House of Representatives
20 March 1930

12th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 12th Parliament
  3. 1930

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Norman Makin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and offered prayers.

page 311

QUESTION

WINE EXCISE DUTY

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I have received from the Beelbangera Vine Growers Cooperative Society the following telegram. -

Owing to duty import on spirit our finance withheld and Beelbangera winery compelled to close. This means starvation to hundreds of growers and ruination whole irrigation area.

In view of the serious position which has developed in the Beelbangera area, will the Prime Minister inquire what steps should be taken to enable the vine-growers to secure a market for their fruit this season ?

Mr SCULLIN:
Minister for External Affairs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– Representatives of the industry are at present in Canberra to discuss the matter with the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs.

page 311

CENTRAL AUSTRALIA

Development Scheme

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I call the attention of the Prime Minister to the following cablegram, published in the Melbourne Herald: -

page 311

CENTRAL AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY SCHEME

Woman Plans Formation of Development Company

London, March 12

Callers on Mr. J. E. Fenton, Australian Minister for Trade and Customs, at Australia House, included Miss F. M. Studholme, a New Zealander, who is forming the Central Australian Development Company, which plans to build a trans-Australian railway from Peak Hill, West Australia, to Longreach (Queensland), through Alice Springs.

She sought concessions from the Federal Government, including duty-free entry of all materials for at least five years.

Has the right honorable gentleman received any information regarding this project from the Minister for Trade and Customs?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– No.

page 311

QUESTION

SOUTH BRISBANE TO KYOGLE RAILWAY

Mr BAYLEY:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Works and Railways make a statement to the House at an early date regarding the progress of the construction of the South Brisbane to Kyogle railway?

Mr LYONS:
Minister for Works and Railways · WILMOT, TASMANIA · ALP

– I shall obtain the latest information on the subject and make it available at an early date.

page 311

NEWSPAPER CRITICISM

Mr.CUSACK- Is the Treasurer aware that the few words he is alleged to have uttered to the effect that the coalmines would be re-opened within fourteen days of a Labour Government taking office in the Commonwealth, has formed the text of newspaper commentators, and has reached a stupendous degree of in flation? In order to provide sterile and hostile journalistic expositors with new subject-matter will the honorable gentle man emulate the last Prime Minister and promise to the people £40,000,000 for home building?

Mr THEODORE:
Treasurer · DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The suggestion will receive consideration.

page 311

QUESTION

REPATRIATION APPEALS

Formal Motion fob Adjournment.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Norman Makin:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I have received from the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) an intimation that he proposes to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., “The practice of the Repatriation Commission in impeding the hearing of appeals against the decisions of the commission.”

Five honorable members having risen in their places,

Question proposed.

Mr E GREEN:
Richmond

.- As a result of complaints throughout Australia by ex-members of the Australian Imperial Force regarding the callousness and lack of consideration shown by the Repatriation Commission, the last Government introduced a bill for the establishment of two appeal tribunals. The measure was passed with the full concurrence of all honorable members, who

Bought to make it an effective instrument to ensure that returned soldiers would receive that fair and reasonable treatment which had been withheld by the Repatriation Commission. The act sets out clearly the intention of the Parliament. It provides for the appointment of a board independent ofthe Government and the commission, to which appeals may bemade from any deoision of the commission. It states what classes of persons may appeal, and specifies the time during which appeals may be made, and the procedure to be followed. Section 45, sub-section 2, reads -

The person with whoman appeal is lodged under thelastpreceding section shall forward theappealtothecommission,whichshall transmit it to the Appeal Tribunal with the records in the possession of the commission relating to the appellant.

The soldier makes his appeal on the prescribed Form TA, and sends it to the prescribed authority, who is the Deputy Commissioner of Repatriation in the capital city of the State in which the appellant resides. The Deputy Commissioner is thereupon required by the act to forward the appeal to the commission, which shall attach thereto the relevant files, and forward it to the appeal tribunal. The procedure for dealing with an appeal is set out in the act in the following manner : - 45w. -1. As soon an conveniently practicable alter the receipt of an Appeal Tribunal or by an Assessment Appeal Tribunal of an appeal and the records relating to the appellant, the chairman of the Tribunal shall fix a time and place for the consideration of the appeal andshall notify the appellant and the commission thereof.

  1. Subject to this act, an Appeal Tribunal and an Assessment Appeal Tribunal shall not, in the hearing of appeals, be bound by any rules of evidence but shall act according to substantial justice and the meritofthe case and shall give to an appellant the benefit of the doubt.

Provided, too, that if the appellant or a representative of the appellant shall make outa prima facie case in support of his claim that the incapacity from which he is suffering or from which he has died was caused or aggravated by war service, the onus of proof that such incapacitywas not in fact so caused or aggravated shall lie with the commission.

That means that theappellant, after having gone through the usual procedure, and having had his appeal brought before the appeal tribunal, has to make out a prima facie case on the grounds of the appeal set out on form T.A. Sub-sections 4 and 5 of this form specify the following particulars which must be supplied by the appellant : -

  1. Nature of disability whichI claim to be result of war service and which claim has been rejected by the Repatriation Commission (if more than one disability specify each distinctly).
  2. Grounds of appeal . . .

The act lays it down quite clearly that the commission itself must do certain things, and the prescribed authority - in this case the Deputy Commissioner for the State - must also do certain things.I propose to inform the House how the Repatriation Commission, through its Deputy Commissioner in New South Wales, has materially departed from the provisions of the act. Instead of referring appeals to the tribunal as provided for in the act, he has taken it upon himself to say whether or not theex-soldierhas a right of appeal. That is absolutely contrary to the intention of the act, and of Parliament when the act was passed last year.I have heard, although I haveno actual proof to place before the Minister, that this has developed into a practice in the Repatriation Department, at least in New South Wales. It may also be a practice in the other States, although on that point I have no information. It is likely however that the same procedureis followed in all States, because the officers in the various states act on the policy laid down by the commission itself. Therefore the commission must accept its share of the blame. As a result of this practice ex-soldiers who thought they had a right of appeal have been fobbed off because the officer of the Repatriation Commission has not been doing his job. I regret that this has happened in my own case, but I am citing it now merely as an example. I sent in my notification of appeal to the prescribed authority, and on the prescribed form T.A. The notification was sent to the Deputy Commissioner for Repatriation, Sydney. I set out a claim in respect of a war service injury, and furnished the other particulars required. I also set down the grounds of appeal. I complied with all the requirements of the act, and having sent in the notification the duty then developed upon me of making out a prima facie case before the appeal tribunal. The onus of doing this was on me; the onus of disproving my case was on the commission. In answer to my notificationI received the following reply from the Deputy Commissioner : -

Ienclose herewith theForm “ T.A.” completed by you on the 7th March, 1930, and desire to point out that the Repatriation Commission does not consider that the trouble in your amputation stump is caused by the nasal sinusitis.

I maintain that it is my responsibility to establish a prima facie case before the appeal tribunal. It is not forthe Repatriation Commission, against whose decision I am appealing, to tell me that it doesnot consider that I have a right of appeal. That has nothing whatever to do with the commission. The Deputy Commissioner’s letter continues -

The “ pain “ which you suffer in the stump is attributable to your war service and, therefore, you have no right of appeal to the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal in respect of that disability.

I claimed in respect of that disability because both at theRandwick Hospital and subsequently, the authorities denied that the pain I suffered in my amputation stump was the result of war service. The intention of the act and of this Parliament is being defeated by the commission by its bundling of these cases. The commission is hampering ex-soldiers in their efforts to appeal against the decisions of the commission.

Mr Coleman:

– Did the commission give any reason for its action?

Mr B GREEN:

– I have read practically the whole of the letter I received, and no other reason was given but that which honorable members have heard.

Mr McGrath:

– What pension does the honorable member receive now?

Mr B GREEN:

– Ithas been suggested that if an ex-member of the Australian Imperial Force is in receipt of the full pension, he has no right of appeal to an appeal tribunal. Many honorable members seem to hold that view. I do not agree with that contention. Although a man may be in receipt of a full pension, he may also be suffering from a disability which the commission will not recognize as a war disability, for which he may require medical treatment. In such case it would be necessary for him to appeal to the board.If he is there able to establish his claim that that particular disability is due to, or aggravated by, his war service, he will become entitled to free hospital and medical treatment. If he is not able to substantiate his claims, he will be obliged to pay for any such treatment out of his own pocket. It will be apparent, therefore, that all the needs of the case are not met by the receiving of a full pension. To reply specifically to the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath), I am not in receipt of a full pension-

Mr Yates:

-i suppose the honorable member is receiving a pension at the rate set out in the schedule for the disability from which he is suffering?

Mr B GREEN:

– That is so.

Mr Yates:

– I take it, then, that the honorable member is suffering from some other disability which he regards as a war disability in respect of which he desires treatment.

Mr R GREEN:

– That is so. In my opinion, the Repatriation Commission has exceeded its power, first, by stating that it did not consider that the trouble in respect of which I appealed was “ caused by the nasal sinusitis “, and, secondly, by asking me to alter my plea. I submit that the commission had no right to make that request.

Mr Maxwell:

– The commission seems to be usurping the functions of the Appeal Board.

Mr R GREEN:

– That is sp. At any rate it is acting contrary to the intention of Parliament and the spirit of the act. I suggest to the Minister forRepatriation (Mr. Anstey) that if theRepatriation Commission is guilty of this conduct he should dispossess it of its powers. I have said in this House on other occasions, and I repeat now, that, in my opinion, the commission is grossly incompetent and not fit to discharge the duties that devolve upon it. If the error has been committed by the Deputy Commissioner ofRepatriation for New South Wales, he should be disciplined in some appropriate manner.

Mr ANSTEY:
Minister for Repatriation · Bourke · ALP

– The honorable member forRichmond (Mr. B. Green) has alleged callous and unjust treatment. If evidence is submitted to me which bears out that statement, I shall see that injustice is rectified and callousness penalized.

The appeal boards were established with the specific object of reviewing the matters submitted to them, and they are entirely independent of the commission in respect of emoluments, security of tenure, and otherwise. Every soldier who considers that he has been unfairly treated in respect of what he claims to be a war disability or a disability aggravated by the war is entitled to appeal to a board, and that right cannot be denied him. The Repatriation Commission has no more to do with the appeal boards than the man in the moon. It has no right of intervention in any shape or form. The appeal boards were established in order to give every ex-soldier the right to appeal against the decisions of the commission. The Deputy-Commissioners for Repatriation were made the agents of the appeal boards in each State. It is their duty as such to receive appeals and forward them, together with all accompanying documents, to the tribunals. Parliament might just as well have declared that some other public servant, or some person outside of the service, should act as the intermediary between the soldiers and the appeal boards. At any rate, it is clear that the Deputy-Commissioners of Repatriation are the agents of the boards, irrespective altogether of their association with the Repatriation Commission.

I know nothing of the circumstances of the case submitted by the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green), and consequently it would be wrong for me to condemn or to uphold anything that has been done. If wrong has been done, steps will be taken to correct it. If the Deputy-Commissioner of Repatriation in New South Wales has failed in, or overstepped, his duty, we shall take steps to see that it is not done again.

Mr YATES:
Adelaide

.- I voted for the establishment of these appeal boards, not because I thought that they should have the final word in regard to the treatment of ex-soldiers, but because the returned soldiers’ organizations of Australia had requested that they should be set up. The previous Government was almost forced to establish them by pressure from the returned soldiers’ organizations. To some extent it had a political end to serve in setting them up. If my speeches on this subject are read, it. will be seen that I favour doing anything possible to succour those who have suffered in consequence of their war service. The honorable member for Richmond is able to carry his case further than most returned men could carry theirs by virtue of his membership of this Parliament. Relatively few ex-service men are able to get the ear of a sympathetic member of Parliament or a prominent citizen to take up the cudgels for them. I hope that the time will never come when exservice men, who consider that they have been unjustly treated, will be unable to get their complaints investigated. When the first bill dealing with the repatriation of our soldiers was under the consideration of this Parliament in Melbourne, I said, in the course of a speech, that I hoped that the day would never come when we should find Australian exsoldiers standing in the streets, as British ex-soldiers have had to do in years gone by, declaring that they were injured during a particular war, and that they needed alms. I said that the nation should be not only just but. generous in dealing with her citizens who had risked their lives in her cause on a field of battle. Such men should not have to rely upon the charity of their fellows. I made those remarks before I became a soldier, and I stand by them now. So long as I occupy a public position I shall raise my voice on behalf of ex-service men who consider that they are suffering from some disability which may or may not have been caused by their war experiences. When a man has risked his life for his country he deserves every assistance that his country can give him, and he certainly should be succoured in his time of need. Many Australians enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force in the heyday of their youth, and sacrificed their health in their country’s cause. They had not to go to France to do that. The conditions under which they were obliged to live in camp in Australia - many of them had to sleep in sheds and under deplorable conditions - were sufficient to undermine their constitution. In after years they will suffer because they volunteered to fight for their country. I cannot blot out from my memory the lavish promises that were made to them at the time of their enlistment and the pedestal on which they, as patriots, were placed. Now, periodically, cases like that which the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) has mentioned are brought forward. Unfortunately it is the poor soldier who is down and out who has no avenue whereby to bring his case before the House. I mentioned one case yesterday. I now. ask the Minister to produce the file in respect of ‘that case because the man concerned, although receiving a full pension for a time, was induced by the department to apply for an invalid pension. Like others, this man did what he was instructed to do, and was declared by the department to be no longer entitled to a war pension. He received an invalid pension which was totally insufficient to enable him to keep his wife and children. He did a little work and thereupon lost that, pension. Now his appeal to the Appeal Board has been turned down. We have no right to delegate responsibility in this matter to any individual; it should rest solely upon this Parliament and this nation. We should be generous to those returned soldiers who are partially incapacitated. This is a declining responsibility, because these men are dying gradually, and will die quickly notwithstanding what the medical profession may say to .the contrary. I hope to live to be 100 years of age, but my health is not indicative of that of many of those who also suffered privation in camp or on the field of battle and who had not the constitution to withstand the rigours of camp life. Most of these men will break up when they are between 40 and 50 years of age. The worst case is that of the tubercular man, and I do not think that he should be subjected to the third degree when he applies for a mere pittance to enable him to live in some degree of comfort for the few remaining years of bis life. At the time of enlistment our soldiers were the fittest men of the nation. They had to be fit to stand the rigours of war. Had they not enlisted for the war they would have been physically fit and it could be presumed that they would have been able to earn at least the basic wage. Their service to the country robbed many ofthat opportunity. The full pension is paid only to blind and totally and permanently incapacitated men. Who will employ a man who is 50 per cent., or even 25 per cent., deficient? In these days of competition no business firm can afford to employ a partially incapacitated man. “ The Commonwealthitself has no section of activities set apart for maimed soldiers. These men are glibly told that they cannot receive a pension because they can do light work. Does not every one want a light job? Only fools work hard when there is a light job offering. Who would employ these men? They are returned soldiers, and their sickness and incapacity are not of their own making. I know what the conditions at the front were. The war was no joy stunt at any stage Many men are suffering from their war experiences. Their health may be affected, or their nerves demoralised, and yet. we talk glibly of referring their cases to an appeal board, and a scale is fixed for assessing the compensation for the loss of an eye or a limb. No account is taken of the excruciating pain that the ex-soldier suffers for the rest of his life. Many of these men have to feed themselves, tie their boot laces, in fact, do everything with one hand. On one occasion the honorable member for Fremantle asked me to assess the pension for the loss of one arm. I replied by asking him “What will you let me shoot off your arm for?” The reply was “Not for all the tea in China.” No man would allow his eye to be gouged out or his arm shot off no matter what compensation was offered. I express regret at this stage that there is no opportunity for this Parliament to1 alter the law in order to do justice to maimed soldiers. Interest at 6 per cent, on £7,400,000 is paid on war loan bonds, and yet all the returned soldier gets is the right of appeal to the Appeal Board.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr YATES:

– I have finished my remarks.

Mr D CAMERON:
Brisbane

– I listened with interest and great astonishment to the honorable member for

Richmond (Mr. R. Green). The Minister’s reply was an absolute and definite statement of the intention of Parliament when it approved of the appeal system in regard to war pensions. I do not know -whether the honorable member for Richmond has brought up the only case of its kind ; I think he said that there were a number of others. Personally I cannot recall any similar case. There have been complaints about delay in the hearing of cases before the various entitlement and assessment tribunals, and honorable members will recollect that the possibility of that was mentioned when the proposed legislation was before Parliament. The Minister in charge of the measure then said that if there should be delays that would bc a ground for the appointment of other tribunals. I cannot recall any instance similar to that raised by the honorable member for Richmond, of an officer of the Repatriation Commission taking upon himself the responsibility of refusing to allow an appeal to any of these various tribunals. To do that would be to disregard altogether the object of the appeal system. T am sure that what has happened in this case was a mistake, and that the letter read by the honorable member for Richmond should never have been sent. The Minister’s definite statement his afternoon should make that quite clear. After all, if the Repatriation Commission were to refuse to allow an appeal from its decisions on applications for pensions, what would be the use of the system of appeal? It was repeatedly said in this House during the debate on the amending measure which introduced the appeal system that the tribunals, and particularly the entitlement tribunals, would be responsible to this Parliament alone, through the Minister, I- do not think that there will be any further doubt, after the Minister’s remarks as to the Repatriation Commission’s responsibility in connexion with our war pensions appeal system.

Mr ELDRIDGE:
Martin

.- The subject under discussion is of considerable importance, and I wish to associate myself with the views expressed bv the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Yates). The position with which we are faced is that in many matters of this kind commissions that have been ap pointed for certain purposes have failed in their duties. The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) established a case against a body known as the Repatriation Commission. I have absolute confidence in the accuracy of his statement, and his case is against, not the Repatriation Commission, but the Repudiation Commission. I am quite sure that the Minister in charge will give this matter careful attention, and, as suggested by the honorable member for Adelaide, make an exhaustive examination to ascertain whether there have been any other attempts by the commission to violate the laws of this community.

Mr MARKS:
Wentworth

.- I listened with very great interest to the case that was presented to the House by the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green), and was disagreeably impressed by it. I trust that there are not other similar cases. The object which this House had in view when it passed the act was to give every ‘ digger, irrespective of the merits of his case, the right to have it heard by a final board of appeal. It is not competent for the Repatriation Commission to decide the merits of any appeal. Perhaps the publicity that will be given to the matter by this motion will bring to light other similar cases that will induce the Minister in charge of repatriation to make available to the diggers a further opportunity to reach the. boards of appeal. I should be sorry, however, to think that there are other such cases. The letter to which reference has been made may have been dictated, not by the Deputy Commissioner, but by some junior official. It may have been placed before him late in the afternoon, in a pile of other correspondence, and signed by him in a hurry. It certainly has landed the Deputy Commissioner and his staff in a most unenviable position. I have brought thousands of cases before the Deputy Commissioner in New South Wales, and have been accorded nothing but courtesy, kindness, close attention, and despatch. I trust that this is merely a “miss in baulk.” We are indebted to the honorable member for Richmond for having brought the matter forward, so that if any other diggers have had a similar experience they may have the opportunity to place their case before the Minister.

Mr COLEMAN:
Reid

.- Within the limits of this motion it is impossible to review generally the administration of repatriation. But I suggest to the Minister that consideration should be given to the subject-matter of a question that was asked recently in this House, namely, that for the guidance of honorable members and appellants, there should be compiled a compendium of the regulations and rulings that govern the administration of the Repatriation Department. I candidly confess that, although I have handled thousands of pension cases, and I think it will be generally conceded that I have taken an active interest in repatriation matters, I, at times, have to grope in the dark to ascertain the recent rulings and regulations that have altered the principles which guide the repatriation administration.

Mr R Green:

– They are always being altered

Mr COLEMAN:

– I discovered only incidentally to-day that a difficulty, which caused a grievance last year, has recently been overcome. Under a ruling which was given last year, if a disability existed that was not pensionable, there was no power of appeal; in other words although the commission recognized that there was a disability, it said that it was not capable of assessment, and therefore was not pensionable. The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) mentioned a nasal disorder as an illustration. The ruling was that there was no appeal; but I believe that that has now been altered. It is, only fair to ask that everybody concerned shall have the means to ascertain these facts without inconvenience. The Minister would bp then relieved of a tremendous amount of unnecessary work in dealing with correspondence.

The appeal boards have indirectly been criticized. All that I have to say on that aspect of the matter is that if only a quarter of 1 per cent, of the appeals lodged have been successful, the appeal boards have been justified, because soldiers who have been granted pensions as a result of appeals certainly would not have received them had the boards not been created, because their applications had been rejected repeatedly by the Repatriation Commission. I have no wish to criticize the Commission; but I appeal to the Minister to endeavour to extend the scope and authority of the appeal boards and to review the desirability of maintaining an Expensive body consisting of three commissioners. That is a matter which, in the interests of economy, ought to bc reviewed;, and the appeal boards should be given wider powers.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- The House and all returned soldiers are indebted to the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) for having ventilated the extraordinary practice that has developed in the administration of the Repatriation Department in not complying with the requirements of the act relating to appeals by preventing appeals from going on to ‘ the boards. My principal reason for rising, however, was to ask that some effort be made to ascertain in every State whether treatment similar to this has been meted out to any other returned, soldier. Those who are not in this House cannot secure from the Minister a hearing such as that which has been obtained by the honorable member for Richmond. I ask the Minister to call for a report from the Deputy Repatriation Commissioner in each State, and to see that any soldier who has been refused the right of appeal is written to, informed of the position, and invited to lodge an appeal. Many returned soldiers who to-day are suffering disabilities are not in the happy position of being able to place their case before an appeal board in the form in which they would like to have it presented. I had the audacity to suggest that possibly the returned soldiers would find that the appeal boards were not all that they hoped and I advised them not to have anything to do with the proposal, but I supported it because it was desired by the Returned Soldiers and Sailors Imperial League of Australia. I pointed out that, in my opinion, the treatment that they were receiving from the then Minister in charge of repatriation was better than they could possibly hope to receive from any appeal board. If the way to the appeal boards is being blocked by action such as has been described it would be better not to have them. It would be an extraordinary position if the Repatriation Commission could say who should or should not appeal from its decisions. In Queensland I have found the Deputy Commissioner and his officers most helpful and considerate to returned soldiers in the making of their appeals, and also in investigating carefully and fully every claim brought forward. I hope that this is an isolated case. I appreciate the decided manner in which the Minister assured the- House that the practice which has been growing up in New South Wales will be discontinued. I trust that he will continue his investigations in every other State, and that if any returned soldier has been prevented from placing his appeal before either the Assessment Board or the Entitlement Board, he will take steps to have such appeals heard without delay.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 318

QUESTION

DEFENCE OFFICERS’ PENSIONS -NAVAL AND MILITARY COLLEGES

Dr MALONEY:
through Mr. Price

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. How many persons receiving pensions from various governments are employed in the Defence Department, and what governments pay such pensions?
  2. What are the names of the pensioners and the amounts of the salaries paid to them by the Commonwealth?
  3. In view of the great expenditure incurred by the Naval College and the Military College, are there any graduates from such colleges fit mentally and physically to fill the positions of these pensioners employed by the Commonwealth ?
  4. What is the total cost of the Naval College at Jervis Bay to date, and how many cadets have completed their courses there?
  5. What is the total cost of the Military College at Duntroon to date, and how many graduates have completed their courses there?
Mr A GREEN:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. This information is not available, as the department possesses no record of such pensions as those paid under War Pensions Acts No. 21 of 1928, and No. 20 of 1929. To ascertain such information it would be necessary to communicate with all branches of the department in the various States, a course which would involve considerable time, labour and expense. There are, however, 64 Royal Navy pensioners in the Defence Department.

  1. See answers to Nos. 1 and 2. The graduates of the Royal Australian Naval College and the Royal Military College are employed on duties in the Naval and Military Forces respectively for which they were trained at the colleges.
  2. The total maintenance costs of the Royal Australian Naval College to the 30th June, 1929, was £936,728 - £60,000 being provided for 1929-30. Cadets who have completed their courses there number 230.
  3. The total maintenance costs of the Royal Military College to 30th June, 1929, was £887,229- £52,710 being provided for 1929-30. Graduates who have completed their courses there number 330 Australians and 60 New Zealanders.

page 318

QUESTION

MAIL-HANDLING APPLIANCES

GENERAL Post OFFICE, Sydney.

Mr FRANCIS:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. What was the original estimated cost of the installation of mail-handling appliances at the General Post Office, Sydney?
  2. Has the work yet been completed?
  3. What was the total completed cost of the installation?
  4. Is the scheme working satisfactorily?
  5. What main advantages are claimed for the scheme?
  6. Is it saving or expected to save any expense in the handling of mails, and, if so, to what extent?
  7. Does this system involve any principles which are unknown in any other post office in the world?
  8. Who was responsible for the design and its execution?
  9. Was any recognition given to the official or officials who designed the new features of the plant?
Mr LYONS:
ALP

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

  1. The original estimated cost was £41,000; but, largely in consequence of an extension of the equipment, the estimate was increased to £103,500, and the work based on this latter estimate was recommended by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works on the 27th April, 1929.
  2. No. 3 and 4. See answer to No. 2.
  3. To ensure the more expeditious and economical handling of mail matter.
  4. The estimated annual net savings are approximately £2,000.
  5. The machinery incorporates in its design mechanical principles well known, but adapted to the particular needs of a mail-handling ‘ plant, and the system as a whole embodies many features which are not included in mailhandling equipment elsewhere.
  6. The design is the result of the collaboration of a number of officers in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and the Department of Works.
  7. No monetary reward has been given to . any officer.

page 319

QUESTION

SUGAR PRODUCTION

Mr MARTENS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Will he obtain, for the information of the House, a return showing -

The tonnage and the value to the growers of the sugar cane crushed in each mill area in North Queensland north of and including the Lower Burdekin area, the figures for each mill area to be shown separately ?

The total tonnage of sugar cane grown in all mill areas north of and including the Lower Burdekin area, and the total tonnage of cane grown in Queensland south of that district?

The numbers of British farmers and foreign farmers respectively in each sugar mill area north of and including the Lower Burdekin area, the figures for each mill area to be shown separately ?

On the present price of sugar, the amount of money paid in each mill area north of and including the Lower Burdekin area to (i) British growers, and (ii) foreign growers, the figures for each mill area to be shown separately ?

The numbers of (i) British, and (ii) foreign cane-cutters employed in each mill area north of and including the Lower Burdekin area?

The numbers of (i) British, and (ii) foreign field-workers in each mill area north of and including the Lower Burdekin area?

The total amounts paid in wages in each mill area to (i) British, and (ii) foreign cane-cutters or fieldworkers; this information not to include mill-workers?

The rate of increase in each mill area of foreign cane-cutters and fieldworkers during the last ten years, the rate for each year and each mill area to be given separately?

The number of foreigners holding leases in each mill area north of and including the Lower Burdekin area, the conditions under which such leases are held, and the number of foreigners who are partners in such leases ?

Mr FORDE:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Customs · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The information desired is extremely difficult to obtain; but I will have inquiries made with a view to supplying it as far as possible.

page 319

QUESTION

TASMANIAN COMMUNICATIONS

Wireless Telephone

Mr GUY:
BASS, TASMANIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether he will make a statement indicating what progress is being made with the proposal to link up Tasmania with other parts of the Commonwealth by means of wireless telephone ?

Mr LYONS:
ALP

– It is my intentionto take an early opportunity of making a statement to the House regarding this matter.

page 319

QUESTION

LAND SETTLEMENT

Mr MACKAY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is a fact that the Development and Migration Commission most favorably viewed and approved of the scheme of the Queensland Government for the ringbarking of useless timber on Crown leases, for which £200,000 per annum for three years was required to be advanced under the development clauses of the British migration £34,000,000 agreement; and if it is also a fact that the previous Government approved of the advance, with the result that the Queensland Government passed legislation providing for the advances to settlers on easy terms?
  2. If so, in view of the large number of wage-earners who would be provided with work under the scheme, will the Prime Minister state what is the present position, and whether there is any prospect ofthe money being made available?
Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– In accordance with the provisions of the £34,000,000 agreement, all schemes must be approved and accepted by both the British and Commonwealth Governments. The late Government submitted the ring-barking scheme to the British Government as an approved undertaking under the £34,000,000 agreement. In view, however, of the unsatisfactory manner in which the obligations under the agreement relating to satisfactory settlement had been treated by Commonwealth and State Governments, this Government has experienced considerable difficulty even in connexion with this scheme. The ringbarking scheme has formed the subject of many discussions, even as lateas yesterday, between Senator Daly and the British Government representative for migration in Australia (Mr. Crutchley), and this Government has urged favorable consideration on the part of the British Government in view of the value of the scheme from the stand-point of intensive development resulting in increased absorptive capacity.

page 319

QUESTION

COASTAL SURVEYS

Use of H.M.A.S. Moresby

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is the intention of the Government to allow H.M.A.S. Moresby, Australia’s fully-equipped surveying vessel, to remain idle? 2.If so, when is it anticipated that this vessel will be again commissioned?
  2. What action is intended with regard to the employment of this highly-trained Australian personnel whose services would be wasted in other branches of the Navy?
  3. Will the Government consider the employment of this vessel in the mandated Territory of NewGuinea, seeing that Germany previously kept two such vessels there?
  4. Considering the service the Moresby has rendered to the mercantile marine, has any consideration been given to financing the retention of this vessel through channels other than the Defence Department vote?
Mr A GREEN:

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

  1. The trust fund from which this vessel was being maintained is exhausted, and the state of the finances does not admit of further sums being provided at present; therefore the vessel has been paid off.
  2. No date can be stated. Consideration will be given to her recommissioning when funds can be made available.
  3. Some officers will be employed in the Royal Navy surveying service, and others in the general service in H.M.A. ships.
  4. There are no funds available for this purpose.
  5. If any offers to assist in the maintenance of this vessel are received from outside sources they will be carefully considered. None has so far been received.

page 320

QUESTION

NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN

Mr D CAMERON:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

With reference to the resolution passed by this House on the 25th February, 1920, which reads: - “That, in the opinion of this House, a British woman should not lose, or be deemed to lose, her nationality by the mere act of marriage with an alien, but that it should be open to her to make a declaration of alienage “ - will he inform the House how this matter now stands ?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– A conference is now sitting at The Hague to consider the question of the codification of certain subjects of international law, including nationality. As regards the question of nationality of married women the Commonwealth Government advised the Secretary-General of the League of Nations in answer to a questionnaire preparatory to the conference that they would be prepared, subject to the general acceptance of similar provisions, to consider favorably the proposal that a woman marrying a foreigner should not thereby lose her nationality if under her husband’s national law she does not by marriage acquire her husband’s nationality. The Commonwealth Government has since advised the British Government, whose delegates to the conference are also representing the Commonwealth, that they are agreeable to the principle that a woman shall not on marriage lose her nationality or acquire a new nationality without her consent, provided that such a proposal finds general acceptance at the conference.

page 320

QUESTION

ROYAL A USTRALIAN AIR FORCE

New Aircraft

Mr ELDRIDGE:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. How many modern machines are on order for the Royal Australian Air Force?
  2. Will any of them be seaplanes or flyingboats ?
Mr A GREEN:

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

  1. Forty-two, of which 32 are being manufactured in Australia.
  2. No.
Mr ELDRIDGE:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Is he prepared to make a statement us to the Government’s intention in regard to the Air Force?

Mr A GREEN:

– The scrutiny of expenditure of theRoyal Australian Air Force, together with the other arms of the defence services, is at present under consideration, and a statement as to the Government’s intention will be presented to the House when it is completed.

page 320

DUTY ON SPIRITS

Mr.R. GREEN asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Have any requests ever been made for an increase in customs duty on Item 3, Spirits, &c. (Brandy, Whisky, Gin, Liqueurs, &c.)?

If so, when and by whom were such requests made ?

Has the Tariff Board conducted an inquiry into any of these requests?

If so, have these inquiries been concluded and a report made?

If a report has been made, when will it be made available to the House?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The duties were imposed by the Government on its own initiative to restrict importations of brandy, whisky, gin and liqueurs which are considered a luxury, and to encourage development and expansion of these industries in Australia at a time when barley and other grain growers and grapegrowers were endeavouring to create an additional demand for their product, and when we were advised to restrict our importation of luxuries. In the circumstances, the matter was not referred to the Tariff Board. The same action was taken by the Bruce-Page Government in 1929 when they increased duties on spirits without any reference to the Tariff Board.

page 321

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL LEGISLATION

Conference Between Commonwealth and States

Mr MACKAY:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether, in view of the growing importance of industrial legislation, he will consider the advisability of calling a parliamentary conference of representatives of all parties in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and of the States for the purpose of considering the respective industrial powers and relations of the Commonwealth and States, before any referendum is authorized by the Commonwealth Parliament?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– The questions involved have already been fully discussed in the various Parliaments, at Premiers’ Conferences and on other occasions, and the proposals now before the House will provide a further opportunity for an examination of the matter in all its aspects. The need for an early adjustment of the existing unsatisfactory position is pressing, and it is not considered that there is justification for the delay which the course suggested by the honorable member would entail.

page 321

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr ELDRIDGE:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What was the full cost of administering the customs and excise tariff for the year 1928-29?

  2. For the year 1928-29, what was the full cost of collecting: -

    1. the federal income tax;
    2. the federal land tax;
    3. the federal estate duties; and
    4. the entertainment tax?
Mr THEODORE:

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

  1. Approximately £730,000 made up as follows : -
  1. The total cost of the Federal Taxation Department for 1928-29 was approximately £442,000 made up as follows: -

Detailed costs of the collection of each of the direct taxes mentioned are not available.

page 321

QUESTION

CENTRAL SQUARE POST OFFICE. SYDNEY

Mail Clearance

Mr TULLY:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

How many tons of bulk mail are despatched weekly by rail from Central Square post office, Sydney ?

