridging.
The present line was contructed many years ago as a light railway with 60-lb. rails, practically no ballast, and with heavy grades. The New South Wales Government has built a high standard railway from West Maitland to South Grafton. It is an 80-lb. road, well ballasted, with easy grades and curves, and designed, generally as a fast traffic line. The section from Kyogle to South Brisbane is similarly designed, and it is necessary to bring the section between North Grafton and Kyogle to the same standard. This was strongly recommended by the uniform railway gauge commissioners.
The’ estimate of £3,500,000 was compiled when the prices of rails, fastenings, &c, were at the highest. Since then there has been a large reduction in the prices of these materials. The estimate was framed on trial surveys and inspections. When the working surveys are completed more detailed, estimates can be prepared. The royal commissioners regarded £3,500,000 as a liberal estimate. That, estimate was prepared by the Chief Engineers of the Queensland and New South Wales railways, and was checked and revised by the royal commissioners, who went over the actual route with the surveyors from each state.
For some years the New South Wales’ Government has been extending its NorthCoast railway system, and there is now a through run from Sydney to South Grafton over a railway built for heavy and fast traffic. Between South Grafton and the present North Grafton station runs the Clarence River, which still has to be bridged. This work is being undertaken by the New South Wales Government as part of the northern rivers railway scheme. It was not included in the estimates of the royal commission, and is not part of the uniform railway gauge scheme, but the bridge, which is estimated to cost between £320,000 and £350,000, should be in readiness by the time the works comprised in the agreement are completed.
I have stated that the royal commissioners went over this route in the course of their investigations. The route was also, at the instance of the Commonwealth, inspected in May, 1923, by the Chief Construction Engineers of the Commonwealth, New South Wale3, and Queensland. The trial survey from Kyogle to the Queensland border was carried out. by the New South Wales Go.vernment some time ago, and the permanent working survey is now in hand. The permanent working survey on the Queensland side is almost completed, and plans and sections are being prepared Which will enable the work on that side to be undertaken practically as soon as the necessary legislation is passed. The survey on the New South Wales side is not so far advanced as in Queensland, but it can be pushed forward as may be necessary.
Legislation has already been passed by the Queensland Parliament, and as soon as. the necessary measures are passed by the Commonwealth and the New South Wales Parliaments, the council to control the work will be appointed in terms of the agreement. There will be no delay on the part of the council in commencing the earthworks so soon as moneys are made available by the Treasury as provided in the agreement. Tn addition, tenders could then be called for rails, sleepers, and other requisites. It is anticipated that the work will take from three to three and a half years to complete.
At times there will probably be over 2,000 men employed on the works directly associated with the building of the railway and the standardizing of the section from North Grafton to. Kyogle.
This railway is not a work which comes within the scope of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The Crown Solicitor has definitely advised that, as in the case of the Murray River scheme, it is not one for the committee.
The scheme recommended by the royal commissioners, of which this is a part, is estimated to cost £21,600,000. The scheme provided for the following works: - (1) Constructing a railway from Kyogle . to the Queensland border, and from the Queensland border to South Brisbane: (2) bringing to standard the railway between Grafton and Kyogle, in New South Wales; (3) conversion of the broad-gauge lines of the Victorian and South Australian systems; (4) a new bridge, with necessary, deviations, over the Murray River at Murray Bridge, in South Australia, and bringing to standard the existing trunk line between the Victorian border and Adelaide; (5) a directstandardgauge line from Adelaide to Port Augusta; (6) provision of a standardgauge railway from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle, linking with the trans-Australian railway. The £21,600,000 scheme was not to connect capitals only, but it also included the conversion of the Victorian and South Australian broad-gauge railways. The foregoing shows definitely the work estimated to cost £3,500,000 is part of the main uniform railway gauge scheme. It is not possible at the present time to do the whole of the work, but the South Brisbane-Kyogle-Grafton railway is the first instalment of the scheme.
The disabilities of the present system are manifest to all. From a railway stand-point Australia is divided into compartments, each system working independently. Trade and commerce are seriously hampered, and from a military stand-point the system is bad. At various times, while I was Minister for Defence, I discussed this matter with officers occupying high positions in the Citizen Forces of the Commonwealth. One difficulty which they always pointed out, and which is not generally appreciated by the community, is that not only must men and guns be now transhipped from one gauge to another, but it is impossible te concentrate the whole of our resources in railway rolling-stock at any given point. In the interests of the defence of Australia it might be necessary to concentrate a great mass of railway rolling-stock in one state.
