Senate
13 September 1917

7^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

PAPERS
QUESTION
- RETURNED SOLDIERS’ FARMS
QUESTION
- COST OF LIVING
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE
WAR LOAN BILL (No. 2)
- Second Reading
WAR LOAN (UNITED KINGDOM) BILL
WAR-TIME PROFITS TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL
COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS BILL
PAPER

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

page 1965

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Bounties Act 1907-1912.- Return of Particu lars relating to Bounties Paid during Financial Year 1916-17.

Defence Act 1903-1915. - Regulations amended, &c.- Statutory Rules 1917, Nos. 192, 220, 221.

Lands Acquisition Act 1906. - Land acquired at Blackboy Hill, near Midland Junction, Western Australia - For Defence purposes.

The War - Prisoners’ Camps in Germany : Correspondence respecting use of Police Dogs. ‘ (Paper presented to British Parliament.)

page 1965

QUESTION

RETURNED SOLDIERS’ FARMS

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Repatriation if it is a fact, as stated in the newspapers, that returned soldiers have refused to take up the farms prepared for them by the New South Wales Government?

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am unable to answer the question, but I shall endeavour to ascertain from the New South Wales Minister for Lands what truth there is in the statement.

page 1965

QUESTION

COST OF LIVING

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Have any reports yet been received from the InterState Commission with regard to their investigation of the increased cost of food and living; and, if not, when may we expect to get some reports?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I think I am cor rect in saying that, up to the present, no reports have been received, but I anticipate that they will be in the hands of the Government in a few days.

page 1965

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Leave to Original Anzacs - Return or Officers - Instructional Staff

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

– I beg to ask the Minister for Defence the following questions : -

Has the Minister for Defence noticed an article appearing in the papers of to-day, stating that an announcement has been made by the Director-General of Recruiting, to the effect that 5,000 original Anzacs will be given leave to return to Australia for a spell, regardless of whether sufficient reinforcements are coming forward or not?
Was this statement made by the authority of the Minister for Defence?
Why was this announcement not made by the Minister for Defence?
Will this leave apply to the whole of the first and second contingents who formed the original Anzacs?
Will preference be given to men who have been continuously in the trenches?
Is this scheme to be given effect to without delay?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I have seen in the press the statement referred to by the honorable senator. It was not authorized by me or any other member of the Government. I have asked Mr. Mackinnon to inform me whether he is correctly reported in the statement said to have been made.

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

How many officers who have been on active service have returned to Australia for either of the following reasons: - Invalidity through wounds, invalidity through ill-health; and through other reasons than the above?

Senator PEARCE:

– The answer is -

The undermentioned number of officers have been returned to Australia from abroad for the reasons as specified: -

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

How many of the permanent instructional staff have gone abroad on active service in the past two years?
The number from each State?
Did they go abroad with commissions?
Have any of the acting instructional staff been requested to go abroad on active service ?
If so, how many, and from what States?
How many permanent sergeants of the actingstaff have gone abroad on active service?
How many of the permanent staff have been sent to Duntroon from the different States, and how many have passed the examination?
Were any of those that failed afterwards asked to volunteer in the Australian Imperial Force as company sergeant-majors?
Would the acceptance of such offer have meant a reduction of rank ?
Are married men on the acting staff, with families, now being told to join the Australian Imperial Force as privates?
Will members of the acting staff have a chance to qualify for a commission at Duntroon?

Senator PEARCE:

– Inquiries are being made, and replies will be furnished as soon as possible.

CASE OF Mr. R. KEVAN.

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Will he lay on the table of the Library the file dealing with the case of Mr.R. Kevan, telegraphist (unattached), Perth, Western Australia?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– On behalf of my colleague, I beg to supply the following answer : -

Without knowing what particular papers are referred to, the Minister is unable to say. If the honorable senator will kindly indicate the subject-matter of the papers, the matter will receive consideration.

page 1966

WAR LOAN BILL (No. 2)

Second Reading

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Although the figures in the Bill are such as will compel attention, I venture to say that the Bill itself is not one which will make a very heavy demand on the time of honorable senators. It authorizes the raising of a sum not exceeding £80,000,000 for the purpose of the prosecution of the war. ‘ The total amount authorized to be raised by previous legislation is £88,000,000, of which approximately £82,000,000 has been raised. A further sum of £6,000,000 may, therefore, be raised under the existing Acts. It may interest honorable senators to know how the public accounts stand in relation to the war loan expenditures. Up to the 30th June next the expenditure will be -out of loan, £189,045,757; and out of revenue, £25,834,916; making a total of £214,880,673. That amount has to be reduced by a sum of £2,139,164 paid into sinking funds, making a total expenditure, actual or estimated, up to the end of June next, of £212,741,509. Included in the above estimate of expenditure out of loan for the current financial year is the sum of £26,000,000 due to the British Government for the maintenance of our troops at the Front and the supply to them of munitions. The estimated expenditure by the British Government in respect of the Australian Imperial Force up to 30th June, 1917, is £28,500,000 and up to 30th June, 1918, a further amount of £29,750,000. This makes a total of £58,250,000, of which £5,000,000 was paid by the Commonwealth in 1916- 17, and £26,000,000 is to be , paid during the current financial year.

Senator Maughan:

– Do those figures include the expenditure upon the Australian Navy?

Senator MILLEN:

– I am not quite in a position to answer that question offhand, but I shall endeavour to obtain the information before the Senate rises to-day. These two payments will still leave an amount due to the Imperial Government of £27,250,000 unpaid on the 30th June, 1918. Included in the above war expenditure of £212,741,509 is an amount of £2,850,000 for advances to the States for the construction and erection of silos for wheat storage, and an amount of £2,000,000 to be advanced to the States for the repatriation of returned soldiers. On the, 30th June last there was on hand as balance of war loans previously raised £17,745,163. The instalments to be received after the 30th June, 1917, in respect of the fourth war loan, issued in February last, amounted to £6,187,668. These two amounts total £23,932,831, which will be the total loan moneys either in hand or in sight at 30th June, 1917.

I come now to the expenditure. The estimated expenditure out of war loan in 1917-18 is £84,051,230. Deducting loan moneys in hand or in sight, as already mentioned, namely, £23,932,831, the amount yet to be raised is £60,118,399. It is quite obvious that though that is the estimated amount required, it is desirable to have a slight margin for contingencies. It is, therefore, proposed to raise not the net amount which .the Estimates disclose as necessary, but a slightly larger sum, and this amount brings the total to £64,065,000. If this £64,065,000 be all borrowed during 1917-18 there will be an additional sum still outstanding of about £27,250,000 duetto the British Government, which, however, it is not intended to pay during this financial year’. The amount required for, war loan expenditure is £64,065,922,’ but it is advisable to have a margin. That is a margin to which I have just referred. I have already explained the reason why the amount proposed to be raised slightly exceeds the amount of the estimated expenditure.

If the Senate sanctions this Bill it is proposed to issue at once a loan of £20,000,000, having the same currency as our previous loans, but maturing on the 15th December, 1927. As this loan will be floated somewhat later than our other loans, it is proposed that it shall mature at a later period. It is not. desirable that all these loans should mature on the same date, but it is very desirable that they should have the same currency. The terms upon which it is intended that the loan shall be issued are in all particulars th’e same as those which governed the issue of previous loans, that is to say, the rate of interest will be 4J per cent, and that interest will be free of Commonwealth and State income tax.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I have no desire to debate this Bill at length. But I do feel that the pace at which we are travelling in regard to the expenditure of borrowed money is a very rapid one. I would, therefore, again urge upon the Government the wisdom of seriously considering the necessity of making some adequate preparation to exact from those persons who are enjoying large incomes their fair share of the cost of this war. If we continue to spend borrowed money at the rate we are now spending it, without wishing to appear in the rôle of a prophet of disaster, I say that any ordinary man must perceive what will be the end of it. Personally, I am of a very hopeful disposition, and for a considerable time I have been hoping for the end of the war. But on , the facts confronting us to-day we must admit that we cannot foresee any early termination of the struggle.

As I remarked yesterday, I have no desire either to delay or inconvenience the Government. The problem of financing the war is one which belongs to the Government, and we ought to do all that we can to assist them, and to tender them advice in such a way that there may be some hope of its being accepted. I exceedingly regret that the Government are seeking authority to issue this huge loan without exacting from individuals who are in receipt of large incomes their fair share of taxation. I pointed out yesterday that if incomes in excess of £200 a year were seized by the Government, they would collect under this heading no less a sum than £178,000,000 annually. To go on borrowing money to sustain and equip our soldiers at the Front is, to my mind, an unfair treatment of them. I do hope that the Government will seriously consider the need for financing the war in such a way that these huge loans will not be our only means of meeting our expenditure. Of course I quite recognise that we cannot hope to finance the war out of revenue, and that those who come after us ought to carry their fair share of the burden. At the same time we have not faced the obligations laid upon us in the way that we should have done.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I have a few remarks to make which I think are appropriate to the Bill now before us. Some time ago it was announced as the intention of the Government then in power to take preliminary steps for the organization of the industries of this country. I remember reading a speech by the Minister for Defence on the importance of this matter. It is proposed under this Bill to borrow an additional £80,000,000. Speaking on the War-time Profits Bill last night, I had occasion to mention that the total indebtedness of the Commonwealth for war purposes up to the end of the current financial year will be £212,000,000. That is to say, we shall have borrowed £212,000,000 for war purposes.

Senator Pearce:

– No.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Yes, according to the Budget statement of the Treasurer, Sir John Forrest.

Senator Millen:

– That includes £29,000,000 paid out of revenue. It is not the total indebtedness, but the total war expenditure.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I stand corrected. It is the total war expenditure. It is now proposed to borrow an additional £80,000,000.

Senator Millen:

– That sum is not to be added to the other total.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I am aware of that. This £80,000,000 will be a part of the total of £212,000,000. We have to take into serious consideration the enormous interest bill which our handful of 5,000,000 of people will be called upon to “ pay. As Senator Gardiner has pointed out, it is a very serious financial burden for the people of Australia to face.

It seems to me that there is only one way by which we can avert financial disaster, and that is by making the utmost of Australia’s splendid natural resources. If we are to do so, we should begin no. It was a part of the Win-the-war Government’s policy when they went to the country, as may be seen from speeches by the Prime Minister and other leaders *oi the party, that the natural resources of Australia should be taken advantage of to the fullest possible extent. The present Government have been in power for some months, but there does not seem to have been any great effort put forward bv them to take the preliminary steps necessary foi the organization of our natural resources. It is a very big task for any Government to undertake, but it is one in which the present or any other Government may confidently expect to receive the fullest possible assistance from every member of this Parliament, no matter to what political party he may belong. The Government should take the preliminary steps necessary for the organization of our resources as soon as possible, if the Australian taxpayers are nob to be up against a very solid difficulty.

I repeat that we have to find an enormous sum of money to meet the interest on the loans we have borrowed. I believe, that Australia will cheerfully do what is necessary. We have the command of such magnificent natural resources in Australia that we shall be able to do what is necessary if those resources are properly handled.

Senator de Largie:

– Hear, hear! If they are properly handled.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I admit that it is a huge task for this or any other Government to see that our resources are availed of to the utmost extent, bub I say that it is about time that this Win-the-War Government showed some earnestness in the matter by taking the preliminary steps accessary for that organization. We must find the money necessary to meet our interest bill, and we shall never be able to do that without imposing unbearably crushing taxation upon the low-wage earning classes in the country if our great resources of iron, wool, timber, and so on are not properly organized. After the war we shall be faced with the additional expenditure necessary to reinstate in reasonably profitable positions the men who are fighting for us abroad-. The lowwage people of the country will never be able to bear the burden of taxation that will have to be imposed upon them unless our natural resources are made use of to the utmost extent. The present Government have splendid opportunities before them. They have a majority in both Houses of this Parliament, and in connexion with matters like this no party considerations will be allowed to intervene. They will have the full support of both sides in any legitimate attempt to organize the resources and industries of the country. I hope that in the very near future we shall find the Government making some earnest effort to do what many of its members promised would be done during the last election campaign.

SenatorFERRICKS (Queensland) [3.28]. - I wish to refer briefly to this Bill. I realize the seriousness of the financial situation in which Australia is involved. If one did not otherwise realize it fully the magnitude of the sum asked for under this Bill, £80,000,000, would be sufficient to impress it upon his mind. I am under no illusions in this regard. I noticed a statement in the Argus which is very appropriate to the matter in hand, as touching the seriousness of recent events in connexion with the present world-wide war. In a leader in the Argus of 13th September I find these pertinent references -

The effect if Russia fell out of the war has been described from the point of view of America by a writer in the New Republic. He says that it would be at best a hideously expensive stalemate for the present and the next summer; that instead of preparing to enlist and discipline 1,000,000 conscripts the United States should be planning a draft of all ablebodied men between twenty and forty, with training camps for at least 4,000,000 soldiers, and that three or four years of fighting with casualties of several millions, with corresponding enormous expenditure, would lie ahead. If that be the prospect of the United States, what must it be to Britain ?

When we bear in mind that this summer in Europe coincides with our winter just now near its close we realize the seriousness of the position that is facing Australia and the world in regard to financial matters. If any emphasis of this were needed it is supplied by the following brief extract: from the Sydney Morning Herald of Monday last on the question of our financial responsibilities -

The longer the war lasts the heavier the burden will be. By this time all hope of getting indemnities from Germany further than are necessary for the reasonable reparation of Belgium and elsewhere, is pretty well abandoned. That means that some way or other we shall have to face our war debt ourselves, and make the best of it.

Most thinking people have now come to realize that it is impossible to expect Germany to pay full indemnities, but if a mere member of this Senate had made the statement contained in the Sydney Morning Herald he would have been accused of disloyalty or pro-Germanism, such is the intolerance displayed in regard to any expression of opinion concerning this matter. This statement as to the seriousness of the situation causes us to wonder what would have been the effect on Australia financially, nationally, : and industrially had the policy of conscription been given full effect to, without due regard to all that it meant.

Senator Millen:

– If the Empire had been under a conscription law when war threatened, there would not have been any war at all.

Senator FERRICKS:
QUEENSLAND

I understand from the papers that in New Zealand an attempt has been made to compel investments in the war loan. That country went in for conscription, with which I do not agree, having always taken up the attitude that even if wealth were conscripted it was no argument for the conscription of life to follow. I understand that in New Zealand a form of compulsion has been introduced to obtain subscribers to the war loan, by which’ people are assessed at about three times the income-tax assessment, and if they fail to put the amount at which they have been assessed into the war loan they are penalized by a doubling of the income tax. That, at any rate, is a commencement in the conscription of wealth. I am not blaming the present Australian Government any more than the previous Government for the exemption from income tax of interest on war loans. The principle was wrong at its inception, and should never have been tolerated.

I wish to enter my protest against the allowance of commission to members of stock exchanges for money which goes through their offices into the war loan. There is no warrant for the payment of that commission, which already has totalled £58,000, according to the Vice-

Senator Millen:

– What is the ordinary rate to-day ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator GRANT:

– If the rate of interest were increased to 5£ per cent, by the time it had been collected the Commonwealth would not be much better off than it is to-day. The Government, I presume, have carefully considered this matter before deciding upon the conditions of the loan. As the end of the war does not. appear to be in sight, we shall be confronted in the near future with an annual interest bill of £10,000,000. But after all that is not much. We can very easily pay ‘ that amount provided that taxation be levied in such a way as to fall upon the shoulders of those who are best able to bear it.

Senator Earle:

– Particularly if the money is borrowed in the Commonwealth.

Senator GRANT:

– Yes. It is one of the axioms of the Protectionist party that everything is all right so long as the money is retained in the country.

I am at a loss to understand why the Government is paying brokerage in connexion with our waT loans. It is not cleaT to me that this payment is essential. When we borrowed £23,000,000 we had to pay some £58,000 as brokers’ commission. Consequently, if we borrow £200,000,000, we shall have to pay something like £430,000 in commission. If the payment of this money can be avoided, it is our duty to avoid it.

Senator Guthrie:

– A large amount of it goes to the Commonwealth Bank.

Senator GRANT:

– I do not know who the brokers, were who received the commission. But the Government should certainly minimize payments in that direction. I- wish the loan every possible success, and shall support the Bill.

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

– I wish to make a few observations upon this Bill. I have listened very carefully to the speeches which have been delivered upon it - all of them from ‘ the opposite side of the chamber - and, as a new senator in this new Parliament, I must say that I regard the future with a great deal of misgiving. It seems to me that the best that can happen in connexion with Australia’s part in the war is that we shall owe at least £200,000,000 before the struggle is over. That burden will impose upon us a permanent interest charge of £9,000,000 annually, and when there is added to that sum the amount which must be found for pensions to our soldiers, for repatriation purposes, and for considerable items in connexion with the development of our own defence, I cannot see how anything less than another £15,000,000 a year will have to be imposed as additional taxation.

– I remind honorable senators that stockbrokers, since the inception of these Commonwealth war loans, have received an average of about £200 per head for their trouble and work in connexion with the floating of these loans. Stockbrokers very often keep money for their clients. There is the carry-over; there are margins, and forms have to be filled up .and scrip secured, and for the trouble involved in connexion with the matter 5s. per cent, does not appear to «ie to be a very high rate of commission to pay to stockbrokers of the Commonwealth. If a stockbroker is employed by a man in the country who desires to invest in a war loan, he can do so through the post. I think honorable senators opposite who believe that every man is worthy of his hire have little reason to cavil at the amount which has been divided amongst the whole of the stockbrokers and agents of Australia in connexion with our war loans.

I must say that I am sorry that honorable senators opposite sometimes fling at those on this side some of the barbed arrows of class prejudice in connexion with matters which really ought not to be debated in that way. Personally, it seems to me that if the war has proved anything it is that a Democracy is not invincible. It has proved tha* an Autocracy may be able ‘to conduct a war better than a Democracy. At all. events, the future appears to be very black, and it may be that before many years are over our heads, we, in this Parliament, and throughout the Commonwealth, will have to stand four-square to effectively meet the position with which we may be faced.

Senator Ferricks:

– What about the money then ?

Senator PRATTEN:

I wish to say something in regard to the provisions by which the Government guarantee immunity from .State and Commonwealth taxation of the income derived from investment in the proposed loan. As honorable senators are aware,

I do not think that a sound principle. I said so when previous measures were presented upon which we have borrowed some £80,000,000. When those loans were floated at 4½ per cent., free of income tax, money was easier than it is to-day. Money has hardened since, and the Government, therefore, had to ask themselves whether, if those conditions were necessary to insure success then, there was a reasonable prospect of floating a loan successfully to-day under less favorable conditions. I am submitting this Bill for that reason, and not because I believe in the principle of exempting interest on these loans from taxation. When that £80,000,000 was floated under those conditions at a time when money was easier, and knowing that the country cannot afford the failure of a loan, there is certainly some justification for continuing the provisions previously adopted in order to secure the success which we regard as essential.

– No; because we have no jurisdiction in such a matter. I am sure the honorable senator will find that I am right on the point.

Something has been said with regard to commission to brokers. Does the honorable senator suppose that every loan has been floated without any expenditure? “

Senator Ferricks:

– I know the expenditure has been comparatively small.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator must bear in mind that every loan costs something to float. Even the amount recently floated by the Commonwealth Government in Great Britain at 5½ per cent. was issued at a discount of 2 per cent., and the expenditure in connexion with that transaction was not less than £1 12s. 6d. per cent. It may have been a shade higher. When we consider the services which brokers are in a position to render, not merely by formally applying for the loan, but frequently by prevailing upon clients to invest in a loan, the amount paid them in the way of brokerage has not been out of proportion to the value of the services rendered.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Authority to borrow £80,000,000).

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I should like to understand clearly from the Vice-President of the Executive Council if it is intended to float the whole of the loan in Australia ?

Senator Millen:

– Yes.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Millen) seemed to regard my remarks on the second reading as inconsistent with my attitude in regard to previous Loan Bills, but I merely took the opportunity of remarking on the enormous increase in the amount of borrowed money now required to finance the war, and pointed out that the Government should seriously consider the question of making adequate provision, by way of further taxation on the huge incomes which some people are enjoying at the present time, in order to meet

the interest bill. I shall now quote from page 57 of the Monthly Summary of Australian Statistics, showing the incomes earned by persons resident in Australia for the twelve months ending 30th June, 1915. These are the latest figures available”. The return is as follows : -

I have quoted those figures so that the Minister might realize the enormous amount of lie net incomes earned in Australia, and for the purpose of suggesting that it is reasonable to expect that such persons should bear a larger share of the War costs than they are paying at the present time.’ I fail to see any inconsistency in my attitude. The first issue of £20,000,000, on such terms as I suggested, would not disturb the commercial and business interests of this country.

We are now in the position that, after three years of war, the Treasurer (Sir John Forrest) is asking for a new loan of £80,000,000, with no certainty, either, that this will not be followed by an even greater amount. Surely, in view of these facts, it is time the Government became seized with the importance of making adequate provision for the payment of interest? This burden is increasing, and yet, when I venture to criticise the Bill, I am met with a flippant suggestion from the Leader of the Senate that my attitude is inconsistent. Not a member on the Ministerial benches - not even the

Leader of the Senate himself, as a party man - believes entirely in the whole Government programme. The VicePresident of the Executive Council must be aware that the , sacrifice of the individual is absolutely essential to the interest of the Government. No Government could be successfully carried on if every man were a law to himself.

Senator Millen:

– Hear, hear !

Senator GARDINER:

– I recognise clearly now, as I recognised when on the Ministerial benches, the difference between a party man advising the Government as to the course to be adopted, and a party man as a member of a Government; and surely it is not unreasonable for me to ask that in a loan proposal for £S0,000,000 there should be included some provision for the payment of interest? This loan proposal is not accompanied by that provision.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1980

WAR LOAN (UNITED KINGDOM) BILL

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Its purpose is really to legalize a slight technical error. Money was raised under a previous War Loan Act to the amount of £24,500,000, and it was directed by that Act to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Up to 30th June, 1915, £14,100,000 was so treated, and the balance, £10,400,000, was ordered by a later Act to be paid into the Loan Fund, but it has been discovered that, although the portion paid into the Loan Fund has since been spent, there was no authorization appropriating it out of that fund. The original appropriation proceeded on the assumption that the whole amount would be paid into the Consolidated Revenue.

Senator Needham:

– Then this is a validating Bill ?

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes, in the sense that it corrects a technical invalidity. The appropriation of these amounts was approved by Parliament, under the impression that the whole amount would have been paid into the Consolidated Revenue, whereas only a portion went into that fund, and the balance went into the Loan Fund. It is now asked by this Bill that the Senate should sanction the ap- propriation of the balance of the amount out of the loan account itself.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment; report adopted.

page 1980

WAR-TIME PROFITS TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12th September (vide page 1910), on motion by Senator Millen -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Does a case like that justify a man in raising the price from £18 to £100 a ton ?

Senator SENIOR:

– I am not here to justify an increase of that kind, but to point out that the deductions made by honorable senators are scarcely fair, seeing that they have lost sight of other charges which increase the cost price. I contend’ that a business man has a right to charge his proportion of profit on what he could replace the article for. There1 must come a time when a merchant will have to sell his goods for less than the cost price. Surely prices cannot keep on soaring. Undoubtedly, many merchants are calculating on that basis and putting by an amount to meet the contingency. All these questions should be taken into consideration fairly and honestly. I can conceive that, under present conditions, to avert what would otherwise be a serious calamity merchants may be placed in that position. It is very popular to ‘raise the cry, but it is an argument which is more suited to a platform where, perhaps, the critics are not so keen as the members of the Senate, who examine an argument from every stand-point.

– We should look at every matter from a judicial stand-point. lt is of no use to state only half the truth, because it is scarcely a fair argument to use. Those who have cited oases here did not state what amount of capital was invested in a concern. It might justly be a very large increase of percentage on the previous year’s turnover. It might, after all, be only a covering rate of interest on the capital. No evidence was given by Senator Gardiner as to whether a case he cited was a small venture or one involving a capital of hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is scarcely just to contend, from such facts, that here is a ground for taxing business people severely. I rose at this late stage in the debate to put what I believe is the other side of the case, and a side which, I think, should be stated before it is announced to the general public that there are millions of profits which ought to be taxed.

There are some points on which honorable senators opposite and I are agreed. I notice that no suggestion has been made by Senator Gardiner to discover exactly where war profits are to be found. Can he point to a single case, and say, “ Here are war profits which should be taxed “ ? Revenue returns come within the purview of the Income Tax Act. Senator Gardiner did not point to a single case in his list which would not be covered by the income tax. If he has any complaint to make, it should take the form of a statement that the parabolic curve is not swift enough, that the percentage should be much higher than it is. He has not justified the imposition of this war profits tax by a single quotation.

There is another matter which, I think, should have been brought forward. Take the case of a man whose original business has practically become defunct by being transformed into a business of an entirely * different kind. Many persons who, prior to the war, were engaged in catering for a certain class of customers who have gone to the Front, transformed their business from, say, clothing the citizen to clothing the soldier. That has meant laying aside -a considerable amount of old trade and capital and taking up something new. Take, again, a saddler’s business, which has been transformed to something entirely new, involving the importation and setting up of new machinery. In many cases the old machinery lies idle. These cases were cited by Senator Gardiner from his list. They are really transformed businesses; but nothing is said of the capital which lies idle. Yet it becomes a horrible example of one of those businesses which should be severely taxed, and taxed out of existence. We need to look a little below the surface, and thus get to know something of what is taking place.

I take it that since the war there has been a diffusion of prosperity greater than what took place previously, I do not think that there is such an aggregation to-day as there was in pre-war times. To be candid, we have all benefited by the expenditure which has taken place; but we have not all benefited equally, nor can we expect to do so. . Not long ago I travelled in a train from Adelaide to Melbourne with a director of the South Australian Savings Bank. He assured me, as a glad sign, that since the war the number of depositors in the Savings Bank had considerably increased. Two things; he said, accounted for the increase in the number of depositors and the increase in the amount deposited. One was the early closing of the liquor bars, and the other the diffusion of a larger amountof money amongst a certain class of persons owing to the allocation of military pay here. As a result of these allocations many wives have found that they have more money than they require, and the surplus is consequently deposited in the Savings Bank.

Senator Guy:

– Unfortunately, the opposite is true in many cases.

– That is the. point I desired to make. We are asked why we import a great number of things, and the reason is that they cannot be manufactured here except at the expenditure of a large amount of capital, the purchase of costly machinery, and the passing through, by the business of an initial stage in which the profits are comparatively small.

Senator Pratten:

– Or in which losses are made.

Senator SENIOR:

– Quite so. If there is one provision which should be found in a War-time Profits Bill it is one intended to secure the protection of those who have seized the fortunate hour to establish in Australia industries essential to our welfare. Travelling from Adelaide to Melbourne, directly one gets outside the gaslit area, he discovers now that kerosene has taken the place of the acetylene gas for lighting purposes. The reason for this is that we have been importing calcium carbide, and have not been manufacturing it. This Bill should make provision for encouraging the establishment of an industry of this kind, because outside those areas in which gas or electricity are supplied acetylene gas took their place in the lighting of churches, public halls, and public buildings generally.

If Australia is to go. forward, we must endeavour to “manufacture here the things that we use. There was a time when, in Australia, we did not grow sufficient food for our own people, and had to import foodstuffs. To-day we can export foodstuffs to the other side of the world. We have met our requirements in one direction, and there is no reason why we should not meet them in many other directions. We should send to other lands, not merely the raw materials of manufactures, but the manufactures themselves. I, therefore, say that this Bill should contain a provision to protect new industries in their initial stages, instead of penalizing them as it does. It is my intention to submit in Committee one or two amendments to remedy this defect. To take another illustration, honorable senators are all aware of the extent to which the motor has entered into our means of transport and communication. They know the very large number of motor vehicles that are imported. Under existing conditions there is no reason why the manufacture of these cars should not be undertaken in Australia. Provided that when the new industry is started the taxpayer is not placed in a position, as he would be under this Bill, to say to those who invest their money in the business, “You made no profits in pre-war times. ‘ You have made immense profits from this business, and, as they are war-time profits, you must come under this taxation.” The machinery secured for the business will not * last very long, and when the war is over the owners of it will be subjected to outside competition, which may result in all the capital they have expended going by the board. The initial stages of the business must be protected, so that those engaged in it may be able to build up a fund which will enable them later to secure the capital they have invested.

With one or two exceptions, I believe that the clauses of this Bill will have a safe passage through’ Committee. I hope that the fears of some of our honorable friends opposite will not be realized. If they take the trouble to view both sides of the shield, I think they will recognise that the war-time profits which have been earned are not, perhaps, so large as they think they are. That profits have been made directly arising out of the conditions due to the war will be admitted, and I hope that under this Bill they may be made the subject of taxation.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– To the best of my recollection a War Profits Bill was an item in the election programme of the National party, although I must say it did not arouse much attention on the part of the electors, since I cannot remember having had a single question addressed to me on the matter. I must admit that every member of the National party impliedly subscribed to the necessity of a War Profits Bill. That much may be granted. But I will assert, on my own behalf, that I did not for a moment, in giving assent to a War Profits Bill as an item of the Government programme, renounce any of my claims that all legislation should be consonant with the principles of equity, and particularly all taxation legislation.

I am not altogether in sympathy with honorable senators on the other side who refer from time to time to the tremendous amounts that might be secured if we could only put the profiteers into the taxation press. We are told that a tremendous sum could easily be exacted from them. My own knowledge of the financial position of Australia, and of the profits gained in the prosecution of certain businesses, and the operations of certain companies, leads me to believe that nothing on a very substantial scale in the way of profits directly attributable” to war conditions can be discovered in Australia Undoubtedly there are some instances in which, profits directly traceable to war conditions can be discovered, but that this can be done in any comprehensive way I am not prepared to grant. It has been asserted that this Bill is modelled on the lines of the Imperial measure, but I suppose I am only repeating what speakers who have preceded me in the debate have already said when I say that it will be readily conceded that the conditions for earning profits arising out of the war have been immensely more favorable in the countries of the Old World than they have been in Australia.

I recently read in a reputable publication a very well-written article in which it was stated that the £4,000,000,000, which, I understand, is the sum approximating to the total war expenditure of the United Kingdom up to the present, might be taken from the profits earned in certain businesses and enterprises in the United Kingdom, and there would still be a tremendous margin unappropriated. It is’ stated that the profits in connexion with shipping, banking, and many industries in the Old Country have been on a colossal scale. We have had assertionsmade in the British House of Commons, by men holding high Ministerial rank, that such has been their personal experience. I do not know whetherthe assertion that the whole of the war expenditure of the United Kingdom could be met by the war profits, and still leave a large margin unappropriated, is based upon a fallacy or not. But my own impression is that when people speak of thousands of millions sterling, and ask that taxpayers shall furnish these amounts in fluid currency, they are attempting to achieve the impossible. However, the statement has been made, and it leads one to the conclusion that very substantial profits directly traceable to war conditions have been made by corporations and individuals in the Home countries.

I have no knowledge of profits having been made on anything like that scale in Australia. I believe that some copper-producing companies in Australia made fairly substantial profits. It has been asserted that a year or two ago many of them set aside substantial sums to meet the war profits taxation which their directorates believed to be imminent. I also read in a report of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce, which, I think, was published early in the year, a statement to the effect that one firm operating in Melbourne, whose profits in normal years before the war fluctuated between £10,000 and £12,000, had made £32,000 in 1916 in one department alone. There are, no doubt, a few isolated cases in which fairly substantial profits due to war conditions have been made in Australia, but I do not think that the war profits earned in the Commonwealth’ run into any very substantial sum in a national sense.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– It is quite possible to ascertain whether there have been war profits.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I think so, and, having regard to the programme of the National Government, I do not recede from the position I took up, namely, that, in respect to profits directly traceable to war conditions, I regard them as a legitimate source of taxation to meet the expenditure caused by the war. But we have to be equitable.

– I have only had time to read the measure very hurriedly) and I am making my protest because of representations which have been made to me on this subject of exemptions. Whether coal is exempted from the operations of the measure in toto or only partially I will not contend at this juncture, other than to say that it evidently was exempted from the operation of some provisions when the measure was introduced into the House of Representatives.

– The pre-war-time profits are the criterion for the taxation in each year of profits.

Senator BAKHAP:

– If a company has earned profits during the war period, but earned no profits during the three years preceding the war, what then?

Honorable senators have been circularized by gentlemen engaged ‘in the industry of tin mining who have an exact knowledge of how the tax will operate in connexion with their industry. The incidence of the operation of this measure will be such that a larger sum will be taken in profits from individuals who have only earned profits during the war period than can be attributable in any sense to any appreciation in the value of the articles they are producing. Here’ is a concrete illustration. It is the case of an enterprise which, only starting to earn profits during the war period, has earned £4,000 net profit.

In the case of a company having a cash capital of £3,000 and a mine with an estimated life of five years -

In the calculations I noticed an error of £300, which goes right through the circular, and which I have corrected-

– Yes; here is a marginal note in red ink on the copy in my possession.

In a very important Australian publication I find this statement -

A business was established some ten years ago, employing as manager a particularly capable and energetic young man. The business started in a small way, but, owing to the efforts of this man, made rapid progress, the earnings increasing from a few hundreds to £4,000 per annum, in both 1912 and 1913. The proprietor devoted very little of his time to the business, and, while the manager’s salary was regularly increased, until in 1913 he was drawing £600 a year, he considered that he was inadequately remunerated, and decided to accept the offer of a friend to finance him in a similar business to the extent of £2,000. Upon acquainting his employer, he was immediately offered a partnership, which he had to refuse, owing to having already definitely committed himself. Shortly after commencing business the present war commenced, and, in addition to the difficulties inseparable from a new venture, he was faced with unprecedented circumstances as regards obtaining supplies and con ducting business generally. By ceaseless and untiring attention to business, he was able to obtain profits of £2,000 during the year ended June, 1916, and £2,200 in the following year. It is this man who will be called upon to pay a tax of over £1,000, whilst his competitor, whose profits have fairly well been maintained, owing mainly to the organization effected by the former manager, escapes free. Does the Federal Treasurer consider this equitable taxation?

In other words, the active man is to be penalized, and the possessor of a longestablished business is to go free. A great deal of talk has been indulged in about the small production in Australia.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator BAKHAP:

– When the sitting was suspended I was explaining that, although I spoke with specific knowledge of the mining industry, the inequitable provisions of this Bill, if it be carried in its present form, will seriously affect persons and companies engaged in other industries which have no relation whatever to mining.

I notice that the Treasurer, in criticising the Bill dealing with war-time profits taxation, which was introduced last session, laid special emphasis on the impairment of mining enterprise that would inevitably follow the placing of such a measure on our statute-book. I have in my mind two illustrations which will bear out his strictures. The right honorable gentleman particularly insisted on the fact that it is necessary to stimulate mining and other enterprises throughout Australia in every possible way. Now, there are in Tasmania two mines which have been operated for many years, and which will furnish an effective illustration of my contention regarding the impairment of mining enterprise which will ensue if the Bill now under consideration be approved in its present form. A mine called the Dreadnought Boulder has been operating at a great disadvantage on the West Coast of Tasmania for many years. Inpassing, I may remark that it is not my duty here to battle for the interests of large and old-established mining corporations. My aim is rather to do what I can for the men who own the smaller propositions, which have been struggling against an adverse fate for many years, and which have emerged from their difficulties during the war period, though not because of conditions that have been created by the war. Now, the Dreadnought Boulder, during the war period, Kas made profits running into some thousands of pounds. It has not declared any dividend, because it is necessary for the satisfactory exploitation of the big proposition belonging to this company, to retain its profits for the purpose of future development. A dividend has not been declared, but profits have been made. There is no pre-war standard of profits so far as this company is concerned, and under this Bill the profits which have been made during the war period will be subject to almost confiscatory taxation.

It is most necessary that we should stimulate mining enterprise throughout this great continent to the utmost degree. I venture to say that financial matters connected with the war may yet compel us to issue paper money with the backing of piled-up ores, which do not deteriorate, for the simple reason that they may not be exportable to the countries in which they have hitherto found a market because of the impairment of .our maritime communications with those countries. Now, the products of the agricultural industry, valuable though they may be, depreciate in value as the result of storage. But ores do not so depreciate. If we could not export these ores at once, it would be to the advantage of the Commonwealth to pile them up in order that we might make them available to the rest of the world in the peace period which must follow the war. In a national sense there is nothing to be gained by anything which will have the effect of restricting mining enterprise. Senator Pratten has shown very conclusively that the pre-war standard of profits will not be affected by this proposed legislation. In the north-east of Tasmania, close to the mining town in which I lived for years, there is a very large deposit of stanniferous rock, which, for a long period has been mined with conspicuous illfortune from the stand-point of the shareholders. This mine has never declared a dividend. Assistance was rendered to it by the Tasmanian Government, and in the period immediately preceding the outbreak of war it practically became a State mine. It afforded employment to hundreds of men, and caused thousands of pounds to be distributed monthly throughout the north-eastern district of Tasmania, in addition to which its output during the past thirty years has been a conspicuous factor in developing settlement on small agricultural holdings. This district is now a prosperous one, irrespective of the operations of the mine in question, but, undoubtedly, settlement has been materially promoted as the result of its existence. After the outbreak of war the company was unable to get the capital which was required for another imminent reconstruction process, which was only one of many that had preceded it. The Tasmanian Government, therefore, took over the mine, which was ‘worked by tributers. Of course, its output was nothing commensurate with the operations, that had not been profitable from a shareholder’s stand-point for many years preceding the war. The other day the Tasmanian Government decided to close its connexion with this property, and accordingly invited tenders for its purchase. An enterprising firm in Hobart, consisting of several brothers, who run an iron foundry there, purchased it for the sum of £2,000. Now this Bill will practically preclude them from making anything like a satisfactory attempt to re-establish the mine and get a good output from it, because, if they made substantial profits now, owing perhaps to a stroke of fortune consequent upon meeting better veins of ore, they would be deprived of those profits.

Before the suspension of the sitting, I think I mentioned something about the Turkish method of taxation. I also remember reading, when quite a lad, a not very flattering description’ of certain territories which had once been prosperous, but which had passed under Turkish rule. The book stated that these countries were now amongst the most miserable in the world, because the Turks had conquered them and had imposed their paralyzing influence upon them. “We may do the same thing by a measure of this description. We must all recognise the necessity which exists for stimulating the producing interests of Australia to the utmost. Senator O’Keefe very properly said that it was necessary to stimulate production right throughout this continent. It is only by increased production that the financial ravages of the war can be made good. But how are we going to prosper if we allow a measure of this kind to sequestrate the major portion of the profits which may be earned during the war period, notwithstanding that those profits are not at all attributable to war conditions ?

Under this Bill I find that certain powers are to be vested in the Commissioner. That officer, I have no doubt, will do his duty. I am not one of those who are in the habit of decrying our public servants. The latter render very effective and loyal service to the Commonwealth. But they are only men, and we should not impose upon them duties which are beyond their strength. Yet the Government are asking the Commissioner to assume the duty of equitably interpreting the provisions of this measure. Those provisions are very loose and indefinite. Something more definite is required to put the position of the “ adventurer “ beyond all doubt, if he contemplates embarking upon any particular enterprise at this period in our history. Consequently I protest against what I may term the too loose discretionary power which it is sought to vest in the Commissioner under this Bill.

Referring to a position described by Sir John Forrest, when denouncing the provisions of a measure similar to this, the statement is made -

As illustrating the position set forth above, imagine a company with an unexpended capital of £10,000 making a net pre-war profit, as prescribed by the Act, of £12,000 a year. This company, if making a similar profit during the war or account period under the Act, would entirely escape taxation, and if it made more than £12,000 profit, would pay tax on only the excess over the £12,000, plus the £200 allowed by the Act. How different would be the case of a company established since the outbreak of the war, with exactly the same capital and a life of ton years, and which, with a stroke of good fortune, is able to show a net profit of £12,000 a year during the account period.

We have to be pretty exact in this matter, because Ministers in charge of the measure in the Senate will endeavour to be loyal to their colleagues in the House of Representatives who have succeeded in carrying it to its present stage. Let honorable senators not infer that a stroke of good fortune necessarily means an increase in the price of the commodity produced by the corporation. A stroke of good fortune in connexion with a mining proposition may mean the striking of a rich vein or body of ore, and may have nothing whatever to do with the price obtained for the metal or ore produced. The statement I quote continues -

Instead of completely escaping taxation, this company would, on a 75 per cent, basis charge on excess profits, be mulcted in the sum of £6,975, without making allowance for State and Federal income taxes. That is, from the £12,000 profit this company .would be allowed to deduct 10 per cent, interest on the capital - £1,000, plus 10 per cent, return of capital consequent on gradual exhaustion of mine’s life, equals £1,000, plus the £200 and £500 allowance by the Act, and one-fourth of the profit, namely, £2,325, or a total of £5,025 for the company; .while the Government, through the war-time profits tax, would annex no less than £6,975 of the £12,000.

That is what such a company will be faced with if we do not substantially amend some of the provisions of this Bill and extract from them the principle of inequity which they at present contain. My quotation proceeds -

Now, if the last-named company had to pay on war profits alone, which is ostensibly the object of the Bill, it would simply pay on the difference between the pre-war price of, say, tin, and the present price, as shown below.

Let me say that these illustrations have been drawn up on the assumption that there was a difference between the prewar price of tin and the War-period price. As a matter of fact, the pre-war price of tin was greater than the war-period. price, striking averages every six months. The gentlemen who compiled these illustrations are representatives of, the Mount Bischoff Company, which is the biggest tin-smelting and producing corporation in Australia. From its records were taken the figures that I handed to the Minister for Defence; and if they are examined it will be found that they conclusively prove that the price of tin during the present war period is less than The average price for three years preceding the war. To continue my quotation -

The £12,000 profit would represent, roughly, the value of 78 tons of metallic tin, at £230 per ton, less working charges and expenses, say, £0,000. The pre-war price of tin, as illustrated further on, was £205 per ton, therefore, the increase in value on this 78 tons is £25 per ton, or £1,950, and a Avar profits tax of 75 per cent, on this would give £1,462 10s. ,to the Taxation Department, as against £6,975 under the provisions of the proposed Bill.

That is assuming that there was an increase in the price of tin of £25 per ton during the war period, as against the prewar period, and that was levied on, as it might be legitimately under a true war profits taxation measure, the Government would get only £1,462 10s., as against £6,975 which they would get under the provisions of this War-time Profits Bill.

I hope that honorable senators will address themselves to this measure, clause by clause and line by line. I know that, in common with myself, they cannot read everything that is sent to them in protest against various measures submitted from time to time to this Parliament; but in view of the possibilities of injustice under this measure, I venture to say that we shall be doing what is just to the people and to Parliament if we proceed with the greatest circumspection, to examine, line by line, the possibilities of this measure. The people responsible for compiling these illustrations say here something so pertinent that I may be regarded as justified in quoting from them again. They say -

The big producers escape to the extent of the pre-war standard of profits exemption, whereas mines coming to a profitable stage or started since the outbreak of the war are apparently to be mercilessly penalized and shorn of 75 per cent, of the net profits, which are obviously not war profits, as soon as produced, which must result in the closing down and nonworking of many mines, and react far more seriously upon the community (and the employees) than the foregoing of the revenue which the .proposed tax is capable of extracting from the industry: Surely the mine without a- pie-war standard of profits exemption- is equitably and. justly entitled to work under conditions obtaining before the war, and be exempted to the extent of the average of prewar price- of the metal ‘produced, particularly as the assessment of the tax could be so easily arrived at.

I find that dairying, horticultural, and agricultural industries- are exempted.

Senator- Ferricks. - I think that only co-operative dairying companies are exempt.

Senator BAKHAP:

– 1 have not had time to look into the matter with meticulous care. I know that there are substantial exemptions made in respect of certain primary industries which produce foodstuffs. Man does not live by bread alone, but he has to have bread. Far be it from me to cavil at anything reasonable in the way of exemptions affecting any industry. But we are in the stern grip of a war period. In every sense of the term we are living in an era of blood and iron. Metals and ores are vital factors in the prosecution of this war. I make apology to business men, as I am npt a business man, and have never been engaged in big trade enterprises, for not being able to illustrate the injustices of the Bill as it may possibly affect their businesses. In the matter of illustra tions,. I must confine myself to the industry I know So well. Metals and ores are to be exempted to a certain extent. Gold is exempted. I believe that some of the metals which have been utilized in comparatively recent periods are regarded as so vital to the conduct of the war that they are to be exempted. I venture to say that, in all equity the Senate must consider the necessity of protecting industries] individuals, or corporations concerned in mining for ores essential not only to the prosecution of the war, but to the ordinary processes of civilized life. I have no objection whatever to the taxation of any mining corporation which has substantially benefited by the appreciation in the prices of ores and metals obviously due to the conditions, of the war. They must abide the issue of this measure. It is only fair that they should pay out of their war-produced profits some of the money necessary to meet war expenditure. But against that principle must be placed the necessity of so stimulating production and enterprise that we may pile up all those essentials of material wealth which will enable us to take advantage of the trade position directly the war is over. I do not think that, even for the sake of a couple of millions sterling in taxation, it is advisable for the Australian Parliament to bring about a condition of things which will cause companies to fail to mine, during the war period, their reserves of ore. They should be stimulated to get1 everything out, to have it in piles, in smelters, and anywhere in a. marketable condition ready for the period of competition which will set in. after the declaration of peace.

Although somewhat lightly , many of us gave our adhesion to this item in the Ministerial programme, if not by actual profession, bv our silence in regard to the matter, I venture to say that this measure, instead of doing no more than produce: money for the Treasury, may operate so prejudicially in another sense that we may be at the present’ time engaged in what Solomon calls “ an evil employment “ if we pass this measure. Let us pass it, but! let us be particularly careful that in its provisions we shall deal only with the principle of taxing profits directly derivable from war conditions. We must bear in mind the principle of justice, so that when the Bill has emerged from our deliberations in Committee) we shall be able to confront the producers and business men of the Commonwealth, and say, “We have endeavoured to act justly.” But if we go by rule-of-thumb and say that we must get’ the money in somehow, regardless of the principles of equity and the canons of sound taxation, then I do not know how we, who should be a Chamber of review, are going with our heads erect to meet the enterprising men and adventurers of this Commonwealth, who, with their forerunners, have helped to make it what it is. I know that the Administration would not designedly do anything prejudicial to any industry in the Commonwealth, and I hope that they will not endeavour to rush the measure through, but will permit us to investigate it with a deliberation consonant with our position as a Chamber of review, so that we may do something to equitably draw from the taxpayers those profits which we may legitimately ask them to hand over to us, while at the same time we show the most careful regard for the spirit of enterprise which, I hope, permeates most Australian industries.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– I think that honorable senators generally agree that’ the debate has been most informative and interesting. We have had several speeches, all of which commanded some measure of attention, but perhaps honorable senators will allow me to specially indicate one which excited very general interest, and that was the speech of my honorable colleague in the representation of New South Wales, Senator Pratten. But whilst the speeches have indicated a considerable diversity of opinion, I hope I am not misjudging the temper of the Senate when I say that most of the points raised were those which rather lend themselves to treatment in Committee than place on me any obligation to further discuss them just now.

There were, however, one or two lines of argument indicated in the course of the debate to which I should like to make some reference, and also one or two statements concerning which I desire to offer some correction. Taking them in their order, I refer to Senator Gardiner’s references to the small amount of revenue anticipated under this Bill as compared with the revenue expected under the Bill withwhich he was associated as a member of a previous Ministry. He mentioned that that Bill was expected to return. £3,000,000 to the Treasury, and contrasted that result, and of course to the glorification of his own measure, with the smaller amount estimated to be received by Sir John Forrest. Now, the quotation to which he referred as having fallen from the lips of his then colleague (Mr. Higgs) did not justify his statement that the previous measure was expected to yield £3,000,000. What Mr. Higgs said was-

The honorable member seems to think that if we allow these deductions, we shall not get any revenue. These deductions are only those which are allowed in the case of the income tax, from which we expect to derive £3,000,000 this year.

The only reference to £3,000,000 in the course of the debate on the previous Wartime Profits Tax Bill was the £3,000,000 then being received from the income tax., and it had no application whatever to the expected revenue from the former Wartime Profits Tax Bill.

Senator Gardiner:

– What was said with regard to this matter in the manifesto which our party issued?

Senator MILLEN:

– I have that manifesto here., and I propose to quote some portion of it before I conclude.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) referred to this measure in somewhat contemptuous terms because, apparently, it did not go far enough; but I think the Government can congratulate itself that it has not found it necessary to indulge in a revel of taxation although I know that my honorable friends opposite are always anxious for any excuse to impose additional burdens upon the people,more particularly at a time like this. It is, however, one of the canons of good, sound government not to increase the load of taxation. I see no virtue in taxation, and, therefore, I take the honorable senator’s comment rather as a commendation that the Government found it possible to present to Parliament a financial statement which does not seek to impose excessive taxation at this juncture.

Judging from his remarks, the Leader of the Opposition was also surprised at what he appeared to regard as painful unanimity between the statement I was privileged to make to this Chamber and the statement made by my colleague Sir John Forrest, in another place. I cannot myself see that there is much reason for surprise at that fact. I should rather have thought surprise would have been occasioned had there been any discrepancy. Yet, when I came to think the matter over - and I do endeavour to think matters over when I am puzzled - I came to the conclusion that it was natural that surprise should be expressed by Senator Gardiner, who, himself, as an anticonscriptionist, for so long occupied a seat in a conscriptionist Ministry.

Senator Gardiner:

– Do you call a Government a conscriptionist Ministry which contained six members in favour of that policy and four against it?

– If Senator O’Keefe says that, I am of course quite prepared to accept his statement, but I shall be able to show that Senator O’Keefe can say ‘ ‘ yes ‘ ‘ and “no” in the same breath.

– What would be the good of that man’s excess profits to him if the Government took all of them?

Senator MILLEN:

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator will recollect that when the question of taxing war profits first came up, there was a general acceptation of that principle, but it was not very long before a closer consideration of the problem revealed the impossibility of identifying those profits which sprang directly out of the war, and public men - and I assume also the people outside - rapidly recognised that all that could be done was to levy, on the excess profits- made during the time of the war. Senator Pratten unconsciously gave a very strong reason, when -dealing with this very matter, for the support which I hope he is. going to give the measure. He referred to the. stimulated prosperity consequent upon the- expenditure due to the war. That is quite true. Owing to the large amount of public money expended through the Defence Department and other activities connected with the war, there has been a great stimulus to industry generally, and, therefore, although you cannot’ say that a particular shop has made a profit as the direct result of the war; it is a fair assumption that a large percentage of excess profits made in a variety of businesses is due to the stimulated prosperity which the war has brought about. To that extent, therefore, they are indirectly, although not directly, the product of the war itself.

– Parliament will sit long before that Board gets to work. Senator Foll suggested that, pending an appeal, payment of the tax should stand over. That suggestion would no doubt be received with glee by prospective taxpayers. Every taxpayer would appeal,

And it would mean tying up the payments for a considerable while. It would multiply the number of appeals, and, consequently, the time given for the payment of the tax would possibly extend to years. The honorable senator will, therefore, see that his suggestion can hardly be included among the amendments to be adopted by the Government.

Senator Foll:

– It would keep Senator Pratten ‘s Boards employed.

Senator MILLEN:

I think it was Senator Maughan who asked me to give an idea of the cost of collection. It is put down at £30,000 a year,But the Treasury officials frankly state that there is a very uncertain element in the estimate. They have done their best to form an opinion, bat they do not regard the estimate as more than a general indication of what they expect. I suppose that I am entitled to an opinion as well as other laymen. I think that the estimate is on the extremely cautious and conservative side. I cannot help thinking that they preferred., in advising their chief, to be on the safe side rather than to err in a contrary direction.

Senator Pratten:

– Had they not the income returns before them when they were making the estimate?

Senator MILLEN:

– Of course, the officials had the returns. I am not prepared to say by what methods they proceeded to work; but I assume that, as. experienced and responsible officers, they did their best toarrive at some estimate to place in the Treasurer’s hands. At any rate, they are not so sanguine as I am as to the possible yield from the tax.

There were a great many other matters brought up in the course of the debate. In Committee, if further information is desired on any particular clause, I shall endeavour to supply it.

Questionresolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clause 1 -

This Act may be cited us the War-time Profits Tax Assessment Act 1917.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

.- I am going to make myself quite clear on the matter referred to by the Minister. If I have erred in thinking that the purpose of this measure was to tax profits that were undoubtedly derivable from war conditions, it seems to me that I have erred in very good company, for I know that so staunch a supporter of the National party as Sir “William Irvine has animadverted on this particular phase of the whole question.

Senator Fairbairn:

– But did he understand it?

Senator BAKHAP:

– So far as I car remember the debates in another place, he spoke on the equity and desirability of taxing purely war-time profits. I understood from his remarks that that was the general principle which should be observed in dealing with profits derivable during war-time from war conditions. I think that he made a pretty voluminous protest against this War-time Profits Bill on the very grounds, although he expressed himself differently, which I have referred to. I believe that the public mind will not be disabused of the idea which it undoubtedly entertains in regard to the taxation of war profits. The feeling in the country, if feeling there is irk the matter, is that war profits are a legitimate subject of taxation; but I hesitate to say that there is any feeling on the part of the majority ofelectors in favour of sectionalizing incomes earned during the war period, and not even remotely associated with war conditions, for special taxation. It was because of my sudden awakening to the sinister feature of this measure - a feature that was certainly not believed by the majority of the electors to exist - which caused me to call “ No “ when the President put the question for the second reading. Are honorable senators in favour of taxing profits directly derivable from the war - a proposal which they may legitimately” support, a principle which they may conscientiously advance - or are they in favour of sectionalizing certain incomes during the war period and putting them aside as a special subject of taxation ? Therefore, I move -

That the word “ time “ be left out.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– I need hardly point out that Senator Bakhap’s purpose is to destroy the basis of this Bill.

Senator Bakhap:

– According to the interpretation of it given by the Minister.

Senator MILLEN:

– The Government have introduced a Bill for the collection of excess profits earned in war time, and the honorable senator seeks to substitute a measure which will tax war profits only. That seems to me”, as his voice against the motion for the second reading did, to express a desire to destroy the measure. I ask the Committee to’ reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 -

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Australia “ includes the Territory of Papua. “Business” includes any profession or trade and any transaction not in the course of a person’s business for the sale and purchase of any commodity. “ Co-.operative company “ means a company in which not less than two-thirds of the shares are heldby members who are bona fide primary producers or suppliers to the company of foodstuffs the produce of Australia for the purposes of manufacture or sale.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

.- I move -

That the word “ includes,” in the definition of “ Australia “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ does not include “.

In speaking upon the motion for the second reading of this Bill I explained my reason for desiring to exclude the Territory of Papua from its operation. I pointed out that Papua occupies an entirely different position from that occupied by other parts of Australia in having Customs taxation levied on its products, and consequently its industries should be exempted from the. taxation proposed under this measure.

Senator FAIRBAIRN:
Victoria

– Last night I was in agreement with Senator Foll upon the point which he has raised, but I have since learned that the rubber and copra industries, which are the chief industries of Papua, will be exempt from the operation of the Bill. Consequently there is no need for the amendment.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I am quite unable to support the amendment of Senator Foll. The arguments which he advanced in its favour did not seem to carry him anywhere. It may be that, at present, there is an invidious distinction between Papua and the mainland, so far as our Customs duties are concerned. But that distinction will pass away, and Papua will remain an integral part of the Commonwealth. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– I would point out to honorable senators that the taxation proposed under this Bill undoubtedly arises from conditions of war, and I submit that if there be any person in Papua in the position described by the measure he is as much entitled’ to make his contribution towards defraying the cost of the war as is anybody in Australia. But, like Senator Fairbairn, I do not think we shall collect much revenue from Papua under this Bill, because the main industries of that Territory will be exempt from its opera tion.

Amendment negatived.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

.- I move-

That after the word “ commodity.” in the definition of “ Business,” the following words be inserted : - “a new business shall mean an industry to establish a manufacture in Australia of goods now generally imported.”

We all know that, owing to the difficulty which is experienced in obtaining certain commodities, new businesses are being started in Australia, and it would be manifestly unfair to deprive those businesses of the profits which they make during the war period. Further, it is frequently necessary to spend very large sums in the establishment of new businesses. Sometimes that expenditure is incurred in the erection of buildings or plant, which are quite unsuitable for any other purpose. For instance, I have in my mind the establishment of the calcium carbide industry. We also know that the motor industry can be fostered in Australia. At present, an attempt is being made to promote a trade in the building of motor bodies here. That will involve the importation of costly machinery, and, unless we are prepared to protect new industries of this description, they will not be started.

Senator Guthrie:

– Would the honorable senator exempt the Broken Hill steel works at Newcastle?

Senator SENIOR:

– Those works were established before the outbreak of war. It is in the best interests of Australia that new industries started during the war period should not be penalized. The Broken Hill works for the treatment of zinc concentrates were in existence before the war. Consequently, they have a prewar standard of profit, which to a large extent will exempt them from thetaxation proposed to be levied under this Bill, whereas the steel works at Newcastle, which have probably expended a far larger sum upon machinery and plant, will be subject to heavy taxation. I know that there was a time when the construction of the east-west railway was practically held up because we could not import steel rails, and the rails were consequently manufactured at the Broken Hill Company’s steel works at Newcastle. It is essential that we should foster new industries during the war period. Let us suppose that an attempt were made by a proprietary company to establish the ship-building industry here. There would be no pre-war standard by which its profits could be judged, and, as its profits would be very large during the war period, the Bill would be absolutely punitive in its operation.

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

– I support with much sincerity this first amendment to the Bill moved By Senator Senior. Honorable senators are aware that the war has given us a better opportunity of establishing new industries in this country than any measure of Protection could have given us. The incidence of this taxation on new industries, not industries established three or four years ago, but the industries we hope to establish in the near future, will take away all that Protection which the war has given us, and its incentive to the establishment of new enterprises. To establish a new industry in these parlous times, when we have no definite knowledge of what is going to happen in the future, and no definite promise of adequate protection in the future to Australian labour, those who invest in them look for a probable reward of, say, from 15 per cent, to 20 per cent. I say a “probable” reward deliberately, be-‘ cause, in risking capital in the establishment of a new industry, no reward is certain. We should, especially under existing conditions) encourage the establishment of new industries.

For the information of Senator de Largie> I shall indicate a few samples of what is being done, or attempted, in the Commonwealth to-day. Recently a company was floated in Sydney to establish the process and development of detinning, utilizing, in fact, the whole of our scrap tin-plate, so many thousands of tons of which went to Germany before the war. Another industry which has just been started is one established by a set of in fluential men in Newcastle. They are to try and develop the manufacture of tho better class of iron, such as railway axles, railway, springs, and such like. The primary manufacture of iron is, of course, the manufacture of bar and sheet iron from iron ore, and it is’ the secondary manufacture that this new company proposes to attempt’. Several attempts are now being made in the production of the finer kinds of glass which previously came, from Belgium and Germany. Attempts at new manufactures are being made in other directions, and even in respect of such small things as boot eyelets and buttons. From 75 per cent, to 90 per cent, of the stock to be found in chemists’ shops was, before the war, manufactured in Germany, and, to-day, I think that about one-half of the stock to be found in chemists’ shops is being manufactured in Australia.

Senator Guthrie:

– Or America.

Senator PRATTEN:

– Perhaps the remaining half is now being imported from America. But many kinds of goods now stocked by chemists, and before the war imported from Germany, are now being manufactured in Australia.

Senator Needham:

– Is our Tariff protecting their manufacture?

Senator PRATTEN:

I also take this opportunity of replying briefly to a statement made by Senator Millen concerning my remarks regarding the estimate of revenue under the War-time Profits Bill introduced by Mr. Higgs. I find that the statement made by Senator Millen is absolutely correct, and in justice to myself I want to say that after my absence from the Senate .for several weeks’ I was preparing my reply to Senator Millen’s speech, and while reading the report of Mr. Higgs’ remarks on the former Bill I noticed an interjection by Mr. Riley, who said, “ How much do you expect to get ?” Mr. Higgs, in his reply, said -

The honorable member seems to think that if we allow these “deductions we shall get no revenue. These deductions are only those which ore allowed under the Income Tax Act, from which we derived £3,000,000.

I confess that I simply read the question, and concluded from Mr. Higgs’ reply that he expected £3,000,000 from the operation of the War-time Profits Tax Bill.

Referring again to the amendment moved by Senator Senior, I want to say that personally I have an open mind, with regard to industries. It has been demonstrated, however, that ample profits are accruing, but if exemptions are to be allowed for those industries with friends sufficiently strong to make their influence felt, the new businesses should also be considered.

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

– I desire to say a few words concerning the remarks made by Senator de Largie, for I am afraid some misapprehension exists as to what I said. I am aware that the iron industry in Australia was established by Mr. Sandford, followed by Mr. Hoskins, at Lithgow, and that it was built up by the bonus system. I know, also, that the iron works at Newcastle were established by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company, and that prior to their establishment it was said that Mr. Delprat, the manager, haddeclared that they did not want any protection. I want the Senate to know, however, that I understand, on the best authority, that statement has since been recanted. I did not refer to the works at all, but to a further combination of strong Newcastle business men interested in coachbuilding, ironworking, and shipwright work, forthe founding of another iron works at Newcastle, to undertake the manufacture of axles, springs, sheet iron, and undertake other branches of the industry. The chairman of that company is Mr. Goininan, who has nothing to do with the Broken Hill Proprietary Company.

Senator de Largie:

– Where will the new company get the raw material?

Senator PRATTEN:

Senator Senior:

– If we carry the amendment in clause 8, we shall have to return to the definition clause.

Senator EARLE:

– I ask you, sir, whether, if the definitions are carried as theystand in this clause, it will not be competent for an honorable senator to submit any amendment he likes in subsequent clauses, which may, of course, entail consequential amendments in the definition clause?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– It is entirely in the hands of the Committee to say whether it will recommit the Bill or not.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I am prepared to temporarily withdraw the amendment on the condition that the Minister will allow the Bill to be recommitted.

Senator Millen:

– No. We have spent an hour and a half on this amendment, and I think that we are now in a position to vote. It is only a little while to Christmas.

Senator SENIOR:

– I remind the Minister that this practically is the second day on which we have been debating a most important Bill. At the present juncture, we are discussing a most vital question in connexion with it.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 17

Majority … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the word “ means “ in the definition of “ Co-operative Company “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ includes.”

My desire is to broaden the definition of a co-operative company, with the object of securing in clause 8 a further amendment under this heading of which I have given notice. If it will suit the convenience of the Minister in charge of the Bill, I am Mailing to postpone the amendment with which we are now dealing until after the consideration of the further amendment which I intend to move in clause 8.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator has made the purpose of his amendment quite clear, and I see no reason for postponing its consideration.

Senator PRATTEN:

– If the amendment I desire to have made in clause 8 be agreed to, a consequential amendment will be necessary in the definition clause. There are many co-operative companies operating in Australia, particularly in the Newcastle, the Wollongong, and the Lithgow districts of New South Wales, the profits of which are returned to their shareholders. The amendment is designed to open the way for the acceptance by the Committee of the later amendment which I have indicated.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– The honorable senator has stated his amendment with great clarity. Its effect would be to include quite a large range of companies, many of which may be earning very big profits indeed.

Senator Pratten:

– Only book profits.

Senator MILLEN:

– Those book profits may include hidden reserves. The honorable senator has informed us that, if his amendment be carried, he proposes to insert in clause 8 a provision which will exempt from the operation of this taxation co-operative companies whose profits are returned to their shareholders. We know that it is the practice of many companies not to return all their profits to their shareholders, but to build up huge reserves with them. If the amendment be carried, the door will be open to a large number of companies, which, although they may not return to their shareholders more than 10 per cent. in the form of profits, may still be making much larger profits. For the reasons which I have indicated, I ask honorable senators to adhere to the clause.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I understand that the Minister has promised that if any clause in the Bill which is not covered by the definition clause be altered, he will be willing to recommit the definition clause. If that be so, we shall get along swimmingly.

Senator Millen:

– If honorable senators prefer that these amendments should be debated on the major clauses of the Bill, I have no objection to that course being adopted.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I wish tobe quite clear on. this matter. In connexion with cooperative companies there are what are known as co-operative societies. These societies deal largely with their own membership. Some of them may derive 5 or 6 per cent. of their trade from casual customers, but primarily they deal with their own members. These societies distribute their profits every six months amongst their members. Their membership is of a fluctuating character; The members of one of these societies to-day may not be its members to-morrow. But they may have received from the profits accruing to the society their share of the dividends of perhaps two, three, or four years. One society of which I have a personal knowledge, with a capital of £10,000, has a turnover of between £50,000 and £60,000 per annum. Its membership to-day is scarcely recognisable with its membership of two years ago. It might scarcely be recognisable from the membership of twelve months ago. The profits of this society are at the end of every six months distributed amongst its members, who pay income tax if their income is beyond the’ stipulated exemption. If this society, or any society of a similar character, is to betaxed under this Bill upon its profits, the only source from which the taxation can be derived is the capital, which consists of bricks and mortar-, horses and carts, and stock, the means by which the business of the society is carried on. It will be impossible to get at the actual profits made, because they will have been distributed to the members. In the circumstances, if such societies are to be liable to this taxation, the effect will be to destroy them. I should like to learn from the Vice-President of theExecutive

Council whether that is the intention of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

.- I move -

That the words “ of foodstuffs the produce of Australia for the purposes of manufacture or sale “ be left out of the definition of “ Cooperative Company.”

The reason for this amendment is that these words are unnecessary in view of the words appearing in paragraph b of subclause 1 of clause 8.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– A suggestion was made a few minutes ago by Senator Gardiner that this clause should be postponed until the main clauses of the Bill are dealt with, when the definitions may be amended, if necessary, to meet any amendments made. I understood that the Vice-President of the Executive Council was favorable to the adoption of that course, but he is now going on with amendments of the definition clause.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– Senator Gardiner’s suggestion was that we should postpone the consideration of amendments to the definition clause intended to cover alterations proposed in the material clauses of the Bill.

I agreed to that, but the amendments I am now proposing are amendments of the definition clause, which it is only fair that the Committee should know at this juncture.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– I move-

That after the definition of “ Co-operative Company “ the following new definition be inserted : - “Partnership “ includes beneficiaries under a will settlement or other deed of trust who are carrying on business jointly.

I think the amendment is sufficiently explanatory in itself. It is intended to include as partners, and to treat as partners, those beneficiaries interested in an estate which is still carried on as one business.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Commissioner).

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

– Under this clause power is given to the Commissioner to create and introduce whatever departmental and clerical assistance he desires. I should like to have some expression of opinion from the Vice-President of the Executive Council as to what is intended to be done under this clause in the direction of enlarging the Taxation Department. The honorable senator might give us some information as to the extra number of employees likely to be required, as, according to the Treasurer (Sir John Forrest), the administration of this Bill is likely to cost us £50,000 a year, and goodness knows how much it will cost the taxpayers.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– It is impossible to give the honorable senator, with any detail, the information which he seeks.

Senator Pratten:

– Could the honorable senator give us some idea as to how the estimated cost of administration is made up?

Senator MILLEN:

– I cannot. There will be some assessors necessary, and some additional clerical assistance.

Senator Pratten:

– Any new buildings !

Senator MILLEN:

– I think we need not assume thatthere will be any new buildings. If we had to wait until they were erected the honorable senator will see that by that time the measure would be overdue.

Clause agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 2013

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Millen) read a first time.

page 2013

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Millen) read a first time.

page 2013

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

North Queensland Railway Strike : Correspondence between Prime Minister and Queensland Premier, &c.

Senate adjourned at 11.1 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 September 1917, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1917/19170913_senate_7_83/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate13 September 1917

PAPERS

QUESTION

RETURNED SOLDIERS’ FARMS

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

COST OF LIVING

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator MAUGHAN:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

WAR LOAN BILL (No. 2)

Second Reading

Senator MILLEN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

Senator Maughan:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

Senator O’KEEFE:Tasmania

Senator Pearce:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Millen:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Millen:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Earle:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Barnes:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator de Largie:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Earle:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator de Largie:

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Millen:

Senator FERRICKS:QUEENSLAND

Senator Bakhap:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Millen:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Guy:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Millen:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Reid:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Senior:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Millen:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Senior:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Pratten:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Bakhap:

Senate
13 September 1917

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator FERRICKS:
QUEENSLAND

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales