/
19100831_reps_4_56.xml
8160 lines (8160 loc) · 596 KB
/
19100831_reps_4_56.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1910-08-31</date>
<parliament.no>4</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>2287</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para>HouseofRepresentatives. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1910-08-31</day.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline>Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>2287</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>FEDERAL CAPITAL</title>
<page.no>2287</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Care of Aboriginals</para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2287</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDD</name.id>
<electorate>NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr G B EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- Has the at tention of the Minister of Home Affairs been drawn to the statement that some aboriginal natives of Australia have been removed from a settlement in 'the YassCanberra district, and that " Queen Lucy and Princess Julia " strongly object to the proceeding? Will the honorable member inquire into the matter, with a view to considering the advisability of taking under the Commonwealth, care all aboriginal natives who might be considered naturally attached to the soil of the Federal Territory ? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2287</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5D</name.id>
<electorate>DARWIN, TASMANIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Minister for Home Affairs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">O'MALLEY, King</name>
<name role="display">Mr KING O'MALLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I saw in a newspaper the statement referred to, and the suggestion of the honorable member will have my attention. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>HOURS OF SITTING</title>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNV</name.id>
<electorate>HERBERT, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BAMFORD, Frederick</name>
<name role="display">Mr BAMFORD</name>
</talker>
<para>- Seeing that he is entirely ignoring the principle of an eight hours' day, will the Prime Minister recognise the principle of a forty-four hours' week? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate>WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Prime Minister</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I should be glad to do so, but we must sacrifice ourselves a little for the good of the country. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>RAILWAY ACCIDENT, TASMANIA</title>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JUV</name.id>
<electorate>FRANKLIN, TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCWILLIAMS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr McWILLIAMS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to know from the Minister representing the Minister of Defence if -the papers concerning the railway accident which occurred in Tasmania during the visit of Lord Kitchener have yet been obtained? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JX9</name.id>
<electorate>KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Minister (without portfolio)</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FRAZER, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr FRAZER</name>
</talker>
<para>- They are in the possession of the Department, and will be laid on the table of the library for the honorable member's perusal. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>UNIFORM RAILWAY GAUGE : MONO-RAIL</title>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWO</name.id>
<electorate>COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CATTS, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr J H CATTS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to know from the Minister of Home Affairs whether, to provide rapid transport as a corollary to an effective defence system, steps have been taken to arrive at an understanding with, the Governments of the States concerning the abolition of breaks of railway gauges and the establishment of a uniform gauge? Is he of opinion that the Commonwealth should bear part of the expense of making the alterations necessary to bring that about? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">O'MALLEY, King</name>
<name role="display">Mr KING O'MALLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- We are looking into the matter. As to the Commonwealth bearing part of the expense of any alteration, that is a question of policy. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KW8</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMSON, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr John Thomson</name>
</talker>
<para>- I draw attention to the fact that I have on the noticepaper a question bearing on this subject. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTT</name.id>
<electorate>PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SMITH, Arthur</name>
<name role="display">Mr BRUCE SMITH</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to know whether the Minister can give the House an estimate of the cost of looking into this matter. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">O'MALLEY, King</name>
<name role="display">Mr KING O'MALLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- As soon as I can make up the figures, I shall present them to the honorable member. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JSM</name.id>
<electorate>CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BROWN, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Mr THOMAS BROWN</name>
</talker>
<para>- In considering the matter, will the Minister have full inquiry made as 'to the possibility of adopting the mono- rail system? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5D</name.id>
<electorate>DARWIN, TASMANIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Minister for Home Affairs</role>
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">O'MALLEY, King</name>
<name role="display">Mr KING O'MALLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>-O'MALLEY. - That possibility will have to be carefully examined. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CATTS, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr J H CATTS</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is it the intention of the Government to call a conference of the railway commissioners of the States with a view to considering the adoption of a uniform gauge ? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">O'MALLEY, King</name>
<name role="display">Mr KING O'MALLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- We are considering that now. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K99</name.id>
<electorate>LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JOHNSON, Elliot</name>
<name role="display">Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Will the Minister obtain information from the most scientific sources as to the value of the new mono-rail and gyroscope- combination railway scheme about which so much has been written, before taking any decisive step in connexion with Commonwealth railway construction? </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">O'MALLEY, King</name>
<name role="display">Mr KING O'MALLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- Our present object is to come to some understanding with the States so that all future railways may be constructed on the same gauge, but the value of the mono-rail system is also under investigation. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>NATURALIZATION</title>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYD</name.id>
<electorate>GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">POYNTON, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Mr POYNTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that a large number of worthy persons, men fit for any position, are suffering hardship by reason of the conditions imposed by our Naturalization Act. Will he consult with the Minister of External Affairs to see whether an amending measure cannot be introduced to enable these men to become naturalized and enjoy all the iprivileges of citizenship? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not know what amendment of the Act the honorable member asks for, but if there are worthy persons resident in the Commonwealth who are under disability by reason of our naturalization law the Government will take into favorable consideration the honorable member's suggestion. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>NOTICE OF QUESTIONS</title>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask honorable mem bers to give two days' notice of questions in future, because when the House meets at 10.30 a.m. it is impossible to obtain in less time the information necessary to reply to them. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>POSTMASTER-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT</title>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para class="block">Sydney Suburban Switchboards - South Australian Contract Postmasters and Postmistresses - Port HedlandPost Office. </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2288</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K99</name.id>
<electorate>LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JOHNSON, Elliot</name>
<name role="display">Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Postmaster-General, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>How many Sydney suburban exchanges hare been fitted up with new telephone switchboards? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>How many such exchanges is it proposed to instal with new switchboards? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>How long is it expected that the work will take to complete? </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>How many permanent men are engaged in the work of erecting new telephones and switchboards and new exchange switchboards, exclusive of those employed at the workshop benches? </para>
</item>
<item label="5.">
<para>How many temporary men are similarly employed, and for what periods have they been so employed ? </para>
</item>
<item label="6.">
<para>In view of the continuous expansion of the telephone system, and the experience gained by temporary fitters and others engaged in telephonic construction work, would it not be advisable to strengthen the permanent staff by the addition of the more expert and proficient of those employed on the temporary staff? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2289</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K8L</name.id>
<electorate>BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Postmaster-General</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMAS, Josiah</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSIAH THOMAS</name>
</talker>
<para>- Inquiries are being made, and the desired information will be furnished as soon as possible. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2289</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KI9</name.id>
<electorate>BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LIVINGSTON, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr LIVINGSTON</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the PostmasterGeneral, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Whether he will take into consideration the advisability of appointing relieving officers to relieve contract postmasters and postmistresses in South Australia, as at present it appears to be almost impossible to get capable officers to relieve them under existing conditions? </para>
</quote>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2289</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K8L</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMAS, Josiah</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSIAH THOMAS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I shall make inquiries into the matter. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2289</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KLB</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MAHON, Hugh</name>
<name role="display">Mr W ATKINS, for Mr Mahon</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Postmaster-General, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>When was the condition of the postal build ing at Port Hedland first brought to the notice of the Department? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Has anything been since done to give in creased accommodation, and, if not, why? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Is he aware that owing to Port Hedland being the terminus of the Marble Bar Railway, the business there has greatly increased recently, and that the space hitherto reserved in the postal building for the postmaster and his family is now required and is being used for the storage of mail bags, parcels, &c. ? </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>Does he consider it desirable that the postmasters at tropical stations like Port Hedland should be compelled to live apart from their families owing to the absence of proper accommodation for the latter? </para>
</item>
<item label="5.">
<para>If so, will he consider the propriety of increasing such postmasters' salaries so as to permit of their maintaining two homes? </para>
</item>
</list>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2289</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K8L</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMAS, Josiah</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSIAH THOMAS</name>
</talker>
<para>- Inquiries are being made, and the desired information will be furnished as early as possible. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL</title>
<page.no>2289</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Debate resumed from 30th August <inline font-style="italic">(vide</inline> page 2244), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline></para>
<para class="block">FlSHER - </para>
<para class="block">That this Bill be now read a second time. </para>
<para class="block">Upon which <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deakin</inline> had moved by way of amendement - </para>
<quote>
<para>That after the word "That" the following words be inserted : - " the form of land tax outlined by the Prime Minister, and provided for in. this Bill, is unjust in its incidence and an abuse of Federal powers." </para>
</quote>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2289</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate>Angas</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>.- When through the courtesy of the House, the debate was adjourned last night, I had mentioned that to apply the progressive principle to taxation is economically unsound, and untrue to the intention of the Government in exempting holdings not exceeding £5,000 in value: that it is bad also because consideration <inline font-style="italic">}p</inline> not given to area as well as to value,- and therefore serious injustice will be done to a large class of settlers. The application of the tax should have been limited to effective areas - that is, to land suitable for agriculture now held in pastoral occupation. Such land might properly be subjected to a land tax, not of a revolutionary character, but sufficient to bring about subdivision, and more productive use. The taxation of land values is generally sought to be justified on the ground that the monopoly which arises from the occupancy of land by one class is, in its indirect effect, opposed to the equality of opportunity upon which a well-constituted State must be established. At this stage of our development it is impossible to give the equality of opportunity at which we aim by adopting the principle of collective ownership. Some other means of obtaining for the State a fair return from its land without doing injustice to interests created under the present system must be sought for, and a fair land tax has been regarded as the best means of giving the State what is regarded as its clue. An impost on land has been described by some writers as not a tax but the assertion of the public servitude in land, the significance of which I shall attempt to show a little later. Let us see what the leading writers on the subject have said. I shall mention a few authorities, without quoting extensively from them, upon the justification and <inline font-style="italic">rationale</inline> of land taxation. Adam Smith states the principle that the rent of Crown lands constituted for a long time the greater part of the revenue of the ancient sovereigns of European States, and points out that every improvement in the circumstances of society tends either directly or indirectly to raise the real rent of land ; that is, the rent due to the increase of population, the application of labour, or the competition of population for land. He also says that plenty of good land and liberty to manage their own affairs seem to be the two great causes of the prosperity of all new colonies. Coming to Mill and modern times, to which, as I have said, the collective principle of ownership is utterly inapplicable, except in States of imperfect development or low political organization - some of which do exist at present - that writer says that the privilege or monopoly is only defensible as a necessary evil. Discussing this question, in one of his greatest works, and recognising the justice of a land tax, Goethe says that it must be in a suitable degree - in other words, that it must not be confiscatory, or imposed without considering the existing conditions of society, to the creation of which we have had every one's consent through their representatives, or the fact that the alleged evils have grown up under circumstances for which every class is responsible. So that we cannot throw ourselves back on the absolute principle advocated by Henry George and others, and regard present day society as one in relation to which we have an absolutely clean sheet for the purposes <inline font-style="italic">of</inline> our legislation. Goethe, in discussing this matter, says that while the tax is justified, it must be in a suitable degree, and the matter of justification seems to be clinched by Burke, when he says that in a country of monopoly there -can be no patriotism. I state these propositions because they undoubtedly ought to appeal to honorable members on the opposite side of the House. They also very largely touch the sympathies, as regards reforms, of a good many honorable members on this side. But there are two governing conditions which ought not to be forgotten ; first, that it must be a tax and not an attempt at confiscation, and second, that the tax, as between owners, ought to be proportioned to the privilege. Neither of these conditions is, I hold, satisfied by the proposals of the Government. Let us now see what the departure from principle, by allowing an exemption of £5,000 in value, means. On this point it is exceedingly difficult to get correct statistics. On Monday last I put a few questions to some officers in the South Australian Taxation Department, and from the answers received, I draw the inference' that the total unimproved value of land in that State on the 1st January. 1910. was £35,201,000. I do not think that that is the valuation for the next five years, which has to be made this year, and which, I believe, is to date from the middle of the year. Probably it is the corrected valuation which was -made on the last assessments for the purposes of the present tax. Of that, the unimproved value of land above .£5,000 <inline font-style="italic">in</inline> value - there being two grades in the State - is £1 1.945,000, so that the exemption of ,£5,000 means the release from taxation of land to the value °- £23'225,000 out of a total of £35:301;000- I ask honorable members on the other side how can they, from the point of view of taxation, justify that sweeping exemption throughout the Commonwealth ? In other words, what is the justification for such a class tax as would place the burden, and necessarily a much greater burden than otherwise would be proposed, upon one-third and exempt twothirds of the land values right through the Commonwealth? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2290</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">QUICK, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir John Quick</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is that the valuation of freehold land in South Australia ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2290</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- It includes -freeholds and such leaseholds, which are comparatively few, as are subject to the tax. In South Australia, we have Crown lessees who have the right of purchase and perpetual lessees, whose land is not subject, as it ought to be, to revaluation every fourteen years. The proper system of leasing, and the one which we advocated right through in South Australia, was, " Stop the sale of Crown lands, lease in perpetuity on a rent based on the unimproved value, and assess the rent periodically, according to that unimproved value." But, unfortunately, even some of our honorable friends in the Labour party departed from that principle. I was importuned quite as much as they were, to give the right of purchase to perpetual lessees. It is the same old principle of human selfishness right through the market, whether its advocates be Labour men or not. Men who took up workingmen's blocks have importuned me in Adelaide to impress upon the State Government the necessity of giving them the right of purchase. I refused, but the right of purchase, I believe, has been given, and very early, under the operation of this splendid system of perpetual leasing, we departed from the true principle to be deduced from the authorities I have mentioned of periodically assessing the rent, according to the increase or the diminution of the unimproved value. Honorable members will see that, from the point of view of taxation, as well as equality, a great leakage is involved in the exemption of £5,000. What must it mean? When the necessity of greater revenue arises in the Commonwealth, iit will mean, if the principle is right, a great increase of taxation upon lands over £5,000 in value. And it will mean, of course, the necessity, when a State has to raise greater revenue, to plant it on land under that value. So that really this is not the sop which some persons think it is to small holders. It is not in the long run a very effective move, because it is merely a shelving of the unpopularity of the tax from this Parliament on to the State Legislature. But there can be found an exemption which will be quite consistent with the true 'theory of '.taxation, and it is one which we did urge over twenty years ago in the State Parliament. If you make your exemption so that it will be consistent with the principle of a so-called unearned increment, then it ought to be per acreage. You ought to exempt approximately the amount per acre which was originally paid to the State, and if you do that it will mean, not an unfair advantage, but a great benefit to the agriculturist, the man whose land value is largely represented by the application to it of his capital, his labour, and his enterprise. It will be a very great benefit to him. The unearned increment increases as you go along, until you get to the very centre of your big cities, when the exemption will be comparatively small j your tax under the system I suggest will fall upon the holder of practically only the added value. Suppose that your exemption is, say, £2 an acre - it might be £1, but I. suggest £2 if you want to commence with a pretty liberal exemption. According to the figures df; the Prime Minister, the sold land brought to the State Governments £123,000,000. He stated that the Victorian increase was about five times the amount of the value originally, as determined by the purchase money. If you take then, five times the value of the land when sold by the State - and that was set down at about £123,000,000 - we get a total unimproved .value of £615,000,000. That, if anything, may be under the estimate, because the Attorney-General yesterday made a rough estimate of about £71.4,000,000 as being the value of the lands, the number of whose owners he stated. . Deducting your £2 an acre, that would mean a deduction of £246,000,000, and there would remain to be taxed £370,000,000, which, at a tax of id., would yield about £1,451,000. In other words, it would give the Commonwealth what the Treasurer says he will get, about £1,000,000 a year for Federal purposes; and it would give the States, by an arrange ment which could easily be come to with them, between £500,000 and £600,000, being the amount, approximately, of their present receipts from taxation of land. There is no revolution involved in that. It is a fair tax ; it is not oppressive, it avoids duplication, and it will tend, as a somewhat similar tax has tended in South Australia, to the diminution of large estates, which are purely agricultural, and which are being run for pastoral purposes. The Treasurer stated that the present land taxation in four States yielded £599,000. He mentioned, I think, a revenue of £351,000 for four States, but, the tax being municipal in New South Wales, the total taxation, whether it is received by municipalities by permission of the Government, or by the States, would be about £600,000. Such a tax as I have mentioned would practically give the States what they have at present, and yield us, without any confiscation or undue pressure, a revenue such as the Treasurer estimates from what I consider an unjust method of taxation. Summed up, such a method would be economic taxation. It would, as I said, relieve the agriculturists. It would get a return from the increased value; in proportion to it, and without confiscation. It would induce subdivision, and do so without gradually congesting the market, which is a very serious matter. Now, on that point, let me mention that in about 1858, the British Parliament passed what was known as the Encumbered Estates Court Act, for the purpose of enabling mortgagees of Irish land to sell out expeditiously, and give a parliamentary title. In Ireland there is. under this legislation, a Court called the Landed Estates Court. It supervises the sale of landed properties, and gives, on the title being cleared up, a parliamentary title. The result of the passing of that measure, and bringing it into force at once throughout the land, was that estates, whose true value was twenty-four and twenty-five years' purchase of the rental, were sold for six and seven years' purchase of the rental. In> other words, men had, in cases, lost fromtwo thirds to three-fourths of the truevalue of their properties through the sudden congestion of the market, by a measure similar in operation to this one. If VOL do force - and I do not believe that yon can, because men will have to bear this' tax - to the limits of your desire and your policy, large estates on the market, it will mean a serious declination in prices - to an extent which no man could honestly justify. We must be fair in this matter. When you have attained your ideal of destroying all interest above £5,000 in value, what then? Are you to stop then? Are you to come down, or declare that to be a permanent ideal? I merely ask the question. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2292</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTT</name.id>
<electorate>PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SMITH, Arthur</name>
<name role="display">Mr BRUCE SMITH</name>
</talker>
<para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Stewart</inline> said that this was only the thin edge of a wedge. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2292</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- T think that that statement was repeated during the last campaign. I believe it is the policy of the Victorian Labour party to adopt an exemption of £500, but in any case the amount will come gradually down. I think that the country is entitled to an express statement on this point from the Government. If we recognise their so-called mandate, and indorse their policy, what will be the result of its attainment? A subdivision down to areas worth £5,000. While it is our duty to criticise according to our lights - I hope, paying every deference to the motives which animate honorable members opposite - some of us have been quite as liberal on the point of taxation, andthe Federal taxation of land, as have honorable members supporting the Government. When the question of Customs and Excise was discussed in the Federal Convention, and some delegates argued that the Commonwealth should never exercise, while some thought it should never have, the power of taxation, I said in Adelaide, and repeated in Sydney, that, if I thought that the Commonwealth was never to have the power of lightening the load of indirect taxation by the exercise of the power of direct taxation, I should advise the people to vote against the Constitution. It was understood that this power should be given to us in reserve - that is how it is understood in America, as I shall show from decisions of the Supreme Court - to be used, as was stated by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, when the decline in the Customs and Excise revenue showed the necessity of imposing a direct tax. At the Sydney sittings of the Convention, it was thought that a very liberal margin on the figures we had in Adelaide would put the new expenditure of the Commonwealth for many years at £600,000 per annum. That estimate has been exceeded, but I said then that if our new expenditure were not to exceed that amount, then, but for the fact that we were merely framers of the Constitution, and had no mandate as to policy from the people, I should not object to make provision for that expenditure by a fair land tax throughout Australia. I said - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>I certainly would go in for a direct tax -as a method of meeting the general expenditure in preference to the system of Customs duties which so unduly absorbs the earnings of the people .... The value of the land which would be taxed would be a perfect barometer of the state of the industrial and commercial atmosphere. The Tise and fall of the wealth of the State might be accurately gauged by the existing condition of land values. 1 did not desire to abolish Customs duties, because in a country like this we could not do so ; but I said that when it became a question of apportioning taxation according to necessities and earnings, amongst the community, one had to consider the equity of some measure of direct taxation, as against what was very often the grinding burden of our extreme indirect taxation. Our aim should be to avoid duplication. This Bill does not attempt anything of the kind. On the contrary, it brings about duplication, two imposts on_ one owner. Our aim, further, should be to attain simplicity. But there is no simplicity in this measure. It does not provide for a tax that will be uniform, even with the South Australian tax, which is a true tax upon land values; and its framers have not remembered that what they ought to propose is taxation, not confiscation. When <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McPherson,</inline> the leader of the Labour party in the South Australian Parliament, in 1895, tabled a motion to transfer to direct taxation some of the burden of indirect taxation upon the necessaries of life, I supported him ; but I pointed out that we must not confiscate. I urged that " to nationalize by confiscation all rental values would be unjust and impolitic." I make that quotation, in order to prevent any misapprehension of the scope of my proposals. The conditions, as I have said, are such as at present involve, at all events, relative duties. We cannot apply abstract theories to the taxation of a society in which millions of money are invested on behalf of comparatively small men - men who have only a meagre competence - through the agency of various institutions. The Australian Mutual Provident Society, for instance, which is a very beneficial institution, being based upon the mutual principle, has something like 70,000 policyholders, and an investment of , £12,000,000 or . £13, 000,000 on mortgages of land. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Such investments must be recognised in any scheme of taxation, and if we impose a destructive land tax, we shall confiscate the earnings gained by a very deserving class from investments on land. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2293</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTT</name.id>
<electorate>PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SMITH, Arthur</name>
<name role="display">Mr BRUCE SMITH</name>
</talker>
<para>- Even that comes under the " fat man " theory of the Labour party. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2293</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- If we were to do that, it would be, not true reform, but revolution by legislation. Coming to .the operation of a moderate tax, let me point out that in South Australia in 1895 the unimproved land values tax, which, I think, had been a halfpenny in the £1 all round, was raised, and it is now one penny in the £1 on values over <inline font-style="italic">£5,000.</inline> The Commissioner of Taxes, in a report in 1906, stated that large holders of land were realizing and disposing of their lands as opportunities offered. Especially was this being done by absentee owners, where they could sell, and were untrammelled by any trust instructions. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hall,</inline> another land tax expert, as well as <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Spiller,</inline> who was then, I think, Deputy Commissioner of Taxes in South Australia, also spoke of the effect of the tax on country holdings. Thus, in that State a moderate tax such as we suggest has operated to bring about gradually, and without any dislocation of interests, a proper system of subdivision. If we could make some arrangements with the States as regards land taxation, so as to avoid duplication, and have only one valuation for all purposes throughout Australia- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2293</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William Lyne</name>
</talker>
<para>- But in New South Wales, for instance, land in one district is valued on one basis, and a valuation in another district is made on a different basis. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2293</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member's interjection emphasizes the expediency of bringing about some degree of uniformity. It should be an easy matter to arrange with the States to allow' us, with their help, to make a valuation throughout Australia, and an arrangement could be arrived at for a fair uniform tax, based upon that valuation, and apportioned on equitable lines between the States and the Commonwealth. If the States did require, for local purposes, to add to that tax they could use the valuation that had been made by us. Under this Bill, however, there will be a valuation for Commonwealth purposes in South Australia, not to mention the other States, every year, whilst there will be a valuation for the purposes of the State every five years. The valuations will be made on different dates, and although aiming at the same result - the ascertainment of the unimproved value - they are to be made in different ways. The South Australian Act, as .compared with this measure, is simplicity and efficiency itself. I do not wish to dwell upon this point. I desire only to endeavour to make a few suggestions, recognising that it is our duty, while criticising the Government scheme, to show in what way our acknowledged necessities can be faced, and fairly met, by some other method. The Treasurer estimates that this tax will yield £1,000,000 per annum, and it may be that we could charge the defence expenditure up to that amount to a tax levied on the lines I have outlined. As population increased, the necessity for defence would increase, but in like manner the proceeds of the tax, being based on the unimproved value, would also increase. As population goes ahead, so does the value of land, and without even an increase of the rates, we should thus be able to get what was necessary for the purposes of defence. I make the suggestion, because honorable members opposite, in conceiving this tax, do not seem to me to have gone thoroughly to the bottom of the question. They did not really exhaust all the alternatives that were open to them while remaining consistent to their ideas as to desirable reforms. Why is this Bill cumbered with provisions for the valuation of the lessee's interest as distinguished from that of the freeholder? We have not only the provisions in the Bill itself, but a suggestion of other provisions which have been modified, while some have been abandoned since the Bill was introduced. Last night we had another complex method - perhaps mathematically correct, but certainly most complex from the ordinary point of view of comprehension - of assessing the total value of the land that must be assigned to the lessee as against the owner of the reversion. In South Australia we disregard the lessee. In the State Act, as passed in 1884, it was provided - because some provision must be made for existing leases - that- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>The burden of the land tax </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">This is a very simple provision dealing with the division of the valuation between the leaseholder and the reversioner - shall be distributed between the taxpayers in the relative proportions of the value of their interests in the land taxed. </para>
<para>That is all that is operative; but in this Bill we have complex provisions - </para>
<quote>
<para>And every taxpayer who shall have paid any land tax shall be entitled to recover from every other taxpayer in respect of the land tax of the same land a proper proportion of the amount paid. </para>
</quote>
<para>It was provided that as regards existing lessees the owner of an unexpired term of seven years should have to bear his proportion of the tax, but, as regards future lessees, it was a matter of bargaining between the landlord and the tenant. With that we have nothing to do. That has worked out well, and would be far more easily comprehended than the elaborate provisions of this Bill. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2294</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CARR, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr Carr</name>
</talker>
<para>- What about an existing binding contract for a certain rental ? How would the burden be shifted? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2294</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Provision is made for that in the South Australian Act. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2294</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CARR, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr Carr</name>
</talker>
<para>- For abrogating the burden? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2294</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- No. It <inline font-style="italic">te</inline> provided that where there is an unexpired term of seven years the lessee has such an interest that it ought to be taken into account as between the lessee and the landlord. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2294</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CARR, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr Carr</name>
</talker>
<para>- Ought to be? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2294</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Well, it is taken into account, and that provision has worked out equitably. We do not need, in the case of future lessees, to provide for any arrangement as between the lessee and the landlord. They can be left to look after themselves. But there is a provision against shifting the burden on to the lessee, and the provision of this Bill on that point also appears in the South Australian Act. I believe, from what the Attorney-General has said, that he intends to abandon his idea of taxing Crown lessees. I do not know whether he meant to convey the impression that he had not decided whether or not Crown lessees who have a right of purchase should be released; but, at all events, from the point of view of the Government, !the principle is a very dangerous one. If persevered in it may involve a question of constitutionality. In referring briefly to the question of constitutionality, I should like to mention a principle which hitherto hss been overlooked when the question of our power to directly tax land has been considered. Is the tax a true tax, or is it, as I mentioned before, merely a servitude which is a part- of the ownership of the land? If it is a servitude, then the tax belongs to trie party which is en titled to the reversion incident to the fee simple, and here that is the State. It is the Crown of the State, not the Crown of theCommonwealth, assuming some of the continental theories, and some of the theories that are held in the American States to be sound, that is entitled to the tax as connected with the reversion. The tax, in such circumstances, would not be a true tax, but merely a part of a servitude, or of a Crown ownership which had neve: been parted with, and there would be <i return 'cf part of that ownership to the. Crown under the sanction of an Act of Parliament. In the United States this question has been considered. I do not wish to elaborate it, but it has been held that in some of the States the State is entitled to some express charge upon the rental value. A servitude is defined under the Justinian laws as certain portions or fragments of the right of ownership separated from the rest and enjoyed by persons other than the owner himself. Under the Feudal system, which has operated under cur land tenure here, it is enjoyed by the Grown. As a matter of fact, that servitude was originally taken by the Crown direct. When the old Feudal service was abolished and converted into a money payment, the money payment, which was called scutage, or escutage, was levied directly by the Crown, which was the reversioner or owner of the rent which had been commuted into a money payment. Parliament interfered at about the time of Charles I., and by an Act which was passed took over the collection of that money payment; and that has been described as the true basis of the English land tax - which, in 1692, was commuted into a payment of 4s. in the £1 upon the rental value of land. I suggest that point to the consideration of the Crown Law Department. I do not think that it affects the constitutionality of the proposed tax, but it is a matter that has been mooted in America in connexion with the power of a State to' tax land the ownership of which was vested in the Federal Government. In the United States, where the lands before sale were Federal, in the case of <inline font-style="italic">Witherspoon</inline> v. <inline font-style="italic">Duncan,</inline> reported in 4, <inline font-style="italic">Wallace,</inline> page 2io,- it was decided that - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>The power of a State to tax exists as soon as the ownership is changed, and this is effected when the entry, is made on the terms and in the modes allowed by law. Such lands are, under the laws of the State, properly chargeable with State taxes from the date of the first entry </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">My opinion is that this principle is purely academic. I do not think that it affects the constitutionality of the proposed tax ; but, generally, the question has been considered from the following points of view : Is there, under the Constitution, a rule of uniformity that has been broken, or is there discrimination between States and parts of States? Is there a violation of the provisions of section 99 of the Constitution, which prevents us by our revenue laws from giving a preference to one State or part of a State over another State or part of a State? Or is this under the guise of taxation really a Bill in relation to land settlement - which brings us back to the dictum of the High Court in <inline font-style="italic">The King</inline> v. <inline font-style="italic">Barger</inline> that, as laid down by the Chief Justice - : </para>
<quote>
<para>In determining whether a particular law is or is not within the power of the Commonwealth Parliament to enact, regard must be had to its substance rather than its literal form. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The indirect effect and motive are irrelevant. There is on the point of uniformity no express provision in our Constitution that a tax must be uniform. There is a provision as regards discrimination, which I have mentioned. In the United States, however, there is a provision that a tax must be uniform. In the United States taxation is divided into direct taxes, duties, imposts, and excise. Thus there are four classes of taxation. The rule as regards direct taxation is that it must be in proportion to population. Then there is the rule of uniformity. Indirect taxation must be uniform. The object of the provision as regards direct taxation being in proportion to population is to prevent the power of numbers being unduly oppressive to accumulated property in particular States. In the case of <inline font-style="italic">Pollock</inline> v. <inline font-style="italic">The Farmers' Loan and Trust Company,</inline> Chief Justice Fuller states the principle - </para>
<quote>
<para>Nothing can be clearer than what the Constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general Government of the power of directly taxing persons and properties within any State through a majority made from the other States. It is true that the effect of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned among the States in proportion to their population is necessarily that the amount of taxes on the individual taxpayer in a State having the taxable subjectmatter to a larger extent in proportion to ils population than any other S'tate, but this inequality must be held to have been contemplated and was manifestly designed to operate to restrain the exercise of the power of direct taxation to extraordinary emergencies, to prevent attack upon accumulated property by the mere force of numbers. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The Supreme Court held that the law made provision against confiscation; but really, as regards basing the tax upon population, as in the case of a good many imposts, the rule would work injustice. If, say, an income tax were declared to be valid, you would have to apportion the tax on a population basis between the States, whose populations might be such that the wealth of one State might be by no means as great as that of another, the result really being that one State would have to pay about as much income tax as another. I think that there is no rule of uniformity here. We have power to make exceptions. Parliament has, undoubtedly, the power to select a class. It is only restrained in doing that by the rule that it must not encroach in its 'election of a class upon the reserve power of the States. To do so comes under the other principle that a tax must be a tax, and not in substance something else. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2295</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr Joseph Cook</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does the honorable member say that we could impose differential telephone rates if we chose? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2295</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I think so; but not as between States or parts of States. I do not want to be led off the track by dealing with that point, but I think we could do so. There is no rule to say that we cannot differentiate. We can select a class. Not only can we, according to Cooley, whose work is the leading authority on the subject, select a particular class for taxation, but even we may differentiate between the members of a class. The point has really not been decided in America. I am giving the views of particular authorities, but the terms of our Constitution are not identical with those of the United States Constitution. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2295</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr Joseph Cook</name>
</talker>
<para>- If that be the true constitutional doctrine, we could impose differential postal and telegraphic rates. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2295</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am putting what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the Constitution. After some pretty close study of the competent authorities - and there is, under our Constitution, no rule of uniformity similar to the American rule - I say that the American principle of uniformity applies to only indirect taxation. The other principle is that of discrimination between States and parts of States, and the High Court has held that "parts of States" does not necessarily mean parts of different States, but may mean differentiation between a part of one State and another part of the same State. It does not seem to me that there u> any differentiation necessarily involved in the tax proposed by this Bill. The uniformity rule laid down by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Field, in the United States, was as follows - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>The uniformity thus required is the uniformity throughout the United States of the duty, impost and the Excise levied. That is, the tax levied cannot be one sum upon an article at one place and a different sum upon the same article at another place. The duty received must be the same at all places throughout the United States proportioned to the quantity of the article disposed of or the extent of the business done. </para>
</quote>
<para>In the Colonial Sugar Refining Company's case, which was decided by our High Court, it was held that it was not a breach of the rule against discrimination under our Constitution to allow an exemption of a tax paid under a State law as against an impost levied -by the Commonwealth upon sugar. The company was allowed credit for sums previously paid under the State law, and it was field that that could be done, although the company would gain a large credit in some States, and in others, none. That was not a breach of the rule as regards discrimination contained in the Constitution. The High Court said - </para>
<quote>
<para>The rule laid down by the Act is a general one applicable to all States alike, and the fact that it operates unequally in several States arises, not from anything done by Parliament, but from inequality in the duties imposed by the States themselves. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The only point that appears to me to render the matter a little doubtful is this - is this in substance land legislation? Upon that point the High Court will ask - what is the necessary effect of it? Also, is a class selected, or is it created, for the purpose of the tax? Is this really a tax that has been imposed for taxation purposes, or a tax for another purpose? That consideration may affect the constitutionality of the measure. But there may be a distinction between a land tax on a class already found, and the creation of a special class for the purposes of a particular taxation Act. I do not desire to trespass any further upon the time of the House. The subject is, however, an important one, and that is perhaps a justification for entering with some little detail into matters that might otherwise have been brought forward in Committee. I believe, as I have said, in true reform upon this matter. I do not believe in confiscation. I believe that we ought to respect interests that have grown up under the assumption that they would not be suddenly disturbed - interests not pertaining to one or two persons, or to a class, but which are diffused among those who have competencies in Australia, people of moderate means, represented by such bodies as the Australian Mutual Provident Society and the numerous investment societies throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth. By adhering to the power to tax land values without any exemption, you would be observing the true principles of political economy to which reference has been made ; such taxation would involve no injustice, while it would create an inducement - a compulsory inducement, if I may put it so - to large land-owners to subdivide. In that way it would bring about a reform without any undue oppression of a particular class. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2296</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWC</name.id>
<electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CARR, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr CARR</name>
</talker>
<para>.- I regard the proposal now under consideration as the most important one which has ever come before this House. In dealing with the land question we are dealing with a fundamental economic question, which comprehends far more, as far as the people are concerned, than did the Bank Notes Bill, which I do not consider as trenching upon any economic principle at all. This measure undoubtedly does. So far as its constitutionality is concerned, I do not pose as an expert authority ; but nevertheless it seems to me that the objections to the measure on that ground are not properly based upon the Constitution, which states that we have power to tax, but so as not to distinguish between States and parts of States. That this proposal does not distinguish between States and parts of States in the sense conveyed by the Constitution, seems to me to be clear. I have heard it argued that it is most unfair to apply the same rate of taxation to very fertile lands in the best portions of Australia and to the arid or partially arid, areas in the back country. But those who argue in that strain lose sight of the automatic incidence of the proposal. If land is worth little, the tax will be little, but if it is worth much, because of its juxtaposition to market or other causes, the tax will be proportionate. The thing adjusts itself, and there is no differentiation. We are not imposing a tax on land as land, or saying that so much land shall bear so much tax. That obviously would be unfair; and, therefore, we provide that so much value of land shall pay so much tax wherever the land may be. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2296</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr Joseph Cook</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is precisely what the Bill does not do ! </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2297</page.no>
<time.stamp />