Senator Findley:
– This bill will not enable that to be done.
Senator PEARCE:
– We shall only reach that stage by degrees. This is the first step in that direction. If the capital cities of Australia were all linked w.p with the standard gauge, it would be possible for the same rolling-stock to travel from Brisbane to Perth. I have travelled over the trans-Siberian railway, the journey from Moscow to Vladivostock occupying ten days. For six days of that time we were in the same carriage, which during that period ran almost continuously at the same speed of about 35 or 40 miles an hour. Apart from the broad-gauge lines of Victoria and South Australia, no matter what the condition - whether railway business is brisk in one state and slack in another, or whether one state is pressed te its utmost, whilst another state has rolling-stock lying idle - there can be no interchange of stock. Australia has experienced in the past severe droughts, and no doubt we shall again have to contend with them.. At such times the railways throughout Australia play a most important part in transferring stock from the drought-stricken areas. Australia, unfortunately, suffers from periodical droughts, and in times of drought a system which would give free transport of wagons from one end of Australia to the other would be of the, greatest value. We cannot forget the trouble early in 1920. New South Wales was suffering very severely from drought conditions, whilst there was ample fodder in Victoria. The stock could not be transferred from New South Wales, nor could the fodder be transferred from Victoria except under stupendous disabilities. In one day the number of trucks at Albury, or approaching there, loaded with fodder was well over 800. Train after train conveying fodder was halted, unloaded, and re-loaded at the border. Transfer charges, agents’ fees, irritating delays, and losses, all found expression in the shape of increased charges to the consignee, already cruelly hurt by the drought. This fodder was dispatched from Victorian stations to the farthest points of the New South Wales railways, and took weeks to reach its destination.
Senator Findley:
– What has all that to do with this railway bill?
Senator PEARCE:
– It has everything to do with the unification of the railway gauges, and this bill is the first step towards bringing about that unification. Droughts will occur again, and who can measure the task in coming days, as our lands are developed, if break-of-gauge points are still in existence ? I quote one case, near home, as an illustration. Senator Guthrie, speaking in the Senate in 1922, on the break of gauge, said -
It is properly pointed out, in the report of the royal commission, that millions of pounds sterling were lost to the Commonwealth in the last drought owing to the inability to remove stock from drought-stricken areas to the favoured districts, and to those parts where it was unobtainable. I myself suffered very heavy loss at Wagga through not being able to get fodder - which I purchased at Geelong - quickly removed there. It took five weeks, with the result that I lost heavily with my stud cattle and sheep.
Five weeks to transport fodder from Victoria to a point 70 miles beyond the border!
Senator Findley:
– I do not see the application.
Senator O’loghlin:
– The honorable senator’s remarks do not back up any argument in favour of building this railway.
Senator PEARCE:
– Certainly they do. If the recommendation of the royal commissioners were given effect to, the capitals would be linked up by a 4-ft. 8-J-in. gauge, and fodder could then be taken from Victoria to New South Wales, and stock conveyed from New South Wales to Victoria without transhipment.
Senator O’Loghlin:
– Then why [not alter the gauge of the existing lines before building other lines!
Senator PEARCE:
– The Government regards this proposal as the first step towards linking up all the capitals with a 4-ft. 8^-in. railway. The building of this railway will not mean that the full scheme will not be carried out. Both works will have to be undertaken.
I shall not speak further on the general , question, apart from .saying that Australia can never advance as it should advance until there is a uniform gauge of railway, enabling uninterrupted flow of traffic from one end of the land to the other. Trade and commerce between the various states is growing with a consequent increasingly heavy burden of transhipment at the various breaks-of-gauge stations. Miles of railways are being built each year. That costs will grow with every year of delay is proved by the following illustration, applying to the permanent way of the Victorian railways : -
In 1897, alteration to standard gauge was estimated to cost . . £350,000
In 1921; alteration to standard gauge was estimated to cost . . £5,250,000
Fifteen times greater than in 1897.
During the last ten years over 6,000 miles of railway have been constructed in Australia, and construction is still proceeding. Quite apart from new railway construction, complicated systems of electric train working, signalling, and interlocking are being introduced, and each year adds difficulties to the problem. Australia must progress; additional railways must be built ; modern railway track signalling, &c, must be installed; and who can. count the cost of conversion in, say, another ten or fifteen years? A uniform railway gauge would -
- enable rolling-stock to be uti lized in a common cause;
- largely reduce the number of vehicles required to conduct the business ;
- save much on interest and maintenance charges, &c. ;
- lead to standardizing of rollingstock, resulting in vehicles being purchased at lower prices, and enabling contractors to deliver on rails for any state in Australia ;
- assist in standardizing plant and equipment, and secure reduced cost of operating, &c.
Recently the Commonwealth called for tenders for locomotives. They are to be built in Victoria, but they cannot be taken by rail to where they are required; they will have to be taken there by steamer. . The establishment of a uniform gauge will be a stepping-stone to cheaper rates and freights, and will considerably relieve the taxpayer’s burden.
It is now being realized that the main evil of a break of gauge is not the mere handling charges of goods transhipped, but the serious holding up of rollingstock at each point of transhipment. The economic waste through this cause is greater in Australia than the public can estimate. An examination at one of the break-of-gauge stations showed instances of delays to wagons of as; much as eighteen days, a period of time which with a uni fied gauge would have been sufficient to permit the wagons to cross the continent and return again.
Great Britain had breaks of gauge, and fortunately corrected them before too late; but our comparison would be better with the United States of America, whose extent of territory is practically the same as that of Australia. In that country, conversion was effected in 1886. There were seven different gauges in the United States of America, and approximately 13,000 miles of railways were converted. They saw the wisdom of it, and’ converted the gauge in 1886. Would anyone say they would have gained an advantage by delay? An authority on the question has said: -
This uniformity of railway gauge has, infact,’ been a most important factor in rendering the United States still more united than they would otherwise have been. It knit west, north, and south still more closely to the east, and made the different states feel that they really constituted part and parcel of one and’ the same nation.
A unified gauge in America has been the means of affording thepopulation an unhampered flow of trade and commerce throughout the country. It has also enabled the railway companies to quote cheap freights, resulting in the establishment of industries inland, and the building up of very large cities far removed’ from the coast. It is this very object we wish to achieve in Australia. It is. in the country alone that Australia can be truly developed and become rich,and the accomplishment of this rests largely on providing adequate and efficient transport. The London Times, in its issue: of the 12th August, 1922, said : -
The gauge problem is the curse of railwaytravel in Australia, and any step to reduce its inconvenience and costliness is to be heartily welcomed .
The military aspect of unification of’ gauges has not’ been considered to any-‘ extent during the present discussion. A. recent report from the Inspector-General of the Military Forces reads : -
- I consider it . my duty to again drawattention to the serious situation which, in the event of her troops being mobilized for the defence of her own shores, will confront Australia through the lack of suitable railwaycommunications and a uniform railway gauge. Recent conferences, inaugurated by the PrimeMinister, have acknowledged the ultimate necessity of a uniform gauge on commercial; and industrial grounds, but do not appear to have fully realized its vital necessity in the interests of the safety of the Commonwealth. A most important step forward was taken at the conference of the Prime Minister with the State Premiers, in Melbourne, in November, 1021, in the decision to adopt the 4 ft. Si in. standard gauge; but the next step, i.e., the definite determination that the work of unification should commence, is not even in view.
The work now proposed is part of Australia’s uniform railway gauge scheme. The Commonwealth Government cannot come to an agreement with all the states to carry out the whole scheme; hut it is pleasing to tell the Senate that an agreement has been arrived at between the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales and Queensland concerning a very important standard gauge connexion which will give uninterrupted railway communication between. Sydney and Brisbane. That is provided for in the bill now before the Senate. It will shorten the journey between Sydney and Brisbane by about 100 miles. The journey will be made in at least seven hours quicker than by the present route. The line will avoid the heavy grades over the Liverpool and New England Ranges in New South Wales, and the Great Dividing Range in Queensland. In the New England Range, the present line runs to an altitude of 4,500 feet.
Quite apart from passenger traffic, a uniform gauge, railway running from Brisbane to Grafton, and thence on to Sydney, will greatly facilitate the transport of live stock and fruit, and other products grown in the north, and now so freely used in Sydney, Melbourne, and other centres where the -main population of Australia lies. Transhipment of perishable products, with inevitable handling and delay, means wastage and loss. It neither gives to the producer nor benefits the consumer. An idea of the traffic being so handled is given in the following extract from a recent issue of the Brisbane Courier: -
The railway yard here at present presents a very busy spectacle. Maize from Queensland is being -dispatched to all parts. of New South Wales, about 300 tons net of this traffic being transhipped daily. In addition, large quantities of chaff, wheat, general goods, flour, and superphosphates are being handled. The winter -crop of pineapples is coming through from Queensland for the southern markets, and this, with tomatoes from the north, has greatly increased the loading for the Committee of Direction fruit specials.
Each Thursday, two New South Wales fruit special trains are dispatched, the first with Darling Harbour fruit only, to be landed in Sydney in time for Friday’s sales; and the second with Melbourne fruit. These are m addition to the usual Friday and Saturday special trains.
The construction of the proposed railway is a definite part of the £21,6.00,000 scheme recommended by the Royal Commissioners on uniform railway gauge, and will be carrying out the first part of the uniform gauge scheme recommended by the Royal Commissioners. The Commonwealth will continue to keep this important question before the state governments. The scheme having been launched cannot stop, and negotiations will continue with the states, so that as agreements are arrived at, and moneys are available, this great national work will be continued until at least there is a standard gauge connexion between each of the capitals, and the whole of the Victorian and South Australian broad-gauge railways have been converted.
After long negotiations, the three parties have come to agreement. The agreement prepared by the Commonwealth has been signed complete. The Parliaments of New South Wales and Queensland are in session, and a. bill has been introduced in the New South Wales Parliament providing for ratification of the agreement, while the Queensland bill has already been passed. As before stated, a working survey of the railway has been completed from South Brisbane to the Queensland border, and the working survey on the New South Wales side is now in hand. When legislation has been passed by the Commonwealth and the states, the Railway Council will be formed, and there will be no delay in actually putting the work in hand. The Commonwealth and the states have agreed as to the urgent necessity for a standard gauge. They have also adopted 4 ft. 8+ in. as the standard, and the work covered by the bill now before the Senate is the first concrete step towards the establishment of that very desirable object - a standard gauge railway for our Commonwealth.
In regard to the north-south railway, the Commonwealth Government has sent a communication to the State Government of South Australia, in which it undertakes to commence and complete within a given time a section of that railway from the south to Alice Springs. The Prime Minister will make a full statement on this question at a later date.
I ask honorable senators to discuss this bill from a national and not a parochial stand-point, and to disregard for the time being, state barriers. I ask them to remember that no country with the complex industrial and commercial system that Australia has can make progress without railways, and that Australia, perhaps more than any other country, is dependent for its development on railways, because it has no great natural waterways such as the Mississippi. If we are to be content to shut the states up into compartments, and prevent free commercial intercourse by means of uniform railway communication, our country will not develop. “We should take a wider view, and, by passing this bill, show the people of Australia that the Commonwealth and Queensland and New South Wales have decided to make a commencement, in the belief that the other states will see the advantage of coming in, and will assent to the carrying out of those portions of the scheme within their borders.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– What reasons actuated the decision that the Commonwealth and the states should construct the bridge over the Murray River, while the Government of New South Wales is to build the bridge over the Clarence River at Grafton ?
Senator PEARCE:
– Because the royal commission considered one to be a necessary portion of the unification scheme, and the other merely a part of a state railway system.
Debate (on motion by Senator Mcdougall) adjourned.
page 5110
INCOME TAX BILL
Second Reading
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
.- I move - “
That the bill be now read a second time. .
This is the annual measure which Parliament must pass in order that income tax for the current financial _ year may be collected by the Taxation Department. As in the case of all previous bills, the schedule to the present bill sets out the rates of tax which were imposed for the purposes of the first income tax assessment in 1915-6, and clause 5 of the bill imposes the additional tax which is necessary to give effect to the decision of the Government, to reduce the 1923-4 rates by 10 per cent. In this connexion, the bill follows the precedent created in previous rates acts which have provided for reduction in rates, by imposing the additional tax at a reduced percentage of the basic rates set out in the schedule to the bill. The- 1923-4 rates of income tax were the basic rates set out in the schedule, plus 38 per cent, thereof. The present bill provides that the 1924-5 rates shall be the basic rates set out in the schedule, plus 38 per cent, thereof. This means that the 1924-5 rates will represent a reduction, as nearly as practicable,, of 10 per cent, on the 1923-4 rates. It will be noted that no reduction in the rate of tax payable by companies is proposed. The bill reimposes the tax of 12^ per cent, on all prizes in lotteries, and provides that that tax shall continue to be collected until a date fixed by proclamation. As previously explained in connexion with the Income Tax Assessment Bill, the intention is to enable the Parliament of Tasmania to impose on lottery prizes in its state a super-tax equal to the present Commonwealth tax. When the State Parliament takes that action, the collection of the present tax by the Commonwealth will cease. As we have now reached the end of the business on the notice-paper, I trust honorable senators will agree to continue the discussion on this measure. No advantage will be gained in this instance by adjourning the debate until next week, as a similar bill is annually introduced. The only difference in this instance is that provision is made for a reduction of 10 per cent, in the income tax.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Is this the measure in which provision is made for increasing exemption from £200 to £300 ?
Senator Pearce:
– No. It provides for a general reduction of 10 per cent, in income tax.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– That is a step in the right direction. The time is oppor-tune to request another place to reduce the income tax by 20 per cent, instead of by 10 per cent.
Senator Reid:
– We have no power to make a reduction.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I am well aware of that, but we can forward a request to another place. The notice-papers of the last few days show that at least three or four bills relating to amendments of the. Income Tax Assessment Act have been before this chamber. The whole system of income taxation has become so complicated that no one is- able to understand it. I realize that it is necessary to reimpose the rates every year, but this measure gives us an opportunity to suggest the reduction of taxation under the existing system. The Minister (Senator Pearce) has not told us to what extent the revenue will suffer - not that I am concerned in maintaining the revenue at its present high level - by the proposed reduction of 10 per cent. I invite the attention of honorable senators, and particularly the. protectionists in this chamber, to what is occurring.’ I notice in the press that, notwithstanding our policy of protection, our Customs revenue is persistently increasing. During the present quarter, there has been a further increase, and if the figures I have read are correct, we shall have an increase of £7,000,000 over the amount estimated by the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page). This is in strict accord with the idea underlying the policy, of protection. There are still some ill-informed persons in our midst who support the policy of protection, in the belief that Custom duties are imposed to exclude foreign-made goods. The system has been adopted, however, merely to extort revenue from unsuspecting citizens. As there is a clear indication of the revenue benefiting to the extent of several million pounds in consequence of the heavy import duties imposed, the time is opportune to effect a reduction in income tax. When we rob a man of his income - it is nothing short of robbery - we are preventing him from investing his money in various directions and thus providing additional employment.
Senator Payne:
– Does not that apply to all taxation 1
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– It does not. I do not know what moved the Government to consent to a reduction of 10 per cent, on the income tax. Considering the buoyant state of the Customs revenue and the additional trade expected from Canada and. other countries, the Government might agree to the House of Representatives being requested to reduce the rate by 20 per cent. When the bill is in committee, it is my intention to move in that direction.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 (Tax on prizes in lotteries).
Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia
– Is it the intention of the Government to continue the farce of taxing prizes in lotteries ?
Senator Pearce:
– Until Tasmania commences to do so.
Senator NEEDHAM:
– The Government refuses to carry through the post correspondence to Tattersall’s, but continues the hypocrisy of taxing prizes.
Senator Pearce:
– The Government are bound to carry out the law.
Senator NEEDHAM:
– Although the law states that Tattersall’s sweeps are illegal, the Commonwealth collects tax from the fortunate investors.
Senator Pearce:
– Tattersall’s is a legalized institution in Tasmania.
Senator NEEDHAM:
– But the Commonwealth Government will not permit the Postal. Department to deliver letters containing money orders to Tattersall’s, or to any person representing that institution. Indeed, if a person uses his telephone for the purpose of communicating with Tattersall’s, the department, if it has any knowledge of the matter, will disconnect the telephone. This has been done. Yet if an investor is lucky enough to win a sweep, the Taxation Department takes 14 per cent, of the winnings. Altogether, the attitude of the Government towards lotteries is sheer hypocrisy.
Senator GRANT (New South Wales) “12.48].- The Minister stated that the bill proposed to reduce taxation by 10 per cent. It appears to me that, instead of decreasing taxation, the measure will increase it, because clause 5 states that in certain circumstances an additional tax equal to 38 per cent., shall be payable. Can the Minister say where there is provision for the reduction of 10 per cent. ?
Senator Pearce:
– In the schedules.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– So far as I can gather, ‘the Government proposes to relinquish the taxation of lotteries in Tasmania, but not in the other states. . In fairness, the Government should grant the same concessions to Queensland. Is it intended to cease collecting taxation from lotteries altogether, or only so far as Tasmania is concerned ?
Senator Pearce:
– Altogether.
Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia.
– The clause under discussion does not indicate that the Commonwealth intends to cease taxation of lotteries. It provides for a tax of 12£ per cent, on prizes won in a lottery prior to a date to be fixed by proclamation. What will be the date?
Senator Pearce:
– It will be fixed by proclamation, after Tasmania has passed the necessary legislation to enable it to collect the tax.
Senator MCDOUGALL:
New South Wales
– Again I protest against this immoral tax on the sport-loving community. Why should people who invest a few shillings in a sweep with the idea of getting rich quickly be singled out for a special tax? On a sweep of 100,000 ticketsat 5s. 6d. each, the Commonwealth and State Governments take £8,125, the promoters £2,500, making a total of £10,625, and leaving £16,875 to be divided amongst 27,500 ticket-holders. Sweeps are also conducted in other parts of Australia, and people are allowed to send through the post money for investment in such lotteries. Why should the unfortunate subscribers to Tattersalls be denied the same privileges?
Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.
Senator McDOUGALL:
– Because of the brutal action of the Government in securing an alteration of our sessional orders, which have been in operation for over twenty years, we are compelled to return to this chamber before we can finish a peaceful meal. Looking around the chamber I am pleased to notice the effect which that alteration has had upon honorable senators. The thinness of the attendance is not complimentary either to the Government or to those who persuaded it to alter our sessional orders, so as to reduce to one hour the usual luncheon adjournment of one hour and a half. My purpose in rising was to point out the immorality of taxing prizes that are won in “ Tattersall’s” sweeps, and to show tha large amount of revenue that the Government is obtaining by that means. Out of a total prize money of £27,500, prize winners have received only £16,875. The remainder has gone to the Government. In addition to this taxation, the Government also benefits monetarily through the
Postal Department. The postage in respect to every ticket purchased in “ Tattersalls “ amounts to 4d., and, in addition, 2d. is charged for a postal note of the value of the cost of the ticket. Therefore, on 100,000 tickets the Government derives from this source a revenue of £2,700. The winner of a £5 prize) ‘receives only £3 12s. 6d., the’ balance being made up by taxation, exchange, and bank charges. That is unjust. I hope that a government will be returned to power that will be bold enough to abolish this taxation and obtain its revenue from some other source.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 - (1.) Income tax shall be levied and paid for the financial year beginning on the first day of July One thousand nine hundred and twentyfour. (2.) This Act shall also apply to all assessments made for the financial year beginning on the first day of July One thousand nine hundred and twenty-five and made prior to the passing of the Act for the levying and payment of the income tax for the financial year beginning on the first day of July One thousand nine hundred and twenty-five.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Sub-clause 2 appears to be unnecessarily vague, and I should like the Minister to explain its meaning.
Senator Pearce:
– It means that it applies to assessments for the present financial year, but not to assessments for the past financial year. There may be persons who have not paid their income tax for last year. They will not get the benefit of a 10 per cent, reduction on the amount that they owe.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I should like the Minister to make it quite clear whether the bill or the schedules provide for a reduction of 10 per cent. I have looked through the measure very carefully, and instead of proposing a reduction of 10 per cent., it distinctly says that an additional tax equal to 38 per cent, is to be levied on incomes in respect of which the tax is calculated under the first, second; or third schedule. I am at a loss to understand why the fourth schedule has been exempted. These schedules have always been a source of great distraction to me. They are, of course, an essential part of the bill, and without them a tax could not be imposed. Before we proceed any further the Minister should state whether he proposes to amend the bill to provide for a reduction of 10 per cent, in the taxation to he imposed.
Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT
– The honorable senator assumes that the additional tax provided for by clause 5 will be added to that which is levied under the existing act. If he reads clause 5 carefully he will see that it proposes an additional tax of 38 per cent, upon the rates provided for by clause 4 of the bill, not of section 4 of the act. Section 5 of the act reads -
In addition to the tax payable under the preceding provisions of this Act, there shall be payable, in the case of incomes in respect of which the tax is calculated under the first, second, or third schedules, an additional tax equal to fifty -three and one-half per centum of the amount of the tax so calculated.
No ordinary individual can understand the schedules; but they have stood the test of time, and have achieved the result that was sought to be obtained. Notwithstanding the peculiarity of the language used in the bill, the effect of the amendment of the act will be to reduce by 10 per cent, the taxation levied on all incomes.
Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia
– The Minister quoted section 5 of the original act to show that under it an additional tax of 53$ per cent, was imposed. He then went on to say that the bill provides for an additional tax of only 38 per cent. How do those figures effect the object of the bill, which is to bring about a reduction of the tax by 10 per cent.? On the Minister’s own showing the reduction will be greater than 10 per cent.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I take it that the principal act is the Income Tax Assessment Act 1922-23.- Section 5 of that act reads-
This Act shall extend to the Territory of Papua, but shall not apply to any income derived from sources in Papua by a resident of Papua nor to any income earned in Papua by personal exertion by any person while there.
That section has no bearing upon clause 5 of the bill.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Benny:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– I point out to the honorable senator that the committee has passed clause 5 and is now considering clause 7. He must connect his remarks with the latter clause.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– It appears to me that before we proceed any further we should have a clear understanding of what we are doing. The Minister stated that originally the additional tax was 53$ per cent., and that in future it is to be 38 per cent. That will be a reduction, not of 10 per cent., but of 15$ per cent. Can the Minister explain the apparent discrepancy?
Senator Pearce:
– The clause has to be read in conjunction with the schedules.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I must confess that, although I have had the advantage of a fairly good education, the language used in this bill is not clear to me. It was refreshing to hear the Minister say that no one understands the schedule. I think that he was quite correct in that statement. I recollect the time when we first considered the income tax schedule. We all looked very wise, and adopted it without question. When the Statistician a few days later was hauled over the coals by a Sydney professor, he withdrew his first schedule and submitted another to effect the purpose desired. We again looked exceedingly wise, and agreed to it without question. Prom that day to this no one has understood the schedule.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:
– I again remind the honorable senator that the committee is considering clause 7. The schedules will be dealt with later.
Clause agreed to.
First Schedule.
Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland
– I wish again to voice my strong protest against the elaborate mathematical problem presented by the schedule. In that protest I believe I have the backing of every chamber of commerce and commercial organization in Australia. Queensland, unfortunately, has made its system uniform with that of the Commonwealth in regard to income taxation, but it still adheres to a graduated scale, which he who runs may read, in respect to land taxation. That system should be adopted for calculating the income tax. Although” I may be as a voice crying in the wilderness, I enter my protest against this schedule, in the hope that the Government will soon introduce a graduated scale which can be understood and pub it into operation.
Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia
– Senator Thompson will not be as a voice crying in the wilderness, as I shall raise my voice with his in protest. The honorable senator has spoken on behalf of the chambers of commerce throughout Australia; I speak on behalf of the trades union organizations of the Commonwealth. This form is so involved and so scientific that probably no member of. the Federal Parliament understands it. Even you, yourself, Mr. Temporary Chairman, as a member of the legal profession, must find it a tax on your intelligence, high as it is, to follow it. I ask the Minister if he will inform the committee wherein lies the- alleged, reduction of 10 per cent, in the tax on incomes derived from personal exertion. I have looked in vain throughout seven clauses, as well as the schedules, but cannot find where it comes in.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I again express my emphatic objection to the continued existence of this schedule for the purpose of calculating the income tax payable by citizens of the Commonwealth. Unlike many people, I find great amusement in making mathematical calculations, but I admit that it is a most difficult matter to grasp a proposal of this kind. Some time ago I discussed this question with a number of young men from the Duntroon Military College, who were travelling to Western Australia. I had with me a copy of the act, and also the demand which had been made upon me by the commissioner for my annual donation to the department. The conversation turned upon these schedules. All those young men considered that they could solve the problem in a few minutes, but I doubted their ability to do so. They were all well educated young men of from sixteen to eighteen years of age, and were very confident. I supplied them with the formula, and the amount of income derived both from personal exertion and from property, and asked them to work out the amount of the tax. After a time they returned with the problem solved, but when I compared their answers, no two were alike. Nor did any of them agree with the assessment made by the department. If a problem of this .kind was set before the members of the Federal Parliament, I doubt if any two of them would supply the same answer.- I will go further, and say that I doubt the ability of many officers of the department, without the aid of costly calculating machines, to calculate the amount of tax payable.
Some time ago I was in Mr. Whidden’s office in connexion with the department’s assessment of tax on my income. He called in three of his officers to work out the amount, and each of them arrived at a different answer. He himself made a calculation, which resulted in a sum less than that arrived at by any of his officers. That amount I paid. The Government should take this matter in hand, as the present system is not fair to the citizens of this country. In New South Wales it is an easy matter for a man to calculate the amount of the state tax on his income. This contraption, or whatever it may be called, is an importation from Germany. There is supposed to be a scale of taxation, but the steps are so small as to be almost . imperceptible. When incomes from property and from personal exertion are both dealt with, the curve shows a substantial bulge. In the case of a company the bulge is more pronounced, while if it is an absentee company the. bulge is still greater. All the schedules are equally complicated and unnecessary. I realize that it would be useless for me to move an amendment, because of the majority at the back of the Government, but I voice my protest against the continuance of the present system. Thousands of pounds have been spent by the department in importing machines from Switzerland, and other foreign lowwage, protectionist countries, to calculate the income tax payable by Australian people. Some day I shall ask for a return to show how much these machines have cost, and what benefit, if any, has been derived from their use. In his last report the Commissioner complained strongly that the cost of administering the act had been greatly increased because of the obscurity of its provisions necessitating the use of costly machines, without producing any substantial increase of revenue. That sort of thing should stop. It is worse even than the Customs taxation. Some simple system, such as land values taxation, should be adopted, so that every one would know the amount he had to pay. If the Government accepted a fiat rate of so much in the £1, on the same basis as now operates in New South Wales, probably the difference in revenue would not be very great. I see no provision -for the continuance of the £300 exemption. Perhaps it is in another measure.
Senator PEARCE:
NAT
– It is.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I should like to see the exemption which is now granted to some taxpayers apply to all taxpayers. In New South Wales there is an exemption of £250.
Senator Pearce:
– I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable senator in order in discussing the question of exemptions, which are dealt with in another bill?
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Benny:
– We are nowdiscussing the first schedule. I have allowed honorable senators a considerable amount of latitude, but I ask them now to confine themselves to the first schedule.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I point out to the Government that these forms are understood by only a limited number of taxpayers, and should be simplified. . Because of its intricate nature, I consider that the first schedule should be disallowed.
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I shall make another attempt to explain to Senator Needham, and the committee, the meaning of the change from 53 per cent. to 38 per cent. In my colleague, Senator Crawford, we have not only a statesman but also a mathematician. He has given me an example which makes the position quite clear. Honorable senators must remember that, first, we had a basic tax, and that, subsequently, a super tax was imposed each year. The tax was increased as the war burden grew. The example handed to me by my colleague shows that the alteration in the bill does give a reduction of 10 per cent. It assumes that a taxpayer paid, at the basic rate, a tax of £100. Under section 5 of the act of last year a super tax of 53 per cent. was imposed, making the amount payable by him, £153. Ten per cent. of that amount is, in round figures, £15. If we deduct that £15 from the £153. we obtain £138, or £100 flat rate, and £38 super tax, which is the amount of tax nowpayable. That agrees with the 38 per cent. referred to in the bill.
First schedule agreed to.
Schedules 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to
Bill reported without request.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended’, report adopted.
Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -
That the bill be now read a third time.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– It was my intention to move for the re-committal of the bill, but in view of the lucid explanation of Senator Pearce in regard to the reduction of 10 per cent. in the tax, I do not propose to do so, although I am opposed to this form of taxation, look, stock, and barrel.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
Senate adjourned at 2.32 p.m. .
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 October 1924, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1924/19241003_senate_9_109/>.