View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
20 March 1930

12^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- WHEAT POOL
CRITICISM OF MR. E. G. THEODORE, M.P
- Personal Explanation
QUESTION
- PARLIAMENTARY PUBLIC WORKS AND ACCOUNTS COMMITTEES
LIFE INSURANCE BILL
QUESTION
- CUSTOMS TARIFF
QUESTION
- UNEMPLOYMENT
QUESTION
- PRICE OF SUGAR
QUESTION
- TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY
QUESTION
- WHEAT POOL
PAPERS
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
- Government Programme
PRIVATE BUSINESS
GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY
INTER-EMPIRE TRADE
BEAM WIRELESS MESSAGES
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
- Government Programme
LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading

The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 253

QUESTION

WHEAT POOL

GuaranteedPrice.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I must ask the right honorable senator to put his question on the notice-paper. I may say, however, that I am now in a position to answer the question he asked last week. It is contained in the following report supplied to me: -

Before submitting the proposals for the formation of a pool, the Minister for Markets and Transport consulted the authorities of the Commonwealth Bank, who assured him that they did not anticipate any difficulty in arranging; the finance to meet the guaranteed payment, subject, of course, to a guarantee to the bank by the Commonwealth. Legislation to give effect to the proposals of the Government will be introduced at an early date, when the fullest information possible will he afforded honorable senators.

page 253

CRITICISM OF MR. E. G. THEODORE, M.P

Personal Explanation

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

– by leave - When Senator Daly was moving the motion for the adjournment of the Senate on Friday last, he referred to a statement I had made on the adjournment on the previous night relative to certain action which had been taken by Mr. E. G. Theodore, Commonwealth Treasurer, when he was Premier and Treasurer of Queensland, and he charged me with having inaccurately accused Mr. Theodore of having brought about a reduction of wages in Queensland without the intervention ofthe Arbitration Court. I have since communicated with Queensland with a view to ascertaining the facts. Senator Daly said -

Senator Foll stated that the Federal Treasurer, whilst Premier and Treasurer of Queensland, reduced the wages of civil servants of that State without the intervention of the Arbitration Court. That statement in inaccurate.

As a matter offact I find that in 1922 the Queensland Government, led by Mr. Theodore, passed what was known as the Salaries Act, imposing a reduction of 5 per cent on all salaries over £300 per annum, and even Senator Daly, in the course of his remarks, said -

A measure was introduced to reduce by 5 per cent, the salaries of the higher paid public servants.

There could, therefore, have been no inaccuracy in that particular part of my statement. At the time that act was brought into operation there was in existence an embargo against certain members of the Queensland Public Service going to the Arbitration Court. It operated in respect of officers receiving £300 per annum and over from 1917 to 1920, and again from 1921 to 1924. But as it was repealed for a short time just prior to the elections in October, 1920, and re-imposed in February, 1921. there was nothing, had the Queensland Government desired it, to prevent these officers of the Public Service from coming under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court, so that their salaries could have been dealt with in a proper way. Senator Daly also spoke of the reduction of the basic wage in Queensland. I am not at all peeved at his statement concerning me in this respect, because I recognize that it was handed to him by the Treasurer.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the honorable senator to confine himself as much as possible to the statement he wishes to refute.

SenatorFOLL. - I shall endeavour to doso. Senator Daly, in the course of bis remarks, said -

The Public Service Commissioner in the State makes the necessary application to the court It is one thing to say that a person has reduced wages without the intervention of a court, and quite another to claim that he applied to the court for a reduction of wages.

What Senator Daly inferred was that the reduction of the basic wage in Queensland from £4 5s. to £4was purely the result of the action taken by the Public Service Board and the Arbitration Court.

Senator Daly:

– I did not say anything of the sort.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The inference was so plain that it drew from Senator Lynch the interjection -

Would the courthave moved without the application of the Premier and Treasurer?

I amsure Senator Daly has no wish to be unfair. I want to point out to him that it was the then Government in Queensland, Mr. Theodore being Premier and Treasurer, which petitioned the Arbitration Court, and that petition, which wassigned by every Minister, succeeded in obtaining the reduction in the basicwage payable in the Public Service to the extent I have already indicated. The preamble of the award given by the judge in the Arbitration Court which made this reduction, includes the following : -

In the matter of a petition by the Chief Secretary, the Treasurer, the Minister for Public Works, the Secretary for Agriculture and Stock, the Secretary for Mines, the Secretary for Railways, the Attorney-General, the Secretary for Public Instruction, the Home Seoretary, the Secretary for Public Lands, the Commissioner forRailways, the Commissioner for Trade, the Commissioner of Police, the Corporation of the Treasurer of Queensland, the Corporation of the Secretary for Public Instruction in Queensland, ana the State Advances Corporation for variations of the said awards.

Clearly, the move to reduce the basic wage in Queensland was not instituted by the Public Service Board or the Arbitration Court; it was the result of an appeal made to the Arbitration Court by every Minister of the Grown, including Mr. Theodore, who was at the time Premier and Treasurer in the Queensland Government. I make this statement now to clear up the matter raised by Senator Daly, but I may add that about the same time automatic increases under awards and agreements were stopped by the Government by the issue of Orders in Council, hours of labour were increased by a petition to the court by the Government, 1,120 employees were sacked and 4,247 were affected by a pooling of work.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must not go beyond the statement he made and Senator Daly’s reply; he must not add other matter. The Standing Orders are very explicit on the point. Standing Order 408 says -

By the indulgence of the Senate a senator may explain matters of a personal nature although there may be no question before the Senate, but such matters may not be debated.

Debate consists in adding to the matters which are the subject of an explanation.

SenatorFOLL.- I should be the last member of this chamber to commit a breach of the Standing Orders, but I think it is desirable, whenever a palpably misleading statement is made, that it should be cleared up at the earliest possible moment. I can, however, assure Senator. Daly that I do not told him responsible. I realize that he merely read a statement which had been handed to him by the Treasurer.

Senator Daly:

– I think the honorable senator will admit that the Treasurer was not responsible for the reduction of wages in Queensland.

page 254

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY PUBLIC WORKS AND ACCOUNTS COMMITTEES

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

In view of a statement by the Premier of New South Wales that certain figures given by him relating to the expenditure by the State of the portion of the special grant made available to New South Wales by the Commonwealth for unemployment relief had been challenged by the Prime Minister, who subsequently had to admit that he had been incorrectly informed, will the Honorary Minister hare the figures he has just quoted referred to the Government of South Australia for examination similar to that which was made in regard to the figures relating to the expenditure in New South Wales?

I replied that I would have the figures verified. I now wish to state that the figures furnished in relation to expenditure in the State of South Australia were supplied by the State authorities in control of road construction. In a telegram, received yesterday by the Department of Works from the Commissioner for Highways, South Australia, the expenditure to date from moneys provided by the Commonwealth Government is stated to be £25,000. With regard to his remarks in connexion with expenditure incurred in the State of New South Wales, I wish to point out that the figures quoted by the right honorable the Prime Minister were furnished by the New South Wales Main Roads Board as representing expenditure on the roads included in the authorized programme.

page 255

QUESTION

PRICE OF SUGAR

Senator DALY:
ALP

– On the 13th March SenatorH. E. Elliott asked the following question, upon notice -

What is the latest quotation in Java for raw sugar ?
What is the net price, allowing for preference duty, in London for Australian raw sugar ?
What is the net price obtained by Australian growers for their sugar, allowing for losses on exported sugar?

I am now able to furnish the honorable senator with the following information : -

Java raw cane sugar 98 per cent. polarization was quoted on 28th February, 1930, at £10 5s. per ton c.i.f. Australian port.
At market prices ruling on 28th February, 1930, the net price of Australian raw sugar in London would be approximately £1215s. per ton.
The estimated average net return on Australian raw sugar for the 1928-29 season is £20 5s. per ton.

page 255

QUESTION

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

Navigation Act Suspension

Senator DALY:
ALP

– On the 14th March Senator E. B. Johnston asked the following question, upon notice -

How long have the services on the transcontinental railway been suspended owing to the floods and washaways in the vicinity of Forrest?
Have the coastal clauses of the Navigation Act been suspended to permit overseas ships to carry passengers between Western Australia and the Eastern States and vice versa, during this serious dislocation of the railway services to and from Western Australia ?
If not, will immediate action be taken in this direction?

I am now able to furnish the honorable senator with the following information : -

Since the 18th February. The service from Port Augusta was resumed on the 18th March and from Kalgoorlie on the 19th.
No. There has been no necessity for such action. One application only was received for a permit under section 286 of the Navigation Act from an unlicensed vessel to carry passengers from Fremantle to the Eastern States. This was granted. No request was made for any permit from Melbourne or Adelaide to Fremantle. Four of the largest and best passenger steamers on the coast are running regularly between Fremantle and the Eastern States, viz., the Mamunda, Westralia, Katoomba and Karoola. Among them they provide accommodation for 1,543 passengers which apparently was, except in the instance mentioned, adequate to meet requirements.
See answers to 1 and 2.

page 256

QUESTION

WHEAT POOL

Willthe Government have prepared a return showing the operations of the compulsory wheat pool during the war and subsequent years, particularly in respect to -

The quantity of wheat purchased by the wheat pool in each year;

The average price per bushel paid in each year;

The total amount paid in each year on account of the purchase of wheat;

The amount of overdraft at the various banks incurred by the wheat pool in each year at the peak period of payments during each year ?

Senator DALY:
ALP

– The information is not readily available, but steps will be taken to obtain same as for as practicable.

page 256

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Customs Tariff Increases in Australia - Memorandum prepared by the British Board of Trade.

League of Nations - Tenth Assembly, 2nd to 26th September, 1929 - Report of the Australian Delegation.

Export Guarantee Act - Return showing assistance granted to 31st December, 1929.

Navigation Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, Nos. 16, 17, 18.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Ordinance No. 1 of 1930 - Mining.

page 256

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Government Programme

Debate resumed from 14th March (vide page 167) on motion by Senator Daly -

That the paper he printed.

Senator Colebatch offered some observations in relation to the alleged extravagance of the late Government. A careful examination of the figures will show him that he has fallen into the error of applying too literally the figures in the budget Statement. The honorable senator said that between 1924-25 and 1928-29 governmental expenditure had increased by £18,000,000. The report of the AuditorGeneral on the Treasurer’s statement for the year ended 30th June, 1929, summarizes the position very succinctly -

The expenditure for the year 1927-28 analyzed on similar lines showed a total of £80,879.714 ls. 5d., so that the actual expenditure for the year 1928-29 was £2,500,208 15s. Od. more than in the previous year. On the same basis, the expenditure for - 1924-25 was £08,311,555 8s. 8d., or £15,008,427 8s. 3d. less than in 1928-29.

The principal increases in 1928-29 over the expenditure of 1924-25 are as follow: -

There is no inflation of expenditure in connexion with payments to or for the States; the items are merely book entries which occur on both sides of the ledger. On reflection, Senator Colebatch will see that that item at least should not be included in any charge of extravagance laid at the door of the late Government. I, personally, have no quarrel with the expenditure incurred by the late Government on naval construction. Nor do I complain of the sum expended for the

Postmaster-General’s Department, seeing that it is for the development of the postal services of this country, and that, in addition to working expenses being met, there is provision for a sinking fund. The expenditure on invalid and . old-age pensions is an item concerning which no section of the community has complained ; it is a grant on humanitarian grounds to those in need. There is nothing in the expenditure for war pensions at which to cavil; the money must be expended if we are to keep our word to those who protected Australia’s interests overseas.

Senator B. D. Elliott referred to the exchange of preferences between Australia and Great Britain. While on sentimental grounds we are all in agreement with the honorable senator, I cannot help feeling with Senator Greene that the people of Britain have been slow to take advantage of the preferences we have given to the Mother Country. It took the British motor car industry, for instance, a long time to produce a car to meet Australia’s needs. That the manufacturers of Britain were capable of rising to the occasion is now seen in the favorable comment that one type of British car has evoked. While we all desire an increase of inter-Empire trade, the authorities in the Homeland must see that the goods they send to Australia are suitable. I grant that the problem of providing machinery for a market of 6,000,000 people is one that needs consideration. But Australia must not be thought of in terms of a population of 6,000,000. As time passes her numbers and requirements will increase, and those who visualize this country as a little Britain of the southern seas should think rather of the future than of the present. I do not for a moment desire to throw cold water on the proposed reciprocity of trade between this country and the Motherland; hut I do believe that some of the observations that fell from Senator Greene in that regard were justified.