Mr LYONS:
ALP

– Three hundred and eighty tons.

page 321

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK, PERTH

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

With reference to the letting of the contract for the Commonwealth Bank, Perth -

Does the accepted contract price include the piles on which the foundations will rest?

Is any part of the building undertaking omitted from the accepted tender ; if so, what are the items and the estimated cost thereof?

Was any provision made for tenders for prime-cost items?

Has the supply of strong-rooms been allocated to Chubbs, and, if so, why was no opportunity given to other firms to tender?

Will the strong-rooms be of Australian manufacture ?

Has any provision been made or assurance given (i) that Western Australian suppliers will have an opportunity to tender for materials required for the building; and (ii) that, other conditions being equal, the materials will be procured in Western Australia?

Mr THEODORE:
ALP

– The information is being obtained and will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 322

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Control of Canteens

Mr MARKS:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that naval canteens in ships of the Royal Australian Navy are run on the “ Tenant “ system, a system which has been abolished in the Royal Navy and the United States Navy?
  2. Is it a fact that in 1928 the Canteen Board at the Admiralty distributed £11,000 from canteen funds amongst naval charities, and in improving naval recreational facilities?
  3. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Naval Board, in reply to a former request for the abolition of the “ Tenant “ system, granted such request, and stated that the change would be effected in the near future?
  4. Will consideration be given to the adoption in the Royal Australian Navy of the semi-official system of the Royal Navy in place of the present “ Tenant “ system ?
Mr A GREEN:

– The information is being obtained and a reply will be furnished to the honorable member as soon as possible.

page 322

QUESTION

WINE

Excise on Fortifying Spirit - Exports - Bounty.

Mr NAIRN:

asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. What amount of excise revenue has been received on spirit for fortifying Australian wine during each of the last five years?
  2. What quantity of wine was exported from Australia during the year 1928-29?
  3. On what quantity was bounty paid?
Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The amount collected was as under, but drawback was paid on the wine exported under the Bounty Act -

1.-

  1. 1928-29 1,736,787 gallons were Australian produced, and 4,192 gallons were produced of other countries. Total 1,740,979 gallons.
  2. 1,239,879 gallons

page 322

QUESTION

LIGHTHOUSE SERVICE

Light Dues - Cost of Maintenance

Mr B GREEN:

asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. What was the total revenue derived from Commonwealth light dues for the years 1925-26, 1926-27, and 1928-29?
  2. What was the total cost of maintaining the Commonwealth lighthouse service during the same periods ?
Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The information is being obtained.

page 322

QUESTION

MASCOT AERODROME

Inefficientrun-ways.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the run-ways provided at the Mascot aerodrome, New South Wales, have proved inefficient ?
  2. Is it a fact that such inefficient run-ways are fast developing into a menace?
  3. If the facts are as stated, what explanation is there for this faulty construction?
Mr A GREEN:

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

  1. The honorable member apparently refers to a temporary taxi-way recently constructed at Mascot aerodrome to facilitate the moving of the aircraft between the hangars and the landing area. This taxi-way is not used for the landing or taking off of aircraft.

The type of construction adopted, although found in practice to be satisfactory for lighter machines, has proved to be inadequate for the heavy aircraft used on the Sydney-Brisbane air service.

  1. No.
  2. This taxi-way is merely a temporary expedient to facilitate the ground movement of aircraft pending parliamentary approval to a comprehensive scheme for the development of Mascot aerodrome.

The proposals which were referred to the Standing Committee of Public Works, on 18th March, 1929, provided for concrete aprons in front of these hangars. Pending completion of the committee’s investigations it became necessary to provide a temporary taxi-way which will be reinforced in due course.

page 322

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH MILITARY FORCES

Strength

Mr A GREEN:

– On the 19th March the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) asked the following questions, upon notice -

  1. What was the number of(a) officers,

    1. non-commissioned officers, (c) bandsmen, and (d) other ranks, in each infantry battalion of the Commonwealth Military Forces prior to the suspension of compulsory training?

  2. What were the numbers under each of the above headings on the 1st March, . 1930?’

The answers to the honorable member's questions are contained in the following statements : - {: .page-start } page 324 {:#debate-24} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-24-0} #### SHIPPING AND MAIL SUBSIDIES Payments to Burns, Philp and Company. {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
ALP -- On the 12th March the honorable member for Melbourne **(Dr. Maloney)** asked the following questions, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the total sum paid to date to Burns, Philp and Company for subsidies in connexion with the following: - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The New Guinea and Solomon Island groups ? 1. The New Hebrides groups? 2. Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands? 3. Any other service? 1. What were the annual subsidies paid to this company for the last financial year for the same services? I am now in a position to furnish the following reply: - 1. (a) Subsidies are paid to Messrs. Burns, Philp and Company for shipping services to the Pacific Islands, including New Guinea, Papua, Solomon Islands, New Hebrides, Lord Howe Island and Norfolk Island. The total amount of subsidies paid up to 31st December 1929, for these services is £802,738; (b) A contract is also let to the company for a service to North Australia. The total amount paid to date for this service is £46,700. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. A new contract has been arranged with the company for five years, as from 1st April, 1929, for the provision of the services mentioned in (a) above, in connexion with which a subsidy at the rate of £55,000 per annum is being paid. This is the amount payable under the contract last previously in force. The annual subsidy payable in respect of the service mentioned in (b) above is £5,500. This is the amount payable under the contract last previously in force. {: .page-start } page 324 {:#debate-25} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF {:#subdebate-25-0} #### British Government's Objection {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
ALP -- On the 13th March the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. R. Green)** asked me whether I would make available a copy of the representations received through the British Government in regard to increases in the customs tariff. I now lay on the table a copy of a memorandum prepared by the British Board of Trade on the subject. {: .page-start } page 324 {:#debate-26} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-26-0} #### LEAGUE OF NATIONS Report of Australian Delegation to Tenth Assembly. {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP -- I lay on the table the report of the Australian Delegation to the Tenth Assembly of the League of Nations, held at Geneva from 2nd September to 26th September, 1929, and move - >That the paper be printed. The tenth session of the Assembly of the League of Nations, which was held at Geneva last September, marked the first decade of the existence of the League. We may contemplate with satisfaction the first ten years of the activities of the League - for they have been years of steady endeavour, development and achievement. What was once regarded as a Utopian dream is now an accomplished fact. No one can now deny the practicability of the great ideal of a League of Nations, and bearing in mind the state of the world at the time of its establishment, the progress along the path of international peace and co-operation has, indeed, been encouraging. Membership of the League has steadily grown until it nOW stands at 54 countries, which, with one exception, the Argentine, were all represented at the last assembly. The only important countries that are not members of the League are the United States of America, Soviet Russia. Turkey and Brazil. But all of these except Brazil, are co-operating with the League in connexion with disarmament and have representatives on the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, and Brazil is a party to the Permanent Court pf International Justice. The League of Nations is now established on solid foundations and is gaining strength with the years. There is every prospect of the universal substitution of the arbitrament of reason for that of force, and the settlement of international disputes within the forum of the League of Nations instead of on the battlefield. The League organization, including as it does the International Labour Office arid the Permanent Court of International Justice, offers every facility for such a consummation, which is so devoutly to be wished. The Tenth Assembly, although not presenting such a spectacular agenda as some of its predecessors, actually proved one of the most fruitful and promising of the annual meetings of the League to date. A considerable extension of the recognition of the principle of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice in respect of justiciable disputes was made as a result of the lead given by Great Britain in accepting the optional clause of the statute of the court, and no fewer than fifteen countries, including Australia, signed this clause during the course of the assembly. This brings the total number of countries that have accepted the optional clause to 33, including four of the great powers - Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. These figures do not include those countries which had signed the optional clause prior to the last assembly, but had not proceeded with the ratification of their signature. Some of these, however, may now take action in that direction. The classes of disputes regarded as justiciable under the optional clause, that is to say, suitable for decision by a court applying rules of law, are disputes concerning the interpretation of treaties, questions of international law, and breaches of international obligations and the reparation to be made therefor. I shall deal with this matter in greater detail on a motion for the ratification of the declaration of the Australian representative in connexion with the acceptance by Australia of the optional clause. Now, as regards the Permanent Court of International Justice, which under its statute is competent to hear and determine disputes of an international character which the parties agree voluntarily to submit to the court, or in relation to matters laid down in treaties and conventions, the question of the revision of the statute of the court in directions which experience had shown to be necessary came before the Assembly. Connected with this matter is the question of the conditions under which the United States is prepared to accept the jurisdiction of the court. The Assembly unanimously adopted protocols covering both these matters which have since been accepted and signed by the United States Government, and are now awaiting ratification by the Senate' of that country. Fifty-five countries have now signed the Statute of the Permanent Court, including the most important countries in the world. I shall deal with this matter more fully when submitting the motion in connexion with the ratification of the signature of the Commonwealth representative to the protocols in question. I may mention that the Commonwealth adhered to the statute of the Court in 1921. Another very important matter before the Assembly was the proposal of the British Government for a re-examination of the Covenant of the League, with a view to closing the so-called " gap " therein, under which the right of nations to resort, to war in certain circumstances is recognized. The object is to bring the Covenant into line with the provisions of the Treaty for the Renunciation of War, which renounces war as an instrument of national policy and provides for recourse to pacific means only for the settlement of international disputes. Under article 12 of the Covenant as it stands, members of the League agree not to resort to war "until three months after the award by the arbitrators or the judicial decision or the report by the Council " in respect of a dispute ; and under article 15, in the event of the Council failing to reach a unanimous report, irrespective of the disputants who may be represented on the Council at the time, the members of the League " reserve to themselves the right to take such action as they shall consider necessary for the maintenance, of right and justice ". This matter has been referred to a special committee for investigation, and the report of the committee will be submitted to members of the League in due course, in order that such action may be taken as may be deemed appropriate during the next Assembly. In connexion with the question of disarmament - the most important question to-day facing the world - a special Commission of the League has been endeavouring since 1926 to arrive at a basis for an international conference for the reduction and limitation of armaments. Even without a close knowledge of the technical details of this immensely complex matter, one can easily imagine the difficulties which have to be. overcome before sufficient agreement is reached on the terms of the draft convention which the Preparatory Committee has been considering for submission to such a conference as a basis for discussion. The London Naval Conference is a link in the work of general disarmament, and it is sincerely to be hoped that it will be able to arrive at some agreement that will clear the way so far as the reduction of naval armaments is concerned. As regards disarmament generally, the Assembly urged that the completion of the work of the Preparatory Commission be hastened so that the proposed international conference for the reduction and limitation of armaments - land, sea and air - may be convened as early as possible. While one might have hoped for greater progress in this matter of disarmament, it must be admitted that considerable progress is being made in the direction of agreement between the nations along the lines of the peaceful settlement of international disputes, which is regarded by most countries as an essential pre-requisite of action towards disarmament. Such progress is to be found in the Locarno treaties, the Treaty for the Renunciation of War, the general acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice, the various model treaties which have recently been drawn up by the League, and the draft treaties that are even now under consideration. Two of the latter which may be mentioned are the proposed convention for the guaranteeing of financial assistance to States that may be victims of aggression, and the model treaty for strengthening the means for preventing war. Progress towards international security by the general acceptance of such methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations means progress along the road towards disarmament, with relief from the terrific burden of expenditure weighing so heavily on the world to-day as the cost of what is called " defence." If we would have peace we should think and talk in terms of peace. Some of the more important decisions of the recent Assembly were in the economic sphere. I may mention one in particular. A proposal was adopted with a view to the holding of a conference for the purpose of arranging a tariff truce for two or three years. This proposal met with such support that it was subsequently decided to hold the conference. The conference met in February, and 26 countries were represented at it. 'The Commonwealth Government, however, with a policy of protection approved by the people, could not see its way to enter into any obligations of such a nature and consequently decided not to participate in the conference. Satisfactory work appears to have been done during the year by the technical and social organizations of the league. The discussion which took place at the Assembly on the drug traffic was perhaps . the most important to date on that subject, in that the principle of the limitation of the manufacture of dangerous drugs to the quantities required for medical and scientific purposes, as provided in the Opium Convention of 1925, to which the Commonwealth is a party, has at last been definitely recognized. The Opium Advisory Committee is to prepare plans for such a limitation. These will be submitted, to a conference of representatives of the governments of the principal drug manufacturing and consuming countries. Consideration is also being given to further means for the suppression of the illicit traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs. I may mention that Peru, Poland, and Yugo-Slavia were elected as nonpermanent members of the Council for a period of three years in place of the three retiring countries so that the constitution of the Council now is - permanent members: Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and Japan; and the nonpermanent members, who are elected for three-year terms : Canada, Cuba, Finland, Persia, Peru, Poland, Spain, Venezuela, and Yugo-Slavia. All the matters I have mentioned and many others are dealt with in detail in the Report of the Australian Delegation, which I commend to honorable members for careful perusal. Debate (on motion by Mr.D. Cameron) adjourned. {: .page-start } page 327 {:#debate-27} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented : - >Australian Customs Tariff - Memorandum by the British Board of Trade on recent increases in Customs Duties. > >Navigation Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, Nos. 16, 17, 18. Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Ordinance of 1930 - No. 1 - Mining. {: .page-start } page 327 {:#debate-28} ### LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL *In committee* (Consideration resumed from 19th March, *vide* page 248) : Clause 2 - >Section 3 of the Principal Act is amended - > >by omitting the definition of "Unimproved value " and inserting in its stead the following definitions: - "'Unimproved value', in relation to unimproved land, means the capital sum which the fee-simple of the land might be expected to realize if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require. " ' Unimproved value ', in relation to improved land, means the capital sum which the fee-simple of the land might be expected to realize if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act, the improvements thereon did not exist: > >Provided that the unimproved value shall in no case be less than the sum that would be obtained by deducting the value of improvements from the improved value at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act."; and > >by omitting the definition of "Value of improvements " and inserting in its stead the following definition : - " ' Value of improvements ', in relation to land, means the added value which the improvements give to the land at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act irrespective of the cost of the improvements: " Provided that the added value shall in no case exceed the amount that would reasonably be involved in effecting, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act, improvements of a nature and efficiency equivalent to that of the improvements on the land at that time: "Provided further that in ascertaining the value of improvements no amount shall be included in such value in respect of any work done or expenditure incurred for the purpose of preventing land, or any improvements thereon, from deteriorating, or of maintaining land which has been improved, at its improved value, whether by means of destroying animal pests or vegetable growths, or of preventing such pests or growths from establishing themselves, or by -any other means, but, in respect of fences and other structural improvements, effected for any of those purposes, which are on the land at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act. an amount shall, subject to the preceding proviso, be included.". {: #debate-28-s0 .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE:
Treasurer · Dalley · ALP . - Since last night I have consulted with the law advisors of the Crown regarding the objections to this clause urged by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, and as a result I am more than ever convinced that the clause in its present form does no more than this Government intends it to do, namely, make effective the law as itwas administered prior to the judgment of the High Court in the McGeoch case last year. It is desired, also, to restate the law that had been approved by Parliament, and to carry out the intentions of Parliament when the bill in relation to the taxation of leaseholds was passed in 1914. It is desired also to continue the practice of the department which has received the endorsement of Parliament and of special royal commissions appointed for the express purpose of inquiring into the incidence of land taxation, methods of valuation and other such matters which form the subject matter of this amending bill. I made inquiries as to the advice sought by the department in settling t he terms of these clauses. As I mentioned in my second-reading speech, the counsel who appeared for the Crown before the High Court recently in the McGeoch case and the Northampton Pastoral Company's case, both senior and junior, were consulted as to what amendment should be made to restore the *status quo.* I have a document before me now which embodies their advice. This document was submitted by Messrs. Jordan and Pitt, barristers of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. They prepared a lengthy review of the law, and made recommendations as to what is necessary to restore the old practice. Consultations took place between the representatives of the Crown Law Department of the Commonwealth and these barristers, and also between them and the representatives of the Commissioner of Taxation. The document submitted by counsel is dated the 3rd March, 1930, and contains the following passage: - >Broadly speaking, two alternatives seem available: - > >To amend the act so as to restore the methods in vogue prior to Toohey's case, incidentally introducing any necessary improvements on those methods. > >To adopt the course suggested by the judgment of IsaacsJ. in McGeoch's case, viz., to define improvements as things actually on the land, such as buildings, fences and dams, and as excluding any ameliorations of the land itself (whether resulting from the removal of trees and scrub, from levelling operations, or from sweetening of the soil), which, however beneficial in themselves, leave the land merely somuch land. > >The former of these two courses has the advantage that it restores the applicability of familiar methods. The somewhat extraordinary results of the McGeoch decision can be avoided. There is, however, in some cases, a practical difficulty in determining what was the actual virgin state of the country, and as years go on this will, in the case of the old settled districts, become increasingly difficult. It is already hard enough to determine in the case of land which was cleared 60 or 70 years ago, whether half of it or only a quarter of it had to be cleared of a particular class of scrub.If, as is stated in McGeoch's case, the policy of the legislature is to tax the unearned increment in value (e.g., that resulting from public roads or railways, &c.) and not to tax the earned increment resulting from improvements which have been effected to the land, it needs to be observed that the principle which has been adopted of determining the value of improvements on the basis of their costas at the relevant 30th June does, in effect, give a large unearned increment in the case of old settled districts, because of increased cost of labour, &c, an allowance of £1,000 being made for an improvement which may have cost only £500. The difficulty, however, is that unless the benefit of this particular unearned increment is allowed, areas which were identical in their virgin state and have received identical improvements would have different unimproved values if one area was improved when costs wore cheap and the other when they were dear. It proceeds to comment upon the alternative suggested by **Mr. Justice** Isaacs, but as that alternative has not been adopted I shall not go into the matter. The document continues - >In the draft bill upon which we have been asked to advise, the principle that has been adopted has been that of restoring the *status quo.* We have, therefore, confined ourselves to that solution. Then follow the specific recommendations on which the bill has been based. The recommendations have not been embodied in the precise form in which they were made, because, after the draft bill was prepared, there were further consultations, and modifications and amendments were made. I have here the final draft made by counsel, and I had better read it lest it may be thought that we are departing from the recommendations of men who had gone specially into the matter. One or two alterations of words have been made, but nothing which alters the sense of the recommendations as a whole. In one case, for instance, the words, " estimating the value," have been changed to " ascertaining the value." The final draft of counsel's recommendation is as follows: - " Unimproved value " in relation to unimproved land, means the capital sum which the fee simple of the laud might be expected to realize if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require. "Unimproved value" in relation to improved land means the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realize if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this act, the improvements thereon did not exist. Provided that the unimproved value shall in no case be less than the sum that would be obtained by deducting the value of improvements from the improved value at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this act. "Value of improvements" in relation to land means the added value which the improvements give to the land at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this act irrespective of the cost of the improvements. Provided that the added value shall in no case exceed the amount that should reasonably be involved in effecting at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this act, improvements of a nature and efficiency equivalent to the improvements on the land at that time. Provided further that in ascertaining the value of improvements no amount shall be included in' such value in respect of any work or expenditure effected for the purpose of preventing land or any improvements thereon from deteriorating or of maintaining land which has been improved at its improved value, whether by means of destroying animal pests or vegetable growths or of preventing such pests or growths from establishing themselves, or by any other means; but the fences and other structural improvements effected for any of these purposes, which are on the land at the time as at which the value is required, to be ascertained for the purposes of this act an amount shall, subject to the preceding proviso, be included. Other minor alterations made by the Attorney-General's Department in drafting the bill were to change the word " date " to " time," and in the last sentence the words "an amount " have been inserted. I have dealt with this matter in some detail because it might otherwise have been assumed that the drafting of the bill had been left to the Commissioner of Taxation, and that the bill represents his en deavour to restore the previously existing practice. It might have been thought that, although the practice should be restored by the present commissioner, it need not necessarily be followed by his successor, assuming that land tax legislation had still to be administered. The bill has been prepared by men who have made a special study of the subject. I understand that these gentlemen have been briefed on a number of occasions by the Crown Law Department on behalf of the Taxation Department. They were instructed to restore the *status quo.* That is all the Government is seeking to do by means of this bill. It is wrong to assume that the Government is endeavouring to alter the law in any sense, either for the purpose of bringing in new taxpayers, or of imposing fresh taxation on those who are already paying. We have no desire to alter the law as it has been administered in respect of leaseholds for the last fifteen years, and in respect of freeholds for the last twenty years.I am convinced that the bill in its present form gives expression to what was the intention of Parliament when this legislation was first passed. The honorable member for Darwin **(Mr. Bell),** referred to the possible injustice which would be inflicted upon a man who had expended money and labour in clearing his land, and might not be given credit for that expenditure when the unimproved value of the land was being assessed. Such a position could not arise. I am assured that the cost of clearing land of pear or other vegetable pests, or of protecting land against inundation or of improving it by drainage, even though the drainage works are not situated on the land itself, will all be taken into account, in arriving at tlie unimproved value. {: .speaker-KYI} ##### Mr Prowse: -- Will the Minister be a little more explicit, in his references to vegetable pests? Docs he include tree growths ? {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- The cost of clearing land in its original state, or of clearing scrub and trees, when such clearing effects an improvement in the land, is taken into account in arriving at the unimproved value. {: .speaker-KYI} ##### Mr Prowse: -- What about the cost of clearing subsequent growths? {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- The cost of suckering or of removing annually recurring growths is not taken into account; but the cost of taking precautions against the menace of pear or other kind of vegetable growth, or against animal pests, is taken into account, because such a menace has the effect of depressing the improved value of the land in any case. In this way credit is given for such expenditures ; but they are not taken into account each year, and deducted from the unimproved value of the land. The honorable member quoted a case which at first blush might seem to present difficulties, that of two blocks of land, both at first being so heavily infested with pear as to render them, to all intents and purposes, valueless. A man at the cost of *£3* or £5 an acre, clears one block of pea/r, cultivates it and makes it productive. The adjoining piece of land remains uncleared, and continues to be worthless. The honorable member asks whether there is any unimproved value in the land that has been cleared. In such a case there is no unimproved value. It is not the practice of the department to regard that land as having any unimproved value at all until, after the lapse of time, it acquires an unearned increment value through the clearing of the whole district, the provision of facilities, or the increased productivity of the land through the opening of new markets. The original cost of clearing however, is taken into account. Therefore the honorable member will see that the practice of the department has been sound. {: .speaker-JOS} ##### Mr Bell: -- I doubt whether the Treasurer is right in saying that there have been cases of well improved land having no unimproved value in the opinion of the Taxation Department. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- I have Deen assured that in the hypothetical case stated by the honorable member the department would regard the land as having no unimproved taxable value. {: .speaker-JOS} ##### Mr Bell: -- I have never come across an instance. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- I must, of course, accept the word of the Commissioner. That would be a rational mode of dealing with such a case. Land may be taken up which is altogether worthless, or it may be received as a gift. In some cases persons have been paid a bonus to take up land on condition that they would expend money and labour upon it. In Queensland some years ago we offered special inducements to settlers to take up, clear, and keep cleared, land in buffer areas in the prickly pear districts. The unimproved value of such land was nil. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page: -- What is the position with regard to the work, during successive years, of men who have kept the land clear? {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- It is taken into account in determining the taxable value of the land. Many men have incurred considerable expense in clearing, and keeping cleared, prickly pear infested land. The Taxation Department considers this when such land comes before it for assessment. The improved value of the land is whatever any one will pay for it in the market taking into account the disability the land was under originally. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- Is not " unimproved value " an unfortunate expression ? If land has no unimproved value to begin with, how can subsequent improvement give it an unimproved value? {: .speaker-KZO} ##### Mr Latham: -- It may be improved by the improvement of surrounding lands, the building of roads, bridges and so on. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- There might be an unearned increment in respect of it. Any value which is given to land as the result of the improvements effected by its owner is not taken into account in fixing the unimproved value. A distinction is drawn between improvements effected by the owner and those effected by the community. {: .speaker-KZO} ##### Mr Latham: -- Because of improvements effected by the community the land might become taxable. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- That is so. Surely there can be no dispute about that. So long as we maintain land taxation, we must recognize that it is based upon an attempt to tax the unearned increment created by the community and not the increase in value caused by the work of the owner. {: .speaker-KV8} ##### Mr Stewart: -- The building of a railway may create a value. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- That is so. It is quite feasible that land in some districts which at present is almost worthless because of infestation by the prickly pear or other vegetable or animal pest may in a few years become highly valuable. {: .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr Nairn: -- It may have an unimproved value even though it is infested. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- Land partially infested may have some unimproved value, but heavily infested land might be quite worthless from the taxation stand-point. Infested land in a very rich district may have a potential value ; but if more money would have to be spent to clear and improve it than it would bring after being cleared, it must be regarded as worthless. A man may hold land which he regards as worthless to-day because he cannot clear it, in the hope that biological or other remedies will ultimately rid it of the pests and give it a value. I have had a great deal to do with administration affecting prickly pear infested land and have studied the problem from all angles. It came under my special control while I was Premier of Queensland. We set up the Prickly Pear Commission in Queensland in 1922 to try to solve the problem how to deal with pear infested lands. At that time there were 30,000,000 acres of pear infested land in Queensland. Some of it was heavily infested; some lightly infested, and some on the fringe of infested districts. A great deal of progress has been made in recent years in dealing with this land, and to-day those engaged upon the problem are hopeful that ultimately the pest will be destroyed. The work of the cochineal insect and other insects, particularly the cactoblastus, and also the use of more efficient poisons than were used in earlier years, especially arsenious pentoxide, are yielding very encouraging results. When the commission began its work it was estimated that the prickly pear was spreading at the rate of 1,000,000 acres annually in Queensland. Now the advance .of the pest has been stayed, and the authorities are hopeful that the area under pear will be gradually reduced until the pest has been completely eradicated. {: #debate-28-s1 .speaker-KYI} ##### Mr PROWSE: -- What is the position when land is worth less after it has been cleared than it cost to clear? {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- Such land has no taxable unimproved value ; there can be no doubt whatever upon that point. Such land could only become taxable as the result of an unearned increment in the value of it given by the community. I trust that honorable members will accept my declaration of the bona fides of the Government and the department. This is not an attempt to introduce a new principle or to alter any vital or recognized existing principle. {: #debate-28-s2 .speaker-KZO} ##### Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong .- I am sure that the' committee has listened with great interest to the explanation of the Treasurer. His remarks indicate the intricacies of the subject with which we are dealing. From what he has said it is clear that the object of the Government is to restore what is regarded as having been the practice of the Commissioner of Taxation. That is clear also from the speech delivered yesterday by the Prime Minister. If that is really the case, many of the objections which have been raised to this measure must disappear. I agree with the Treasurer that the opinions of Messrs. Jordan and Pitt, which have been placed before us, are authoritative and should carry great weight. But I. still feel that there is a danger that other interpretations might be given to the bill. Everything might work out satisfactorily while the present commissioner remained in office and had the duty of interpreting these amendments; but the committee has to consider the actual legal effect of the words used. In introducing this measure the Treasurer was, I think, quite explicit when he said that the decision in the McGeoch case was not what Parliament intended. I quote the following sentences from his remarks in that connexion : - >It is certain that the original practice of the department, which was confirmed by several judgments of judges of the High Court, represents the intention of Parliament in this connexion. **Mr. Justice** Isaacs, in a dissenting judgment in the McGeoch appeal, strongly criticizes the majority view which has produced the present anomalous position, and with equal strength supports the previously. existing practice. I certainly understand both from what the Treasurer said and from the terms of the bill that the object of the measure was to give legal effect to the dissenting judgment of **Mr. Justice** Isaacs as against the majority judgment of the Chief Justice and **Mr. Justice** Owen Dixon. The Treasurer has now informed the committee that the Government considered that it had two alternatives from which to choose. It could, in the first place, restore the existing practice, and secondly, it could adopt the principles laid down by **Mr. Justice** Isaacs. I do not think I am doing the Treasurer any injustice when I say that he did not make that very plain in his second-reading speech. One may be pardoned for supposing that the object of the measure was to overrule the majority judgment, certainly in some respects, and to establish the principles of the judgment of **Mr. Justice** Isaacs. If honorable members compare the original definition of "unimproved value" with the new definition, they will see that the first alteration occurs in the second paragraph of the definition. The present definition reads - " Unimproved value," in relation to land, means tlie capital sum which the fee-simple of the land might he 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 orhis predecessor in title had not been made. For these words it, is proposed to substitute the following:- - " Unimproved value," in relation to improved land, means the capital sum which the feesimple of the land might be expected to realize if offered for sale onsuch reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this act. the improvements thereon did not exist. The important change, it appears to me, is in omitting the words " or appertaining thereto." I have regarded the object of this change as beingto limit the improvements for the purpose of this legislation to improvements which have a physical, tangible and visible existence upon the land as distinct from improvements which cannot be seen, such as clearing, draining swamp land, and the like. It still appears to me, in spite of the authorities to whom the Treasurer has referred, that this is what the amendment in fact accomplishes. In support of that view I quote the following remarks from the majority judgment in the McGeoch case : - >It was argued in that - that is the Toohey case - as it is now suggested, that " the improvements to bo taken into consideration were those then visible on the land and did not include the present effect of improvements which had disappeared." After referring to the decision in the Toohey case the judgment proceeded - >We do not think the Judicial Committee decided or intended to decide that the conversion by the owner of a. piece of swampland, which in that condition was valueless, into valuable farm land by draining the swamp, could not be treated as an improvement on or appertaining to the land, because at the relevant date there was nothing in existence on the land to show what improvement had, in fact, been made, and if we are right in this view the decision in Morrison's case stands unaffected. Such a construction of the words of the act as that suggested would in the case of the greater part of the rural lands in Australia result in the inclusion in the subject-matter of the tax the unimproved value of the land - of an amount wholly attributable to operations generally recognized as improvements, in fact, which hud been effected by the owner at his own expense -a result which appears to be entirely inconsistent both with the expressed intention of Parliament, and with the theory underlying the imposition of the tax. The point which the majority of the judges took in that instance is that the draining of a swamp, which results in a beneficial absenceof something from the land, and not in placing something on the land, is an improvement. His Honor **Mr. Justice** Isaacs took the contrary Hew. He said - An improvement "on " the land, or " appertaining thereto", is a concrete thing, havinga recognizable existence and identity distinct from land on which it is "made", with a locality and extension of its own. An improvement " of " the land has an abstract denotation indicating a better quality or condition of the land itself, but having no independent existence or identity. Instances of the former are readily suggested, as a house, a fence, a bank, a wall, a tank, a right of light or water from an adjoining tenement, and so on. The latter is not a thing, but the qualitative result of some act. The removal of scrub, of noxious weeds or vermin, the clearing of stones, the cutting down of a bill, the filling up of a hollow, the drainage of a swamp, the grubbing of stumps, arc all acts which leave only beneficial results in the form of an improved condition on the land itself A subsequent sentence summarizes the distinction between the majority and minority judgment - >To remove a detriment is, of course, an improvement to the land or of the land, but docs not constitute an improvement on, or "appertaining to" the land. I understand from what the Prime Minister said yesterday, and from what the Treasurer said this afternoon, that it is not intended by these amendments to bring about the result of excluding from the category of improvements what I have referred to as improvements of otto the land, as distinct from, improvements on the land. If that is the true effect of the words, much of thecriticism which I have directed against these proposals falls to the ground. I admit that frankly, but I have some doubt in the matter seeing that the amendment is worded to restrict " improvements " to improvements " thereon " as distinct from improvements " thereof " or " appertaining thereto." One would not be surprised, were this matter again tested before the court, to find that the view of **Mr. Justice** Isaacs was upheld; in other words that the effect of this legislation is to confine the definition of improvements and the consideration of improvements in relation to unimproved values to improvements which can be said to be " on " the land. There is a radical distinction between the presence of improvements on the land, like fences or buildings, and operations like the clearing of timber or prickly pear. All the improvements referred to by the Treasurer are said by His Honor, **Mr.** Justice Isaacs, to be not improvements on the land, but absences from the land of detrimental things, being negative or destructive in character. They may be improvements to or of the land but not improvements " on " the land. When we refer to the McGeoch case we find the point of difference between the majority and minority judgment is the distinction between improvements which are physically present on the land and improvements of the land which consist of the removal of a detriment. Accordingly, I suggest that there is an element of doubt. Honorable members will recognize that I am not re-arguing the bill. We are now in committee and I am trying to ensure that the stated intention is being carried out. However, the Government is acting on the advice of counsel, and is evidently satisfied with it. I wish only to record my dubiety on the matter and to say that, while I appreciate the force of what has been said by the Treasurer, I do not think that we are perfectly safe in adopting this particular form of amendment. {: #debate-28-s3 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper .- I think that honorable members on both sides of the committee wish to make this clause perfect and absolutely watertight. If there is any doubt in regard to it, the duty of the committee at this stage is to have it removed. The Treasurer has read an extract from the advice that he received from counsel who are eminent lawyers intimately associated with taxation matters; but in the Leader of the Opposition we have a very eminent lawyer who, with a desire to improve the bill to the utmost extent, suggests that the amendment of the Government does not. meet the case. I trust that, under the circumstances, the Government will remove any element of doubt by some very definite expression of intention in the law itself. If that can be done, my objections to the first part of the bill would be withdrawn. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr Theodore: -- Could I be more definite than I was in my statement just now ? {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- The trouble is that it is not the Treasurer's statement that will be examined in a court of law, but the actual wording of the act. We have already had instances of that. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr Theodore: -- If there is any suggestion of the Commissioner departing from the intention of Parliament, what we have asserted will be taken as an interpretation of the law. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- It is difficult to know what will happen in the future. This portion of the act has stood for twenty years without question, and we should alter it in such a way as to make the alteration permanent. We should express our intention more explicitly. I should like to make sure that a certain type of case is properly covered by this amendment. It is the desire of all right-thinking people that neglected, abandoned and waste land should be brought into production at the earliest possible moment. In every State there are certain areas which have been abandoned because of the existence on it of certain pests. In Queensland areas had been abandoned because of prickly pear, noogoora burr and lantana. In the Gippsland district areas have been abandoned because of the spread of bracken fern. In Victoria it has been found that by ploughing, using superphosphates and sowing grasses, particularly subterranean clover, lands which were previously useless and a menace because of the pests on them, to surrounding properties have been brought to a state of production. "With the addition of certain improvements, some of those lands are now worth £20 an acre. Surely the person responsible for such improvement , should not be taxed upon it. The following statement dealing with pasture improvement and giving Gippsland examples appeared in the Melbourne *Argus* yesterday : - >A beginning was made with the reclamation df the Yinnar property four years ago. It has an area of 474 acres and already 300 acres have been cleared, ploughed, and cropped and sown down with a mixture of pasture grasses consisting of subterranean clover, white Sutch clover, cocksfoot, and rye grasses. This was poor heath country with soil of a sandy, spew character. Of the pasture area, 100 acres are now in their third year. The remaining 200 acres consist of first-year pasture. This one time valueless land has for some months carried 2,000 sheep and a truck of dry cattle. Last winter the 100-acre area lambed down five ewes to the acre, with an average of 86* per cent, of lambs, some of which later weighed up to 65 lb. That is one instance of what has been done in South Gippsland. The point that I am making is that improvement has been brought about, not by the actual destruction of certain timbers or pests, but by the use of fertilizers and the sowing of grasses. In the Western District of Victoria it has been found that the carrying capacity of certain land has, as a result of such a process, been actually doubled. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr Theodore: -- That would be taken into account in arriving at the improved value, and therefore have an effect on the unimproved value. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- That should be placed beyond doubt. There has always been a doubt up to the present. Last year the Chairman of the Development and Migration Commission raised this particular point, and asked for an investigation to ascertain whether in the future this class of improvement could not be taken into account for taxation purposes. In the Western District of Victoria, by the use of superphosphates and the sowing of grasses, land which was previously carrying one sheep to the acre and worth £7 an acre, is now carrying two sheep to the acre and worth £14 an acre. In this connexion certain appeals have been made to the Land Valuation Board. The practice in arriving at the tax is to start on the improved value and work backwards. By taking into account the visible improvements and leaving out of account the improvements brought about by the use of fertilizer and the sowing of grasses, it may be easily seen that the man who really deserves consideration from the community will be taxed to a greater extent than the man who has neglected to improve his land. I insist on this not so much because of the federal land tax that will have to be paid, "hut because of the fact that these lands will be valued similarly for both State and shire land tax purposes. The federal land tax may be a mere bagatelle ; but because a federal value has been placed upon the land, the owner may be penalized in other directions, and it will be absolutely impossible for him to work it profitably. May I give two other illustrations. The article from which I have already quoted goes on to say - >A similar example of the remarkable improvements effected by laying down pastures is provided at Boolarra, where a property of 700 acres has been reclaimed for profitable use. When taken over three years ago the land was in an abandoned condition similar to that- at Yinnar. All the land has been cleared and ploughed, bracken fern, rabbits, and other pests have been destroyed, and 500 acres of land have been laid down in permanent pasture, while 200 acres are under rape and millet, which will be followed by pasture this year. Subterranean clover, white Dutch clover, and cocksfoot grasses have saved the poor country, while on the better land a mixture of rye, cocksfoot, and white and red clovers is laying the foundation of a rich pasture. For seven or eight months this land has carried 3,300 sheep, 80 bullocks, and about 20 horses. A draft of 2 1/2-year-oId bullocks from the property sold at Morwell this week for more than £15 a head, while frequent consignments of wethers have commanded top prices at the Newmarket sales. That is another example of land which was absolutely worthless becoming a national asset. My last illustration is given in the following paragraph: - >Another example of the manner in which waste, unproductive land in Gippsland has been transformed into rich producing country in a short period is furnished by the Hiawatha property. After having been unoccupied for many years, the property was taken in hand 15 months ago, and for the last seven months it has carried more than 2,000 sheep. This land, which previously was chiefly a harbour for pests, will this year provide sufficient pasture to enable 1,100 ewes to be lambed down at the rate of live sheep to the acre. The whole of that has been the result of ploughing, grassing, fertilizing, and especially of making it possible for clover to grow. In many parts of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland it has been found that the use of ' superphosphate has a stimulating effect on the growth of clover where previously it was supposed to be non-existent, and thereby the carrying capacity of the land has been doubled. Undoubtedly the effect has been to increase the State and Federal income tax for which the owner has been liable. If concurrently he brings into production land which formerly was not only not an asset, but actually a menace to other people, we should take every step to ensure that he is not penalized by the fixing of a valuation which will militate against him in the State and municipal spheres. {: #debate-28-s4 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP -- The illustrations given by the right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page)** are particularly interesting to me, especially as I have been interested in intensive cultivation for very many years. I do not think that the wording of the clause, however, affects the matter. There has been some difficulty in this regard even under the old wording. It is a subject that I propose to take up with the Taxation Commissioner, because, after all, it relates to administration by valuers; but the wording of the provision will not thereby be affected. I agree entirely with the right honorable gentleman that those who, by intensive cultivation and the application of top dressing, improve their properties, should be given a full and liberal allowance for improvements, whatever differences there may be as to the mean ing of certain involved phraseology. Taxation measures are notoriously difficult to phrase. I can merely say that we have followed the advice of excellent counsel, who were instructed not to adopt the suggestion of the majority decision in the McGeoch case, but to retain the *status quo.* In the opinion which they have given they state that they were asked to suggest a definition that would retain the *status quo.* All that which, under the practice of the department, was in the past allowed for improvements will be continued. I give that assurance. If it should be found that there is any basis for the doubt that has been expressed by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Latham),** steps will be taken at the earliest moment to rectify the matter. We can merely accept the advice of the best counsel available. So far as I, a layman, can judge, that advice is correct. I believe that we are only at the beginning of intensive cultivation in Australia, and that it will prove to be substantially a means of salvation for this country. I have long held the view that if a fraction of the amount that is spent on water conservation was devoted to intensive cultivation in areas that have an assured rainfall, we should obtain quicker returns with a lower capital outlay. That opinion may be contested, but I' firmly believe that it is correct. I have visited a place that is not 25 miles from Melbourne, in a district where at one time land could be purchased for £5 or £6 an acre. It was poor, hungry looking country. One property of between 300 and 400 acres is controlled by a man who is adopting methods of intensive cultivation. He is experimenting with not only superphosphate, but also superphosphate associated with lime, and superphosphate in conjunction with sulphate of ammonia. One can stand on a hill a mile distant and pick out his property from the whole of the surrounding country. It is probably worth £20 an acre to-day. That has been brought about by the action which . he has taken in respect to it. Although there is no visible improvement on it, the withholding of an allowance for improvements would be unthinkable. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE, Page: -- But has such an allowance been made? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I believe that there is some doubt as to whether it has or has not been made in the past. That is a question which the Treasurer **(Mr. Theodore)** will probably take up with the Commissioner. Quite recently it was represented to him that an allowance had not been made for the expenditure incurred on superphosphate. There is one point upon which a difference may arise. A man may expend £100 on, say, superphosphate for a certain area of land, and its use may actually increase the value of that land for productive purposes to the extent of £200; and that £200 may be expressed in the capital value of the property. The valuer would say that if he could ascertain the actual cost of making that improvement, such a sum would be all that he should allow. That, I think, is a principle which must be adhered to. If you expend £100 and increase the value of your property by £200, it is obvious that the extra value is inherent in the land itself. But I agree that it would be entirely wrong, and opposed to the principle of unimproved land value taxation, to suggest that no allowance should be made for that expenditure. Similarly, the drainage of swamps and the sweetening of land, although not visible improvements, arc improvements which must be allowed for provided they are onthe land. I suggest that " thereon " means " in the land and of the land " as well as " on the land ". {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page: -- Would not the matter be made more certain if the wording were " thereon and thereof " ? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- This matter has been very carefully threshed out. The interpretations that have been claimed for the words " appertaining to " have been so wide that they would defeat the object of Parliament if accepted. We must rely to some extent upon the discretion of those who administer this law, and expect that they will administer it in the light of what they say it means, and what the Government says is the intention of Parliament. If they depart from that, they must answer to the political as well as the administrative head of the department. If we endeavour to make the wording clearer by elaboration, and thus open the door for other judgments, wo may again be faced with the position that, has been caused by the McGeoch judgment ; and in such an event we might as well tear up the bill. I assure the committee that the intention is as it was stated by the Treasurer to be, and as I stated yesterday. Whatever beliefs to the contrary may be held, I say that there is not the slightest intention to depart from the old custom of allowing for draining, clearing, and all other similar improvements, whether they are visible or invisible to-day. My view is that the actual cost of bringing about increased cultivation ought to be regarded by the valuer as an improvement, if it can be shown that it has increased the capital value of the land. Obviously the cost of fertilizer, the use of which has increased the capital value of land, should be deducted from that increased capital value in order to ascertain the unimproved capital value. {: .speaker-KXT} ##### Mr Paterson: -- It is an earned increment. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- It is an earned increment, and should not be taxable. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr Pateeson: -- Should not the cost of the fertilizer, and the additional value given to the land by its use, and due to the enterprise of the man who applies it, both be taken into consideration? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I think not. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page: -- What about his labour? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- That is another matter. Labour undoubtedly is an element in improvement; but the enterprise or thought of the man who employs it comes within a different category. What about the enterprise of the man who discovered superphosphate? It is obvious that if land of a certain quality responds to the application of artificial manures to the extent of twice the cost of the fertilizer the additional value is natural to the land itself, and not to be attributed to the labour or the material that is put into it. But the cost of labour and material put into it should be deducted from the improved value if it has effected that improved value. A man may use superphosphate on a property and yet not improve it to any great extent, because the land will not respond to it, Obviously you could not on that account bring down the improved value below the figure at which it stood before he used the superphosphate. {: .speaker-KYI} ##### Mr Prowse: -- But he has a property that will not respond. It is proposed to make a charge upon the other because it does? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- No. Because it does not respond it has been proved not to have any greater unimproved value than it formerly possessed. The object is to tax only the unearned increment. So far as the Treasurer is concerned, the act will be administered rather in the direction of encouraging improvements and of giving a liberal interpretation to the value of improvements where it is a question of intensive cultivation. {: #debate-28-s5 .speaker-KYI} ##### Mr PROWSE:
Forrest .- I am very much more encouraged by the assurances of the right honorable the Prime Minister and the Treasurer than by the wording of the bill. This committee should be competent to express itself in plain English. The assurances of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were given in plain English and are clearly understood ; and we can rely upon it, that they will be taken as a directionby the Taxation Commissioner. The subject of unearned increment has been mentioned. It seems to me that the State takes more of that increment than is due to it. I, among others, took up land in a certain district as a pioneer. There were no roads there at that time, and the productivity of the land was uncertain. Our capital was spent in ascertaining whether the land could be profitably cultivated. We contributed to the funds of the Bonds Board in order to obtain means of communication. We applied superphosphates to the land and cleared it of poisonous weeds. The result was that the land became profitable, and individuals who had been timorous were induced to take up other land in that district. When an inspector makes his valuation ten or fifteen years after a settler has cleared away poisonous weeds, removed stones, and fertilised and cultivated what was previously sour, hungry soil that would not sustain a bandicoot, it is impossible, of course, for him to determine the unimproved value of that land; and there is much heart-burning among settlers on that account. An inspector may be influenced in his valuation by a sale that has taken place in a district where an owner may have paid a special price for a particular block that he desired to add to his own property, but that sale may be no criterion as to values generally in the locality. In certain parts of Western Australia that were infested with poisonous weeds the State Government, desirous of opening up the land, sold it outright at1s. an acre, provided the settlers cleared it of poison. Those who took it up had to spend large sums in this work, and, in the course of clearing and testing the land, they lost hundreds of sheep. To-day, if a departmental inspector visited the district, he might not see one plant of that deadly poison. These are matters to which the department should give greater consideration than has been directed to them in the past. Yesterday I referred to pests that are inherent in the soil, and because of them settlers should receive most sympathetic treatment by the Government. Ferns thrive most on land from which timber that formerly retarded their growth has been cleared. After the clearing has been done, it is questionable whether the ferns will not prove more costly to eradicate than the timber was. I recognize, of course, with the Treasurer, that when a person buys land of this character he pays a lower price than he would be otherwise prepared to give. In Gippsland and in Western Australia, blocks of fern country have been taken in hand, and as many as six and eight ploughings have been required to eradicate the fern. Some fern country is so hilly that the plough cannot be employed in dealing with the pest. Nobody seems to know any effective method of eradicating the fern under such conditions, unless the fungus discovered in Scotland should prove effective. It is possible that such land would not stand the overstocking that would be required to cause the ferns to be trampled down. I shall content myself with the assurance of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, but I would have liked to see the definition of " unimproved value " made clearer, so that he who runs may read and understand. {: #debate-28-s6 .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr NAIRN:
Perth .- I am not satisfied with the mere assurance of the Prime Minister. I have not the slightest doubt that the right honorable gentleman is sincere in his promise as to the manner in which this measure will be administered; but I point out that the act will remain on the statute-book probably long after the present Prime Minister and the present Commissioner of Taxation have ceased to hold office. Another commissioner might be influenced .by the views of the present Government, but its members may be Ministers for only a short period. A new Prime Minister might not hold the same views on this matter as the right honorable gentleman who now leads the Government. The trouble is that, when the decision of a case comes before a court, the statement of members of Parliament, and even the assurances of Ministers, are not permitted to be read to the court. A comparison is made of the previous statutes, and the court decides the intention of Parliament purely from what is in those acts. The proposed alteration of the definition of " unimproved value " is not required to meet the decision in the McGeoch case. That is met by the proviso at the end of clause 2. In the existing act the allowance for improvements is stated in these terms : - >Assuming that the improvements (if any) thereon or appertaining thereto, and made or acquired by the owner or his predecessor in title had not been made. It is quite clear from those words that regard is to be had to all improvements which have been made by the owner or his predecessor. The words embodied in the proposed new definition are - >Assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this act, the improvements thereon did not exist. The words " thereon " and " exist " have to be considered in conjunction. We know the view of **Mr. Justice** Isaacs as to what was meant by " thereon ". Reference has been made to the drainage of swamps and the removal of stones and timber. In the opinion of **Mr. Justice** Isaacs, these would not be covered by the expression " thereon ". The danger is that if this definition is made law the courts may consider that the intention of Parliament was to give effect to the opinion expressed in the dissenting judgment of **Mr. Justice** Isaacs. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have assured us that they do not intend to deprive the owner of the land of the benefit of any improvement he. has made by his own labour or at his own expense. I move - >That, the word " thereon " in the definition of "unimproved value" in relation to improved land, proposed new paragraph *a,* be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words " thereof or appertaining thereto ". The difference between " thereof " and " thereon " has been explained by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Latham).** The words " appertaining thereto " do not carry the definition any further, except for the purpose of making if clear that allowance is to be made for all improvements that may have benefited the land. For instance, a drain on a lower part of a certain piece of land might improve a higher part, and, when valueing the improvements, it might be said that they had been carried out on different lands. While I respect the assurance of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, I consider it unnecessary for this committee to rely on it. It is much better for us to make doubly sure by seeing that the definition expresses our intention. The amendment that I have submitted would make the intention of the Government clear. {: #debate-28-s7 .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE:
Treasurer · Dalley · ALP -- The words which the honorable member proposes to insert are those in the old definition. {: .speaker-KZO} ##### Mr Latham: -- Not precisely. " Thereof " is substituted for " thereon ". {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- The proposed alteration will not dispose of the difficulty that confronted the draftsmen and the Commissioner of Taxation. The bill is drafted with a view to restoring the position that existed before the High Court's judgment in the McGeoch case. {: .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr Nairn: -. - The proviso in the amendment which the Treasurer has proposed does that. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- Not wholly. The phraseology contained in the bill is that recommended after careful consideration by Messrs. Jordan and Pitt, senior and junior counsel respectively for the Commonwealth in the McGeoch case. After the definite statements by the Prime Minister and myself regarding the intention of the Government and the administrative practice of the department, honorable members should be satisfied that the bill will meet every case which has been mentioned. The desire of the honorable member for Perth is that improvements which are not actually on the land - for instance measures for the eradication of rabbits - shall be taken into account; the definition contained in the bill ensures that that will be done. {: .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr Nairn: -- That is doubtful. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- The interpretation that will be placed upon highly technical phraseology is always open to doubt, but the more we tamper with the definition the less satisfactory will it be. The honorable member has urged that the intention of Parliament should be stated in plain commonsense language. The phraseology of acts of parliament is intended to satisfy not ourselves, but the Supreme and High Courts, and probably the Privy Council. Therefore, we must be guided by our legal advisers regarding the terminology that is employed in expressing our intention. Although I have not the slightest doubt that the honorable member's amendment was moved in good faith, I regard it as importing an additional risk, and therefore, must oppose it. Amendment negatived. {: #debate-28-s8 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper .- I move - >That the following proviso be added: - > >Provided, however, that in respect of land purchased by the owner, which at the time he so purchased it was infested with noxious vegetable growths such as prickly pear, bracken, blackberry, lantana, nooghoora burr and such other vegetable growth as may be proclaimed, rendering necessary for effective use of the land the carrying out of work and the expenditure of money in the eradication or destruction of the same the added value which the improvements so made give to the land shall (subject to the first proviso to this definition ) be taken into consideration in ascertaining the value of improvements for the purpose of determining the unimproved value of the land. This will make clear that the proviso contained in the third portion of paragraph *b* does not apply to land taken up in an infested state. The bill provides that expenditure incurred in clearing land that became infested subsequent to selection, is not to be allowed for in estimating the value of the improvements. I wish to place it beyond all doubt that when the whole of the work of cleaning the land has been done by the owner the expenditure so incurred shall be deducted when arriving at the unimproved value of the land. I understand that the Government acquiesces in the motive underlying the amendment. {: #debate-28-s9 .speaker-20000} ##### Mr D CAMERON:
Brisbane .- I have received from the United Graziers of Queensland a communication saying that if clause 2 is passed it will mean that taxpayers who maintain land free ofprickly pear will be penalized for so doing as compared with those who do not. Nobody knows better than the Treasurer how great a menace the prickly pear is in Queensland ; and some years ago he was responsible for the appointment of a commission to deal with this pest. That body has done very good work. I understood him to say that the money expended in clearing the country of prickly pear will not be excluded when assessing the value of improvements. If that is so the amendment moved by the right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page)** will ensure that the intention of the Government is realized, and I hope that the Treasurer will accept it. {: #debate-28-s10 .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE:
Treasurer · Dalley · ALP -- Since the right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page)** foreshadowed this amendment last night, he has added certain words making it subject to the first proviso in paragraph *b.* That alteration makes the amendment unnecessary. The definition contained in the bill will do what the right honorable member's amendment seeks to do ; an allowance will be made in respect of improvements of the class he has mentioned. Such allowances have been made in the past and will continue to be made. {: .speaker-KYI} ##### Mr Prowse: -- Why not give us the satisfaction of having the additional provision inserted? {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- Because the importation of the proposed additional words into the clause would increase the danger of further litigation, and cause more confusion as to the meaning of the law. As a result of consultation with the Crown Law authorities and the Commissioner of Taxation, both the Prime Minister and I have made straightforward statements as to the intention of the Government. The honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Nairn)** has suggested that a future Commissioner of Taxation may differently interpret the law and introduce a new practice. The obligation will lie on future administrations to see that the intention of Parliament as expressed in the bill and in the declaration made to-day in behalf of the Government is carried out ; if that is not done so many interests will be affected that it is inconceivable that much time would elapse between any change of practice and ;m appeal to Parliament against it. {: #debate-28-s11 .speaker-KZO} ##### Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong The Treasurer has objected that the proposed amendment will not add to the effect of the clause as drafted, but may increase the risk of misunderstanding and litigation. Both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have stated that they desire the act to be administered along the lines indicated by the amendment ; if that is so, no great, risk would arise from accepting it. But I doubt whether it is possible to administer the act in the manner stated by Ministers. For instance, I draw attention to the words: - >Provided that in ascertaining the value of improvements no amount shall bc included in such value in respect of any work done or expenditure incurred for the purpose of preventing land, or any improvement thereon, from deteriorating, or of maintaining land which has been improved, al: its improved value. . . . For the protection of land that is subject to occasional flooding, expenditure may bc incurred in the erection of a levee ; that work may prevent the land from deteriorating, and maintain it at its improved value. The proviso in the bill excludes the cost of the levee from the value of improvements to be assessed when ascertaining the unimproved value. The levee is a capital improvement. Such work falls within the precise terms of this proviso, and it is not intended by the Government that it should. Let us consider another case; that of land which has been partly cleared, and on which further clearing is done from time to time. I understand that the cost of such further clearing is to be included in ascertaining the value of improvements; but how is one to draw a distinction in practice between further clearing and keeping down suckers; or how would one draw a distinction between land which is bought wholly cleared, and land bought only partly cleared? These are circumstances which will make it difficult to apply the proviso. The object of the amendment proposed by the right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page)** is to ensurethat if land, when purchased, is infested with certain vegetable pests, the cost of dealing with them shall be definitely included when ascertaining the value of improvements. I do not see that there can bc any real risk in accepting thi3 amendment, which is entirely in line with the announcements made yesterday and to-day by the Prime 'Minister and the Treasurer. I should like the Treasure'1 to make quite sure that his advisors do consider that there is a danger in including the amendment in the act. {: #debate-28-s12 .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE:
Treasurer · Dalley · ALP -- I have already stated that I have been advised that there would be a danger in including the amendment; that it would tend to give rise to further litigation. Moreover, in its present, form, the amendment would really operate to the detriment of some persons who, under the present law, have the right to claim for certain improvements as a set-off against the total capital value, thereby reducing the unimproved value. Besides vegetable pests there aru certain animal pests, the removal of which is necessary before the land can bc brought to production. Because such pests are not specifically mentioned in the act, it might be said that, it. was not intended to include them. {: #debate-28-s13 .speaker-KXT} ##### Mr PATERSON: -- But there is a dragnet clause to the effect that other pests may be proclaimed from time to time. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- That leaves it to the discretion of the Minister of the day to say what animal or vegetable pests ave to be included, and Parliament would have to depend upon the administration of the Minister to carry out its will. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr.** Latham) spoke of land subject to periodic flooding, and referred to improvements such as levees or embankments constructed to keep back the water. He asked whether the cost of such works would be taken into account in determining the capital value of the land. There can be no doubt that the present bill does cover such improvements. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page: -- In what part of the bill are they covered? As a matter of fact, the bill expressly excludes such works. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- That is not so. The right honorable member is referring to that section of the bill dealing with expenditure which shall not be taken into account. One such item of expenditure is in respect of maintenance; but the building of levees or embankments for the prevention of flooding is not maintenance, but an original work. There is a distinction between building an embankment, and repairing it. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page: -- The actual words of the bill are - >Provided further that in ascertaining the value of improvements, no amount shall bc included in such value in respect of any work done or expenditure incurred for the purpose of preventing bind, or any improvement thereon, from deteriorating. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- That refers to what is done after the improvement has been made. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page: -- It does not say that. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- Just what the various sections of a bill may mean is always open to argument. We might get the opinions of a dozen lawyers on a section, and all of "them might differ. I fear that the proposed amendment will not help us to escape from the clutches of the lawyers. The clause certainly does not propose to take into account the annual expenditure of maintaining land, or the annual expenditure of keeping down pear, or poisoning rabbits, or clearing out drains; but the original expenditure on those works will be taken into account in determining the unimproved value. {: #debate-28-s14 .speaker-KXT} ##### Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland -- Wo have been informed by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister of the intentions of the Government in regard to this legislation, and the interpretation that will be put upon it by the Taxation Commissioner, but we have been reminded by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Latham)** and by the right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page)** that the real point for consideration is not what we in this House understand the legislation to mean, nor even what the Taxation Commissioner may think it means, but what the High Court says it means. Therefore, it seems to me that we run a considerable risk unless we so frame this legislation that the interpretation of the High Court shall not be different from that of the Commissioner of Taxation. One possible future disagreement has been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Latham),** and is contained in the following words : - >Provided further that in ascertaining the value of improvement no amount shall be included in such value in respect of any work done or expenditure incurred for the purpose of preventing land, or any improvements thereon, from deteriorating- To my mind, there can be no doubt that, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, the levee or bank built to prevent inundation is covered by these particular words, because such a bank is built to prevent deterioration of the land by flooding. It seems to me that the specific wording of this proviso will prevent the value of such an improvement being deducted when ascertaining the unimproved value of the land. The section continues - or of maintaining land which has been improved. I might suggest another hypothetical case upon which this would bear. ' A piece of land has been cleared, but has later been allowed to go back to a state of nature. There are many such areas to be found in Gippsland. They were cleared once, but have become overrun with fern' and suckers. If that particular block of land remains in possession of the same person who cleared it, and then permitted it to go back to its natural state, any expenditure which, he subsequently incurs to clear it again might bo reasonably regarded as expenditure on maintenance. .But if the land is taken over by some one else while it is in a state closely approximating its original condition, surely it should be regarded, so far as the new occupier is concerned, as virgin land. While the Taxation Commissioner might well place that interpretation on the section, the High Court if called upon to consider the matter, might view it differently.Ido not think that it is safe to rest on the interpretation given to legislation by the best-intentioned government or Taxation Commissioner. We should guard ourselves by the very wording of the act itself, so as to make it quite certain that no finding of the High Court could defeat the intention of Parliament. I shall support the amendment of the right honorable member for Cowper in the belief that, if accepted, it will clarify the position. {: #debate-28-s15 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Warringah -- It seems to me that this amendment should have been included in the section which deals with what it is proposed to allow as improvements. The section, as I read it, simply means that any money which has been expended after the land has been cleared shall not be regarded, when calculating the unimproved value of the land, as having been spent on improvements. In my opinion, the concluding paragraph does not deal with the deductions which may be made, but simply points out that once a pest has been cleared off the land the money annually expended in mainitaining the land may not be deducted indetermining the valuation. That seems a fair and reasonable thing. Question - That the proviso proposed to be added (Dr. Earle Page's amendment) be so added - put. The committee divided. AYES: 21 NOES: 39 Majority . .18 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided. AYES: 38 NOES: 21 Majority . . . . 17 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Clause 3 (Land exempted from tax). {: #debate-28-s16 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper .- Under the existing act land " used for the purposes of athletic sports or exercises, other than horse-racing, and not used for the pecuniary profit of the members " of the club or body concerned, is exempt from taxation. It is now proposed to insert the words " or golf " after the words " horse-racing." This subject was debated in the Parliament before last, and the reason why grounds used for golf were included in the exemption was that it was felt that all the lands used for amusement purposes in the big cities but not for profit, should be exempt from taxation because the use of them tended to improve the health of the people, and provided lungs for their surrounding areas. Unfortunately, some of the big cities of Australia have not sufficient open space. When the city of Melbourne was planned adequate provision was made for parks, gardens and recreation grounds, but insufficient provision of that kind has been made in the suburban areas which have grown up round the city. Golf requires fairly extensive grounds, and it would be a pity, from the point of view of public health, to have such grounds farther away from the centres of population than they are. The former representative of the division of Balaclava (the right honorable W. A. Watt) placed before the Bruce-Page Government excellent reasons for exempting golf-links from taxation, and this appealed to me particularly as a medical practitioner. It would be interesting to know what amount the Government expects to obtain in taxation as the result of this alteration of the act. The effect undoubtedly will be to bring about the subdivision of these areas, and these games will take place much farther out. That would be a public calamity, and would be regretted much more in 50 years' time than it would be to-day. Bricks and mortarwould be substituted for green grass and trees, and that would certainly militate against the health of the workers of the city. It is a mistaken act of public policy to remove the exemption that has been placed upon golf clubs. The revenue that would be obtained from this source is insignificant, and surely the health of the community is a much more important consideration. I ask the Government to re-consider its decision and to allow golf to be played as near to the city as possible. {: #debate-28-s17 .speaker-JOG} ##### Mr BAYLEY:
Oxley .- I join with the right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page)** in asking the Government to re-consider its decision, particularly from the point of view of safeguarding the public health. Honorable members will agree that golf clubs are not run for profit. I ask the Treasurer to take his mind back to a memorable occasion when he opened one of the Queensland golf-courses. The drive that he then made still lives in thememory of those who witnessed it. Surely he will not harden his heart against the plea of honorable members on this side. If golf clubs were run for a profit I would certainly join with the Government. Sports which are run for profit should pay taxes. The late Government gave careful consideration to this subject before it exempted golf clubs and other athletic bodies from the land tax. The money to be collected from this source would not be an appreciable amount.No one can view the golf courses throughout Australia without realizing what a wonderful asset they are to the cities. The members of the golf clubs have spent large sums of money in beautifying their grounds, and there is a great deal to recommend the action that was taken by the late Government. I trust that the Treasurer will re-consider his decision, and continue the exemption given to golf clubs and kindred associations. {: #debate-28-s18 .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Henty .- I am not disposed to push myobjection to this proposal to the extent that other honorable members have done, because I recognize the extraordinary difficult financial position of the Government at the present time ; but, like the Leader of the Country Party **(Dr. Earle Page)** and the member for Oxley **(Mr. Bayley),** I make a plea not only for the golf clubs, but also on behalf of the city residents generally. If this tax is imposed on golf clubs I do not think that it will operate for long, because the golf clubs will be closed and the land sub-divided. It is certain that if this tax is imposed a number of courses adjacent to both Sydney and Melbourne will be closed, and as a result, not only the tax, but the wide open spaces which are now a great asset to our cities, will be lost to us. My plea is not on behalf of the golf clubs, but for the retention of these wide open spaces round the metropolitan areas, and on that ground I strongly appeal to the Treasurer to give this matter further consideration. {: #debate-28-s19 .speaker-KYI} ##### Mr PROWSE:
Forrest .- This proposal is really a discrimination between the rich and the poor. The citizens of the Commonwealth have different forms of enjoyment, and the golfers pay dearly for their privileges. It must not be forgotten that nearly all their subscriptions arcused to pay foi1 the labour employed on the links. If this tax is to be imposed on golf clubs within the populous areas, there is no reason why it should not be imposed on football, cricket and other clubs. The Government is making an invidious discrimination. I would forgive the Treasurer if, in place of this proposal, he substituted the practice operating in Western Australia, which is to pay whichever is the larger amount, the land tax or the income tax. That practice gives a great impetus to the proper use and development H:' the land. What is needed more than anything else in this country is the cultivation of the land for profit, so as to take wealth from mother earth, and I suggest that it would be wise to require land-owners to pay whichever is the greater amount - the land tax or the income tax. {: #debate-28-s20 .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE:
Treasurer · Dalley · ALP -- The justification for bringing golf clubs into the category of certain other sporting areas and making them subject to land tax, is obvious to everybody. {: .speaker-KZO} ##### Mr Latham: -- Only race courses are at present in that category. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- Yes; and there are many of them. Why should golfcourses be treated differently from racecourses ? {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- They are not run for profit. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- Honorable members can find many arguments in favour of special treatment for the clubs of which they and their friends are members. It seems to me to be a specious argument to say that the golf clubs provide open spaces for cities. If they do, it is accidentally, and certainly not to benefit the cities intentionally. It is not likely that the links would be thrown open to the public. In the two largest cities two of the most exclusive clubs - I do netwish to mention names - hold large areas for the benefit of a very small membership. In one case a club has an area of nearly 200 acres and a membership of about 400. The public are absolutely excluded from these areas, except when a competition or match is taking place, and on those occasions a charge for admission is made. If the preservation of these open spaces is essential it would be well for the municipal authorities to take them over and make parks of them. Only in that way would the inhabitants of densely populated metropolitan areas rereceive any benefit from them. Some of these golf clubs hold land the unimproved value of which would be more than £200,000. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- The Treasurer will tax them out of existence. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- They have been subject to land taxation before, and were not taxed out of existence then. If this tax enables the municipalities to make park lands of these areas, it will be a gain to the public. I do not doubt that golf is a game which has a beneficial effect upon the individual who plays or attempts to play it, but it is too much to expect a membership of, say, 500 to have reserved to its exclusive use, tax free, an area of from 200 to 300 acres. {: .speaker-KZO} ##### Mr Latham: -- There are few links so large as that. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- An ordinary golf-course of eighteen holes would consist of more than 150 acres. Some courses close to the metropolitan areas consist of 300 acres. There is no valid argument in favour of exempting golf clubs from land taxation. {: #debate-28-s21 .speaker-KZO} ##### Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong .- My connexion with the game of golf is by way of aspiration rather than achievement, therefore, I can discuss this subject impersonally. It appears to me that a distinction is being made by including only race clubs and golf clubs in these taxation provisions. The effect of the amendment will be that all land held for athletic purposes, provided it is not used for profit, will be exempt from taxation, with the exception of race courses and golf courses. A proposal to strike out the exemption altogether might, particularly in view of the present financial position of the Commonwealth, well commend itself to the committee. How can a distinction be legitimately drawn between the game of golf and other games in cases where the land which is used exceeds in value the £5,000 exemption ? It is difficult to justify the retention in the bill of a clause that includes only horse-racing and golfing. Golf is a game upon which a great deal of money may be spent; but many of our citizens, both men and women, who are not persons of any great means, play and enjoy it. If the links were pushed further out from the city, those persons would be seriously inconvenienced, and, in some cases, compelled to relinquish the game. This proposal is all in favour of the rich man who has a car, and to whom time is not, perhaps, so important as it is to the less wealthy man. The provision, therefore, will operate, unequally. The Canberra Golf Club and a number of other golf clubs will not pay any tax, because their links are on Crown land; but those clubs that have provided their own land by purchasing it with their own money will be taxed. If it were proposed to withdraw the exemption wholly, I doubt whether, at the present time, one would be able to say a word against it; but, having regard to the fact that every other form of athletic exercise that falls within the limits of the act is to be exempt, the proposal is difficult to justify. Perhaps it is popular to attack a game which in the past has had the reputation of being one for the rich; but any one who is acquainted with golf, as I am, knows that within recent years it has become more and more a game for the man of moderate means. If the tax succeeds in producing the object in view, the result will be to substitute bricks and mortar for beautiful green swards. I ask the Treasurer to realize that it is unlikely that he will derive any substantial pecuniary advantage from this taxation. He should abstain from proceeding with this proposal, even though there is an aspect of it which may readily appeal to the large number of people who regard golf as rather an exclusive pastime. {: #debate-28-s22 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava .- I also desire to protest against this provision. The Treasurer **(Mr. Theodore)** has asked how many of the proletariat play golf. I am one who does. Many golf clubs are not so exclusive as the Treasurer would suggest. The Elsternwick club, which is controlled by the Brighton City Council, in my electorate, is most democratic. Then there is the Albert Park club, to which the South Melbourne Council, which frequently has a majority of Labour members, has paid many tributes for the upkeep of the park. I gathered from the statement of policy delivered last week by the Prime Minister that the Government regards the relief of unemployment as one of the most important matters that it has under consideration. If golf clubs are compelled to go further from the city, only those who possess cars and have the necessary means will continue to be -members of them. At the present time the provision of a greater number of open spaces is puzzling the Town-Planning Commission in Melbourne. If golf clubs are forced out of existence and park lands are subdivided into building blocks, it will militate against the efforts of that commission, make golf dearer, and cause further unemployment. **Mr. SCULLIN** (Yarra- Prime Minister) [6.5 1 . - lt must be remembered that until two years ago golf clubs that had land of a taxable value paid land tax. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Latham)** has said that in these times we should be justified in taxing all sporting bodies. There is a good deal of truth in that suggestion. The only objection to its adoption is that there are practically no other sporting lands which would come within the 'taxable value. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- Put them all in. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Gullett)** advises us to include all lands used for sporting purposes. We are asked to put these bodies to the trouble of sending in returns although they would not be liable to taxation. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- Why tax the poor old golf clubs? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Because they hold very valuable areas of land, and should contribute to the revenues of this country; other athletic clubs do not hold land in large areas. The argument that the effect of the tax willbe to compel the golf clubs to go further out and thus make them more exclusive is too ridiculous to warrant a reply. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page: -- That has happened. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- The really exclusive clubs are those that are right in the metropolitan areas. The cheaper lands are well outside the cities, and those are the only places where one can get comparatively cheap golf. I do not think there is such a thing as poor man's golf. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- If the right honorable gentleman were to visit the municipal links in Moore Park, Sydney, on a Saturday afternoon, he would see poor man's golf. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Those who are to be found on those links do not sleep in the Domain. From a practical point of view, the only sporting land that does not come under the heading of land that is used for profit-making, and that is worth taxing, is that which is used for golf. The golf clubs are probably in a better position than any other land-owners to pay land tax. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page: -- What about the tennis clubs? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I invite the right honorable gentleman to tell me where there are tennis courts which would contribute to the land tax. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- The White City courts at Rushcutter's Bay. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- The courts at Kooyong. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I am prepared to assert that the unimproved value of the land on which the Kooyong courts are built is not £5,000. At one time that land was a swamp. Nearly the whole of its present value is due to the labour employed on its improvement. It was found necessary to build a solid bank round two sides of the courts to prevent them from being flooded. If the cost of improvements were deducted, the value of the land would be nil; and if we were to apply the principles of the McGeoch judgment, we should have to pay the tennis association a premium rather than tax them. It would be exceedingly difficult to find one such sporting area of an unimproved capital value sufficient to bring it within the taxable area. {: .speaker-KZO} ##### Mr Latham: -- What is the objection to striking out the whole of the exemptions ? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- The objection is that these bodies would be put to the expense of sending in returns whether they were taxable or not. Where the unimproved value of land is £3,000, there is an obligation to furnish a return. Some golf clubs have large areas of land which are worth a couple of hundred thousand pounds. What justification is there for saying that they shall be exempt from taxation? Pastoralists and others are taxed on the unimproved value of their holdings. In many cases, golf clubs charge almost exclusive rates for the privilege of membership. I do not know of any land that we should be more justified in taxing than that which is held by golf clubs. {: #debate-28-s23 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Warringah -- There is one aspect of this matter which I should like to bring before the Treasurer. In New Zealand, the value of golf links as lungs to the surrounding areas has been recognized, and the land tax imposed is only onehalf the ordinary rate. If the Government cannot see its way to exempt these clubs entirely, I suggest that it charge only half rates on them. It is unfair that golf should be singled out from all other sports that are not played with the idea of profit-making. There is no gainsaying the fact that in crowded metropolitan areas golf links are valuable to the surrounding districts, because they improve the public health. The general public have not the right of access to them ; but neither can they enter certain portions of a number of public parks without payment of a charge. Therefore, many open spaces which to-day constitute the lungs of our cities are really not dissimilar from land that is owned by golf clubs. It is usually argued by those who have an imperfect knowledge of the matter that golf clubs are most exclusive. If any honorable member opposite should hold that opinion, I invite him to investigate the matter more closely. He will be amazed at the hold that the game is obtaining on the middle and working classes of this country. Those people should not be discouraged from playing this game, which not only benefits themselves and the inhabitants of the district in which the links are situated, but also enhances the value of surrounding properties. It is invidious to single out this sport. Why should golf be chosen and tennis exempted? The White City tennis courts at Rushcutter's Bay occupy probably a more valuable area of land than any golf club, with, possibly, two exceptions, in the whole of New South Wales. Unless it is desired to impose what is regarded as a class tax, golf cannot fairly be singled out. I do not think that the revenue will benefit greatly from this tax. The effect of it was not very marked previously. Although very few golf clubs "will be called upon to pay the tax, I object to the invidious distinction that it is proposed to make. *Sitting suspended from G.15 to S p.m.* {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL: -- Golfers in this country have no desire to escape reasonable taxation, but . it is unfair to single out golf as the only sport to be taxed in this way. If is said that the clubs are exclusive; but 'that is due to the limited number of open spaces available as courses. If there were room for more clubs, more people would belong to them. The adoption of this proposal could only have the effect of converting what are now breathing spaces into congested residential areas. The clubs would then have to seek to establish themselves on park lands, where they would be exempt from land taxation. I think that the Treasurer might agree to the adoption of the New Zealand principle of half taxation. {: #debate-28-s24 .speaker-KXT} ##### Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland .- One can scarcely refrain from remarking upon the increased cheerfulness that pervades the chamber since we have reached a provision of the bill that honorable members can readily understand. The Treasurer asked why golf-courses should not be regarded as coming within the same category as racecourses. To my mind, it is obvious that a race-course is a place where there are facilities for the exercise of horses, whereas golf-courses provide exercise for human beings of all ages and of both sexes. Golfers range in age from about eight to eighty years. The Treasurer said that golf was an expensive and exclusive sport; but I contend that it is becoming more and more a poor man's game. Municipal courses are being largely established, and it would be a pity to make the game more expensive than it now is. It is true that very few courses will be taxed, because only those located in big city areas will have a sufficiently high land value to bring them within the scope of the present proposals, but those are the very lands on which it is desirable to prevent the building of houses, because of the need to provide lungs for the cities. Golf is not such an exclusive sport as the Treasurer has suggested; a large number of people obtain their only exercise from it. There are to-day thousands who play this game, while those who attempt to do so are still more numerous. We should keep our hands *oft* the taxation of land used for healthful exercise. Clause agreed to. Clause 4 (Lessors and lessees of land leased before the commencement of the act). {: #debate-28-s25 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper .- Yesterday I dealt in my second-reading speech with the subject of the taxation of Crown leaseholds, but I make another appeal on the subject to the Government, because I do not think that the position in regard to this legislation is properly appreciated. It will be remembered that, about six years ago, when Parliament decided to collect the tax to that date steps were taken to collect it. No less than five or six different methods of valuation had been employed, and various discussions have occurred between representatives of the Crown lessees, the Government, and the Commissioner of Taxation. It was suggested that some agreement might be mutually arrived at as to a proper system of valuation to adopt, but no such agreement was reached. Subsequent to the Jowett case, and after the royal commission of 1925 had recommended a certain system of valuation, there was a discussion between the Government, the Commissioner of Taxation and lessees as to whether future litigation could be avoided by some mutual agreement as to values. The suggestion was made that there might be a land valuation board of review, similar 10 the Income Tax Board of Review, which would deal with the whole of the cases, and thereby avoid litigation; he alternative was to continue it. It was determined to carry on the litigation with a view to ascertaining from the court whether it would lay down a definite principle of valuation according to the law. There was no suggestion at any time that if the court should decide that, these leases were not taxable, there would be any alteration of the law as it then stood. As one who took part in those discussions, I feel that in view of the fact that, a general principle has been laid down by the High Court, and an interpretation of the law has been given by it, to consent to an alteration of the law now, would be an act of repudiation on the part of the Government. Therefore, I protest against this being done, because never in the last six years was it in the mind of the late Government, the Commissioner of Taxation, or the lessees, that if the court gave a definite decision that could be applied generally, the Parliament of the day would deprive the lessees of the benefit of the victory they had won. This law was introduced in 1914, and apparently these Crown lessees cannot be taxed under it. That being so, it seems unjustifiable that, after that lapse of time, we should now alter the law to make the leases taxable. I put this view to the Government again, and point out that its present proposal is capable of considerable misconstruction. I have no doubt that it desires to do the right thing by these lessees; but, despite the attitude of the Treasurer, the proposal, if put into operation, would have an adverse effect on. our credit overseas. I recall what took place in connexion with the re-appraisement of Crown leases in Queensland; it was nearly .four years before Queensland could again go on the London market. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr Theodore: -- What caused that? {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- The retrospective alteration of the law in that State with regard to the re-appraisement of Crown leaseholds. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr Theodore: -- That was not the cause of it. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- There is no doubt that the legislation passed in Queensland at that time was regarded, and even spoken of, as an act of repudiation. I fear that this bill may be looked upon in the same light, and I urge that consideration be given to that particular point of view. As I said by interjection last night, when I was Treasurer and Acting Prime Minister in 1923 and 1924 I did what I could to help the present Treasurer, who was then Premier of Queensland, to overcome the difficulties that had arisen in that State because of the legislation passed there. He will remember that he wrote to me then and I saw him personally. I communicated with the then Prime Minister, who was in London, and he called a conference of financial men in the Old Country, pointing out to them that it was desirable that both the Commonwealth and the States should obtain as much of the accommodation they required in London as possible, and that it would befoolish for those financiers not to utilize to the full the possibilities of investment in Australia. The action then taken materially assisted in improving the position in Queensland. Australia is facing a very difficult position^ which will, undoubtedly, become more difficult in the next few months, and perhaps for the next couple of years. Having regard to the limited amount of taxation that the legislation under consideration involves, I think that it would be unwise to run the risk of being charged with lack of good faith in the matter. During the whole of the discussions, and during our attempts to collect the tax, there was never any suggestion that we should alter the law if we were beaten in the courts. I draw attention to the statement that I made to the pastoralists in the last discussion I had with them, immediately after the decision of the Jowett case. The question was asked whether that case, could be regarded as one laying down a general principle of valuation of Crown leaseholds, and I pointed out that, as Treasurer of the Commonwealth, it was my duty to see that the whole of the tax was collected. I said that the assessments had been made by the department, and had been objected to by pastoralists, that the royal commission had given a finding based on valuations, that that had been adopted by the Government, that the assessments were being issued on that basis, and that we would use every means that the law provided to secure payment under the act as it stood; but I never suggested "that there would be an alteration of the law. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr Watkins: -- What about the Kidman cases? {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- It was shown by the royal commission that **Sir Sidney** Kidman had actually overpaid the department, and had to be given a refund. It will be remembered that, when a prosecution was launched against him, because lie had not put in his returns, he went to court and made his explanation, and the court imposed the nominal fine of one shilling, remarking that the prosecution should not have been launched, because he was then doing his best to furnish his returns. But I am not concerned about that case; what I am most anxious to safeguard is the good faith of the Government of Australia. We have to solve a very difficult problem, and, if an attempt is made to dispose of it us now proposed, we shall probably cause further litigation. I desire to see the matter finished with, so that we may devote our attention to new problems, instead of being worried about the past. {: #debate-28-s26 .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE:
