House of Representatives
12 October 1910

4^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- FORTUNES IN FLYING
POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL
QUESTION
- NEW HEBRIDES
NORTHERN TERRITORY ACCEPTANCE BILL (No. 2)
- Second Reading
LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Third Reading
LAND TAX BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- New Rifle. - Rifle Range, Echuca

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

FREMANTLE WIRELESS TELEGRAPH STATION.

Mr. HEDGES. - Has the PostmasterGeneral any information to give the House as to the location of the wireless station at or near Fremantle?

Mr. THOMAS. - A Conference is taking place in Fremantle between representatives of the Defence Forces, the Navy, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, and the contractors for erecting wireless telegraph appliances, and we had the valuable advice of Admiral Henderson on the question. There are two sites which are regarded as suitable by the Naval and Military authorities and the officers of my Department, and we are waiting for the contractors to say which’ they will accept. We have asked them to let us know their decision as soon’ as possible.

STATE OF FRANCE.

Settlement - Communication - Population

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

How much money has been spent by the Commonwealth Government is assisting British settlersto take up land in the New Hebrides?
Is the land taken up freehold or leasehold?
Who owns the land taken up by the British settlers?
How many British settlers have settled in the New Hebrides as the result of Commonwealth expenditure?
How many islands comprise the New Hebrides?
What are the names thereof?
What is the estimated white and coloured population of each island?
How far is the nearest island of the New Hebrides from the nearest port of Australia?
What is the name of the said island and the said port?
What is the name of the port from which British vessels regularly depart for the New Hebrides?

Mr BATCHELOR:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Apart from the assistance given to British settlers by refunding portion of the duty paid on maize and coffee grown by them in the New Hebrides and imported into the Commonwealth, for which purpose . £750 is voted annually, no money has been spent directly for the purpose mentioned by the Commonwealth. In the contract with Messrs Burns, Philp, and Company, of 1902, it was provided that the firm were to utilize certain lands then in their possession for the purpose of advancing British settlement, and were to grant free passages to intending settlers.
Leasehold. The terms of leases are ninetynine years ; rent for the first three years at the rate of1s. per annum per 50 acres, and for the succeeding period at the rate of1d. per acre per annum.
Messrs. Burns, Philp, and Company Limited, who hold them in trust for the Commonwealth Government.
About sixty settlers, with their families, went to the group. About twenty remain. These represent forty to fifty persons. Free passages have been supplied to about twenty settlers, who hare acquired lands outside the special areas referred to. 5 and 6. The New Hebrides, including Banks and Torres group, consist of about forty islands with numerous islets and rocks. The principal islands are - Efate or Sandwich (on which is situated Vila, the capital), Aneityum, Tanna, Erromanga, Futuna, Aniwa, Mai, Tongoa, Tangoa, Epi, Aoba, Ambrym, Malekula, Paama, Malo, Pentecost, Aurora, Santo, and Nguma.
The estimated white population is about 700. No recent estimates of the native population have been made, but twelve years ago the total native population of the group’ was estimated at 70,000. It is probably less now. The following figures were included in an Admiralty report of 1907 : - Santo, 6,000; Tanna, 6,000; Erromanga, 1,000; Aneityum, 400. These figures are only approximate.
About 1,200.
Vila, New Hebrides, andBowen, Queensland.
Sydney.

page 4433

NORTHERN TERRITORY ACCEPTANCE BILL (No. 2)

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6th October (vide page 4256), on motion by Mr. Batchelor -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- I am obliged to my honorable friend and colleague, the honorable member for Angas, for conceding to me the opportunity to continue this debate. So far as one can judge, the proposal embodied in the Bill has passed almost beyond the debating stage. It is unnecessary now, though it was very necessary earlier, to contend that it ranks among the very first demanding the attention of the Commonwealth. I do not estimate its call upon us by the magnitude of the territory affected, although that is enormous, measured by any civilized standard ; I do not judge it by its financial prospects, though they are great ; I have from the first applied the standard of national values, with its implication of national dangers and necessities. In that way alone can the relation of the proposal to the future of this country be appreciated.

– One of them did, but that was because undertakings, express and in print, had been given, which rendered it impossible for him to take another course. I merely mention this in passing, because hereafter it will be a matter of some interest to realize that personal, State, and financial considerations have been discarded here at times, under the influence of a national ideal, and this in a manner which, in my opinion, reflected the highest’ credit on those who were content in such a crisis to subordinate their personal interest, and, in many cases, their personal wishes, when convinced that this question could not be longer postponed. In the Senate, however, the pressure of business, and the strong feeling entertained by representatives of particular States combined together. Although we had a far larger number rallied for the Bill than had been anticipated, we unfortunately fell two votes short of the number required to pass it. We now have precisely the same Bill, with the recommendation that it has already run the gauntlet of the House in which the States are directly represented, and I am sure its welcome will be even more cordial than it was in 1909.

May I offer one quotation from my remarks of 1909 upon the real character of this Bill, and as indicating a point of view on which I think it can be recommended more strenuously than ever to the attention of this Parliament? On that occasion I said -

To me the question has been, not so much commercial as national, first, second, third, and last. Either we must accomplish the peopling of the Northern Territory or submit to its transfer to some other nation. The latter alternative is not to be tolerated. The Territory must be peopled by a white race. We could put a garri-son there in barracks as a watchdog. That would be extravagant, foreign to our instincts, and, having regard to the extent of the country, insufficient. The garrison we need is -not idlers, but workers. We must people the Northern Territory with settlers who may be organized and equipped, so as to render them capable of serving in the defence of Australia. We can evade our risk only by shutting our eyes. In no other way can it be ignored.

I again venture to urge support for the measure upon national, and not on commercial grounds, though they are not to be disregarded. I dealt with them last year in some rough detail. At that time it seemed necessary to touch upon them, even at the close of a long debate. Even now the bestinformed men in this community know practically nothing of the possibilities of this vast area ; but we know quite enough to realize that the most pessimistic view discovers what would be considered in any

– Does not the honorable member think that the north-west might be included in that argument?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I meant that, too. In speaking on the measure last year I declined to consider the Northern Territory, vast as it is, apart from other parts of Northern Australia. It is really Northern Australia of which we are speaking. The coast portion of Queensland to the east of ;he uplands is not part of Northern Australia. It has different conditions, it has become fairly settled, and has’ exceptional advantages of its own. It will be, in my opinion, one of the high revenue-producing areas of Australia. Therefore, when I speak of Northern Australia, I refer to those portions, starting from the eastern side, where the sea communication ceases to be cheap and the climatic conditions alter right across to Derby and Broome, and thence down as far as Roeburne. That is the Northern Australia in which the money of the Commonwealth must be invested on many national grounds during the next generation.

I trust honorable members will pardon a disquisition upon a subject which is really too large to cope with in any adequate sense at this stage. We have necessities for settlement and railway communication without which our hold on this .portion of Australia cannot be sufficient. Quite apart from any increase of the white population, which we hope to see, any attack on that portion of the Territory would require the whole strength of this community, north and south together, to expel it ; that is to say, all the strength we could make available there, and without railway communication that strength could not be made so available. So in the case of the Western Australian railway, I put economic considerations in the background ; the two projects stand on precisely the same footing. That, too, is a national work, the first purpose of which is defence, by linking up the west with the north.

Mr J H Catts:

– The conditions are very different in each case.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Irrespective of the conditions, our national and defence interests are of such magnitude and weight that all ordinary considerations of advantagethough they cannot be said to be insignificant, because they are not - do not weigh in the scale as against those interests, at all events, in my own mind. - As to the measure, nothing more need be said ; it is the same measure the late Government introduced and passed last year in this House. It very nearly passed through the Senate ; and we now welcome its reappearance, and hope to see it become law in the least possible time. But there is one issue which has attracted more attention, perhaps, than it deserves, considering its relative importance j although it is a question that 1 certainly do not brush aside, because, for our immediate needs, and in the early part of our development of the Territory, it will be a matter of great importance. I mean, of course, the first connexion by means of a railway from Pine Creek to join the Port Augusta to Oodnadatta railway at some junction. I do not wish to provoke argument, but regard this as the first transcontinental connexion - it cannot be the last, but must be only the first of several. It is the first to the north and north-west.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Does this agreement compel the railway to go right through South Australian territory? “Mr.1 DEAKIN.- I take it that the construction of the Western Australian railway is already assented to, and its route appears to be placed practically beyond dispute by the survey.

We are not in the same position in regard to the northern railway, because there is a conflict of opinion which has arisen in a rather extraordinary fashion. Our original agreement was made, as I have said, with the South” Aus tralian Government early in 1907. The negotiations took the form of personal interviews between Mr. Price, who was the Premier of South Australia, with his colleague, Mr. Lawrence O’Loughlin, and myself on the part of the Commonwealth Government. Subsequently, of course, they came before the Commonwealth Cabinet as a whole. In the course of our discussion the question of the railway naturally emerged ; but it will complete the story if I point out the exact course of events in this connexion since we first began to get “ at grips “ with the question.

In the Commonwealth Parliamentary Papers, Vol. ti of the entire series, but Vol. - for the year 1906, at page 1233, honorable members will find a paper printed to the order of the Senate in July of that year, containing the first, or, at all events, some of the very earliest correspondence. On the 3rd February, 1906, Mr. Price forwarded to us resolutions which had been carried in the South Australian Parliament, the condition therein laid clown being -

That the line of route of the proposed railway shall be from the terminus of the railway at the South Australian boundary to the terminus of the northern section of the line at Pine Creek, and within one hundred miles east or west of the present overland telegraph line.

There was then no idea of our taking any railway in South Australian territory.

Mr Batchelor:

– The railway was to practically follow the telegraph line.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Quite so. I replied to that communication on the 23rd Ferbuary, 1.906, pointing out, amongst other things, that one very doubtful proposal was that the route should be ‘ 1 restricted, in advance, within limits which may interfere with its financial prospects.”

At that time, and always afterwards, I was personally very much impressed with the absence of accurate knowledge about a great section of the southern parts of the Northern Territory, and was unwilling to commit the Commonwealth or the Government to any line until we were certain that we were choosing the best route from all points of view - the best route, not only for the present, but for the future of Australia. To that communication, Mr. A.-A. 1 Kirkpatrick, Acting Premier of South Australia,replied on the 6th April, to the effect that his Government were particularly anxious to go on with the railway from Oodnadatta to the northern border, and to complete the construction from there to Pine Creek. That communication was evidently subject to the same conditions as those previously made. On the 30th April, I wrote to the Premier of South Australia, pointing out that in 1901 there had been no mention of any railway construction, or any obligation on the Commonwealth to construct a railway either wholly or in part, and that it was a subject for careful consideration. Mr. Price wrote again on the 14th July, and I replied on the 20th, to the effect that the South Australian Government was calling upon the Commonwealth to undertake at its own expense the construction of “ a gigantic public work . . . of which South Australia dictates the route, and hoped to reap the greatest part of, if not all, the advantages,” and that this condition appeared to me “ the chief obstacle to an early and satisfactory settlement.” Then, on the 6th August, Mr. Price again wrote, giving indications that his Government had widened their view. He pointed out that to transfer the Territory without having made provision for the completion of the railway line would leave them “ blocked against extending the line from its present temporary terminus, ‘Oodnadatta, northward beyond Charlotte Waters, a dilemma never contemplated,” and expressed the opinion that the Federal Government should “ give due consideration to what has already been done in the direction of building a transcontinental railway.”

Mr Archibald:

– Was not that all a lot of diplomatic fencing?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Perhaps so, in the sense that we were feeling our way to see how far we could get.

Mr Archibald:

– No doubt about that !

Mr DEAKIN:

– Here is Mr. Price’s next “ feeler,” which seems to open the door to further consideration. He said -

To connect with Port Darwin a railway already traversing Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, is essentially a Federal work, and we trust that its connexion may be approached with appreciation of its national importance.

If honorable members read that despatch of Mr. Price’s very carefully, they will see that it is essentially diplomatic; he does not commit himself to this proposal, but merely makes an allusion to a line traversing those States.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– That was an afterthought.

Mr.- Archibald. - The honorable member for Ballarat was very diplomatic on his own side, at times !

Mr DEAKIN:

– If not, we failed in our endeavours. Those words are capable of two interpretations - one that they allude to the transcontinental line in question ; and the other that they merely refer to the fact that by travelling from Adelaide to Melbourne, from there to Sydney, and so on, we could gradually reach the Northern Territory. However, I replied on the 30th August, pointing out that in the opinion of the Government the question of a northern transcontinental railway could not be considered apart from the question of the transcontinental railway to Western Australia, both being Federal lines of great importance.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– That, I suppose, was the idea of the honorable member for Swan ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– The honorable member for Swan had not been consulted in the matter ; although he is a representative ot Western Australia, and I had no doub’t as to his sentiments, he was not informed of Our proposal until it had been made. I “went on to say in the letter -

With a view to assisting you in submitting the matter to your Parliament, I now put forward the following as a proposal Ministers would feel themselves justified in laying before the Parliament of the Commonwealth and recommending for acceptance -

That the Territory be offered free of all past liabilities, except those incurred in the construction of the line to Pine Creek, and subject only to the condition that the Commonwealth should undertake to make the railway between Pine Creek and the southern boundary of the .Territory by route to be chosen by the Commonwealth.

I also laid before Mr. Price the further condition that South Australia should agree to the survey and construction of the Western Australian line. At that point the correspondence ceased; and it was not until five or six months afterwards, when Mr. Price came over, that the last suggestion was made, namely, that the Commonwealth construct the railway to the South Australian border, but that we do so on a route to be chosen by ourselves.

Of the Conference that took place then I need say little. Unfortunately Mr. Price was soon suffering from that attack of ill-health which subsequently terminated fatally, costing us one of the best politicians and public men Australia ever had. Mr. O’Loughlin had charge of the agreement, and when, at the end of 1907, it came before the South Australian

Parliament, that gentleman spoke on behalf of the State in submitting the proposed agreement-

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

– Mr. O’Loughlin was Minister for the Territory.

Mr DEAKIN:

– And was therefore naturally charged with the business, having also a first-hand knowledge of everything that had transpired.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Was the conference public or private?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Entirely private. It took place between Mr. Price, Mr. O’Loughlin, and myself. I laid the matter before the Cabinet, which expressed its views. Upon these we settled the agreement. The important point now is to show, from the mouths of South Australian representatives, what the agreement arrived at between us really was.

When the Bill was laid before the South Australian Parliament, it was accompanied by the map which now hangs in this chamber. This, I am told, is the very map that was before the members of the South Australian Parliament when they were considering the subject. The one thing that “leaps to the eyes,” as the French say, on this map is the fact that an alternative route of railway is shown outside the Territory.

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

– That was Mr. Solomon’s map.

Mr DEAKIN:

– It may be so. The map in itself shows what was in the mind of the South Australian Parliament. There are references to it in the Hansard report. The present Attorney-General, Mr. Denny, on 6th July of this year, was asked a question on the subject -

Mr. Young, referring to reported statements of the Federal Prime Minister and AttorneyGeneral, that the proposed Oodnadatta-Pine Creek railway agreement would admit of the line going to Queensland, asked did the Minister regard such a position as satisfactory to South Australia?

The Attorney-General said, in reply -

There could be no doubt that at the beginning it was recognised that it was possible that the line might go through Queensland. Anybody who knew anything about the agreement knew that. When the late Mr. Price came back from entering into the agreement, he showed in the Adelaide Town Hall, by a map, that it was quite possible for a line to go that way under the agreement.

When the transfer was being decided in the South Australian Parliament, Mr. O’Loughlin, as reported in Hansard of 15th October, 1907, said -

Numerous objections have been made to the agreement on the ground that there ought to be a stipulated time in which to connect the Territory with South Australia by a line of railway, and they held this opinion, but in discussing the question with Mr. Deakin, he pointed out, and properly so, that it would be unwise to bind the Commonwealth Government to construct the line of railway within a stipulated time. Mr. Deakin, however, undertook to construct the line from Port Darwin through Central Australia to join the existing railway at Oodnadatta, or to go through what was considered to be very much better country - from Pine Creek, via Camooweal, down the borders of Queensland, and a territory west of Birdsville, and down to Port Augusta, vid Hergott.

That is the alternative railway route shown on the map.

The length of the proposed line from Port Darwin to Fort Augusta would be 1,686 miles. The length of the other proposed line from Port Darwin, vid the Queensland border and Birdsville down to Port Augusta would be 1,726 miles. No doubt the Territory would keep the line in their own territory if possible.

There is a misprint here. I have read the report as it stands, but what Mr. O’Loughlin really said is plain. He said that no doubt “ the Commonwealth “ would keep the line in their own territory, if possible. The report says “no doubt the Territory,” which is meaningless. He went on -

There was very little difference between these routes as far as distance was concerned, and he ventured to say, from information carefully gathered, that the line vid the Queensland border and west of Birdsville would be the best line for South Australia, and probably the best for the Commonwealth to construct, because the land was much more fertile and had a better rainfall.

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

– That was said in the South Australian Parliament?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Yes, on 15th October, 1907, when Mr. O’Loughlin was recommending the agreement which we had arrived at.

Mr Finlayson:

– Mr. O’Loughlin was the Minister for the Territory?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Yes. A little later on he said -

The Commonwealth undertook to relieve South Australia of their responsibility for all time.

He meant the responsibility for the Oodnadatta line -

Which was the best proof that could possibly be given that they are earnest in their desire to connect Port Darwin with Port Augusta with a line of railway. They would take the present 1 line from Port Augusta to Oodnadatta over, guarantee to run it as it was run at the present time, and to shoulder the loss on it instead of South Australia. That was a big concession, but one that was properly made, and a guarantee was given because the Government did not insist on a given time for the railway to be constructed. It must be evident to every one that one of the two proposed lines to which he had referred must be built, because the country could not be properly developed without it.

Mr Poynton:

– Some of those in South Australia who use that argument are in favour of handing the Northern Territory over to a private company.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I leave that aspect pf the matter for my honorable friend to deal with. It is certainly not my policy. At page 614 of the same volume of the South Australian Hansard, from which I have already quoted, there are passages which go to show what South Australian members themselves understood the agreement to mean. In the debate, Mr. O’Loughlin went on to say -

It had been asserted by some people that if the line running close to the Queensland border were constructed it would tend to develop the Queensland ports instead of those of South Australia. That idea was altogether erroneous, because the Federal Government were bound to construct the line -to Port Augusta, and not to take it to any Queensland port ; and the line going to Port Augusta, via Hergott, would naturally bring much of the Queensland trade to South Australia, because it was nearer than any Queensland port. Port Augusta was a much better port for all kinds of shipping than Rockhampton or any other of the North Queensland ports.

That may be a matter of opinion.

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

– There is no room for difference of opinion on that point.

Mr Poynton:

– Port Augusta is one of the finest ports in Australia.

Mr DEAKIN:

- Mr. O’Loughlin, the Minister for the Territory, who was also

Minister for Lands, is an authority on these subjects : and what I am trying 10 bring before honorable members is his perfect candour and frankness as to the alternative railway routes. I could also quote, if necessary, from his statement made in the present session of the South Australian Parliament. It is the same statement that he made originally, and I have preferred to quote the former statement only because it was made at a period nearer to the time when the agreement was entered into, so that no possible question as to a lapse of memory can arise.

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

– Both Mr. O’Loughlin and Mr. Peake have said the same thing.

Mr DEAKIN:

– If any further evidence were required of the fact that this alternative line through Queensland was taken into full consideration by the South Australian Parliament, honorable members will find it in the speech of Mr. Butler, the Leader of the Opposition. That gentleman made a fierce attack on this agreement, because he insisted that it necessarily involved constructing the line through Queensland, traversing hundreds of miles of the territory of that State, and never coming near to South Australia until it approached the northern boundary. At pages 619 and 620, Mr. Butler argued in this way -

If this agreement were ratified we would see the line from Port Darwin connected with Queensland and New South Wales before it was connected with Port Augusta.

Then again-

The clause providing that the line from Port Augusta to Oodnadatta should be handed over to the Federal Government should be struck out. Another flaw in the agreement was that the railway would not benefit the Northern Territory to any extent. If it touched the Queensland border at Austral Downs or Camooweal, and then came south to our northern boundary, the railway would pass almost entirely through Queensland.

And so on. So much for the Leader of the Opposition. There is only one other high authority to whom one need refer, and I quote him because he took a very independent view, of the whole situation. He did not feel himself at all bound to agree with his Government unless he thought they were right. I quote the testimony of a gentleman who has added his counsels to this Parliament since the last election. Mr. Archibald, now the honorable member for Hindmarsh, speaking in the South Australian Parliament on 27th

October, 1907, made a most convincing statement -

The Federal Government would naturally want a free hand as to the route of the railway, and South Australia had no right to dictate in the matter.

There is a ‘national sentiment, even from a State member.

There was better land in the direction of the Queensland border, and trade -would naturally gravitate to the nearest port. It would be no concern of South Australia’s if that route proved to be towards Queensland ports. When South Australia extended the line from Hergott to Oodnadatta the Government of the day deliberately ignored all the reliable information that was at hand as to the best route. At that time there was a strong feeling outside Parliament that the line should go in the direction of Birdsville, but Parliament decided that it should follow the telegraph line. He took part in the discussion on the question outside Parliament, and favoured the Birdsville route, but the advocates of that scheme were only roundly abused for their trouble.

I need not do more than call attention to the patriotic terms in which he concluded his speech -

He asked the House to pass the motion on the ground, firstly, that we were 2,000 miles from Palmerston, and, therefore, could not govern the Territory properly ; secondly, that we were ceding the’ Territory to ourselves, as Australians; thirdly, that the cession would render a landgrant railway impossible ; and, fourthly, that it would save us ^200,000 a year.

I have accumulated many more quotations. At pages 182 and 201 of the South Australian Hansard for the current session, Mr. Denny, the State Attorney-General, is reported to have said, that it was always understood that the agreement provided for a possible deviation of the railway outside the borders of the Northern Territory ; that it had been left an open question, and that the best route ought to be taken.

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

– That statement is not in accordance with fact.

Mr Archibald:

– It was not intended that the line should go outside the Northern Territory.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Mr. Denny had evidently been looking up the facts.

Mr Archibald:

– He knows nothing about the matter, lt was like his cheek to make such a statement.

Mr DEAKIN:

– He -was replying to statements made during a debate on the Northern Territory Agreement.

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

– He knows little of anything outside” the Adelaide park’ lands.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Apparently I have not succeeded in this instance in quoting a convincing authority. We also obtain from the South Australian Hansard information as to the attitude of the present Federal Government, which is not in conflict with, but rather supplements what we have heard in this House. For instance, Mr. Verran, the Premier of South Australia, speaking in the House of Assembly on 5th July last, is reported at page 20 of the State Hansard to have said, in reply to Mr. Smeaton, who interjected - “ Is the route to be determined by the surveyors?” -

There was much discussion over that.

The reference was to a discussion between the present Prime Minister, the Minister of External Affairs, and himself -

After we had left the matter was discussed in caucus by the Federal party.

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

– There has not even been a preliminary survey.

Mr DEAKIN:

– No. Special survey parties must traverse the country and advise the best route. If, on the reports of the surveyors and engineers, it were decided, with an eye to the future of the whole country, that the eastern line should first of all be constructed, as likely to prove remunerative earlier than any other, and to assist in developing country with which we ought now to be in touch, we should still require to supplement that line by continuing a railway from Oodnadatta, probably in a north-westerly direction. My ownpoint of view, knowing nothing of the country, save what I have read or heard from others who are familiar with it, is that the Oodnadatta line should touch the Mac.Donnell Ranges, where we have a splendid piece of country, and, instead of striking northwards, through what every one describes as unfavorable country up to a certain point, pass towards the Tanami goldfield, and away towards Derby or Broome. Those are two points in the north that we have to safeguard. There is also another in the north-east, but, with the development of Queensland, we may hope that it will be in such touch with settlement as will give reasonable assurance of safety. The northwest is more difficult to reach than Port Darwin. A line in that direction would pass through some superb cattle, country, and territory rich in mineral possibilities.

Speaking with no pretension to more knowledge than is possessed by other honorable members, it seems to me that everything ought to depend on the reports of engineers and surveyors. We know the difficulty of carrying the Hergott line to Birdsville, because of the sandy as well as the wide extent of flooded country at the lower part of the inflow of the Cooper. This it would have to traverse. After the agreement had been made, however, and some time before it was submitted to the South Australian Parliament, we were assured that the State Railway Department had discovered a route to Birdsville avoiding the swampy and sandy country.

Mr Batchelor:

– A good deal east of Birdsville.

Mr DEAKIN:

– It would describe a curve about one-fourth of the distance between Birdsville and the extremity of the South Australian border curving back towards Urandangi and into the Territory.

I have detained the House longer than I intended in order that this question might be made reasonably clear. To understand how the agreement came to be drafted as it was, honorable members must recollect that it was made in February, 1907, shortly before I left for the Imperial Conference in London. The negotiations with Mr. Price were conducted at high pressure, while making arrangements for a necessary absence of four or five months. Consequently it was not until my return that I discovered that the terms of the agreement had been so drawn as to confine the line strictly within the boundaries of the Northern Territory. I communicated with Mr. O’Loughlin and Mr. Price, and both agreed with me that it did not fulfil the terms of the agreement we arrived at, which gave a choice of route. They had already told their Parliament that they agreed that the route should be considered and decided by the Federal Parliament.

I did not raise this question when a similar Bill was before this House on the last occasion, because to have done so then would certainly have been fatal to the measure. The view I held, and still hold, is, that if we are to be bound by the strict legal interpretation of the agreement, as it was erroneously expressed, I am for accepting it as it stands. I wish to make that perfectly plain ; but let us deal with the matter justly. Let me remind honorable members that there was but one view held by all the parties concerned in the making of the agreement which would have been kept by Mr. Price, had he lived, and which will be kept by Mr. O’Loughlin and Mr. Peake, who are aware of the whole of the circumstances. They have recently said so in the South Australian Parliament. All the parties intimately concerned concur that the intention of that agreement was not that which was embodied in the Bill actually submitted. Consequently, we are placed in a position of some embarrassment to-day, though I do not think there need be any real embarrassment.

What is required is some addition to this agreement making it plain that this Parliament, after making a thorough and searching investigation of all the alternative routes proposed, and fully inquiring into the question, shall decide which route is to be adopted.

Mr Batchelor:

– Does the honorable gentleman mean an alteration of the agreement?

Mr DEAKIN:

– No, it would be in the nature of an addition to the agreement.

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

– That would be fatal to the agreement.

Mr Batchelor:

– We should never see any more of it.

Mr Higgs:

– It would correct the difference between what was intended and what was said.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I do not at all agree with the Minister for External Affairs, and for several reasons. This could be put to the South Australian Parliament on the evidence of which I have to-day given only the most essential points. A great deal more might be obtained, if necessary, showing what the agreement actually was. We have also the statement of present Ministers of South Australia, who have said that they regarded this question as one for the decision of the Federal Parliament. I have quoted statements to that effect, and many other similar statements might be quoted: In these circumstances, the per sons intimately concerned having no doubt as to what the agreement was, and the present Government of South Australia being willing to recognise their obligation in that regard, when the whole of the evidence is laid before them, I cannot see that they could reasonably, or that they are at all likely to refuse to consent to the agreement that was actually made, being carried out, instead of another. This part of it, in all good faith, but probably owing to verbal instructions being relied upon in the circumstances in which they were given in 1907, is drawn with a strictness which was not intended. That would exclude from consideration the alternative route which Mr. Price, Mr. O’Loughlin, and Mr. Verran agree was submitted to the South Australian people and Legislature before they passed their Bill.

– No, we were in an entirely different position as the numbers supporting the Government proposal in the Senate showed. We were depending upon a very few votes to get the measure through. In the circumstances, I followed the course which I am still prepared tofollow, of voting for the agreement as it stands to secure the acquisition of the Northern Territory.

That is the essential matter. The question of the route may prove very important, but, after all, remains relatively a minor matter. In justice to the Federal Parliament, I think it should have the right of choice of the route on the best information available, but if that be denied us, I should not hesitate for a single instant to support the agreement as it stands. This House can, of course, accept the responsibility of deciding to adopt the agreement as printed, though it is not the actual agreement that was made.

Mr Finlayson:

– Will the honorable gentleman support the Bill even if the Federal Parliament is denied the right of choice as to the route ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Certainly ; I have said so from the first. The taking over of the Territory has always had - my support. I think we should not refuse it on even much harder terms than these, so strongly do I appreciate its importance. It is the key of Australia, which we cannot afford to leave in the door for any one to turn who pleases.

I am sorry that an agreement for the transfer of the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth was not completed ten years ago at the commencement of Federation. We could have spent, and should have required to spend, our funds liberally, as we shall have to do in the future, in order to insure the settlement of the Territory, and safeguard it for coming generations. We have no choice in this matter. We must take this agreement, because we must take the Territory; we cannot afford delay. There have already been knocks at the door in the north, and may be more. Above all things, whatever we do, we should pass this Bill, with or without the condition as to route, and without another moment’s delay.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- I think the House is under a debt of gratitude to the Leader of the Opposition for the speech he has made this morning. I have heard the honorable gentleman on national ideals, which might, perhaps, be more pleasing to the ear, but on this occasion he has given us information to which the House and the country are entitled.

– Does not the honorable member think, from the information at his disposal, that there is some good land on the MacDonnell Ranges?

Mr J H CATTS:

– The only information which has had any effect on my mind is some photographs that I have seen of cattle in the vicinity of the MacDonnell Ranges. The stamp of beast shows that they must have been reared upon decent cattle country. Beyond that I have no real evidence.

The whole point of my argument is much the same as that of the honorable member who has just resumed his seat, that we should have the opinion of experts regarding the route for the railway, and not be tied to the expenditure of many millions of pounds of the Australian taxpayers’ money without the slightest information to guide us as to the route which will best serve the Territory and the Commonwealth as a whole.

If this agreement contained no stipulation as to the direction the railway should take, the South Australian people would start out with an immense advantage, because, if the Territory is taken over by the Commonwealth, every member of the Commonwealth Parliament will have a leaning towards a railway wholly within the Territory, as none of us would desire the expenditure of Commonwealth money to develop State property in preference to Commonwealth property. If the route through the Territory is justified by experts no one will be more pleased than myself, and I should be prepared to lean towards it to a considerable extent, because I believe we should spend Commonwealth money in developing and enhancing the value of Commonwealth territory.

– No. But I do say that this Parliament should act upon the advice of independent experts in regard to the route to be followed. - whether it should be wholly within the Territory or partly within and partly without the Territory.

For South Australia to attempt to drive a hard bargain with the Commonwealth-

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member assisted to drive a hard bargain with the Commonwealth in connexion with the Federal Capital site.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member’s statement is absolutely incorrect. He knows perfectly well that I always objected to the provision in the Constitution

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member did not evidence that attitude by his vote.

Mr J H CATTS:

– If the honorable member will look up the Hansard report of the first speech which I delivered upon that question in this House, he will see that I then stated that if the Government would bring down a Bill authorizing them to proceed to establish the Seat of Government at Dalgety I would support it. But when the whole question of the site was reopened, I intimated that I intended to vote for Yass-Canberra.

– There is room for quite a number of railways.

My idea is that transcontinental railways should link up the various States by means of an iron band of steel all round Australia like the present connexion between Brisbane and Adelaide, and that branch line’s should connect with the various ‘ ports around our coast for developmental purposes.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– The honorable member is supported by a very good authority in the person of Lord Kitchener.

Mr J H CATTS:

– For developmental purposes we should construct short lines of railway from the transcontinental line to the various ports around our coast. But these are questions which ought to be investigated by experts.

– Surely the honorable member regards this as a big national question. Why parochialize it?

Mr J H CATTS:

– Pretty well paid. I do not wish to decry Queensland, but if statements are made about concessions, I say that it is that State, and not South Australia, which is obtaining them. This year we are paying something like ,£577,000 in bounty. The Northern Territory was transferred to South Australia in 1863. It was suggested at the time that Queensland might take it over, but the Government of that State said that it had enough to do to develop its own lands. The Imperial Government, therefore, placed the Territory under the care of South Australia, until, with the growth of population, either in the south or in the Territory, a new arrangement might be necessary. The time for that has come. The Act 24 and 25 Vic, chapter 44, which placed the Territory cinder the control of South Australia, provided that, should! the Territory be separated from South Australia, under the powers reserved by Letters Patent, its debts and liabilities should be apportioned between the parties concerned. What is proposed is nothing more, except that the Commonwealth should also take over the railway from Port Augusta to Oodnadatta. If the line from the Northern Territory were taken through Queensland, the junction with the line which I have just mentioned would have to be at Hergott. The total cost of the line from Port Augusta to Oodnadatta, which is about 478 miles in length, was £2,272,000, exclusive of rollingstock. There is no special rolling-stock belonging to that line, but the value of that apportioned is £142,000, making the whole cost of the line £2,414,000. There is a loss of £84,000 on the line, but of that £32,000 is the loss on the portion between Hergott and Oodnadatta.

Mr Archibald:

– I was on that Commission, and dissented from the recommendations.

Mr GLYNN:

– When the recommendations came before the House, there was a pretty strong debate, with the result that they were not accepted; and the only occasion on which the land grant principle was ever recognised was when the Jenkins Government passed a Bill in 1902. That Act, however, received its quietus soon afterwards, public opinion being against the adoption of the principle. South Australia also constructed the overland telegraph single-handed. Two of the States were asked to join in this work, but it was carried out by South Australia alone, commencing in 1872, and resulting in 1,169 miles of telegraph, on which for several years there was considerable loss. After the Commonwealth came into existence, and the Post and Telegraph Act was passed in 1901, there was a loss of about £15,000 a year, caused by the competition of the Pacific Cable Board with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. I might give many other instances of loss to South Australia in connexion with the Territory under Federation. ‘ When there was a separate Tariff for the Territory, the Customs duties brought in a revenue of about £34,000, but, of ‘course, that ceased when the uniform duties were decided upon in

902, which led to a decline of about £20,000 a year. There are several other items of loss, but I do not desire to delay the House by mentioning them. I hope that, since this question of the Northern Territory has been in abeyance since 1907-, we shall now come to some decision. I do not believe that there is the remotest chance of any alteration in the agreement being ratified by the South Australian Parliament. I am speaking on evidence given to me only yesterday, when some members of the State Parliamentpressed on me the objection there is in South Australia to the taking over the Territory even under this agreement. Personally I am of opinion that the Territory ought to be taken over as a continental responsibility ; but it is due to South Australia that the position of that State should be known.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– If the present Parliament of South Australia is opposed to the Bill we should not hold it to a fiveyears’old agreement.

Mr GLYNN:

– If not, then the best thing would be to reject the agreement, for that might fall in with the desires of a good many people in South Australia. I do not say this as a piece of “ bluff,” but merely to show that there is a strong, but I believe, mistaken, feeling that South Australia is capable for many years to come of shouldering this responsibility. However, the Northern Territory is a pretty good asset, and the Commonwealth is not asked to pay anything, but simply to take over a share of the responsibility. Captain Barclay, Mr. Cotton, Steuart, the explorer, Mr. Searcy, Professor Spencer, and geologists like Mr. Wood, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Brown, and the botanist, Mr. Holtze, are of opinion that the prospects of agricultural and pastoral settlement, as well as of mining, are considerable. The rainfall, though it varies from 62 inches to 4J inches, is, for 86,500 miles of country, 40 inches on the average.

Mr Bamford:

– Over what period is that?

Mr GLYNN:

– I do not know ; the information is given in the memorandum issued by the honorable member for Darling Downs. These figures show that the prospects for tropical agriculture, as shown by Mr. Holtze, are exceedingly bright. I hope the Bill will be passed as it stands so that South Australia may know what is to be done. There are now over 20,000,000 acres under pastoral permits, and it is really very inconvenient that settlement should be so suspended. Then, I think, that there are over 82,000,000 acres leased for forty-two years, and about 4,500,000 acres for twenty-five years. There are conditions of stocking and fencing to comply with in order to lead to the development we desire; and if these improvements are not carried out, it would justify resumption without any Act of Parliament. In the circumstances I think that a very fair case has been made out by the Government for the acceptance of the agreement as it stands.

Debate (on moi ion by Mr. Fenton) adjourned.

page 4447

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

In Committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message) :

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

£2.46]. - I move -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue and moneys be made for the purposes of ti Bill for an Act relating to the imposition, assessment, and collection of a land tax upon unimproved values.

It is necessary to cover the Bill with a message from the Governor-General owing to the fact that there has been inserted in it a provision for the payment of the salary of the Commissioner. With that exception, this is not a money Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported and adopted.

Third Reading

The Order of the Day for the third reading having been called on -

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan

.- I move -

That the Bill be now recommitted to a Committee of the whole House for the reconsideration of clause 11.

– That is a notification of the intention to sell.

Mr GLYNN:

– As the Attorney-General says, such a concession cannot be given for all time; but I think that a case, applicable to the existing financial year, and not covered by the clause as it stands, ought to justify an amendment. For that reason, last Friday, I asked whether the honorable gentleman would extend the time to October, or, better, to the 31st December; but in the hurry of the moment, he did not reply. In one case, I know that the advertisement to sell was as far back as the middle of April, though the sale will not take place until July, and there may be cases of advertisement, perhaps, in the middle of June, while the sales are not until October or November. All such cases as these ought to come within the proviso. I suggest to the AttorneyGeneral that it may be necessary to also recommit clause 32. Last week, when the Attorney-General moved to strike out clause ‘ 34, I pointed out that amendment was also required in clause 32, which provides -

Provided also that when a trustee is also the beneficial owner of other land, he shall be separately assessed for that land, and for the land of which he is a trustee, unless by reason of joint occupation or for any other reason he is liable to be jointly assessed independently of this section.

Mr AGAR WYNNE:

– It might be so. But I assume that, the tax being so heavy, no person will be anxious to over-value, or, indeed, to under- value, considering the risks. Many thousands of returns will have to be made, and, in my opinion, it will take from six months to twelve months to get them in. I assume that the Government will not have their regulations ready, and all other arrangements made within three or four months ; and yet the tax is payable by the 30th June next. This is really ante-dating both legislation and taxation; and when a tax is imposed for all time it would be wise to postpone the date until the passing of the Bill, or until the end of the year. To date back to the 30th June is unwise, not to say ungenerous. We all know the difficulties there are in initiating the administration of heavy taxation, such as a Tariff, for

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

Question put. The House divided.

AYES: 21

NOES: 24

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- Before we finally part with this Bill, there are a few points on which it may be excusable to reiterate very briefly one or two leading considerations that have impressed the Opposition. Before doing so, I wish to make a quotation from an article in the North American Review for November last, to which I referred on a previous occasion, since it has an important, although very general, bearing on this situation. In Federal legislation, the one country above all others in which we may expect to find practical illustrations and evidence of value is the United States of America. This article was written by Mr. Seligman, one of the most famous authorities on economic questions in the United States, who has a reputation throughout the English-speaking world, some of his works being regarded as text-books.

The bulk of the article is not material to this Bill. It deals only with general principles. Mr. Seligman, who is McVickar Professor of Political Economy at Columbia University, considers the relations of State and Federal finance, and gives the results of his expert examination of the American experience in regard to taxation. He commences -

The existence of several concurrent or overJapping tax jurisdictions has always been a source of more or less difficulty. It is especially, however, in federal states that the problem assumes its most acute form, and it is primarily in recent years that the complications have been vastly increased by the new developments of economic life. The problem is not peculiar to the United States, for the relations of local and Imperial finance have long agitated the minds and taxed the abilities of British statesmen; while in federal Slates like Germany, Switzerland, Canada, and .Australia we have, as in the United States, the threefold complications of local, state, and federal fiscal adjustments. The problems are, with slight variations, everywhere analgous.

Of late years, however, a threefold change has occurred. ‘ In the first place, the growing inadequacy of State and local revenues has led to the selection of new sources of income, some of which were also occasionally utilized by the Federal Government. Secondly, the vast economic changes which have broken down State lines and made industry national have disclosed, to a great degree, the inherent weaknesses of certain forms of State taxation, and have led to the demand for some method of national supervision or regulation in order to secure uniformity. In the third place, the well-nigh complete failure oE the general property tax in

State and local finance, and the growing belief that large fortunes are evading their share of the public burdens, has engendered a widespread demand for some more effective method of reaching the wealthier classes of the community.

Those are three important considerations which to some degree are commencing to manifest themselves in Australia, making these illustrations more pertinent. He says -

Looking at the subject in its largest aspect, it may be stated that there are at least three general considerations which must be borne in mind in the attempt to make a permanent choice nf revenues for each of the competing tax jurisdictions. These are, respectively, the considerations of efficiency, of suitability, and of adequacy. Let us take these up in turn.

The problem of efficiency in taxation is naturally of vital importance. No matter how well intentioned a scheme may be, or how completely it may harmonize with the abstract principles of justice, if the tax does not work administratively it is doomed to failure. It is clear that the effectiveness of different taxes depends upon the nature of the tax as well as upon the character of the administration. A tax on land, for instance, is apt to be best administered by local authorities ; for it is, after all, the local assessors who may be presumed to possess the most exact knowledge of the local conditions upon which the value of the land depends. State supervision may, indeed, be desirable for certain purposes, but into that question we do not propose here to enter. In the main, a locally administered land tax will be relatively efficient.

After dealing with other taxes less obviously local, he inquires on page 617 -

Is the basis of a given tax wide or narrow? Obviously in proportion as the basis of a tax is more and more extended, the argument in favour of its utilization by the broader tax jurisdiction becomes correspondingly strong. Thus, one of the principal reasons, in addition to that previously mentioned, why the tax on real estate is not employed by the central Government is because the basis is so narrow a one. It is chiefly because the tax on real estate is unsuitable for the general revenue system that it is everywhere becoming more and more relegated to the local. jurisdictions. This tendency is universal throughout the civilized world, and the seeming counter tendencies which are illustrated by some of the proposals in the new British Budget could easily be explained away for entirely different reasons. So far as the relations between State and Federal finance, at “ all events, are concerned, there is no doubt that a tax on real estate is obviously unfitted for the Federal Government. We, in the United States, have had but three instances of such a tax, of an entirely ephemeral nature, and, in the main, so unsuccessful that its repetition is exceedingly doubtful.

I shall not push home his further points. The rest of the article is mainly taken up with other methods of taxation, land taxation as a Federal agency in the United States being ruled out by this high authority..

That supports our main general position taken up in the discussion on the second reading, that there was something to be said on the broadest general principle of taxation with regard to the unsuitability ot such a tax for Federal employment over any large area.

It is necessary to reiterate briefly, but as often as we can, in the ear of the public, that although this Bill imposes a tax in effect, it does not impose a tax on principle. There is no principle upon which as a tax it can be justified, so wide is die area of its operation outside that principle, and so many qualifications are required to be attached to its irregular operations. For instance, on a proper principle of taxation there would need to be an adjustment to the circumstances of each case with a view to the production of revenue, but that is ignored or set aside by far the greater number of the provisions of this Bill. In the same way, a taxation scheme to be justified on principle must satisfy the equities. This satisfies few or none, and then only very indirectly, and in casual instances.

This authorizes, in point of fact, so far as it is revenue producing, a collection of penalties instead of a collection of taxes. Those penalties are, unfortunately not levied upon any principle associated with unimproved values, because the uses and possibilities of lands are deliberately disregarded. Land which is already being put to its very best uses, on which the greatest amount of employment is given, and of which the best resources are being developed, is not sheltered from this tax in the slightest. The tax remains the same whether the land is absolutely idle, or. in a condition of partial or complete utilization. AH such considerations are entirely ignored.

Hence this is not a Bill for a tax, but a Bill for the collection of penalties upon land-owners, under no principle of justice or even of expediency. There will be no public gain except the mere revenue collected. A certain sum will go into the coffers of the Commonweal th, and to that extent the Commonwealth Treasury will.be better off ; but the country will be no better off in most instances. Indeed, a huge number of people in. the community will be worse off and less encouraged to carry on their already existing investments and occupations. They will receive no stimulus for their industry, but will find themselves subject to an inconsiderate and unjustifiable levy.

On the other hand, the Bill only incidentally, one may say only accidentally, fosters a land settlement. That it will enable some areas, which ought to be better utilized for the public advantage, to be cut up, is doubtless true. There must be a number of such tracts in this vast continent, but whether the obligations imposed by the Bill will bring about their better use is doubtful in many of them. Into this I do not desire to enter at length. Let me remind the House that in many cases distance from markets and want of railway and other facilities will operate against any such result. We shall find a man struggling with a heavy debt upon a property over the minimum value, and now just making both ends meet, seriously burdened, unable either to cut up his land, put it himself to a better use, or enable others to use it better. He will simply be saddled with a fine from which othersin more favoured circumstances may escape. There must be many hundreds, and perhaps thousands, in the community who will suffer, without any possibility of redress and without any corresponding public advantage.

Mi. Bruce Smith. - Many mortgagorswill probably be ruined.

Mr DEAKIN:

– In many cases where the mortgage is heavy the Bill must lead to ruin, but with that subject we have already dealt. The tax, so far as it is both a tax and a penalty as it is in most cases, will be levied entirely on the present holders of the land. They will have no opportunity of passing it on to others, as a rule, in any degree, or in many cases except in a small degree.

This is one of those burdens which’ ought to have been carefully guarded on its introduction by affording a series of preparatory opportunities for owners to adapt themselves to the new conditions of things to be created. The proposal of the right honorable member for Swan to-day was one of the simplest and fairest of these. To make this imposition fair, there should have been several other similar proposals coupled with it, so that the purpose which’ honorable members opposite had in view, or alleged themselves to have in view before the measure was brought forward, might have been made effective throughout Australia. In that case every encouragement should have been given to the cutting up and disposing of land before any tax at all was levied. There should have been an adjustment to the circumstances of each’ class, which would have made the imposition heavier where there were abundant opportunities of selling, and lighter where the opportunities of selling were small or infrequent. Thus the greatest possible’ quantity of land suitable for greater uses or better cultivation might have been placed on the market at the earliest moment. At the same time those putting their land to the best uses should have gone free, and have even been encouraged with some recognition from the Legislature so that their capacity for usefulness should not be in any way weakened.

– The sons and daughters of pioneers are to be found there; but their land is so valuable that there are always buyers, and they can more easily than others evade the burden of the land “ tax. They, and those similarly situated elsewhere, who have rich agricultural land close- to railway communication, call for little provision.

– Quite so. The interjection would have been pertinent to my argument regarding country properties, but does not touch what I am saying regarding city properties.

If this were a tax on wealth, it would have our support ; but it will hit those who own rich agricultural land less than those who own poor land. In many cases city land-owners will be able to’ pass on the tax by increasing their rents; this will be so where offices have been built on their land. But- where the land is that of a factory, the tax cannot be easily passed on, because the occupier will be in competition with other manufacturers elsewhere, who occupy much less valuable sites. It may be replied that those occupying valuable land will have to move to less valuable areas; but if that came about, what would the public gain?- Who would occupy the buildings left untenanted ? Most of us are in favour of. unimproved value taxation with a view to getting land put to better purposes, and giving more opportunities for settlement and progress. This taxation of city properties, however, helps no one, when, as in most cases, they cannot be put to a more effective use.

I regret that the first great land-taxing measure passed by the Commonwealth Parliament is not associated with any consistent and coherent application of those true economic principles which would popularize it. Its provisions are not calculated to do anything, except in a haphazard way, to feed the revenue. It will neither stimulate investment nor industry, in town or country, throughout Australia. I am sorry that, instead of a progressive measure, we have a maimed and disproportioned Bill, which, partly because of circumstances over which the Government have no control - I refer to our constitutional limitations - and partly because of the determination of Ministers to accomplish two separate and, to some extent, contradictory objects with one set of machinery, will not make for the development of the wealth of the community.

Some of the provisions here must necessarily more often result in failure than in success to accomplish any of the ends in view. Those interested in real estate who have made calculations as to the proceeds of the tax are more likely to be right than the officials on whom the Attorney-General relies, and therefore I anticipate that, notwithstanding the reductions in Committee,, the tax will be. far more prolific than he expects. But the raising of the money in the manner proposed will neither assist our great producing interests, nor improve the conditions of our civic population. It is unfortunate that we should be placing on the statute-book a measure which will call for an entire transformation as soon as the public have seen it in full operation. The practical experience which we shall then receive will not be thrown away on Parliament. This measure will hardly be recognisable as the original of the amending legislation which must follow.

Mr Fenton:

– The honorable member will prove a bad prophet.

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr DEAKIN:

– Not now, because the honorable member has something more profitable in hand. In the political “ hen roost “ he has achieved much success already, as his presence on the Treasury benches proves ; in fact, we see him visibly decorated with plumes and feathers.

In taking leave of this Bill, all I have to say is that, as a land taxer and land reformer, I will not be associated with a measure which will not assist our cause in the future. That could not have been the result had we more judiciously tackled this great task. I am sorry to see the Commonwealth entering on taxation of the kind, so long as it could be dealt with thoroughly by means- of the State Parliaments, which, as owners, are more close to the soil and its cultivators than we are; but when it became our duty to impose land taxation, I should not hesitate. The measure would be one producing the full revenue required in such a manner as not to impede or interfere with any industry either on the soil or in the city. I should have hoped to see it operate as land taxation should operate, not merely to feed the Treasury and harass our settlers, but to stimulate production and open up avenues and facilities for employment, thus attracting more people to our shores. Land taxation for settlement and development, can be justified ; but the land taxation before us is so hobbled, that when the revenue leg is advanced, the settlement leg is impeded, and vice versa, with the result that the measure comes down on its nose. This land taxation will not be approved by the country, will not assist the national movement towards assessing land values, nor add to the credit of those who take the responsibility of passing it.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– We are always being referred to New Zealand. I wish the honorable member would go there and inquire into this question.

Mr Beard:

– We must take some illustration. What are we to do?

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Of course, honorable members opposite must tax some one or some thing.

The effect of this Bill will be that those who, in the opinion of most of us, ought to have tried to break up their estates for closer settlement will be the least hardly hit. They will be placed in a position of inconvenience, but nothing more. The Government, in order to compel a comparatively few large land-owners to break up estates which are suitable for closer settlement, are bringing disaster, and, it may be, ruin upon a portion of the same class holding pastoral areas in outlying districts who are least able to bear the tax, and are most worthy of our consideration. As has been pointed out again and again, the Government are also including in this system a drastic scheme of taxation relating to city and town properties which will not bring about the desired end. If the end which the Government had in view were that of obtaining revenue, would honorable members opposite say that they would let off professional men and owners of property other than land?

Mr Mathews:

– All in good time.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Would they allow wealthy interests not connected with land to escape?

Mr Fairbairn:

– Such as manufacturing and mining interests.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Apparently, it depends on the meaning of the word “near.” There is, of course, poor land in all parts of Australia, and the trouble is that under this indiscriminate form of weapon which the Government are using they are hitting the people with poor, as well as people with rich, land.

Mr Chanter:

– The poor land near Deniliquin is held under lease, and will not come under the operation of the tax.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mi. Fairbairn. - The honorable member for Flinders gave the honorable member for Riverina the whole of the particulars.

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

– The honorable member for Fawkner must admit that the statement was anonymous. We are not told what amount was refused for the 64,000 acres, or what the reserve price was. Even at £1 an acre, the estate would be worth £”04,000, and does the honorable member for Fawkner justify the assertion that the owner of that property cannot afford to pay a land tax? The land taxation system of Victoria, when the honorable member for Flinders was Premier, was one of the vilest the world had ever seen, but, with his big majority, did he raise his little finger to alter it? No, because it might have hurt some of his friends - some of the very rich people. He did not have the excuse that it would affect the poor people; but because it would affect his rich friends he left it alone. Our side welcomes names from the lips of the Equity Court barrister, who is so well known in this community. “ An ugly mark,” forsooth ! When he had a chance of putting a good mark on the land taxation system of Victoria, why did he not take it? If he had, we should not now be losing the sons of farmers who have had to seek land in other States. His record stands on the statute-books of Victoria. They show what a rocket he went up into the sky, and what a stick he came down. When the honorable member was in the State Parliament, he had me at first as one of his firmest admirers, and I think if the honorable member for Fawkner had been there he would have been with me. I saw a splendid vista before me. I saw a decent and fair tax placed on the large landed estates of Victoria. But my hopes died, as did the honorable gentleman’s power. ‘To-day, he stands for nothing in any constituency. He knows in his heart of hearts that he sacrificed the goodwill of his fellow-men for purposes that are not honorable.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must withdraw those words. He is attributing improper motives.

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

– I withdraw the technical words, and can only say that I regret heartily that he sacrificed the high position which I felt he would obtain, because he could hot see his way clear to carry out the promise which heralded his entry into power. He lost the Premiership, and to-day is a member of this House. I have stated the circumstances over and over again, and declare now that if he resigned his seat to fight against this Bill lock, stock, and barrel, his constituents would send him to political oblivion. ‘

Mr ATKINSON:
Wilmot

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– The honorable member has a good idea of his methods. If this .tax is going to have the effect I have described, then the men who voted for it under a mistaken notion of security, in the belief that they were going to escape it altogether, will find themselves the very class that will be crushed under it. There is no justice or fairness in the tax; but. as I said on a previous occasion, I am afraid a spirit of vindictiveness is actuating this House, which, I believe-, will bear very bad fruit in the near future-.

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– Some of the observations made by honorable members opposite call for a brief reply. First, as to the general effect of the Bill and the authority of this party for introducing it, nothing is clearer than that, of the two things upon which the people decided in the most emphatic and precise way. the land tax was one. There is no necessity for a long speech about it, but I shall quote a few facts from sources which will be generally accepted. Speaking at the Glebe on 16th February, of this year, I said -

The chief plank in the Labour party’s platform is to wipe out land monopoly by making it unprofitable for holders of great estates to hold land out of use.

On- the following day the Daily Telegraph, commenting upon that statement in a leading article, said -

Mr. Hughes now confirms that, declaring that the aim of the Labour, party is to make it unprofitable for owners of large estates to keep them out of use. We, therefore, get to this point, where the Labour party intends that the Federal purposes and the State purposes shall cross. Where the holding of big estates om of use is considered detrimental to the public interest, the policy of the States is to compel the owner to. make way for closer settlement, but to equitably compensate him for the rights of ownership that he has to give up. Mr. Hughes explains that the first plank now in the Labour platform is that the Federal Government shall override that policy by forcing the owner to get rid of it.

The statement I first quoted is only one out of literally hundreds that were made; but I quote it because it was made by myself . The Argus, on z [St March, of this year, ina leading article said -

If the Labour party has its way, land throughout these districts will be depreciated by one third of its: value……

The tax, by means of which the. Labour party seeks to’ depreciate the value of large estates, will not end with that effect. It will depreciate the value of all land.

The people were warned- over and over again in the great journals of the Commonwealth, and by Opposition candidates, that this was a tax of confiscation. The Daily Telegraph, on the 9th April, four days before the election, came out with a series of messages to the people, signed by eminent persons throughout the Commonwealth. They were told by the Leader of the Opposition that -

This election must prove final and conclusive in its verdict upon our public finances and positive in its declaration for fiscal efficiency. Every non-voter really votes for minority rule. Every voter makes a vital- choice either accepting .the cramping grip of a despotic caucus or trusting the free growth of the free Parliament of a free nation. He either authorizes unsound or extravagant labour ventures in Government proprietorship or else secures the liberal policy, multiplying Australian employments, productions, population, and well-being.

The honorable member for Parramatta stated in his message -

Ours is the national high road leading te honour and success.

The alternatives were set forth very clearly by the Daily Telegraph, as follows: -

Vote for Liberalism and….. or for

Labour Socialism and …. crushing land taxation not properly within the sphere of Federal action.

There is not one phase of this question that was not brought before the people over and over again. They were told that this was going to be a crushing tax ; that it meant . con.tiscation, ruin, and iniquity. The honorable and learned member for Flinders said that we had a mandate for a land tax, but no mandate for this Bill. I shall prove, in the most positive way, that the people of this country knew about this measure, so far as the newspapers of the country could inform them, one year and six months ago. There was published in the Argus, Age, and other papers, on 27 th May, 1909, a precis of the Land Tax Bill then laid on the table of the House, which contained every operative clause of any importance that is in this Bill. If anything, it was a more drastic measure than the one now before the House, lt was set forth in the Argus of that day, nine months before the election, under the headings ‘’ Labour Land Tax,” “Details of the Proposal,” “ Confiscatory Clauses.” The explanatory memorandum was given, as was also the definition of “absentee”; the exemption was stated at £5,000; it was pointed out that we took the right to acquire land as under clause 44 of this Bill, and that provision was made for the imposition of treble the tax and a £500 fine in the case of a defaulting land-owner, or one who made a declaration which was not in accordance with facts. In fact, that precis, published in the press eighteen months ago, set forth clearly what the Bill now before the House contains. Every newspaper of any importance throughout the Commonwealth declared over and over again that it “was a confiscatory tax. The people were told that if the Labour party were returned to power ruin and desolation would stalk throughout the land. So much for the mandate. I take it that the mandate was general to impose a land tax. It was specific and precise to impose this tax in the form of the particular Bill” which had been published by the press on the 27th May, 1909. I tell those honorable members who have been returned to support the Labour party’s Land Tax Bill, and who have voted against provisions in it, that they have been, as it were, misunderstanding the mandate of the people, which was precise, definite, and unmistakable.

Sir John Forrest:

– Not on every clause, surely?

Mr HUGHES:

– The mandate of the people was given upon a question which was deliberately made by the Labour party a prominent plank, and against which it was urged by the party on the other side that it went to the length of confiscation. Tt could not go further than that. If you take from a man all that he has, it is not possible to go further in that direction. Honorable members on the other side said over and over again that we intended to take everything that people had. Only the night before last, I was met with a statement that had been circulated ‘n the Glebe electorate, that a poor unfortunate woman had been told that the effect of the Federal land tax would be to confiscate her little cottage, worth £350 ! In the most shameless and brazen way it was said that we meant to confiscate land, or diminish its value, and that the effect of the tax would not stop at the big man, but would proceed to the little man. In the face of that, the public, being solemnly warned by the Leader of the Opposition, and by every citizen “with a stake in the country,” deliberately gave the Labour party a majority. The honorable and learned member for Ballarat started with a quotation from a gentleman named Seligman, who, we learn for the first time, is a great economist, and solemnly warns people against imposing land taxation for Federal purposes. I accept what Mr. Seligman says for what it is worth, although his facts are quite wrong, and as an antidote I offer the authority of another economist, whose name I venture to say is much more familiar to the people of this country. He says -

If the States neglected to exercise their power in this direction-

In the direction of land value taxation - then they should forfeit it, and the Commonwealth would properly be called on to exercise the power.

The honorable member for Ballarat made that statement so recently as the 5th of last May, as I had the honour to point out in ray speech on the second reading of this Bill. On a previous occasion the honorable member said -

I read those extracts to show that, although an Australian Minister and member, I had not altered the attitude which I had previously occupied in Victoria upon this question. “Before the subject came up again, the consideration of the possibilities of immigration had brought me face to face, in a very clear and distinct mattner, with the urgency of dealing with our great estates of arable land.

And again -

Rut what we do say- what I do say, at all . events - is that, land tax or no land tax, every form of government which Australia possesses, from the municipalities up to the Commonwealth Government, is properly usable by the Austraiian people in the endeavour to settle this country.

And further -

It is for the citizens of Australia to determine whether they will have one, three, or thirteen taxes upon it. 1 take it that in this conflict of authorities between Mr. Seligman and Mr. Alfred Deakin no citizen of Australia will have any hesitation in accepting the opinion of the honorable member for Ballarat. He is most emphatic. There is no irresolution or trace of hesitation in what he has to say. The facts are hopelessly against those who assert that land value taxation is improper, or that the tax imposed in this case is unusual or too high. In an article published in the Nineteenth Century, it is stated that -

At the present day land taxes are imposed, not only in Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Italy, Belgium, and Switzerland, but in the United States of America, and even in Japan.

It is stated in volume X. of the New International Encyclopadia, in its article on Japan, that the revenue of the Imperial Government is derived chiefly from the land tax, which, since 1877, has been equal to 2^ per cent, on the market value of the land- that is, to 6d. in the £1. Yet, according to Count Okuma, in his Fifty Years of New Japan, the country is progressing by leaps and bounds. In addition to the land tax for national purposes, there is a supplementary land tax amounting to 13/iooths on building land, to 32/100ths on farming land, and to 27/iooths on other land. Our mandate from the people was clear and distinct. Notwithstanding the solemn warnings- of our opponents, many of whom have passed out of Parliament, the electors, with their eyes open, ordered us to impose this taxation, believing it to be a means for their social, political, and economic salvation. I repudiate the idea that we have departed from either the letter or the spirit of that mandate. The first measure introduced by the last Fisher Government was a Bill for the imposition of a tax on unimproved land. We were prevented from going on with it by our displacement by honorable members opposite. But the measure was before the public for more than twelve months prior to the introduction of this Bill. We have heard a great deal of the deplorable consequences which will follow the imposition of the tax, but it is not our object to cause hardship. Indeed, it is our desire to avoid hurting any one, rich or poor, and, short of emasculating the measure, effort will be made to meet every case of real suffering. But, lest it should be imagined that the cases which have been cited are typical of the condition of aH who own big estates, let us look at the facts. There never was in any country a time of so great prosperity as we in Australia are enjoying to-day, when unearned increment is being created at a prodigious rate. In days to come, we shall be astounded when we look back upon the present condition of things. During the last six years, unearned increment has been added to the land in and about the city of Sydney at the rate of £1,000,000 annually. Six years ago, one could have bought the metropolitan area for £19,000,000, and to-day it is worth not less than £25,000,000. Every penny of the increase has been created by public expenditure. Of the £251,000,000 of borrowed money spent in Australia, by far the greater part has been spent on public works, which have increased the value of landed estates. It has been assumed that the chronic condition of the average land-owner in the Riverina is one almost of despair ; but one family there owns seven stations, and last year purchased a property for £220,000. The head of the family died recently a millionaire, while another member of it, who was a director of the Bank of England, died worth £345,000. A third member owns two stations, and is worth anything up to £400,000. A fourth died recently, and, probate in his estate was paid on £120,000. All these station properties are close together. I have instances of other estates worth more than £100,000. There are about ten names on a list which I cannot make public whose owners, far from being poor in the general acceptation of the term, have nothing to fear but the complaint which seems to have been fatal to those I have just referred to. Then, in Table Talk of the 6th October last, it is stated that a Riverina freehold of 30,000 acres, from which the original holder, the late W. P. Faithful, made about £200.000, despite some terribly bad seasons, has recently been sold, with 20.000 sheep and 750 head of prime fat bullocks, at a most satisfactory figure to Mr. A. H. Lange, a gentleman possessing squatting interests in Riverina and Queensland. Therefore, in spite of the tax, business is being done in the old way, and land-owners are making a good thing 01ft of their estates. In connexion with a number of city properties similarly satisfac- tory profits are being made. While the tax has gently stimulated the subdivision of properties, it has not unduly depreciated values, and there is no reason to believe that it will have any worse effect than the bursting-up of big estates, to the great and lasting benefit of the community. The Bill is not drastic; it is not a departure from the letter and spirit of the mandate of the electors; and it must do good to Australia generally.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 19

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time.

page 4473

LAND TAX BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 21st September, vide page 3527) :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6.33 to 8 p.m.

Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.

First schedule :

Rate of Tax when Owner is not an Absentee.

For so much of the taxable value as does not exceed £75,001, the rate of tax per pound sterling shall be One penny where the taxable value is One pound sterling, and shall increase uniformly with each increase of One pound sterling in the taxable value, in such manner that- the increment of tax between a taxable value of £15,000 and a taxable value of £15,001 shall be Twopence; the increment of tax between a taxable value of £30,000 and a taxable value of £30,001 shall be Threepence; the increment of tax between a taxable value of £45,000 and a taxable value of £45,001 shall be Fourpence; the increment of tax between a taxable value of £60,000 and a taxable value of £60,001 shall be Fivepence ; and the increment of tax between a taxable value of £75,000 and a taxable value of £75,001 shall be Sixpence.

For every pound sterling of taxable value in excess of £75,000 the rate of tax shall be Sixpence.

The rate of tax for so much of the taxable value as does not exceed £75,000 may be calculated from the following formula : -

R = rate of tax in pence per pound sterling.

V = taxable value in pounds sterling.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– I move -

That after the heading” Rate of tax when owner is not an absentee “ the following words be inserted - “ For so much of the taxable value as does not exceed one pound per acre of the land owned by the taxpayer, the rate of tax per pound sterling shall be one penny.”

– I admit that, and am endeavouring to postulate the principles stated by those opposed to me, and, as far as my reasoning will permit, to show the weakness of their position. I have admitted that no part of the value of land is necessarily to be exempt from taxation. But we must consider this :matter, not as philosophers, who, smoking in their easy chairs, predict theories for the governing of the universe many generations hence, but as legislators who have to discover expedients for present purposes. The unearned increment will not be exempt from taxation alto- gerber, because in New South Wales there is a tax of id. in the £1 on all land, which is collected by the municipalities and shire councils. Then in Victoria there is the somewhat fatuous tax of Jd. in the £1 on the carrying capacity of the land, which we may ignore, as not based on any re- cognised principle. In South Australia there is a tax of Jd. on land not exceeding £5,000 in value, and of id. on larger estates ; in Western Australia there is a tax <of pd. on land that is not improved, and «of fd. on land that is improved; and in

Tasmania there is a tax of Jd. on estates not exceeding ,£5,000 in value, and, I think, of id. above that figure.

Mr Batchelor:

– In no case is there a distinction as to the value of the land.

Mr GLYNN:

– I know that, and were I a member of the Labour party would reply that we should not be bound by custom, which would stultify all Labour policy.

Mr Hughes:

– Has not the Court specifically determined that it is left to the States to make this differentiation?

Mr GLYNN:

– I think so; but that’ is consistent with Federal power. If we are not to do a thing because it has never been done, no improvement will ever be accomplished. As Shakspeare says -

What custom wills, in all things should we do’t, The dust on antique time would lie unswept, And mountainous error be too highly heap’d For truth to over-peer.

Mr Fenton:

– We shall let the honorable member down lightly.

Mr LIVINGSTON:

– I am sure the honorable member, with his even mind, would be very pleased to let us down lightly, but he has not the power. I hope the Committee will assist the honorable member for Kooyong, because it will be a detriment to the whole of Australia if something is not done in the direction he proposes. We are not really taxing the unimproved value of the land, but are taxing the improved value, because the unimproved value has gone out years and years ago. We are therefore putting a check on the whole of the improvements on land in the Commonwealth. If we do that, we shall find it a very serious thing for the working people. Directly improvements are stopped, the community will feel the effect. I am sorry to think that we are about at the end of the present series of good seasons. I do not believe that bad seasons will ever trouble us as much as they have in the past, but if we do get bad seasons again, this tax will press very hardly on the land-holders. If we do not give the relief now asked for to the landholders of Australia, I think we shall suffer for it before very long.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted (Sir Robert

Best’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 22

Majority … .. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- I have been requested by the honorable member for Darling Downs to take charge of an amendment of which he has given notice. I move -

That the figures” £75,001 “ be left out, and the figures “£45,001 “ be inserted in lieu thereof.

There are also consequential amendments. The schedule, as the honorable member for Darling Downs would amend it, would read as follows -

For so much of the taxable value as does not exceed £45,000, the rate of tax per pound sterling shall be One penny where the taxable value is One pound sterling, and shall increase uniformly with each increase of One pound sterling in the taxable value, in such manner that- the increment of tax between a taxable value of £15,000 and a taxable value of £15,001 shall be Twopence ; the increment of tax between a taxable value of £30,000 and a taxable value of £30,001 shall be Threepence; the increment of tax between a taxable value of £45,000 and a taxable value of £45,001 shall be Fourpence.

For every pound sterling of taxable value in excess of £45,000 the rate of tax shall be Fourpence.

Shortly summarized, the honorable member’s proposal would substitute four gradations of tax, of1d., 2d., 3d., and 4d. in the £1, for the six gradations in the existing proposal. The amendment would practically give effect to the original proposals of the Labour party during the last election. Whatever mandate they received at the last election, it was not for a land tax of 3d. or 6d. in the £1, but for a land tax of 4<- in the £1 at the very outside. The honorable member for Darling Downs, in a speech delivered in the House on 21st September of this year, and reported in *Hansard at page 3503, quoted from a speech delivered at Gympie on 30th March, 1909, by the honorable member for Wide Bay, who then formulated a schedule of a proposed land tax, beginning at id., and going up by 1/2d. gradations until it ended at 4d. in the £1.

Mr Hughes:

– Where does the word “maximum” appear in that speech?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– The honorable member for Wide Bay said “ £50,000 and above, rate, 4d. ; total tax on the estate, £035 8s- 4°’-“ There is the maximum.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not in order in quoting from the report in Hansard of a second- reading speech on this Bill.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I shall quote an extract from a speech delivered by the Prime Minister at Gympie on 22nd March, 1910, when he said that on an estate of £60,000, the amount of tax would be 4d. in the £1. No mention is made of a rate beyond 4d. in the £1. It can hardly be presumed that at that time the Prime Minister had any mental or other reservation regarding a rate above 4d. In asking the Labour party to accept the amendment, we are merely asking them to vote in favour of their own policy of a 4d. land tax, as submitted to die country.

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– The amendment cannot be accepted. It is proposed to make the maximum of the tax 4d. instead of 6d., and the report of a speech delivered by the Prime Minister at Gympie on the 30th March, 1909, has been referred to in support of the allegation that he said that the tax would not go higher than 4d.- in the £1. I declare in the most positive way that I do not think that he said that. He stated here that what he had in his mind when he delivered the speech was a table worked out, showing the effect of the tax up to 4d. As it had been arranged that the tax was to go up to 6d.,. I telegraphed to him on the morning following the delivery of his speech, asking why he had stopped at ‘4d. He has declared that he had 6d. in his mind, and the reply telegram which I re ceived bears out what he stated here: “ Merely stopped short at fourpence; progressive illustration.”

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Has that ever been published ?

Mr HUGHES:

– I do not know that it has. But it was declared throughout the length and breadth of Australia that we intended to make the tax effective; and if any member of the Labour party bound himself to 4d., he had no justification for doing so. I stated, not once, but many times, that the rate would go to 6d. I made that statement repeatedly throughout the electorates of Indi and Corangamite, in Melbourne, and in many parts of New South Wales. Of course, the party was not bound by what I said more than by what was said by any other of its members. I mention the matter to show that the Prime Minister, in declaring that he had no intention of stopping at 4d. is amply borne out. Besides the wire which I have quoted, the manifesto of the party, issued, not in 1909, but in March, 1910, and published in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 5th March, declares that -

There is, in our opinion, but one practical remedy, and that is a graduated tax upon unimproved land values. If returned with a majority, we shall impose a tax upon estates of the unimproved value of £5,000 and over (in the case of absentees there will be no exemption), beginning at id, in the £1, and rising by gradations necessary to make it effective.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That statement would cover a tax of is. in the £I

Mr HUGHES:

– It might cover anything. The interjection is like the question of a man who, on receiving an indeterminate sentence, asks, “ Does that mean for life?” The reply of the Judge is, “ You are to be kept in gaol until you reform.” The people have asked us to impose what taxation is necessary to break down land monopoly. I feel sure that there is not the slightest necessity for contemplating a tax of is.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member must be astounded at his moderation.

Mr HUGHES:

– I have seen so many astounding things in this Chamber, that my capacity for astonishment is deadened. The members of the Labour party were returned upon their manifesto, plus their programme. There is nothing in either pointing to the fact that the tax would not go beyond 4d. Furthermore, scarcely a day passed that the press and our opponents did not declare that we were proposing a confiscatory tax. The honorable member for Flinders speaks of1s. in the £1 as covering the very limits of possibility, yet no limit was mentioned. But the Committee and the people ought to know that, in spite of anything that may be said to the contrary, the tax will not exceed 4d. in the £1, except in regard to estates whose unimproved value is over £98,750. A man owning land whose unimproved value is £80,000 will be taxed at the rate of 31/2d. in the £1 on the taxable amount, viz., on £75,000 ; on land whose unimproved value is £100,000 the tax will be 41/38d. on the taxable value; while on a value of £150,000 it will be 4 and on a value of £200,000, 51/26d. If the tax were 4d. on unimproved value exceeding £50,000, it would be one-and-a-half times as heavy as is proposed. In New Zealand the man possessing land whose unimproved value is £200,000 pays 51/5d. in the £1, or 99/130ofa penny, say,3/4 d. in the £1 more than such a man will pay here. Our tax is higher than the New Zealand tax up to £100,000, but over that value the New Zealand tax is the higher ; while an absentee would pay on the New Zealand rate £2,291 13s. 4d., and on our rates £2,010 8s. 4d., or nearly £300 less. Honorable members opposite have described this as a heavy land tax, but it is not so. The impost is well within the mandate we received from the people, and 1 hope it will prove heavy enough to do what is desired. We were empowered to make this tax effective ; and it shall be madeeffective if this Government remain where it is. Something has been said about the effects of such taxation. I may say that in New South Wales, it is not unusual for municipal property to pay 4d. in the £1 on the unimproved value, and in the case of two or three municipalities the tax is 5d. in the £1. The effect in New Zealand has not been to unduly depreciate land values, but aggregations and speculation have been prevented, while transactions in land by bond fide settlers have been stimulated. Some very useful figures in this connexion are given in a little book published by the late Max Hirsch, from which we learn that, in 1891, in New Zealand, the unimproved value was £75,787,895, whereas in 1906, in spite of the land tax, this had increased to £149,682,689. In Victoria, where there is no tax on unimproved values, the value was £132,269,620 in 1894 or 1895, whereas in 1906 it had fallen to £131,599,078. These figures are a most effective answer to what has been said by honorable members opposite. In New Zealand land values have gone up and steadied materially; and we were told in the speech delivered by Mr. Watt, the Victorian State Treasurer, in August, 1909, that the unimproved value in New Zealand had risen from £75,000,000 odd, in 1891 to £161,000,000 odd in 1908. I have shown that our mandate was to make this tax effective, that the Prime Minister did not declare that the impost would not go beyond 4d., and that I mentioned many times that it would reach 6d., though, as a matter of fact, it cannot do so, because it must always be a fraction less than that amount. The honorable member for Franklin unfolded quite a “chamber of horrors “ which had come under his personal observation, but none of these terrible consequences have ‘been experienced in New Zealand, the Dominion on the contrary being in a very flourishing state. I have no doubt that the effect of this tax will be to make for prosperity, and induce hundreds of thousands of people to settle in the country and I feel very certain that the people of Australia will heartily indorse this legislation.

Question - That the figures proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 20

NOES: 17

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Second schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment ; report adopted.

Bill, by leave, read a third time.

page 4487

ADJOURNMENT

New Rifle. - Rifle Range, Echuca

Motion (by Mr. Hughes) proposed - That the House do now adjourn.

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

.- In the Herald to-night there is published a letter from an Australian who says that he invented a rifle which was submitted to the Minister of Defence, and senton by that honorable gentleman to the military authorities some six months ago. Since then the manhas heard nothing more of his invention and I would ask the representative of the Minister in this Chamber to inquire whether there has been the delay alleged.

Mr Fowler:

– No doubt the statement is correct - the thing was flung aside !

Mr PAGE:

– Then something should be done to enable this Australian to have his Invention properly tested, and if it is found to be as effective as he claims it to be, steps should he taken to arm our forces with this weapon.

Mr PALMER:
Echuca

.- I should like to bring under the notice of the Minister representing the Minister of Defence the fact that for the last two years there has been no rifle range at Echuca, and that members of the Mounted Rifles and the rifle clubs in the district have had to journey to Bendigo to get in their musketry course. The situation seems tome to be very unfair, and I urge the Minister to see if something cannot be done to have the range reopened.

Mr. FRAZER (Kalgoorlie- Acting Trea presenting to-morrow to the Minister of Defence the statement made by the honorable member for Echuca, with a view of ascertaining what can be done by the Department to remedy his cause of complaint. As to the question raised by the honorable member for Maranoa, I have not yet read the letter in the Herald to which he has referred. The Defence Department, to my knowledge, however, makes very close inquiry into every proposal submitted to it as likely to improve the equipment of our forces.

Mr Page:

– The honorable member must think that we are very childlike if he expects us to believe that.

Mr FRAZER:
ALP

– I make the statement that exhaustive inquiry has been made into many inventions during the short period that I have been representing the Minister of Defence in this House. That is within my own knowledge; but I am unacquainted with the facts of this case. I shall avail myself of the earliest opportunity of bringing before the Minister of Defence the statement made by the honorable member for Maranoa, in conjunction with the letter to which he has referred, and will ascertain whether I can secure information to put before the House to-morrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 October 1910, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1910/19101012_reps_4_58/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives12 October 1910

QUESTION

FORTUNES IN FLYING

Mr BATCHELOR:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Mr HIGGS:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr BATCHELOR:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

NORTHERN TERRITORY ACCEPTANCE BILL (No. 2)

Second Reading

Mr DEAKIN:Ballarat

Mr Higgs:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr McWilliams:

Mr Batchelor:

Mr Bamford:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Batchelor:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr J H Catts:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr J H Catts:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Higgs:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Bamford:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr J H Catts:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Mcwilliams:

Mr Batchelor:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Archibald:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Archibald:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Mcwilliams:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

Mr DEAKIN:

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

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Mcwilliams:

Mr DEAKIN:

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

Mr DEAKIN:

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

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Finlayson:

Mr DEAKIN:

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

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Batchelor:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Poynton:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Archibald:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Poynton:

Mr DEAKIN:

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

Mr Poynton:

Mr DEAKIN:

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

Mr DEAKIN:

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

Mr Archibald:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Archibald:

Mr DEAKIN:

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

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Batchelor:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Batchelor:

Mr DEAKIN:

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

Mr Batchelor:

Mr DEAKIN:

House of Representatives
12 October 1910

Mr BATCHELOR:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr BATCHELOR:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook