House of Representatives
7 December 1927

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- CHRISTMASRAILWAY PASSES FOR PARLIAMENTARY OFFICIALS
QUESTION
- EXHIBITION OF TABLE
QUESTION
- IRON AND STEEL DUTIES
PORT AUGUSTA TO RED HILL RAILWAY
QUESTION
- WELFARE OF ABORIGINES
QUESTION
- DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION COMMISSION
QUESTION
- CENTRAL AUSTRALIA AND NORTH AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- COMMISSIONER TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
QUESTION
- RAILS
CANBERRA
- Christmas Leave
TIMBER IMPORTATIONS
QUESTION
- PASSPORTS
QUESTION
- DAIRYING AND BUTTER INDUSTRIES
QUESTION
- DEFENCE DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- MRS. LANE POOLE
IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS BOUNTY BILL
- Second Reading
LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
WATERFRONT DISPUTE
- End of Waterside Workers’" Strike
LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
HOUR OF MEETING

– I have already told honorable members that these dissections contain confidential information that cannot be disclosed.

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

– Eliminate it.

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– During the progress of the debate in committee I shall disclose all the details I have, excluding that confidential information.

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

– If, as it would seem, the duties on iron and steel are the result of departmental dissections and report rather than of the. Tariff Board’s recommendations, will the Minister say whether, after receiving the departmental report, he re-submitted the whole question to the Tariff Board, the body appointed by this Parliament for the purpose of investigating and. reporting upon proposals for duties ?

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The statutory duty of the Tariff Board is to investigate and report to the Minister, and through him to the Government. The duty of the Government, before it places proposals before Parliament, is to analyse the recommendations of the Tariff Board and to view them from all angles, to come to a conclusion upon them, and to submit its policy to Parliament. That course has been pursued in the present instance and, as the Minister in charge, I am prepared to defend the policy of the Government when the items are being discussed.

page 2753

PORT AUGUSTA TO RED HILL RAILWAY

Mr LACEY:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In the Melbourne Herald of the 26th November last, appears the following statement: -

Not the least interesting possibility in a campaign on the part of the Government to cut expenses, may be the dropping of the Red Hill to Port Augusta Railway Bill, which is now at the second reading stage in the House of Representatives.

It also says -

There is considered to be more than a remote possibility that the bill may vanish from the notice-paper its the session closes.

I should like to know if that statement is correct and whether it is the intention of the Government to take -the Port Augusta to Red Hill Railway Bill off the noticepaper, and not proceed with the construction of the line?

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

– It is not proposed to proceed, before the House adjourns for Christmas, with the bill for the construction of a railway from Port Angusta to Red Hill, but the notice regarding it will remain on the business-paper. Whether the measure will be proceeded with early in the new year will be a matter for further consideration by the Government.

page 2754

QUESTION

WELFARE OF ABORIGINES

Mr COLEMAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has Has the attention of the Prime Minister been directed to the fact that a deputation representing an English society interested in the welfare of aborigines waited on the High Commissioner in London recently, urging an investigation into the condition of Australian aborigines, and, if so, will the tight honorable gentleman give early consideration to the request which has been made by Australian organizations and scientific societies for the appointment of a select committee or a royal commission to conduct such an investigation ?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– As I indicated last night, the Government has given consideration to the representations for the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the condition of the aborigines of Australia, and communicated on the subject with the State Governments, but the Premiers of nearly all the States have expressed unwillingness to be associated with us in the matter. As without the cooperation of the States a commission appointed by the Commonwealth would not have power to investigate the matter fully, we do not propose to appoint one. We have, however, asked the Government of Queensland to lend us the services of one of its senior officers so that the position of the aborigines in North Australia and Central Australia, for which the Commonwealth is directly responsible, may be investigated.

Mr PARSONS:

– I have received a communication from the Women’s NonParty Association of South Australia expressing the desire of the association to learn what is being done in connexion with the problem that may arise if aboriginal women are allowed access to construction camps on the Oodnadatta to Alice Springs railway line. I understand that South Australia imposes stringent regulations in connexion with railway construction camps, and I ask the Minister for Home and Territories if similar regulations are in operation it) connexion with the Oodnadatta to Alice Springs railway construction camps?

Mr MARR:
Minister of Home and Territories · PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– If the honorable member will place his question on the notice-paper I shall give him a considered reply.

Mr YATES:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I too have received a communication from the Women’s Nonparty Association of South Australia in which regret is expressed that a perusal of the Mansard report of a recent debate in this House does not disclose the fact that section 11 of the principal ordinance of the Northern Territory, 191S, has been put into operation. That is the section which provides for the protection of aboriginal and half-caste women when construction work is in progress. The Minister is well aware of the danger to aboriginal women who come iu contact with these camps, and 1 should like .to know what instructions he has issued to put into effect the provisions, of the ordinance?

Mr MARR:

– The Department of Home and Territories, the Government Resident of Central Australia, and the Works and Railways Department have been collaborating with reference to this important subject so that half-castes may be safeguarded not only against contact with railway construction camps, but also in other ways. If the Queensland Government .will lend the services of a senior officer, we hope that we can get him to begin his work in the Alice Springs district, so that the whole position may be investigated at the earliest possible moment.

page 2754

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION COMMISSION

Report on Gold-mining Industry.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Can the Prime Minister say when the second and final report of the Development and Migration Commission, dealing with “the assistance proposed to be given to the gold-mining industry, will be laid on the table?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– I am not in a position to say exactly when the report will be tabled, but I believe it will be available in the very near future.

page 2754

QUESTION

CENTRAL AUSTRALIA AND NORTH AUSTRALIA

Mr JACKSON:
BASS, TASMANIA

– In connexion with the elections in Central Australia and

North Australia, which were to commence a considerable time ago, I should like to know whether they have been completed and the poll declared, and, if so, when the elected representatives will commence their duties?

Mr MARR:
NAT

– The date set down for the elections had to be postponed because, owing to the weather, the mail service was considerably disorganized. I forget the exact date on which the election is now to take place, but we are hoping to learn the result of it very soon.

page 2755

QUESTION

COMMISSIONER TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– Has the Government decided to appoint a successor to Sir Hugh Denison, the Commissioner to the United States of America, and is there any truth in the statement that has been made that a member of the present Ministry is likely to be appointed to the position ?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– Two days ago I informed the House that the Government did not propose to take steps at the present time toappoint a successor to Sir Hugh Denison.

page 2755

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL COMMISSION

Dismissal of Garage Employee

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

Is it a fact that some months agoa man employed by the Federal Capital Commission in the main garage was dismissed?
Is it a fact that this man was accused of obtaining secret commissions from a wellknown firm on the sale of motor cars or lorries ?
Was the matter brought before the officers of the Attorney-General’s Department, and, if so, did the department recommend a prosecution ?
What action has been taken to expose the irregularity or offence, if any?

Mr MARR:
NAT

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

Yes.
Yes. A departmental inquiry was held into the allegations (which did not involve public funds), but no definite case was established.
The matter was subsequently brought before the Police Department of New South Wales and the Attorney-General’s Department, and, after full inquiry, the Attorney-General’s Department advised against a prosecution.
As the officer’s services were immediately dispensed with on grounds other than the allegations, and in view of the advice men tioned in (3) no further action appeared to be called for as the whole matter was public knowledge in the commission’s organization. The commission has handed the confidential file on the subject to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts, and it may be perused by the honorable member if he so desires.

page 2755

QUESTION

RAILS

Mr GREGORY:

asked the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -

What were the minimum and maximum prices, f.o.b. at Newcastle or Sydney, paid for rails, 80 lb. per yard, to Australian producers, each year during 1910, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1926?

Mr HILL:
Minister for Works and Railways · ECHUCA, VICTORIA · CP

– The information will be obtained and furnished at a later date.

page 2755

CANBERRA

Christmas Leave

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime

Minister, upon notice -

In view of the fact that arrangements have been made for all employees of the Federal Capital Commission to be granted holidays, on full pay and without deduction fromannual leave, for the period between Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, will the Government consider the extension of this concession to all officers of the Public Service stationed at Canberra ?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– I have referred this matter to the. Public Service Board. The board reports that it is unable to agree that circumstances require the closing of all Federal departments at Canberra during the days between Christmas and New Year. To grant leave on these days to Federal public servants at Canberra would not conform to the provisions of the Public Service Act and it would be unfair to employees in other localities who might, with equal justification, make similar plans. In the circumstances, the Government is unable to accede to the request.

page 2755

TIMBER IMPORTATIONS

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for

Trade and Customs, uponnotice -

What quantity of timber was imported to Australia in 1922-23, 1923-24, 1924-25, 1925- 26, 1926-27, and what was the value each year ?
What was the class of timber imported each year?
Is it a fact that, owing to the large importations of Oregon pine, there isa great depression in the Australian timber industry, resulting in unemployment?
What action is being taken by his department to impose a higher tariff in order to protect adequately the local industry?

There is depression in the Australian timber industry, but I nin not prepared to say that it is solely owing to large importations of oregon pine.
The tariff resolutions now before the House include additional protection to the Australian timber industry.

page 2757

QUESTION

PASSPORTS

Mr CHARLTON:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact that an agreement has been entered into with Germany by Great Britain and the Dominions, excepting Australia, to abolish the passport system?
If so, will he state the reason why the Government objects to being a party to this agreement in view of the great inconvenience to which Australian residents are now subjected when going abroad?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

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

The agreement that has been entered into between Great Britain and Germany does not propose to abolish the passport system, but merely to dispense with the necessity for the nationals of the respective countries to obtain consular visas when about to enter one another’s countries.
– See answer to No. 1.

page 2757

QUESTION

DAIRYING AND BUTTER INDUSTRIES

Mr FORDE:

asked the Minister for Markets and Migration, upon notice -

What was the total value of the dairying industry in Australia each year since 1922?
What was the value of (a) exports, and (5) imports, of butter for each of the years mentioned ?
To what countries were exports made, and what was the value to each?
From what countries were imports made, and what was the value from each?
What is the approximate number of dairy farmers in Australia, and what is the average yearly earnings of. each supplier of cream from that- source?

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for Markets and Migration · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– The information is being obtained, and will be made available as early as possible.

page 2757

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Temporary Employees

Mr SCULLIN:
YARRA, VICTORIA

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

Is it a fact that recently at Seymour, Victoria, temporary employees, who are returned soldiers, were discharged, and that soldiers were transferred there for the purpose of handling small arms ammunition?
If so, will he give favourable consideration to the question of reinstating these employees, and an assurance that the practice of employing soldiers on civilian work will be discontinued?

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
Honorary Minister · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Enquiries will be made and the honorable member will be informed as soon as possible.

page 2757

QUESTION

MRS. LANE POOLE

Mr MARR:
NAT

– On 30th November the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Coleman) asked me the following questions :- -

At whose instance was Mrs. Lane-Poole commissioned to furnish the residences of the Governor-General and the Prime Minister?
Was she given a free hand with regard to the amount expended?
What were the terms of her appointment as regards [a) fees and (6) expenses?
How long was the period of her engagement?
What was the total amount paid to Mrs. Lane-Poole under the headings of paragraph 3 of this question?

I am now in a position to advise him as follows : - t

The Federal Capital Commission.

No; Mrs. Lane-Poole’s instructions were to ascertain and study the requirements, and prepare designs and estimates of cost for suitable furnishings. This was done, and the schemes were studied and checked by the Commission’s staff, and, before approval, were also submitted to independent check and criticism by the Commonwealth Works Director for Victoria. The engagement included supervision of the execution of the contracts.

Payment of a fee at the rate of ?3 3s. per day during such days as she was engaged upon the Commission’s work, plus railway fares and travelling expenses. From this fee she was required not only to employ the necessary artists and draftsmen to prepare the designs, but to conduct correspondence with and interview the manufacturers and employ inspectors at the factories in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide,’ to assist her in the necessary inspection work. She then had to supervise the installation at Canberra.
From 29th March, 192G, to the 5th September, 1927.
?1,247.

page 2757

IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS BOUNTY BILL

Message recommending appropriation reported.

Ordered - That the message be. taken) into consideration forthwith.

In committee. (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message) -

Motion (by Mr. Pratten) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Iron and Steel Products Bounty Act 1922.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Pratten and Mr. Bruce do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Pratten and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr. PRATTEN (Martin - Minister for

Trade and Customs) [11.22].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

I desire to recapitulate the various steps that have been taken in connexion with the subject matter of this bill. The bill is designed’ to grant an extra £1 per. ton bounty on galvanized iron as from the 1st January ensuing, and to allow a proportionate bounty to be paid upon tractors made in Australia from 1st January, 1927, provided that they do not contain less than 75 per cent. of Australian work or material. A report upon galvanized iron was submitted by the Tariff Board as far back as the 2nd July, 1925, and it recommended that the foreign duty should be raised. As a result Parliament - I think it was in March, 1926 - confirmed the enactment of a foreign duty upon galvanized iron, raising it from 30s. to 60s. a ton. At the same time the existing bounty of £2 12s. a ton was continued. The Tariff Board further investigated the industry and, towards the end of last year, submitted a recommendation that the bounty should be increased to £4 10s. per ton, and also that a deferred duty of £5 10s. should be provided in the British, and £7 10s.in the foreign schedule. That recommendation was considered by the Government, and, for the reasons which I shall set out, the Government submits the present proposal to the House. When the Tariff Board made that recommendation it stated that it did so because the extended protection would enable the Australian manufacturers to capture more of the trade in New South Wales, Victoria, Southern Queensland and South Australia. The total output of the Australian mills will supply only a little more than half the requirements of the State of New South Wales. It is extremely unlikely that the manufacturers would reduce their profit on a part of their output by forwarding supplies to other States, on which they would have to pay a higher freight. In view of those circumstances, the Government considers that the proposal of the board is not entitled to receive favourable consideration, under the present circumstances I shall go further into the question of output, and quote the following figures : - For the year 1925-26, the importations of galzanized iron into the Commonwealth were 89,466 tons, while in 1926-27 they were 103,696 tons. The percentage of the Australian consumption supplied by the New South Wales manufacturer in those two years was 171/2 per cent. and 20 per cent. respectively. The percentages that local production bore to New South Wales’ consumption only, for those years are 51 and 53 respectively. The capacity of the works is between 28,000 and 30,000 tons per annum, which is approximately 25 per cent. of Australian requirements, and a little more than half of the requirements of New South Wales. I shall not stress that aspect of the matter. Honorable members, from the statistics that I have quoted, will be able to see exactly what the position is with regard to the capacity of the New South Wales works in relation to the total consumption of the Commonwealth and of the State of New South Wales. The present assistance to the industry is given by tariff and bounty. Tariff item 145 provides a duty of 20s. British preferential, 55s. intermediate, and 60s. general, and the bounty is 52s. a ton. This bill proposes to increase the bounty by 20s. a ton. It is considered that further assistance is necessary in order to enable the industry to carry on profitably and to increase its output to the full capacity of its present plant. It is a condition of the bounty that the materials which are used in the manufacture of galvanized sheets shall be wholly of Australian production.. It cannot be gainsaid that this industry is of great importance to the Australian iron industry, which provides the steel bars that are used. I should explain that when straight out tariff protection is given, the manufacturer is at liberty to use either imported or local materials, whichever he finds are the more profitable; but in the manufacture of galvanized iron sheets under the bounty he must use Australian steel. I have already stated that the capacity of the local works is from 2S,000 to 30,000 tons per annum, and that about 450 hands are employed. I wish to sb.y also that a large amount of capital is invested in this industry, but that since its inception only a small return has been received’ from it. I should like to say now a word or two respecting the amendment that relates to tractors.

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I - I shall furnish the honorable member with all the particulars when the bill is being considered in committee. From memory, I should say that Australian zinc is used. - The schedule to the principal act makes provision for the payment of a bounty on the manufacture of tractors, varying from £40 to £90 according to the horse-power. This bill does not propose to alter the rates. Generally speaking, the basic principle of bounty acts is that a bounty shall be paid only in respect of articles that are produced wholly from Australian material. The Iron and Steel Bounty Act certainly provides that a manufacturer may be permitted to use imported materials; but it is intended that those shall be used only in an emergency, when for some unforeseen reason Australian materials are either not obtainable at all, or cannot be obtained in sufficient quantities. The manufacturers of tractors have experienced a difficulty in obtaining a suitable internal combustion engine of Australian manufacture. Since the bounty has been in operation a further difficulty has arisen as a result of the Crown Law authorities having expressed the opinion that the term “ materials “ in the section which authorizes the Minister to permit the use of imported materials in exceptional cases cannot be interpreted to include finished parts such as an internal combustion engine or a magneto. Thus any manufacturer who finds himself in the position I have described is prevented from claiming any bounty, and consequently is obliged to manufacture tractors under conditions that I do not think Parliament intended should operate. The object of the bill is to afford relief in that direction. Under it the full amount of bounty will be payable on the manufacture of tractors that are wholly Australian ; ‘ but it will be reduced in proportion to the quantity of imported material used. Thus, if a tractor is 100 per cent. Australian, the full amount will be payable. If imported materials are used to the extent of 1 per cent of the cost of the completed tractor, the manufacturer will receive 99 per cent, of the full amount ; and the reduction will continue proportionately until the stage is leached at which imported materials are used to the .extent of 30 per cent.

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

– There will be a proportionate abatement according to the quantity of imported material used?

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Rodgers) rightly observes that there will be a proportionate abatement according to the quantity of imported material used; but if that should exceed 30 per cent, of the cost of the tractor, no bounty will be payable. Honorable members will be interested to learn how this bounty, which was agreed to by Parliament some years ago, has operated. On account of its * stringent character, it has been practically a dead letter. The, amount of bounty paid in respect of tractors has been as follows: -

Evidently, therefore, it has not encouraged to any extent the manufacture of tractors here as was hoped by this House.

Mr McGrath:

– The trade has gone to America.

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The bill proposes to liberalize the conditions of manufacture, with a view to facilitating the operation of the industry. The importations of tractors have been very large, and there is a wide field for the development of the industry in Australia. A thorough investigation has. been carried out by the department, in conjunction with the Crown Law authorities, with the object of overcoming the difficulty and enabling fair encouragement to be given to the Australian industry. So far as I know, there is no opposition to this proposal of the Government, which, I hope, will stimulate the industry. It will certainly define in a legal way the position that Parliament intended to create.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Charlton) adjourned.

page 2760

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4th November (vide page 995), on motion by Dr. Earle Page -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- This bill proposes to amend the Land Tax Assessment Act. I draw attention to the fact that the Government has abandoned the position which it took up when it forced through Parliament a bill to withdraw the per capita payments from the States, because it then proposed to repeal the land tax and to remit other forms of direct taxation. The identical payments that it formerly made to the Statesunder the per capita arrangement it now proposes to make in a different form. If anything proves the value of criticism in Parliament, this does; because there is no doubt that on the occasion to which I have ref erred the Treasurer was determined to withdraw the per capita payments, repeal the land tax, and reduce other forms of direct taxation. Now it is intended that the land tax shall be continued, though at a reduced rate. The bill is one mainly of concessions. In addition to the 10 per cent. cut in the rates which will be made under the provisions of another measure, very considerable reductions are proposed under certain clauses of this bill. One concession proposed is triennial valuation of land, and another the abolition of retrospective assessments. The, loss in revenue that will be occasioned by these amendments, in conjunction with the 10 per cent. reduction in the rates, is estimated to amount in the ensuing year to £445,900. That loss will increase as the years go by. These are very generous concessions to. the large landholders of Australia. No owner, the unimproved value of whose land is below £5,000, pays land tax; therefore, a struggling farmer or a small landowner is not affected,, The Government has no warrant for making such a generous gift to these people. It talks at random about the mandate it received at the. last election; but I challenge it to. show any mandate to proceed with this proposal. It carefully refrained from making any mention of it when it appealed for the suffrages of the people. A Labour Government in 19.10 passed the Land Tax Act with a two-fold object: to secure to the people a portion of the unearned increment that accrues to land, and to burst up large estates so as to facilitate closer settlement, and enable those who are born on the land to obtain for themselves blocks from which they may produce wealth and earn a livelihood. “We have reached the stage at which there is no longer any need to argue that the aggregation of large estates is inimical to the interests of this country. There was a time ‘when that was necessary. In the. early days it frequently happened that meetings of pastoralists passed resolutions and conservative newspapers published articles in support of the argument that large estates should not be broken up, but should be retained for the purposeof running sheep and supplying the markets of the world with wool. But that day has gone by. With few exceptions people believe to-day that closer settlement leads to increased production from the land, and that the bursting up of large estates is desirable in the national welfare. It is strange that one of the exceptions to the rule isthe Prime Minister. At any rate he does not subscribe wholeheartedly to this policy as I shall show later. Speaking in general terms, it is realized that the aggregation of large estates is an obstacle to development and progress. Our first Land Tax Assessment Act was passed in 1910. In 1914 provision was made for the taxation of Crown leaseholds and the rate of taxation was increased. A further increase of 20 per cent. was made in 1918 but it was removed in 1922 under the provisions of a bill introduced by the present Prime Minister.

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

– That increase was imposed as a super tax for war purposes.

Mr SCULLIN:

– O - Our war obligations still rest upon us and the increase should still remain. The present Treasurer has also been responsible for decreasing our land taxation. He introduced a bill which had the effect of entirely abolishing the taxation of Crown leaseholds and so exempting 968,000,000 acres, or almost half the area of the continent, from taxation. It is now proposed that a further reduction of 10 per cent, shall be made and that concessions shall be granted which will be in effect another 10 per cent, reduction. So that our land taxation, if this measure is agreed to, will be 20 per cent, below what it was in 1914. It is- estimated that in 1927-28 our war and defence expenditure will amount to £34,000,000, yet we are told in justification of reduction of land taxation, that the war is over. The fact of the matter is that our war obligations are still increasing. But the Government is so tender-hearted towards large land-owners that it proposes to relieve them “of this obligation. It is recognized generally that our financial position is serious and that our loan expenditure is increasing. There is a strong demand for land throughout Australia, and one of the objects of this taxation is to discourage the aggregation of land in large estates and to encourage its subdivision into areas which would permit of it being put to better use. Since this taxation was first imposed in 1910 many large estates have been subdivided. In the first three years of the operation of the measure £30,000,000 worth of land was subdivided. According to the 10th report of the Commissioner of Taxation, since the inception of this legislation approximately £100,000,000 worth of land has passed from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. In other words estates of a value of more than £5,000 have been subdivided into estates of a less value than that. I am aware that some of the subdivisions may not have been genuine ; but it cannot be denied that this legislation has had the effect of accelerating closer settlement and of encouraging men of limited means to take up reasonably small areas of land for agricultural and pastoral pursuits. There are still many people in the com munity who would be glad to secure land under reasonable conditions. Whenever either leasehold or freehold land is made available to the people by the various State governments, the number of applications is at least ten times as great as the number of blocks available. The following figures in respect of New South Wales are enlightening: -

At Albury, in March, 1925, there were 1,900 applicants for 98 blocks; at Lake Cowal, 413 persons applied for a single block ; at Grafton, in August, 1925, 2,200 land seekers applied for three blocks; at Moree, in September, 1925, there were 1,205 applicants for one block - I was in the town at the time that the applications were heard; at Parkes, in September, 1927, 1,072 persons applied for five homestead farms, and 29 for one Crown lease ; and at Wilga Downs, in November last, the Nyngan Land Board had 1,380 applications for seven Crown leases on the Wilga Downs.

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

– It is almost like a prize in Tattersalls sweep.

Mr SCULLIN:

– I do not desire to have my speech punctuated by interjections, but I shall reply to the honorable member for Wannon. The monopolizing of our land by a comparatively few people who own large estates has had the effect of inflating values to such a degree that when the Crown is able to make a few blocks available they are sought after with all the eagerness that the people display to win a prize in Tattersalls. In Victoria, during the last three years, 2,057 applications have been received for the 444 blocks that have been made available in the Mallee; and for the nine blocks now available at Lake Tyrell there are 167 applicants. Most people agree that the aggregation of land in large estates is detrimental to Australia and hinders our prosperity. Only those who wish to see a few people enjoying the heritage of the nation would argue that it is desirable to allow large estates to be held by the few to the detriment of the many. Land that is suitable for subdivision should be subdivided. Some years ago I visited the western part of the Wimmera, which is well known to the honorable member for Wimmera, and discovered that very large areas were being held there for grazing purposes which were not being put to their best use. I was shown a property of 4,000 acres which was managed by four brothers. I do not desire to mention their name, but it is well known to the honorable member for Wannon. The adjoining estate consisted of 30,000 acres and was held by a big squatter. The four brothers were able to run nearly a sheep to the acre of their 4,000 acres, but the big squatter had only about one sheep to four acres on his estate. The explanation was that the brothers worked their land thoroughly. They systematically destroyed the dead wood, rubbish and vermin upon it and generally looked after it; but the squatter made no particular effort to increase the production of his estate. At one time, as is well known, the whole of the Wimmera was given over to grazing; but to-day, in consequence of its closer settlement, it is carrying many more sheep than it did when it was a purely grazing proposition, and in addition, it is producing a large quantity of the best wheat grown in the world. Cultivation does not mean that the sheep pass out, but that the land-owners use the land as it should be used. The Prime Minister is not favorable to the breaking up of large estates. When he was in Queensland last August he delivered a speech which is reported in the Brisbane Courier of the 2nd of August, from which I take the following paragraph: -

We are- too apt to yield to the cry that this continent must be cut up into small areas to give settlers with small capital a chance. The development of sheep country can only be successfully carried out by a person or a company with sufficient capital to withstand a periodical drought.

That argument has been discredited by experience.

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– Not in Western Queensland.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Experience throughout Australia has discredited it. Wherever large estates have been subdivided and improved, the country has been able to carry more stock and to resist drought conditions more effectively. I do not say that the comparatively poor country in Western Queensland should be subdivided into small farms. No man with a practical knowledge of this subject would argue in that way; but I do say that even that country could, with ad vantage, be divided into smaller estates than at present. Iri consequence of the withholding from cultivation of good country in recognized rainfall areas and adjacent to railways and markets, many of our people have been driven right out into the bush to get land. In the speech of the Prime Minister from which I have already quoted, there appears a statement relating to one of the most interesting pieces of legislation which this Parliament has passed in recent years. The disclosure which the right honorable gentleman made is significant and amazing. He indicated that on one memorable occasion, during the debate on the bill to abolish the taxation of crown leaseholds and remit all arrears in such taxation for the preceding seven years, he disciplined his party and brought it to heel. He stated -

If it were in his power, he would wipe out all those arrears. He had threatened to resign and it was only then that Parliament agreed to abolish the tax, but compelled him to collect arrears.

Honorable members who were in this Parliament in 1923, will recollect that the Labour party fought that measure tooth and nail and were able to obtain sufficient support from honorable members opposite to oblige the Government to abandon its proposal insofar as it related to the remission of arrears of taxation. There was a race between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, which the former won, to catch the Chairman’s ‘ eye in order to move for the deletion of that clause. Now we know how the members, of the party behind him were whipped into line. We thought then that they had acted of their own volition, but now we know the truth. The Prime Minister whipped them into line so far as the abolition of the tax on Crown leaseholds was concerned, but he was unable to get them to agree to the remission of - arrears of land tax being retrospective for seven years. He got them to agree to wipe out this tax on half this continent only by threatening to resign as head of the Government. I have quoted from the Brisbane Courier. If the statements are not correct, I ask the right honorable gentleman to contradict them. We have here a striking piece of inside information. When honorable members on this side said that by a threat to resign the Prime Minister forced his followers to submit, honorable members behind the Government resented the statement, but here are the Prime Minister’s own words to justify it. I recall these two statements of the Prime Minister in order to show that the Government is not sound upon the question of land taxation, and that it is more interested in the welfare of large squatters than in enabling smaller farmers to acquire farms on which to make a living for themselves and their families. Land monopoly and the curse of landlordism have been the struggle of the ages. In some of the older countries of the world they have forced men and women to emigrate to freer lands. The Labour party set its face against land monopoly in 1910. The Labour Government then in office brought in a system of land taxation. Since the present Government has been in office the provisions of that legislation have been whittled away. If the process is continued much longer the land tax will be worthless as an effective check against the aggregation of large estates. I shall say no more at this stage regarding the general principles of this question, but shall refer in general terms to some of the clauses of the bill before us. I propose to deal with them in greater detail in committee. One clause provides for the creation of a valuation board. Notwithstanding that I am of the opinion that far too many boards and commissions have been appointed by this Government, I think that the appointment of a valuation board, composed of experts with a knowledge of land values, would be justified if it were the final court of appeal against the valuation of the Commissioner of Taxes and his officers. If one thing more than- another has been demonstrated by our experience, it is the great need for some authority to give consistent interpretations of the law and to determine finally the value of land. Every honorable member knows the disputes that have arisen in connexion with land valuation. Should such a dispute arise, the case is eventually brought before the court and decided by a judge. I have the highest respect for our judiciary. I believe that its members are impartial and, in the main, able; but however learned in the law or impartial they may be, I submit with all due respect that judges are not the proper authorities to decide questions of land valuation. In the tenth report of the Commissioner of Taxation honorable members will find some very interesting reading. From it I propose to quote the following extracts : -

The judgment of the court in the appeal of Jowett v. the Commissioner of Taxation, could not bc treated as being applicable to the facts of any other case……

The court did not lay down any rules of valuation which the department could usefully follow……

The department was surprised at the decision.

– That is so. Last year the Treasurer pointed with glee to the decision of Mr. Justice Rich in the-

Jowett case in an endeavour to confound me in the stand I had taken in connexion with arrears of land tax on Crown leaseholds. He made it appear that the victory of Mr. Jowett was over me and honorable members on this side of the chamber, whereas it was a victory over the Commissioner of Taxation. A victory, and on such a decision as I have mentioned! I raise this matter now, because I want to ensure that the proposed Valuation Board, if appointed will have the last word in the valuation of land and not leave the question of valuation to the judges. Questions of law, of course, and of law only, must go to the judges when there is an appeal. If that is not made definite and clear in the bill, I shall not support the appointment of a valuation board.

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

– I think that that is sound.

Mr SCULLIN:

– I thank the honorable member. I should like to refer to another aspect of this question, and this is a matter of equity. The proposal is to allow an appeal by the taxpayer from the department to the board on valuations only. Of course, there are some other appeals that can go to the court; but from a number of arbitrary decisions by the Commissioner’ there is no appeal, either to the board or the court. With due respect to the Commissioner, who, I believe, is conscientious and earnest, I think that he, like every other man, is capable of making mistakes.

It is a basic principle of law that when a man has arbitrary power to give certain - rulings, there shall be some tribunal to whom appeals against his decisions can be made. I am strengthened in that statement by the fact that right through the Income Tax Act such a right of appeal is recognized, because an appeal board is provided. It is true that in respect of this tax there will be appeals to the court in some cases; but in other cases no appeal is allowed. For instance, “section 42a was purposely designed to protect the revenue from fraud, and I agree with the provision; but when the Commissioner gives his decision under section 42a, or section 37, or section 76, the taxpayer has no right of appeal against it. I suggest in the present case that, if he cannot appeal to the Valuation Board - and there may be an argument against that - he should have the right of appeal either to the court or the Appeal Board under the Income Tax Act. That is provided for in a minor degree under the present bill, where certain action can be taken by members of the Appeal Board under the Income Tax Assessment Act. Under that act the board can hear appeals against arbitrary decisions by the Commissioner. That is only reasonable and fair. Whilst I am strongly in favour of land taxation, and believe that the large land-owners both in town and country should contribute substantially to the revenue - the tax on big estates should be sufficiently high to penalize them for holding big areas - the application of such a law as this should be just.

Mr Killen:

– It is a class tax.

Mr SCULLIN:

– That argument was out of date a quarter of a century ago. It might appropriately be applied to our income tax or to any tax that is based on the principle that the burden shall be placed on the shoulders of those best able to bear it. Every tax imposed in that way can be called a class tax; but the class that objects to pay it always has the remedy in its own hands - it can break up the large estates, and make them available to the small holders who are land hungry. When the bill reaches the committee stage, I shall discuss this matter further. For the present I hope that the Treasurer will make a note of my remarks. There should be a right of appeal to a board or to the court against any decision, especially when it is farreaching and involves considerable sums of money ; but the right to appeal against valuations should be limited to appeals to the valuation board. If we grant the right of appeal from the decision of the Commissioner, it will bring the bill into line With the Income Tax Assessment Act.

– If the honorable member rendered an account, and found out that after it had been paid an amount had been omitted, he would include that amount in the next account and expect payment. The department has a similar right. The Statute of Limitations allows six years; but in the act it is asked that the time limit as it stands, of two years, be abolished. There is a further and worse blemish upon this bill. It removes the power from the Commissioner to -make annual valuations, and it limits the department to triennial valuations. It is true that, in practice, valuations may not be made frequently. Years may elapse before certain areas are re-valued; but the department watches land movements and notices whether the prices move upwards or downwards. It makes its valuations when the changes take place. In certain localities values alter rapidly, and sales disclose that the department has not always discovered the change in values. It should retain the right that it has under the act to-day to make a new valuation. This will be denied to it under the amendment, and for three years a valuation will stand before it can be altered. Reductions could be made; but the valuations could not be increased. Surely that is not fair. The Treasurer, when questioned as to what he estimated the loss would be, put it down at £80,000 a year. This loss, through not assessing lands at their true values as they move upwards, will be all in the interests of the men whose land is increasing in value. It will be of no benefit to those whose lands are depreciating in value ; the latter will have the same rights as before.. That is an anomaly that should be removed.

The total reductions under the bill, and the 10 per cent, reduction under the Rates Bill, will be £-145,000 in. round figures, equal to approximately 20 per cent, off the existing tax; approximately £400,000 will go to the owners of estates over £25,000 in value. I have not been able to obtain the figures for the latest years, because, unfortunately, the Commissioner does not include, in his most recent reports, the details that he used to publish in previous reports. His 9th and 10th reports do not contain the same full information that was found in the 8th and previous reports. I join with, the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore), who made a similar complaint in regard to income taxation. I ask the Treasurer, to see that in future the reports of this department provide honorable members with the complete information formerly supplied. I am making an estimate which I think is nearly accurate, on the basis of the latest available figures, and, in my opinion, £400,000 of the total reduction of £445.000 will go into the pockets of the owners of estates worth not less than £25,000 each.

Mr Gardner:

– Individual owners?

Mr SCULLIN:

– Some would be individuals and others companies. The 10 per cent, reduction alone will mean that, to 75 taxpayers with estates of over £100,000 in value there will be reductions of approximately £1,000 each, 25 taxpayers with estates of over £200,000 value will get reductions of approximately £1,900 each, and five taxpayers with estates valued at over £500,000 will each receive reductions amounting to about £3,500. That cannot be justified. Many of. these landowners are sitting down on large areas of land that could well be cut up, and some of it is suitable for intense cultivation. By not utilizing their lands to the full they are driving the sturdy sons of farmers far back into the bush. I could take honorable members to portions of the State of Victoria with which I am familar, and 1 could show them the broad acres of the Western plains on which sheep are running, although the land could be well used for agriculture. Men born on the land, and anxious to establish homes there, have been forced to take up selections down at Otway and Beech forest. After 20 years or more of heart-breaking toil, most of them have had to abandon that country, with their hearts broken and their little bit of capital gone.

There are hundreds of thousands of acres of land alongside railways, where there is a good rainfall - land in every way suitable for cultivation, but not available because of the ring fence of the squatter. That is one reason why I feel so strongly upon this question. I want to see increased production, and I am anxious to see the sons of farmers and future arrivals in this country comfortably settled on the land. I want to see more provided for them. The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart) advocated certain reforms and pointed out, as have other honorable members, that there are producers working long hours in the backblocks who are receiving less than the basic wage. I know many of them.

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

– There is no doubt about that, particularly in the dairying industry.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Yes, and if the Commonwealth Government came to their aid with bounties and assistance in other directions, they would still be deprived of the full benefit to which they are entitled. I would go to the full limit to assist these people to get the full reward for their labour and a return commensurate with that paid to others. But what would be the result? Land values would increase and the land monopolists who hold large areas would demand higher rents, or sell their land for sub-divisional purposes at greatly enhanced prices. Years ago beautiful rich land in the Western District of Victoria ar,d other rich districts was leased at small rentals, and was carrying perhaps one sheep to the acre and sometimes less. Later improvements came along. Butter factories and creameries were established in suitable places, refrigerator space was provided on overseas ships to carry their produce across the seas to the markets of the world, and instead of having gluts during good seasons with butter being sold here at 3d. to 6d. a lb., we had a steady market all the year round, and the butter industry was successfully established. But who is reaping most of the benefit of the improvements that have been effected?

Mr McGrath:

– The landholder.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The major portion of the profit has gone to the landholder.

I could mention the names of numerous squatters who have made fortunes, not because of their own efforts but owing to community effort. Their land values have been increased owing to the improvements produced by the brains of scientific men, and because of the hard toil of the men and women and even children, who have made slaves of themselves on dairy farms. These things have to be stopped, and before bounties are paid on butter and other products, an effort should be made to stabilize land values. I do not wish to support legislation which would assist in ruining anyone, or to drag down land values. But I would prevent landowners reaping the benefit of subsidies, or of other people’s toil.

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

– That is a generalization.

Mr SCULLIN:

– It is not. In respect of every industry we were out to assist, we should be well justified in saying that the value of the land should be pinned where it is was at the time that assistance was proposed.

Mr Gullett:

– Would the honorable member apply the same principle to secondary industries ?

Mr SCULLIN:

– I would apply it wherever advantage was being taken of the assistance given. I would say Cb the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) that if the party to which I belong were in power and we had the constitutional authority, there would not be’ a duty given to a secondary industry without the right to check their profits and see that they did not take fair toll of it. I would not make any distinction between primary and secondary industries. I would not show enmity or favoritism towards either. I wish to see our manufacturing, agricultural, and pastoral industries marching successfully along side by side, and their prosperity being shared by those engaged in such industries. They should receive full reward for their labour, whatever they may be, and not be allowed to take advantage of the beneficience of the Government or of the activities of the people. That is why I am advocating the retention of the land tax. Apart from the fact that the tax gives to the community a portion of the value that the community has given to the land, it has also an economic value. It will assist to burst up large estates and give an opportunity to the men of this country to produce wealth from the land on which they were born instead of being driven to the cities to eke out an existence. It is because of these reasons that I move -

That all the words after “ That “ be omitted with a view to insert in Ken thereof the words “ in view of the grave and expanding obligations of the Commonwealth manifested by an adverse trade balance and increasing loan expenditure, and of the urgent need for the subdivision of large estates to increase production, and to meet the keen demand for land, reduction of land taxation is not justifiable.”

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

.- I welcome the bill in so far as it affords some relief to land taxpayers; but there are many directions in which I hope it will be improved when the committee, stage is reached. With that reservation I welcome it as an instalment of. longdeferred justice to an important section of the Australian people. Of course, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) is, to use a colloquialism, at his top on the question of land taxation, and it was the memory of some of his, may I say, flamboyant speeches made in this House and in the country that impelled me to direct a few remarks to him during the debate on the Income Tax Assessment Bill, particularly in regard to the incidence of income and land taxation upon the land-holder. Prior to the last election the honorable member marched up and down the country telling the people of the wrongdoings of the land-holders and particularly of Mr. Edmund. Jowett. Their actions, which he regarded with suspicion, became a political weapon in the hands of the honorable member, and he must have been somewhat dumbfounded when the court declared that Mr. Edmund Jowett was right and the honorable member was wrong. The subject had, however, served his political purpose. In regard to the principle of land settlement and land holding, strange as it may seem, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition - although we arrive at the same conclusion from different angles - when he says that if we are to have progressive development it is a sound principle that as our populaiton increases the needs of rural Australia in the matter of land settlement must be met. The greatest safeguard of a nation is the settlement of a great band of prosperous yeomanry upon the soil. I have always said that we should be determined to make rural occupation - land settlement - the blue riband life of the nation. It is gradually becoming subordinated to the extreme and excessive demands of city dwellers of Australia, and our potential wealth and secondary industries upon the landholding is daily becoming more precarious and less remunerative. I agree with the honorable member when he says that the making available of land suitable for intensive production and agriculture, and even for closer pastoral settlement by the application of scientific methods such as top dressing for pasture and other improvements, will be the means of settling a larger rural population than we have to-day. Therefore, I am not championing the cause of those who desire to hold exclusively large areas suitable for subdivision, whether for agricultural or other purposes. But there are other considerations which must not be overlooked. There are, however, vast areas of land, mostly in the back country, which, owing to climatic conditions and precarious seasonal vicissitudes, are quite unsuitable for subdivision, and which can be held profitably only in large areas by those who have sufficient resources at their command to withstand the dire happenings of a succession of bad seasons. It is impossible for a person with limited capital to take up large areas of unsuitable land and brave the known conditions which prevail in those areas. I do not share the views of the honorable member on that point. It is an easy matter to tax a man off the land, but it is not easy to put him on. From the time when the principal act was first introduced I have always felt that it was not born in an atmosphere of justice. As the Commonwealth Parliament had not the power to deal with land and land settlement, it was intended from the outset to be a penal tax. At the inception of federation the control of land and land settlement, as well as all activities associated with the land, was deliberately left to the State Parliaments. The Commonwealth had no power to determine land settlement policies or the conditions governing the holding of land. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) has apparently never thought of an alternative to penal taxation for forcing land settlement. When the need arises, there is an alternative which rests with the States in the form of legislation providing for compulsory acquisition, which is at present in operation in some of the States. Reference has been made by -the honorable member to a nation hungry for land, and to only one in every 1,000 applicants for certain blocks of Crown land offered by ballot or Land Board, being successful. If the honorable member will refer to pastoralists’ associations and land agents in all the States, he will be informed that he can obtain as much alienated good land as he wants at reasonable rates. At present, land can be obtained at reasonable rates because many land-holders who have “given their labour and that of their families have not received a return comparable with that received by those engaged in secondary industries. This is not a land-locked country. There may be certain districts in which large areas are held by wealthy land-holders.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

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

– The honorable gentleman stated that Australia was a country in which people were unable to obtain access to the land for settlement, and that there was, in consequence, retardation of national progress, production and development. There is, however, in every State an abundance of land available for purchase, and most of it may be had on easy terms. These holdings consist, for the most part, of -improved lands and ready-made farms, of which young men may take possession without a great expenditure of time or money upon development, and begin straight away to carry on the chosen occupation. Confirmation of this may be obtained by any one who cares to make investigation in any township or centre in any State in the Commonwealth. Land values have received a check, and land is available at reasonable prices on reasonable terms. I repeat, however, that if the nation is to progress and population increase, land must be made available as required to meet the growing needs of this country. It is, after all, to the great lauded interests to which we have to look for the funds with which to develop the secondary industries of our country. I am one who endeavours to put first things first, and I place it as an unassailable truth that the success of Australian economic life to-day depends primarily on the success of the rural industries. This is much more sa in Australia than … in the . older countries which have become the world’s workshops and have a great distributing trade in which industrialism plays a large part in providing the world’s commodities. But Australia, for generations to come, must depend for its development on primary industries. Anything which tends to weaken the primary industries 4 is reflected very quickly in our secondary industries, as we find in this year of short production, when already unemployment is increasing in all the States, and a condition of financial disorder has been brought about. One would assume from the remarks of the honorable gentleman that Australia had not faced this great question of land settlement in a bold and comprehensive manner, but actually the reverse is the position. If one takes the trouble to go into the historical records of Australia one will see that there were various phases of laud settlement, starting in the old days of what might be called “squattages,” which represent a rather romantic, though passing, phase in the rural life of Australia. They represented, for the most part, the handling by adventurous and daring men of small flocks of imported stock, for which, at the time, no preparation had been made, no large estates built up, and no water or pastures provided. There was practically no’ market for any of the products other than wool, and the price for that was very low. The practice was to boil down the carcasses for the bit of tallow which might be obtained. But we march on from those days of squattages when the foundations of the States were laid. ‘ There was a feeling on the part of . our increasing population that they were not able to get sufficient land for homes, and a great forward movement was taken by the statesmen of the day. They gave to the then rising generation the power to go out and select from the squat.tages which then were the Crown lands of the country their holdings in their own chosen localities, there to put . in their pegs, and found their future homes. They gave the most liberal terms, requiring no deposits in many cases, or, at any rate, not ‘more than the payment of the survey fees. Those were difficult times; many of the selectors, after leaving the mark of their labour on their holdings, were ‘ finally forced to abandon them. Those were hard times. Some, however, struggled through by means of the unpaid toil of their families, and their capacity to work and wait, until finally they became the foundation of Australia’s yeomanry of to-day. Now we have reached a further stage, and scattered throughout every State there is a magnificent array of rural homes owned by those who have fought adversity, who have won out, and established the primary industries of the Commonwealth. They have sought out the lands most suitable for their purposes, and it has taken no act of Parliament, no act of compulsory acquisition, to secure the settlement of these areas. The judgment of the men themselves, and the pressure of economic conditions,- forced the settlement. The honorable gentleman will know that, in the districts with which he is most familiar, the Tower Hill district of Victoria, no act of Parliament was necessary to procure settlement. That land is now worth over £100 an acre, but the force of economic circumstances was sufficient to clear it of forest, and to make it rich and fruitful. In no age can there be a perfect system. Australia is not the home of landlordism; it is the home of people who came mostly from other countries to avoid the curse of landlordism. In the main, we are a great body of freeholders who believe in the right of a man to have some spot on earth that is his very own; a spot upon which he may set up his citadel, and upon which no one can set foot to desecrate his home. That is th& fundamental belief of our people. Now I come to the question that perplexes the honorable gentleman, the question of land values. He says that he would mark as with a javelin the ruling prices of land to-day, and would not allow them to advance beyond their present point. That is a human impossibility.

Mr Scullin:

– May I re-state my position? I said that if we are to subsidize any industry, we ought first to stabilize the price of land in that industry.

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

– Tes, by fixing a mark beyond which it would not be allowed to go. The ideal valuer has not yet arrived upon earth. The man who thinks he can fix a stable price for land is a dreamer of dreams. Take this very act which seeks to tax the unimproved value of land, and contrast it with similar acts in the States. In Victoria, for example, the Parliament did not agree on the same formula as our federal act for the taxation of unimproved land values. If there is such a thing as a definite basis for determining the unimproved value of land, we ought to be able to fix upon a formula defining it.

Mr Scullin:

– It is laid down in the act/

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

– But it is laid down differently in Victoria. If the Crown cannot lay down a formula which will be the same in any two States or the Commonwealth Land Tax Act that is only an additional proof of what I have stated: that it is impossible to fix definitely the value of land.

Mr Scullin:

– It merely proves that one of these systems is obsolete.

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

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

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

– It is scarcely right to traverse the judgment of the High Court.

– I said that the taxation of land by the Commonwealth was unsound.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I do not mind which way the honorable member puts it. I differ from him. I submit that as we have the constitutional power to impose this taxation, and are responsible for the development, populating and defence of this country, we should impose it. Estates of a less value than £5,000 are exempt so that the small man shall not be injured by a heavy tax. Some years ago when the present member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt) was a member of a Victorian Ministry, he introduced a land tax bill in the State Parliament, and in support of it quoted the following statement by Mr. Ure, then Lord Advocate of Scotland -

First I would say that land differs from all other forms of property in this, that its existence is not due to its owner; secondly, it is limited in quantity; thirdly, it is absolutely essential to existence and production; and, fourthly, it owes its value exclusively to the presence of the market created by the activity of the community.

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

– That may be true of Britain, which has a big local market.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Surely the honorable member will not contend that, although governments in Australia increase the value of land by providing railway communication and other improvements, they are not entitled to tax the landowners !

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

– I say that it is a. State job.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I differ from the honorable member. I consider it to be a Commonwealth job. The. States, with the exception of Queensland, have nevershown any inclination to impose a reason?, land tax.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- I oppose the amendment, and I may incidentally mention that I am not particularly enamoured of the bill. 1 am inclined to agree almost entirely with the remarks of the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Rodgers). If the Federal Government should meddle in land taxation, the object being, according to the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Oppo sition, to break up large estates, the tax should be imposed on unimproved land. That would tend to bring about a subdivision of large unimproved holdings. That would be a machinery bill, and not really a taxing measure. The greatest crime, commercially and financially, is to further load the people on the land who are raising the wealth necessary to maintain the credit of this country. To-day the land-owner is taxed in three main ways, directly, and he is taxed indirectly in many other ways. He escapes none of the taxes. He, above all, bears perhaps 97 per cent. of the taxation levied through the customs, particularly if he is an exporter, because he isthe only person who cannot pass any of it on. He has to pay high railway freights, because the railway employees under our arbitration system, must be paid high wages. Heis required to pay income tax like everybody else; but he pays a little more than the others because his income is irregular. In some years, such as the present season, he may have no income at all; but under our graduated system of taxation, he may have to paymore direct income tax than the ordinary individual. Then he has to pay a land tax that is not imposed on any other section of the community. His land is capital, and therefore this is a capital tax in this way. He is taxed upon the machinery by which he earns his income, although his income is taxed in the same wayas the income of other people. I am referring to particularly valuable land that has perhaps been held by wealthy persons for generations. We should look by and large at theman on the land, and compare his percentage of increase of taxation with that of those engaged in other industries and professions. The agriculturist to-day is manifestly oppressed, otherwise the wheat industry would be advancing instead of declining. Isthat a case for fur ther taxation?Of course the Treasurer is ostensibly reducing the; land tax by 10percent., but this House must not imagine, that, the man on theland is to get that reduction. The department has men all over Australia reassessing, the unimproved value of land As has already been pointed out, the present high value of landhas been brought about by the increased prices of wool and wheat since the war. At a time when the farmer is getting little encouragement, the Taxation Department assesses his property at a value that is not inherent in it. I have with me a report supplied by the Taxation Department and signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Federal Taxation in Western Australia, and in it is a schedule showing the old and new values in various districts. The acreage in Bruce Rock is 816,350. The old unimproved value was £279,020, and the new unimproved value is £S18,433. In the face of those figures the Treasurer says that he is giving the farmers a 10 per cent, reduction ! There is a little bit of the Hebrew in that. The acreage in Broomehill is 279,122. The old unimproved value was £180,658, and the new unimproved value is £247,428. In Quairading the acreage is 462,456. The old unimproved value was £301,265, and the new unimproved value is £471,486. That increased value is entirely due to the inflated prices of wool and wheat, and not to any legislation passed by this Parliament or the State Parliaments. The present high prices are not likely to last. Those holding land may consider themselves to be in possession of a greater asset than before, but the land is not producing any more, and its enhanced value is nothing more nor. less than the means of placing on additional tax upon them. The farmers are taxed in every way. They have to bear, in addition to the direct taxes levied upon most people, the shire tax which helps to make the roads, and that is a very heavy impost upon them, the wheel tax and the vermin tax. Rural life is becoming uninteresting to the country people and they are flocking to the cities. The Treasurer declines to help them to develop their land in order that they may profit from their labour. Extraordinary statements are made in this House by those honorable members who do not own land, and do not know what it really means to go out to settle in the outback country. About sixteen or seventeen years ago my brother and I had the experience of taking up land which was considered to be unsafe because of the light rainfall. When I went there to inspect the land before selection, had I not been trained as a bushman, I should have been lost, and I suppose that the majority of honorable members, under similar circumstances, would have been lost iri the scrub and afraid to go near the place again. Western Australia at that time was, and is to-day, offering people every inducement to settle on the land. All the capital that could be raked up was put into the land to clear, fence, and fertilize it in order to produce wealth, to improve the credit of this country, arid to provide work for the railways and other means of transport. We want people to settle on the land, but this is not possible when our legislation provides for continual revaluations of land that are taking the last ounce of strength from our farmers. Not only is the farmer loaded with the protectionist policy of ‘ Australia, but the Taxation Department is trying to grab all his profits from his operations on the land. The Government of Western Australia seems to have been more reasonable . to the farmer in order to help him to develop his holding. If his income tax amounts to more than his land tax, he pays the income tax only and vice versa. The Federal Government is collecting both taxes and making no differentiation. The Taxation Department is not sympathetic even in its interpretation of the act. It has been said that it would pay the Government to give the land to the people in order that it may be developed; but we have paid for the land and developed it. I had this experience two years ago. I wanted a piece of Crown land adjoining my property to square up my fencing. That land was so useless in its natural state that its. freehold was sold to me at 5s. an acre. Last year the Taxation Department assessed the unimproved value of that land at 17s. 6d., for the simple reason that the valuer did not see the accumulation of stones and rubbish that had been taken off it at great expense, nor did he take account of other unseen improvement made also at great expense. The man on the land is not credited in his land tax assessment with his contributions to the upkeep of roads. He, and not the man in the city, has to pay for them. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) does not pay for the roads, at any rate, in my district.

Because these roads are made and the land improved by the farmer, the Taxation Department takes the last penny from the man on the land, and that is calculated to discourage land settlement in this country. The Treasurer has said that we -are to have a valuation every three years.

Mr West:

– The poor land-owners!

Mr PROWSE:

– That remark typifies the consideration that is given by honorable members opposite to the man outback. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chariton) has said that primary and secondary industries should go hand in hand, and I agree with him; but that is not the position to-day. The man on the land is groaning under the burden of secondary industries. If industries were going hand in hand, there would not be the adverse trade balance that exists to-day. If the Treasurer pursues his present policy and extracts the last penny from the farmer, our adverse balance will soon be three or four times what it is to-day, and we shall then begin to realize that we have indeed killed the goose that laid the golden eggs in this country. The Leader of theOpposition also said that land was different from other assets, because its existence was not due to the owner. One buys property of anykind as an investment, a means of earning a livelihood, and the most difficult livelihood to get is that which comes from Mother Earth. If the Treasurer will consult the Commissioner of Taxation I am sure that be will be told that the bulk of the direct taxation is paid, not by the wheat farmer, but by the manufacturers and city merchants, which shows that the farmer is working for little if any profit. Although 90 per cent, of the wealth that maintains the community is produced by the man on the land, he is just permitted a bread and water existence so that he may continue his industry and keep the country solvent. I ask the Treasurer to consider seriously the insertion of an amendment to provide that land used for the production of wealth shall be exempt from land taxation. That should accord with, the views of honorable members opposite. Under the present law we definitely impose upon the man on the land two taxes that are not borne by anybody else in the- community.

I propose to show how unreasonable are some of the assessments of unimproved values. What is known as “ the Captain Cook value “ of land is practically nil. Who really is responsible for the enhanced value that is given to certain land? The land I selected in Western Australia had no real value until I expended my money upon it. Until that time it would not carry three kangaroos or two sheep over the whole area. The railway was already built, so it cannot he said that the value of the land was enhanced by Government expenditure. The Crown owned the land, and I bought it. We put the whole of our capital into it, and when we proved that it could be put to profitable use others desiring to follow our example set up an inquiry for land in the neighbourhood. In consequenece the land became more valuable than it was when I acquired it. By so enhancing the value of that land I helped other citizens and the State, not myself. What benefit do I gain from the increment of values? If I continue to utilize it for wheat-growing that increased value will not help me at all, so why put a burden of taxation upon me in respect of a value created in accordance with public policy and the desire of the Government and the. people?

The definition clause of the Land Tax Assessment Act defines “ unimproved value “ in relation to land as - the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realize if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that the improvements (if any) thereon or appertaining thereto and made or acquired by the owner or his predecessor in . title had not been made.

Several interpretations of that definition have been given. The High Court has held-

That the unimproved value of land may be ascertained by comparison’ with’ the prices ob tained for similar land in the neighbourhood in a state of nature.

The mere sale price of land inadistrict is no index to its value unless one takes into consideration the reasons that governed the payment of that price. The price might have been excessively high not because of the merits of the land, but because a father wanted to buy an adjacent block for his son, or a land holder desired to acquire an adjoining property. Special consideration should he given to those facts when valuing property for land tax purposes. The High Court also held-

TJ i at tlie word “ improvements “ in tlie definition of the term “unimproved value” includes such operations of man upon the land since it has ceased to be Crown land, the benefit of such continues at the date of valuation, and operations of nature which ave only effectual by reason of what man has done, as have contributed to bring about the present enhancement of tlie value of tlie land.

Mr THEODORE:

Mr THEODORE:

– N - No. He obtained the holdings under such conditions owing to purely fortuitous circumstances.

A considerably higher figure is being paid by land-holders adjacent to some of these properties.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir littleton Groom:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– The honorable member may not discuss that subject, although I know that he has been led into it by interjections. I ask honorable members not to interject.

Mr THEODORE:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker ; but this is a most important subject. I support the suggestion of the honorable member for Yarra that a board of review or some other authority should be constituted to which appeals may be made against the arbitrary decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation. I do not reflect in the remotest degree upon the Commissioner. I think that he always gives due consideration to the matters placed before him, and acts in strict conformity with what he believes to be the justice of the case; but any man who is called upon to make numerous decisions, involving matters of vast importance to the persons concerned, must, in the vast number of cases he is called on’ to de (ermine, sooner or later commit errors of judgment. The State does not suffer from these, but the individual does. Even if a man were as wise as Solon there should be an appeal from his decisions. Such decisions should not be absolutely final. The Treasurer would be wise to agree to an extension of the functions of the proposed valuation board to allow it to hear appeals on this matter. If that proposal is not practicable, perhaps it would be possible to allow the Board of Review in income tax matters to be a special board of review in certain approved cases under this law. There should be a tribunal of some kind to winch aggrieved taxpayers may appeal from the decisions of the commissioner in certain cases. I support the amendment.

Mr HUNTER:
Maranoa

.- I disapprove of the imposition of taxation on lands that are being used for productive purposes, no matter whether imposed by State of Federal authority. Land held for speculative . purposes should be taxed. In some cases land which is held for speculative purposes is worked sufficiently to recoup its owner for his current expenses, although it is really being held for sale later at a big profit. ‘ I call that speculation, just as I would call it speculation to hold land without working it. Land which is used for production in either primary or secondary industries should not be taxed. This tax was introduced by the Labour party with two objects. As the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) pointed out, it was designed to burst up large estates. It has not achieved that object. The second reason for introducing it was to augment the revenue. It has become a revenue tax pure and simple, and it will remain so as long as it is on the statutebook. I submit that it is not a federal function to tax land. The Commonwealth is debarred constitutionally from discriminating between the States ; but honorable members know very well that, owing to the wide variety of land in the Commonwealth, this tax operates more unfavorable on some States than on others. The honorable member for “Wannon (Mr. Rodgers) has described the quality of some lands in Victoria, and honorable members who represent South Australian constituencies have referred to certain areas in their State about which I am entirely ignorant. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore) has dealt with Queensland conditions, with which, of course, I am well .acquainted. It is impossible, however, for the federal authorities to discriminate. A large area of land in Queensland would be regarded as an enormous tract of country in a State like Victoria. “When I was recently in that State I heard persons talking about squatters and their land, and the areas that they had in mind would be regarded in Queensland as no more than night horse-paddocks. In travelling through New South Wales one sees large unoccupied areas along the railway lines; but, because, of that, it is worse than useless ‘ to levy a tax upon the value of that land in order to burst up those estates, if it will injure somebody in Queensland who happens to be doing .a national work. There may be urgent necessity for cutting up some estates. The State Governments know these; let them act when necessary. On my first trip to- Melbourne, six years ago, I saw sheep being grazed within about 12 or 14 miles of the city. Possibly that was the best purpose to which that particular land could be put at the time ; but I dare say the owners of it were merely grazing sheep on it for the purpose of paying the rates and taxes on land which afterwards they would cut up for suburban settlement. Conditions vary greatly in each State, and in different parts of each State. Queensland is a huge tract of country. Conditions in the south are entirely different from those in the north, and those along the coastal belt vary tremendously from those in the western areas; 20 miles east of Toowoomba, the value of the land and the purposes for which it is used, are different from those 20 miles westward. The States are the proper authorities to exercise discrimination legally and for revenue, political and every other State purpose. The States have so discriminated in the past. Queensland and New South Wales, for instance, have done so. I have before me a copy of an act passed by the Now South Wales Parliament on the motion of the Labour Government led by Mr. Lang. It is an amending taxation act dealing with large estates. Even that Government saw the necessity for discrimination. It exempts land within the western division of New South Wales, which, like the land in western and north-western Queensland, has been badly hit in clays gone by by the tax on leaseholds. The Labour Government under Mr. Lang, which will not be accused of having been a Tory administration, exempted from taxation leasehold and freehold lands in the western division of New South Wales. The measure also exempts irrigation areas, or lands owned by a person to whom the advisory, board has issued a certificate that they are being used mainly for the purpose of breeding stud stock. Although even that Labour Government saw the necessity for discriminating between certain classes of land, the federal authorities cannot discriminate. We have been told that the object of the tax is to burst up large estates and take a portion of the increment in value. We are informed, also, that it is a rich man’s tax - a big man’s tax. It may be a big man’s tax: but a big man is not necessarily a rich man. If he is rich, and is using his land, he is to be blamed no more, in fact, considerably less, than persons who own a considerable amount of property of other kinds that cannot be taxed. The only way in which the latter can be reached is through the income tax. If they happen to be speculators in stocks and shares and sundry other things,, mcn who never circulate their money throughout the country, who never produce anything - some of them are to be found in the ranks of the Opposition - they are permitted to escape from taxation; but the men who own land and cannot get away from it, who produce something, and add to the wealth of this country, are selected to be hounded down and penalized. Even supposing this were a justifiable tax and a rich man’s tax, which I deny, what would it matter if the Government retired from this field of taxation? These men could not escape. There are four State Labour governments, including one in Queensland, which has no upper house to block land taxation. The State Labour governments would seize such a favorable opportunity to enter the field of taxation vacated by the Commonwealth. It would be a chance to obtain increased revenue. Goodness knows, the States, with their wild expenditure, need it. The rich man in Queensland would be unable to escape in any f.ase. All the talk about the rich man and the poor man is indulged in merely to renew an old cry, and set class against class, so that, when honorable members opposite go before the electors, they can say to them, “ Look what we have done to place taxes upon the wealthy c] ass. thereby relieving the poorer section.” That argument will not be accepted in Queensland, because the rich man can be taxed there. He was taxed in days gone by. But when the honorable member for Dalley, as Premier of Queensland, went , abroad to interview the money-lenders, they whispered something in his ear, and he climbed down. He had to account for his notions to his own party, and it is said that that was one of the matters that led to his loss of the premiership.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is getting away from the subject matter of the bill.

Mr HUNTER:

Mr Fenton:

– Many railways are not paying, but we do not mind that.

Mr WEST:

– The people of New South Wales pay annually £2,250,000 in interest in respect of railways that do not pay. There is a good deal of misconception about taxation. The honorable member for Forrest included in the burden of taxation municipal and road board rates. Those rates are not taxation; they are a charge for services rendered. The roads are paid for out of the petrol tax, which is mainly contributed by the people in the cities. I was a member of this Parliament when the Commonwealth land tax was originally imposed. At that time large areas of land were not being put to productive use, and many of the people who were deriving large incomes from land only partially used were paying little or no taxation. They were actually free from taxation other than that collected through thecustoms and excise duties. I am in the happy position of knowing that the forecast made at that time, that the tax would break up the large holdings, has been verified. Another injustice in regard to the land is that , the governments of the various States have disposed of it at prices far below what it should have brought. In New South Wales there are large areas on the Richmond and Clarence Rivers, and up to the Queensland border, which were sold by the Government for £1 an acre. In the old days, when the Treasurer of the New South Wales Government was short of income, he could always balance his expenditure with his revenue by selling somany acres of land at £1 an acre, and anybody could buy it. The whole of the land in the north-eastern portion of the State was sold in this way. .This land along the Clarence and other rivers and on the north coast is selling now at from .£100 to £110 an acre, although originally it was sold by the Government for £1 an acre. I did not follow all the things that were said on this subject; there are some honorable members who say so many silly things. A man of intellect gets tired of listening to them. Honorable members of the corner party are out to preserve the interests of the men who own the land, and they think that the rest of the community have no rights whatever - hardly even the right to exist. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition dealt with this matter in a statesmanlike way in the course of hia address in support of the amendment. That amendment states, “In view of the grave and expanding obligations of ‘the Commonwealth manifested by the adverse trade balance and the increasing loan expenditure,” and there is no dispute about those things. We are to-day floating a redemption loan. Our practice is to pay £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 off our debt, and then to borrow another £12,000,000. The amount credited each year to the loan account is much greater than that set aside for debt redemption.

I believe that there is a day coming when we shall no longer be able to finance the country on these lines. The Government would be very wise, even at this late hour, to alter its decision in connexion with the/ proposed reduction of the tax. The country cannot be governed without taxation, and we can get the taxes only from those in a position to pay. Honorable members will notice, if they study the press, that those persons whose estates pay the largest amount in probate duty are those who held property in land. The professional or commercial man in the city never leaves a very large estate, unless he, too, has done some dabbling in land. Most of the big business men in Sydney are also large land-owners. Personally, I shall not pay much probate when I go my way, because I do not own any land at all except a little block 6 feet by 3 feet, for which I paid quite enough ; and the place on which my home is situated. « When I first went to live there the land was valued at £10 a foot, but now, for some reason, the valuation has been increased to £50 a foot. I do not know why this should be: I did not ask them to put up the value. When I made inquiries at the Town Hall about it they told me that so much was for the town clock, so much for the. bridge, so much for the gulley at the back, and so much for other different items. I do not know why the’ people do not take more interest in what is going on. Since this Government has been in power it has granted numerous concessions to the people on the land. There is what amounts . to a bounty of 3d. a lb. on butter, for instance. When a drought comes, the people on the land apply for all sorts of assistance from the Government, and ask, among other things, that their cattle shall be carried free on the railways. I never heard of better socialists than some of these people. They have the land, and if Providence favours them with bounteous rains so that they have good crops, they take a’ll the profit, while the community gets nothing; but if they meet with adversity they want the whole community to help them to bear it. They obtain all the benefits of high prices, and yet are nothing better than tax dodgers. They are the most miser able section of the community as far as contributing to the development of Australia is concerned, and they are the greediest section also.

Mr McGrath:

– That is the squatter; do not say the farmer.

Mr WEST:

– I have great sympathy with the struggling farmer. When the Government resumes land, it pays such a high price for it that the settlers or farmers are unable to make anything out of it. In Victoria alone, the Commonwealth is losing £10,000,000 by reason of the falling off in the value of land upon which it has advanced money. In New South Wales all our political scandals of any magnitude have had to do with land matters.

Mr Gregory:

– Does the honorable member propose to tax the land-holders to make up for that ?

Mr WEST:

– The land-holders do not want to be taxed even to make the roads. If it were not for the workers in the city who purchase their commodities, the landholders would find themselves in Queerstreet. I am sorry that the question of country versus city was ever brought into the committee; there was no justification for it. The land-holders wish to be relieved of taxation, and to obtain all the benefits of high prices and a prosperous industry, while allowing the country to be financed by those who pay indirect taxation. If there was ever a section of the community that ought to be taxed for the purpose of helping us bear the burdens of the war, it is those connected with the land. The late Sir Samuel McCaughey made a fortune, but he left, it to the university. The Russells - other benefactors of the Sydney University - were engineers, but they made nothing out of their engineering; they made their wealth out of the land they held. After they had held it for some time it was worth ten times its original value. It is a pity that we have the present Government in power. It represents vested interests, and the interests of those connected with the land. It is serving its friends loyally. I only wish the industrial section of the community would learn a lesson from the experience of the last few years. We should then have a different result at the next election. I hope that the committee will pay some attention to this amendment. I recognize, however, that the Government has its majority, and that it is only talking to the wind to oppose its proposal. It has the numbers, and it is able to inflict this punishment on a section of the community. It has no soul, or it would think twice before it laid such burden on the mass of the people.

Mr COOK:
Indi

.- I, for one,, am opposed to land taxation by the Commonwealth. I believe that the State can administer that business very much better than the Federal Government can. So far as this tax is concerned, the city provides about 55 per cent, of it. In the city the major portion is paid by the consumer. I am connected with business concerns, and I know how warehouses and other businesses pass the load on to the consumer. The rural industry is in quite a different position. It has to compete with cheap overseas markets, and has not the opportunities to pass on expenses which are enjoyed by the secondary industries. That cannot be emphasized too clearly. Fifty-five per cent, of this tax is paid in the cities by the consumer. At present a harbour bridge is being constructed in Sydney, and the major portion of its cost will be passed on to the consumers. When the Arbitration Court compels the employer to pay additional wages he passes the increase, with a little addition, on to the community, which must bear the burden.

It would be difficult to get two men to value land at the same, price. I have been associated with land valuing for many years, and while I feel that I am competent to value the land with which I am familiar - and in connexion with which I know the rainfall, accessibility, carrying capacity, &c. - I would not dream of going 100- miles away from my own centre, and posing there, as a competent valuer. Values depend chiefly on the man who values, and it is impossible for him to have a comprehensive knowledge of many different localities. One primary producer may make good on land which is valued at £20, while another man may fail on similar land valued at £10. Our experience, with soldier land settlement provides an excellent example of that. There is land in Victoria, arid in other parts of the Commonwealth, which varies in valuation from £1 to £3 an acre from adjoining land, from which it is divided by a fence or a road. That is manifestly unfair. We should have some co-ordination in our valuing. A valuer may be instructed to value a certain estate, which may not have been valued for some time.- Changed circumstances may warrant the valuation that he places upon it, but the adjoining lands are not revalued, and remain at the old value. We have State and Federal values of the land which differ, and even our Federal values of similar land differ considerably. I have argued constantly that land should be zoned when it is valued for Federal taxation purposes, and that the valuation should apply for three or six years, the land in each zone to be r.e-valued simultaneously. That would set right many existing anomalies. I am very pleased that the old system of assessing land values is to be abolished, as it was unfair. I do not agree with the Leader of the- Opposition (Mr. Charlton), and the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore), in their remarks on the value placed on estates, and as to the difficulty experienced in obtaining farms. I have been through large portions of Western Australia, South Australia, and other States of Australia, and I believe, that the opportunities to go on the land are as good today as they ever were during my lifetime. It is useless to give a man 1,000 acres of land when he has no money with which to develop it. He must possess capital to pay for fencing, implements, stock, and for the erecton of his house. It must be realized that there is a multiplicity of financial obligations following the actual acquisition of the land. Referring to the alleged .exorbitant values placed on large estates, I saw five estates sold in a western district at from £95 to £110 per acre, for 20-acre blocks. Large estates, when cut up for subdivisional purposes, may be purchased at a much lower figure. In Victoria there are estates which have been on the market for some time, and which may be purchased reasonably. Associated with the subdivision of estates is the cost of subdividing, road construction, cleaning, and so on, and the profits made by the owners are not nearly as great as some honorable members would have us believe. Those who have, the most to say on such matters appear to know the least about them. A lifelong experience of land matters teaches me that the person who goes on the land is confronted with many adversities of which the average person has not the slightest conception. At the same time I believe that there has been too much pessimistic preaching. I realize that the amount of first-class land available in Australia is limited. It is our last and practically only asset. It is the source of all wealth. Our secondary industries would be nothing without primary producton, and we should encourage to the fullest extent the linking up of - the two industries.

I am confident that the Government have played the game in regard to soldier settlement. I have had a practical knowledge; of the scheme from its inception in Victoria. The Federal Government has come to the assistance of our returned soldier settlers with a straight-out gift of £10,000,000, and by the time finalization is arrived at between the States and the Commonwealth, this Government will be compelled to foot the bill even to a greater extent. That indicates that, when you place a man on the land, the matter does not .end there. It may be argued that soldier settlements have failed because the land was bought at exorbitant prices, but in most districts it would have brought on the open market a price at least equal to that which the Government paid for it. Our soldier settlers have had heavy burdens to meet in the way of rents, rates, instalments on stock and implements, and payments for sub-divisional fences, and as many of them had practically no capital, it was only to be expected that they would fail. I do not desire to have anything to do with land settlement which is carried on in this fashion. If we attempt to settle migrants here under similar conditions we shall invite disaster. I expect that in the future Commonwealth land in North and Central Australia will become valuable, as also will the unoccupied parts of Northern Queensland, and the Kimberly district in .Western Australia, but before that day comes heavy expenditure will have to be incurred in constructing roads and railways. These are essential to settlement, and until they are provided the areas I have mentioned must remain of little value. I agree with the proposal of the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) that a board should be appointed to hear appeals from the decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation. I favour submitting these matters to laymen of wide experience in land valuation and dealing, rather than to judges in a court, for I think that justice is more likely to be done if practical men determine the issue than if such matters are left to lawyers. I disagree with the view of several honorable members opposite that the relief granted by this measure, which is approximately £445,000, will be enjoyed principally by moneyed men. In my opinion the concessions will benefit a large’ number of people. They will even be advantageous to the worker, for they will make available for productive purposes money which would otherwise be spent in taxation. While it is true that many people are forsaking the pastoral industry, quite a number of our young men are taking it up. Only last week two young fellows of my acquaintance left for Western Australia to settle on a big undeveloped grazing property many miles from the railhead. They will be pioneers in every sense of the word. It is interesting to note that» while this Government is proposing to grant a reduction of 10 per cent, in land taxation the Labour Premier of Victoria (Mr. Hogan) is increasing the tax by a similar percentage. This shows that the people will appreciate all the relief that we can grant them. I appreciate fully the decision of the Government to abolish the unfair system of dating increased values back over two or three years. The Labour party’s reason for opposing the 10 per cent, reduction is on the ground that State governments cannot impose- land taxation because the upper houses in the State Parliaments will not agree to it ; but I am of the opinion that whenever a good case can be made out the State upper houses may be relied upon to do the fair thing in the interests of their States. I approve of the concessions which have been granted by this measure. It is not a fair thing that persons who object to the decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation should be compelled to fight the matter out in ‘court.

Many taxpayers have made complaints to me, but when I have advised them to take the matter into court they have said that they would not do so, for it might cost them two or three times the amount involved, to obtain a decision. The provisions of this bill will bring more equity into our taxation methods.

Mr BAYLEY:
Oxley

.- I congratulate the Government upon the introduction of this bill, but I regret that it is not altogether evacuating this field of taxation. The sooner it does so the better, in my opinion. The policy of taxing land is unsound. An axiom of taxation is that a person shall contribute to the expenses of government according to his ability to do so. Land tax is levied on the value of the land, regardless of the return that is obtained from it, which is unfair. Income taxation is a much fairer method of obtaining revenue from the country. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton), the Deputy Leader (Mr. Scullin), and the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore), all gave reasons why the Government should continue to impose land taxation. The honorable member for Dalley mentioned four specific objects which the Labour party had in view when it introduced the first Land Tax Assessment Bill into this Parliament. They were: first, to prevent land monopoly ; secondly, to break up large estates; thirdly, to secure to the Government a, certain part of the unearned increment in the value of the land in consequence of the expenditure of public money in constructing roads and railways and other developmental works; and, fourthly, to obtain revenue. I do not desire to discuss the constitutional aspect of the subject at length, but I submit that it was never intended that the Commonwealth Government should enter this field of taxation. In a time of emergency, such as of war, it is justifiable for a government to obtain revenue by any means which are fair to all concerned. The State Governments could impose a land tax which could be just as effective in preventing land monopoly as any such tax which the Commonwealth might impose. One serious complaint that I- have against land taxation is that it gives no consideration whatever to the man who is putting his land to the best. use. He is charged on the capital value of the land, and not upon its earning power. What has this Parliament done to improve the land values of Australia? We legislate for the welfare of the people :’.3 a whole. Certain powers were delegated to us by the States, but land development was not one of them.

Mr Duncan-Hughes:

– The Commonwealth Government intends to take the unearned increment with respect to the land in the Federal Capital Territory.

Mr BAYLEY:

– That is so, and also with respect to the Northern Territory. We should be well advised to leave the power to control land settlement and development in the hands of the States. I hope that this measure is only the forerunner of the good things to come from this Government, and that the 10 per cent, reduction now forecast will soon be followed by an entire vacation of the field of land taxation.

Debate adjourned.

page 2800

WATERFRONT DISPUTE

End of Waterside Workers’" Strike

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

– (By leave) - I desire to make a short statement in regard to the industrial troubles along the waterfront. I have received advice during the day from both Melbourne and Sydney from which it would appear that it is practically certain that the industrial trouble which has existed on the waterfront between the waterside workers and the shipowners has reached a satisfactory solution.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear!

Mr BRUCE:

– Both parties came before his Honour Judge Beeby, this morning, and I understand the court was in possession of a written undertaking by the committee of management of the Waterside Workers’ Federation that it would wire to all its branches in these terms -

The committee advises you that the overtime embargo is declared off and instructs you to resume on conditions of existing awards

The court, I am informed, was also in possession of a resolution by the committee of management that it would advise its branches to carry out the existing awards and agreements, and that it also would undertake to exercise all its powers to enforce strict compliance on the part of the members of the organization with any future awards made by the court or any agreement arrived at from time to time. Upon the basis of that undertaking the judge thenmade an interim award for three months which provides that the time and places of picking. up shall be those prevailing in the different ports on the 10th January, 1927, which was the date on which the court commenced the hearing of the men’s plaint. This award has been made without prejudice to the rights of either party. No date has been fixed for the hearing of the plaint, but I understand that it will be heard within a few days. I received other information from both Melbourne and Sydney, which appears to indicate quite definitely that the trouble will be over to-day, and that work will be resumed to-morrow morning. I am sure that to all honorable members this information will be of the most gratifying character. Last week, we had a discussion in this House upon the trouble which had arisen, and while in the heat of debate some members may have expressed strong views, I think that the desire of all of us was to see that we did not in any way prejudice the situation. We were merely trying to carry out what we thought was an obligation of this Parliament. The present indications are that it will be unnecessary for any action to be taken to safeguard the interests of the people, that wise counsels have prevailed, and that happily the whole trouble will disappear and that Australia will be able to resume the normal course of its industrial activities.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- (By leave). - The information which the Prime Minister has conveyed to the House is very satisfactory. Nobody could be more pleased than I am to hear of the possible early termination of the dispute that has been in progress during the last two or three weeks. The settlement shows that, after all, instead of rushing into industrial trouble, it is better to call the parties together, so that a conference can be held or some conciliatory action taken whereby their dif ferences can be adjusted. I think that the debate in the House has not done harm, but rather some good, since it focussed public attention upon the matter and upon the desirability of reaching a settlement. It was also of indirect assistance to the parties who have since met and as a result of negotiations extending over two or three days, have settled their differences. Although we are not in possession of full particulars regarding what occurred at the conference, or the names of those who took part in it, I think that credit is due, not only to the court, but also to the disputes committee in Victoria, which took up this matter. This committee, although it was not a party to the dispute, and is one which is often much abused, got into communication with the contending parties and also with the court, and did its best to bring about a satisfactory result. It is most pleasing to know that its efforts were successful.

Sitting suspended from 6.23 to 7.30 p.m.

page 2801

– I brought no charge against the department for not appealing against the decision of the court. I merely discussed and criticized the judgment itself. I. agree that legally there could be no appeal.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– We were forced to fight many cases to make certain that we were able to collect this tax. Since the 30th June, 1927, as the result of the application of the new system of valuation, the deductions from the original assessments have amounted to £152,000.

I wish now to deal at some length with the land tax itself, because the Opposition has suggested that the Government should not under any circumstances reduce that tax. The honorable member for Yarra said that there were two specific reasons for the tax, first, to break down large estates; and, secondly, to ensure that the unearned increment would return, in some degree, to the people of this country. The Government does not hold that view in regard to Federal Land Tax. We look upon it more as a means of obtaining revenue, and . although, incidentally, it may have brought about .a certain amount of subdivision, the Government considers that, as a means of subdivision, it is probably the crudest instrument ever devised in the history of mankind. The tax has to be paid out of income, so that it becomes a tax on income measured by relation to land value. From that point of view I wish to examine it, because I do not think it can be successfully contended that the land tax was originally imposed for the purpose of raising revenue. In .1911-12, the year in which it was first brought into operation there was a surplus in the Commonwealth Treasury of £1,890,000.

The land tax returned £1,390,000, so that the actual surplus over and above the land tax was £500,000, compared with which our recent surpluses - considered in relation to total expenditure - shrink into insignificance. As a. revenue raising medium the Labour party has never regarded the land tax seriously. It has been regarded as an instrument of subdivision, and as such this Government considers it most clumsy, inefficient, inequitable, and almost useless. An analysis of the land tax returns shows that the bulk of the money is derived from the cities and towns. For instance, in 1911-12, £525,455 was obtained from the towns and £919,805, or 64 per cent., from the country. In 1912-13, £575,871, or 39 per cent., was collected in the towns, and £S84,092, or 61 per cent., in the country ; in 1913-14, £605,933, or 40 per cent., in the towns and £899,S70, or 60 per cent., in the country. In the next few years the figures were disturbed because of the interposition of tax on Grown leaseholds, which brought the receipts from the country back to the earlier proportions, but by 1920-21, notwithstanding that the leasehold tax was still included in the total returns, the towns, were returning 42 per cent, and the country 58 pei1 cent, of the total tax. In 1921-22, the towns returned 45 per cent, and the country 55 per cent., in 1922-23 the towns 46 per cent, and the country 54 per cent. In 1923-24, when the tax upon leaseholds was remitted, the towns yielded 51 per cent., or £1,042,000, as against 49 per cent., or £999,272, from the country. In 1924-25, the latest year for which I have been able to have the returns analyzed, not less than 55 per cent, of the total tax came from the towns and only 45 per cent, from the country. So that more than half of the revenue yielded by this tax, which was imposed largely for the purposes of sub-division, is derived from town and city lands. Whatever else may be said of the tax it is obvious that it will not bring about any further sub-division. Everybody will admit that it operates to the detriment of industry. If a factory occupies a piece of land worth £10,000 and because of the need for doubling the size of the works the company finds it necessary to buy another piece of land along- side at a cost of £10,000, because of” the graduation and cumulative effect, of the tax, the company will pay in respect of the first block of land double theprevious tax. The tax on the second, piece of land also will be doubled, so that the enterprise will have to pay four timesas much tax as it did before the necessity for extending its operations arose. That, instance “ indicates very clearly that this tax really penalizes city industries. That is something we donot desire. .We are all anxious to see these industries expand, because asour total production from primary and secondary industries is increased our chance of correcting the adversetrade balance will be greatly improved.

I turn now to the manner in which the tax operates. Section 99 of the Constitution provides -

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof.

It is constitutionally impossible for a Commonwealth tax to discriminate bet./een city and country lands. In any one State certain areas, by reason of quality of soil, situation, proximity to railways and ports, rainfall, &c, are much better suited for closer settlement than are others. But the federal land tax is an instrument which operates against the just and the unjust alike. It is impossible to discriminate between lands for any of those reasons; but the tax tends to break up the huge areas outback which are held in the only way in which they can return satisfactory rents to the Crown and produce income taxation. At the same time, it penalizes the highly developed areas close to the coast. The various State parliaments have recognized the necessity for discriminating between different areas; In New South Wales, Mr Loughlin, a member of Mr. Lang’s Cabinet, introduced to Parliament a measure, the declared object of which was “ to impose a tax for the purpose of promoting agricultural settlement and the subdivision of large estates.” He said definitely that, in his opinion, the land tax was essentially the prerogative of the States, because they could use it not only for taxation purposes, but also for policy purposes in a way not possible to the Federal Parliament. The

New South Wales bill prescribed a minimum taxable value of £10,000. All estates above that amount were to be taxed, but exemption was granted to lands within the western division, lands within the irrigation area - honorable members know how rapidly they acquire value and how few acres are necessary to bring a property under the operation of the federal land tax - Crown lands held for mining purposes, city lands, and land held for agricultural and dairying purposes to a reasonable extent, and lands suitable for grazing only. In addition, deductions of tax were allowed. If in any year a taxpayer put under cultivation a certain specified area he would obtain a deduction of the whole of his tax for the following year. If he put a smaller area under cultivation, the deduction would be proportionately reduced. If in any year a taxpayer sold or leased on share-farming conditions a certain specified percentage of. the land held by him he would obtain a deduction of the whole tax levied in the’ following year. The deduction was also extended to a taxpayer who satisfied an advisory board that he had made a bona fide attempt to sell or lease the specified area. Although it would be competent for a State to make such a law, it is quite beyond the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth Parliament, and, therefore, a federal land tax can be regarded as a very clumsy subdivisional implement. I do not deny that it has accelerated to some extent” the rate of subdivision, but we must not forget that other factors were, and are, operating in the same direction - increasing local taxation, the greater economic use to which lands can be put if subdivided and used for other purposes, and the death of the original holders. A thousand different causes operated to bring about subdivision before the federal land tax was imposed, and will continue to operate for thousands of years after this law has been relegated to oblivion. The Government, therefore, can only regard the land tax as one of the sources of direct revenue, and believes that great harm must result if it is not reduced pari passu with other forms of direct taxation. At the same time we must try to remove anomalies, as this bill proposes to do, and to make its incidence as equitable as possible. In doing so we should have regard to the danger of compelling an undue subdivision of country lands. The Queensland Land Settlement Advisory Board brought out - that fact very clearly -

But. in seeking to obtain a widespread distribution of pastoral wealth amongst the people of the State, it is necessary to take care lest this dominating’ influence strangle the industry and defeat the purpose it is striving to attain. That must be the result unless the requirements above enumerated are carefully considered. Economics cannot be ignored. The grazing industry, like other industries, must be conducted on a business basis. The undue subdivisionof land would inevitably lead to -

A struggling class of Crown tenants always looking for relief whenever a dry season eventuates. This would cause chaos in land legislation and administration. 2.Difficulties as to finance, holdings being over-capitalized and representing doubtfulsecurity to financial institutions.

The depreciation of the standard of wool, inasmuch as the selectors could not maintain a sufficient number of breeding ewes to permit of culling, or have the necessary capital to obtain good flock rams from time to time.

A decline in wool output, due to the depreciation of fleeces, and shrinkage in revenue all round.

The same report included another paragraph, which I wish to place on record -

A policy of high rents, inevitably, would hinder the development of the Crown lands of the State, and without contiuued development the Government cannot expect increased revenue from the grazing industry. The primary function of the Lands ‘Department is to secure land settlement, and then to administer its lands in such away as will lead to the greatest development and the greatest production of which the lands are capable. The collection of rents should be regarded as a secondary object. The Government cannot have high rents, high taxation, and development as well.

With those concluding words 1 commend the bill to the House and ask honorable members to reject the amendment.

Question - That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question (Mr. Scullin’s amendment) - put. The House divided.

AYES: 32

NOES: 18

Majority . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Progress reported.

In the House:

Message recommending appropriation reported.

Ordered - That the message be taken into consideration forthwith.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message.)

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– I move -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1926.

The necessity for this message is found in the fact that provision is made in the bill for fees to be paid to the Chairman and other officers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In the House

Resolution reported and adopted.

In committee (Consideration resumed).

Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5. (Powers of Assistant Commissioner).

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- I should like to obtain an explanation from the Treasurer in regard to the powers of the assistant commissioner. Is he clear that it will not be possible for the assistant commissioner and the commissioner to give rulings and decisions, both binding, but in conflict one with the other. Paragraph 2 of clause 5 says: -

Where in this act the exercise of any power or function by the commissioner or the operation of any provision of this act, is dependent upon the opinion, belief, or state of mind of the commissioner in relation to any matter, that power or function may be exercised by the assistant commissioner, or that provision may operate, as the case may be, upon the opinion, belief, or state of mind of the assistant commissioner in relation to that matter.

That is not very clear to me, and I am anxious to avoid the position which might arise if two officials with practically co-equal powers give conflicting rulings.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– The wording of this section is practically identical with that in the Income Tax Act, which deals with a similar matter. The powers of the assistant commissioner, although considerably widened by this section, would not enable him to give decisions conflicting with those of the commissioner. The commissioner will have power to review any action, decision, or determination of the second commissioner, just as he may review any action, decision, or determination made by himself. By that means the position is safeguarded. I think the honorable member will see that the system will work quite well in practice.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7. (Taxable values.)

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- I do not propose to raise any objection to this clause as printed. I think it is a vast improvement on what we had before ; but what I am concerned about is the provision at the end of the clause dealing with taxable values. What is value, and how is it arrived at ? We now have a decision by Judge Rich which is in complete conflict with the previous decision of the Full High Court. Judge Rich, interpreting the law in the Jowett appeal case, said -

From a process of ascertaining what the unimproved land as it would be improved under proper conditions, is worth, and deducting the cost of improving it, you cannot find what the unimproved value would fetch.

That is entirely in conflict with the rulings of the Full High Court. Could we not, at the end of this clause, insert paragraphs reading something like this -

The commissioner may ascertain the unimproved value of the land by deducting the value of improvements from the improved value of the land.

Where, in the opinion of the commissioner, the land was suitable for sub-division, its taxable value may be obtained by ascertaining what the land would realize in allotments, less the expenses of the sale.

There is no reason why we should not define the position specifically. Adverse decisions have been given against the Commissioner of Taxation with regard to the value of land that is suitable for subdivision. The commissioner has assessed the value of land for taxation purposes on its value if subdivided, less the cost of subdividing the land, it being in his opinion suitable for subdivision. Such lands were in city areas. Honorable, members know that there is a vast difference between the value of a large estate in the city when it is bought in one piece and when it is purchased after subdivision. I am of the opinion that the commissioner was quite right in declaring that the value of the unimproved value of the land is the value that it would bring if subdivided, less the cost of subdivision, but the court held the reverse opinion. In another case, where it was a matter of purchasing land upon which to build soldiers’ homes under the War Service Homes Abt, and in which the Commonwealth desired to resume at the value of the whole block, the court ruled that the land must be paid for on the value which it would bring if subdivided, less the cost of subdivision. There are two conflicting decisions, both against the Government. If the Treasurer would insert the paragraphs which I have suggested at the end of the clause with which we are dealing it would clarify the position.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– I urge the honorablemember for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) not to press his amendment on this clause. I consider that the right place in which to define unimproved land would be under section 3 of the principal act, which setsout the definitions. Unimproved value is there defined as meaning - the capital sum which the fee-simple of the land might be expected to realize if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that the improvements (if any), thereon or appertaining thereto and made or acquired by the owner or his predecessor in title had not been made.

A similar definition exists in practically all the State acts. If we adopted a fresh definition we should immediately put ourselves out of line with the States. Our policy is to try to have our definitions uniform with State and municipal definitions, to reduce the cost of valuation. Our practice with regard to the City of Sydney has been to accept the municipal valuation as the- official federal valuation. Section 7 of the principal act is being amended by the clause which we are considering, and it seeks to bring the act into line with the accepted practice of the department. It was only when the commission on Crown leaseholds was examining the act that it was discovered that the actual wording of the act was not in consonance with the practice of the department. We are now endeavouring to rectify the anomaly. I urge the honorable member for Yarra to make his suggestion when we reach the end of the bill.

Mr SCULLIN:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I shall postpone my suggestion until that stage?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Marks) during my second-reading speech, addressed a question to mc with regard to the position of a person who had leased or rented a shop. The piece of land on which the shop is erected would be treated as a separate parcel, in terms of paragraph a.

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

.- Though this is perhaps not the most appropriate place for me to make my suggestion, it seems to be the only place in which I can bring under the notice of .hp

Treasurer a matter affecting both improved and unimproved value, and one which has not, so far, had the cognizance pf the commissioner or his department. Recently, Australian pastoralists have sought the aid of scientific investigation for the betterment of their land. So far that betterment has been in the direction of improving the pastures, by top dressing with superphosphates, and by the development of new pasture plants. In some cases that treatment has doubled the carrying capacity of the land. Under the present machinery of the act the pastoralist or grazier who undertakes such work, is unable to deduct the betterment from the improved price of the land brought about by his enterprise, apart from the annual deduction of the cost of the labour employed to effect the improvements. Thus the progressive man creates a higher valuation of his land for taxation purposes, merely for the benefit of the taxing master. I know of some holdings, particularly along the border of South Australia where “light” country capable of carrying half a sheep to the acre has, by concentrated, up-to-dato methods, been so improved that it will now carry two sheep to the acre. I know that it is not possible for the Treasurer to give an undertaking immediately to rectify the anomaly, but I trust that he and the Government will carefully consider the position, and allow the progressive pastoralist, grazier, or dairy farmer a fair and reasonable allowance on the betterment effected by his enterprise.

Mr Scullin:

– Does the honorable member suggest that it should be a deduction from the ascertained unimproved value of the land ?

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

– Th.e definition does not permit the Commissioner or his department to allow such a reduction unless, of course, he is able to give a ruling to that effect.

Mr Scullin:

– In determining the unimproved value of land, it is assumed that no improvements have been made.

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

– That is so. As the act stands, the only allowance that can be made is in respect of the value of the improvements which, of course, include those out of sight, which are often very difficult to value. The lifting of timber out of the soil of Australia has been a herculean task for which our landholders rarely receive sufficient allowance. Graziers, pastoralists and farmers should be given every consideration’ in respect of the expenditure of money to improve their properties. The New Zealand dairy farmers and the small fatteners have been considered in this connexion,: but we are be-* hind the sister domini’on in these matters. I know that in some cases in New Zealand land is fertilized twice annually to improve it. I trust that the Minister will assure the committee that he will introduce an amendment to give effect to my suggstion, or that he will at least inquire whether the existing provisions are sufficiently elastic to allow of this deduction being made.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Land exempted from tax).

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

– I should like to see a new paragraph added to section 13 of th.e. principal act, which this clause amends, to provide for the exemption from taxation of all lands used for agricultural purposes. The speeches delivered on this measure to-day lead me to believe that such an amendment would meet with general approval. The “Treasurer informed us .that the object of this legislation was to break up large estates, and not to obtain revenue. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Theodore) stated that, in his opinion, land tax was being paid on less than 1 per cent of our farm holdings. Consequently, the loss of revenue, through the insertion of an amendment such as I have, suggested would not be great. In order that the Treasurer may have an opportunity to consider this proposal, I move - ‘

That the clause be postponed.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

.- It would be difficult, if” not impossible, in the time at our disposal - to give proper consideration to the effect of the suggested amendment of the honorable member. Is he proposing that land used for only four months of a year, or land turned over once, or land used continuously for agricultural purposes should be exempt ? If the honorable member will allow the clause to pass I will undertake to give full consideration to his proposal, with the object, if the proposal meets with the approval of the Government, of introducing an amendment to the clause in another place.

Mr Prowse:

– I accept the Treasurer’s undertaking, and ask leave to withdraw my motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- The object of this clause is to exempt from taxation -

All land owned by, or in trust for, any club or body of persons, and used primarily and principally for the purposes of athletic sports or exercises (other than horse-racing) and not used for the pecuniary profit of the members of that club or body.

.- In order to clear up the points raised I shall read section 13 of the principal act. It states: -

The following lands shall be exempt from taxation under this act, namely: -

all land owned by a State, or by a municipal, local, or other public authority of a. State;
all land owned by a Savings Bank regu lated by any Stateact;
all land owned by any society registered under a State act relating to friendly societies or trade unions;
all land owned by any building society registered as a building society under any act or State act, not being land of which the society has become owner by foreclosure of a mortgage;
all land owned by or in trust fora charitable or educational institution, if the institution, however formed or constituted, is carried on solely for charitable or educational purposes and not for pecuniary profit;
all land owned by or in trust for a religious society, the proceeds whereof are devoted solely to the support of the aged or infirm clergy or ministers of the society or their wives or widows or children, or to religious charitable or educational purposes;
all land owned by or in trust for any person’ or society and used or occupied by that person or society solely as a site for -
1. 1 ) a place of worship for a reli gious society, or a place of residence for any clergy or minister or order ‘ of a religious society;
2. a charitable or educational institution not carried on for pecuniary profit:
3. a building owned and occupied by a society, club or association not carried on for pecunary profit ; ;
4. a public library, institute, or museum ;
5. a show ground;
6. a public cemetery or public burial ground;
7. 7 ) a public garden, public recreation ground, or public reserve :
8. a public road; or
9. a fire brigade station;

Those are the existing exemptions and it is desired to extend them, for the reason that I gave in my second-reading speech, to tennis, cricket, bowling and golfclubs and certain other sports clubs. The words “ other than horse racing “ are inserted to qualify “ athletic sports or exercises.” The amount involved is only a few hundred pounds. A tax of £100 is a fairly severe one for a club whose grounds are used purely for recreation purposes. It is felt that in the suburban areas around our big cities it would be a pity to enforce the premature subdivision of those large grounds. It is recognized that ultimately they will be purchased and either presented to the public by philanthropic citizens or will be bought up and used for building purposes, but nobody can help regretting that the same care was not exercised in the lay-out of some of our suburban areas as was the case in Melbourne and Adelaide. Therefore, there is little risk of a big loss of revenue. Although it is possible that certain areas are very valuable, I suggest that the committee might accept the clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause10 (Taxpayer to furnish returns).

Mr. DUNCAN-HUGHES (Boothby- [8.59]. - Section 15 of the principal act, as proposed to be amended by clause 10 of the bill will read -

1 ) Forthe purposes ofthe assessment and levy ofland tax, every taxpayer shall in each financial year, in the prescribed manner, and withinthe prescribed time, furnish returns setting forth a full and complete statement of all land owned by him at midnight on the thirtieth day of June then last past…..

In the original section the word “noon” appears. What, is the reason for the alteration from “noon” to “midnight?” Does midnight mean that hour between the 30th June and the 1st July?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– The time suggested was noon on the 30th June; but many transactions take place during the afternoon, and therefore it was considered preferable to fix the hour at midnight, at which time no transactions would take place.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12-

Sections twenty and twenty-one of the principal act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: - “20. - (1) Assessments of land tax shall be made in respect- of triennial periods. “ (4) Whenever there has been a change of ownership of the whole or part of an area of land or of an interest in an area of land, the commissioner may, for the purpose of the assessments of the remaining years comprising the triennial period during which the change of ownership took place, cause the value of the area or interest or of the respective parts into which it has been divided to be altered or increased.

Section proposed to be amended -

– (1. ) The commissioner may al any time make all such alterations in or additions to any assessment as he thinks necessary in order to insure its completeness and accuracy, notwithstanding that land tax may have been paid in respect of the land included in the assessment :
1. For the purposes of this section the commissioner may, inter alia -
1. place on or remove from an assessment the name of any person, or the particulars or valuation of any land, or
2. increase or reduce the assessed value of any land.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– I move -

– In South. Australia they are made for three years ahead.

Mr CHARLTON:

Mr FENTON:

– It is not all right when the Government loses £80,000 a year. We shall give away a very large sum over a number of years, and we are not in a position to afford it. This Government is liberal at the expense of the rank and file. It is continually handing out concessions to the wealthiest people of the land. This is merely one more gift in the long string of gifts given by this Government to the wealthy. If we had the time we could make up a very considerable list of gifts that have been made to the wealthy people of Australia at a time when Australia is distressfully situated. I am not a pessimist, but I object to the distribution of largesse to the wealthy when the burden of it has to be passed on to the already over-burdened rank and file.

Question - That clause 12 as amended stand part of the bill - put. . The Committee divided.

AYES: 36

NOES: 18

Ma jority . . . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 -

Section forty-four of the principal act is repealed and the following sections inserted in its stead: - “44. - (1.) . For the purposes of this Part there shall be such Valuation Boards as the Governor-General determines. 44k. - (1.) A taxpayer who is dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Commissioner under this Act may….. lodge with the Commissioner an objection….. (2.) The Commissioner shall consider the objection and may either disallow it or allow it either wholly or in part. (4.) A taxpayer who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner may…..

in writing, request the Commissioner to treat his objection as an appeal and to forward it to the High Court, or, where the land dealt with in the assessment is situated wholly within one State, to the High Court or the Supreme Court of that State.”

Section proposed to be amended -

Amendment (by Dr . Earle Page) agreed to -

That after the word “ shall “, proposed new section 44k (2), the following words be inserted - “with all reasonable despatch.”

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- I move -

That after the word “ objection “, proposed new section 44k (4) (b), the following words be inserted - “on any grounds stated therein other than those upon which he objects to the value assigned to his land.”

The object of the amendment is to exempt from the appeal to the court all questions which relate to the value of the land. I am agreeable to the appointment of a real valuation board; but I shall vote against the proposal if the taxpayer is to be given the right to go over its head to the court to obtain a review of his valuation. The Treasurer pointed out in his second-reading speech on the bill that the Government, proposed to give special representation to the taxpayers on the board. For example, if the question at issue related to the value of pastoral lands, a person thoroughly experienced in the pastoral industry would represent them; but if it involved the valuation of suburban lands, a person competent to express an opinion on that subject would be appointed. A board so constituted would be valuable; but it would be ridiculous for us to set it up and permit a taxpayer to go over its head to a court to have his valuation reviewed. Judges are trained in law and probably they are impartial in their outlook; but they have given some wretched decisions in matters of valuation. What amazes me is that the Treasurer is disinclined to accept the amendment. If he will not accept it, I shall vote against the whole clause. I do not see why we should go to the expense of establishing the board unless we make it do the work for which it was appointed. If it could be shown that the judges of the High Court or the. Supreme Courts have knowledge of land valuation superior to that of the members of the board, I could understand the objection taken to the amendment. Appeals are made from a lower court to a higher court, because the judges in the court of appeal are supposed to be more highly trained than those presiding over the lower tribunal: but nobody would argue that a judge Could give a better decision than a board of experts on a matter of valuation. We should be throwing money away if, having appointed a Valuation Board, we did not allow it to act as a final board of appeal.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cow per · Treasurer · CP

– I hope that the committee will reject the amendment, because it would seriously limit the rights of the taxpayer. At the present time he has an option. He may have his objection dealt with either by the board or by the court. The amendment seeks to limit him, on all questions of valuation, to appeals to the board, and I do not think that it would be proper to do that. The matter of election should be in the hands of the taxpayer up to the time when he actually elects. When he has once made his election, he is committed to the board as the final arbiter on all matters, except on points of law; but it would be wrong to set up a new board to which he might go, and, at the same time, to take from bini his right to go to the court.

Mr Scullin:

– Only on valuations.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– But the Government desires to give the taxpayer a simple and easy means of appeal.

Mr Foster:

– He will have the right to take the highest experts with him when he goes before the court.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Of course. The amendment would establish, so far as land taxation is concerned, a different procedure from that obtaining in regard to income taxation. It would definitely limit the means that the taxpayer has to secure justice. We should not abridge his existing rights.

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

.- In substance I agree with the contention of the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin). This is a valuation board against the Commissioner’s valuations. Both the taxpayer and the Commissioner will be bound by the decision of the board if the amendment is carried, and then we shall have finality in taxation instead of lengthy litigation before the courts on matters of valuation that can best be dealt with by well-informed men such as those who ought to be appointed to the board. Judges, whose training has meant years of isolation in public schools and universities, and, finally, at the bar and at the courts, are not the best fitted by experience for the essentially practical work of land valuation.

Dr Earle Page:

– Not one request has been received from a taxpayer that his rights should be abridged in this way. On the other hand, the taxpayers, generally, have asked for what the Government proposes to give them. The honorable member for Yarra would force upon them something that they do not desire.

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

If you are selling an hotel or a shop, you :get a certain goodwill value for it. I contend that the man who goes back and develops virgin land, and brings it into a state of productivity, is entitled to some goodwill respecting it. He has helped to create the increased value, and the public is not entitled to take it all. A ;going concern is worth more than one that is closed up. It would be a fair thing if a large percentage were deducted from a valuation for a man’s own right, as having developed the land and increased its value. It is he who, in part at any rate, has created the increased value of the land. The people in the city have done nothing towards it. It is knowledge of this fact that creates a great deal of heartburning, and that leads to many appeals to the court. I would not be satisfied to leave the determination of great issues such as these in the hands of si couple of officials.

Mr HURRY:
Bendigo

.- In reference to the point of view put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), and backed up by the Leader of the Opposition himself (Mr. Charlton), it seems to me that proposed new section 44 k is really for the protection of the taxpayer. 1 do not think we need worry very much about the protection of the Government in this matter, because the Government is very well able to look after itself. Speaking as a practising solicitor, I can say that a taxpayer hesitates a long while before fighting the Government, and it is only on an important principle that he will think of going to the High Court. If the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the assessment he has two choices : he can ask for it to be referred either to the Valuation Board or to the High Court. He need not go to the High Court unless he pleases ; he can have his appeal heard by the Valuation Board, and the decision of that board is final, subject only to an appeal to the High- Court on a question of law. If he desires to go before the board, the procedure is provided for in section 44 l. Section 44 l (7) provides that the commissioner or the taxpayer may appeal from the board’s decision to the High Court if the matter involves a question of law, and then only.

Mr Scullin:

– We want them to confine appeals to the Board, of Valuation.

Mr HURRY:

– I know that the honorable member wants to make the board’s decision final in all cases.

Mr Scullin:

– In all cases of valuation only.

Mr HURRY:

– The taxpayer has the choice whether he will go before the board or the High Court. It seems to me that the section is a well-drawn one, and I shall vote against the amendment. I do not think it is necessary to protect the interests of the Government as it is to protect those of the taxpayer. The whole of section 44 k is to protect the interests of the taxpayer. I think that is all we need really look to in the present instance.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am surprised that the Government does not accept this amendment. I understood that the bill was introduced to simplify the making of appeals, and that taxpayers, instead of having to go to the law courts might have matters settled by experts on a board created for that special purpose. Now, however, we find that instead of setting up a board with final powers, the lawyers want to give the right of going to the High Court, and, I suppose, of going from there to the Privy Council. There must be some finality-. But it is in keeping with the policy of the Government to create an-, other board. It has not created one so far this week, and I suppose it is time that something was done in that direction. Ministers appear to consider that it is time that another board was created. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has put forward a commonsense proposition, which has my support. We contend that the board appointed for this work should be the final court of appeal.

Mr Paterson:

– There cannot be an appeal to the High Court except on a question of law.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I protest against the formation of any more boards, which are a menace to the country.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Boothby

– I was rather surprised te hear the objection of the Leader of the Opposition to the clause as it stands. It seems to be sufficiently probable that a judge would follow the decision of the Valuation Board unless there were very good reason for doing otherwise. The evidence would have been before the Valuation Board, and the judge would naturally start off with a prejudice in favour of what the board had decided. I disagree with the honorable member’s statement that no judge has any knowledge of land values. I know personally that there are some judges who have a very shrewd knowledge of land values. Had the matter merely been one in which it was possible to clearly separate questions of fact from questions of law, it would have been simple, but there are questions of mixed fact and law. Some years ago, in the High Court, following on a decision by the Supreme Court, it was held that the sale value of a property was not neces sarily the value of the land, but that the sale value could be very greatly increased by the terms that were granted in the conditions of sale. In other words, if land is sold for £10 an acre it may be worth only £8, but the conditions of sale which are granted may add to its capital value. I ask honorable members was that decision of the High Court on a question of law, or on a question of fact? Personally, I incline to the view that it was common sense applied to fact. It is obviously desirable that a court like that should decide the point, whether the sale value is the real value, or whether by altering the conditions of sale it may be made an unreal value. I suggest that the matter is not simple. I have no doubt that there are other cases in which law and fact are almost inextricably involved, and it seems to me to be sound that this matter should rest with an ultimate appeal to the High Court. After all, the taxpayer can form a reasonable opinion as to whether it would be wise for him to go on fighting the case.

Mr Charlton:

– That is not what is provided. The appeal may be either to the Valuation Board or the High Court, not to both.

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

– The appeals are only on questions of law. There is no appeal from the valuation.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– A man under the suggested amendment of the honorable member for Yarra cannot have his objection treated as an appeal on the question of valuation. I can see no flaw in my argument. If T am wrong, I hope that I shall be corrected by some honorable member. I suggest that these things are not easy to separate, and it is well that there should be a reference to the High Court just as there is to the other board.

Mr THEODORE:
Dalley

.- The point covered by the amendment seems to me to be perfectly clear. I feel quite sure that the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) is mistaken as to the intention of the amendment. It will not prevent an appeal to the High Court on questions other than valuations, but reserves questions involving valuations for the board that is set up,’ which seems rational. The argument ofthe honorable member for Yarra is that any court of legal jurisdiction is not necessarily the best authority to settle questions of valuation, and may often be the least desirable to go into such matters. Valuation must be left to experts.No doubt the Valuation Board would be selected because of the special knowledge of its members. Possibly the personnel would be a movable one. If the board were considering the valuation of country lands or city lands its personnel could be adjusted accordingly. As provision is made in. the new clause for the making of valuations on those terms, the honorable member for Yarra proposes that in paragraph b of this sub-clause, where the taxpayer is satisfied, he may request the Commissioner to treat his appeal as an appeal to the High Court, but only on matters other than those relating to valuation. That appears to be reasonable, and will inflict no hardship on the taxpayer.

Mr.RODGERS (Wannon) [10.59].- It appears to me that the Government has altogether overlooked the fact that it remodelled the whole provisions of the previous bill, and substituted section 44, which contains the procedure for appeal. It has clothed and furnished the valuation board with ample authority, provided deliberately for its constitution, and has gone to no end of trouble to perfect the new system - and then it deliberately . gives the taxpayer the right to avoid that board altogether. The giving of this choice will mean thatwe shall get nowhere. I submit that ample machinery is provided to protect the legal rights of both the Commissioner and the land-holder, for either party would be able to appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court on any question excepting that of valuation. I should be the last to take from a citizen the right of appeal on a question of law to the highest tribunal in the land; but it would be folly for us to set up this . expert valuation board and then permit a taxpayer or the Commissioner to go over its head to a court. The honorable member for Boothby said that the court would probably accept the valuation of the board ; but I point out that the case would go to the court without being submitted to the board. Seeing that the board will have as its chairman a gentleman who would give his whole time to the work, and as its other members would be thoroughly competent valuers, we should not permit either party to disregard it. It should be the final authority on all questions of valuation.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted (Mr. Scullin’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided:

Ayes . . . . . . 19

Noes . . . . . . 28

Majority . . 9

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Progress reported.

page 2823

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) agreed to -

That the House at its rising adjourn until 11 a.m. to-morrow.

House adjourned at 11.13 p.m.’

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 December 1927, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1927/19271207_reps_10_117/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 7 December 1927

QUESTION

CHRISTMASRAILWAY PASSES FOR PARLIAMENTARY OFFICIALS

Mr PARSONS:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

EXHIBITION OF TABLE

Mr E RILEY:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

IRON AND STEEL DUTIES

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

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

PORT AUGUSTA TO RED HILL RAILWAY

Mr LACEY:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BRUCE:Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

WELFARE OF ABORIGINES

Mr COLEMAN:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:NAT

Mr PARSONS:

Mr MARR:Minister of Home and Territories · PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr YATES:ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr MARR:

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION COMMISSION

Mr A GREEN:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

CENTRAL AUSTRALIA AND NORTH AUSTRALIA

Mr JACKSON:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr MARR:NAT

QUESTION

COMMISSIONER TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Mr FENTON:MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL COMMISSION

Mr GREGORY:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MARR:NAT

QUESTION

RAILS

Mr GREGORY:

Mr HILL:Minister for Works and Railways · ECHUCA, VICTORIA · CP

CANBERRA

Christmas Leave

Mr CHARLTON:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:NAT

TIMBER IMPORTATIONS

Mr FORDE:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

QUESTION

PASSPORTS

Mr CHARLTON:

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

DAIRYING AND BUTTER INDUSTRIES

Mr FORDE:

Mr PATERSON:Minister for Markets and Migration · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Mr SCULLIN:YARRA, VICTORIA

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:Honorary Minister · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

MRS. LANE POOLE

Mr MARR:NAT

IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS BOUNTY BILL

Second Reading

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr McGrath:

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Second Reading

Mr SCULLIN:Yarra

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

House of Representatives
7 December 1927

Mr PARSONS:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr LACEY:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr COLEMAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr MARR:
Minister of Home and Territories · PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr YATES:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr JACKSON:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr MARR:
NAT

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MARR:
NAT

Mr HILL:
Minister for Works and Railways · ECHUCA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for Markets and Migration · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

Mr SCULLIN:
YARRA, VICTORIA

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
Honorary Minister · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr MARR:
NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

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

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

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr SCULLIN:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

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

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

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