The Government has asked for friendly criticism and Senator Greene, in response, suggested that some of our difficulties in regard to overseas’ borrowing are due to the financial agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. I differ from the honorable senator; I do not see any disability in that respect. I draw his attention to the provision in that agreement which makes it possible for the Loan Council, by a unanimous vote, to allow any State to go on the market in its own name to borrow any amount agreed upon. So that the financial agreement does not tie the hands of the States. Perhaps Senator Greene might answer that argument by claiming that the Loan Council would never be unanimous on the point. I believe that the Loan Council would be the first to endeavour to give relief if the position were detrimental to Australia. I share the opinion of eminent British and American financiers that tie inauguration of the Loan Council has done a great deal to stabilize Australia’s finances overseas. I have had an opportunity of listening to criticism from a number of people who have the ear of financiers in Great Britain, and they also are practically unanimous that the financial agreement between the Commonwealth and the States is one of the best things that this country has done to stabilize its finances overseas.

The difficulties that have arisen are due to the adverse trade balance, which is referred to in the ministerial statement, and to excessive borrowing overseas. I am aware that contrary views are held with regard to a young country such as Australia borrowing overseas. On the one hand there are those who cry, “Let the Government borrow overseas, as money borrowed in the country for governmental purposes is taken out of industry, and leaves so much less with which to develop its national resources.” Others, use the argument that, if money is borrowed here, both it and the interest involved are circulated within the country.

Senator Foll:

– -Would it not be better for private enterprise to expend it rather than the Government?

Senator MCLACHLAN:

– I agree that it would. I believe that the internal position of Australia is absolutely sound. The best evidence of that is the great success of its internal conversion loans. At the same time the success of our internal conversion loans is not a factor upon which we should preen ourselves too much. I admit having been a sinner in that respect. I remember that, when I was overseas in 1928, Australia converted a loan of £20,000,000 internally, which was over-subscribed a. month or two months before the normal closing date. I took the opportunity to expound to Australia’s friends in Great Britain, through the machinery then at my disposal, upon the magnificent financial foundation of this country. Undoubtedly its internal position is magnificent; but there is less evidence of its external financial soundness.

I am somewhat diffident about discussing our external position, because I hope, at some future date, to debate the matter at length in this chamber. The ministerial statement makes an endeavour to grapple with that position by overcoming our adverse trade balance. The method suggested is to increase the export of wheat. There are other ways in which we could assist matters; by increasing the export of coal, for instance. In previous years our coal export trade was a very important factor in the country’s prosperity. We could also stimulate the export of our beef, and I believe that it will be increased very materially within the next few years. The fourth industry that needs stimulation overseas is our wool industry. At the moment our coal industry is a decaying one. Senator Foll indicated the decreased coal consumption by steam.ships, and what might happen to our own East- West Railway. I was reminded the other night that it was originally suggested - I believe by the then Minister for Railways - that the engines traversing that line should be of the internal combustion type. It would probably have been an advantage to Australia had the suggestion been adopted. The country has undoubtedly suffered excessively from industrial unrest in the coal industry. At the same >time the position of Australia’s beef industry has improved, and there is promise of a continuance of that improvement. That is due to a few specific measures. As all honorable senators know meat from Argentine arrives in London in a better condition than Australian meat because it is chilled. Senator Pearce may tell us that that will be altered as a result of the investigations of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, but when I was at Smithfield and saw Australian frozen beef alongside Argentine chilled beef, I did not wonder at the consumers’ preference for the latter.

Senator Daly:

– In the last test Australian beef Beat the Argentine.

Senator MCLACHLAN:

– I hope it continues to do so, but the lack of demand for Australian beef in England is due to the cause I have mentioned, which in all probability would continue but for one great factor in Australia’s favour. The United States of America with its 120,000,000 people is fast reaching the stage when it must import beef, and as Argentine is the closest spot where it can obtain supplies, it is making contracts with the beef -producers in that country for shipments of chilled beef. This has given Australia an opportunity to get its beef on the London market.

There is talk of rectifying our trade position overseas by the export of more wool and mention of a subsidy on wool. The worst thing that ever happened to the wool industry of Australia was the extremely high prices maintained for too long a period. The result has been that the chemists of France and Germany and Central Europe generally have been experimenting to find substitutes for the wool, which because of its high price, the people of their countries could not afford to buy; and as Senator Guthrie has often pointed out in the Senate,, they have succeeded in devising quite a good substitute. The latest factory, built in Alsace-Lorraine, engaged in producing a substitute for wool, has now, owing to the reduced price of wool on the London market, gone into liquidation. The law of supply and demand has begun to operate. “When the price of wool was high, artificial substitutes came into use, but they cannot compete with wool at a low price. The lesson is one which the pastoralists and governments of Australia may well take to heart. I venture to think that in the end wool will triumph over these artificial substitutes, but not at the price which the people in the industry nave obtained in the past.

Now turning to another paragraph in the ministerial statement, wheat is to be the subject of what I might call a bounty.

At any rate a fixed price is to be paid for wheat for a period of one year, and the objective, I take it, is that it may contribute something towards rectifying the trade balance. I know that the Australian farmer has suffered a great deal and that he has worked for less than the basic wage; I have every sympathy with him; but I want to save him from himself. In many cases 4s. at railway siding or 4s. 8d. a bushel f .o.b. for wheat will not cover the cost of production, and by the” payment of this price the Government will do twofold injury to the people of this country. It will injure the farmer by stimulating him to produce more wheat, and if wheat is not worth 4s. or 4s. 8d. a bushel it will injure the nation which has to find the money to pay the farmer the fixed price. The wheat, wool and beef markets are all uncertain, and to-day the only one which has an upward tendency is the beef market. In regard to wheat, without any necessity for it, the Canadian Government has established a wheat pool that will result in tremendous loss to the Canadian people. Mr. Legge, who was recently head and shoulders in the pooling system to control supplies and increase the prices of commodities, is now telling the farmers of the United States of America to plant 10 per cent, less land and by that means hold the prices they have hitherto enjoyed. The proof of this is to be found in the steps now being taken by European countries to protect themselves against any attempt to levy on them something more than they ought to pay for wheat. In Italy for some time past white bread has not been eaten. Duties on wheat have been imposed by Germany, France and Italy and in the case of France, there is specific rate of duty on wheat imported from Australia. The people of these countries are eating rye bread which, according to the medical profession, is not at all a bad substitute for white bread. For these reasons, apart from others I can give, it would, in my opinion, be very unwise to take the double risk I have already indicated, that of injuring first the primary producers and secondly the nation. It may he claimed that markets can bc developed in the East, but why are they not developed? 1” know that at the present moment one Eastern market is being sought for Australian produce but it is a very limited one. 1 have more than once declared that the wheat producers of Australia were living on the top of a volcano which was getting nearer and nearer to explosion. That volcano is Russian production. Russia has been gradually improving the condition of its primary industries. Mr. Ford, the great tractor manufacturer, has already established a factory in the country for the purpose of manufacturing tractors to deal with the harvest there. Russia is approaching the stage when she can export wheat and, when she does, the price of wheat will be one probably unparalleled for lowness in the history of Australia. I trust that our producers will not be allured and led to believe that there is stability in their industry. Mr. Ford would not have gone to the expense and trouble of starting a factory in Russia unless there was some evidence that the Republic was about to take part in production again. When she does, she will flood the markets of the world.

Senator Daly:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that Russia could flood the markets of the world?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– In the past Russia has flooded the markets of the world. She has the land and the labour.

The Government has invited us to state our views and I state mine frankly and fully. I would have no compulsory pool, it cuts right across my political principle to’ hand over to any Government the great primary industries of this country to play with. We shall however have another opportunity to discuss the matter when the necessary legislation comes before the Senate, but one cannot help saying that the proposal . to fix a price for wheat shows how” anxious the Government is to placate the farmer because of the irritation to which he has been subjected for years.

The Prime Minister wants us to sit us an economic conference and for that reason I wish to say that the comparative failure of the tariff is, owing first of all to our lack of population - unless the manufacturer has a sufficiently numerous home market, he cannot produce his goods at a low cost - and, in the second place, to the high, cost of transport. That difficulty cannot be overcome. Although an article is produced at a reasonable cost, it must as far as possible be served out in Australia at a level, price, but the transport of the article has added tremendously to the overhead cost.

There are one or two extraordinary economic statements in the ministerial statement. We are told that employment is the “ barometer of prosperity “ and that “ production would be much increased if those who are now unemployed could be placed in useful work.” I do not know whether the Government regards honorable senators as a lot of children in a nursery, but I am sure we can all. subscribe ‘to such an economic sentiment of the school-room type. There is, however, another extraordinary statement which I venture to think will hit the economist in the eye. It is the following: - lt would ‘be a policy of despair to declare that costs of production and development are too high to permit of the expansion of our industries.

Senator Sir John Newlands:

– Does the honorable senator complain of that being done under governmental control?

Senator DOOLEY:

-I am referring more particularly to the Railways Commissioners of New South Wales over whom the Government of that State has not much authority. There are leakages in the direction I have indicated which should not be overlooked. I quote the following report of a speech delivered at Ra nd wick by the Premier of New South Wales on Monday last, when he was supported by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place. Mr. Bavin said -

Lowered Costs. - It is, in fact, mere nonsense to talk about increasing our production of exports unless the men who produce those exports can sell them at a price which gives them a profit. If it costs £20 to produce a bale of wool, and the grower can only sell it for £15, how can we hope for any increase in our export of wool ? If it costs 4s.6d. to produce a bushel of wheat, and the. grower can only get 4s. 3d. for it, how can he increase his output of wheat? So that the essential condition of any real and permanent increase in production for export is that the cost of production in Australia should be low enough to enable the grower tomake a profit when he sells at the prices obtainable in the world’s markets.

That is a most important point, and one which has to be taken into consideration in studying the question of increased production. It is not difficult for us to recall the conditions which prevailed in the wheat-growing and pastoral industries some years ago. I remember the day when only primitive mechanical appliances were available for cultivating the land and harvesting the crop, and when a farmer cultivating a thousand acres of land would require the assistance of 30 employees. But to-day, owing to the use of improved appliances, most of that work is done, by the farmer with the assistance of his sons or possibly a neighbour. During the past ten years, wheat production has increased by100 per cent., and notwithstanding the introduction of improved agricultural machinery, the cost of production is still very high.

Senator Sir JOHN NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Is the farmer any better off to-day than he was some years ago?

Senator DOOLEY:

– The workers and consumers are not in a better position, but there are many farmers who possess motor cars, comfortable dwellings and generally live under conditions infinitely better than those which prevailed years ago. Although frequent reference is made to the necessity of reducing wages and the cost of production, no mention is ever made of the necessity of reducing the cost of necessary commodities or of excessive interest, rents and profits. The cry has always been that we should produce more, which means, first of all, a reduction in wages. In 1911, flour was selling at £22 per ton and bread was 6d. a loaf; but in 1928 and 1929, when it was £11 a ton, bread was still the same price.

Senator Sir John Newlands:

– But the conditions of those engaged in the trade are much better than they were in 1011.

Senator DOOLEY:

– That would not be responsible for the difference. It has been said that the adoption of day baking and a reduction in working hours are responsible for the price of bread remaining at its present high level, but it is nothing of the kind. At present, there are, in this country, thousands of men out of employment who are willing to work, but who find it impossible to buy bread at 6d. per loaf. No attempt has been made by those who are so concerned about increased production to reduce the price of essential commodities. I do not think there is a working man or woman in Australia who would be seriously opposed to a reasonable reduction in wages if the price of bread and other essential commodities were correspondingly reduced. There is no justification for suggesting that the workers’ standard of living should be reduced while the banks are charging high rates of interest, and manufacturers are permitted to make excessive profits.

Senator McLachlan referred to the banking institutions, which he said were the backbone of the community; but he forgot to mention that there is not a banking institution in Australia that” will lend £100 unless it is secured by an asset valued at £500. Banking institutions are always operating on a sound basis from their viewpoint, and will not advance more than 60 per cent, of the asset which a borrower offers as security. The banking institutions always take advantage of the financial situation, and when borrowers are “ broke “ the banks arc still on top. At the present juncture, when there is a world-wide depression, the banks are calling in overdrafts. According to the latest figures available to me - figures which were published in the Com,nomwealth Gazelle - the position of the banking institutions on 30th June, 1929, was follows : -

The Commercial Bank of Australia paid out £158,735 as against £88,281 for the similar previous six monthly period. The Commercial Banking Company of Sydney paid £230,950 as against £220,818.

Senator Thompson:

– Is the honorable senator quoting the amounts paid in dividends?

Senator DOOLEY:

– I presume these are the profits. The statement continues -

For the twelve months ending 30th June. 1929, the English, Scottish and Australian Bank paid £375,000 as against an earlier sum of £295,312. The Union Bank increased its dividends from £2(i2,500 for the six months ending 30th June, 1 928, to £300,000 for the six months ending 30th June, 1929.

Senator Thompson:

– Last year they were reduced.

Senator DOOLEY:

– I am quoting the figures available for the last financial year. The statement continues -

The National Bank of Australasia and the Hank of New South Wales maintained their set payments of £250,000 and £178,500 respectively.

Senator E B Johnston:

– The Bank of New South Wales reduced its dividends by 2$ per cent.

Senator Thompson:

– The honorable senator has not the latest figures.

Senator DOOLEY:

– As I have said, they are the figures for the last financial year.

Senator Thompson:

– If the honorable senator were a shareholder, he would realize that those figures are not up to date.

Senator DOOLEY:

– It will be seen from these figures that the financial position is not as serious as some would suggest.

– That of securing a market for our beef. The report of Lord Beaverbrook’s speech under the heading “ Foreign Beef “ states -

That trade is all in the hands of five firms. One of them is Swift, the United States firm; second, is Vestey, British and Argentina; next comes Armour; next in importance another American firm - (A voice “all in the combine”) - next comes Morris, another United States firm; and lastly, Wilson, a United States firm. Those are the five firms that control this trade. Those five firms carry the beef over the Atlantic, bring it to this market, and sell it here. One of them, Vestey’s, has, I think, about 3,000 retail stores. It is a pretty big business. It is a very interesting position (IA voice, “ He has got the cold storage of England.”).

Unless we can do something to overcome that combine, we have little hope of building up a profitable beef trade in England. We should, therefore, look around to find a market elsewhere.

The Government realizes the seriousness of the position confronting Australia. Some honorable senators say that it has sent out an S.O.S. signal. There is no need to do that, for, surely, the need is itself a call to every one to put his shoulder to the wheel. The object of the Government is to stimulate industry. We have in Australia a market for all we can produce; but there can be no sufficient home market if large numbers of our people are out of employment. For that reason, if for no other, the Government is grappling with the unemployment problem. It is offering encouragement to local manufacturers with a view to increasing employment. When our unemployment problem has been solved, the Government hopes to encourage people from overseas to come here. But until that times arrives, it feels that it is advisable to restrict immigration. Throughout the world two different systems operate in industry. In the United States of America, where to a large extent machinery has taken the place of manual labour, there is a large army of unemployed, many of whom are on the verge of starvation. In Australia and Great Britain industry is on a different footing; nevertheless, in those countries unemployment, with its attendant privations, exists. It is the plain duty of the Government to try to find means to alleviate this suffering. In its effort to do so it should receive the support of every person who loves his country. If all sections unite to that end, we shall soon see a silver lining to the dark cloud which now overshadows us.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

SenatorCOOPER.- We all admit that, but the 1923-1924 season, for which I have given the figures, was a reasonable period. In that year in Queensland we received £12,000,000 for 107,000,000 lb. of wool. Other honorable senators have indicated that the exceptionally high price of wool has probably been one of the causes of our present difficulties. The wool-grower certainly cannot be blamed for this state of affairs. I think all will agree that the pastoralists would be better off if they could be assured of a flat rate, such as the 15d. per lb. they were paid during the war, but so far, no means of arriving at a flat rate has been found.

The Prime Minister has called upon the primary industries for greater production so that Australia may have more wealth to export overseas to assist in restoring our trade balance in the markets of the world. It is a very sound idea. Butat the same time I think that the primary producer would be better off if some effort were made on the part of the Government to bring about a reduction in the price of the material, implements and goods he has to buy from secondary industries. If the price of the articles the primary producer buys were more on a parity with the price which he gets for his produce in the open markets of the world, it would greatly stimulate the primary industries in the production of more wealth.

Successful endeavours have been made in Queensland to revise costs of production in the primary industries. Freights have been reduced and shearing rates and the wages of station hands have been revised in an award by the Arbitration Court. It is interesting to note that the heads of the Australian Workers Union recommended the members of the organization to accept the reduced rates. For some years now the pastoralist has been running his property at a loss. I know it is the general opinion that if a man has a bit of land and a few sheep he is wealthy, but it is far from the truth, as I know from personal experience. The pastoralist may make some profit during good seasons, but he may have bad seasons when that profit is turned into a loss. I am, therefore, pleased to note the gesture from the heads of the Australian Workers Union; I am pleased that they recognize the need for assisting the pastoral industry. Of course there is no guarantee that the industry will be able to tide itself over the very difficult time through which it is passing, but the action of the Australian Workers Union shows that there is among the members of the organization some feeling that there is need for their co-operation in order to assist the pastoralists. We have had very bountiful rains in Queensland since the beginning of the present year, and the position is very much brighter than it was three months ago. Grass is assured forthe next seven or eight months, and the pastoralists will have an opportunity to ascertain what they can do to put their industry on a profitable basis.

Senator Dooley, the previous speaker, said that banks would only make an advance up to 60 per cent. of the value of the asset offered as security, and that they were always practically certain of coming out on top. Although I am by no means a champion of the banks and financial institutions, I must say, in all fairness to them, that in many cases in Queensland where men have suffered very severely from drought conditions, they have not only advanced up to the full amount of the holding, but have also, now that the season has broken, afforded further assistance to enable holders to re-stock their holdings so that the land may become again productive and be of some use to the Commonwealth. The banks have not always gone in and sold up the pastoralist. I mention this because it creates a false impression not to challenge a statement that the banks practically are just waiting to grab the land of the man who has gone down.

Senator Rae:

– I do not think that Senator Dooley inferred that. What he meant was that in spite of the bad times the banks are paying huge dividends.

Senator Thompson:

– But he quoted the wrong figures.

Senator COOPER:

– I am pleased to hear that Senator Dooley did not wish to draw the inference I have attributed to him. The help given by the employees of Queensland to improve the pastoral industry has evidently had the effect of reducing the percentage of unemployment. Although in my opinion the percentage of unemployment in Queensland is still too high and should be reduced as rapidly as possible, it is only 7.05 per cent., according to the figures made available last month, compared with 13 per cent., which is the average for the Commonwealth.

Senator Dooley spoke of coal mining as a dying industry. According to figures given by the New South Wales Minister for Mines, Mr. Weaver, the industry is killing itself. I quote the following from the Brisbane Courier of 18th February last: -

Since 1919 the losses to miners in the northern field, caused by 2,928 strike stoppages, have amounted to £8,561,322. Adding the levies to these figures, the community of coal-miners alone, never numbering more than 24,000 persons at any time, has lost through illegitimate stoppages no less than £9,700,000, or about £400 per employee.

The paragraph goes on to say -

The actual amount lost by the nonproduction of coal through the present stoppage has been’ in the region of £3,000,000 in value. The State has lost about £300,000 in freights. It has expended nearly £130,000 in doles, while thousands of miners have been idle.

Instead of coal mining being called a dying industry, it should be called a suicidal industry; it is simply killing itself.

The Government proposes to ask the people to grant greater constitutional powers for the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister says -

Under the enlarged constitutional powers to be sought, we intend to bring down later in the life of the Parliament a measure providing for the reconstruction of the laws affecting conciliation and arbitration, together with a comprehensive scheme of social insurance, including unemployment, covering Commonwealth, State, municipal and private employers and their employees. … In the meantime bills will be introduced relating to . . . the Transport Workers Act, . . .

So the agitation for improved marketing facilities began. During the war a compulsory wheat pool was formed, similar to that which governed the export of wool. No doubt honorable senators opposite will say that that was due to the national exigencies of the moment. Despite the fact that those pools had to operate under great natural and national disadvantages, and that, in some cases, they were hampered by being controlled by Ministers who were not altogether sympathetic to the principles, they were, by and large, a magnificent success. They saved the wheat-growers of Australia from the difficulties then associated with marketing their products, and helped to keep the industry stable during one of the most calamitous times in the history of the nation and of that industry. Following the discontinuance of the compulsory pools of the war period, there were created the voluntary pools that are now operating..

These pools have been subjected to a good deal of criticism. The Wheat Merchants Association has circularized honorable senators opposite with figures intended to be used as an argument against any endeavour to establish a compulsory wheat pool. They seek to prove that the prices paid by the merchants for wheat has been higher than that paid by voluntary pools. But no accurate data can be secured to prove that contention. It is well known what price the voluntary pool obtains for its members; but in examining the prices paid by the Wheat Merchants Association it is necessary to ascertain the quantity of wheat sold at both the maximum and minimum prices. It has been stated that, in certain years, the merchants paid 5s. 2d. and 5s. 3d. a bushel. It is known that during the same period, they also paid “4s. 2d. and 4s. 3d. a bushel for wheat. It is impossible to assess the fair average price paid withoutknowingthequantiti.es purchased at the maximum and minimum prices.

The South Australian voluntary wheat pool has given satisfaction to its farmer members. That can easily be proved. Only a very small percentage of the farmers seceded from the pool when the time came for the cancellation of the contracts, due to the expiration of the agreement, despite the quantity of propaganda that was disseminated amongst them by the Wheat Merchants Association. That association even went so far as to offer legal assistance to the farmers to enable them successfully to repudiate their contracts with the pool. Does that not indicate that the system gave these men a fair deal, and that they were satisfied with the arrangement? I believe that the present percentage participating in pooling in South Australia is the highest attained since the institution of the voluntary pooling system.

The matter may be summed up in this way: If pooling is not going to be beneficial to the farmers, and will not deprive the merchants of some of the profits they are now making, why are those merchants so concerned about the proposal? Why did they, two years ago, circularize all of the wheat-farmers of South Australia seeking to induce them to withdraw from the voluntary pools? Why did they recently go to the expense of circularizing honorable members of this and another chamber in an effort to induce them to use their influence with the Government to stay its hand in the establishment of a compulsory pool? It is patent that they have something to lose, and that the introduction of a properly organized pooling system is in the interests of the fanners. We are told that, from the stand-point of the taxpayer, the guaranteeing of 4s. a bushel is a risky procedure. I have some figures prepared by the South Australian Government Statistician, which give the average price of wheat over a long period of years. They are very illuminating, and I propose to quote them so that they may be embodied in Ilansard for the future information of honorable senators. Silting suspended from 6. IS to 8 p.m.

page 276

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Private business taking precedence after 8 p.m.,

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I understand that an arrangement has been come to between the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the conduct of business this evening, and I am willing to waive my claim to proceed with the motion of which I have given notice provided the arrangement comes to fruition.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

- by leave. - I understand that a bill to amend the Land Tax Assessment Act will reach this chamber within half an hour. It is a measure of extreme urgency, and the Leader of the Opposition has kindly consented to facilitate its consideration, while honorable senators who have notices of motion on the business paper have graciously consented to allow their motions to stand over.

page 277

GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY

Notices of motion in the names of Senator McLachlan and Senator Lynch postponed until Thursday, 27th March.

page 277

INTER-EMPIRE TRADE

Notice of motion in’ the name of Senator R. D. Elliott postponed until Thursday, 27th March.

page 277

BEAM WIRELESS MESSAGES

Debate resumed from 12th March (vide page 10), on motion by Senator Herbert Hays -

That thu report from the select committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the desirability and commercial possibility of sending messages from Australia to England over the beam wireless at Id. a word, presented to the Senate on 14th August, 1029, bo adopted.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– I understand that it is the wish of the Government that private business be postponed, and I, therefore, ask leave to continue my remarks on this motion on Thursday next.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 277

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Government Programme

Debate resumed.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– There have been increases as compared with pre-war years, but during the last four-year period, the cost of most things that are used on a farm have been higher or at least as high as they are to-day. Moreover, as I have stated, there has been a substantial fall in land values during that period.

– I invite the honorable senator to examine carefully the source from which my figures were obtained. I have explained that the £416,000,000 represents the production from the manufacturing industries, including the cost of the raw materials, most of which were produced in Australia and were included in the value of primary, agricultural, pastoral and dairying productions.

If there is one thing which we should aim at in a crisis like this it is to be honest with ourselves. If Ave believe that certain things ought to be done we should not criticize those who are doing them.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Hear, hear !

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I am glad to have theendorsement of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Sir George Pearce), because I wonder sometimes what honorable senators opposite stand for. We had an example the other night of an honorable senator from Queensland making an attack upon one of the Ministers in this Government because he had gone to South Australia, so it was alleged, to assist in an election campaign which is in progress there. The honorable senator was quite indignant ; but considering the worthy object which the Minister for Markets and Transport (Mr. Parker Moloney) had in view I contend that he was fully justified in visiting South Australia. The honorable senator who criticized his action may agree with me after I have read a statement uttered by the Liberal Premier of South Australia (Mr. R. L. Butler), who in delivering his policy speech at Balaclava in that State, said -

The question of the tariff must be reviewed at the earliest possible date. Could Australia, for instance, for ever keep on paying £4,000,000 bounty to the sugar industry? It was federal enactments such as that which increased the cost of living, and unfortunately increased the cost of production to such an extent that industry had been made unprofitable.

Senator Cooper, one of the representatives of Queensland in this chamber, extols the value of the sugar industry to Australia. I am inclined to agree with him because the production of sugar is a white man’s industry and has been the means of supporting a great national ideal. Those of us who believe in that ideal must pay for our belief. Where, however, is the consistency of members opposite. In South Australia, they shout for the destruction of the Queensland sugar industry, here they extol it, and others favour the pauperization of the workers all over the Commonwealth.

SenatorFoll. - Who has advocated the pauperization of the workers?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– That was fully debated this afternoon. The party to which I belong believes that the best interests of the Australian nation can be served by the well ordered development of this country, and by the equal distribution of the proceeds derived from the application of labour to the soil. We know that there is no royal road to prosperity, and that we have to make our cake before we can eat it. Surely we are entitled to ask that the workers shall not be asked to produce a cake for someone else to consume. All we ask is that those who produce the wealth of this country, and to whom we must look for its future prosperity and expansion, shall be given a fair deal. On that declaration we are prepared to allow our policy to rest in the belief that this Government will act in such a way that Australia and its people will prosper as a result of its administration.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

. -I do not propose to discuss at length the ministerial statement, because most of its important features have already been debated by previous speakers.

The document, however, affords me cold comfort with respect to the attitude of the Government in the matter of the future defence of the Commonwealth. I trust honorable senators will not run away with the idea that I am obsessed with the subject of defence, and that I am unduly- fearful ; but I do not think that many members of this Parliament realize the gravity of the situation. I am certain that the people as a whole have not the faintest realization of the defenceless position of the Common.wealth. This important subject is mentioned very briefly in the ministerial Statement -

The whole administration of the Department of Defence is now being reviewed with the object of effecting economies consistent with efficiency.

That is a pious aspiration, and may sound all right. What is meant by “ effecting economies consistent with efficiency”? If the proposals of’ the Government embodied economies consistent with efficiency I should have no objection to offer. One of the principal reasons which influenced the Australian people in agreeing to federation was that a federal system would provide a uniform and systematic defence for the Commonwealth, and that our safety would not be dependent upon six varying State systems. Australia to-day, as always, is an extreme outpost of the British race. To-day the great question to be settled by all Australians is : Are we prepared to defend our country? Should our ways of living, our language, our traditions, our standard of economic conditions, our political institutions, be threatened by foreigners? Do we propose to rely on the British Navy, to paper agreements, to chance, to our isolation, as the sole basis on which our right to live our lives in our own way is to depend ?

This is the paramount problem confronting Australia to-day, and the nation that is not prepared to make the necessary sacrifice in training its manhood is moribund - it is not a nation. By its hurried and illtimed action in abolishing compulsory citizen service the Government has rendered a disservice to the Commonwealth as time alone will show. We are running a fearful risk. The proposal of the Government is to establish a force number- ing 35,000 officers and men under a voluntary system of enlistment. Even supposing that tha.t number could be raised it would be quite inadequate. Australia’s defence is, in the first place, a technical and financial problem, and, secondly, it is a question of the willingness of the people to make sacrifices in the way of personal service, which will fit them for the work which may have to be done. The dreadful apathy of the people in this connexion, is a sinister feature of our national life. It is regrettable that the people cannot be roused to a sense of their duty in this matter. If Australia should be threatened with invasion would the people as a whole be prepared to face the dangers, horrors and privations of repelling their aggressors by force? In my opinion, a great proportion of our people would not, unless under compulsion, be willing to do so. There will always be a certain number of proud, fearless, truly independent spirits willing to make the supreme sacrifice for their country. There will always be a spineless class incapable of sacrifice or effort. Between these two lies the mass of the people. But the real strength of any nation or people in the last analysis lies in the willingness of these to use force to repel aggression. Reluctantly I am compelled to the conclusion’ that there has been a great shrinkage of this willingness since the cessation of hostilities in 1918. Even supposing the necessary arms were available, they would be of little use unless we had men trained to use them. During recent months, military training has been practically ^abandoned. It is our proud boast - indeed, it is almost an article of our faith - that Australia shall be preserved to the white races. No one can deny our right to a policy of the exclusion of coloured peoples. But let no man or woman in this country be deceived into the belief that it will go unchallenged. The day will come - how soon no one knows - when a world court will decide whether that policy is, or is not, justified. Then will our White Australia pass away, unless we have made ready and are able to successfully defend, by force of arms, our right to this policy.

Senator Daly:

– Does not the honorable senator believe in the League of Nations ?

Senator SAMPSON:

– I shall deal with that presently. Australia is set in the Pacific Ocean, isolated from other portions of the Empire, its people, not only unarmed and unready to defend themselves, but actually making no practical effort to defend their much vaunted freedom. Twenty . years ago, public opinion was healthy on the vital matter of defence. At that time all sections of the community, irrespective of class or creed, joined in adopting a system of defence based largely on the Swiss compulsory citizen military training system. That system was truly democratic, and it passes my comprehension that any Government should seek to wipe it out. If we compare a voluntary system of defence with a compulsory military training system we can come to only one conclusion as to which is the more effective. In practice, voluntary systems rarely prove effective. It would be as reasonable to introduce a voluntary system of taxation as to have a voluntary system of defence. In this connexion it is well to point out that a compulsory military training system is no intrusion on the liberty of the subject. John Stuart Mill in the first chapter of On Liberty specifies that military service is something which a civilized state has a right to demand from every citizen. It is contended in some quarters that compulsory military service is alien, to Anglo-Saxon traditions. As one who has studied military history, I say that that contention is quite fallacious. The foundations of modern England were laid between 1300 and 1660 during- which period the country’s military forces were on a compulsory basis. I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 283

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Senator DALY:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

.- 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 have the assurance of the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) that the numbers necessary to pass this resolution will be present. I conferred with him on the matter, and he courteously agreed to the bill being carried to the second-reading stage tonight, leaving the committee stage to be dealt with to-morrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill (on motion by Senator Daly) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DALY:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators have before them a memorandum showing the alterations proposed to be made to the principal act, so that it is not necessary for me to refer to them in detail at this stage. The purpose of the bill is so to amend the existing law as to state in clear and unequivocal terms the intention of the framers of the original act. This course is necessary because of recent judgments by the High Court in two cases, to which I shall refer later. In asking the Senate to make these amendments because of decisions of the High Court I am not suggesting that this Parliament exists for the purpose of over-riding the High Court. That body has been set up to interpret the law. If the framers of the law express their intention in words which the High Court feels are not capable of the meaning which the framers intended, the court nevertheless declares what it considers their meaning to be. That is the position in the case before us. The framers of the original act intended that the definition in the act should be wide enough to cover the very cases dealt with by the High Court. The High Court held that the words used conveyed an entirely different meaning. Unless this Parliament is prepared to take the responsibility of giving a definition of “unimproved value,” which, while expressing the will of Parliament, will exclude the possibility of further appeals, as well as stop appeals which are now pending, the return of some hundreds of thousands of pounds to taxpayers might be involved.

By the Federal Land Tax Assessment Act 1910 “ unimproved value “ in relation to land is defined as meaning the capital sum which the fee-simple might be expected to realize, assuming that the improvements, if any, thereon, or appertaining thereto, and made or acquired by the owner or his predecessor in title had not been made. It had been recognized as long ago as Morrison’s case, that the questions involved in this definition were : “What would be the value of ‘the land if it had continued in a state of nature “ - the unimproved value - “ and what is its value now” - the improved value ? ‘But until Toohey’s case it had been universally assumed that a legitimate method of ascertaining the unimproved value of improved land was to ascertain the improved value and to deduct therefrom the value of the existing improvements. The way in which this method was worked out was, first to determine the improved value. It was then ordinarily ascertained what had been the condition of the land in its wild state. Everything’ which had since been done to it which was still effective to give it, or to help to give it, its present improved condition was regarded as au improvement. The value of these improvements was determined by ascertaining what it would cost to carry them out at the date of valuation, the relevant 30th June. The amount so arrived at was adjusted. If the actual improvement was not new, a deduction was made for depreciation. If the effecting of the improvement involved the keeping idle of capital until the la,nd became productive as improved land, an addition was made for interest lost on outlay. If the improvement had existed for some time, and, by reason of its special nature, had an enhanced value on this account, an addition was made for this. The value of the improvements, ascertained and adjusted in this way, was deducted from the improved value; and the difference was taken as the unimproved value. It was recognized that the matter might be approached directly, by considering the land ns it was in its original wild state, and determining what it would now be worth in that state. The question was sometimes dealt with in that way, when there was still in existence comparable land in a wild state, which had been recently sold, so that evidence of its value was available. But such evidence was rarely available, and when it was, it was not necessarily sufficient to establish a standard of value. From this decision a system of assessing the particular value upon which taxation had to be paid grew up. That system continued for years until, probably as the result of the Toohey case, some taxpayer decided that the time was ripe for a test case. Probably the change in the personnel of the High Court was a further encouragement to do so. The test case was that of McGeoch, the judgment in which related to the application of the definition of “ unimproved value.” The court upheld the ‘ appellant’s contention that the present wording of the definition of “ unimproved value “ when being applied to an improved property required the Commissioner to ascertain the value at which a sale could be made of the land if it were in that condition in which it would probably have been at the date of sale if it had never been improved. The appellant’s land in question was situated in an area thickly infested with prickly pear, but was not itself infested with the pest. In order to prevent infestation, the apellant adopted certain modes of cultivation and claimed that because he did so he had effected an improvement, the cost of which could be deducted for the purpose of ascertaining the amount that he should be charged for land tax. The High Court held that as the appellant’s land was situated in’ an area thickly infested with prickly pear and had been kept free from infestation only by the annual expenditure of money, it had to be assumed that if the improvements on the land had never been made it also would have been thickly infested with pear. In that condition, of course, its selling value would have been negligible. The Court declined to pay any regard to the fact that the appellant, when purchasing the land a few years previously from the owner, who lad kept it free from pear, had fixed his purchase price having regard to the necessity to expend an amount annually in order to eradicate any new plants which might have begun to grow. The department, up to that time, had acted upon the rulings previously laid down by the High Court in several judgments, that the unimproved value of an improved piece of land could properly be deduced from its improved selling value by deducting from the improved selling value the value of the existing improvements on or appertaining to the land. That practice had been followed by the department ever since the Land Tax Act was introduced in December, 1910, and it had not previously been challenged by any taxpayer.

Senator McLachlan:

– Is it not rather a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee? Supposing that the honorable senator took the improved value and deducted the cost of keeping the land free from pear. There would be nothing left.

Senator DALY:

– I do not think that the honorable senator has appreciated the point. I think honorable senators will agree that the practice followed by the department was certainly in conformity with the intention of the framers of the act, although it may not have been ex-: pressed in the language of the statute. The department says that so far as what is termed “ improved “ land is concerned, anything clone to prevent it depreciating in value is not an improvement for which a deduction could be made, but anything that is done which adds to the value of the virgin soil is an improvement in respect of which a deduction could be made. The block with which we are dealing was in an area infested with prickly pear. If precautions had not been taken the land would have deteriorated by becoming infested with the pest. In the circumstances the department contended that the owner was not entitled to make a deduction for that expenditure.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Does not the same thing apply to precautionary measures against rabbits?

Senator DALY:

– As honorable senators will see there is an express provision dealing with fencing. The Government admits that there must be some limitation, but that matter will be more fully dealt with when we go into committee. Following its usual practice when dealing with the McGeoch case, the department took the price which the appellant had given for the land, as representing the fair market value of the property as it stood. Seeing that that price had already made allowance for the annual outlay necessary to keep the land free from prickly pear, the department merely deducted from the sale price the value of the structural and other improvements, in cluding the cost of clearing the timber which had originally grown on the laud. The court rejected that practice, although it was one previously sanctioned by several judgments of the High Court.

– On previous occasions I have had to complain at the honorable senator’s knowledge of the law. If he desires, it, I shall quote an opinion from the junior and senior counsel in this case, who had no axe to grind, and who advised the Government as to the exact language of the amendment which should be introduced. In considering this matter, honorable senators must take into account the operation of the present system of land taxation and its possible effects in connexion with taxation affecting the eradication of vegetable and other pests. There should be no necessity for me to point out that, if the present position were allowed to continue, it would involve the Government in a very heavy loss of revenue, because a large percentage, of country lands would cease to be taxable, as their unimproved value would be either nothing at all or so low as to be outside the scope of the tax.

I submit that it is clear that that result was never intended by Parliament when the measure was originally passed. It is certain that the original practice of the department, which was confirmed by several judgments of the High Court, represents the intention of Parliament in this connexion. Mr. Justice Isaacs, in a dissenting judgment in the McGeoch case, strongly criticized the majority view’ which has produced the present anomalous position, and with equal strength supported the previously existing practice. An eminent judge like Mr. Justice Isaacs disagreed with his brothers of the High Court Bench, and contended that even with the definition as it stood the department was entitled to adopt the policy which it had adopted. But the majority of the High Court decides what the law is, and whilst that judgment stands and the- definition is in its present form the practice followed by the Taxation Department has to be altered, so as to bring it into line with the McGeoch case.

Senator McLachlan:

– Does the honorable senator say that the McGeoch case over-ruled the previous decisions?

Senator DALY:

– I do hot, because all these cases have to be decided on a certain set of facts. But I do say that a practice which had been built up by previous taxation decisions was held in that case to be. in error. Honorable senators will realize that that practice has been in vogue since the origination of the Land Tax Act in 1910, under the jurisdiction of different governments occupying the treasury benches. Taxpayers have received their taxation assessments, and those principles were followed. It is for this Senate to decide whether Parliament, if it believes in the principle of a land tax, is going to impose one that is just and equitable. If a certain amount of revenue has to be raised by the country in the form of land tax, and Parliament reduces the number of taxpayers, it stands to reason that those who are left have to pay a higher proportion of the taxation. I ask honorable senators seriously to consider how farreaching will be the position if the statutory position remains unaltered. It will result in an immediate loss of revenue, so far as the Government is’ concerned, and the possibility of increased taxation so far as the remaining taxpayers are concerned.

– If the land tax valuer applies that principle the taxpayer has the right of appeal. But we are not now dealing with the administrative act of a particular officer. We are dealing with principles, and I. hope honorable senators will confine the discussion within that ambit. The principle immediately at issue is whether we are to allow a definition to stand which will tack on to the exempted portion something which is done to prevent depreciation, or whether we are to adhere to the System which has been in operation ever since the land tax has been imposed in the Commonwealth, that of ascertaining first of all the improved value and then the cost of bringing the land to that value and subsequently arriving at the unimproved value by a reference to the matters to which I have referred.

– We want to prevent those who should be paying from escaping payment. I am not asking that a class of persons should be brought in whom Parliament did not intend to tax. I am asking that a class of persons Parliament did intend to tax, and who have already been taxed, should be obliged to pay. If it had. not been for this judgment, we would possibly have gone on in sweet ignorance of the flaw in this particular definition section of the act, and would have continued collecting the tax,

The Land Tax Assessment Act sought to impose land tax on the following kinds of leases: -

Leases of freehold lands either from the freeholder or from a mesne-lessee
Leases from the Crown under conditions giving right of purchase (for example, New South Wales conditional leases and South Australia leases with right of purchase) and also perpetual leases without re-valuation.
Leases from the Crown without right of purchase for agricultural, pastoral or grazing purposes, and homestead, mining and timber leases.

The two first-mentioned types of lease were specified in the original Land Tax Assessment Act. The third class was not specified in the law until the passing of the 1914 Amending Act. There are some private leases which have been granted for definite periods at a rental fixed for part of that period subject to alteration for the remainder of the period of the lease. These are leases where the rent is subject to reappraisement, and in the light of the judgment of the court in the Northampton Pastoral Company’s case, would be exempt from land tax. Conditional leases or leases with right of purchase from the Crown and perpetual leases from the Crown without revaluation, which means, without reappraisement of rent, are, in some cases, subject to resumption of part of the land. Therefore those particular leases would not be taxable in the light of the judgment of the High Court referred to. It is clear from the wording of the statute, and from the scheme that was evolved, that it was the intention of Parliament that this class of lessee should be taxed. Once we admitted the principle that a Crown lessee should be subject to land taxation, on what principle could we exempt the man whose land might contain a condition providing for reappraisement? Once Parliament admitted the principle of the taxation of Crown leases, it intended to cover all Crown leases. Unfortunately, it used language which, the High Court held, does not convey the meaning that the Government says should be attributed to it; therefore, we are asking the Parliament to amend the law accordingly. The amending bill has been designed to cause the original intention of Parliament to be effective not only for future assessments, but also for all past years, but without depriving those taxpayers who have been successful in their appeals to the court from the benefits of any judgment they may have obtained before the passing of the bill as an act.

If the judgment of the court were applied for all past years in all cases in which assessments include leases where the land is subject to resumption wholly or in part, or where the rent reserved by the lease is subject to re-appraisement, the Commonwealth would be obliged to refund over £1,100,000.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That is not correct, and the Leader of the Government knows it.

Senator DALY:

– That is a serious charge to make. I do not know it-

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– There is no legal claim to that £1,100,000.

– I am inviting the Senate to guard against even possible legal or moral claims. The Government is anxious to amend the law to make it conform to the intentions of its framers. If we remove the possibility of these claims we shall do no injury to anybody, except those persons who might feel inclined to earn a decent living in testing the matter before the High Court. That is the reason why the bill provides for retrospective operation for all assessments back to and including those for 1914-15. This will cover all assessments of Crown leases without right of purchase for agricultural, pastoral, or grazing purposes, and homestead, mining and timber leases which Parliament sought to make taxable in and after that year. Those particular leases ceased to be taxable after the 1922-23 assessment. The past assessments of the remaining types of lease previously described will also be validated, and statutory authority will exist for the inclusion of those types of lease in future assessments.

I now come to what I suppose will be a contentious point. I stated erroneously that the- Government was not asking in this bill for the inclusion of another class of taxpayer. We are, but I am sure it is a class on whom, no hardship will be inflicted. Honorable senators will note that there is a provision by which the exemption from land tax previously allowed in respect of golf links is to be withdrawn. The Government considers that there is not sufficient justification for the continuation of the exemption of golf clubs. These are exclusive bodies. They are not public, in character like football or cricket clubs, membership of which is open to the public. Whilst it is true that golf links are wide open areas, and assist in maintaining the surrounding atmosphere free from dust, they do not act in that manner to any greater extent than similar areas which are under cultivation or are used for grazing purposes, all of which are subject to land tax.

It will be observed that the bill contains, in clause 1, provision for the retrospective application of certain of the proposed amendments. Retrospective operation is necessary for those amendments which are intended to remedy the defects in the existing law which have been disclosed by the two judgments of the High Court already mentioned in order that all past assessments which have been made under the existing law, but, in the light of the judgment, are not in strict conformity with the law, should not be capable of amendment in accordance with the terms of the judgments. The bill specifies that the retrospective operation of any of the amendments made by it shall not apply so as to affect any judgment of the High Court or of a Supreme Court of a State obtained prior to the commencement of the bill as an act- by any person in his favour in respect of an assessment made under the existing law. This saving provision represents the usual practice of the Commonwealth Parliament in connexion with retrospective legislation. For the reasons I have given I invite the Senate to pass this measure.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [9.44.]. - I take it that Parliament, in allowing the land tax to remain on the statute-book, is acquiescing in that form of taxation; but I submit that in tie law itself there are certain limitations. For instance, there is the limitation of a £5,000 exemption, and there is a limitation, too, as to the principles on which the tax shall be levied. There is the principle that it shall be placed on the unimproved value of the land. When this legislation was under consideration a question arose as to how the unimproved value was to be arrived at, and Parliament laid down in the measure how it believed that value should be determined. After it had expressed its will, two other factors operated. In the first place, the Commissioner of Taxation proceeded to give his interpretation of what

Parliament meant by the words that it had put into the statute. I altogether dissent from the suggestion of Senator Daly that Parliament is bound to accept the interpretation of the Commissioner of Taxation. There is another factor to be considered - the High Court. Parliament deliberately set up the High Court to interpret the law. I do not accept the view that the interpretation of the Commissioner of Taxation necessarily represents the view of Parliament.

Senator Daly:

– I am assured by the department that it is necessary.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The honorable senator’s assurance does not satisfy me. I should like to know why it is necessary to make this legislation retrospective. If this objectionable provision is retained in the bill there will be a suspicion in the minds of the taxpayers that the department hopes to be able to re-assess for those years. If the department has no intention of doing this why is the provision being inserted? I am quite sure that if Parliament understood this to be the intention of the department, the bill would have no chance of passing in any shape or form. But I do not believe it is necessary, and I cannot believe it is the intention of either the Government or the department to reassess for land tax paid in those years.

Senator Daly:

– It is not the intention of the Government, as the honorable senator knows.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Then why not insert in the bill a provision to prevent this from being done? Why not state definitely the year to which the retrospective provision of the bill will apply? If this is done the taxpayers will know exactly -where they stand. It should be noted also that that portion of the measure which deals with Crown leases affects only those assessments which remained unpaid in 1923. It does not operate as regards any taxable value in Crown leases since that year. There is an amount of £160,000 involved. This has been paid under protest.

Senator Daly:

– Certain Crown leases are taxable under amending legislation.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The amount involved is not £1,100,000 as suggested by the honorable senator. I can assure the Leader of the Senate that I have read carefully the speech delivered by the Treasurer in another place. He made a statement similar to that delivered by Senator Daly this evening, but afterwards he amended it by saying that the sum. of £1,100,000 had already been paid in respect of taxation of these leases, and that there was no legal obligation on the Commonwealth to refund that amount. This statement makes it clear that there are two amounts in respect of which there could be a claim upon the Commonwealth. One is £160,000, which has been paid under protest, or covered by some letters from the department to the taxpayers concerned, and the other amount is £180,000 which is still outstanding, and which the department claims is collectable.No one can say with certainty that the department will be able to collect the latter sum, because it is an arbitrary amount based on assessments which have been varied as a result of further information placed in the hands of the department. This is proved by the fact that the department sent to the taxpayers concerned two circular letters. One read as follows: -

Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-23.

Dear Sir, -

The attached notice of amended assessment shows as tax payable an amount of £449 4s.

The Commissioner has decided that the tax due to the inclusion in your assessment of a leasehold estate in Crown leases in excess of that calculated on the values returned by you may remain in abeyance.

As thetax payable by you on the values returned would be nil, payment of the full amount shown in the notice may remain in abeyance, pending further advice.

Assessments for all years are under consideration for finalization of the basic values upon which the tax payable in respect of Crown leaseholds is to be calculated, andyou will be advised of any amount ultimately found to be payable.

The valuation as made at present has been included to protect the rights of the Crown in the matter.

Yours faithfully,

Adams, Deputy Commissioner.

Senator Mclachlan:

– What is the date of the circulars?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– Both circulars are dated the 25th July, 1925, and are addressed toVestey Brothers, Darwin. The second one referred to assessments for the years 1910-18, and was in the following terms : -

Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-18.

Dear Sir, -

The attached notice of assessment for land tax for the year 1922-23 totals £409 5s. 8d. Had only interests other than Crown leases been included in the assessment the amount of tax would have been £41s. 4d., and this amount should be paid not later than 25th June, 1925.

Whilst the department claims that the assessment is correct, it recognizes that great differences of opinion exist amongst the taxpayers as to the correct method of valuing leasehold estates for the purpose of land tax. In view of this fact it is proposed to allow you to defer payment of the balance, namely, £405 4s. 4d., pending further notification to you. The valuation has been included in the assessment in order to protect the rights of the Crown in this matter

Yours faithfully,

Adams,

Deputy Commissioner of Land Tax.

The reasons for the issue of the circulars are obvious. The taxation of Crown leases was the subject of inquiry by a royal commission, and no doubt the department desired to safeguard its position, whilst at the same time recognizing the inadvisability of collecting the tax pending a decision as to the basis of assessment. How was the sum of £180,000 mentioned by the Minister arrived at? I believe that a considerable proportion of it represents assessments, such as those referred to in the letters I have read, which are subject to variation. Therefore, we must not assume that £180,000 or anything like that amount is outstanding.

Senator Rae:

– Might not the amount be varied upwards?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.That is not likely, because ever since this trouble commenced the departmental assessments have been steadily decreasing. Of the £1,100,000 which the Minister said may have to be refunded, over £770,000 represents collections on assessments to which no objections have been lodged. Therefore, to that £770,000 the taxpayers have no legal or moral claim. The amount was collected in accordance with the law as it had been interpreted by the High Court up to that time, and the taxpayers knowing that they had the right of appeal lodged no protest, but paid in accordance with the demands of the department. The money was paid into the general revenue and that closed the transaction. I would be surprised if Senator Daly, as a lawyer, would argue that in those circumstances the taxpayers have either a legal or a moral right to a refund of the money. If he does admit that, he may land the Government in considerable trouble in regard to both land taxation and customs taxation. If a person pays a tax without protest or objection, he thereby forfeits all rights, legal or moral, to the money. Therefore, I advise the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) not to endeavour to influence us by suggesting the possibility of the Commonwealth having to refund the £770,000 which has been already “paid without objection.

I turn now to the merits of the bill. Unimproved value, as interpreted by the man in the street, means the value given to land by the presence and needs of the community. Value is added to land in two ways; the first is by the carrying out of public works such as roads, railways, water supplies, jetties, &c. That value is created by the community and not by the individual, and as such is fairly subject to taxation. The other value is that created by the activity, energy and thrift of the owner. Believers in land taxation agree that such a value, which is the product of individual effort, should be exempt from taxation. “We should endeavour to bring that guiding principle to bear when dealing with this measure, and we can do so regardless of the procedure adopted by the Commissioner of Taxation in the past.

Clause 2 of the bill proposes to omit the existing definitions of unimproved value and value of improvements, and to insert in lieu thereof the following - “ Unimproved value,” in relation to unimproved land, means the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realize if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require….. “ Value of improvements “ in relation to land, means the added value which the improvements give to the land at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this act irrespective of the cost of the improvements.

Provided further that in ascertaining the value of improvements no amount shall be included in such value in respect of any work done or expenditure incurred for the purpose of preventing land, or any improvements thereon, from deteriorating, or of maintaining land which has been improved, at its improved value whether by means of destroying animal pests or vegetable growths, or of preventing such pests or growths from- establishing themselves, or by any other means, but, in respect of fences and other structural improvements, effected for any of those purposes, which are oh the land at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purpose of this act, an amount shall, subject to the preceding proviso, be included.

That definition may not be very plain, but if I understand the English language the Minister was not correct in replying to Senator McLachlan, that the removal of suckers from land would be admitted as an improvement. Suckers are a vegetable growth, and vegetable growths are specifically excluded. In Western Australia if a red gum tree is felled, the stump produces in the following year a crop of suckers, which if neglected for three or four years will cost as much to remove as did the original tree.

Senator Daly:

– Does the honorable gentleman say that a tree is a vegetable growth ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.I do. These suckers must be continuously removed for several years until the stump dies. Senator Daly will not deny that the Western Australian poison plant is a vegetable growth. Stock cannot be depastured on land until the poison plant has been eradicated. You cannot eradicate that in one year; it must be done over a series of years. I take it that expenditure under that heading is, however, specifically excluded according to the wording of this section. It is not permissible to include in the cost of improvements expenditure incurred in the eradication of vegetable growths, or on preventing such growths from establishing themselves. Then let us consider expenditure on the removal of stones and rocks from land. When you have done that there is no improvement on the land, pertaining to the land, such as fences and other structural improvements.

Senator Daly:

– What would the right honorable senator call the grass that grew where the stones previously were?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.That is an improvement, of course, because it can be seen; but the removal of the stones is not an improvement according to the wording of the section.

Senator Rae:

– The right honorable senator means that such an improvement destroys the evidence of its having been made.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.That is so. Let us see what the High Court has said in regard to some past cases. One might have thought from listening to the Minister that this was the first - occasion upon which this issue has come up ; but if honorable senators look at the consolidated act, they will see printed there notes relating to a number of cases that have come before the court on the question of unimproved values, and on the value of improvements. I propose to refer to some of those cases because they have an important bearing on the subject under discussion. In the first case mentioned it was held that: -

To arrive at the unimproved value of land for the purposes of the act the improvements existing at the time of the valuation upon the land itself as legally incident to its enjoyment are to be assumed as not made, but the existence of part improvements, and the effect, which they or their use have had in bringing the land up to its then value, are not to be ignored.

That was in the case of Hie Commissioner of Land Tax v. Nathan, (1913) 16 C.L.E., 654. AH the forms of improvement to which I have referred are very important elements in bringing land up to its existing value, and the High Court has ruled that they are not to be ignored. Another note reads -

Held bv the High Court that the word “ improvements “ in the definition of the term “ unimproved value “ includes such operations of man upon the land since it has ceased to be Crown land, the benefit of which continues at the date of valuation, and operations of nature which are only effectual by reason of what man has done as have contributed to bring about the present enhancement of the value of the land. Morrison v. Federal Commissioner of Land Tax, (1914) 17 C.L.R. 498.

The next case is reported as follows: -

Held by the High Court that the term “ value of improvements “ includes the present enhancement of the value of the land attributable to the operations of man upon the land effected since the land ceased to be Crown land, the benefit of which continues at the date of valuation, and also includes the present enhancement of value attributable “to those operations of nature which arc only effectual by reason of what man has done. Morrison v. Federal Commissioner of Land Tax.

I submit that if we pass this bill, we shall nullify those judgments of the High Court, because it is by the act of man in destroying and keeping destroyed vegetable growths that improvements which add to the value of the land are effected. Yet these improvements are specifically excluded by the clause I have quoted. If we pass clause 2 we shall be doing this thing with our eyes open. As a layman it appears to me that we shall be affecting not only the judgment to which the Minister referred, but past judgments of the court over a period of many years. It seems to me that clause 2 is indefensible as it stands, and I cannot support it. It ought to be amended in some way to give the owner of the land the benefit of those improvements which he effects by his own energy and skill, or the application of science to the working of his land. The value we want to tax is that which is created by the community. That is a fair principle in land taxation.

I have already made certain references to Crown leases, but I wish to add something more. I was a member of Governments that were confronted with this difficulty for a great number of years. It became a veritable Serbonian bog: The more we tried to remedy the position, the worse it became. I well remember the Herculean efforts of Mr. Ewing to find a solution, but he was unsuccessful. Finally, as a measure of desperation, the then Treasurer, Mr. Watt, in 1919, suspended the collection of these taxes because the provision was unjust and unequal in its incidence ; it was doing no good ; it was injuring the pastoral industry; and it was hampering the land settlement policies of the States. No one knew just where he stood. We are endeavouring to tax the value of Crown leases, of which there are seven different kinds in Australia. There are the leases of the six State Governments, besides those in the Northern Territory, and they all vary. There are varying terms over which the leases extend; in some leases there are rights of resumption for all sorts of pur-, poses; some have limited rights of resumption only. Some are subject to reappraisement at the end of ten years: others after twenty years, and others after 30 years. Notwithstanding all these differences, it was sought to frame a system of taxation that would tax the equivalent of the freehold value in all these separate and varying sorts of leases. After getting hopelessly bogged,, the Government of the day suspended the tax with a view to settling the matter one way or the other, either by evolving some sound principle on which we could proceed, or by abandoning the whole thing. Unfortunately, Mr. Watts’ action was not followed up for some time, and it was not until considerably later that royal commissions were appointed to investigate the matter. I invite honorable senators, who wish to see into what a hopeless tangle the thing had drifted, to read the reports of the royal commissions of 1923 and 1925. The report issued in 1925 contains about 56 pages, and deals entirely with this subject. The reference to the commission was that it should “ inquire into and report upon the method which should, in view of the decision of the Parliament of the Commonwealth that the taxation imposed on lessees’ estates in Crown leases under the Land Tax Assessment Act. 1910-16 should be collected, be adopted for determining, upon the basis laid down by the act, the unimproved value of the land held under such leases.” I invite honorable senators, if they feel so disposed, to read the involved arguments embodied in the report of the royal commission and to see what they can make of them. An extraordinary feature is that after all these inquiries by that commission, which had the benefit of the information obtained by a previous inquiry, its recommendations are not those which have been adopted by the Government. The recommendations of the royal commission which inquired into the method for determining the unimproved value of land held under Crown leases are to be found on page 44 of the report, and read -

We therefore recommend that the following general principles should be observed in the valuation of improved Crown leasehold areas in order to determine their freehold unimproved value: -

Ascertain the carrying capacity of the land by reference to all available information and by the exercise of the values of expert knowledge;

Compare the subject land with sold freehold areas and allow for disadvantages which should be capitalized at the appropriate rate of interest. From the improved value deduct the amount properly attributable to the value of the improvements.: 3. Estimate the net earning per beast area of the subject land under normal management and normal conditions. Check the estimate by reference to record? of the property and the valuer’s knowledge of other similar properties. Then capitalize at appropriate rate of interest, and eliminate value of stock and improvements. The appropriate rate of interest to be used should be that disclosed by sales of freehold land nearest by distance and put to similar use as that of the subject area ;

Compare the results of 2 and 3, and, if any great variation, adopt 3 as the more reliable in accurately reflecting disadvantages.

– There is no such suggestion. There is no need to convince the proletariat.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Golf has long ceased to be a prerogative of the aristocrat. One has only to visit golf-courses in Australia to find working men playing the game alongside capitalists. Luckily it is a game which can be played without any great expenditure - I can say that from personal experience. It is useless to speak of a golf-links as being exclusive. Some may be so regarded, but the same can be said of certain football and cricket grounds. I cannot enter the Melbourne Cricket Ground without paying, although the members of the Melbourne Cricket Club can do so by producing a pass. It is exclusive to that extent. I venture to say that Hagen or any other great golfer can only be seen at play by those who are prepared to pay. Prominent cricketers may be seen at play on the Melbourne Cricket Ground by those who are ready to pay for admission; but those who do so cannot play unless they are members of the club. It is all “ tosh “ to say that golf is an exclusive game, and in this instance the Government is playing to the gallery.

Senator Daly:

– Golf-links ought to be taxed.

High valuations are of no value to the bona fide settler. An official comes along and says “We think the land, which you regard as of little value, because you do not want to sell it, as valuable” because someone five miles away has sold his block at a high price. When the taxation on a man’s block is increased he cannot pass it on. He is really better off when his valuations are not increased. Very often men who for sentimental reasons refuse to take a good price for their homes have had their valuations put up on that account.

I object to the retrospective effect of this legislation. It is amazing that the House of Representatives should have passed a bill to enable a man to be re-assessed on his land as far back as 1910 and 1914. When a man pays his annual tax charge he thinks that it is done with, just as he thinks he is finished with his storekeeper when he pays his account. An honest man shows on his land tax return particulars of the whole of his land, and when he is assessed, and has paid taxation on it, there should be an end to the matter. Neither the Commonwealth nor a State should have the right to come along and say, even one year afterwards, “ We want to re-assess your land and make retrospective collection.” Why the Commonwealth should claim the right to assess a man for sixteen or twenty years back is incomprehensible. It is absolutely wrong in principle to do so, and I hope the Senate as the custodian of State rights will not permit such an injustice to be inflicted upon a worthy section of our community who, under existing conditions, are unfortunate enough to be land-owners. There is no time more unsuited for retrospective and unjust legislation of this nature than the present. Owing to drought and the low prices for wool and wheat, the producing interests already have the utmost difficulty in meeting their engagements in regard to the taxation they expect.

An unjust feature of land taxation in general is that the tax is levied on people who, because of drought, may have no income for several years, whereas income tax is levied only on people who have income. It is wrong that a man whose capital is invested in land should be taxed whether he has an income or not. The person who puts his capital into a mortgage is not nearly so valuable to the country as he who will take up land and spend his capital on it. Yet the Government rightly, of course, taxes only the income from the mortgage, whereas in the case of the man who puts his capital into the land, it taxes him whether he derives an income or not, and it now goes further and claims the right to tax him back to 1910 and 1914. The Senate would be well advised to say “Away with this legislation altogether.” Those who enjoy incomes, even if they have been supertaxed to the extent of 5, 10 or 20 per cent., are probably in a position to pay, because the tax is levied only when they have means to pay. The land-owner in the north of South Australia or in the dry districts of Victoria, Western Australia or New South Wales must meet his land taxation whether he has secured an income from the land or not, and he should certainly not be subjected to this retrospective and harassing legislation. It is most difficult to reconcile this proposal with Mr. Scullin’s plea to the farmers to grow more wheat and to the pastoralists to increase the wool clip. It seems to me that the bill is ill-advised, and that the present is an untimely period for proposals to increase retrospective land taxation, and tighten up the definition of unimproved land value, which has already been more injurious to the interests of the producer than the rate of the tax itself.

Land values are now receding. Senator O’Halloran pointed out this afternoon that in South Australia the price of land is decreasing, yet the Minister representing the Treasurer, in reply to a question asked by me, says that it is not proposed to levy the land tax for this year on the decreased values, and that the suggestion to do so will be a matter for consideration later. Judging by this legislation, it appears to me that the taxation officials are looking round for means to increase the revenue from the Land Tax by tightening up the provisions of the act.

One of the most objectionable features of the bill is the clause which declares that no allowance is to be made for expenditure incurred in destroying animal pests or vegetable growths if the land has already been cleared. In many parts of Australia rabbits are a very grave menace. Their burrows are everywhere, yet no allowance is to be made for getting rid of them. According to my reading of the clause, no allowance is to be made for destroying animal pests or vegetable growths or preventing such pests or growths from establishing themselves.

Senator Daly:

– Allowance is to be made for rabbit-proof fences.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– The cost of erecting a fence is very little compared with the expenditure involved in getting rid of those big burrows that unfortunately exist on many Crown lands that are now being taken up by settlers. This bill specifically declares that no allowance shall be made for getting rid of these pests, yet no greater improvement can be effected to virgin land. If mallee and other suckers are neglected after timber has been rolled down, it becomes much more expensive in after years to get rid of them than the cost of the original rolling. I have already referred to bracken fern and the poison plant. It requires years of vigilance on the part of a farmer to combat them, and often his wife and even small children can be seen helping in this work. The poison plant is responsible for great loss of stock, and it seems to me that improvements of the kind to which I have referred ought to be taken into consideration. Similarly, allowance should be made for the value of improvements due to the destruction of the prickly pear. I hope that this bill will be carefully reviewed. Land tax has to be paid by the settler, whether he obtains a reasonable income or not; it is a charge that he cannot pass on. I hope that the Senate will not permit any further unjust penalties to be imposed on those who have their capital invested in land instead of in mortgages or government bonds where it is safe.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I do not profess to be familiar with all the land legislation that has been enacted, but I have listened carefully to the objections taken to the bill. While some of them may be valid, others are certainly not. One of the chief objections urged by honorable senators opposite was that no tax should be levied in respect of improvements that require to be continued from year to year, such as the destruction of poison plants and bracken fern. If such objections were allowed, we might as well repeal the land tax altogether. Senator Guthrie referred to an added value which he thought the use of superphosphate gave to land. I have used a good many tons of superphosphate, and I contend that it does not add permanent value to the land to which it is applied. It has been proved by chemical analysis that its application, while enabling the farmer to produce a few good crops, will also stimulate certain chemical constituents in the soil in such a way as to cause valuable ingredients in that land to be exhausted. Therefore, the application of fertilizers is only of temporary value. Suppose that an area of prickly pear land has been improved. If we included in valuing the improvements, the cost of keeping the land free from prickly pear, we should soon swallow up not only the land tax being paid, but also the value of the land itself. I admit there is something in the argument about invisible improvements. In some cases there is no difficulty in distinguishing between improved and unimproved land. When a settler carves out a home for himself in the bush, it is easy to ascertain what his improvements have cost him, but when improvements are widespread the valuer does not know how much to attribute to nature and how much to credit to individual settlers. Improvements such as fences and other structures ought not to be taxed, but it would be absurd to say that because a farmer had destroyed certain weeds or burrs that had sprung up on his land, he should be relieved of taxation to the extent of the value of that work.

The measure is not intended to prevent the levying of taxation; its object is to stop a leakage of tax that was not contemplated when the act was passed. I understand that the High Court has ruled that land cannot be taxed where a leasehold is liable to resumption, owing to the difficulty in ascertaining its value. In the case of an area of 10,000 acres, possibly only 50 acres are liable to be resumed. To say that the subtraction of such a small area from a large holding would render it difficult to arrive at a fair valuation of the taxable amount of the leasehold is an absurdity. Then again, the idea that land, the rental value of which is liable to re-appraisement, cannot be properly and accurately valued, seems to me to be” a fiction. There should be no difficulty in arriving at the annual value of such land. Action to overcome these difficulties is not only necessary to conserve the revenue, but desirable also, because it will not permit certain taxpayers, on a mere technicality, to evade taxation which others are compelled to pay. Most of the objections that have been raised to this measure are not valid. As to its retrospective provisions, I assume that they will not in any way permit the department to re-assess for taxation from 1910 or 1914 land which has not already been liable to taxation. These retrospective provisions have been inserted, I take it, for the purpose of preventing evasions of taxation which has been legitimately levied, but through some technicality, has been evaded by the respective taxpayers. If there is a possibility of any injustice in the operation of these provisions I am sure that, in committee, the Minister in charge of the bill will welcome any amendment to provide against them. Speaking generally, the bill has been discussed by honorable senators opposite as though it were a proposal to impose new taxation, instead of being -merely a machinery measure to prevent leakage in taxation, the principles of which have been previously confirmed by this Parliament.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– I hope the Senate will unanimously reject the bill. In the course of the debate on the ministerial statement to-day we heard honorable senators supporting the Government explaining why it was necessary practically to subsidize our farmers to remain on the land and increase the production of wheat. Now the Government- proposes to extract every penny it can possibly get from landholders by this taxation. Why should a man who has invested his money in land be taxed on his capital as well as on his income? There is in fact no justification for this system of taxation. The excuse is advanced that the Government should obtain some revenue from what is termed the unearned increment. But in addition to taxing the unearned increment, the Government is seeking to whittle away the basis upon which the original Land Tax Act was drawn, and is endeavouring to tax part of the improved value. In the original definition, “ unimproved value “ was stated to mean the value the land would have borne had the improvements on it not been made. Gould anything be plainer than that? The new definition of “ unimproved value “ to be found in this bill reads as follows : - “ Unimproved value “ in relation to improved land means the capital sum which the fee-simple of the land might be expected to realize if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this act, the improvements thereon did not exist.

Senator Rae:

– It is the same meaning in other words.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– Then why is it considered necessary to change the phraseology and confuse the people? Some mention has been made of the invasion of land by bracken fern. During the war a considerable area of farm property in Gippsland, valued then at from £20 to £25 per acre, became valueless owing to the growth of bracken fern and invasion by rabbits. Hundreds of original selections, subject to mortgage, to-day have no value at all ; but here and there where farmers’ sons did not go to the war, are to be found properties still in good condition and worth £20 per acre. Under what system is the value of these properties to be determined. Is it the view of the department that land covered with bracken fern and invaded by rabbits is still worth £20 or £25 per acre, or has the department written down those properties to their unimproved state? And if so, why should a man who has kept his land in good condition be penalized by taxation on a basis of £20 or £30 per acre whilst his neighbour who, through misfortune or from other causes, has allowed his property to be overrun with bracken fern and rabbits, escapes?

Senator Rae:

– Would not all those properties be exempt from federal taxation ?

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– If an original area of, say, 300 acres, were valued at £20 per acre, the total valuation would be fairly close to the amount which is taxable by the Commonwealth. But I am more concerned about the principle and the basis of valuation.

Senator Daly:

– The holders of such properties would be entitled to be paid for the cost of improvements if they had effected them.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– If it were possible for a man to obtain a block in its virgin state to-day, and if he bad to pay the ordinary labour costs to clear it, and bring it to a cultivable condition, it would cost him about £40 per acre. But the land to which I refer was not occupied in that way. Thirty or 40 years ago a man with his wife and family took up a selection and set to work to ring-bark the big timber, and cut down and burn out the scrub. Eor the. first five years or so, he and his family practically had to exist on opossums and wallabies. A considerable area of that country has reverted, not to its primeval state perhaps, but to a condition approaching it, owing to the growth of bracken fern and infestation by rabbits.

Senator O’Halloran:

– I do not think any of those blocks will be affected by this bill.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– There are larger areas which the settlers have been obliged to abandon. The proposed definitions will make the law more uncertain and difficult to administer, and I amunable to understand why the Government should propose to depart from the old definition that unimproved value means the value that the fee-simple would realize “ assuming that the improvements (if any) thereon or appertaining thereto and made or acquired by the owner or his predecessor in title had not been made.” Those words have not been affected by any decision of the High Court, and I can only assume that the alteration proposed in the bill is due to the reasons mentioned by Senator Sir George Pearce. Apparently, the Government is pursuing the old vendetta against the wealthy squatters, and desires to rub their noses deeper in the dirt.Recent events should have brought deeper wisdom and greater breadth of vision to members of the Labour party. Eor several years Australia has been living on the sheep’s back, but, owing to the slump in the price of wool, that support has been withdrawn from us. I agree with Senator Johnston that people who take up new holdings in the outback portions of Australia should be subsidized rather than penalized. I am certain that SenatorRae would not take up land outback.

SenatorRae. - Why is the honorable senator certain of that? I was on the land for 22 years.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– The honorable senator takes care to keep off the land now. The Leader of the. Senate (Senator Daly) has said, emphatically, that this bill involves no change in tbe law as it was understood. But there is nothing to indicate that the cost of clearing or removing rocks from the land will be included in the allowance for improvements. The definition refers to improvements “ on the land “ but cleaving is not on the land, and the bill seems to indicate an intention on the part of the Taxation Department to escape making allowance for improvements of that character. An assessor may not be able to realize that a paddock, now cultivated, was so covered with stones a few years ago that it could not be ploughed. All improvements are not, “on” the land; in this case the absence of the stones, which constituted an impediment to cultivation, is the improvement which makes the land valuable. I do not pretend to the omniscience of the Leader of the Senate, but as I understand the bill, the only improvements to be allowed are those “ on the land “. It is remarkable that no allowance is to be made for an improvement in the form of something taken from the land.

SenatorRae. - Is the hoeing of weeds that grow season after season an improvement?

SenatorH. E. ELLIOTT.- Certainly. The leaseholder should be encouraged to keep noxious weeds in check. Surely the man who neglects the pests on his land should not be allowed to pay less taxation than his neighbour who works hard to> keep1 Ms- holding clean. I urge the Senate to reject the bill.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

’. - If there was any strength in the arguments of the Leader of the Senate, it was; in respect of the second part of the measure which he said was introduced in consequence of the decision of the High Court in the Northampton Pastoral Company’s case. The court decided that the lease did not come within the combined operation of sections 27, 28 and 29 of the Land Tax Assessment Act. The majority judgment said that the section which is now proposed to be amended was a reasonable provision to apply to private leases. The court went on to say -

This provision, in our opinion’, is entirely inapplicable to a case where the- tenure of the land is of uncertain duration, and where the future amounts of rent are at the date of valuation unknown and unascertainabl’e.

The majority of the court came to the conclusion that Parliament had never intended this provision to apply to Crown leases. It is obvious that Parliament did. intend it to so apply, and the Government has said, in effect, that if the language in the original act is not sufficiently clear, the intention of the Parliament shall be again expressed in unmistakable terms. There is one aspect, of this matter which, I think, has escaped the attention of the Minister. It is the extraordinary situation that will obtain if this legislation is amended after the issue of the notices which, as I heard for the first time to-night, were sent to leaseholders, and which were calculated to lull them into a false sense of security. Now, despite those notices, the Government proposes to alter the law so as to place them in an entirely different position. No leaseholder who received one of those notices could come to any other conelusion than that conditions would not be altered until he h’ad an opportunity of appealing, or of taking other steps to protect himself. Unless the Government can assure us that other notices were sent out subsequently it is only reasonable to assume that leaseholders have all along been under the impression that their interests were secure. The notices of which I speak were sent out by the department, and were signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation.. It does not matter under what government they were sent out ; they were issued through the department, and we are now asked by the Government to alter the legislation which? directly affects the leaseholders. Very strong language would be used to describe such procedure in private life.

Another aspect of the matter which requires consideration is that covered by the second portion of the bill. I venture the opinion that the Government will not be a single half -penny better off under the new legislation than it. would, have been under the old. I suggest that if the exigencies of the financial position are such that it is necessary for the Government to take steps to safeguard this £160,000, it should, when bringing in any retrospective legislation, not only exclude those persons who have obtained judgments of the court, but also all those who have entered objections,, or who have given notice of appeal. We all know that in many cases notices or objections are not sent on, or set down for appeal. The taxpayers rely on the result of test cases. Probably the Northampton case was regarded as a test case. I am not in a position to say, but probably scores of others were relying on the outcome of that case. Is the Government, by means of this legislation, going to allow a man to escape merely because he was fortunate enough to be the subject of a test case, while all the others who were interested with him to an equal degree are to be made to suffer? I suggest that, for the credit of this Parliament, we should not allow sections 4 and 5 of the bill to pass without altering them so that they may not affect any assessment that is the subject of an objection or a pending appeal.

In regard to the other portion of the bill, I confess that I do not think that the Leader of the Government in the Senate made out a case for the alterations which are proposed. I have not yet had an opportunity to read the decision in McGeoch’s case, but I trust that I shall be able to do so before we reach the committee stage to-morrow. I believe, however, that it was stated that that decision was a confirmation of the principle laid down in the Morrison and Fisher cases. In the Morrison case we have this principle emphasized in the most unmistakable language by that master of his profession, the late Chief Justice Griffith. After quoting the section of the act, he said -

It seems plain enough that that means that the value of the improvements is the present enhancement of the value of the land attributable to the operations of the man upon the land, the benefit of which is continuous, including also, in some cases, improvements not actually effected upon the land itself, to which qualification it is not necessary to refer for present purposes. What operations of man are improving? When I say “operations of man,” 1 think the term should be limited to what is done by the owner for the time being, that is, after the land has ceased to be Crown land.

He further indicated that consideration should be given to the unimproved value, the improved value and certain other things. Keogh’s case, which was referred to by the Minister, was decided in 1915, and I propose to read an extract from the judgment of Mr. Justice Rich. In this case the principle was also the same. Mr. Justice Rich said -

I have taken into account the benefit which arises from improvements - the result of the work of man and the operations of nature - amongst others, ringing, picking up and burningoff, and the improvement of the pasturage by grassing and other methods, and the consolidation of the land from the judicious running of .stock.

Some of these improvements are progressive; as to ringing, for example, none can state the exact period which must elapse before the full benefit of the work will accrue. The period will vary according to the nature of the land and of the timber, the locality of the land, and whether it is capable of being used as wheat or grazing, land, and whether the improvement is maintained, e.g., by suckering

I cannot distinguish between “suckering” and keeping land free from prickly pear. “ Suckering “, as I understand it, is eliminating those growths which proceed from the roots of the mallee or other kindred gums, and which constantly appear unless careful attention is given to their removal over a period of years. If this was the principle applied by the High Court, what earthly reason is there for the Government, or the department, to ask Parliament to alter it. It has been known ever since 1913, up to the present, that it would be applied. The High

Court has applied exactly the same principle, and at this late period in the administration of the act it is said, in effect, that Parliament and the High Court were wrong. If it is said that the same principle is being applied as in the McGeoch case; it would be an extraordinary act on our part to allow this measure to pass in its present form. Without having given detailed consideration to the whole of the circumstances, I submit that the departmental view in the McGeoch case appears to turn on the fact that the appellant in purchasing his land allowed for the eradication of the prickly pear year by year. There is no principle behind that. It is, I consider, an individual case, and comparable with the decision in the Jowett case, which turns on fact alone. I venture to say that the whole situation has been misconceived, and that no case has been made out in support of the proposed amendment of the law. Further difficulties will arise necessitating fresh litigation, to which I, as a member of the legal profession, do not object. But it seems to me that when’ we have a settled method of dealing with the improved and unimproved values of land, including judicial decisions on the subject extending over nearly twenty years, and the whole position clearly defined by the High Court, the Government is taking an extremely dangerous step in endeavouring to amend the legislation in the direction proposed. If the latest judgment embodied a reversal of the principle laid down in other judgments, I could understand the department being eager to deal with the subject in this way. But as I am informed that these judgments merely confirm the principles laid down in previous decisions, I do not feel disposed to agree to an amendment which would overthrow the settled practice as determined by the legislature, and as confirmed by the High Court from time to time. I do not wish to enter into a controversy as to the amount to be collected. That seems unarguable, particularly as it is to be made retrospective. If we examine the definition very carefully it will be seen that, notwithstanding the decision in the Morrison case, and subsequently in the Keogh case, the draftsman has eliminated anything in the way- of improvements that are not actually on the land. Further, as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) mentioned, the bill clearly indicates that the department is not going to allow for the suckering of land, although such work was allowed by Mr. Justice Rich in the Keogh case. All I can hope is that the Leader of the Government who I know appreciates the value of the work of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research will protect those who are engaged in the era diction- of prickly pear. I think that the Senate should oppose the first portion of the bill unless adequate reasons are given for its retention. If the Government is still anxious to chase this will-of-the-wisp and is able to retain this £160,000 to the Crown, we shall have no objection to offer. “We should, however, do justice to those people who have taken steps to protect themselves by forwarding notices of objection.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [11.58]. - There is only one j)oint to which I wish to direct the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Daly). We were told that this bill was intended to make clear the previous intentions of Parliament. But it seems very important to me that the bill should be quite clear to honorable senators.

Senator Sampson:

– Is it?

Senator COLEBATCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I do not think it is. I, should like to ask why the clear definition employed in other Land Tax Assessments Acts should not be used instead of all this complicated jargon. If we refer to the Land Tax Assessments Acts of New Zealand, Victoria and Western Australia, we shall find that they are almost identical in this regard. I am not aware that any trouble has ever arisen in connexion with their administration. I do not think any appeals have ever been made to the court to obtain a ruling as to the meaning of the definitions of “ unimproved value “ and “ improvements “ in those acts. In the Western Australian act “ unimproved value “ means -

In respect of land granted in feesimple, the capital sum of what the fee-simple in such land would sell under such reasonable conditions of sale as a bona fide seller would require assuming the actual improvements (if any) had not been made . . .

The definition of “improvements” is - “ Improvements “ includes houses and buildings, fencing, planting, roads made or macadamised by the owner, excavations for holding water, wells, pumps, windmills, and other apparatus for raising water, drains, ringbarking, clearing for timber, or scrub, or poisoned plants, or noxious weeds, or laying down in grass or pasture, and any other improvements whatsoever, the benefit of which is unexhausted ait the time of valuation but does not include any railways or tramways constructed under any act or any provisions thereof.

The phrase “ the benefit of which is unexhausted at the time of valuation,” appears also in the acts of New Zealand and Victoria. It is an expression which we could, with advantage, adopt. Surely those words cannot have two meanings. An owner should be entitled to deduct the value, of improvements which he has made, the benefit of which is not exhausted. Why cannot we adopt a simple definition like that?

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– If this were a bill for the repeal of the Land Tax Assessment Act I should put up both hands for it, but this bill in my opinion should be rejected. I think that the Commonwealth i should never have entered the field of land taxation. I remember that away back in 1910, when, God forgive me, I voted Labour, paeans of praise went up because under this act the midlands of Tasmania were to be made to blossom like the rose, because a few bloated breeders of merino sheep, who were absolute excrescences on the landscape, were to be turned out ‘ and the land was to be taken by hundreds of other settlers, who would develop, small holdings. The object of the land tax was, of course, to break up large estates but it failed to do so. The experiment was tried in three instances in the Tasmanian midlands, and it proved a most dismal failure, for the reason that the land had to be most carefully nursed and fertilized to enable it to carry an absolute maximum of one sheep to the acre. The wiseacres who entered upon this scheme knew nothing whatever about land, or primary production, but they set out in theoryto revolutionize the pastoral industry, increase the population of Tasmania, and add greatly to the productivity of the island. We were told that the land was being used in a most shocking and wasteful manner by the big merino breeders of that day and that everything was to be altered. Now we know that all these great schemes have come to naught. I regard the entry of the Commonwealth into the field of land taxation as an absolute intrusion. This field should have been left to the States.

I wish to refer briefly to the proposal to tax golf clubs. I do so, not merely becauseI play golf, but because I regard this as class taxation. An interjection was made during this debate to the effect that these people should get a “kick in theneck,” and should be taxed. As a matter of fact, they are already being taxed up to the hilt apart altogether from golf. All golf clubs are not like the big clubs of Melbourne and Sydney. Years ago I was a member of a little golf club in abush town. After a hard struggle the club managed to get a piece of land near the sea coast which was practically worthless. It was covered with marram grass and no one would ever have wasted time on it in the ordinary course of things. But almost the whole village played golf, and every Saturday afternoon the members of the club formed a working bee until they got the ground into decent condition. Occasionally we hud 30 or 40 school children down and paid them 6d. each for helping to clear the bracken from the links. There are hundreds of similar clubs throughout the Commonwealth. It is insanity to propose class taxation of this description. This is nothing but an attempt to vent spite upon the people who play golf, because they are supposed to be the representatives of “ fat.” I should like to see the members of this Government and their supporters take up golf. They would be better men and better sports. They would become broader in their outlook and in their forehead. They would be better men in mind and body and soul. I intend in committee to move an amendment to delete this objectionable provision.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I regret exceedingly that Senator Sampson has seen fit to launch a personal attack upon the Government. The Government was actuated by the highest motives in introducing this measure. It had no idea of giving any one “a kick in the neck” or of deliberately meting out unfair treatment to any section of the community. The taxation of golf clubs is not a new proposal. It has been considered by the Senate more than once. The class of club referred to by the honorable senator would not possess land of an unimproved value’ of £5,000 and, therefore, it would not be taxable. After all, golf is a luxury. When it is necessary to increase the revenue to meet the expenses of carrying on the government of the country such luxuries should be taxed in order to relieve the man on the land for whom Senator Sampson professes to have so much regard.

Senator Thompson:

– What about bowling greens?

Senator DALY:

Senator DALY:

– Certainly; but in the final analysis it is necessary to decide what is the most equitable way of distributing the tax, which the honorable senator’s party considers should be collected. Similar remarks apply to the rabbit pest. The Government has taken the best advice and submits amendments to the act in the best of faith. It merely asks the Senate to agree to a bill which has been sent up to this House, with its purpose to substitute appropriate words in the place of inappropriate words, so that the clear intention of Parliament might be adequately expressed in the statutory laws.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 12.20 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 March 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1930/19300320_senate_12_123/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate20 March 1930

QUESTION

WHEAT POOL

Senator DALY:Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

CRITICISM OF MR. E. G. THEODORE, M.P

Personal Explanation

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Daly:

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Daly:

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY PUBLIC WORKS AND ACCOUNTS COMMITTEES

Senator OGDEN:TASMANIA

Senator DALY:ALP

LIFE INSURANCE BILL

QUESTION

CUSTOMS TARIFF

Senator DALY:ALP

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BARNES:Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

PRICE OF SUGAR

Senator DALY:ALP

QUESTION

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

Senator DALY:ALP

QUESTION

WHEAT POOL

Senator DALY:ALP

PAPERS

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Government Programme

Senator McLACHLAN:South Australia

Senator Guthrie:

Senator MCLACHLAN:

Senator Rae:

Senator MCLACHLAN:

Senator Daly:

Senator MCLACHLAN:

Senator Daly:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Foll:

Senator MCLACHLAN:

Senator Daly:

Senator MCLACHLAN:

Senator Daly:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator O’HALLORAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Daly:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator DOOLEY:New South Wales

Senator Reid:

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator Reid:

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator Foll:

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator Foll:

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator Foll:

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator H E ELLIOTT:VICTORIA · NAT

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator Cox:

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator Foll:

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator Carroll:

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator Sir John Newlands:

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator Sir JOHN NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senate
20 March 1930

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator DOOLEY:
New South Wales

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator Sir JOHN NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT