Senate
26 July 1923

9th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 1604

NATIONALITY BILL

Bill reada third time.

page 1604

NORTHERN TERRITORY RAILWAY EXTENSION BILL

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

page 1604

COMMONWEALTH SHIPPING BILL

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made in this Bill by the Senate.

page 1604

NORTHERN TERRITORYCROWN LANDS BILL

Report adopted.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill read a third time.

page 1604

IMMIGRATION BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 25th July, vide page 1556) :

Clause 2 -

Section 3 of the principal Act is amended -

Section proposed to be amended -

But the following are excepted: , . .

SenatorPEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Home and Territories) [3.8]. - At present the dictation test must be applied by an officer appointed under the Act. Any European language may be used at the discretion of the officer, and the practice is to choose a languagewith which an undesirable person seeking admittance is not likely to be acquainted. Owing, however, to the fact that an officer who can apply the test in the foreign language may not always be available, an amendment to section 3 of the Act is necessary so that an officer may be enabled to appoint a person to apply the test under his direction.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– SenatorFindley has looked at the words “ or any other cause “ without connecting them with the governing words that appear earlier in the paragraph. The paragraph provides for the exclusion of persons who are likely to become a charge upon the public for various causes whichare specified, or for “any other cause.” This provision has been adopted in South Africa, Canada and a number of other countries. The object of the amendments, in paragraphs e and f is to make it a legal requirement that foreign passports presented by persons landing in Australia shall bear the British visa so that an officer may refuse to accept an alien’s passport if not properly viséed, except of course in cases where the visa has been dispensed with by a reciprocal arrangement with the Government of the country of issue. A visa is a great safeguard against the migration of undesirable aliens to Australia. We have entered into reciprocal arrangements with Italy and other countries. The Governments of those countries have undertaken to insure that the persons wishing to enter Australia have complied with the conditions of our immigration law and are not likely to become a charge upon the community. Some time ago a shipload of penniless Italians who were sent to Australia under false pretences were not allowed to land. Under the reciprocal arrangement entered into in regard to viséed passports the Italian Government is now insuring that all Italians coming to Australia have either been nominated by some one resident in Australia who will be responsible for their maintenance, or possess sufficient means; to prevent them becoming on arrival a charge on the country. In regard to paragraph g. I may explain that members of ships’ crews are exempt from the provisions of the principal Act during a vessel’s stay in port, but under the pro posed amendment that exemption will not apply to members of ships? crews who desert orare absent from their vessels without leave. This provision is particularly necessary in cases where vessels remain for weeks or monthsin an Australian port. The provision will apply only to persons who are ineligible under our Immigration Act to remain inAustralia on account of colour or for any other reason. I am sureSenatorFindley, who referred to this matter last night, would not be in favour of men, who are otherwise debarred by our immigration restriction law, entering the Commonwealth merely because they have deserted their ship.

Senator Findley:

– This provision is not clear on that point.

Senator PEARCE:

– It is framed to meet only such cases. A day or two ago Senator Needham introduced adeputation from the Seamen’s Union the members of which alleged that, a steamship company had been engaging excess crews in England and paying off men in Australia, absolutely without means. In these circumstances, the menimmediately became a charge upon the community and assisted in congesting the labour markets.

Senator Findley:

– What application has that to this paragraph.

Senator PEARCE:

– The paragraph deals with deserters. But why should we give a deserter a privilege not possessed by a man who openly comes into the country? An Indian coolie who comes as a passenger to Australia is not allowed to remain here unless he complies with the provisions of our Immigration Restriction Act. SenatorFindley will say, “ Quite right.” But supposing he arrives as a member of a ship’s crew, and the ship sails without him, he cannot be treated as a prohibited immigrant. That is a loophole in our existinglegislation which we are overcoming by this provision.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the deserter were an Englishman what would happen?

Senator PEARCE:

– He mightbe debarred if he were a pauper or a criminal, but otherwise the provision would not apply. The shipping company could, of course, charge him with desertion.

Senator Needham:

-Does this provision apply to stowaways?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes, if they are not otherwise eligible to enter the Commomwealth. It is to prevent stowaways. or deserters from taking advantage of a loophole in our existing immigration law and remaining in Australia when they have no right to do so.

Senator Kingsmill:

– It applies only to such people.

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If otherwise qualified to enter Australia, they will not be penalized merely because they are stowaways or deserters?

Senator PEARCE:

– No.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– A doubt existed in my mind as to the power proposed to be given in this provision. The Minister (Senator Pearce) suggested that what I was endeavouring to do last night was being undone by another honorable senator a few days ago.

Senator Pearce:

– I did not use those words. I said that Senator Needham had introduced a deputation from the Seamen’s Union, which protested against the practice of a certain shipping company in engaging excess crews overseas, and paying off men here in a penniless condition.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The matter brought under the notice of the Minister by Senator Needham has no application to this paragraph.

Senator Pearce:

– No; except that if what Senator Needham mentioned is objectionable, to allow deserters to remain here is more objectionable.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is so; but there is nothing in this Bill to protect the interests of the men who were treated in the manner described by the Minister.

Senator Pearce:

– There is in the principal Act.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The Minister has made it clear that no injustice will be done to men who have a right to remain in Australia under our immigration law.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I hope the reference which the Minister (Senator Pearce) made to a deputation from the Seamen’s Union which I introduced the other day to him will not confuse the minds of honorable senators in discussing this clause. It is true that I introduced that deputation to the Minister. We submitted an allegation that a Whaling Company had brought men from overseas to take part in the whaling industry at Point Cloates.

Senator Pearce:

– That was not the case to which I referred.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– We considered that it constituted a breach of the Immigration Act. The representatives of the seamen then raised the point that a steamship company, or companies, had for some time been bringing double crews to Australia. The men were signed on and became part of the complement of the ship’s crew in London. They received payment at the rate of1s. per month. As soon as a vessel arrived at one or other of the Australian ports the men were immediately discharged. It was stated that in Melbourne itself there were from 150 to 200 men who were brought here in that manner. These men, shelterless and homeless, were sleeping on the Yarrabank and other places. The Minister promised to inquire into that matter. That case is not at all analogous to that proposed to be dealt with by the clause, and I make this explanation so that there may be no misapprehension on the part of the Committee.

Senator GARDINER (New South

Wales) [3.22].- I move-

That the words “ insufficiency of means to support himself or any other cause “ in paragraph (f) of sub-clause (c) be left out.

Men who are sound in mind and body should not be debarred from remaining in this country. It is recognised that those attributes, in Australia, constitute a sufficient means of support. If wealth or property is to be a qualification to entitle a person to remain here, I take strong exception to it. Vigorous manhood and womanhood is all that is required. No matter how short of money a person may be on arrival in Australia, after a while he will soon be able to support himself. A man with much wealth may soon be rid of it. There are quite a number of people with “ rich uncles in Fiji “ who are soon relieved of their surplus money. Quite a number of people enter Australia without wealth and in no time establish themselves amongst the community. If a person is physically fit he should not be debarred from this country. The clause gives the right to deport a man to his own country. It would be unwise to send any man from Australia who is able to work and who would not be a charge upon the community. The words “ any other cause “ are altogether too vague and indefinite.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I ask the Committee not to agree to the proposed amendment. On more than one occasion statements have been made by the Opposition that the immigration system is being used to permit indigent persons to come here. The Leader of the Opposition is now proposing to open the door to these people. In view of the destitution existing, particularly in European countries, and for the self -protection of the community, we must insist that people who come here shall have some reasonable means of support. Australia must not be the dumping ground for emigrants from other countries who are likely to become a charge on the public. If its doors are opened indiscriminately to the people of Europe, they will view it in the light of an Eldorado to which they will eagerly turn their steps. We might overlook the wealth qualification in the case of the working class, but, unfortunately, many of the people who come here by irregular channels are not of that class. It would be too big a danger to take away the safeguard that they must have reasonable means of support. It may take a man who comes here some little time to become acclimatised and used to local conditions, especially if he is an alien who does not understand the language of this country. He must have funds, otherwise he quickly becomes a charge on the public. Paragraph / is a reasonable provision, and I ask the Committee to retain it.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am at a loss to know why the Minister should seek to incorporate such a clause in this measure. We have it on pretty good authority that, at present, there are one and a-half millions of people unemployed in the United Kingdom, and that they are, to a large extent, subsidized by the Government.

Senator Elliott:

– Paragraphf does notapply to them. It applies only where a man is ill, or has some disease.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I understand that it does apply to men who are physically fit, but who have no. banking account; in other words, no visible means of support. These men come here to secure employment and to assist in the development of this country. Despite the fact that they may be physically fit, they are to be debarred from remaining in this country because of insufficient means of support. It is a most extraordinary condition. It is an impudent action on the part of any one in the Commonwealth to dare to prevent other Britishers from coming here, simply because they may have been systematically robbed by the landlords on the other side of the world.

Senator Duncan:

– I thought the honorable senator would return to that subject.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable senator is too cowardly to speak for himself.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Newland). - The honorable senator must withdraw that expression.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If it is offensive to the honorable senator, I will withdraw it. The reports of the various State Labour bureaux, state that, in the Commonwealth, we have a considerable number of men who are in straitened circumstances; men who are on the bread line, and sometimes below it. If Senator Pearce had his way I suppose he would clear matters up by deporting these men to some other part of the world. Legislation of this kind is no solution of industrial troubles. These words in the clause, “ or any other cause “ add insult to the outrage already proposed to be inflicted upon people. I remind honorable senators that Australia is yet a part of the British Empire. I always understood that every citizen of the Empire had the right to travel anywhere within its domains and seek employment where he desired. Apparently in Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia an attempt is to be made to limit that right. Some of Australia’s very best immigrants were in an absolutely penniless condition when they arrived in this country. They were, however, strong and vigorous in mind and body, and performed the necessary pioneering work which enabled others less virile than they to carry on the development of the country. The Minister (Senator Pearce) proposes that we shall depart from that rule and exclude a man from Australia simply’ because he does not possess any money. We do not know, as a rule, what are the’ financial resources of the people who come here. A number of them may have employment to go to. I am totally opposed to the exclusion of any one who is physically fit.Irrespectiveof whether a man’s banking account is in credit or in debit, the main consideration should be, Is he physically fit? This practice, I believe, has been adopted in America. The. Americans impudently place a poll tax upon Australians who desire to remain in the United States. Isuppose Australia will reciprocate and deal with Americans in thesame way. It is veryannoying, and we ought to resent it. To go further and propose that tens of thousands of men whomay possess onlythe most slender financial resources should be debarred from entering Australia is an outrage that I, atany rate, do not intend to countenance. It might with equal justification be said thataperson who possesses sufficient money to enable him to enter Australia should be deported if he happens to lose it in the course of, say, six months.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– Theamazing attitude that is now being adopted by our friends opposite is, in sporting parlance,quitea reversal of form. It is well known that during recent years there has been a decided move on the part of labour organizations to prevent the entry into Australia of not only those who have not sufficientmeans to support themselves, but also those who are in a position to engage in business and assist the development ofthe country. Within the last two or three yearscertain labour organizations have incurred the expenditure of fairly large sums of money in carrying on propaganda - in the United Kingdom particularly - with the object of preventing theimmigration of people to Australia. Cables have been sent to the English press advising likely emigrants not tocome here because of the large numberof unemployed in Australia. It is the considered opinion of the Labour party that men should not come here from other countries and compete with those already here for the jobs that are going. Who is going to fee principally benefitedby the clause which we are discussing? Surely if anybody’s industrial positionwill be endangered by the influx of tens of thousands of men ‘of slender financial resources - I use Senator Grant’s phrase - it will be the position of thosewho have to earn their living by the day as labourers in various occupations. This clause will protect that section ofour industrial community.It will be news to a good manyindustrial organizations in Australiato learn that SenatorGrant and other honorable senators opposite desire to see coming here tens of thousands of migrants whodo not possess any money and who will have to go upon the labour market immediately they arrive, taking whatever work is offering, for any wagethey canget. That willnot be to the advantage of the industrialassociations or of the working men. Iam amazed tofindmy honorable friendsadvocating what isdiametrically opposed to the best interests of thosewhom they say they represent. SenatorGrant referred to me in a waywhichrendered it necessary for the Chairman to demand a withdrawal. Doubtless there arecertain reasons for Senator Grant washingtosee tens of thousands of people coming to Australia. As a landlord who ownsa number of properties, it wouldbe to his advantage tohave keen competition for those properties. He favours high rents. Ifreport speaks correctly, he demands his pound of flesh from the tenantsofhis properties. It would be quite agood thingfor him to have tens of thousands of peoplecoming hereand offeringto rent his houses.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I should like Senator Duncan to state where my cottages are situated.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I know where several of the honorable senator’s cottages are. Probably he himself does not know where the whole of them are. I am in favour of this clause. In the interests of the working men it would not be right to permit the entry into Australia of tens of thousands of people who have no visible means of support. ‘This country would have to maintain them until they settled down and foundsomething to keep them going. A great deal will depend on the interpretation of the words “ insufficiency of means to support himself.” They may be regarded as referring not to capital, but to lack of energy.

Senator Gardiner:

– The Minister stated that thewords meana lack of money.

Senator DUNCAN:

– But it often happens that the interpretation of an Act is not decidied by the Minister who administers it, but by aCourt oflaw. If an immigrant could prove that he had a good trade at his command, in which there was a lack of labour in Australia, he should be regarded as a desirable person. The possessor of an active brain and body would be able to maintain himself immediately, without being a charge upon the State. The mere possession of £10, £20 or £30 would be of no use to a man, if he had not physical strength as well. I regret that the Minister has not given a wider interpretation of the words under consideration. I hope that the clause will remain as drafted, because we do not wish people to be landed here as paupers. They should at least be able to maintain themselves for a few weeks, until they can find employment.

Senator Findley:

– Quite a number of immigrants are now arriving without means, and they are assisted by the Government to the extent of £3 each.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Yes; but they should not be brought here at all if they need to be placed in the undignified position of having to accept such support immediately on arrival. A person so povertystricken would have to accept whatever conditions of labour an employer cared to offer.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– The solicitude of the honorable senator for the workers is amusing.

Senator Duncan:

– It is sincere at any rate.

Senator NEEDHAM:

-I do not question its sincerity. If, however, the honorable senator is desirous of affording the workers improved conditions, he should take his stand with honorable senators on this side of the Chamber. He has said that the Labour party is opposed to immigration, but that is too sweeping an assertion to make. We are certainly opposed to the present insane system. If the Minister (Senator Pearce) can assure me that the deletion of the words “insufficiency of means to support himself “ will put an end to the present insane policy of immigration, I shall support him. Honorable senators opposite know perfectly well that this Parliament cannot legislate for the States.

Senator Pearce:

– Yes; we can in this respect.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I think not. If the words are retained, can we compel the States to see that every immigrant has means of support.

Senator Pearce:

– We can stop anybody from landing here, whether brought out by a State or anybody else.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Will the Minister get into touch with the State Premiers, and obtain a clear, mutual understanding as to the meaning of the words, “ insufficiency of means to support himself” ?

Senator Pearce:

– The words in the Bill constitute our standard.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not regard that as a reply to my question. An interjection came from Senator McDougall that the men who came here without sufficient means to support themselves were made policemen. I know an individual who landed at Fremantle about twenty-two years ago and had not a sufficiency of means. He was not made a policeman, however, because he was not big enough. He was eventually made a senator. I am referring to myself. When I left the land of my nativity, believing that I had a belter chance in Australia, I certainly had not more than £1000 in my possession. I had not the sufficiency of means contemplated by the clause. The main consideration should be whether a man or a woman, wishing to migrate to Australia, is healthy, and willing to work, and it is the duty of the authorities here to see that work is provided for all. If those conditions are observed I shall welcome immigrants every day in the week. Many people in Great Britain would be glad to come to Australia if they could only obtain sufficient money to pay for their passage. If those men have the courage to cross the ocean and take all the risks attending migration, the Commonwealth Government should not say them nay. I am opposed to the policy of bringing people to this country where there is no guarantee of regular employment for which they are suited. Merely to say that they shall not come here because they have not sufficient money is not “playing the game.” When I arrived in Western Australia, my only worldly possession was good health, but I do not regret that I left the old country. I hope that the words complained of will be struck out of the clause.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) bears on its face quite a novel feature. It indicates the extraordinary versatility of the honorable senator and the party led by him. They do not want people to come to this country and compete with the artisans in the cities. There are possibly millions of unemployed in Great Britain to-day.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The number of unemployed in Great Britain is 1,500,000.

Senator LYNCH:

– Among these unemployed there must be a very, large proportion of artisans. If the British Government decide, as a means of strengthening the Empire, to embark upon a wholesale system of migration, which they have already commenced upon a modified scale, and if artisans arrive here without means, in what position will Senator Gardiner and his party be placed? Will the honorable senator rise then and say, “We object to these men coming here. The words to which I gave utterance on the 26th July, 1923, were wrong. I admit that I sold my party and spoke foolishly.” It is easily within the ranga of possibility, and certainly to some extent within the range of certainty, that many of these men from Great Britain will land here with this proverbial half-crown in their pockets, and afterwards, as Senator Needham has done, pride themselves on the fact. I suppose that honorable senators opposite are sincere when they declare, , as they have done over and over again, that they do not want competition in the city areas. Yet now, when an opportunity to maintain that position is presented, at the instance of the present Government, who should come on the scene and seek to do away with it but the very men who preach a doctrine of which the Government’s proposal is a positive negation. If we let one man come, in who has not adequate means with which to support himself, we cannot stop a second coming in; if we let one hundred come in we cannot stop a thousand from entering the Commonwealth. I interjected when Senator Gardiner was speaking that he did not realize that his proposal was loaded, and I am now supporting him because of that refreshing versatility he possesses, and of which his proposal gives undoubted evidence. I am reminded of his excellent speech last night. He never rises unless he interests and electrifies his hearers. He spoke last night in a strain that pleased every one. First of all, he referred to the German element in Australia; and told us what fine colonists the Germans made. He declared that he would restore to .them the franchise of which they had been so long deprived. I am sure that the German element in , Australia would be pleased to hear that pronouncement; but possibly because he thought he was speaking too much in favour of that element, he turned to another section of the community, and held up to view as a towering figure in British history, Oliver Cromwell, whom he described as the greatest Englishman - the one man on the mountain top. Then because there were Irishmen sitting beside him, he spoke of how the Irish had been treated in the past. In my boyhood days nothing more reprehensible could be said than, “ The curse of Cromwell be on you !” The honorable senator set out first to try to please the German element, and then went on to try to please everybody.

Senator Findley:

– I rise to a point of order. Are we discussing the Bill, or entering into the history of persons who are dead and gone?

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Newland). - There is no point of order. When Senator Lynch oversteps the rules of debate I shall stop him.

Senator LYNCH:

– I simply ros? to carry out the chief r?le in which I appear in this Chamber, that of bringing men back to the paths of rectitude, and to direct the attention of. the Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have the most profound respect in many ways, but not in every way, to the fact that he did not know that his proposal was loaded. The honorable senator’s powers of explanation are beyond description - language simply fails to describe them. He can explain everything under the sun; but later on he will be asked awkward questions which will get him into a fix. He is now endeavouring to induce people to come to Australia without adequate means of support, and with the possibility of becoming a burden on the State. Australia has its own smoke to consume; its own injured to care for. The picture painted by Senator Gardiner of the position of affairs in the Old Land tells us that the energy of the authorities there will be fully absorbed in caring for their own down-trodden. The Government of the Commonwealth propose to let these unfortunates remain in their own country until they have adequate means to migrate to Australia. As a matter of fact, the Government are guarding jealously and in a most trustworthy fashion the interests of those of whom honorable senators opposite profess to be vigilant champions.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I rise to reply to what has been said by Senator Duncan, Senator Pearce, and Senator Lynch. My amendment has nothing to do with the question of immigration. It deals with, the deportation of people whose only fault is that they have no money. I stand with my party on the broad question of immigration. We do not oppose the principle of bringing immigrants to Australia, but we declare that before anyone comes to this country we should secure ample employment for our own people. I can readily understand Senator Duncan, Senator Pearce, and Senator Lynch seizing on anything I have said which they think they can twist into something contrary to the attitude of the Labour party. 1 can also understand Senator Lynch being annoyed when I said that I regard Oliver Cromwell as the greatest .Englishman that ever lived. Unfortunately, I have generally to speak three or four times to make myself clearly understood. I did not say that Oliver Cromwell was the greatest Britisher, but I said that he was thegreatest Englishman who had taken part in the fight to secure English liberty. I do not expect concurrence in my historical reference to Oliver Cromwell from descendants of Scotchmen whom he “belted” time after time, or Irishmen whom he scourged, and by whom his name has been handed down as a curse. If Senator Lynch had made himself a little better acquainted with the history of Ireland at that particular period, he would know that when the Ormondes and other great Trish lords were on their way to help to fight against Cromwell, after gathering up the savage tribes of the Lynches and others, they found that Cromwell, as Napoleon did after him, had taken time by the forelock and had secured a victory. He would also know that the Lynches and the others, having had the opportunity te do so, got on the winning side, just as Senator Lynch did a few years ago, and that they carry the honour of so doing to this day, just as Senator Lynch still carries enough of the true Irish blood in him to induce him to grow angry when I refer to Oliver Crom well. In regard to the question of deportation, is it wise in a democratic community like Australia to say that’ poverty is a crime, and that the fact that a man has not a shilling is sufficient to have him put outside this country or prevented from coming into it?

Senator Payne:

– There is a distinction between deportation and prohibition of entry.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Act which ‘ we are amending was that under which certain persons have recently been deported. They were deported because they were immigrants who came within certain sections of the Act which provided for their deportation. We are now dealing with a provision that permits the Government to refuse entry to immigrants, and, as I understand it, refusal of entry carries with it the necessity to deport the would-be immigrants to the places from which they have come. We are asked to refuse a man the right of entry to the Commonwealth on the ground that he has no money. I object to a property qualification. Money has no virtue in it that should make one man’ who possesses it stand above another who is not possessed of it. I stand with the . Labour party in declaring that while 11 pEr cent, of the people of Australia are always unemployed, we shall inform our brothers in Great Britain and elsewhere of that huge unemployed army here, so that those who wish to come here from Great Britain will do so with the honest truth before them. When they come here and find themselves fooled, it does more harm to the progress of Australia than would he done by telling the simple truth. Those who are fooled and disappointed stow away and return to England to tell of their . experiences. Others, who are unable to get away, write letters to their friends in Great Britain, and tell of their disappointment. If in other parts of the world we paint too glowing a picture of conditions here, so much the worse for those who come here under a misapprehension. The Labour party are not against immigration if work is provided for men who are already here and for those who will come here. Labour men are condemned if they stand up fearlessly to express the view that men, because of their poverty, should not be put in a class by themselves. The right to exist in this country does not depend on whether or not one has money.

Senator Duncan:

– That sort of thing is done every day. It is even done by the trade unions. They will not let a man enter their ranks unless they have the necessary entrance fees.

Senator GARDINER:

- Senator Duncan is an adept at misrepresenting trade unions. His mind id warped because he was one of those red-rag unionists who held extreme views on everything, and now that he is on the other side he goes to the other extreme lest the ghost of his past may rise up and confront him.

Senator Duncan:

– 1 deny that absolutely.

Senator GARDINER:

– When I helped the honorable senator in his campaigns I often had to apologize for his extreme views. I remember telling the people of Waverley, where I live, that he was a very fine fellow,, notwithstanding his extreme views.

Senator Duncan:

– No doubt the honorable senator is a champion.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not want it to be thought that I am opposed to immigration in any circumstances. Hon.orable senators - particularly those who have, recently been elected - will find that my opposition to this class of legislation is based on certain principles - I am not going to say whether they are right or wrong - by which I have to be guided. One of those principles is that wealth is not worth a snap of the fingers. We should not, in our legislation, make drastic distinctions between the poor and the rich in our midst. The Government are not to be intrusted with the administration of vaguely worded Acts, because their conduct in the past- has shown that they will refrain from placing a strict- interpretation upon the provisions of our immigration law until the opportunity arrives for them to make political capital out of it. Then they punish some particular individual or individuals, by giving full effect to the law. That has been our experience in connexion with certain deportations which have occurred quite recently. Our Acts should be worded in such a way that they can easily be interpreted, so that individuals will not be penalized at the whim of any Government. I have already stated that the Germans are a good race, and are closely allied to the Scottish people. I have in mind -what Thomas Carlyle said in hi3-

The CHAIRMAN:

– (Senator Newland). - I have allowed the honorable senator considerable latitude; but in discussing this clause he will not be in order in quoting Carlyle’s view of the Scottish people.

Senator GARDINER:

– Then I. shall take a later opportunity of expressing what I intended to say in a manner which you, Mr. Chairman, will admit is in order. Germans are not to be allowed to enter the Commonwealth in any circumstances until 1925. What is the position in regard to these people ? Two men may be coming to this country, one a desirable German, who is” debarred, and the other a Scotchman, who may be in possession of a few shillings, or sufficient to support him for a time. The German is debarred because forces over which he had no control caused Germany to make war against Great Britain. But the German people have thrown over their monarch, a’nd have established a new form of government, and Germans who have possibly been struggling in their own country now wish to settle in the Commonwealth. Owing to the Chairman anticipating my being out of order, and not waiting to hear what I. had to say, I cannot quote Carlyle, but 1 may, perhaps, mention that when referring to the North of England, he said that words which were common to the Northmen and the Germans were still in vogue, and that the language of the Germans was still a part of the common’ language of the Scottish people. Under a law passed in anger, during a period of war, in which Germans were engaged against us, we are prohibiting them from entering Australia. The great conflict, with all its horrors, was probably responsible for impoverishing many Germans, who have not now sufficient means to support them in their own country, and even if they have sufficient money, they are not allowed to reside in Australia. Why should we prohibit the admission of people who would, in all probability, make desirable citizens? Two or three weeks ago T read the letters of an immigrant who came to Australia in 1839, and they were those of a broken-hearted and poverty stricken man. I refer to the late Sir Henry Parkes. Two years after arriving in Australia’ he had to sell his tools of trade to enable him to exist. But that gentleman lived to be not only a great ornament but of great benefit to Australia. Under the proposed law such a person would be a prohibited immigrant. Legislation such’ as this will not have my support. Money does not influence me in estimating the value of a man.

The CHAIRMAN:

– (Senator Newland). - The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Labour party’s attitude on immigration has been grossly misrepresented, and I want as far as I can to prove that many of the statements made concerning the Labour party on this question are utterly unwarranted. We do object to public money being spent on bringing more workmen to Australia than can be employed, but we have never raised our voice against people coming here of their own free will, and I challenge any honorable senator to dispute my statement.

Senator Payne:

– Do they not all come here of their own free will?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, but in many cases at the cost of the people, as they are assisted by the Commonwealth and British Governments. The Labour party are opposed to public money being U3ed for this purpose. Solicitors or any other parasitical type are not brought to Australia at the expense of the people. Those brought to Australia are invariably members of the working class, who compete for the work undertaken by those who have to pay the bulk of taxation, and who have to support an army of parasites who feast and fatten on them! The various State Governments which encourage immigration do not care whether those who are already here have employment or not. In New South Wales there is a considerable number of unemployed labourers and farm workers, but the Government of that State, supported by the Commonwealth and Imperial Governments, are assisting farm labourers to come here. Many of them are under the impression that they will be allotted land on which they can settle, although it is practically impossible even for men who understand the conditions to secure suitable farms. It is very unfair for some honorable senators to endeavour to misrepresent the Labour party on the question of immigration. I trust that honorable senators and others will realize that the Labour party is always anxious to extend a hand of welcome to those members of the British race who are prepared to come to Australia at their own expense.

Senator McHUGH:
South Australia

– It seems unreasonable to give an officer power to say whether a man has sufficient means or not, and the Minister (Senator Pearce) might have informed the Committee what in his opinion is a sufficient sum. Is a man to possess ?5 or ?100 ? A Scotsman who had resided in South Australia, when he died some years ago, ‘left ?1,750,000. He was one of the best citizens and probably the greatest philanthropist ‘Australia has ever known, but when he arrived in South Australia he possessed only 4$d.. If this law had then been in operation it is possible that an officer would not have allowed him to land. Had this provision then been in operation, the immigration inspector might have taken an instant dislike to this gentleman, and have- debarred him from entering Australia. It would have been a distinct loss, because he helped tremendously in the development of South Australia. The clause would give too large a power to immigration officers. Through misjudgment on their part, we might lose some of the best men this country could possibly obtain. It is good political business for Senator Duncan to pose as the friend of the worker, and, from that point of view, I do not blame him. He, of course, does not wish to influence the Committee, but rather the workers of New South Wales. His speech this afternoon will probably within the next three years be reprinted in order to obtain the support of those persons. I remind him that the workers of Australia are becoming used to such outpourings, and now give little heed to them. The Labourparty are prepared to receive with open arms men from the other side of the world who can be absorbed here. But we object to immigration agents on the other side of the world highly exaggerating the conditions which prevail in this, country, and persuading men and women to migrate here under false pretences. Even on arrival it is possible that the immigrants will exploited.. Provision should be made to prevent not only newcomers, but those already here, from being exploited. The Labour party believe that with the extension of railway facilities, great opportunities for emigrants from the other side of the world will exist in the Northern Territory -within the next ten years, and that they will be found profitable employment. The Government say, “ No, we will lock up that country until 1965.”

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newland:

– Order ! The honorable senator’s remarks are far beyond the ambit of the clause.

Senator McHUGH:

– Certain people always try to misrepresent the Labour party’s attitude towards immigration. We want people to come here. No one is more anxious than are the Labour party that Australia should have a greater population, but we do not want it populated at the expense of the general public and those who come later. The conditions of this country should be far better than those of the country from which our forefathers sprang. If unsound conditions had not prevailed in the old days, many of us would not be in the Senate to-day, because our parents would not have left the home land. Men and women should not be brought to this country until provision is made for their reception, and until lands are available for settlement. If the Government carried out a developmental policy, we should not need to assist immigrants to come here. The people would know that Australia was a fine country in which to settle, and they would make sacrifices in order to raise their passage-money. This clause will prevent bonâ fide persons from coming to Australia. The Government intend to keep out the man who will develop the out-back country, and to encourage the waster who has a few hundred pounds to be dissipated within a few weeks of landing.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I neglected to put before the Committee a very substantial reason why we should not include in our immigration law a provision of this kind. The Minister’s remarks opened up a wide avenue of debate. In reply, I shall quote from a publication of some years ago, entitled The Case for Labour, by W. M. Hughes, M.P. He there dealt with the question of immigration and unemployment; as follows: -

I am not now concerned with the wisdom of such a policy in itself, although, as something has been recently said about the attitude of the Labour party towards it, I propose, in another article, to make clear what that attitude really is, but nothing can well be more inconsistent with the advocacy of immigration than the neglect to utilize the whole of the available labour in the community. To cry for more men and decline to employ those already here is folly, or worse.

Those words were used by Mr. Hughes when a member of the Labour party, and they sum up our policy to-day. We do object to bringing men here while unemployment exists.

Senator Duncan:

– Then why oppose the clause?

Senator GARDINER:

– I oppose it because of the distinction made between rich and poor. It imposes a hardship on the man without money. I saw, the other day, a number of children who had been brought here from the Home Land by the Commonwealth Government, acting in conjunction with the British Government. There they were, little, red-faced, cheery immigrants, who would soon be roughing it with Australians, and being referred to as “ Pommies “ and “ Chummies.” They were, perhaps, more nervous than annoyed because of the rough, rude, and friendly] advances of our people. From the time I saw them until now, I have been marvelling at our extraordinary cruelty. These are the children of the men who died fighting for the Empire and in the cause of liberty. We have exiled them from their own country because it cannot provide a living for them. We have brought them here in hundreds. They are to be sent to different places for employment, where they will be strange children in a strange land. The sadness of the lot of these children struck me with a force I had never felt before.

Senator Pearce:

– They will have a far better chance here than in England.

Senator GARDINER:

– I realize that; but the horror of the Government’s action dawned upon me when I realized that this was the best we could do for them.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Have they no money?

Senator GARDINER:

– I have not yet made inquiries. So that the full force of the Government’s action may be realized by honorable senators, let us imagine that some beneficent Government other than our own had taken Australia’s children under similar circumstances. Kind as the intention is for the future, it is now almost to be viewed as inhumanity on the part of those who talked so much of what would be done for the soldiers when the war was over. I hope these children will get kind homes - I know that in many cases they will - and eventually become good citizens. After all, there is a peculiar sympathy for the orphan in an unknown land. A Government which is so anxious to prevent a person from landing because of lack of wealth will hardly be willing to admit children unless they have sufficient funds. Will the Minister, sworn to properly administer the laws of the Commonwealth, say that every man and every boy who comes to this country without money must be deported, or will he say that it is necessary to have some special provision to debar certain undesirable persons from this country? The Government intend to work under cover of this clause, because they have not the courage to do so openly. The clause creates a distinction between a man with money and a man without money. I shall certainly not agree to such a distinction. I cannot allow this legislation to be placed on the statutebook of Australia without raising my voice in protest.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Gardiner’s amendment) be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 15

Majority . . . .7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

.- Some provision should be made to meet the case of an immigrant who, although he does not possess any means, has a warrant or guarantee of immediate employment.

Senator Pearce:

– The practice is now to accept those persons.

Senator LYNCH:

– So long as a man gives a guarantee that he can get work and that he intends to accept work, he is allowed to enter, although ho has no money ?

Senator Pearce:

– That is the case.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 to7 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 1615

BUDGET, 1923-24

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

. -(By leave) - I lay on the table of the Senate the Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1924, and the Budgetpapers 1923-24. I move -

That the papers be printed.

In accordance with practice, I wish to make a few observations with regard to the finances as disclosed in these documents. I shall, first of all, refer to the expenditure out of revenue in 1922-23. The total of this expenditure was £63,700,485, whereas the total estimated in the Budget was £62,273,693. It will be noticed that £1,426,792 was actually expended in excess of the Estimates. The excess arose in consequence of a large expenditure on Fruit Pools, and a provision for other items as follows : -

None of these items were provided for in the Budget, and eliminating them we find that the expenditure. of the Commonwealth was” £019,843 less than was estimated. In view’ of the magnitude of the figure showing the total expenditure for the past year, I propose, in order that honorable senators may gain a truer idea how that expenditure is made up, to divide it into four groups, viz. ^Ordinary expenditure, special expenditure, war expenditure, and cost of Fruit Pools : -

X would stress the point that less than one-fourth of the total expenditure of tho Commonwealth falls within the category of ordinary expenditure, and that that one-fourth includes the expenditure of the large spending Departments of the Post Office and Defence. Only £4,386,096 was spent on all the other Departments of the Commonwealth.

I now turn to the revenue received during the past year. The total revenue received amounted to £64,720,635, this being £5,152,385 above the Estimate. Honorable senators are probably aware that this large increase in receipts came from Customs and Excise, which exceeded by more than £5,000,000 the estimate and the receipts from that source in the previous year. The exact increase over the collections of 1921-22 was £5;241,770, made up of-

When the Budget was introduced last year it was estimated that there would be a deficit on revenue account for the year of £2,705,443. The unexpected increase in receipts from Customs and Excise, however, was sufficient not only to meet the unanticipated items of expenditure, to which I have already alluded, but to produce an actual surplus on the year of £1,020,150, the figures being-

As the Treasury already had an accumulated surplus of £6,408,424 at the 30th June, 1922, the surplus of £1,020,150 of 1922-23 has produced a total accumulated surplus of £7,428,574.

As the loan expenditure of the Commonwealth has now become important, both in purpose and. amount, I propose to give a few details of the expenditure made during the year under this head -

Outside of actual loan expenditure, there were redemptions of loans amounting to £7,109,420, made up of-

I now come to the figures for the present financial year.

The total estimate of the expenditure out of revenue in 1923-24 is £61,896,098, which shows a reduction of no less than £3,210,851, compared with the expenditure in 1921-22, and £1,804,387 compared with that of last year, despite the fact that this year’s estimate includes new expenditure of £1,065,984 for invalid and old-age pensions. The actual comparisons are as follows : -

The reductions in 1923-24, compared with 1922-23, are brought about in the following way : -

Deduct the following increases : -

I may be permitted to direct specialattention to the decrease in ordinary expenditure of £136,275, which has been attained, notwithstanding the necessity of increasing by £354,427 the vote on the Postmaster-General’s Department. The expenditure on that .Department in 1922-23 was £7,642,704, and the estimate for the current year is £7,997,131. I am confident that honorable senators will approve of the proposed increase of expenditure on this Department, as there is no other public activity which enters more intimately into the life of the people.

It is expected that the expenditure on the Treasury Department in the current year will bo £336,840 less than that of 1922-23. The largest item contributing to the reduction amounts to £259,632) and arises out of the Commonwealth proposal for the removal of duplication iu levying and collecting State and Commonwealth income taxes.

Under the head of “ Special Appropriations,” the expenditure is ‘estimated at £16,529,000, as compared with £15,691,869 expended in 1922-23. The increase is £837,131, and has arisen in connexion with the following subheads :-

The amount provided for war services out of revenue, under which are included, interest, sinking fund, pensions, repatriation, &c, shows a reduction of £1,660,837, of which £1,151,171 is on account of repatriation of soldiers. There was re- .maining in the Repatriation Trust A’é. count on the 30th June, 1923^. an unexpended balance of £457,000 which will be available towards the expenditure of the current year. If, instead of providing * this amount in the year 1922-23, it had been included in the Estimates of the current year, the decrease in the repatriation expenditure out of revenue would have been £237,171.

It is anticipated that, including payments from the Trust Fund, the sum of £1,188,000 will be required for general repatriation purposes during the financial year - a reduction of £371,231 compared with the expenditure of the previous year. During the current year it is expected there will be a reduction in the receipts of the Trust Fund of £134,060 as compared with the actual receipts of last year; thus the reduction in the amount to be provided from revenue is £237,171. The receipts of the Trust Fund consist of repayments of loans made, sales of products, &c. The decrease in expenditure is due, not only to the completion of the preliminary training of soldiers under the vocational training scheme, but also to the completion of those general activities which aim at the restoration of the soldier in civil life. At 30th June, 1923, _ 21,518 men had completed their vocational training, and 1)141 trainees were still being dealt with.

I now come to the estimated revenue of 1923-24. It is estimated under the various heads as follows: -

The loan proposals of the Commonwealth for 1923-24 are as follow: - .

The falling-off_ is due almost wholly to the estimated reduction in the receipts from Customs and Excise, which last year yielded £32,872,129. These collections have been on such a high seal© that it would be unwise to expect receipts equal to those which were experienced last year. Already there are indications of shrinkage.

I now come to the estimated surplus on revenue “account at 30th June, 1924. Bringing the estimated revenue and estimated expenditure of 1923-24 together we get the following result : -

It will be noticed that the total includes £9,000,000 to be advanced to and expended by the States, and £9,945,622 to be expended by the Commonwealth.

With regard to immigration, a sum of £5,000,000 will be borrowed this year, and will be made available to the States entering, into agreements with the Imperial and Commonwealth Governments for the settlement of migrants’ from the British Isles. This is in furtherance of’ the plan outlined in the Empire Settlement Act. For the first five years interest will be paid by the Imperial, the Commonwealth, and the State Governments in one-third shares. After that period the principal and interest will be paid wholly by the States. This is part of a system of co-operation between the Imperial and Dominion Governments to secure a transfer of suitable settlers from the British Isles to the Dominions. In addition to the £5,000,000 referred to, a sum of £500,000 appears in the Estimates for passage money of assisted immigrants.

No new policy or extension of programme is involved in the provision of £4,000,000 for soldier land settlement and £3,000,000 for the construction of War Service Homes. In the States of Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia, the work of construction of War Service Homes has been placed in the hands of State authorities which will act as agents of the Commonwealth. Further efforts will be made to induce the other States to act similarly on behalf of the Commonwealth. /

It will be within the recollection of honorable senators that the last Government agreed to provide the sum of £9,750,000, to be expended during three years, in providing for the capital works of the Postmaster-General’s Department. The present Government is continuing the programme. During 1922-23 the capital expenditure amounted to £2,510,346, including £221,709 charged to revenue. It is proposed to expend £220,000 out of revenue and £3,941,766 out of loan during the present year. The total expenditure is, therefore, expected to reach £6,672,112 by 30th June, 1924. In addition to providing telephone extension throughout the Commonwealth, the Estimates include sums for the construction of post-offices and for buildings in upwards of 276 cities, . towns and hamlets.

Before resuming my seat I should like to give honorable senators a few figures in regard to our National Debt. During’ 1922-23 the gross, debt of the Commonwealth was reduced’ by £5,074,193, the figures at the opening and close of the year being : -

This decrease was brought about by the redemption of £2,866,285 of War Gratuity Bonds, the repayment of £1,064,684 of the debt due to the British Government, and by minor adjustments in several other items of the debt. No Commonwealth loans were issued during the year for public subscription, either in Australia or London, but an offer of conversion was made in Australia to holders in the Loan maturing on 15th September next. This offer was accepted by holders of stock and bonds of the value of £17,224,210. The gross debt is composed of - ‘

Of the total debt, £280,830,927 is redeemable in Australia and £130,165,389 in London. Of the debt payable in London, £90,388,604 is due to the British Government under what is known as the Funding Arrangement, which was made in respect of war obligations.

Against the. gross debt of the Commonwealth, there must be set off the moneys which- are repayable in cash to the Trea sury, the sinking funds and the loan moneys in hand. Large sums are to be repaid by the States in respect of soldier land settlement, silos, and public works. The advances for War Service Homes, the indebtedness of the British Phosphate Commissioners, and other recoverable moneys, must also be taken into account.

No deduction has been made from the gross debt of the properties valued at £11,042,988, transferred from the States to the Commonwealth, or on account of assets created by the expenditure of £26,688,397 on works. Deduc-tions have been made only in respect of cash on hand, of sinking funds, ‘and of moneys which are repayable s with interest, to the Commonwealth. The reduction in the net debt- during 1922- 23 was £4,639,220. I hope honorablesenators have been able to follow the figures which I have given to them, and that they have helped to form some adequate conception in the minds of senators of the state of our finances - which, I think, it will be generally agreed, are in a very sound condition.

In reference to the item of £250,000 for wire netting, I may say that the Government propose that this sum of money shall be expended in the- various States and the Northern Territory in the shape of advances repayable over long periods in order to enable settlers in the back districts to get netting at a cheap rate, and under easy terms, so that they may be in a position to cope with the rabbi i; and dingo pest.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gardiner) adjourned.

page 1619

NATIONAL DEBT SINKING FUND BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12th July (vide page 1,031), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That the Bill be now read a second time

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– This is another of those most important measures which are coming before us almost daily; but possibly since we have just had the Budget statement, this is an opportune time to debate it. It is not the duty o£ an Opposition’ to produce a policy. Its duty is to criticise the Government’s proposals, and, if possible, to offer helpful suggestions. When I read this Bill I was greatly disappointed. We have passed through a war in which we not only suffered a loss of many valuable fives - a loss which cannot be estimated - but also built up a tremendous debt. So pronounced was the enthusiasm with which the people of Australia permitted- our participation in the 1 war that the national debt increased to an extent that will involve future generations in its payment. The enthusiasm of the people of Australia in providing financial assistance for the Government will rank as one of the most remarkable features of the years from 1914 to 1’918. At the very outbreak of the war we were on the eve of a general election. An unwise Government and a very un_wise Governor-General had sent both Houses to the country. The fact that on the 29th July, 1914,. both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament were dissolved, and that on the 4th August following there was a formal declaration of war on the part of Great Britain -against Germany, is ample indication of how little Great Britain, was prepared for war. “At that time the Leader of the Labour party was Mr. Andrew Fisher, and one night, when he was addressing a meeting in Southern Riverina he received a telegram informing him that war had been declared. When he read it out to the meeting some enthusiasts cried, “ Hear, hear !” but he said, “ I do not say Hear, hear ‘ to war, but if war comes we are with the Motherland to the last man and the last shilling.” Although quite a number of out opponents endeavour to mark down Andrew Fisher a long way below his real value, that sentence of his will be remembered when the utterances of many men of. a more showy character are forgotten. It stands out among the events of the war as one of the things we all remember. When war broke out, the first thought of the Government was to keep commerce, running as smoothly as possible,, and to carry on “ business as usual but I think it was their intention to see, when the war was over, that the people who had money should wipe out the war debt that was bound to be incurred. “ The last man and the last shilling “ was not a bad slogan, and, as far as the manhood of the country was concerned, it was almost carried out. Four hundred and thirtyfive thousand men of Australia, between the; ages of eighteen; years and forty-five years, enlisted. It was a remarkable percentage, even making allowance for men over forty-five years of age-, who declared that they were not as old as they were, and for youths under eighteen years of age, who said that they were older than they were. Taking the statistics of population, and making ordinary allowances for the unfit, it will be seen that the first part of. Andrew ‘ Fisher’s statement was almost reached. It certainly would have been reached had the waa1 continued much longer-. The phrase, “ The last man and the. last shilling “ played a big part in political contests towards the end of the war, particularly during tho conscription fights. There were quite a number of people who were enthusiastic in declaring that the pro- “ mise had to be taken* literally, and that the last man must not wait until the last minute, but must be compelled to go immediately. I refer to all these things because of the bearing they have upon the national debt. The feeling that the last man should be sent by compulsion was so far-reaching in this country that the view was accepted by a majority of people in many of the States that the lives of men were very properly the property of the Government, and could be used to sa,ve the country. The war, with its horrors, passed away, and now Great Britain has shown its determination to put everything in the balance to bring about the reduction of its national debt. This determination must be a source of satisfaction to all who- participated in that great struggle in which Great Britain reached a stage of development of naval and military power that it had never reached before. So far as the manhood of Australia was concerned, it needed no pressure to do its share in the war. It simply rushed to the colours. I was a member of the Government at the time, and we had a great deal more trouble in finding clothing, equipment, training, and transport for the men than we had in getting the men themselves. Until that time came when the feeling arose that the last man should be compelled to go, there was no shirking on the part of the manhood of this country to volunteer. But what has happened to the “ last shilling “ ? We were so enthusiastic about giving the last man that we lost all count of the promise to call up, if necessary, the last shilling. The men who rushed to the colours without taking measure of the sacrifices they were making in the shape of wages, salaries, or earnings they were enjoying in civil life as compared with the meagre allowance paid to them and to their dependants after they joined the colours - these men who fought for us made an enormous financial sacrifice. Surely one might reasonably have expected that the other section of the community - the man with not only the last shilling, but also the first, second, and middle shillings - should in his turn be equally enthusiastic, and be willing to make a sacrifice on behalf of the Empire. He has not done so. What does this proposal to wipe out the sinking fund amount to? It does not suggest that the man who commenced the war with riches and found himself richer still when the war ended is to be asked to pay more as his contribution/ The suggestion is that payments towards the sinking fund shall be spread over a long period of time. A little is to be called up each year. There is to be an annual payment of £1,250,000 into the fund, and a sum equal to 10s. per cent, of the net debt created each year. We have also to pay into the fund each year a sum equal to 5 per cent, of the total amount of the debt which has up to the time of payment been cancelled or redeemed, which means that the amount will increase annually. It will not be very heavy this year.

Senator Lynch:

– Were not the contributors to the war loan much more patriotic than those who could contribute but did not?

Senator GARDINER:

– I always acknowledge their patriotism in loaning money at 4£ per cent, when it might have been earning 40 per cent, if invested in other ways.

Senator Elliott:

– The Commonwealth income tax is a war legacy, and it is fairly heavy.

Senator GARDINER:

– The impositions, under that Act have grown to an alarming extent; in fact the war brought the Act into existence.

Senator Elliott:

– A considerable amount of revenue is also received from probate and succession duties.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, and that form of taxation, as mentioned by the Minister (Senator Pearce), has helped to bring the revenue of the Commonwealth this year up to approximately £62,000;000. I wish to put the position fairly and in such a way that even those who are in favour of prolonging the time within which our national debt shall be paid, may realize that there is some reason in suggesting that we should make an effort to materially reduce the amount at once. I do not expect my suggestion to be accepted by the Minister, or the Government, but we should be able to debate this question in the light of experience.’

Senator Elliott:

– The Government are ‘ paying gratuity bonds out of revenue this year. That is a reduction.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is very satisfactory to know that that is being done, and it is also gratifying to realize that the revenue is so buoyant, largely on account of the extraordinary returns received from Customs and Excise duties. Since the immediate predecessors of the present Government placed such heavy taxation on the shoulders of the workers in the form of duties, the revenue from Customs and Excise has increased from £14,000,000 to £32,000,000- per annum. Who is paying it? The greater portion is being contributed by the wage-earners, and one grave injustice is that the very men who placed their, lives in the balance are compelled to meet the interest on the money borrowed to provide our troops with clothing, the food they consumed, and the munitions they fired away.

Senator Elliott:

– We are all in that.

Senator GARDINER:

– We are, and that is why I desire a distinction to be made between the classes.

Senator Elliott:

– Would the honorable senator be in favour of paying double what I pay in income tax, because I went to the war and he did not-?

Senator GARDINER:

– No. No one is suggesting that. The Government, however, are deliberately placing the responsibility on the shoulders of those who did go to the war by making them meet the interest on the capital expended to supply them with food, clothing and munitions.

Senator Reid:

– Will the honorable senator suggest how those who went to the war can be exempted from certain forms of taxation?

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not wish to suggest the adoption of any wild cat scheme such as that mentioned by Senator Elliott. The proposition made by that honorable senator will not stand the acid of common sense. The Government should find a means of meeting this liability without imposing additional burdens upon the people for the next fifty years, and should do something of a drastic nature to remove the injustice of compelling those who did so much in the war to materially assist in defraying the cost.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– That means that the honorable senator is in favour of relieving them of taxation.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, by some sensible method that would put us in a better position to meet our liabilities than that of calling upon the men who fought. In 1914 the revenue from Customs and Excise was in round figures £14,000,000, and in 1923 it was £32,000,000. On every pound weight of tobacco a man smokes he pays approximately 5s. in duty and Excise.

Senator Payne:

– He ought to pay 10s.

Senator GARDINER:

– Smoking is one of the luxuries indulged in not only by the working class but also by other sections of the community, and whether tobacco is available at a reasonable or excessive cost, men will persist in smoking. I have always held the opinion that tobacco is one of those little luxuries which noone should be begrudged, and if I had my way I would wipe out the Excise duty imposed on beer and tobacco, for the simple reason that the reasonable use of these commodities is not objectionable. The duty of 5s. per lb. paid by a returned soldier on each lb. of tobacco used by him is to meet the cost involved in the manufacture of cartridges and shells which were blown away during thewar. Returned soldiers will have the satisfaction of knowing that after risking their lives in the defence of their country they will for the next fifty years have to pay a higher price for their tobacco as their share towards the cost of the food they consumed and the munitions they used on active service. This is so unreasonable and so unjust that the Government in bringing down a National Debt Sinking Fund Bill should have submitted a proposal for a much earlier liquidation of our indebtedness. Reference has been made by honorable senators opposite to the fact that Australia’s trade and commerce have been hampered by the tremendous debt under which the Commonwealth has been staggering. If that is so, one wonders why statesmen such as we have administering affairs to-day have not provided some means by which our liabilities could be more easily met. The people who made the greatest profits during the war will probably have passed away before the debt has been paid.

Senator Payne:

– The Government took a large proportion of their profits in the form of a war-time profits tax.

Senator GARDINER:

– That may be so, but those who were making the money simply increased their prices to such an extent that although they paid a good many eighties they received additional twenties for themselves. The Government are determined that not only shall trade and commerce be crippled and the employment of labour hampered, but that each year our payments shall be heavier.

Senator Crawford:

– That is not so.

Senator GARDINER:

– According to the Bill £1,250,000 per annum has to be paid into the Trust fund for fifty years. We are to pay that amount this year, and next year will contribute a similar amount plus 5 per cent.

Senator Pearce:

– No.

Senator GARDINER:

– We are to pay £1,250,000 this year plus 5 per cent.-

Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

– At the end of next year.

Senator GARDINER:

– I intended to say, if I had not been interrupted, that next year and in each financial year we are to pay £1,250,000, plus an additional 5 per cent. of the amount of debt which up to the time of payment has been cancelled by the Commission.

Senator Pearce:

– We do not pay a fixed sum each year.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not a farseeing financier, and I am quite willing to be corrected when I am wrong. If we pay off only at the rate of £1,250,000 a year without paying into a Trust fund where the money would earn interest-

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– It is to be invested.

Senator GARDINER:

– It has to earn interest to enable the debt to be liquidated in fifty years.

Senator Crawford:

– Some of the money will be invested in Commonwealth bonds.

Senator GARDINER:

– Instead of spreading these payments over a period of fifty years, the Government should make some attempt to considerably reduce the debt at a much earlier date.

Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

– If capital were withdrawn from industry it would hamper the development of the country.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– The withdrawal of capital from industry would cripple it.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am glad to hear that expression of opinion from two distinguished generals and capable parliamentarians, because it supports my argument. If capital is withdrawn from trade and commerce, industry is thereby crippled. Instead of drawing it out, I have a simple remedy for putting it in, which has been well tested and has proved itself a wealth producing expedient. Instead of crippling industry and preventing development by the withdrawal of capital, it would, rather, make additional capital free for investment. We shouldbe guided by the success of past experiments in finance. We should jump at the chance to free capital for investment. Speaking on the Budget in the House of Representatives on the 21st July, 1921, Sir Joseph Cook said, “ We have had a windfall during the year by the transfer of the Notes Branch to the Commonwealth Bank, which gave us £7,780,524.” The Labour party in 1911 devised a financial scheme, not to take money out of industry and so prevent development, but to issue notes and give them a value. In the first year of the war, we increased the note issue by £16,000,000. In 1921, the Treasurer stated that the Government had had a windfall; that thisdreadful legislation of the Labour party, which they had condemned, had given them nearly £8,000,000. When this Parliament passed the Australian Notes Bill, after the keenest debate, it was considered that a gold basis of 25 per cent. was perfectly safe. The advice of the best experts at the command of the Government of the day was that a12½ per cent. gold basis was safe; but to make assurance doubly sure, our careful canny Scottish Treasurer, Andrew Fisher, determined upon a 25 per cent. gold basis. In normal times this Parliament passed a Bill fixing that as a reasonable basis for the note issue. I now come to the question as to how our war debt may be reduced without any undue withdrawal of capital from industry. Forty millions of money is required to meet loans falling due this year. The position of the note issue account in March last was as follows: - Value of notes held by the banks, £28,853,341: value of notes held by the public, £23, 43 1,645; total value of notes outstanding, £52,284,986. The gold reserve was £24,716,633. It will thus be seen that there is still £46,000,000 at the disposal of the Government. The note issue could be increased to that extent without any departure from the limit which was fixed in the Bill.

Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

– The honorable senator wishes Australian currency to follow the course of the mark.

Senator GARDINER:

– I can understand honorable senators opposite classing this as a wild-cat scheme, but what is the difference between a £100 war bond, falling due in September of this year, and a £100 note issued by the Government to pay for it? The responsibility is the same. Some one instances Germany, and asks whether we want our note issue to follow the course of the mark. I do not. The limit we set in normal times was the limit of safety. We should experiment to see if we could not release money for business and commercial enterprises, and at the same time redeem loans falling due, without getting near the 25 per cent. limit. If we were to put £26,000,000 of the £46,000,000 provided under the present Note Issue Bill, into the redemption of loans in September next, it would leave £20,000,000 of additional money in circulation for business requirements, and how much worse off would the note issue be ?

Senator Crawford:

– That scheme would add to the note circulation.

Senator GARDINER:

– The note circulation is very much like the circulation of water. Just as water will not run up hill, so a paper currency will find its level beyond which it cannot be extended. It will find its level and go no further. One of the serious drawbacks of this country at present is the scarcity of the Australian note. The banks only make advances under the most stringent conditions, and I doubt if they have ever exercised greater caution. This, of course, is only natural, in view of the uncertainty of the world’s affairs. But since the Government have still this margin of £46,000,000 to work upon it would not be a bad experiment for them to say, “ We will increase the issue by £20,000,000 and use that amount in the cancellation of our war debt.”

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– It would cause the banks to button up tighter than ever.

Senator Crawford:

– -The £46,000,000 i3 not an asset but a liability.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have not made my remarks clear to the Minister. Over and above the proportion of notes already issued, on a gold basis of over £24,000,000, there is still an amount of £46,000,000 that could be issued without reaching the limit of safety provided for by the Australian Notes Act. If the Government were anxious to relieve the money market and to make available money for investment and land settlement, they could very well increase by, say, £20,000,000 the note issue and use that additional issue in buying up our liabilities in the shape of loans falling due. It would be an exchange of one class of Government note for another, and would render it unnecessary for the Government to go on the money market and withdraw money from commercial and industrial enterprises.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The saving of interest would be a big consideration.

Senator GARDINER:

– The interest would then be paid to the Notes Issue Branch. The accumulation of interest would be so great as to almost constitute a sinking fund. Would it be unwise on the part of the Government to experiment in this way?

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– It would be most unwise.

Senator GARDINER:

– Was it unwise in 1914 to’ issue an additional Australian note when we did not know what would be Australia’s future posi tion ? The issue of £16,000,000 worth of notes during the first year of the war, in addition of those already in circulation was one of the wisest things we ever did. There was no business in this country that did not benefit. In view of our advancing population and increasing investments we should extend our note issue. There is ample room for a trial of this experiment when loans fall due on the 1st September next. They could be met, partly, by the issue of additional notes to the extent of £20,000,000. What would be the position if the Government paid the Commonwealth Bank a £100 note for a £100 bond, or converted a £100 bond into another £100 bond? £100 bonds can be and are being converted daily into cash. The stock exchange does a regular business in our stocks. These stocks are bought and sold, and advantage is taken of favorable conversions. There ls no risk, and they increase and decrease in value according to the demand. Here is a simple system by which the Government can obtain additional money without weakening in the slightest degree the finances of the country, and without, as Senator Drake-Brockman fears, imperilling our credit with the banks. How could the banks tighten up their operations? Upon what are the banks’ investments dependent?

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Upon the credit of the community.

Senator GARDINER:

– Upon the sovereignty and the soundness of the community. What means have the banks to find investment for the people’s money? In September next, instead of taking out of investment by means of a conversion loan a sum of £40,000,000, we should reduce the amount pf that conversion loan by half, and,, as the loans fall due, £20,000,000 of notes could be paid across the counter in exchange for bonds of equal value. The Government would immediately have £20,000,000 to invest. We are not like Germany, which is hampered, crippled, and threatened. Australia has unlimited possibilities of development. Our credit stands high and our reputation is good.

Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

– Germany has greater resources than has Australia, but her credit is low because of the overissue of the mark.

Senator GARDINER:

– The overissue of paper money has had very little to do with Germany’s position.

There would have been no occasion to flood the world with marks but for the fact that Germany found herself in a most desperate position. I am not advocating the issue of paper money in a way calculated to damage our credit. I am merely suggesting the adoption of a course which was regarded as legitimate and sane by the Commonwealth Government twelve years ago.

Senator Elliott:

– At that time we had free gold, which operated as a natural check. We have not that advantage to-day.

Senator GARDINER:

– We have the gold backing to our note issue.

Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

– But there is no gold in circulation.

Senator GARDINER:

– The question as to when gold will again come into circulation must depend upon the Government. I do not know on what conditions the banks now obtain the notes from the Government, and I do not like to ask delicate questions that might in some way prejudice the financial situation; but I know that some years ago the banks were allowed the use of four notes for every sovereign that they handed over to the Commonwealth Treasury. That was war-time finance, and it proved entirely satisfactory. I do not know if that system has been altered, but I am inclined to think that if the banks claim free gold again, and hand back our notes, their position will not be bo strong as it is to-day.

Senator Crawford:

– The banks had to give adequate security for the notes issued to them.

Senator GARDINER:

– And I claim that the trade of the - Commonwealth, backed by the undertaking of the Commonwealth Government, is ample security for the course I now suggest. I have merely instanced the method under which, in those difficult days of finance - and they were difficult - a Labour Government faced an exceedingly delicate situation.

Senator Lynch:

– The banks had to put up security representing the deference between the gold coin they handed into the Treasury and the surplus notes issued to them.

Senator GARDINER:

– The security they gave at that time was the business they were carrying on. The Government were determined to pre vent gold from being taken out. of the country. By an amicable arrangement with the banks they soon got the sovereigns into the Treasury, and allowed the banks the use of four notes for every sovereign added by them to the Commonwealth gold reserve.

Senator Lynch:

– That arrangement was equivalent to putting the banks in the place of the State.

Senator GARDINER:

– Absolutely. And now that we have got back to peace conditions, we may, with perfect safety, I think, adopt the course I suggest. I do not want to make any experiment .that might have disastrous results, and I am satisfied that what I am advocating would not have that effect.

Senator Crawford:

– But how does the honorable senator propose to get over the difficulty of making the community accept more notes than are required for the conduct of its business?

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not think the community will accept more. I do not suggest that we can by legislation force an increased circulation of notes, but I put it to the Minister that we may do something, when holders of our £100 war bonds come along to convert. On the 1st September quite a number of people will be surrendering their war bonds. They will receive in exchange Commonwealth Bank notes of the same denomination. A bonus of £1 for every £100’ will be offered as an inducement to them to convert. If they do not convert, the Government then will propose to issue a loan. I claim that the security is good - that the credit of the Australian Government, backed by a gold reserve of £24,000,000, is quite good enough to warrant the issue of an additional £20,000,000 in notes to meet these bonds as they fall due.

Senator Elliott:

– The honorable senator must not forget that that gold is already mortgaged.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not forgetting that for a moment, but I am reminded that it .was laid down that a gold reserve of 25 per cent, of the note issue was perfectly safe, so that for every 25,000,000 sovereigns held by the Commonwealth we could, with safety, issue notes of a face value of £100,000,000. We have a gold reserve of £24,000.000 and we have a note issue of £52,000,000, so that, on the basis of a 25 per cent, gold reserve, we have a clear margin of over £46,000,000 ‘at the disposal of the Government. Instead of taking advantage of the strength of our position, the Government propose, like members of the Salvation Army, to go round looking for people ready for “ conversion.” They are paying business men to travel about the country and, by means of “ catchy “ advertisements in the newspapers, are urging upon the people that the way of salvation is to convert in the new loan issue.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator seems to be arguing that we should pay one loan by raising another.

Senator GARDINER:

– No ; that is what the Government are doing. I am such a careful man that I would not advocate testing this experiment to the extreme limit of the existing margin. I think, however, that we could, with perfect safety, adopt the course I have suggested. This would make available £20,000,000 of new capital for investment. The farmer would realize what an advantage this would be to him when he found a -buyer who was able to finance his buying transactions.

Senator Lynch:

– If it was real capital and not subject to depreciation, “ yes.”

Senator Elliott:

– There would always be the danger of the cost of living mounting still higher than it is.

Senator GARDINER:

– All these considerations, I admit, come into the question, but I have yet to be convinced that the fear is justified. It is easy for critics to conjure up dangers which do not exist. I remind honorable senators of the gloomy prediction of a former Treasurer of the Commonwealth - our present High Commissioner, Sir Joseph Cook. When the Commonwealth note issue was being discussed, he declared that Commonwealth notes would soon be called “Fisher’s flimsies,” and be worth not more than 5s. in the fi.

Senator Elliott:

– At the present time the purchasing power of the sovereign as compared with the pre-war period is equal to only about Ils,. 6d.

Senator GARDINER:

– I know that. I know also that some people blame the note issue, but can any honorable senator say that with free gold the position would have been different?

Senator Elliott:

– Probably it would not have been quite so bad.

Senator GARDINER:

– In all earnestness I urge the Government to be guided by the experience of the Labour party in the early stages of the war, when, without any untoward result, the note issue was increased by £16,000,000 to finance our war preparations. We can adopt the same course now to the extent of £20,000,000, and still have a safe margin. Even if this experiment of trading on community-created values failed, our trade would not be crippled or our credit seriously damaged. During the war we raised in Australia about £250,000,000 for war purposes. Will any one say that this amount of money was taken out of industry and commerce? Nothing of the kind. It was still in circulation. And so it would be if the Government followed the course I have outlined. The credit of the community would not be in any sense impaired. Since our financial position is so strong, it is a safe and sound system of redeeming part of our war loans as they fall due. But we may make doubly sure by taxing the big incomes. Just as, when the call came, men in receipt of a weekly wage freely surrendered it in return for a soldier’s maintenance payment of 5s. a day, with an allowance for their wives and children, so should the wealthy now be expected to deliver up that “ last shilling “ about which there was so much talk in the early stages of the war. I want to be assured that the wealthier sections in the community are bearing their share of the burden due to the war.

Senator Elliott:

– They are taxed now up to 10s. in the £1.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– In some cases up to 17s. 3d. in the £1.

Senator GARDINER:

– That may be so, but I venture to say that every honorable senator would like to be in such a happy financial position as to be taxed to the extent of 17s. 3d. in the £1 upon his income, because that presupposes the receipt of a very handsome income. Compare the position of such men with that of people who have to struggle for an existence on the wage line.

Senator Elliott:

– But to earn that income a man has to risk the whole of his capital.

Senator GARDINER:

– In this endeavour to get rid of our war burdens it would be as well if we demanded that all incomes above a certain amount should be devoted to the reduction of our war debt.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– That is what is being done now by means of taxation.

Senator Elliott:

– The honorable senator’s proposal would inevitably react upon the working man.

Senator GARDINER:

– But in the cleaning up process we would probably be able to wipe out our war obligations twenty-five years earlier than under the Government scheme. I realize, of course, that the workers produce all the wealth, and that in the end they pay for everything. Therefore, some attempt should be made to save them from being further exploited. By spreading the burden over a long period of years it would appear that the burden on the workers is not excessive. If theperiod were shortened the pressurewould be distinctly felt, and, to use the words of an eminent member of another place, there would be a call for the police to stop some one from “ getting away with the loot.” The Government realize that the workers, in seeking relief, would demand that the wealthier sections of the community should bear their fair share of the burden. It is acknowledged by the Judges of our Arbitration Courts that the cost of meeting increased awards passed on to the workers, and for that reason increases have on occasions been withheld. That is one way in which the workers pay. Surely the time has come when we should set about the business of getting rid of this staggering debt. Up to the present we have done very little to compel men with wealth at their command to pay up. I have here an interesting newspaper paragraph showing what has been done in Great Britain towards the reduction of her war obligations. It reads -

” THE PUBLIC PURSE.”

Reduction of Debt.

Britain’s Great Effort.

London, July 25.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin) at the Lord Mayor’s banquet to bankers and merchants at the Guildhall, replied to the timehonoured toast, “ The Public Purse.” Mr. Baldwin said that in three years, out of income, Britain had reduced her debts by £400,000,000, and had nearly halved her floating debt, from £1,500,000,000 to £800,000,000. Britain had paid all her foreign debts except those due to the United States. She had paid Japan £20,000,000, and South America £25,000,000, and as much again in loans to Canada. The staff at the Government offices was now only 10 per cent. greater than before the war.

That is wise statesmanship. It is the remarkable effort of a remarkable people. I do not think any honorable senator will contend that Australia’s effort is in any way commensurate with that of Great Britain.

Senator Elliott:

– We have not the accumulated wealth upon which to draw.

Senator GARDINER:

– I realize that. Even if we had that accumulated wealth, we would not have the courage to draw upon it. That which has been accumulated we are leaving severely alone. Honorable senators opposite belong to a party which is supported by those whose sole desire is to see that there are safe investments for capital. Those people not only finance honorable senators opposite in their political campaigns-

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– The honorable senator is talking rubbish, and he knows it.

Senator GARDINER:

– They not only finance honorable senators opposite in their campaigns, but also direct their actions in regard to finance. It will pay the big financiers of this country to look closely into the question of a more prompt payment of the national debt, and to consider whether there are not means by which great reductions may be made. I would not place all my eggs in the one basket. Side by side with the experiment of utilizing the note issue to meet the first loan that is falling due, I contend that the very large incomes should be drawn upon in order to form a sufficiently big sinking fund. The considerable area of taxable land, the value of which has been created by the community, also should bear a proportion of the cost of the war. I realize that the war placed a mighty strain upon every one, but the men who work for wages have been struck most heavily by it. They have no means of shifting the load from their shoulders. The man at the top shifts it on to the one immediately below him, and that practice continues until, finally, a crushing load falls upon the people who toil - those who are compelled, by their own energy and effort, to earn the money necessary to maintain themselves and their f amilies.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I cannot allow the second reading of this Bill to pass without commenting upon the extraordinary utterance to which we hav: just listened. Senator Gardiner has endeavoured to make out that a very grave injustice will be caused to the bulk of the people of Australia if this Bill becomes law. He argues that it is essential for us to reduce our debt much more speedily than is provided for in this Bill, and that, if that is not done, the working classes will continue to bear the very heavy burden which they were compelled to carry during the whole of the war period.

Senator Gardiner:

– I draw attention to the absence of a quorum. [Quorum formed.’]

Senator PAYNE:

– The honorable senator referred specially to the work done by our brave soldiers at the Front, and contended that the promise which was given by Mr. Fisher to stand behind the Old Country to the last man and the last shilling had been observed in regard to the former, but ignored in regard to the latter portion. Has the honorable senator not gathered, from his perusal of the financial statements, that OUt of revenue Australia has met war obligations to the extent of £135,996,000?

Senator Gardiner:

– Taken mostly from the workers.

Senator PAYNE:

– That is the interjection I expected to get, and I am glad to have it, because I am able to answer it effectively. That amount of £135,996,000 was received from direct taxation. I have deducted the amount received from the entertainments tax, £3,827,000, and from the extra war postage, £1,407,000, confining my calculations to the four sources of direct taxation which are mainly met by the people of Australia who are not dependent upon the ordinary wage of the worker. From income tax the Commonwealth received during the period in question the sum of £97,211,000; from land tax the sum of £20.917,000; from estate duty the sum of £9,484,000; and from war-time .profits tax the sum of £8,382,000; a total of £135,996,000. If honorable senators turn to the table to be found on pages 19 and 20 of the Budget-papers, they will see who has paid the bulk of the income tax, land tax, and probate duties. During the financial year 1921-22 there were 753,000 people-, in Australia who paid Federal income tax’. Of that number, 5.39,000 had a taxable income of £200 or less, leaving only 214,000 with a taxable income of over £200. The total amount of tax received from individuals - not companies - was £11,888,499, of which over £9,400,000 was provided by those whose taxable incomes exceeded £500 per annum. The average worker referred to by Senator Gardiner does not enjoy a taxable income of £500 or over. The figures I have quoted, therefore”, prove conclusively that over 75 per cent, of the total direct taxation came from less than 10 per cent, of the taxpayers of Australia. Facts such as these show the hollowness of the assertion that is continually being made, that the workers contribute the bulk of the direct taxation. The wealthy in the community are prepared to continue to do their duty in this direction. The provisions of this Bill will insure that those people contribute’ an even larger proportion in the future, because the general exemption has been considerably raised.

Senator Hoare:

– Who does the honorable senator suggest pays the income tax?

Senator PAYNE:

– I have stated definitely who pays it.

Senator Hoare:

– It is passed on, and the worker eventually has to pay it.

Senator PAYNE:

– The honorable senator is adopting the argument of his Leader (Senator Gardiner), who stated that, whenever additional taxation is placed upon the moneyed classes, they pass it on to other people. Despite that, the honorable senator contends that the Government should place an additional amount of taxation upon the wealthy classes - in order, I presume, that they may place a still heavier burden upon the worker.

Senator Pearce:

– Can the honorable senator tell us whether that tax was raised by voluntary means? Were those people allowed to decide whether they should pay it?

Senator PAYNE:

– The payment was compulsory.

Senator Pearce:

– So there was compulsion of wealth and not of manhood ?

Senator PAYNE:

– That is so. There was conscription of wealth during the war period, and there is conscription of wealth to-day. Senator Gardiner and his political friends take every opportunity, when addressing the electors, to say that the taxation is chiefly contributed by the working classes, and that the well-to-do section escapes.

Senator Gardiner:

– I believe that to be the case, but I have an open mind on the subject.

Senator PAYNE:

– Statistics show beyond doubt that what I have said is a fact. I have heard honorable senators opposite repeatedly make statements which would convey the impression that all the expenditure incurred by the war has been met by raising loans. It is not generally known that £139,000,000 has been provided by the people out of revenue, and that sum represents more than 25 per cent. of the total indebtedness. It is certainly a great feat for a population of 5,250,000. The main provision of the Bill appeals to me as one that ought to meet the needs of the situation. There is to be paid into a sinking fund in addition to a fixed annual amount a sum equal to 10s. per cent. of the total indebtedness. If the funds are invested at the rate of interest expected to be received, the debt will be extinguished in fifty years. Was the war waged in order that only the taxpayers of the present day might be protected? Certainly not. The efforts put forward so effectively were intended to make Australia safe for all time, and it is perfectly reasonable to demand that posterity shall contribute its fair share towards the cost of the war.

Senator Gardiner:

– Will not posterity have its own wars ?

Senator PAYNE:

– We hope not.

Senator Gardiner:

– Does the honorable senator think not ?

Senator PAYNE:

– I am not sufficiently optimistic to believe that war has ended.

Senator Gardiner:

– It is part of the trade of the financiers.

Senator Hoare:

– It is their best asset.

Senator PAYNE:

– Is it suggested that considerations of finance entered into the conduct of the late war?

Senator Hoare:

– Certainly. It was a war of trade and commerce.

Senator Gardiner:

– The only real patriotism was that shown by the workers, who sacrificed their lives. Traders, business men, and financiers made money out of the war.

Senator PAYNE:

– I agree with the Minister (Senator Pearce) that the Bill makes reasonable provision to meet our liabilities. If we attempted to impose on the people of Australia a burden greater than they are already bearing, in the shape of very heavy taxation compared with pre-war imposts, we should be hampering the development of this country. The more money is unnecessarily taken from the community in the form of taxation, when capital is required to develop Australia, the greater will be the restriction of national progress. I have always favoured a reasonably lengthy period for meeting our loan obligations, and that principle should certainly be applied to debts that have been incurred in securing the safety of the country.

SenatorELLIOTT (Victoria) [6.26]. - I desire to give one or two examples of heavy contributions in taxation by persons not numbered among the working classes, and I hope that Senator Gardiner will be convinced that his argument is unsound. The men I have in mind left Australia when the war broke out, joined the ranks, and met their death at the Front. The first was Mr. Andrew Kerr, who was a leading timber merchant in Victoria. He enlisted and joined me in the ranks in France. He gradually worked his way upwards, and he was unknown to me personally until I had occasion to recommend him for a commission, but, before a commission could be granted him he was killed. When, later, I was perusing papers a few months old, I read that his estate had been proved at £120,000. A very large amount out of that fortune passed by way of probate duty into the coffers of the Commonwealth Treasury to help pay for the war. If honorable senators opposite can point to any way by which that taxation could have , been passed on to the workers, I shall be glad to hear it. A similar case was that of Mr. Frank Twomey, of Penshurst, who was one of the wealthiest squatters in the western district of Victoria. He was a lieutenant when he met his death at the Front, and I fail to see how any chicanery could have prevented his estate from contributing direct taxation that could not be passed on to the workers. Such examples could no doubt be multiplied many times by every honorable senator. It is absurd for honorable senators opposite to claim that the contributions of the working classes, whether in blood or in money, was wholly responsible for the winning of the war.

The Government are to be commended for bringing this measure forward. It is a reasonable and honorable attempt to reduce our war indebtedness in the only possible way.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

page 1630

QUESTION

CASE OF WARRANT OFFICER J. R. ALLEN

Debate resumed from 12th July (vide page 1,025), on motion by Senator Elliott -

That a Select Committee be appointed, with power to send for persons, papers, and records, to inquire into and report upon the discharge from the Military Forces of Warrant Officer J. R. Allen,of the Instructional Staff, and the refusal of compensation and removal allowance to this Warrant Officer; and that such Committee consist of Senators Benny, Duncan, Sir T. W. Glasgow, McDougall, Ogden, Thompson, and the mover.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– In reference to the discharge of Warrant Officer J. R. Allen from the Permanent Military Forces, and the claims advanced on his behalf for payment of compensation under the Defence Retirement Act, the case depends upon two considerations, namely, the actual reason for his discharge, and the conditions under which compensation is payable under the Defence Retirement Act. It has been definitely set out in the file dealing with his case, that Warrant Officer Allen was discharged for incompetence, and that his incompetence was manifested in the ineffectual performance of his duty, for which he was more than once reported. Under the Australian Military Regulations power to discharge a warrant officer in such circumstances is vested in the Commander of the Division or formation to which he belongs. The Divisional Commander had no jurisdiction to retire him under the Defence Retirement Act. Warrant Officer Allen had served the full period of his original enlistment, and was serving under reengagementat the time of his discharge. A soldier serving under re-engagement may claim a free discharge by giving three months’ notice in writing to his commanding officer, though his commanding officer may reduce, or remit, the three months’ notice if circumstances warrant this concession. It is only during the initial period of five years that a soldier may be required to purchase his dis charge, and even in such cases the requirement is often waived. At the beginning of 1921, the new divisional organization of the Australian Military Forces came into operation, and under that scheme it became possible to undertake measures to revise and improve the standard of instruction, as well as to arrange for closer supervision of the instructors themselves. Those measures included investigation of the qualifications and efficiency of the members of the Permanent Forces, and resulted in the removal of several who were not rendering satisfactory service. The responsible authority, in Divisions, for action in this regard is the Divisonal Commander. Warrant Officer Allen’s case is not an isolated one. In retiring this Warrant Officer the Divisional Commander was nob in any way influenced by the retrenchment scheme which was then being carried out. Warrant Officer Allen was one of five warrant officer instructors of the Second Cavalry Division whose work had been found unsatisfactory. Three of them were discharged in December, 1921; one failed to pass the examination for confirmation of appointment, and was dischargedin May, 1922; Warrant Officer Allen was the fifth, and he was discharged on 10th May, 1922.

Senator Elliott:

– The others were all temporary officers, appointed since the war.

Senator PEARCE:

– I am not so informed. In any case, they were warrant officer instructors.Warrant Officer Allen was adversely reported on in December, 1921, on the completion of a staff course, held at Broadmeadows. He was subsequently placed under special supervision, to give him a further opportunity to obtain better results. As the results were not satisfactory, he was eventually discharged, as I have stated. Under the Australian Military Regulations no charge would be laid against him, and his conduct would be indorsed on his discharge certificate as “very good.” His military inefficiency would not necessarily mean that his conduct was bad, and therefore although it might appear to a layman to be inconsistent to say that a man whose discharge certificate stated that his conduct was good had been discharged for inefficiency, it is not at all inconsistent when viewed in the proper light.

Senator Gardiner:

– How long had he been in the service?

Senator Elliott:

– Ho was twenty-one years in the British Army and ten years in the Australian Forces.

Senator PEARCE:

– With regard to the second consideration, namely, the conditions under which compensation could be payable, the reduction in the Defence estimates for the year 1922-23 required the reduction of the Permanent Forces to be carried out on the 30th June, 1922. The Defence Retirement Act provided compensation for personnel whose services were dispensed with on account of retrenchment and not on account of inefficiency.

Senator Elliott:

– It was also dated back to January.

Senator PEARCE:

– I accept the honorable senator’s statement in that respect. He may have looked up the facts, but I am not so informed. Compensation was not. payable to persons who were removed for any other reason than retrenchment. It would be contrary to the Act for compensation to be paid to persons other than those who would have remained in the service but for the fact that the establishment of the Permanent Forces was being reduced. Section 11 of the Defence Retirement Act provides, inter alia, that the Act shall not apply to any man discharged for inefficiency. As I have already said, the discharge of Warrant Officer Allen was entirely independent of the reduction of the establishment, and any general communications he may have received in common with other members of the Forces relative to retrenchment proposals could not have any bearing whatever on the question as to whether he should be discharged by his Divisional Commander for inefficiency. All members of the Forces received a communication asking them if they desired to retire under the provisions of the Defence Retirement Act, because it was considered, that some might contemplate retiring, while others might wish to remain. It was thought that the Military Board should be in possession of such information, because as between the man who wished to retire and the man who wished to remain, the Board, all other things being equal, would retire the one who wished to be retired .

Senator Elliott:

– The number of instructors was being reduced for purposes of economy.

Senator PEARCE:

– Of course, and any communication that Warrant Officer Allen received, in common with other members of the Defence Forces, in view of the retrenchment proposals, should have no bearing on the question of his being discharged for inefficiency. In any case, discharge for that reason would undoubtedly override ,any anticipations which a member of the Forces might hold concerning his disposal under any other heading. The suggestion that he might have been retained until 30th June in order to bring him under the provisions of the Defence Retirement Act could not be entertained, as it would be a misapplication of the provisions of the Act. It would, not be in accordance with the spirit of that measure to take advantage of it to retire a member of the Forces who was due for retirement for an entirely different purpose than that for which the Act had been passed. The fact that the Divisional Commander did. not consider it necessary to allot another instructor to the 13th Light Horse on the removal of Warrant Officer Allen has no relation to his discharge for incompetence. As a rule, vacancies caused by discharges can be filled only by withdrawing personnel from other duties, a withdrawal which “the limited staff rendered impracticable.

That is the case as set out in the files, and as the Department view it. I pass now to the consideration of another claim on behalf of Warrant Officer Allen, and that is in respect of the sale of furniture on the occasion of his transfer from Warragul to Sale. The departmental regulation provides that where an officer is transferred from one station to another an allowance is made at a scale rate to cover the cost of removal. Provision is made also that if an officer chooses to sell his furniture he may do so, and the amount which would otherwise be allowed by removal expenses would then be paid to him, provided documentary evidence is produced that the officer bought the goods in the first place, and then sold them. But in no case is any sum allowed in excess of the amount to which an officer is entitled to receive as removal expenses. In this case Warrant Officer Allen was unable to produce receipts for the full amount of the purchase money. The sale slip apparently showed that he had sold £196 ls. 3d. worth of furniture, but he was unable to produce receipts for more than £152. After consultation with the Minister for Defence, I am prepared to announce that the Department will waive the production of the receipts for the furniture, and pay to the claimant the amount he would have been entitled to receive if he had strictly complied with the regulations. The amount in question is about £14.

If the facts I have set before honorable senators are correct - and they are taken from the files - I fail to sec the necessity for the appointment of a Select Committee. Would such a Committee inquire whether the Divisional Commander was authorized to discharge this Warrant Officer? One has only to read the regulations to see that .he was so authorized. Would the Committee endeavour to ascertain whether the Divisional Commander had rightly discharged this Warrant Officer? How could they place themselves in the position of the officer who is responsible for the administration of his command; who saw tha work done by this man and the reports on the work done by him, and on what he saw discharged him for inefficiency. Could any Committee say that in their judgment he did wrong ? I cannot see- what a Select Committee could do in this regard.

Senator Elliott:

– It is proposed to have two Generals on the Committee.

Senator PEARCE:

– But they will not have seen the work done by this Warrant Officer. They will not have had him under their command as had the Divisional Officer who discharged Warrant Officer Allen. If we establish such a precedent, there will be a danger of every officer and noncommissioned officer of the permanent Military Forces, who may subsequently be discharged, expecting a similar right to call upon Parliament to appoint a Select Committee to sit in judgment upon his divisional commander. Is that desirable? If we are to do that in the case of Warrant Officer Allen, we cannot refuse a similar privilege to any other warrant officer who may subsequently be discharged. If we appointed a Select Committee the time of Parliament, which at present is very fully occupied, would be taken up in investigating similar cases. The claim in connexion with the furniture allowance will be granted, and, in the circumstances, Senator Elliott should, I think, withdraw the motion. A Select Committee could not function, because I have clearly shown that no claim can be made under the Defence Retirement Act. The only point with which the Committee could deal would be that of deciding whether Warrant Officer Allen was rightly discharged, and I submit that that is not a question which a Select Committee of the Senate should be asked to decide.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I do not feel called upon to decide whether the Defence Department or Senator Elliott is right, but when in. doubt. [ always seek further information. There are many inefficient officers in the Defence Department, particularly at the top, and it seems extraordinary that an officer lower in the scale, who is now charged with inefficiency, should have been allowed to remain in the Department so long if he was inefficient. I trust that I shall never be asked to produce furniture receipts in the manner expected of Warrant Officer Allen, and it is a quibble on the part of the Defence Department to make . such a. demand. Probably because Warrant Officer Allen was not altogether popular in the service, - he was discharged beforebeing able to benefit under the Defence Retirement Act. If there is any doubt in the matter, there should be no objection to the appointment of a Select Committee of the Senate to make a full investigation into all the details. Once I was in favour of a Committee of theSenate being appointed to investigate matters which were in dispute in connexion with the Defence Department, as I thought it would be a meansof extending the Senate’s constitutional usefulness. The Minister (Senator Pearce) has put the case for the Department, but I have not found the Department or the divisional officers always right. It is evident that this man feels that he has been unfairly treated, and he has submitted his case to a member of the Senate, who has doubtless closely investigated it before bringing it before us. I have been on Select Committees in the past, and I may move for the appointment of others, but the Minister cannot accuse me of submitting requests unless

I have been satisfied beyond doubt that there has been just ground for them. I am prepared to concede that to Senator Elliott, and if he thinks that a Committee should be appointed, I am inclined to support him. Senator Elliott has had long military experience, and if a Committee were appointed, it would comprise several experienced military men whose services on it would be valuable. I .was a member of a Select Committee, and I had associated with me men with military experience, who were not only regular in their attendance, but performed very useful work. Without expressing an opinion one way or the other on the case as it has been presented, I feel disposed to support the motion.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

– 1 know nothing whatever of the merits of the case, and in this connexion they do not trouble me very much. I am considering the position of the Senate more than that of the Defence Department, and it appears to me that the. Senate would be exceeding its functions if it appointed a Select Committee to inquire into a Department where discipline is, perhaps, more essential than in any other. There should be no interference ‘in a political sense-.

Senator Elliott:

– Why not?

Senator KINGSMILL:

– We give the officers of the Defence Department very great powers, which, I believe, they exercise with great care. Our military officers have had extensive experience with soldiers of all grades. It is a very difficult subject with which to deal, and I do not think it is the function of Parliament to sit in judgment upon the officials of any Department. If a Department has to be discussed it should be as a Department, and not in relation to any individual case. For these reasons I am opposed to the appointment of a Select Committee. I have adopted this attitude on more than one occasion, not in connexion with the Defence Department, but in relation to the ordinary Departments of the Public Service, interference with which is not so serious. I understand that during the late war it was a constant cause of complaint that the high officers of the army were interfered with by politicians, and that a great deal of the trouble experienced and some of the losses incurred by the army were directly due to political interference. I do not want that to occur in Australia. I make these remarks with the utmost diffidence, because the motion has been moved by an honorable senator of very lengthy experience, and one’ who has rendered great service to his country. I do not, however, think that action in this direction is justified. I therefore oppose the motion.

Senator McHUGH:
South Australia

– If an injustice has been done to Warrant Officer Allen, it is our duty to appoint a Select Committee to remove it. Unlike Senator Kingsmill, I am concerned with the merits of the case. It should be a function of the Senate to see that every case is treated on its merits, and, as the Department has offered to meet Warrant Officer Allen in regard to his furniture allowance, we are safe in assuming that he is not altogether in the wrong. I trust that the motion, which I shall support, will be carried, in order that Warrant Officer Allen may have an opportunity to prove that what he has stated is correct. If it is, he should be reinstated.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I fully realize that we are treading upon very delicate ground, but, as Senator Kingsmill has stated, the position of this officer has been brought before the Senate by a gentleman of practical military standing and a fellow-senator concerning whom we know a good deal. I am sure that Senator Elliott is willing to stake his reputation upon the necessity for an inquiry of this description. If a Committee decided against the case he has made out, Senator Elliott’s position would be discounted.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– And’ it would be so much the- better for the Defence Department.

Senator LYNCH:

– Yes ; it is hard if we have to close our ears and steel our hearts against a well-grounded appeal, and I feel, notwithstanding what Senator Kingsmill has said, that there should be an open pathway to this Chamber for a man with a genuine grievance. If as a result of a close and searching investigation this officer is vindicated, it will be a warning to the people in authority in the Defence Department to be mighty careful, as their actions will be liable to come up for review. If the officers of the Defence Department are vindicated, it will strengthen them in their position and in the estimation of the Parliament and the people. On the other hand, if the finding is against them, it will have the effect of making them more careful in their decisions, especially when the reputation of an officer is at stake. I support the motion.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I hope the House will agree to the appointment of the Select Committee. Like honorable senators who have previously spoken, I am satisfied that Senator Elliott would not submit this motion to the Senate unless he was satisfied that there was a good case for inquiry. I am not concerned with the merits or demerits of the case. Senator Kingsmill stated, in effect, that we should not interfere with departmental matters. My reply is that Parliament is supreme, and that we must interfere in all matters where we are satisfied that a case deserving of the fullest and fairest consideration has been made out. . Senator Elliott’s proposal is not by any means new. In 1904 a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the case of Major Carroll. I was a member of the Committee. Major Carroll considered that he had been improperly dealt with by the Department, but the Department held that he had received fair consideration. Evidence was taken by the Committee, and, as a result of its investigations, Major Carroll received a consideration that he had not previously been able to secure from the Department. It may be that the same result will be obtained in this case if a Select Committee is appointed. What harm can be done? If an injustice has been done to Warrant Officer Allen, or any other person, it is the duty of this Parliament, as the supreme tribunal, to see that it is removed. The proposed members of the Select Committee have had a large experience of military matters. No doubt Senator Elliott consulted them before moving the motion.

Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

Senator Elliott did not ask Senator Thompson or me for permission to include our names in the motion.

Senator FINDLEY:

– No precedent will be established by the appointment of the Select Committee. In the interests of the Defence Department, and also of Warrant Officer Allen, the Senate should approve of the appointment of the Select Committee.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

– I support Senator Elliott’s request that a full inquiry shall be made into the case of Warrant Officer Allen. The Senate should appoint a Select Committee to ascertain whether this officer has suffered a wrong, and if, as the result of inquiry, it is shown that an injustice has been done him, that injustice should be remedied.

Senator HAYS:
Tasmania

.- As a new member of the Senate, I recognize the seriousness of this motion. I gather from the statement made by the Minister (Senator Pearce) that Warrant Officer Allen, and every other officer, has the right of appeal against dismissal from the Australian Military Forces. I should like to know whether this officer had the right of appeal from the decision of the Divisional Commander to a higher military tribunal.

Senator Pearce:

– He had the right of appeal to the Military Board. I cannot ascertain from the file that he exercised that right, but he appealed to the Minister.

SenatorHAYS. - If this motion is carried I do not know whether it will establish a precedent, or whether other cases concerning the Defence Department have been investigated by this Parliament. We know that in the Defence Force discipline counts for everything. Without discussing the merits of the case,. I should like to know whether this officer appealed against the decision of the Divisional Commander to the Military Board, and, if so, what was the result of such appeal ?

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I am not concerned with the question of whether or not Warrant Officer Allen appealed to any Board connected with the Defence Department. Senator Elliott, on behalf of this person; has made an appeal to the highest tribunal in the Commonwealth. The doors of Parliament should not be shut against any citizen of Australia who has been unjustly treated. He should have the right of appeal to this, the highest tribunal in the land. Senator Pearce replied to Senator Hays by way of interjection that this officer appealed to the Minister. The Minister gave his decision, and I understand that it is from that decision that Warrant Officer Allen is now appealing. I do not think that any member of the Federal Parliament would lightly bring before it the case of any citizen unless he were sure of his ground. I am confident that Senator Elliott feels that he is fully justified in bringing this matter before Parliament. I shall support the motion for the appointment of the Select Committee.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– I am most reluctant to oppose the motion of my gallant and distinguished friend, Senator Elliott, but it appears to me that we need to ask ourselves where this sort of thing will lead us. If this one officer who was dismissed from the Australian Military Forces is to have the right of appeal to the Senate, what about the other four who, according to the Minister, were also dismissed at the same time ?

Senator Elliott:

– They certainly have a parallel case.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– If Warrant Officer Allen is given the right of appeal to the Senate against the decision of the Divisional Commander, that right must be extended to these four men, and to dozens of others who for a similar reason have been dismissed from time to time from the Australian Military Forces. Where will it end? I feel convinced that if the Senate agrees to the appointment of this Select Committee, we shall be bombarded with petitions from other men who consider that they have an equal right with Warrant Officer Allen to appeal.

Senator Findley:

– That is not likely to eventuate ifthe decision of the Committee is against this man.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. I am able to say, from my own personal knowledge of the Australian Military Forces, that these men are very well protected, even within the military forces themselves. When a man is reported on as being unsatisfactory, he is invariably shifted to another unit, and a request is made that the officer in charge of that unit shall report on him. I have no doubt that that practice was followed in this case. I understand, from the contents of the file, thatthis man was reported on by several officers on different occasions as unsatisfactory. He was then sent to a school, as it is the practice of the military authorities to give a man an opportunity to bring himself up to date on military knowledge.

Senator Needham:

– Would the honorable senator not leave that phase of the question to the Select Committee?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Afterwards, this man was reported on by staff officers who were dealing directly with him as inefficient.

Senator Needham:

– The honorable senator is trying this man in his absence.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I am not. I am setting out the information disclosed by the file. What was done by the military authorities in this man’s case has always been the practice. The military forces themselves are most punctilious, and their officers, especially those in senior positions, afford every protection to the warrant officers and the members of the Instructional Staff generally who come under their command. When a man is reported on as unsatisfactory or inefficient, he is given a copy of the report to peruse. Nothing is done behind his back. He has the opportunity of seeing the report that goes to the Divisional Commander, and ultimately to the Military Board. There is no secret court to try this man behind his back and then to order his dismissal. I am now talking of the ordinary military procedure, which, I gather from the files, has been observed in respect of this man. Every opportunity is given a man in the Forces to put himself right. When a report comes before the Divisional Commander, he gives his decision, as to whether the man against whom complaint is made shall be discharged, or given another opportunity by further instruction to make himself efficient. Under the regulations there is a final appeal to the Military Board, and I can find no record on the file that the officer concerned ever appealed to that tribunal, which has been properly constituted to deal with such cases as his. Apparently he is under the impression that he will get a more favorable deal by going past that Court, and having his case brought before this Senate, which is the highest court of appeal available to him.

Senator Needham:

– And he has every right to appeal to this Court.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Parliament has provided a properlyconstituted Court of Appeal, but this man thought fit to ignore it.

Senator Hoare:

– - Is that a military court ?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– It is. I hope my honorable friend does not suggest that, because it is a military tribunal, it is likely to be biased. Tt is a Court composed of civil and military individuals, and, apart from the Cabinet and Governor-General, it is the senior Court for all our Military Forces. If we adopt the motion, we shall be establishing a most dangerous precedent^ and we shall be interfering seriously with the discipline of the Forces. I submit, therefore, that we should be most careful “before taking this step. The officer concerned should certainly exhaust all the protection available to him by the Courts before approaching this final Court of Appeal, the Senate, of tha Commonwealth.

Senator Payne:

– Is, an appeal to the Military Board still open to him?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Presumably it is; but, apparently, he has not taken advantage of it. Senator Needham said just now that Warrant Officer Allen should have the right to come to this Senate, with his case, and ignore the properly constituted Court of Appeal. Let us consider an analogous case - that of a man who, having been tried by a civil court, appeals to Parliament without going first to the Full Court of his State or the High Court. Unless some important principle was involved, such a course would not be tolerated in civil life. No great principle is involved in the case now under notice; but 1 have no doubt that the warrant officer concerned’ anticipates that, as a result of his appeal to this Senate, he will receive monetary benefits to which the Minister assures us he is not legally entitled. Having regard to- all the. circumstances, I think it is the duty of honorable senators to vote against the motion. I intend to oppose it, and1 I do so most reluctantly, because Senator Elliott has submitted it. This fact weighed most strongly with me. My personal inclination is to support anything that Senator Elliott may bring forward in the interests of any soldier man, but I feel that I should be lacking in my duty if 1 supported him on this occasion.

Senator REID:
Queensland

– I am at a loss to understand how it is that a man who has to his credit twentyone years’ service in the British Army and ten years’ service in the Australian Military Forces should be dismissed on the grounds of inefficiency. It is extraordinary, according to my view, that the authorities should have taken so long to find out that he was inefficient. If he was useless in the British Army, why was he employed in the Australian Military Forces ? I am reluctant to cast a vote in favour of any course that will bring personal cases before the Senate. We all have numerous requests to ventilate personal grievances, and I have always found on making representations to the Department concerned that if there is genuine cause for complaint the Department is ready to remedy it. Senator DrakeBrockman has pointed out that Warrant Officer Allen has ignored the Court of Appeal available to him.. That fact appeals to me.

Senator Hoare:

– Why quibble about it ?

Senator REID:

– I am not quibbling.

Senator McHugh:

– Give the man a trial, any way.,

Senator REID:

– Personal CCLS63 of thi3 nature should not be - brought before the Senate. At all events, they should not be the subject of a motion until the properly constituted . authorities have sat in judgment upon them. I do not want the Senate to be brought down to the level of an ordinary tribunal to try individual cases. I do not say that Senator Elliott has not got a good case, but, on principle, I question the wisdom of passing this motion. If the man had been turned) down by the court of appeal that was available to him I should have voted for the motion. 0

Senator Hoare:

– We know how the honorable senator is going to vote.

Senator REID:

– The honorable senator should keep his opinions to himself. He has scarcely been here for much more than five minutes, yet he does not hesitate to make offensive insinuations and to sit in judgment on the characters of other honorable senators. He is not now on the soap-box, lecturing to people outside.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon.

  1. Givens).- Order!

Motion (by Senator Thompson) put -

That the, debate be now adjourned.

The Seriate divided.

Ayes … . . . . 9 .

Noes … … ..10

Majority . . 7

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

.- If Senator Elliott can prove to my satisfaction that Warrant Officer Allen was denied the opportunity of appeal to the military tribunal available to him, I shall support the motion. If, however, this man deliberately refused to take advantage of that opportunity, I shall feel justified in voting against it. I realize that by adopting the motion we might be establishing a very dangerous precedent. As Senator Drake-Brockman has pointed out, we might just as well, on many occasions. consider appeals from the decisions of Judges of our civil Courts. Occasionally miscarriages of justice occur, but if we interfered with the decisions of our Courts, whether they were right or wrong, we should destroy the authority of our Judiciary. The case now under consideration is somewhat analogous. I should be exceedingly sorry to hear that any person was suffering an injustice, and if he were denied the opportunity of an appeal, I should certainly support him. If an appeal to the Military Board is provided for under the regulations, this man should have availed himself of that right before coming to this Parliament.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– I moved the adjournment of the debate in order to allow Senator Elliott, for whom I have the greatest respect, to reconsider this matter, with a view to withdrawing his motion. A soldier with his long and brilliant career should be chary about bringing before the Senate such a matter as this There is machinery for dealing thoroughly with cases of this nature. Every military tribunal gives a man an absolutely “ fair spin.” The Minister (Senator Pearce) has pointed out that there are avenues of appeal! the final one of which has not been taken advantage of by Warrant Officer Allen. Is it desirable that the Senate should deal with individual cases of this character ? I say emphatically that it is not. If this motion is carried, the precedent so established will have a far-reaching effect, and will turn the Senate into an institution it wasnever intended to be. I hope that the motion will not be agreed to.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- I desire to deal, firstof all, with the apprehension of a number of honorable senators that this will establish a precedent, and will have all sorts of disastrous consequences. As Senator Findley pointed out, a precedent has already been established in the case of Major Carroll, an investigation into which resulted in therighting of a wrong. That offifcer remained inthe service for a further twenty years. Another place has established a precedent by having appointed a Select Committee which is now inquiring into charges that were wrongfully made against one of its soldier members. cannot be said, therefore, that we shall be establishing any harmful precedent. That cry is always raised’ if there is any attempt to interfere with military discipline. I refer honorable senators to a case in which appeal was made to a civil Court, and exactly the same cry was raised. It is to be found in the Manual of Military Law, and is as follows: -

Thecase of Lieutenant Frye, which occurred in 1743, and is especially remarkable fromits sequel, is a lending authority respecting the liability of all who are parties to an illegal sentence passed by a court martial.

That sentence was passed by a tribunal established by Parliament to try offences. The report continues -

LieutenantFrye, of the Marines, was brought to a court martial at Port Royal, in Jamaica, by his captain, for disobedience in refusing to assist another lieutenant in carrying an officer prisoner on board ship without a written order from the captain. Part of the evidence produced against Lieutenant Frye at the court martial consisted of depositions made by illiterate natives, whom he had never seen or heard of. and reduced into writing several days before he was brought to trial, and uponhis objecting to the evidence he was browbeaten and overruled. Lieutenant Frye was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment, and rendered for ever incapable of serving His

Majesty, though the court had only power to award two years’ imprisonment. On his arrival in England, his case was laid before the Privy Council, and the punishment remitted by His Majesty.

Some time afterwards he brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas against Sir Chaloner Ogle, the president of the court martial, and obtained a verdict in his favour for £1,000 damages. The Chief Justice Willes, moreover, informed him that he was at liberty to bring his action against any of the other members of the court martial. Accordingly, Lieutenant Frye obtained writs againstRearAdmiral Mayne and Captain Benton, which were served on them at the breaking up of another court martial held on Vice-Admiral Lestock, at Deptford, at which they were members.

The members of this court highly resented this proceeding-

They always do - and drew up resolutions in which they expressed themselves with some acrimony against the Chief Justice, and forwarded them to the Lords of the Admiralty. In these resolutions they demanded “satisfaction for the high insult on their president from all persons, how high soever in office, who have set on foot this arrest, or in any degree advised or promoted it.” The Lords of the Admiralty laid the resolutions before His Majesty; and the Duke of Newcastle, by His Majesty’s command, wrote to the Lords of the Admiralty expressing “His Majesty’s great displeasure at the insult offered to the court martial, by which the military discipline of the navy is so much affected; and the King highly disapproves of the conduct of Lieutenant Frye on the occasion.”

There we have very high authority for objecting to interference with the discipline of the Army.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– That did not interfere with Frye’s right of appeal to all the Courts set up; and, in fact,he did appeal to them.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– Quite so. This is how the Chief Justice dealt with that plea -

The Chief Justice, as soon as he heard of the resolution of the court martial, causedeach individual member to be taken into custody, and wasproceeding further to assert and maintain the authority of his office when the following submission (signed by the president and all the members of the court martial on Vice-Admiral Lestock) was transmitted to him : “ As nothing is more becoming a gentleman than to acknowledge himself to be in the wrong, so soon as he is sensible he is so, and to make satisfaction to any person he has injured, we, therefore, whose names are underwritten, being thoroughly convinced that we were entirely mistaken in the opinion we had conceived of Mr. Chief Justice Willes, think ourselves obliged in honour, as well as justice, to make him satisfaction as far as is in our power.”

Senator Kingsmill:

– Was that done after they had been taken into custody?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– Yes. The report goes on to say - “ And as the injury we did him was of a public nature, we do in this public manner declare that we are now satisfied the reflections cast upon him in our resolutions of the 16th and 21st of May last were unjust, unwarrantable, and without any foundation whatsoever: and we do ask pardon of his lordship and of the Court of Common Pleas for the indignity offered both to him and the Court.” This paper was dated the 10th November, 1746, and on its reception in the Court of Common Pleas was read aloud and ordered to be registered “ as a memorial,” said the Chief Justice, “ to the present and future ages, that whosoever set themselves up in opposition to the law, or think themselves above the law, will in the end find themselves mistaken.”

We are equally the custodians of our freedom. I have risen from theranks. The first thing that I tellrecruits is, “ Boys, you join up of your own free will. If you have any grievance, and it is not redressed, you can go right on to Parliament and have it redressed.”

Senator Pearce:

– You do not tell them that they can go past their commanding officer to Parliament.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– They can go through their commanding officer to Parliament.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

-Bbockman. - In this case, that action was not taken.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– The first thing I say to them is, “ No matter how much you are oppressed, carry out your job and in the end justice will be done to you.” If we pass lightly over this application, we shall give the lie to anything that has been said to them on that head. Because of the necessities of our case, we have departed from the ancient practice of the British nation under which every man has the choice of saying whether he will serve his country in arms or not. Our boys are compelled to serve whether they will or no. It is, therefore, incumbent on us to see that we do not barter away . this liberty to too great an extent, or we shall find ourselves in time of need without an army. It is said that the way to a higher tribunal is always open. That right to approach a higher tribunal was most deliberately departed from during the war. I have brought before the Minister for Defence the case of Captain McLennan. He had the right of appeal either to the

Minister - which was secured to him by the Defence Act - or to the Council of Defence in England - which was secured to him by the Army Act. He was told in black and white by the highest member of our staff that he had no such right; thatthe General Officer Commanding the Australian Forces was the sole authority. That was a deliberate flouting of the law of the land.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– But that did not take from him his right.

Senator ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

-No ; it did not. He endeavoured to appeal to the Minister. He was told that unless he withdrew the appeal he would be court martialed for disobeying orders. Having no other way open to him, he sent all the papers out to his father in Australia. His father approached the Minister for Defence in Melbourne, and said, “ Here is my boy’s appeal.” The answer was, “ I refer you to the General Officer Commanding, Australian Forces, who is the sole authority, notwithstanding the law.”

Senator Pearce:

– So he was on that occasion, as we were at war.

Senator ELLIOTT:

-I brought this matter before the Minister. His reply was, “ The man had an appeal to me. Appealwas not made by the man himself, but by his father.” Could one put forward a more pettifogging quibble than that? The man was threatened with arrest and court martial if he exercised his right of appeal. He delegated that right to his father, and appeal was refused him on the ground that it was not he who lodged the appeal. On another occasion I brought my own case before the Senate. I wished to appeal to the Minister, and was told that if I persisted in doing so I would be returned to Australia as an undesirable. When I brought my case before the Minister, he said, “Your plain duty was to have persisted in that appeal, and if you had been illegally sent away as an undesirable I would have dealt with the matter.” I ask honorable senators to say what sort of an alternative was that to put before an officer - that he must either desert his men in the field at a most critical moment or to submit to his rights being taken from him. In Allen’s case several difficulties presented themselves. He was not accused of a crime, technically; therefore he was not punished, but was merely pushed out of the service. According to our regulations it is by no means clear that he could have appealed from that decision. The Act and regulations purport to make the Divisional Commander the final court of appeal. Allen several times protested, but he was never able to get past his Divisional Commander. What was he to do? I do not know the man personally, though he has seen me twice. He went to the then member for his district (Mr. Wise), who examined his case and thought that he had a perfect right to that for which he was asking. The matter was carried to a considerable length, but Mr. Wise lost his seat, and the whole thing fell through . Mr. Paterson next took up the case, and was convinced of its justice. When he read the file and found that there was a charge of inefficiency, and that the Divisional Commander was the sole judge, he said it was impossible to do anything further.

Senator Reid:

– Did this man lose his right of appeal after he was dismissed from the service?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– It is extremely doubtful if there is any appeal in a case of this description. If a man is accused of a crime and is punished, undoubtedly he has the right of appeal. In this case it was simply said, “ This man is not fit for duty, we will discharge him”; and the final arbiter in such a case is the Divisional Commander.

Senator Reid:

– After the Divisional Commander had dismissed him, and he was out of the service, had he any right of appeal to a higher authority?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– The regulations appear to constitute the Divisional Commander the sole judge. That is the difficulty that this Warrant Officer has been confronted with all along. Even tonight the Minister (Senator Pearce) has said that the discretion of the General Officer Commanding, who is the sole judge, cannot be interfered with.

Senator Cox:

– Does the honorable senator mean to say that this man has not a right of appeal ?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– The Minister has said so.

Senator Pearce:

– No. I said that he had the right of appeal to the Military Board.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– The Minister said this evening that, if we overruled a decision of the Divisional General, it would destroy the whole effect of the Defence Act. No honorable senator will accuse me of being a lax disciplinarian, or of countenancing anything that would lead to lax discipline, but I always believe in giving a man a fair deal. When I was in the ranks as a corporal in South Africa I was brought before my Captain. An old. English sergeant-major suggested that I should be reduced to the ranks, and he said,” Corporal Elliott will never make a non-commissioned officer. He has -too much sympathy with the men.” I maintain that discipline among Australian soldiers can only be secured by insuring to them an absolutely fair deal. That is all I am asking for in the present case. The Defence Department has already given away half its case, because it has now agreed to pay Allen one of the amounts claimed by him. That fact alone would justify my application for the appointment of a Select Committee. Nothing short of the motion I have tabled would have secured for him even that small measure of justice. When he could not produce receipts for a few pounds’ worth of furniture in respect of which he was entitled to make a removal claim, he was refused means of redress against the action taken against htm. This shows the maze of red tape and technicalities through which a man must hew. his way in order to obtain any degree of justice whatever. Warrant Officer Allen is said to be inefficient, and Senator Reid has remarked on the fact that he served for twenty-one years in the British Army. I point out that he was not connected with an ordinary regiment, but with one of the smartest - the Hussars - who pride themselves on their smartness and military discipline. He rose in successive steps to the highest non-commissioned rank, that of Regimental Sergeant-Ma j or. When the late Sir Hector Macdonald reached the same rank his Colonel remarked to him, “ You have achieved a position in the British Army which is equivalent to that of a member of Parliament.” * When Warrant Officer Allen’s term of service in India was nearing an end, he was selected by General Stanley from among all the non-commissioned officers in India to act as an instructor of Light Horse in Australia. He passed the prescribed examination, and became a Regimental Sergeant-Major. When the late war broke out he was selected as an instructor of Light Horse, and was sent into camp. He repeatedly volunteered for active service, but was refused permission to go to the Front, because it was said that his- services in Australia were indispensable. When the war was over he was approaching the age of fifty years, and was naturally beginning to be less active than when he was twenty years younger. I do not intend to assert that as an instructor of Light Horse in Australia he was quite as efficient as younger non-commissioned officers; but he was -not, as was suggested by Senator Drake-Brockman, warned of his inefficiency, and sent to a school, where he made no improvement. He was actually at a school of instruction, and he did not come up to the standard of the others, but the cause was never investigated. He assures me that he could produce medical evidence that he was suffering from gall stones, which cause agonizing pain. He was by no means anxious to “go sick,” and perhaps be discharged, because his time would be up within three months. He endeavoured, therefore, to conceal his trouble, and carry on as best he could in the circumstances, in the hope that he would be permitted to re-enlist - as he was, in fact, allowed to do - for a further three years. It was almost inevitable that under such conditions the officerincharge would report that he was not very efficient.

Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

– There was no necessity for him to be concerned about “going sick,” and being discharged. Any non-commissioned officer can always obtain leave on the ground of sickness.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– But when an instructor is nearing the end of his period of service, he does not wish to leave any loophole that might prejudice his future career,, and he certainly would be anxious not to betray any symptoms of serious illness. After the camp, he came up for re-attestation for a further period of three years. Surely if there was any complaint of a grave nature against him that was the time to make it known ; but be was sworn in for another three years. Then the second charge was laid. It was an accusation of a different nature, and this time it related to his duties as quartermaster. He was stationed in Gippsland, where the 13th Light Horse has a great many troops at widely scattered places. I am informed there are seventeen separate stations. He received orders that there would be a camp a fortnight later. He had taken on a great number of recruits, and he was ordered to -have the men equipped within a fortnight. Having a great quantity of supplies to distribute, he wondered how he could get them out in time. The other instructors were on leave. He made out the issue cards, showing the articles he had in stock, and he sent the cards to each of the local drill halls, intending that the noncommissioned officers in charge there should see that they were correctly filled in. It was this man’s responsibility to make sure that that was done. A great many of the men did not see the. use of the articles, and although they signed a card for the whole of them, they left a number of the articles behind in the drill halls. When the cards came in the camp was cancelled, because the necessary vote to meet the expenses had not been passed.. Immediately afterwards, a staff officer of ordnance checked the equipment, and discovered certain irregularities. Not that Warrant Officer Allen was short of equipment. On the contrary, he had still in the drill-rooms equipment, for which signatures had been given ; but that is a great crime in the Army. On active service, one cannot avoid the occurrence of irregularities. One of the officers of this Parliament, Mr. F. C. Green, Clerk of the Papers of the House of Representatives, was a captain . in the 40th Battalion overseas, and the following extract ‘from his book, The Fortieth, to be found in the Parliamentary Library, shows the kind of farce that is gone through -

The return of battalion stores was a much more solemn aflair. Nearly every one was worried by it to some extent, but the concentrated responsibility fell, in the end, on the quartermaster. Everything that had ever been issued to us in France had to be accounted for in some way - either handed in to D.A.D.O.S., or struck off by proper authority, before the final ceremony of return to Ordnance. With the gear in actual use there was not, as a rule, much trouble. The Lewis Gun officer and the Signalling officer could be trusted to have, not only the stores they ought to have, but ‘ a great deal more that they ought not to have; and only a little care was needed to see that the surplus was discreetly lost at the proper moment. The Transport men also were equally sure to have all the gear they wanted (and a little more). But in the outfitting of a battalion, according to War Office regulations, an extraordinary number of articles were included - particularly in harness and other transport gear - for which no one had any use. These had been promptly lost in the Flanders mud at the first opportunity. No requisition had ever been put in to replace them, and their existence had been forgotten. Their purpose in life, in some cases, had never been known. So when the careful quartermaster came back from a visit to D.A.D.O.S. armed with an encyclopaedic list of everything that had to be accounted for, the Transport men found themselves called upon to produce an article as to which they had not the faintest idea whether it was a piece of harness, a fitting of a limber, a blacksmith’s tool, or an instrument of veterinary science. As the end approached, stories went about of quartermasters and adjutants and commanding officers of expiring units being brought back to France to clear up deficiencies, and a shade of gloom fell across Battalion Head-Quarters^ though, the Medical Officer, Captain J. S. Reed, specially organized a jazz band to combat depression. But the quartermaster, Captain Hor.ler, rose to the occasion. There was a way of accounting satisfactorily for every conceivable deficiency with proper care and forethought. At the cost of a month’s very strenuous work, carried out under the principle of believing nothing until you had seen it yourself, Captain Horler passed the ordeal with flying colours, and the battalion went out with a clean sheet in the matter of stores. Of course, we found afterwards that we had taken rather more trouble than was usual or necessary; but it helped to keep us “occupied and to enliven the dreariness of billets at Tours-en- -Vimeu.

Yet Warrant Officer Allen was “ crucified “ for the offence of having more stores than he should have had.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Oh, no !

Senator ELLIOTT:

– The circumstances in connexion with the Light Horse Camp in Gippsland were equivalent to those, of active service, because the various units were scattered over 200 square miles of country. In such a case it is inevitable that some of the red-tape methods must be departed from. Thousands of pounds worth of material would have to be thrown away during war time if the regulations were rigidly adhered to, and a quartermaster wished to avoid trouble. If Allen had destroyed the material on his hands, he would have escaped criticism.

Senator Cox:

– Does the honorable senator mean that that is the way things are done in Victoria? Is not the man to whom material is issued responsible for it?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– Yes.

Senator Cox:

– If the men were allowed to sign for the equipment, and then did not take itaway, this man neglected his job, and he is not fit to hold it.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– There speaks a type of intellect that makes possible such affairs as this !

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator said that he was not quite clear about there being a court of appeal; but regulation 459 clearly gives this man a court of appeal.

Senator ELLIOTT:

-. I know that he has repeatedly protested against being dismissed, but he has not been able to get his case past the Divisional Commander. The regulation to which the Minister has referred me states that if a soldier thinks himself wronged by any officer, he may appeal right up to the Military Board. In this case the man did appeal, as far as lay in his power. He protested in writing, but his protest did not go further than the Divisional Commander. The Military Board never knew anything about it.

Senator Pearce:

– Yes. There is a minute here from the Military Board. There was not an appeal from the soldier, but a communication from the commanding officer. There is a letter on the file, from the man himself, in which he states that he did not appeal to the Board.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– I ask leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1642

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

SecondReading.

Debate resumed from 19th July (vide page 1302), on motionby Senator Grant -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

– I desire to direct the attention of honorable senators to some aspects of our income tax law, which I think should be considered. As the Act stands at present, 5 per cent. of the capital value of a taxpayer’s residence is included as income, and the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction of any interest paid on borrowed money to acquire his residence, as well as toa deduction for fire insurance thereon, and in respect to repairs effected. The recent Royal Commission on Taxation dealt exhaustively with the Federal Income Tax Assessment Act, but it did not make any proposals for the amendment of this section. On page 163 of its third report it recommended a continuation of the section which allows a deduction of interest on a mortgage of the taxpayer’s residence. It may, therefore, be taken that the Royal Commission saw no inequity in the taxation as income of 5 per cent. of the capital value of the taxpayer’s residence. If the section in question were not included in the Act, a very considerable inequity would arise in the treatment of a taxpayer who had money invested in his own property compared with a taxpayer who, for various reasons, occupies a rented property, and invests his money in other income-producing ways. As an illustration, the following will suffice: - “A” owns the house he occupies, worth £1,000, and has an income of £500. He would be assessed for income tax purposes to pay tax on £500 if this measure were passed by Parliament. “ B “ has a business income of £500, and has £1,000 invested, and bringing him in taxable interest of £50 per annum. He occupies a rented property, for which he pays 25s. a week, but he would be assessed for Federal taxation purposes on the, income of £550, and his tax would be the same as that of “ A,” although his effective income, after payment of rent, would be less than “A,” who has no rent whatever to pay. Therefore, if this measure became law, its effect would be to exempt from taxation the more well-to-do members of the community, who own a house, as against those who do not own property, and who pay rent. If we are in the humour to make further income tax. exemptions, they should be in the direction of benefiting not those who are fortunate enough to own a house, but those who have to pay rent. I cannot understand the solicitude of Senator Grant for what he might term the property-owning class, in whose interest this Bill has been framed . I understand a recommendation has already been submitted to the Treasurer by a Special Committee appointed by him, consisting of Messrs. Templeton, Mills, and Weldon, of Victoria, and Mr. Stevens, of New South Wales, for the amendment of section 16e of the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1922, to alter 5 per cent. to 4 per cent., and also to provide that the only deduction to be allowed from this sum shall be interest, if any, paid on a mortgage of the house. That, of course, would be a reduction in. the interest, but it would not alter the present principle. Honorable senators are well aware that’ a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers is proceeding, at which arrangements will probably be made for the Commonwealth to vacate, if not the whole, at least a part of the field of income taxation, and, while these negotiations are proceeding, we should not amend our income tax law. I would suggest to Senator Grant that he allow the discussion of this measure to stand over until that question has been decided. If a division is to be taken at this juncture, I advise honorable senators to oppose the second reading of the Bill, for the reasons I have given.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the debate be now adjourned.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I call attention to the absence of a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Question - That the debate be now adjourned - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 8

Majority 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Debate adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 9.46 . p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 July 1923, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1923/19230726_senate_9_104/>.