Treasurer · Dalley · ALP -- The right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page)** informed thu representatives of the graziers at the discussion iin *1026 to* which he has just referred, that as Treasurer it was his duty to see that the land tax imposed by Parliament is collected. That, is the obligation of the Treasurer to-day. 1. am bound to see that the tax leviable under the law is collected, and in order to do that i fc_is necessary to re-declare tthe law because the decision of the High Court in the Northampton Downs ease set. aside the clear intention of Parliament, when it passed the original act in 19:14. In 1923, Parliament decided to discontinue the taxation of Crown leases, but it definitely refused to waive the taxation that, had been assessed and was still outstanding. Some of this outstanding taxation was f.hp subject of the judgment in the Northampton Downs case. Are we to accept that judgment as applicable to all Crown leases, and thereby set aside the intention of Parliament first expressed in the act of 1914, and frequently reiterated since? Even the right honorable member for Cowper will not contend that the Parliament of 1914 did not intend the land tax to apply to Crown leases that were subject to resumption or re-appraisement. Yet, according to the decision of the High Court such leases are not subject to the tax. In reaffirming the original intention of Parliament, no real injury is done to anybody. Many lease-holders, who had been assessed on the assumption that they were liable to this tax, although their leases were subject to resumption wholly or in part, and their rentals to re-appraisement, have paid the tax. A few others lodged objections and have consistently attempted to evade the tax. Two of the objections came before the High Court, whose decision rendered nugatory the law so far us it related to the taxation of Crown leases. The Government now asks that the law be restored to what it was understood to bc prior to that judgment, and what. Parliament, intended it to be. There is nothing in the proposal to warrant a suggestion of repudiation. If an undertaking, expressed or implied, had been given to the Crown lessees that the collection of the tax would be held in abeyance pending a test case, the benefits of which, if the appellant were successful, would be extended to all lessees similarly circumstanced, we would be under an obligation to honour it. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- It was implied. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- There is no evidence of that in the office of the Commissioner of Taxation or the AttorneyGeneral's Department. **Mr. Watt,** when Treasurer in 1918, received representations from the pastoralists that the taxation of Crown leaseholds should be abolished, and he agreed to suspend the collection of the tax pending inquiry. Subsequently, a royal commission, after a thorough investigation, reported that the tax was a proper one to be imposed on Crown leases. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- To what did the circulars issued by the department refer ? {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page: -- The Taxation Department was attempting to' adjust the valuations on the new basis. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- That is so. The royal commission reported in December, and most of its recommendations were adopted by the Government. But they were very complex, and involved many alterations in the departmental system. Accordingly, a circular was issued informing certain taxpayers that although the tax was due, they need not pay it until a decision was reached regarding the new mode of assessment; whereupon, they would be further advised. Many who were subsequently assessed, and should have paid the' tax proceeded with their objections, and withheld, payment in the hope that they would get a favorable decision from the court. Other taxpayers have paid, and if we allow those who have not paid to get the benefit of the judgment of the High Court last year, we are morally bound to refund the amount already collected, because there is no difference in principle between the taxes paid and those outstanding. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- The Treasurer said that the decision of the High Court rendered nugatory the law relating to Crown leases. Actually, the High Court decided what, in fact, the law was. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- Perhaps it would be more, correct to say that the judgment rendered the intention, of Parliament inoperative. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- Evidently Parliament had failed to express its intention. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE: -- If the intention was not expressed in the act itself it was clearly evident in the debates that took place in Parliament in 1914 and at intervals since. The suggestion that Parliament did not intend the land tax to apply to pastoral lessees whose leases were subject to resumption and periodical re-appraisement is entirely without foundation. Parliament obviously did intend it so to apply, and the royal commission over which **Sir George** Knibbs presided reported that the tax was a proper and just one. In those circum stances, there is every justification for seeking a fresh declaration of the law in order to carry out the original intention of Parliament. We are not doing an injustice to anybody; we are merely re-establishing the equities of the case. Smaller lessees have paid their taxation, but the large pastoral companies, having been able to offer legal resistance, are endeavouring to evade their just dues. I see no valid reason why the committee should hesitate to pass the bill, and so enable the collection of a tax which was properly levied under the law as it was understood and intended by Parliament. {: #debate-28-s27 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper .- The Treasurer realizes the need to do justice to the lessees and avoid anything that will discredit Australia. I propose to supplement my earlier remarks by reading a precis of the proceedings at the conference which took place on the 18th November, 1926, between Messrs. Byrne, Boyne, and Alwyn, representing the pastoralists, and the Solicitor-General, the Commissioner of Taxation and myself as Treasurer. The decision in the Jowett case had recently been given, and the question at issue was whether that judgment could be regarded as establishing certain definite principles of valuation that could be adopted by the Taxation Department. It was one of a number of cases which had been chosen by the pastoralists to test the law, and was the first heard by the High Court which, unfortunately for the department, decided the matter not on the law or on any principles of valuation, but on the facts. Some of those interested contended that sufficient had been said by **Mr. Justice** Rich to form a definite basis for future valuations. One of the principal rules he laid down was that 15 per cent, profit was a reasonable rate for capitalizing net returns to ascertain the unimproved value of the fee-simple of the land. The" Commissioner of Taxation refused to accept that general principle, and the conference with the representatives of the pastoralists was the result. **Mr. Byrne** contended that the Jowett appeal was the first of a number which had been selected by the pastoralists as test cases to determine the method of valuation of Crown leaseholds which should be followed by the department in. its assessment. After a lengthy discussion, I summarized the position, and my remarks are thus summarized in the Commissioner's precis : - >The Treasurer stated that it was apparent from the discussion, that the views of the pastoralists and of the Commissioner of Taxation could not be reconciled under existing conditions. **Dr. Earle** Page then stated the general position as follows: - As Treasurer, it is his duty to sec that the land tax imposed by Parliament is collected. Assessments were made by the department and were objected to by the pastoralists. The Royal Commission on Valuation of Crown Leaseholds inquired into the subject exhaustively, and made certain recommendations which the Government decided to adopt- The department had assessed land tax on the basis of the values so ascertained. The pastoralists had not made any suggestions to the royal commission as to a method of valuation of Crown leasehold hind. There are two possible courses which might be taken in the circumstances: - (1) for the Government to recommend to Parliament that a land valuation board of review should be appointed to deal with all valuations of land; and (2) that the determination of values should be left to the courts. The suggested land valuation board of review would bc on the lines of the present Income Tax Board of Review. > > **Mr. Byrne** and **Mr. Boyne** stated that such *a* valuation board of review for Crown leaseholds would not suit them at all. > >The Treasurer then said that in the circumstances there is no alternative but to carry further appeals to the High Court. > > **Sir Robert** Garran suggested that it might be possible to have all points upon which rulings arc desired brought before the full High" Court by special arrangement between "the parties, thus obviating an investigation by a primary judge. > >The Treasurer suggested' to **Mr. Byrne** that he should discuss the possibilities in this direction with the Commissioner of Taxation. **Mr. Byrne** agreed to do so. > >I subsequently arranged with the SolicitorGeneral to discuss the matter with him after my discussion with **Mr. Byrne,** so as to determine the best course to be followed to bring all points effectively before the High Court. As a result of that discussion certain other cases were brought forward. Some of them were dealt with by the Commissioner and a settlement effected by mutual agreement as to value, and others, representing the amounts still owing, were left unsettled. The Northampton case was the first test, case in which the question of law was decided, and it has been stated by the judges that the act itself does not permit a freehold value to be found for leases subject to resumption or re-appraisement of rent. That is the situation which is now being corrected by the Government in this act and which can bc. regarded as a breach of faith. I have made my position as clear as I can, and have sought to show that the last Government acted openly, and with clean hands in the matter. It now rests with the committee and the Government to make up their minds what should be done. I oppose the Government's action because it does not accord with my understanding of the position.' {: #debate-28-s28 .speaker-20000} ##### Mr D CAMERON:
Brisbane , - I cannot allow this clause to be passed without voicing a word of protest. The members of the United Graziers Association of Queensland have telegraphed to me stating that they protest against the clause on the ground that retrospective legislation is not justified where, as in this case, taxpayers have, by test case, established their rights after protracted and costly litigation before the courts. These cases were brought before the courts on the understanding that they should be regarded as test cases covering the liability of other taxpayers in similar circumstances. The Treasurer has given the committee his assurance, which I accept, that there is no record of any such undertaking having been given, but if there were he would honor it. Surely, however, the statement which the right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page)** has just made regarding the conference with the graziers shows that they were given some definite assurance. {: .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr Theodore: -- On the question of valuation only. {: .speaker-20000} ##### Mr D CAMERON: -I should like to have the matter cleared up. I am quite willing to accept the Treasurer's assurance that he would honour any promise made by the last Government if he could find a record of it, and would consider it a moral obligation upon the Government not to introduce a provision of this kind. {: #debate-28-s29 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP -- There is one point which should be made clear. It has been suggested that we have repudiated some understanding or arrangement arrived at between the previous Government and the lessees. There was an understanding that a .test case should be brought before the court to determine the method of valuation, but it had nothing to do with the interpretation of the law. As a matter of fact, if the right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page)** follows the history of this litigation, he will find that the question decided by the court was not one of those at issue during the whole of those long years of controversy. An entirely new thing was sprung on us as a result of the court's interpretation of the law. The method of valuation is the only thing on which any undertaking had been given, and the only point, which was submitted to the court as a test case. It has been said that. Jowett's was taken as a test case, hut the department refused to accept that decision as settling the issue, and rightly so. The right honorable member for Cowper said that the question was determined not on the law, but on the facts. That is quite right. It was determined on the so-called facts, but it was the most extraordinary decision ever given by a judge of the High Court. It was the decision of one judge, **Mr. Justice** Rich. The facts were that a property was held by Jowett. in Queensland, and the rent paid for it was approximately £500 a year. About £3,000 was paid for the unexpired period of the lease, which showed that the actual rent must have been somewhat below the economic rent, or the purchaser would not have been prepared to pay so much for it. A witness for Jowett admitted that the rent was reasonable. Although £500 a year was being paid on the unimproved value of the land in rent, **Mr. Justice** Rich found that its unimproved capital value was £300. Obviously that was absurd. If a property is worth £500 a year in rent, its capital value is surely more than £300. This amazing result was arrived at by a weird juggling with figures. If honorable members want a good laugh I recommend them to read His Honour's judgment. That was one of the test cases. The court's interpretation of the law is to the effect that if a lease is subject to resumption at any period, or if any portion of a lease is subject to resumption, there is no value in the land for taxation purposes. There may be two properties, both let on 40-year leases. Half of one may be subject to resumption at the end of 20 years; in the case of the other the lease extends without conditions for the full 40 years. Surely if there is a leasehold value in the property which has the full 40 years to run, there is some value at least in the property a part of which is subject to resumption after 20 years. It cannot be said that it, has no value at all. I can understand its being maintained that the provision in regard to resumption affects the value of the land, but I cannot agree that it destroys the value altogether. {: .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr Nairn: -- The judgment says that the existence of such a provision places the land outside the formula by which valuations are made. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Therefore, the case hinges entirely upon the interpretation of the law, and ceases to be a test case in respect of which any undertaking was given. There is no question of repudiation involved here. If it could be shown that an undertaking of the nature mentioned was given, we should be prepared to honour it, but there is no such record. The telegram which the honorable member forBrisbane has received does not state the facts of the position, and there is not the slightest ground for saying that any agreement entered into by a previous government is not being honored by us. Clause agreed to. Clause 5. - Application of Act. {: #debate-28-s30 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper .- I. wish to place on record my objection to this land tax act being made retrospective for such a. length of time as is provided for. Clause agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment, report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third rime. {: .page-start } page 352 {:#debate-29} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Secondreading Debate resumed from 12th March, (vide page 33) on motion by **Mr. Forde** - >That thebill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-29-0-s0 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP -- *by leave* - I informed the honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Gregory)** that I would make a brief statement before he debated this matter. The bill has been introduced because of certain action proposed to be taken by a number of timber importers. These importers have endeavoured to bring timber into the country under a different item from that under which it lias ordinarily been brought. For well over a quarter of a century Baltic pine has been brought into Australia under item 291l. Since the duty on that item has been increased certain of the importers have tried to bring in Baltic pine under item 291k. When duty was demanded on the timber under item 291r. the importers issued writs to contest the matter in the courts. Obviously, their case had no merit, and the Government determined to alter the item in order to make sure of its power to do legally what it certainly had the right to do. Representatives of most of the importers of timber waited on me to-day. T spoke frankly to them, and told them that I considered that there was no merit in their case. They claimed the right to go to the court. I said that we were the custodians of public rights and proposed to take this means of preventing them from carrying out their intention. They said that if we proposed to rely on the merits and justice of the case they could justly claim that the timber should be allowed to go back into bond, seeing that they had paid £100,000 in duty several months before they had any need of the timber. They represented that they had met with considerable financial difficulty in raising this money, believing that by doing so they would be gaining a large amount by reason of the reduced duty that they would have to pay. I listened to their case, and agreed that there was a certain amount of reason in it. In the circumstances I took the responsibility of allowing the timber to be rebonded, and of agreeing to refund the amount of duty that they had paid. The formula in which the arrangement we came to has been expressed is as follows : - {: type="A" start="I"} 0. In all cases where duty paid under protest on dressed Baltic floorings, linings and weatherboard any owner shall have the right to re-bond such timber and receive refund of duty paid thereon provided such timber is physically in a position to be re-bonded, and when such timber is subsequently entered for home consumption the rate of duty thereon shall not exceed the sum of 20s. per 100 super, feet. That point needs some explanation, lt was suggested that if the timber were rebonded there would be nothing to prevent the Government from increasing the duty before it could be taken out of bond again. But that would be playing an unfair trick upon the merchants ; so, although it is not usual to give assurances in regard to variations in duty, I undertook thai nothing of the kind would be done. The formula concluded in the following terms : - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. In each case where timber is re-bonded the relative proceedings are to be discontinued, and where any proceedings whether under section 1.C3 or section 107 are discontinued each party shall pay its own costs. 1. The refund of duty to be made under paragraph I shall be made within fourteen days after the request is lodged. This really means that we resume the *status quo.* That is to say, the writs are to be withdrawn, the timber re-bonded and the duty refunded. The duty will, of course, have to be paid when the timber is taken out of bond ultimately. I made it clear that the Government must still proceed with its bills, and the timber merchants realized that that was so. Although they represented about 95 per cent of the merchants, they could not speak for the remaining 5 per cent. Moreover, it would not prevent any fiction being taken subsequently to go back over the years, even to the earliest period. The Government must protect the revenues, and must proceed with its legislation ; but the actual matter in dispute has practically been settled. {: #subdebate-29-0-s1 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY:
Swan -- I am glad that this matter has been satisfactorily settled between the importers and the Government, and I have nothing farther to say- about it. I feel obliged, however, to voice my very strong objection to the growing practice of introducing retrospective legislation into Parliament. There may be some justification for it in this case, for the classification which is being altered has been in vogue for the last 27 years. However, I trust that the Government and the government departments generally will realize that they do not make the law. The laws are passed by Parliament, and government departments should be compelled to abide by them just like ordinary individuals. I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree with me that far too many bills containing retrospective provisions have been brought down in recent years. I do not know whether this is a result of unfortunate drafting, but the practice should cease. Section 163 of the Customs Act makes it clear that in the event of goods being wrongly classified and a wrong duty paid upon them the Government can claim the extra duty, even though the goods have been sold;- and section 167 of the act gives the importer the right, in the case of a wrong classification, to demand a refund of the amount of duty overpaid. I strongly urge that due consideration be given to the law in all cases of this kind, and that the provisions of the act be not overstepped. I wish to bring under the notice of the Government a matter which came before me only to-day. I hope the Government will take steps to amend the 1925 amending Customs Act to prevent happenings of the kind I shall now describe. A strong movement is on foot in Australia and other parts of the world to-day to encourage the use of more wool. The 1925 amending Customs Act provides that, in order to receive the benefit of the preferential tariff, manufactured goods must contain at least 75 per cent, of British labour and material, and Australian material is classed as British. A recent decision of the customs authorities has had the effect of causing Australian-grown wool manufactured in England, and returned to Australia in the form of manufactured goods, to be classed as foreign should even 1 per cent, of foreign material be used in its manufacture. An English manufacturer, who says that he has in the past acted generously towards Australia, and never used anything but Australian wool, wrote to the editor of a newspaper in South Africa in the following terms: - >Two years ago- after three years of practice according to the Tariff Act - the Customs authorities suddenly applied a strange interpretation, counting the cost of Australian wool as *' foreign " supplies to the British manufacturer, thereby upsetting the quota entitling the articles to British preferential duty. On goods already sold they enforced the collection of thousands of pounds retrospectively. The letter proceeded : - >Since that unheard of proceeding, I and many others have striven jealously to find substitutes for anything Australian. I hope that the Government will take steps to amend the act to prevent that kind of thing from happening in the future, and endeavour to remove this animosity against our products. I am pleased that the dispute with the timber merchants has been settled amicably, but I trust that in future we shall have as little retrospective legislation as possible. I thank the Prime Minister for the kind explanation he has given of the negotiations that have occurred. He has saved me and many others a good deal of trouble and worry. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages, without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 354 {:#debate-30} ### CUSTOMS BILL {:#subdebate-30-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 12th March *(vide* page 35), on motion by **Mr.** Forde - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Henty .- I support the principle of this short measure. Recent judgments of the Supreme Court of New South Wales have had the effect of allowing an unlimited period of time for claims for refunds of duty by importers. That, obviously, could not continue. The only point is whether three days is a sufficient time to allow for the making of claims for such refunds. I ask the Minister to consider whether some extension .of the period could not be granted. I must say that so far the three-day period has worked remarkably well. The department has shown a commendable disposition to receive applications for refunds in special cases, even after the expiration of a three-day period. I would not for a moment suggest that merchants should be given a long time in which to submit their claims. It has been argued that, as the department has a year in which to re-adjust duties wrongly imposed, the importers should be granted a year in which to make applications for refund. But the circumstances of the two cases are entirely different. Applications for refund, based upon an obvious error or upon damage to goods andso on, may arise out of circumstances which can be discovered soon after the duty has been paid, but in many cases in which the department concludes that goods have been under-valued, sometimes because of actual conspiracy between importers at this end and exporters on the other side of the world, its investigations are necessarily prolonged. Therefore it is reasonable that the department should he allowed a period of one year. But nothing like that period would be necessary for applications for refund by importers here. I suggest to the Acting Minister that before this bill is put through the House he might at least give an undertaking to consider the representations of importers in respect of an extension of the three-days' period. I have much pleasure in supporting the bill. {: #subdebate-30-0-s1 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Aoting Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP -- I have listened with interest to the suggestion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Gullett)** and I assure him that it will be given full consideration. Although the department has, under regulation 126, assumed the power to limit the period within which claims shall be made to three days, in practice this time limit has not been insisted upon in any case where such insistence would cause hardship. The regulation has been sympathetically administered, and I have with me an extract from a letter that I have received from **Mr. P.** C. Oake, Secretary of the Melbourne Ch amber of Commerce, bearing out my statement. The letter is dated the 14th March last, and in it **Mr. Oake** says: - Regulation 126 dealing with this matter has, of course,been in operation for a considerable time, but the administration of the regulation has, generally speaking, been reasonable and fair. Regulation 126 (2) of the Customs Regulations, up to early in 1929 provided that a refund of payments should be allowed within three days of the date of payment of duty on the delivery of the goods from customs control, or within such further time not exceeding one week as the con troller might allow. In 1929 this regulation was amended by the omission of the words "not exceeding one week" so that the controller may now allow a refund irrespective of time limitation. The regulation also contains, and has always contained a proviso that a refund may be allowed irrespective of time limitation in instances where it is clear on the face of the invoice and the entry that duty has been overpaid. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has had experience in the administration of the Customs Department, knows that that regulation has been sympathetically administered, and he can rest assured that no hardships will be inflicted. I am very pleased that he sees fit to support the bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read asecond time. *In committee ;* Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Refund of duty). Mr.GULLETT (Henty) [9.5].- One little point has arisen out of the remarks of the Acting Minister. He rather gave the impression - I think quite unintentionally - that the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, in making representations upon thebill, was satisfied with the present situation and merely commended the general attitude of the department; but I wish to remind the Minister that in the same letter from which he quoted, the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce strongly urged him to grant an extension of this period of three days. I think that that should be made clear. {: #subdebate-30-0-s2 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Acting Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP , -The regulation providing for a period of three days can be altered at any time, and the department will give full consideration to the representations of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.I have not with me the complete letter from the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, but I accept the statement of the honorable member that that body did make certain other suggestions. Clause agreed to. Clause 3 - The amendment effected by the last preceding section shall be deemed to have commenced on the date of the commencement of the Customs Act 1961. {: #subdebate-30-0-s3 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Acting Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP -- I move - Thatthe following proviso be added: - " Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the amendment made by this act shall not apply so as to affect proceedings No. 5353 of 1989, commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales." In my second-reading speech on this hill I stated that the ruling of the court would be honored in respect of the case of Berk Limited, and that the time limit imposed by the regulation would not be used against them. I had already issued instructions that the department's plea that the claim was barred by regulation 126 (2) should be omitted from the proceedings, but that firm's solicitor called on me and asked that a special proviso be inserted in the bill excepting this case so as to place the position beyond all doubt. I sought the advice of the AttorneyGeneral's Department on the matter, and it agreed that it will be advisable to add that proviso to the bill. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr ArchdaleParkhill: -- What is the case referred to? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The case of Berk Limited, which was before the court in New South Wales, and on which a decision was given. As explained in my second-reading speech, I wish to safeguard the interests of that litigant, and I have moved this proviso so as to honour the promise that I gave to that firm. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment, report - *by leave* - adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time, {: .page-start } page 356 {:#debate-31} ### ADJOURNMENT {: #debate-31-s0 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP .- I move - That the House do now adjourn, I wish to express my appreciation of the way in which the House has facilitated the passage of several urgent measures. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 9.10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 March 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1930/19300320_reps_12_123/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant