Senate
22 May 1918

7^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

PRIVILEGE
- Suspensionof Senator Gardiner : - Record of Proceedings
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
- Melbourne, 21st May, 1918
- George Fairbairn
PAPERS
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF SOAP FROM AMERICA
QUESTION
- ITALIAN CLUB, MELBOURNE
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1915-16
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1915-16
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1916-17
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1916-17
QUESTION
- FINANCIAL STATEMENT
QUESTION
- WHEAT POOL
QUESTION
- WOOL POOL
REPATRIATION
- Transport Canteens Fund
QUESTION
- SHIPBUILDING SCHEME
LANDS ACQUISITION (DEFENCE) BILL
- Third Reading
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

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

page 4861

PRIVILEGE

Suspensionof Senator Gardiner : - Record of Proceedings

Senator GARDINER (New South privilege. Since the last meeting of the Senate, the Hansard report of parliamentary debates has been issued, and it contains the report of as incident which occurred here on last Thursday night.

This report affects, not only myself, but the Senate, and I, therefore, desire on this, the earliest opportunity, to move, as a matter of privilege, that the reportbe removed from the records of the Senate. I take this actionwithout any personal feeling, and because I am absolutely of the opinion that if the record to which I refer is allowed by the Senate to stand without alteration, it will not merely do an injustice to myself, which it is my privilege and right to prevent, but what is much more important, will do an injustice to the Senate. That I may put the matter before honorable senators without passion or feeling, I may be permitted to read the whole of the report to which I take exception. It will be found at page 4747 of Hansard for 15th May. A discussion was going on in connexion with the report from the Select Committee on Intoxicants. A motion of dissent from a ruling of the . President had been moved. There then follows this report of the proceeding, which I shall read without comment: -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The question, I think, has ‘been sufficiently discussed by honorable senators. I claim my right now to speak. The honorable senator, if he desires, will have an- opportunity later.

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; PROG LAB from 1928

– Mr. President, I rise to a point of order. Are you in order, sir, in refusing the right of the honorable senator to speak in this Senate, and in taking to yourself the right to speak–

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Has any one the right to call the President to order?

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

– Then I have no right to speak?

The PRESIDENT:

– No honorablesenator has a right to speak - not even the mover of the motion himself. I again ask Senator Gardiner, before putting the motion, if he will reconsider his attitude and withdraw his expression towards the Chair.

Senator Gardiner:

– From the beginning, Mr. President, you have been under a misapprehension. You take offence where none is intended. Senator Guy had risen to. speak.

– I have asked the honorable senator to make the usual amende, which I have a right to expect of any honorable senator.

The honorable senator has not made, and refuses to make, the unreserved amende to the Senate and the Chair which is required by the Standing Orders, and I must now put the motion without further comment-

That Senator Gardiner be suspended from this sitting ofthe Senate.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 7

Majority . . 6.

Then follow the names of honorable senators, which I need not read. They are all that I am omitting from my quota- tion of the report which appears in Handard.

AYES

NOES

Senator GARDINER:

– It is very accurate. I have taken the precaution to read the whole of the report bearing on this unpleasant incident, so that when I am commenting on any part of it rib honorable senator will be in a position to say that I am commenting upon a part and holding something back.

I wish to approach this matter with no personal feeling, although I do feel - as any honorable senator in similar circumstances would feel - the indignity that has been placed upon me. But.I feel even more keenly the fact that, perhaps quite unintentionally in its conduct towards me, the Senate made a grave mistake. I propose to point out what that mistake is, and I am going to ask honorable senators who claim, as I do, that the Standing Orders are for the guidance of the Senate, to see that they are carried Out, even though an honorable senator like myself sometimes becomes objectionable. Standing order 440 has reference to “ Proceedings on report of offence.” I ask honorable senators to mark that marginal note. The standing order reads -

When any senator has been reported as having committed an offence he shall be called upon to stand up in his place and make any explanation or apology he may think fit, and afterwards a motion may be’ moved : “ That such senator be Suspended from the sitting of the Senate.” No amendment, adjournment or debate shall be allowed on such motion, which shall bc immediately put by the President.

I hope honorable senators have followed me with sufficient care to note that portion of the standing order to which effect

Was not given on the occasion upon which I was removed from the Senate. If I can show that a portion of that standing order was not put into operation, I do not think I shall have to appeal to you, sir, to remove the indignity which was put upon me owing to a misunderstanding. The part of the standing order to which I wish specially to direct attention reads -

When any senator has been reported as having committed an offence he shall be called upon to stand up in his place and make any explanation or apology he may think fit, and afterwards a motion may be moved.

Here is the Hansard record to show that when you, sir, threatened me you said - -

I will. I report Senator Gardiner to the Senate for continued disobedience of the Chair.

When I was reported to the Senate, the standing order compelled the President to call upon me to make any explanation or apology that I might have deemed fit. That action was not taken. Instead, Senator Millen immediately rose, and moved that I be suspended. Now it is not a question of whether I deserved to be suspended or not.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator is not raising that point?

Senator GARDINER:

– No. But had the President called upon me for an explanation I would not have been removed from the chamber, because, according to the Hansard report, the misapprehension under which he acted would have been removed. Consequently, I am going to ask the Senate to expunge this record from Hansard because of the injustice which has been done to me. Unfortunately, I was not sufficiently acquainted with our Standing Orders at the time to know that I had the right to speak. But when the President read the standing order which prevented me speaking after the, motion had been carried, I saw the weakness of his position. I saw that, had he carried out the Standing Orders in their entirety, immediately before reporting me to the Senate, I should have been called upon to make an explanation or any apology I thought fit. I tried to get in that explanation, but wa9 prevented from so doing. I propose, therefore, to give the explanation, and I trust that I shall do it in the same frame of mind that I am in now.

At the commencement of the incident which led to such unpleasant consequences, Senator Guy rose to speak. The President thereupon said -

Order ! The question, I think, has been sufficiently discussed by honorable senators, and I claim my right to speak.

I wish to assure you, sir, that that is all I heard of your statement. Having heard those words, I was naturally under the impression that Senator Guy was to be refused the’ right to speak. If I thought that that was your intention then, I was more convinced of it when you said -

I am perfectly within my rights in speaking to a question of order at any time.

Then I thought that you were under the impression that we were dealing with a question of order, when, as a matter of fact, we were dealing with a motion which was before the Senate. I even persisted in my refusal to leave the chamber until force was used. I can assure Senator Barker, who laughs, that this is not a laughing matter to me. The force which was used gave effect to Mr. President’s authority. I was not willing to concede one particle of my rights by admitting the right of the Senate to remove me from the chamber. I was entitled to make an explanation, but that right was not permitted me. I rose to a point of order because I was convinced that the President had decided to close the1 debate owing to the fact that I only heard him say that the question had been sufficiently discussed.

Senator Millen:

– Did you hear the President call upon you to take your place ?

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes; and every time he so called upon me I took my place. Every time I rose to speak I did so to assert the rights of the Senate.

I have had a long parliamentary career, thanks to the forbearance of the electors, and this is only the second occasion upon which I have been removed from the House. Upon the previous occasion, in the New South Wales Parliament, there was a proposal to construct a north coast railway. I rose to discuss the question, and the Chairman of Committees immediately called me to order. I made what he considered to be an impertinent remark. I said, “I represent a town on the western line, where we are agitating for lower freights. If we add to the cost of the New South Wales railways a railway which, the report shows, will involve us in a loss of £2,000,000 a year, surely I am in order in pointing that out.” The Chairman replied that I was not in order, and thereupon I said, “ That is just the sort of ruling which I would expect from you.” I was at once removed from the chamber by the SerjeantatArms. I may say that the Gloucester Company made a fortune by running that railway through their own land. They won their point by one vote. Had the standing order been strictly carried out that evening, had Mr. President called upon me to make an apology or explanation, my explanation would have been that I understood his ruling to mean that he had closed the debate. I never doubted that that was his ruling until I read the Hansard report. If honorable senators read the record of the incident they will see how easily an honorable senator could act on that opinion. Honorable senators may ask me, “ Why persist in these things?” The oldest and ablest parliamentarian I ever met advised me on one occasion never to let irregularities, though harmless in themselves, pass unnoticed, lest they acquired the force of precedents. I have followed that advice all my life, and even with the indignity of the Senate sitting in judgment on me, and removing me from my place, I am prepared still to follow it. I appeal to honorable senators to follow closely the record of the incident. If they then say that the standing order was carried out, they will adhere to their judgment, and refuse to take the action I now ask them to take. If you, sir, with the standing order before you, say that it was carried out, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion; but I venture to say that if that attitude is taken to-day by the Senate, which is, after all, the High Court of Parliament, and stands higher than all other Courts, and it refuses to reverse its decision with facta before it upon which in any other Court in Australia a reversal of such a decision could be obtained, a very bad precedent will be established. I base my claim that the report of these proceedings be expunged from Hansard on the ground that standing order 440 was not given effect to. I move -

That the record of the proceedings regarding the suspension of Senator Gardiner on 16th May be removed from the Journals of the Senate and from Hansard.

I ask honorable senators, apart altogether from any feeling in the matter, to read the standing order carefully, and to read the report in Hansard. I feel sure that Senator Millen will agree that between my being reported and his moving the motion, the opportunity that the standing order lays down was not afforded to me.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– Before the Senate proceeds to consider the question, I should like to remove one misapprehension under which Senator Gardiner seems to be labouring. I wish to follow exactly the same course as he has followed - to speak entirely dispassionately on the matter, and allow the Senate to arrive at an unbiased judgment, without any reflection on any honorable senator whatever. Senator Gardiner seems to think that under the standing order it was my duty, after reporting him to the Senate, to give him an opportunity of making any explanation or apology that he thought fit. Neither Senator Gardiner nor any other honorable senator will find that in any part of the Standing Orders, or in any part of the practice or procedure of this or any other House of Parliament. My duty ended when I reported the matter to the Senate. That is all I was required to do by the standing order. The usual practice has been for the Leader of the Senate, or the Leader of any other House in which a like incident occurred, to give the honorable member offending the opportunity referred to. Perhaps in the excitement of the moment, the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) did not make the usual pause before moving the motion. Honorable senators will see that under the standing order that opportunity must be given before the motion is moved, and not afterwards.

Senator Gardiner:

– After reporting, and before the motion is moved.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes. Therefore, Senator Gardiner can have absolutely no basis for a charge of injustice either against myself or any body else for not allowing a long disquisition, or explanation, or discussion, after the. motion was moved and before it was put. As a matter of fact, I exceeded my duty, after the motion was moved, in offering him more than once an opportunity to put himself right with the Senate and with the Chair.I think the honorable senator and the Senate will forgive me for so exceeding my duty, because, although perhaps not in accordance with the strict reading of the standing order, it was the right and wise course to follow. Standing order 440 provides -

When any senator has been reported as having committed an offence, he shall be called upon to stand up in his place and make any explanation or apology he may think fit, and afterwards a motion may be moved, “ That such senator be suspended from the sitting of the Senate.” No amendment, adjournment, or debate shall be allowed on such motion, which shall be immediately put by the President.

Senator Gardiner:

– What was my reply to that?

Senator MILLEN:

– In reply to this invitation from the President, Senator Gardiner said: -

From the beginning, Mr. President, you have been under a misapprehension. You take offence where none is intended. Senator Guy had risen to speak. You had - quite in an improper way–

Senator Gardiner refused to be called to order, and the Senate should remember that his attitude was the culminating point in a number of incidents that had occurred; and, though I regret exceedingly to be obliged to do so, I must ask the Senate now to say that on that occasion it carried out fairly, justly, and impartially, the standing order under which Senator Gardiner was suspended.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

. -As one who was not present when this heated discussion took place, I may be allowed, in a few words, to approach it without any exhibition of partisanship. I have obtained my information from the newspaper report of the incident supplemented by the full Hansard report, and it appears to me that the speech just made by Senator Millen is special pleading which ought not to come from the Leader of the Senate. Senator Gardiner has given what was simply a resume of what appeared in Hansard, and I am confident that if standing order 440 were placed before any tribunal in Australia, its judgment would bo that Senator Gardiner was deprived of his right, which is also the right of every other honorable senator. Iam pleased to know that Senator Millen acknowledges that you, sir, failed in your duty in not, at the proper time, carrying out the letter of the standing order. It may be, as Senator Millen hassaid, that the spirit of the standing order was observed, but it was not carried out technically; and I think that, when altercations occur between the President and any honorable senator leading to a suspension of an honorable senator, the standing order should be observed by you, sir, in the strictest letter, and to the end. Any honorable senator who reads the report of the debate will recognise that Senator Gardiner wa3 not allowed by you, at the proper time, in the proper place, and in the prescribed manner, to put himself right with the Senate. That is absolutely clear; and the honorable senator says he would have been able to show that his alleged defiance of the Chair on that afternoon, which has been made so much of by Senator Millen - or his actual defiance of the Chair - was due to the fact that he was resenting the position that Senator Guy had not been allowed to speak, because he felt that you, Mr. President, had not interpreted the Standing Orders properly.

Senator Gardiner may have been right, and he may have been wrong; but the fact remains that he was not given an opportunity of making his explanation at the right time, or at any time. And it was that fact which led to his suspension. I can understand Senator Gardiner, or any other honorable senator, feeling the. matter so keenly that he might be led to continue in defiance of the Chair, and break the Standing Orders, because he has this excuse: that if he broke the Standing Orders by his continued defiance of the Chair, then, if there is any meaning in the English language at all, you, sir, also broke a standing order. You did not give Senator Gardiner that opportunity which the Standing Orders plainly say must be given at the right time. You did not give him that opportunity to put himself right with the Chair. There is a standing order which, if there is any meaning in the English language, must be plain to every senator. It is a pity that, on an occasion like this, a standing order, which, if it is put into effect, becomes vital to every member of the Senate, should have been broken, even if only technically. And, therefore, whatever our party feelings may be, it would be well if you, Mr. President, concurred, and the Leader of the Senate also, that the records of the whole incident be expunged.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I support the motion of Senator Gardiner. I was present during the whole period in question, and I am under the impression now, as I was then, that Senator Gardiner was not properly treated by yourself, sir, or by the Senate. There is a most remarkable phase of the debate this afternoon to which I desire to draw attention. That is the statement of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Millen), who justified the action of the Senate last Thursday, not upon what Senator Gardiner did on that occasion, and which is alleged to have been defiance of the Chair, but because of what he had done the day before.

Senator Millen:

– No, I did not.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Any honorable senator who has listened carefully to Senator Millen’s speech this afternoon knows that he pinned his faith, with respect to the action of the Senate last Thursday, on the attitude which Senator Gardiner had adapted the day before. I can only say that that is a most remarkable kind of justice. Senator Gardiner came into conflict with the Chair on Wednesday evening. He made use of a term which is not supposed to be parliamentary. He was called on to withdraw. He did not, at that time; and the assertion which he made, by the way, was against a statement of the Leader of the Senate. Then Senator Millen was placed in a rather curious position, because, in that capacity, he had to move for Senator Gardiner’s suspension. But, in doing so, Senator Millen asked Senator Gardiner to take another view of the matter. And in such a way did he put it that Senator Gardiner made the amende honorable to the senator and to the Senate, and thus that matter ended. But because another incident occurred on the following day - a matter of an entirely different nature, when Senator Gardiner was asking for the right of another honorable senator to address himself to a question arising out of a ruling by you, sir, and which honorable senator you would not allow to speak at that juncture - then, because of the events which happened around that incident, Senator Millen this afternoon justifies the action of the Senate in the light of the attitude of Senator Gardiner the day before. What a wonderful point of view! In an ordinary Police Court in any part of the Commonwealth, if a man is charged with an offence, and pays the penalty, they dare not adduce that against him if he comes before the Court again.

Senator Millen:

– They bring up his past record.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Let me quote from the report to prove the assertion I have just made. Honorable senators will find, at page 4748, the following report : -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Standing Orders compel me now to take a certain course.

Senator Gardiner:

– Then take the course.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will. I report Senator Gardiner to the Senate for continued disobedience to the Chair.

Then Senator Millen, without extending to Senator Gardiner the consideration he was entitled to under the Standing Orders, said -

You having reported Senator Gardiner to the Senate, Mr. President, for declining to obey your directions, I have no option but to move -

That Senator Gardiner be suspended from this sitting of the Senate.

I say that if there had not been undue haste - I will not say indecent haste - Senator Millen, as a chivalrous opponent, might have extended to Senator Gardiner the benefit of the first paragraph of standing order 440. But, for reasons best known to himself, he did not do that, but straight away moved the motion I have just read. The President then, as in duty bound, put the question in these words -

The question is that Senator Gardiner be suspended from the sitting of the Senate. Before putting that question, I ask the honorable senator to reconsider his attitude and withdraw.

Now, I submit, with all respect, that that is what the President should have done before calling upon Senator Millen to take the action which he did take. If the President failed to recognise his responsibility in that connexion, it was the duty of Senator Millen to take that course before submitting his motion which resulted in the suspension of Senator Gardiner. The report proceeds -

Senator Gardiner:

– Before putting the question, Mr. President, can I say anything

There is surely nothing disrespectful or discourteous in that–

The PRESIDENT:

– Upon such a motion, there must be no debate.

Having had the ground cut from under his feet by this motion being put so precipitately, Senator Gardiner was denied the right to put himself in order with the Chair and with the Senate. The report proceeds -

Senator Gardiner:

– What do you ask?

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask the honorable senator to withdraw the expression which he used towards the Chair.

Now, I invite honorable senators to read Senator Gardiner’s reply to that statement by the President -

Senator Gardiner:

– I am quite prepared to follow your directions in any way you like; to withdraw anything you consider offensive; to withdraw anything in connexion with this Senate. But I certainly must claim the right to protect myself.

Could any honorable senator have made the amende more honorably than that? The report proceeds -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator must not debate the matter at this stage.

Subsequently, after preventing Senator Gardiner from making an explanation earlier, the President said -

I again appeal to Senator Gardiner. I do not wish to take further action. Altogether, this incident is very regrettable.I will ask the honorable gentleman again to make the usual amende to the President.

Senator Millen:

– What happened? He refused to do so.

Senator LONG:

– Permit me to answer that question, and not Senator Millen. Thereupon Senator Gardiner said -

If anything has been said, or if any conduct of mine has been offensive to you, sir, I am prepared to withdraw it; but I refuse to admit that I have done anything that could be considered offensive to the President.

That is briefly the history of this very regrettable incident; and any impartial person, upon reading the official report of it will, I venture to say, agree with me that Senator Gardiner was harshly treated in being subjected to the indignity of being suspended from the sitting of the Senate for the alleged offence of continued disobedience to the Chair. If honorable senators are prepared to calmly consider the case upon its whole merits, they will see that Senator Gardiner is perfectly justified in the application which he is now making to have this record expunged from Hansard, and from the official records of the Senate. Without any hesitation whatever, I shall support the motion, and I would accord the same support quite as freely to any other honorable senator who found himself in the same position as Senator Gardiner occupies today.

Senator . Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [4.8]. - Like Senator

O’Keefe, I was not present when this regrettable incident took place, and, therefore, I can approach it only with the knowledge I have gained from the reports which have appeared in the daily newspapers, and from the fuller report which Senator Gardiner has quoted, and which I have not read, in Hansard. It seems to me that one fact is admitted, namely, that the provisions of standing order 440 have not been carried out. That being so, it appears to me that, having started upon a wrong basis, the whole of the subsequent proceedings are entirely vitiated. The rights of honorable senators are amongst the most precious things connected with our parliamentary system, and one of the rights of any member of this Chamber is that, before judgment is passed upon him, he shall have an opportunity of putting his position and of stating his case.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The standing order provides that he shall be called upon by the Presiding Officer to do so.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– That is a mandatory provision which was not put into operation.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator does not dispute that Senator Gardiner was given an opportunity to explain, does he? The only point is whether he was given it at the right time.

SenatorLt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN It cannot be overlooked that even a criminal in a dock is given a right to make an explanation.

Senator Millen:

– Senator Gardiner was given that opportunity.

– It was not the honorable senator’s remarks. There was nothing particular in his words, but it was his attitude. According to the report which the honorable senator read just now, the President gave Senator Gardiner three opportunities to apologize. He was rather lenient, in my opinion, in making three appeals to the honorable senator. The honorable senator had assumed in his own mind that Senator Guy could not speak, and that the President was robbing him of his opportunity. I was with him up to that point, because I did not think the President had the right to rob any senator of his right to speak.

Senator Ferricks:

Upon a question of order being raised, the senator called to order shall resume his seat, and after the question of order has been stated to the President by the senator rising to order, the President may give his decision thereon, or he may first hear further argument thereon, at his discretion.

Senator Millen was not speaking on that occasion to a motion. He was rising to speak to a point of order, which, in my opinion, did not require any discussion. The two cases, therefore, are not on all fours.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

.- I take it that what we are discussing is whether the standing order was carried out or not. It is not a question whether Senator Gardiner did

Or did not do right. I am not here to say whether he did all he ought to have done or not, or whether the President was right or wrong. I was present during the whole evening, and confess that I fell into exactly the same error as Senator Gardiner; that is, I thought Senator Guy was not allowed to speak, and I had the idea that Senator Gardiner was simply championing the right of Senator Guy to speak. I voted with Senator Gardiner on those lines.

Senator Millen:

– Did you ever know an occasion when a debate was closed in that peremptory way by a Presiding Officer?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Standing Orders of the Senate are a little different from those of the House of Representatives, and as I was for a number of years in the House and am a comparatively new member of the Senate, I am influenced a good deal by the procedure of the other place. I take it that the whole question is whether or not Senator Gardiner had the right before a vote was taken to make an explanation of his action. I did not know until I read standing order 440 that Senator Gardiner had the right to make an explanation, and I do not remember hearing Senator Gardiner given the right to explain what he had done. I do not say that it did not take place, but all that I heard was the opportunity given to him again and again to apologize unreservedly. That, however, is not the point. Senator Gardiner says that, according to standing order 440, he should have been given an opportunity either to apologize or make an explanation before he was condemned. I confess that I was not aware of the existence of such a standing order in this Chamber. I know that in the other place we have no such standing order ; and I speak feelingly on this matter, because on one occasion I was removed from the House of Representatives, and I felt it very much for a long time. Had there been an opportunity on that occasion to explain my attitude, I feel sure the incident would not have happened. The question is whether Senator Gardiner was given this opportunity or not. I admit that he had an opportunity, half-a-dozen times, to apologize, but he wanted to explain his attitude; and I understand, now, that he was defending the right of Senator Guy to speak, under the impression that the debate was being closed by the President. We are perfectly justified in taking Senator Gardiner’s word for that. I thought the same, though I may have been wrong.

Senator Millen:

– If the honorable senator was under that impression, does he think Senator Gardiner was correct in his manner of asserting his right?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It was read. The standing order was referred to.

Senator GUY:

– Then why was Senator Gardiner not asked to make the explanation ? Why was he not given an opportunity?

A very lame case was put before the Senate this afternoon by Senator Earle, in quoting the preceding standing order as an excuse for what arose. I could not help smiling, for the honorable senator had evidently mistaken it for something else, and was trying to read into the situation a standing order which applied to a distinctly different position. No honorable senator who has yet spoken has made it clear that the provision in standing order 440 was carried out. Even Senator Millen, whom we can all admire for his ability and alacrity in getting hold of a point, admitted that technically it was not carried out.

Senator Shannon:

– Carried out in the spirit, but not in the letter.

Senator GUY:

– We need to carry out these provisions both in the spirit and in the letter. I trust that we shall sink any feeling that Honorable senators may have and wipe the whole business off the records. I thought at first that I was going to be prevented from speaking to the motion. As I have indicated, that was certainly my first impression from the statement of the President. But be subsequently removed that, and indicated that I would have another opportunity. Senator Gardiner did not hear that. He still laboured under the misunderstanding that I. was prevented from speaking, and he felt that an injustice was being imposed on me. The whole incident, therefore, rests upon a misunderstanding; and the quickest and best way is for us to agree that the record be expunged so that it may appear as if the incident had not occurred at all.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– As one of those honorable senators present throughout the occasion which has given rise to this discussion, I want to say that I carried away a vivid recollection of everything that happened. I was very much interested in it because of the motion of dissent from the ruling which you, Mr. President, had given upon another matter - because of” the bearing of the discussion on that particular motion. Consequently I was somewhat in sympathy with. Senator Gardiner when he rose at the moment that he came into conflict with you. Like Senator Guy, who by the way has given a very fair account of how the matter appeared to honorable senators generally, I was somewhat under the same impression, and I could then see a very good reason for that impression being held by honorable senators, namely, that the rising of the President would have the effect of closing the debate so far as that other point of order was concerned. That was owing to the first sentence to which the President gave utterance. But as the President proceeded, and knowing as I did that his speech did not close the debate on the other point of order, I made a remark across the floor of the chamber - speaking at Senator Gardiner, who was on his feet, but who did not hear me, I think. The reason why I interjected was to acquaint Senator Gardiner with the point. I said, “The President, speaking at this stage, does not necessarily close the debate.” Whether Senator Gardiner heard me or not I am not going to say.

Senator Gardiner:

– I will say that possibly I heard you.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I do not know whether the honorable senator did, but that was the aspect of the question a3 it appealed to me. From that on, however, Senator Gardiner put himself out of court by coming so repeatedly into conflict with the President. It has been claimed by those disputing the ruling on that occasion that, even if it were a technical point-

Senator Gardiner:

– No, it is not a technical point. It is the whole of the Standing Orders which are at stake.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– If you give up the technical point, I hold that you have no claim whatever.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– Order! Will the honorable senator please address the Chair?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Any honorable senator who was present must admit that the spirit of the Standing Orders was put into effect so far as it was possible to do so.

During this discussion the idea has occurred to me that standing order 440 is not quite so clear as it might he. It is one which requires a further standing order to fully meet a position such as has arisen. The procedure of putting standing order 440 into operation is not quite clear to honorable senators. I agree with the point raised by Senator Earle wherein he drew attention to the fact that one must read No. 440 in conjunction with standing orders 438 and 439. Then, any one reading the three together could come to no other opinion than that these are the standing orders which may be put into practice when disorder has occurred in Committee. The one follows on the other, and would lead. one to believe that that is the procedure for disorder occurring in Committee only, and that disorder when the President is in the chair is of such a nature that these standing orders do not apply to it. For that reason, therefore, I think No. 440 needs amending. But, if action is not taken to suspend an honorable senator under standing order 440, on the ground that it does not apply, then we are in the unfortunate position that we have no standing order whatever under which to suspend an honorable senator.

Senator Keating:

– He can be given something practical. He can be given his liberty, but we cannot return to Senator

Gardiner the portion of the sitting from which he was suspended.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– If we have wronged him we can recompense him, and the only recompensewe can make to Senator Gardiner is to cut out of the record of our proceedings that which does him a wrong. Senator Keating admits that it does the honorable senator a wrong. Every other member of the Senate admits that, but still they will give Senator Gardiner no redress, because some point of order was not raised at the proper time.

Senator Pearce:

– We are asked to cut the report out of one place and insert it in another.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– Any time is the proper time in which to do what is right and fair. Senator Gardiner has no other means of redressthan to ask the Senate to expunge from its records its decision suspending him. The punishment, whether deserved or not, was not imposed under the laws of the Senate. The honorable senator was punished because he attempted to do something which he had a right to do. The spirit of the law has nothing to do with this case or any other, but only the law itself and the way in which it is interpreted. If a law is wrongly interpreted by a judge inaddressing a jury the defendant has a right to redress, no matter what punishment has been imposed upon him. I know from what has been said by honorable senators on the other side that Senator Gardiner’s motion will not be carried. Honorable senators opposite dare not do justice to the honorable senator. I would not have taken any part in the debate but for the explanation of the matter given by Senator Keating, and because I wished to say that his explanation has satisfied me that the punishment inflicted upon Senator Gardiner was not according to the Standing Orders, and he is now right in asking for the only redress that is open to him.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I wish to say a word or two on the motion. I was not present when the incident took place, and I have therefore acquired my knowledge of it directly from Senator Gardiner’s address this afternoon, and from the Hansard report. Standing order 438 deals directly with offences by honorable senators.

Listening to Senator Gardiner’s own statement, as read from the Hansard report, no candid person can doubt that he was guilty of an offence against the Chair. The honorable senator has not this afternoon put up any defence, or attempted in any way to clear himself from guilt. At the close of standing order 438 it is provided that -

The President may report to the Senate that such senator has committed an offence.

Senator SENIOR:

– May I be permitted to say distinctly that Senator Gardiner was asked by the President to show proper respect to the Chair, and the President added - or I shall consider myself at perfect liberty to enforce that respect.

SenatorGardiner persisted by saying -

You are at perfect liberty to do as you like.

That was certainly defying the Chair. Further on - referring to the Presidenthe said -

Then, has he any right to threaten me? I will not be threatened. I will not stand it.

– Let us view this matter without feeling. Necessarily we view it always in the light of how we interpret our Standing Orders. Having listened to the debate, and having noted that it followed the line which it did, I took the trouble to turn up Chambers’ Dictionary for the purpose of ascertaining its definition of “ apology.” Several meanings are given : “ Something spoken to ward off an attack; a defence for justification; a frank acknowledgment of an offence.” Those are all different definitions of “ apology.” If I hold a different view of the meaning from some honorable senators, am I to be blamed ? I said I was willing to withdraw anything, but I would not admit I was wrong, and when this debate is over I shall still stand as firm in my conscience as I was then, that I was absolutely right in every step I took. Yon, Mr. President, gave the ruling that Senator Guy- was not to speak. Let me give your exact words, because, after all, this is where the whole trouble came in. Senator Guy rose and said, “Mr. President.” You said -

Order! The question, I think, has been sufficiently discussed by honorable senators.

That is what you said in calling Senator Guy to order.

Senator Senior:

– That is not all that the President said at that time.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have not quoted everything yet. You said -

I claim my right now to speak.

Then you went on -

The honorable senator, if he desires, will have an opportunity later.

– The honorable senator had not the opportunity to speak.

Senator GARDINER:

– That is the whole trouble. Senator Millen went out of his way to quote my misconduct on another question. On that occasion I admit that I lost my temper - a thing I rarely do, but I hope I shall never live to be so calm that I will not lose my temper when charged with untruthfulness. The cause of my anger on that occasion - and I venture to say it was an occasion when a man could be angry and sin not - was that Senator Millen accused me of untruthfulness. The honorable senator has brought that matter up, and used it against me in this debate. I am not going to discuss it, but let me appeal to the records. Senator Millen on that occasion said -

– That is very easily answered, because the President, after putting up with what honorable senators are pleased to exaggerate into defiance on my part, very properly gave me an opportunity to apologize. If standing up for our rights is defiance, honorable senators will find that I am fairly defiant whenever our rights are being taken from us. The President gave me that opportunity after the matter had gone some considerable distance, and after refusing to hear me on a point of order. I say this with all due respect to him. I rose to a point of order, and was not given a hearing, and he also refused to accept from me a motion to dissent from his ruling. All these things, that are called “ defiance,” are the mere step-by-step statements of what I did. On that occasion not one defiant or angry feeling entered my mind. All I wished to assert was that the President had no right to close the debate. When you, sir, found I had gone so far, and when you took my remark as offensive, you threatened me; you said -

Order! The Standing Orders compel me now to take a certain course.

– The practice adopted in the honorable senator’s case has been the practice followed in both Houses since Federation was established.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That may be so, because we did not know the Standing Orders.

Senator GARDINER:

– This is what; the procedure should be under standing order 440, which reads -

Whenany senator has been reported as having committed an offence, he shall be called upon to stand up in his place and make any explanation or apology he may think fit. . .

Senator de Largie asks did I rise and ask for an opportunity to make an explanation ? I can say, openly and honestly that I sat in my place waiting for this measure of justice to be meted out to me. But it was not given to me. What happened ? When Senator Millen moved the motion of suspension, I thought the President would call upon me to make any explanation or apology, but he did not. The motion was moved by Senator Millen in this way - “ That Senator Gardiner be suspended from this sitting of the Senate.”

Isubmit the motion without any comment.

Senator GARDINER:

– I say that not only was I not offensive, but that I offered an ample apology to the President. It stands there in Hansard. There can be no getting away from it. It was as full, ample, and as earnest an apology as has ever been offered by any honorable senator ; but that was not sufficient. And now I bring additional evidence in substantiation of my manly and straightfor ward statement, and. to show that the action of the Senate in expelling me was not in accordance with standing order 440. If honorable senators are prepared to smile, as Senator Senior is smiling, or if they are prepared to wriggle out of the difficulty as Senator Earle wriggles out of it by suggesting that the standing order refers to procedure in Committee, I can say no more. If Senator Earle maintains that the standing order refers to the Committee, I will ask him to read other standing orders as to the Committee, and see if they can be applied to the Senate. I say I was removed under a misapprehension’ by honorable senators, who, in their hurry, or in their excitement - I do not care what they call it - did something which the standing order does not permit them to do. I decline to accept the narrow interpretation which some honorable senators wish toplace upon the apology that was expected of me. I regard an apology made byme as a defence, or explanation, if need be, of my conduct. If, however, honorable senators want to drag the Senate down to the level of a bully, or an overseer of a gang of slaves who recognises no restriction, they may do so; but I can assure the Senate that while I am here I will use all the powers I possess to object to any course of action that is fraught with danger to the Senate.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do so because I am a little afraid that party bias will turn f air play and justice aside, when those qualities should be the pre-requisite of the Senate.

I leave it now to honorable senators to remember that when they record their votes I shall be neither elevated nor depressed by the manner of their decision. Sufficient to sustain me is the justice of my cause, and I trust that honorable senators, in giving their judgment, will know that they have done so in the interests of the maintenance of justice and of the Standing Orders.

Question - That the record of the proceedings regarding Senator Gardiner’s suspension on 16th May be removed from the Journals of the Senate and Hansard - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 4894

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to intimate to the Senate that I have received the following letter from SenatorFairbairn

Melbourne, 21st May, 1918

The President, the Senate, Melbourne.

Dear Sir, - It is with much regret that I find that the pressure of my many public duties and my private work compels me to retire from the Committee of Public Accounts. I have explained the details of my reasons to my fellow members of the Public Accounts Committee, and I am pleased to say that they quite recognise that I am unable to give this Committee the time that it requires.

Yours faithfully,

George Fairbairn

I have to remind honorable senators that, the Public Accounts Committee being an honorary Committee, there is an obligation upon those appointed to it to carry out the duties imposed by their appointment. It is not in accordance with the practice of the Senate that members of such Committees should resign. The practice is that they should ask that they may be relieved of the duties of the position. Such a request is, of course, never refused.It is for the Senate to say whether it will accede to Senator Fairbairn’s desire or not.

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · NAT

– I think that the Senate will accept the letter which has just been read by the President as a request by Senator Fairbairn to be relieved of his duties as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I therefore move -

That, at his request, Senator Fairbairn be discharged from attending the Committee of Public Accounts.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4894

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Commonwealth Winter Butter Pool, 1917 : Statement of Profit and Loss.

Public Service Act 1902-1916.- Thirteenth Report on the Commonwealth Public Service, by the Acting Commissioner.

Rabbit Skins - Trust Fund : Statement of Receipts and Expenditure from 7th to 30th June, 1917, and from 1st July, 1917, to 19th February 1918.

page 4894

– I have no intention to introduceany measure of the kind. I remind Senator Gardiner that, had he wished to do what he suggests, he had an opportunity to do so when the Bill amending the Repatriation Act was before this Chamber a few days ago.

Senator GARDINER:

– In view of the Minister’s reply, I ask him whether he is not aware that I moved an amendment to that effect when the original Bill was before the Senate?

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · NAT

– In conformity with standing order No. 36, I move -

That the paper presented on 1st May : “ Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Fund Act 1916: Report of the Board of Trustees of Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Fund, March, 1918,” be printed.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator GARDINER:

– My chief object in rising is to ascertain whether on this motion I shall be in order in discussing matters generally relating to repatriation, or whether I shall be confined to the specific matter mentioned in the paper which has been laid upon the table ?

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– The rule is that an honorable senator must not go beyond the subject mentioned in the paper.

Senator GARDINER:

– That being the case, I shall not proceed further. I desire to say something in respect of repatriation, but as I am not sure that the particular subject to which I wish to refer is mentioned in the paper, I shall reserve my remarks for another occasion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4895

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Numberof Enlistments - Reenlistment of Officers - Age of Enlistment and Parental Consent

Senator PRATTEN:

– A week or two ago I asked the Minister for Defence certain questions relating to the number of recruits who had enlisted for active service overseas. I should like to know whether the honorable gentleman is yet in a position to supply me with answers?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The questions asked by the honorable senator were as follow : - 1.What is the total number of men enlisted and passed for active service from 1st January, 1918, to 1st April, or later? ‘

Of this number, how many are -
1. returned soldiers;
2. single men who have not previously enlisted ;
3. married men who have not previously enlisted?
What is the number of children dependent upon (c) ?

The answers to them are: -

5,720.
(a) 76; (b) 4,562; (c) 1,082.

1,790.

page 4896

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF SOAP FROM AMERICA

Senator GARDINER:

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if he has any information regarding the question which I asked several days ago as to whether the Government are prepared to put America, in regard to the importation of soap, on the same plane as Japan and our other Allies ?

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

– I have received from the Minister for Customs the following reply: -

I desire to inform you that it is not proposed to review this matter. It is the wish of the Imperial Government that the prohibition of the importation of soap from the United States of America should be maintained, and the Government is acting accordingly.

page 4896

QUESTION

ITALIAN CLUB, MELBOURNE

Seizure of Documents

Senator GRANT:

– I should like to know whether the Minister for Defence has yet received any answer to the question which I asked some days ago relative to the seizure of certain documents at the Italian Club, Melbourne?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The honorable senator, in asking his question, quoted a letter which was signed by B. Santamaria, secretary of the Italian Club, Melbourne, which contained the statement that “ The military authorities yesterday (Tuesday, 14th instant) visited the above premises and seized all the printed petition forms and a number of other papers. We Italians now feel that we are helpless to express our protestation against the introduction for Italians if our right of petition is to be taken from us. We appeal to you to assist us to retain this right, which, we believe, is recognised as an institution in the Commonwealth of Australia.” The honorable senator wished to know if that information was correct and whether this action had been taken with the consent of the Government. The reply is as follows: -

A search was made by the military authorities upon the premises of the Italian Club, and certain documents of an incriminating nature were seized. Among such documents were found forms of a petition, all of which were unsigned. A return of these blank forms was offered to the representative of the Italian Club if he would give an undertaking not to disseminate the matter before referred to.

The blank forms of the petition are now in the hands of the military authorities.

page 4896

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Select Committee on Intoxicating Liquors.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I desire to make a personal explanation. I had intended to make it on Thursday last when I was dealing with the motion for the adoption of the report of the Select Committee on Intoxicating Liquors but for the fact that on that occasion you ruled me out of order. I wish to reply to statements which, upon your authority, have appeared in one of the leading temperance newspapers, and which, to my mind, rather reflect upon me personally. In order to be quite accurate I propose to read exactly what you said upon the occasion in question. You said -

I remember reading some time ago that Senator Thomas, who attaches wonderful importance to this Committee, of which he was the originator, was adversely criticised for originating this Committee by a leading temperance newspaper, which usually supports him, on the score that he was merely trying to save his face because he had supported the Government in the suppression of the Fiddler and Defeat, two pamphlets which had been suppressed by the Government censor.

I may say that I have not seen that statement in any temperance newspaper. But no doubt you read a great many more temperance newspapers than I do. Whilst I have not seen the statement in any temperance newspaper, some reference of that character was made by Senator Gardiner when speaking in this chamber on the 10th January last on the occasion upon which I moved for the appointment of that Select Committee. The honorable senator then stated that the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) and myself were taking certain action to make ourselves right with the temperance people, because we had voted in favour of the censorship of the Fiddler and Defeat. But I would point out that Senator Gardiner’s motion dealing with those publications was submitted on the 25th September last year, and that I had given notice of my motion for the appointment of the Select Committee on the 13th September of that year. As a matter of fact, that motion appeared upon the businesspaper of the Senate on the following day. It will be seen, therefore, that I had anticipated by twelve days the vote which I cast on the 25th September. I mention these facts in order to remove from your mind any suspicion that I moved for the appointment of the Committee merely for the purpose of whitewashing myself with the temperance party and also to make myself right with my temperance friends. I thank the Senate for allowing me to make this explanation, and in anticipation I thank you for the name of the newspaper to which you referred in order that I may communicate with it.

page 4897

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1915-16

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

page 4897

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1915-16

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

page 4897

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1916-17

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

page 4897

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1916-17

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

page 4897

QUESTION

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Senator GARDINER:

– Can the Minister representing the Treasurer say whether it is a fact that a small mistake of about £19,000,000 was made in the statement of the finances put before the country by the Treasurer last week?

Senator Millen:

– I ask the honorable senator to give notice of that small question.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not want to give notice if you do not know.

Senator Millen:

– I do not know anything of it.

page 4897

QUESTION

WHEAT POOL

Freight on Wheat to London.

Senator GARDINER:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

What was the cost of carrying wheat to London in August, 1916?
What was the cost in August, 1917?
What is the cost to-day?
Has the increase been added to compel the farmers to pay for the ships purchased by Mr. Hughes?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answers are -

No steamers were chartered by the Australian Wheat Board during this month. The rate paid for parcels was 95s. per ton, and for sailers 120s.
No vessels were chartered by the Board during this month. The steamer freights paid for full cargoes were 122s. 6d. per ton for the Continent.
The latest rate paid is 150s. per ton.
No.

Senator GARDINER:

– Arising out of the answer, the Minister has evidently misunderstood the question. I asked what was the cost of carrying wheat to London in 1916. The Minister gives me some answer about no steamer being chartered. All I wanted to know was the freights for carrying wheat. I direct the Minister’s attention to that point.

page 4897

QUESTION

WOOL POOL

Wool Stores, Wentworth Park

Senator McDOUGALL:

asked the Min- isterfor Defence, upon notice -

What is the area of the land to be acquired at Wentworth Park, Sydney, for wool storage?
What is the cost of the buildingsproposed to be erected thereon?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answers are -

About 15 acres is the area of the land at Wentworth Park, Sydney, to be leased for a period of five years by the Central Wool Committee, for the purpose of storing appraised wool owned by the Imperial Government.
With regard to the cost of buildings proposed to be erected thereon, it is estimated that each unit will cost about £11,000, and if necessary the Central Wool Committee will erect fifteen units as occasion demands.

page 4898

REPATRIATION

Transport Canteens Fund

Would the Minister state the amount of the accumulated fund of transport canteens?
Is it proposed to use such fund in connexion with repatriation ?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answers are -

It is estimated that if it were possible to wind up the fund at the present moment, it would yield a surplus of £15,000. It will not however, be practicable to strike a balance until the end of the war.
It is proposed to vest the balance to credit in three trustees for the purpose of applying it to such purpose as may meet with the sympathy and approval of the original contributors. No decision in that regard will be arrived at until such time as the fund may be safely wound up.

page 4898

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING SCHEME

Isherwood Principle

Senator McDOUGALL:

asked the Min ister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact that theNavy Department was asked for, and supplied, plans for a standardized cargo-carrying steamer to be built in Australia?
If so, what did the supplying of such plans cost?
Was the Government advised to adopt the Isherwood type of vessel; and, if so, by whom?
Is the Government paying a royalty to the inventor of the Isherwood vessel?
If so, how much per ton is to be paid, and to whom?
Are working plans supplied free?
Was an offer made to the Government by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company to supply the material and build the ships?
If so, why was said offer not accepted?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are -

Plans for a cargo-carrying steamer were prepared by the Navy Department.
£4,369
Yes, by the Chief Executive Officer, Commonwealth Ship Construction. 4, 5, and 6. Fees are payable to J. W. Isherwood at the rate of 3s. 4d. per gross ton, equivalent to about £550 per ship, for the preparation of classification plans, &c. 7 and 8. The company desired to build ships on their account, but not on behalf of the Government. They were unable to supply all the material required for the construction of ships, the larger plates having to be obtained from America.

page 4898

LANDS ACQUISITION (DEFENCE) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I desire to have the last kick at this measure before it gets out of reach. I shall protest at every opportunity anywhere and anyhow against the taking away ofpark lands from the people by the Government. I know nothing at all of any dealing in connexion with this land that has not been perfectly honest, and am opposing the Bill purely on the principle that there are not enough breathing spaces around the thicklypopulated suburbs for the people who are there now. I have seen too much of this sort of thing.We have heard of a promise that the people of Leichhardt will get another piece of land. I have heard promises of that kind given before, but in not one instance have they been carried out, and that applies especially to the very district where this land is. I have seen these reclaimed areas - of which there are three, and this is one of them - dedicated to the people for all time, and handed over to trustees. We clapped our hands, raised a cheer, and said, “These are ours for all time.” One of them has gone for good; there is not an inch left of it. The best part of another has gone for five years, and now this one will be gone for evermore. It has been argued that no protest has been entered by the Municipal Council of Leichhardt. Probably not, and even if the Municipal Council were in favour of the Bill,I would still consider it my duty to stand up and protest against it, but the council are favorable to it only for one reason, and that is that they think they will get a better site. No promise of any description has been given to lead them to that conclusion. They are only going on the word of an officer, who made a promise to them that other land would be made available. The town clerk of Leichhardt, after having seen certain New South Wales members on the subject, put the position in writing in this way: -

Referring to the interview of His Worship the Mayor and myself with you this morning respecting the matter of the acquisition of certain park lands in this municipality by the Commonwealth Government, I am directed to inform you that this council did not formally protest against such resumption, as it understood that, at the date of the receipt of the first intimation thereof, the transaction had been completed, that is to say, the departmental communication covering such intimation was under date 10th April, 1918, whilst the specific proclamation of the acquisition was published in the Commonwealth Gazette of 18th March. Some day or two only before l’Oth April an officer of the Government interviewed the mayor on the subject, and gave him to understand that due compensation would be made by the Government in respect of the area thus taken. For these reasons the council did not consider that a protest would be effective. Although it waa, and is, most emphatically of opinion that the Commonwealth should provide another area for. public recreation purposes in lieu of that resumed, so that the park lands of this closely populated municipality shall not be curtailed. When it is remembered that the population of the municipality is over 30,000, and that it now has but one recreation ground (exclusive of the one under notice), and that at the extreme northern end of the area, the importance of this aspect will be apparent. It is recognised that difficulty may be experienced in securing another area of the size in the municipality, and I am. therefore, to suggest that the substitution might take the form of the conversion of the area known as the Balmain Cemetery into a recreation ground. That area comprises some tcn acres, situated at Nortonstreet, Leichhardt, in about the centre of the municipality. For many years the cemetery has been closed against burials, and the grave’s and area generally are in a dilapidated and unkept condition. It is in a main thoroughfare traversed by a tram-line, and is right in the heart of dense population; so that from all points of view its continuance is very detrimental to the locality. The area is at present %’ested in this council, subject to certain restrictions as to its use, which might possibly, in the hands of the council, require adjustment by State legislation, and, further, the removal of bodies therefrom would have to be provided for; but, on the other hand, the purchase of land would be avoided. It is felt that such matters should not be incapable of adjustment, and I am, therefore, to suggest it to you as a practical means of overcoming the difficulty referred to.

If the Leichhardt council thought they were going to lose this site for good, and not get another one, I do not think they would be in favour of the Bill. I believe they are going to lose the land for good, and I do not think they will get the other site. If the Government will give me a promise that they will hand over to the council the other ground mentioned, or get it for them, my objection will cease, but I have seen too much of this grabbing of .the public parks. The first thought that some public men have is to take away public reserves, even though for years before they entered Parliament they proclaimed that the health of the people was the one thing above ali others that they would safeguard. “We must have breathing spaces for the people,” they cried, but as soon as the people get a little breathing space, the Government come along and annex it - steal it - and I have never known one case where the people have been compensated. If the Government will say, “We will bear the expense of removing the bodies from the old cemetery, and give the land to the people for a park,” I will raise no further objection, but so far no promise has been given by the Commonwealth Government, the State Government, or anybody else. I therefore protest against the passage of the Bill. I hope the people of Leichhardt will get another area. If they do not, my words will be on record as uttering a last protest possible against, the alienation of the public parks that are so essential to the growth of our young nation. It is only too sad to find the present difficulty of child-raising, and it is also sad to contemplate the amount of diseased life in this Australia of ours, where there should be none. The keeping of the children out of their playgrounds, their air spaces, is one of the things that tends to assist the spread of disease, and I shall never be one, no matter where I am nor what the consequences are, to assist any Government in purloining the public parks from the people, and injuring the health of their children.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I purpose^ yoting for the Government on the third reading, but I shall do so with a good deal of reluctance. It is unfortunate that with all the land we have in Australia, the Government have to fall back upon a public park for a site for an Ordnance Store for the Defence Department.

Senator Pearce:

– It is only technically a park; it was dedicated in February last.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That may be so. H it were only dedicated a fortnight ago if it has been used for public purposes and as a breathing space, it is most unfortunate that the Government should find it necessary to take it.

Senator Pearce:

– The Minister of Lands has promised, on behalf of the New South Wales Government, that the money shall be devoted to purchasing other land for the Leichhardt Council.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I shall vote for the third reading on the distinct understanding that the Government will provide a park of equal value for the public of Leichhardt. If they do that I shall be quite satisfied. Later on, we shall have another opportunity of dealing’ with the question when we are asked to vote the’ money necessary for the building, and if by that time another open space has not been definitely provided for the people of Leichhardt quite equal to the space now being taken, I shall feel called upon to vote against the putting up of the building.

Senator Guthrie:

– Vote against the third reading now, and make sure of it.

– After the war is over.

Senator PRATTEN:

– The Bill would not have been forced upon us but for the occurrence of the war, and, therefore, I ask honorable senators to get this matter in proper perspective. The area concerned is flat, reclaimed land, once part of a muddy area, in the extreme west of Leichhardt, and I am satisfied that, if an open space is given to the local governing body nearer the centre of population, it would be much more to the advantage of the people of Leichhardt and the western suburbs. I reiterate that, as I have created 20 acres of park land in the adjoining municipality, I can claim to have equal sympathy with any other member of this Chamber with the great principle of providing open-air spaces for the denizens of our crowded cities. But on this matter I believe that a quid pro quo will be obtained by the Leichhardt Council, and I understand that the members of that body, who are the responsible representatives in this matter, are not complaining.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I again protest against any park lands - no matter where they may be situated - being taken by the Government. There is absolutely no necessity, in my opinion, for the erection of Ordnance Stores at Leichhardt, because the

George-street site is one ofthe finest in the world. It is alongside Circular Quay, and a conveyor belt would take all the material from ships straight into the Stores. I cannot understand what purpose the Government have in mind for abandoning the Circular Quay premises, which are on the most valuable site in Australia. Then again we have Garden Island. What is the matter with that? It has been used by the Imperial Government for the last 100 years.

Senator Millen:

– For naval purposes.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– For Naval Stores and Ordnance Stores.

Senator Millen:

– Naval stores ordinarily are not distributed on land.

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Grant:

– The Leichhardt Council expect to get it, anyway.

SenatorKeating. - Do they expect an annual payment?

Senator Grant:

– They do. The Commonwealth Bank pays an annual sum to the Sydney City Council.

Senator PEARCE:

– No authority has been given to make such an offer, and, so far as I am aware, no such offer has ever been made. No officer would have the right to do so, and I know that no authority has been given to any one in that respect.

With respect to the other point raised, our representative who was conducting the. negotiations in regard to the land was instructed to get into touch with the State Government, and ascertain their attitude towards the request of the Leichhardt Council that another piece of land should be made available to that body. Our representative saw the Minister for Lands, and he has informed us that the attitude of the New South Wales Government is that any money received from the Commonwealth as the result of the resumption of this land they are prepared to make available to secure another site for a park in a better position for the people of Leichhardt. It has been shown to the satisfaction of the council that if the site is secured which has been suggested, the people will be given a central spot for a park - one that has none of the disadvantages of Leichhardt Park, but many advantages which that place does not possess.

Senator McDougall:

– Is it not a fact that the transaction will be only a State debt, and that no money will be handed over at all?

Senator PEARCE:

– It is not a transferred property.

Question - That this Bill be now read a third time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 20

NOES: 11

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Senator Fairbairn:
By leave

– I wish to explain that I voted in the division just taken quite inadvertently. For the moment, it quite escaped my memory that I was paired with Senator Maughan. I regretmy action exceedingly, and hope that such a thing will not occur again.

page 4904

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Secondreading.

Debate resumed from 17th May (vide page 4828), on motion by Senator Millen -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I have a few words to say concerning some improvements which I think might be made in this Bill in Committee. It is a machinery measure for the better adjustment of taxation, and to secure uniformity of taxation by the States and Commonwealth. I understood the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) to mention that matter in introducing the Bill. There is some controversy at the present time as to whether the States or the Commonwealth authority should collect all taxation. I think it would be the greatest mistake in the world for the Commonwealth Parliament to give up any of its rights to collect taxation. The Commonwealth Government should, in my opinion, be the only tax gatherers in this country, and this should be the only taxing Parliament. I hold very strong views on that point, as I consider it essential if the country is to be properly controlled. The Commonwealth Parliament has not the sole right to legislate upon many matters, and amongst them the levying of taxation.I hopethat the time will come when Australia, so far as its government is concerned, will not be as it is to-day, the laughing-stock of the world. I hope that we shall soon see the day when rivalry between the States will be abolished, and we shall no longer have the sorry spectacle of seven different Australian agencies in London, and the re presentative of each State, not only pushing the wares of that State, but disparaging the products of all the other States. We have now the spectacle of a huge building, on which the Commonwealth has spent £800,000, on one of the finest sites in London, affording room for the accommodation of allthe State agencies, and yet the State Governments refuse to take advantage of it because it does not give them an entrance of their own. The only State Government accommodated in the building is the Victorian Government, and really the reason for that is that the site was previously occupied by a building in which the Victorian agency was carried on, and the Commonwealth building has been erected over the top of it. The huge cost of government of this country is one of the things that is calculated to cripple the nation when the war is over. I believe that the Commonwealth Government should collect all taxes. We have to collect war-time profits tax, a land tax, bachelor tax, and other taxes, and if the States are to impose taxation as well, there must be separate taxation offices for State and Commonwealth throughout the country. Some of the State Governments claim that they can collect taxation more cheaply than can the Commonwealth Government, but I do not think that is so. Next year we shall have to raise £8,000,000 to pay interest on existing war loans. The States have no liability in respect of our war loans. Their only connexion with them is in assisting to spend the money. I hope that the time is not far distant when we shall have news that the war is finished, and in the way in which it should be finished. I trust that, in the near future, the man power, and the moral and financial power of the United States of America, will be fully felt, and will compel our enemies to ask for terms. I believe that that is what will occur, and I hope I am correct in that belief. But if the war continues for another two years, we shall have to raise annually a sum of £10,000,000 to meet interest on our war loans, and the Government will be faced with a very great difficulty to discover new fields for taxation.

In this measure the Government have attempted to do something, but I think they have grossly misled their supporters whosent them here. From the information I have received, their supporters are now very much perplexed concerning the measure of taxation to be imposed upon them, the means to be adopted for collecting it, and the difficulties associated with the compilation of returns. One matter is deserving of special mention, in connexion with the interest on our war loans, and that is that it is a great consolation to know that the money will be spent in Australia, and may be the means of establishing important industries, lt is necessary that we should build up our industries in order that Australia may cany millions of population, as it is in that way only that our national existence can be secured. Athough this is not the time to utter warnings, it is a time when the Australian people should give some consideration to the means by which the country is to be kept going. Until we have sufficient people in Australia, it cannot be considered impregnable. We camnot expect to hold the country with the handful of people we have here now. The one thing necessary to enable us to retain this country is a sufficient population, and that population must be a white population. By expending the interest on our loans in Australia, we can establish industries here which will attract people to the country.

If we are to build up our population it is necessary, that we should remove the obstacles placed in the way of the rearing of large families. The dwindling of our national population must have struck every thinking person. It is due in some measure to the fact that we have not given fair consideration to those who, in the past, have reared large families, and who, when they get into the sere and yellow leaf, have to resort to the old-age pension. The second generation offer the treatment their forbears have received as the excuse for not attempting to rear large families themselves. One cannot blame them altogether, and it is certainly the duty of this National Parliament to remove all disabilities from those who in this regard are prepared to do their duty to the country.

There are a few objectionable clauses in the Bill which I shall endeavour to have amended in Committee. I have not much hope that I shall be successful, as the attitude adopted by the Government in all these cases is that they must have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. But very often the moving of amendments upon such measures influences those who have charge of them and leads to good results. Last year, when the Repatriation Bill was before the Senate, I moved eight different new clauses, and though the Government opposed them all, I am pleased to be able to say that the provisions of some of them are embodied, in a somewhat different dress, in the regulations which have been made under the Act. In the same way, some notice may be taken of amendments proposed to this Bill. If honorable senators point out deficiencies, inaccuracies, or the possibility of hardship under some of the clauses, a remedy for the matters complained of may be adopted later on. There is one clause of this Bill under which the Commissioner of Pensions is given the right to call upon the Commissioner of Taxation for information in reference to the income of an individual. I do not think that it is fair to give the Commissioner of Pensions any such right. The officers of the Taxation Department are sworn to secrecy in respect of the matters contained in a taxation schedule, and that secrecy will be violated if under this Bill the Commissioner of Pensions is to be given the right of call upon the Commissioner of Taxation to supply information concerning a person’s income. This cannot refer to old-age pensions, because persons who have the pleasure of filling in income tax schedules are not entitled to old-age pensions. It may refer to war pensions, and if it does, I say that the man who has done his bit for the country and the good old flag, should not have his private affairs paraded before any Commissioner of Pensions.

There is in the Bill a heavy penalty provided for neglect to properly fill in returns of income tax. This applied under the original Act to false returns made wilfully, but in this Bill the word “wilfully” is to be omitted, and! if a man happens to make a mistake in compiling his income tax return, he renders himself liable to a heavy penalty, which may be imposed, not by a Court of law, but by an official. That is not a fair thine. I have had several communications in reference to this matter from taxpayers in New South Wales. One of them says -

There is one section of the Federal Income Tax Assessment Bill now before Parliament that will act in a manner harassing, vexatious, and unjust to many perfectly honest persons. I refer to the section altering the name of the offences “wilful delay” and “wilful neglect” to “ delay “ and “ neglect,” which means that a Deputy Commissioner of Taxation will decide whether or not a taxpayer has committed one of these offences; and the reason put. forward for this extraordinary power with which it is proposed to clothe the taxing officials - . and which, by the way, one would expect in a country like Germany orRed Russia - is that it is an offence upon which it is difficult for the Department to satisfy the magistrate or Judge !

Are Australians in this way to be robbed of all British justice? Are they to be condemned without a trial, and, because of some inadvertent delay or honest mistake, convicted and heavily fined? Because, although the name of the offence is being altered in the way stated, the penalties are actually being made heavier. The police might just as well be given the power to decide whether a prisoner is guilty of the crime with which he is charged, on the ground that it might be difficult to satisfy the Judge or jury! The proposal seems preposterous and is altogether going too far.

Another correspondent writes -

The desire of the Federal Government would seem to be to enable the Taxation Departments to get revenue more by imposing penalties than collecting tax. There is already a penalty provided for not furnishing returns within a certain time, but,in order to get a conviction carrying the heavier penalties (such as, for instance, double the amount of tax and sums of £100, £200, &c.), the Commissioner must show that the taxpayer has done wrong intentionally, and the law could very well be left as it stands in that respect; but in the Bill which went to the Senate at the end of last week, the heavier penalties may be imposed where the taxpayer does not act intentionally, but makes a mistake purely through ignorance, and in a perfectlybona fide way. I trust our senators will see that such an unjust provision is not allowed to remain in the measure.

These are the opinions of some of the taxpayers who have communicated with me. I believe that we ought not to attempt to put too much power in the hands of officials.

If a man possesses a property upon which he has expended £100 in repairs he is not allowed to deduct that expenditure from his income. If he does so, the Taxation Commissioner will send his return back to him, probably with an intimation that he must cut the amount down to £25. That official is vested with power to average the expenditure upon repairs to a dwelling over a number of years.

Senator Millen:

– Is the clause to which the honorable senator is referring contained in this Bill, or was it in the

In the report of the Acting Prime Minister’s speech upon the second reading of the Bill, it is stated that - “ An employer, to safeguard himself, would have to keep back part of the moneys coming to his employees,” which seems to impose the greater responsibility on the employer of deducting from all salaries and wages paid, in anticipation of default, and involving a refund in most cases.

May we ask your kind interest, with a view to avoiding any misapprehension as regards the intention of the Bill, and preventing an injustice to the larger proportion of employees and a hardship upon employers if deductions are to be made from all wages and salaries in anticipation of default, and involving in most cases a refund.

Senator Millen:

– There is no need to anticipate anything. No liability accrues until the employer receives notice.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– How is he going to get it? The Minister will admit, I suppose, that the employer is responsible for the employee’s taxation?

Senator Millen:

– No.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– The Minister said just now that he was.

There is another objectionable feature in connexion with this Bill - I refer to the small amount of the exemption which is allowed to a taxpayer with a large family. The States are not niggardly in this respect. They allow men with large families to deduct substantial amounts from their incomes. As I have previously remarked, Australia will have to depend in a very few years upon its white population for its very existence. If we win this war, we shall be better able to maintain our national integrity ; but, if we lose it, great will be our responsibility. In such circumstances, we ought to remove every obstacle from the man who is doing his duty to this country. It is unfair to penalize a man with a large family, while allowing the individual with a small family to escape by paying a less amount in taxation. In Committee, I shall endeavour to secure an alteration of the Bill in the direction I have indicated.

Then the measure provides for taking a large percentage from the winnings in connexion with Tattersall’s sweeps. To me, it is very heart-rending to see this Government attempting to obtain revenue from Tattersall’s sweeps. Those sweeps are illegal.

Senator Earle:

– No. They are not.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I would not care if the Commonwealth took over the whole of the gambling interests throughout Australia, and thus secured the huge profit that is annually made out of them. So long as we permit gambling to proceed, we ought to get the most revenue that we can out of it. But we ought not to attempt to take it from the poor unfortunate individual who wins £100 in Tattersall’s sweep. Why, a poor servant girl at an hotel where I am stopping had to pay £5 to the Government out of a £100 prize which she had won. If the Government wish to control gambling, let them run the sweeps. Let them control the totalizator which is run at Randwick Race-course to-day. Let them take over all the means connected with gambling, and then they will get a very substantial revenue. But it is absolutely inconsistent for them to condemn gambling, and at the same time to lay hands upon portion of the proceeds from this evil. To my mind, that is not a fair thing. I like to have a littleflutter myself at times. I am not a “wowser,” but I object to the Government condemning gambling on the one hand whilst on the other hand they reach out for a portion of the proceeds from this evil. One of their own supporters recently stated that he would rather we lost the war than that we should secure revenue from gambling. It is a wonder to me that he has not been arrested for having made such a statement. I repeat that the Government can get plenty of money by taking over the gambling interests throughout Australia.

I come now to the proposal in the Bill to exempt charitable gifts in excess of £20. To my mind, that is grossly unfair. A man who gives £ 11s. to any charitable object should be allowed to deduct the amount in his income tax schedule. It is only the rich man who will obtain benefit under this provision in the Bill, which, in Committee, I shall endeavour to get amended.

In conclusion, I merely wish to say I believe the Government are at their wits’ ends to find money. Yet there is plenty of money in this country. So far, we have merely scratched the surface. Why, in Melbourne and Sydney to-day people are being called upon to pay £5 5s. for a pair of boots which cost only 32s. 6d. The same remark is applicable to clothes. Let the Government bring in a system of standardization in regard to clothing, boots, and food, and they will get sufficient money to carry on the services of this country, and sufficient to pay the interest upon our war loans, without penalizing unfortunate people who are not in a position to pay, and without interfering with the industrial life of the Commonwealth. To that industrial life alone can we look for our future salvation. Let us create markets by establishing huge industries here. Let us follow the example which has been set us by America and other countries. Let us look ahead now and establish these great industries, thus creating work for our own people. Let us get a good solid white population settled here, for by that means alone can we hope to keep Australia a good country for the white and British races.

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

.- The Bill before us is very largely a machinery measure, wherein changes only in the direction of collection of income taxation are proposed. Some of the clauses in it will have the effect of protecting the revenue, a few will operate towards the smoother working of the present complicated methods, whilst others will, to a certain extent, militate against the very generally recognised complicated and chaotic condition into which the Department has got itself. Personally, I rather regard the Bill as an attempt to caulk the leaks in the ship, nearly all the rivets of which are leaking, but being a Bill to protect the revenue it must have the sympathy of honorable senators. At the same time, it is our duty to see that it does not inflict an injustice upon any member of the community.

I regard income taxation as the mainstay of Australia’s financial stability, and there is no doubt that the income taxpayers throughout the Commonwealth, as the result of the huge expenditure on the war, will have largely to bear the immense permanent debt that this country will have to carry, not only in the immediate, but, perhaps, in the distant future. In the United Kingdom for a generation or more the income tax has been regarded almost purely as a war tax. For many years the British income tax has been increased to meet war expenditure, and lessened in times of peace. The financial problems of Australia loom very large indeed. I am not sure that the financial problem is not the most important problem which the Commonwealth will have to face in our time. Income tax legislation affects a very large number of people, and I make no apology therefore for endeavouring to analyze, to perhaps an incomplete extent, the financial position of the Commonwealth.

Towards the end of this year it can be approximately said that the States will have a public debt of about £400,000,000, and the Commonwealth of about £300,000,000, so that the total indebtedness of Australia - Federal and State - at the end of this year will probably approximate to the huge sum, for Australia, of £700,000,000.

Senator Millen:

– That is the public debt only?

Senator PRATTEN:

– Yes. The gross receipts from our railways and our other revenue-producing public services are about £29,000,000 throughout Australia. The expenditure on those services is about £20,500,000, leaving a surplus, to go towards the reduction of the interest upon the public debt of Australia, of about £8,500,000, a little over £6,000,000 of this coming from Australian railways. This sum of £8,500,000, being the excess of revenue over expenditure on Australian revenue-producing public services, will just about pay interest on £200,000,000 of the State debts, so we shall have at the end of this year owing publicly iu Australia a sum of £500,000,000 of non-producing debt, of which £1200,000,000 will represent the balance >of the State debts, and £300,000,000 the Commonwealth debt.

About three years ago a wealth census was taken thoughout the Commonwealth. The returns are acknowledged to be incomplete, but sufficient data has been collected, and collated as to who and how many of our population have to pay income “tax, present and future. The Bill should affect about 350,000 of the adult population of Australia, and I make po apology therefore for proceeding further with the financial analysis. The net income of all persons in Australia, as given by Mr. Knibbs on the basis of the wealth census, is £257,000,000 per year. That is, probably, short of the actual amount, but is a sufficiently approximate total to figure on. Outside of Trust Funds and other matters of that sort, which do not amount to very much, and will not affect my figures, there are 2,200,000 adult persons in Australia, male and female, who have a total annual income of £240,000,000. This sum averages about £110 per head of the adult population of Australia, and according again to the invaluable Knibbs, the males average £150 per year, and the females about £50. Of those 2,200,000 adult persons in receipt of incomes, 1,800,000 have incomes of £156 per year or less, and can, consequently, be omitted from the taxable area. The incomes of those people who have £156 per year or less aggregate £120,000,000, or half the total income of the people of Australia. The remaining half is, according to Knibbs, obtained by 381,000 persons who have incomes of £156 per year or more, and are consequently within the Commonwealth taxable area. Of this amount of £120,000,000 which is taxable, about £30,000,000 is received by persons getting from £156 to £200 per year ; and under our exemption clauses, only about 25 per cent, of that £30,000,000 is within the taxable area. Persons getting from £200 to £300 per year receive about £28,000,000; and it is obvious, with our Commonwealth exemptions, that barely half of that sum is taxable. The net- annual income of all persons in the Commonwealth may be £240,000,000 or £250,000,000, but not very much more than £80,000,000 per year is within the Commonwealth taxable area; neither should it be, as exemptions must be made. The principle is sound that only surplus income should be taxed, and personally I think that the exemptions contained in this Bill are quite low enough.

I have shown that the taxable surplus income of the people of the Commonwealth does not greatly exceed £80,000,000. This, then, is the annual wealth that will have very largely to bear the burden of present and future Commonwealth income taxation. This year the States will tax that wealth to the extent of over £4,000,000, or nearly 6 per cent, of its total. The Commonwealth will take from it £6,500,000 in income taxation, or over 8 per cent, of its total. Consequently, the combined Federal and State income taxation will take this year from the taxable annual wealth of Australia a sum approximating, on the average, to 14 or 15 per cent, of its whole. The only figures available show that in the Commonwealth 235,000 assessments were made in the last taxation year, and that those 235,000 persons paid, on an average £17 15s. per assessment. Under our graduated system, of course, the taxation is infinitely more on the higher incomes. The returns of. the wealth census, show that about £8,000,000 out of the £80,000,000 of taxable income belongs to persons having incomes of £5,000 per year or more ; and under £10,000,000 belongs to persons having incomes of over £2,000 and under £5,000. It is therefore reasonable to assume that incomes of £2,000 per year and more are now paying on an average, in State and Federal income taxation, over 20 per cent, of their total.

– Then, in effect, the Minister says that the Government intend to keep what, according to the decision of the High Court, they have illegally collected; that they intend to allow all the other cases to go, and start again.

I most emphatically protest against the inadequate amount allowed by the Commissioner as depreciation in respect of machinery used in most of our secondary industries. It is true this is not particularized in the amending Bill before us, but it is one of the things that, in the course of administration by the Commissioner, is very strongly objected to by the manufacturing community. I believe that a standard schedule has been adopted, but in my own experience I know that the amount allowed by the Commissioner is altogether inadequate, and is most unfair. Although it can be pointed out that in some industries the machinery will not last ten years, the Commissioner objects to an allowance of more than 5 per cent, per annum on the diminishing value. I point out that it is a very bad national policy to discourage ample depreciation for machinery and plant. The allowance generally is from 5 per cent, to 7½ per cent, per year.

– I have said that the great desideratum is uniformity of returns and collection. I am now going to give some reasons why I think it would be better for the revenue of the country if Commonwealth income tax were col lected by the State and not by the Federal taxation authorities. I am going to give some figures that have been verified, and which I can quote on very excellent, and I think irrefutable, authority from this point of view.

I have said that the only obstacle to uniformity seems to me to be the difference between the Commonwealth and State methods of taxation ; that is to say, whether the company earnings should be taxed at their source or the individual shareholders in those companies should be taxed individually. The argument for the taxation of incomes individually is stubbornly adhered to by the academic mathematicians who run our Federal Income Tax Department. The argument is that if you tax the income of a company at its source you will tax a number of poor people, and amongst them, perhaps, poor widows, who ought not to be called upon to pay Federal income tax at all.

Senator Keating:

– Whilst they are taxing people who won a small prize in Tattersall’s sweep two or three years ago, and were not otherwise taxable.

Senator PRATTEN:

– Quite so. There seems to be nothing at all in their argument. It does not appear to me to be reasonable to suppose that people who invest in the shares of companies are in receipt of an income of less than £156, or £100, a year, as the case my be. If people have money to spare to invest in the shares of companies it may reasonably be assumed that they come within the Commonwealth taxable area. Persons in receipt of less than the Commonwealth taxable income with its small exemption are not likely to be able to invest in the shares of companies. Even if they did. that could easily be provided for here, just as it is provided for in England, by giving a rebate at the end of the year to those people who were unfairly taxed. On the other hand, it is claimed that the taxation of income at its source would not enable the Commonwealth to properly graduate incomes, and the rich man would get off with a lighter tax than he is called upon to pay under the present system. I ask whether every man is not called upon now to make an individual schedule. There is practically no difficulty, therefore, with regard to graduation. Consequently, all the arguments for the Commonwealth methods of taxation fall to the ground.

I shall give honorable senators one illustration of the result of the complications of the Commonwealth system of taxation. There is one Broken Hill company that requires 16,000 separate and distinct assessments by the Federal taxation authorities, whilst in the case of that company one assessment only is made by the New South Wales authorities.

Senator Crawford:

– But would there not be the 16,000 assessments under the arrangement the honorable senator proposes?

Senator PRATTEN:

– Under the Commonwealth system we must follow the money in respect of the 16,000 different sources. It does seem to me that it is clear and irrefutable that the muddle and chaos that the Federal Income Tax Department is in is largely and almost solely due to this academic method of income taxation.

Senator Reid:

– How do the States do it?

Senator PRATTEN:

– I am going to show how the States do it. I can quote a case that occurred in Sydney not so long ago to show the chaos into which the Income Tax Department of the Commonwealth has got. It is a case where refund vouchers to the extent of £80 were given where no income tax had been’ paid. In other words, vouchers to collect £80 at the Treasury were given to a firm that had paid no income tax. I am not going to say that these things are the fault of the staff. I know that we have a very estimable staff in the Commonwealth Taxation Department. These things are the fault of the system, and we shall never get satisfaction in the matter of Commonwealth income tax administration until the system is radically altered.. The system, as. honorable senators are aware, includes curves of the second and third degree. The academic scientists who say they are right, but whose fellowscientists sometimes say they are wrong, who impose curves to the second and third degree, and impose upon’ us the collection of taxation following the money, instead of at its source, are the persons who are responsible for the very unsatisfactory position that the Commonwealth Income Department is in at the present time. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) is reported to have said in connexion with these curves that he “ did not know how in the devil it wa3 done.”

On the great point of the difference between the Commonwealth and State systems, I would remind honorable senators that tlie system of collecting income tax at its source is carried out in England, in New Zealand, and in every State of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth taxation authorities are the pariahs in this matter, because they represent the odd man out in regard to the system. This is the only’ obstacle to uniformity, and I do not believe uniformity will ever be achieved unless the Commonwealth is prepared to adopt what, to my mind, is the common -sense method of collection. Other matters, such as synchronizing the date upon which the year shall close, can easily be adjusted if this great stumbling block is removed. I believe that, if we remove this lion in the path, an hour’s discussion between the Commonwealth and State authorities would be sufficient to give Australia, not only uniformity in regard to income tax schedules, but uniformity in regard to the collection of the tax, which is so greatly to be desired.

– I have figures showing that, in 1915, the New South Wales Taxation Commissioners collected income tax from the State to the extent of £1,653,000. In the nearest financial year of the Commonwealth the Federal income tax authorities collected only £1,691,000 from that State.

Senator Pearce:

– You are taking the first year -the Federal income tax came into force.

Senator PRATTEN:

– No, it first came into force in 1934-15. I am quoting the year 1915-16, in which -the Commonwealth collected only £38,000 more from New South Wales than the State authorities did, in spite of the much higher rates and charges. If that is not evidence that things’ are not what we should like them to be, in heaven’s name what sort of evidence does the Minister want) It is clear that the Commonwealth tax should be nearer twice what the State collects than just about the same. The present income tax schedules of the Commonwealth, if properly collected, and if the Department is efficient, .should bring in nearer £10,000,000 than the sum they now bring in.

I apologize to the Senate for speaking so long on this matter at such a late hour, but the subject is very important, because, after all, it is here that we have to consider the finances of the Commonwealth, and if I can put the Ministry on the track of another £3,000,000 of .revenue without increasing taxation, I consider I am doing something for the public weal. There seem to be only three or four points in the Bill, and I have mentioned them in passing. The figures I have given have been supplied to me on unquestionable authority, and are well worthy of the investigation of the Ministry in relation to the’ attempt to get extra revenue, and the great desirableness of simplifying income taxation throughout the Commonwealth.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grant)’ adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 10.52 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 May 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1918/19180522_senate_7_85/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate22 May 1918

PRIVILEGE

Suspensionof Senator Gardiner : - Record of Proceedings

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; PROG LAB from 1928

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator Millen:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Millen:

Senator Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator Millen:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Millen:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Millen:

Senator GARDINER:

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:QUEENSLAND

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator MILLEN:New South WalesMinister For Repatriation · NAT

Senator Gardiner:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator MILLEN:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator MILLEN:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Needham:

Senator MILLEN:

Senate
22 May 1918

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; PROG LAB from 1928

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesMinister For Repatriation · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator LONG:
Tasmania